HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-12 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of September 12, 2001
September 13, 2001.
1. Call to order.
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
· There ware none.
5.1 Proclamation recognizing October 2001 as Domestic Violence
^wareness Month.
· Chairman read and presented same to Brandi Painter from
SHE.
5.2 ApprOpriation: Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Exchange, $1,000
(Form #2001017).
· Approved.
6. Public hearing to consider amending the Albemarle County
Service Authority jurisdictional area boundaries to provide
Public sewer service to the SOCA soccer field complex
· Approved amending the jurisdictional area boundary to
provide, sewer service to the SOCA South Fork Soccer
Complex (TM46, Ps22&22C) only as approved under SP-98-18
and SP-98-22.
7..Z~,-21~)1-09, Rivers Edge Offices (Sign #82),
o. Approved.as Proffered (set out on Attachment 1)..
8. Public Hearing to receive comments on the proposed alignment
of the Meadow creek Parkway.
· Hearing held. No action required.
9. CPA-2001~6. Meadow Creek Parkway, Final Report.
· Approved amending the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate
the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001, and
approved the road alignment location (Alternative A) as
proposed in the report (text amendments set out on Attachment
2).
10. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
· Mr. Tucker mentioned a memo Board members received from
Mark Graham regarding Old Dominion Electric Company -
Louisa County Pending Air Quality Permit, The County has
until September 26th to make comments to DEQ.
· Mr. Tucker said he received a letter from NACO asking
counties to consider passing a resolution condemning the
actions of the terrorists and expressing support for the
President. The Board adopted the p.~r0posed resolution.
11. Closed Session: Legal Matters.
* At 8:30 p.m,., .the, Board went into closed session.
12. Certify Closed Session.
· The Board reconvened into open session at 9:43 p.m., and
certified the dosed session.
15. Adjoum. The meeting ,was adjoumed at 9:44 p.m.
,A, ~,IGNMENT
Meeting was called'to Order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman. Ail BOS members present. Staff
present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Ella Carey
and David Benish.
Clerk;
Forward signed appropriation form to Melvin
Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Clerk: Forward copy of resolution to The White
House, NACO and VACO.
/ew~
Attachment 1 - ZMA-2001-09 Rivers Edge Offices Proffers
Attachment 2 - CPA.2001-06 Meadow Creek Parkway text amendment
Attachment 3 - Resolution
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
violence against women, children and men continues to become more prevalent as a social
problen~ In 2000, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, domestic violence programs offered
120,946 hours of group a~d individual counseling to adult victims of domestlc violence, sexual
assault and stalMng; 24 hour intervention and referrals in response to 62,206 hotline calls;
48,896 hours of counseling and advocacy to children; an~ 121,529 nights of shelter to women,
children and men; and
WHE~, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups of people but cross
ali economic, racial and societal barriers; and are supported by societal indifference; and
the crime of domestic violence violates an individuaPs privacy, dignity, security and humanity,
due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and economic control
aud/or ab#s~ The impact of domestic violence is wide-ranging, directly affecting women and
children and society as a whole; and
in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by perpetrating violence, we must
also meet the needs of victims of domestic violence who often suffer grave financial, physical
and t~chological losses; and
WHE~, it is victims of domestic violence themselves who have been in the fore~ont of efforts to bring
peace and equality to the home;
NOW, THEREFORE,
in recognition of the intportant work being done by domestic violence
programs, L Sally FI. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, ~rginia, do hereby proclaim the month of
OCTOBER, 2001, as
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and
programs sponsored by the Shelter for Help in Emergency to work toward the
eh~dnation of personal and instiOttional violence against women, children
and me~
Signed and sealed this 12th day of September, 2001.
CHAIRMAN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA,T,rl~, E:
Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Exchange
,SUBJECT~, ROPOSAL/RE, Q~EST:
Approve Appropriation 2001017 to contribute $1000 toward
expenses of hosting "Twin Communities" delegation
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
September 12, 2001
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA.:'
ACTION: X
INFORMAT ,IQN:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Breeden
ATTACHME .NTS: Yes
R~VI ~, E,D BY: ~?
BACKGROUND:
The cities of Charlottesville and Long Beach, Washington, and the counties of Albemarle and Pacific, Washington, have
entered into "Twin Community" relationships for the 2003-2006 Lewis & Clark National Bicentennial. Since Thomas Jefferson
was the author of the Lewis & Clark expedition, this is an ideal opportunity to educate the nation about Charlottesville and
Albemade's role as the place where the expedition began in concept, planning, preparation and leadership. This is also
great opportunity for the area to gain national attention and to increase its attraction as a heritage tourism destination.
The Lewis & Clark Bicentennial will begin at Monticello on .January 18, 2003. For Charlottesville-Albemarle and the Long
Beach Peninsula, the 'Twin Communities" concept captures the imagination, as two contemporary communities - one on the
East Coast and one on the West Coast - to discover their unique bond in the history of this momentous journey.
DISCUSSION:
The first official exchange of this relationship for the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial begins Friday, September 14 at Ashlawn
Highland, where the community will welcome a delegation of visitors from Pacific County and Long Beech, Washington.
Visitors from Washington State will be treated to tours of Monticello, UVA and Lewis & Clark sites throughout the area.
The City of Charlottesville is contributing $1000 and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau is
contributing $1500 toward the expenses of hosting the delegation of visitors. At your meeting on September 5, Meredith
Richards, Chairman of the Lewis & Clark Festival Committee, appeared before the Board and asked the County of Albemarle
to contribute a matching sum of $1000. The total budget for the events is $3500, which includes the cost of a reception,
buffet and public program at Ashlawn Highland on September 14, bus tours on September 15 and 16, barbecue at Buena
Vista on September 16, and breakfast meeting expenses on September 17.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #2001017 for a contribution of $1000 to the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial
Exchange, as detailed on the attached form.
09£07'01 P12:25 IN
01. 170
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
01/02
NUMBER
2001017
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND:
GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR LEWIS & CLARK CELEBRATION.
CODE
1 1000 79000
I 1000 95000
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
568735 LEWIS AND CLARK CELEBRATION $ 1,000.00
999990 B.O.S.-BUDGETADJUSTMENTS (1,000.00)
CODE
TOTAL $
REVENUE
DESCRrPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL $
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
SEPT. 7, 2001
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P.O. BOX 2120
RICHMOND. VA. 23218-2120
August 8, 2001
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Division Superintendent
Albemarle County Public Schools
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Dr. Castner:
Your application for support under Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act of
1994, as amended by Public Law 103-382 for the school year 2001-2002, has been approved
in the amount of $606,042.00 and has been assigned STATE PROJECT NO. 002-02-1. This
amount is less than your total FY02 allocation. At your convenience, please prepare a project
amendment to reflect this adjustment in funding. This project is expected to be operative from
July 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002, according to information contained in your application.
Title I funds are allocated to states and local school diviSions in two phaSes. Twenty-
two percent of the funds are available on July 1, 2001 and the remaining 78 percent on
October 1, 2001 as indicated in Superintendent's Memorandum No. 100.
Your grant is subject to the provisions of Title I and Title XlV, as applicable, of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the General Education Provisions Act (P.L.
103-382). This grant is also subject to the Title I regulations in 34 CFR' Part 200 and the
Education Department-General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR Parts 76
(except for 76.650 - 76.662 {Participation of Students Enrolled in Private Schools}), 77, 80,
81, 82, and 85. In addition, this grant is subject to an audit in compliance with OMB Circular
A-133 and to regulations included in the related compliance supplement.
Please follow the instructions listed below when requesting reimbursement under
Public Law 103-38Z Title I Grants to LEAs - CFDA 84-010A:
OSubmit reimbursements monthly.
eSend original and one copy of reimbursement to our office.
08-21-01 A10:03 IN
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Page 2
August 8, 2001
~)Attach supporting documentation to original reimbursement.
OMake one copy for your files.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (804) 225-2901or
(804) 225-2869.
Sincerely,
Title I Specialist
George H. Irby, Director
Office of Compensatory Programs
SCJr.:GHl:hmt
Enclosure
pc: Mrs. Denise Pilgrim, Title I Coordinator
.,,/Chairman, Board of Supervisors
2001
Statement of Assessed Values
for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads
and Interstate Pipeline Transmission
Companies
Virginia Department of Taxation
P.O. Box 565
Richmond, Virginia 23218-0565
August 30, 2001
TO:
Councils of Incorporated Cities and Towns
Board of Supervisors of Counties
Commissioners of the Revenue and Supervisors of Assessments
Railroad Companies
Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies
This is to certify that the document "Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax
Purposes for Railroads and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies" is a true
statement of the assessment made by the Department of Taxation for the tax year
2001 of the Virginia real estate and tangible personal property of railroad companies
and interstate pipeline transmission companies.
Lawrence E Durbln
Assistant Tax Commissioner
Office of Customer Services
APPROVED:
Danny M. Payne
Tax Commissioner
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC,
ROADWAY OPERATING TELEPHONE, MACHINERY, MATERIALS TOTAL 2001 TOTAL TOTAL
CITY AND IMPROVEMENTS POWER AND FURNITURE & AND EXCLUDING LOCAL ASSESSED OPERATING ASSESSED
TRACK WATER LINES OTHER EQUIP; SUPPLIES LAND RATIQ EXCL. LAND . . LAND VALUE
PETERSBURG: 1,507,209 304,532 5,296 23,947 16,055 1,857,039 94.6 1,756,759 ,. 689,600 2,446,359
PORTSMOUTH: 996,950 197,182 7,087 45,109 21,484 1,267,812 92.4 1,171,458 -5,233,600 6,405,058
RICHMOND: 5,437,675 1,219,454 32,879 133,218 99,665 6,922,891 87.9 6,085,221 6,857,045 12,942,266
STAUNTON: 1,022,345 130,684 6,052 11,687 18.343 1,189,111 95.9 1,140,357 505,100 1,645,457
SUFFOLK: .................................................................................................................................................................................................... - ' ..... ~ ......... r ........................................
Chuckatuck Borough 660.512 138,912 6,588 10,112 19,972 836,096 758,339 ,78,400 836,739
Cypress Borough 500,040 103,577 4,913 8,502 14,892 631,924 573,155 335,800 908,955
Holy Neck Borough 765,527 155,366 7,369 14,726 22,337 965,325 875,550 171,800 1,047,350
Sleepy Hole Borough 452,534 94,946 4,503 7,049 13,651 572,683 519,423 '~106,100 625,523
Suffolk Borough 339,465 67,761 3,019 9,327 9,152 428,724 .388,853 583,200 .972,053
Whaleyville Borough 250,507 49,091 2,328 5,753 7,058 314,737 285,466 103,000 388,466
TOTAL SUFFOLK, CITY OF 2,968,585 609,653 28,720 55,469 87,062 3,749,489 90.7 3,400,786 1,378,300 4,779,086
WAYNESBORO: 959,654 117,704 5,578 12,765 16,908 1,112,609 91.9 1,022,488 496,500 "1,518,988
WILLIAMSBURG: 771.889 98,283 4,657 10,881 14,116 899,826 92.5 832,339 2,079,500 2,911,839
WINCHESTER: 280,621 137,846 5,962 13,174 18,071 455,674 92.2 420,131 1,297,200 1,717,331
TOTAL CITIES: 26,383,047 8,247,608 161,324 1,670,558 489,017 36,951,554 34,195,215 46,398,855 80,594,070
COUNTY
ALBEMARLE: 9,216,143 1,259,903 59,746 115,386 181,103 10,832,281 10,117,350 '" 1 ;647,680
Scottsville, Town of 56,781 8,092 384 2,316 1,163 68,736 64,199 13,665
TOTAL ALBEMARLE COUNTY 9,272,924 1,267,995 60,130 117,702 182,266 10,901,017 93.4 10,181,549 1,661,345
ALLEGHANY: 8,518,950 1,363,512 42,129 81,363 127,703 10,133,657 9,687,776 ...... 517,900
Iron Gate, Town of 190,925 49,091 1,177 2,273 3,568 247,034 236,165 25,300
TOTAL ALLEGHANY COUNTY 8,70-q,875 1,412,603 43,306 83,636 131,271 10,380,691 95.6 9,923,941 ;" ' 543,200
AMHERST: 3,418,267 696,450 25,638 49,515 77,715 4,267,585 76.4 3,260,435 114,300
11,765,030
77,864
11,842,894
10,205,676
261,465
10,467,141
3,374,735
AUGUSTA: '? ...............
Beverly Manor District 1,177,687 146,465 6,947 16,148 21,058 1,368,305 1,332,729 52,900 1,385,629
Pastures District 4,305,052 559,156 26,521 48,273 80,391 5,019,393 4,888,889 - ' 218,500 5,107,389
Wayne District 1,066,259 136,755 6,486 12,742 19,661 1,241,903 1,209,614 110,700 1,320,314
Craigsville, Town of 253,944 31,950 1,458 2,817 4,421 294,590 ~ 286,931 .... 32,600 319,531
TOTAL AUGUSTA COUNTY 6 802 942 874 326 41 412 79 980 125 531 7 924 191 97.4 -. 7,718,163 414,700 8,132,863
........................................................... 'L._S ....................... ~ ..................... '. .................... '. ..................... '. ............... '. ..... '. ....................... L.., .............................
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.
COUNTY ROADWAY OPERATING TELEPHONE, MACHINERY, MATERIALS TOTAL 2001 TOTAL
AND IMPROVEMENTS POWER AND FURNITURE &
TRACK TOTAL
== = WATER LINES OTHER EQUIP. SUPPLIES LAND RATIO EXCL. LAND LAND VALUE
= == = = : -- = = AND EXCLUDING LOCAL ASSESSED OPERATING ASSESSED
BATH:== == == =='= === == = == = = = == = =- = === == === == == =aa
3,043,640 396,507 18,806 ==== ...... = == = = == ==
........... ~'--'; ........................... 36,321 ==
................................................................... 57,007 3,552,281 90.3 3,207,710 125,300 3,333,010
BEDFORD: 3,066,459 520,190 24,435 ........................................
.................... · " ............... 47,192 ........................................................
...................................................................... 211,200 3,465,806
BOTETOURT: ............... 74,070 3,732,346 87.2 3,254,606
Buchanan, Town of 7,130,371 1,317,890
TOTAL BOTETOURT COUNTY 97,392 22,369
....................................... 7,227,763 1,340,259
BUCHANAN: ,~ '~ :"~ ~.~ ~, ........................................
.... ~,.~ 238,041 15,645
CAMPBELL: ......................................
.1,144,053 222,720
56,125 108,394 170,128 8,782,908 7,570,867 316,000 7,886,867
691 1,334 2,094 123,880 106,785 50,700 157,485
56,816 109,728 172~222 8,906,788 86,2 7,677,652 366,700 8,044,352
742 1,433 2,249 258,110 100.0 258,110 10,500 268,610
CHARLES CITY:
....... 826,371 107,893
CHESTERFIELD: 6,025,769 1,604,874
CLARKE: ......................................
165,962 86,045
DICKENSON: 14,691,791 1,313,158
Haysi, Town of
779,276 54,216
TOTAL DICKENSON COUNTY 15,471,067 1,367,374
8,751 16,900 26,526 1,418,950 88.3 1,252,933 67,800 1,320,733
5,117 9,883 15,512 984,776 90.2 870,228 52 980 ....
42,16 .... ;i .................
.__4'°82 .... 7,882 12,371276,342 85.3 ......... ............
-62215120,155188,587 16375906 ................
---_-
.............................................................. , , uu 254,720
.............. '-"-----'-'--'""2,572
' ' ' , ~ ,o/u 467,500 16,188,370
4,966 7,795 848,825 814,872 41,100 855,972
...............................-~-~- ..... .- ................... 64,787 125,121 196,382 17,224,731 96.0 16,535,742 508,600 17,044,342
DINWIDDIE: 1,87'1,494 335.017 12,488 24.115 ............................................................
............................................................... ...................... 2.439.525
.......................... : ..... o o o .................................................. 2 ............... '. ......
FLUVANNA: ................... 4,653 0 4,653 83.4 3,881 0
........................................................ 3,881
3,677,855 705,575 28,210 54,481 85,510 4,551,631 3,827,922 182,700 4,010,622
Columbia, Town of. 85,182 14,296 678 1,310 2,055 103,521 87,061 7,500 94,561
· 8cottsvllle ToWn'.of 58,771 11,362 397 766 1,202 72,498 60,971 7,400 68,371
TOTAL FLUVANNA cOU'~TY 3,821,808 731,233 29,285 56,557 88,767 4,727,650 84.1 3,975,954 197,600 4,173,554
FREDERICK: ............. ~ ................................
932,412 461,513 21,890 42,275 66,353 1,524,443 1,521,394 404,300 1,925,694
Stephens City, ToWn of 52,482 22,658 1,075 2,075 3,258 81,548
TOTAL FREDERICK COUNTY 984,894 484,171 22,965 81,385 14,300 95,685
..................................- ...... ~ .......... ............................................ 44,350 69,611 1,605,991 99.8 1,602,779 418,600
................................................ 2,021,379
GOOCHLAND: 7,018,718 1,280,793 55,472 107,134 168,150 8,630,267 97.9 8,449,031 1,023,700 9,472,731
GREENSVILLE: 2,781,415 630,096 17,054 32,936 51,694 3,513,195
Jarratt, Town of 35,439 0 0 0 0 35,439 30,974 0
~__ 3,070,532 66,600 3,137,132
TOTAL GREENSVILLE COUNTY 2,816,854 630,096 17,054 32.936 51,694 3,548,634 87.4 3,101,506 66,600 3,168,106
HANOVER: .......................................... 30,974
................................... ~ ....... 7,795,634 11000,430 47,400 91,543 .........................................
.................................... 143,680 9,078,687 92,0 8,352,392 909,500 9,261,892
HENRICO:
6,090,133 1,662,091 ................................................................................................
................... ~.~.... 29,975 160,249 90,906 8,033,354 90.4 7,262,152 t,847,905 9,110,057
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
ROADWAY OPERATING TELEPHONE,
CITY AND IMPROVEMENTS POWER AND
TRACK WATER LINES
ALEXANDRIA: 1,038,334 600,724 0
MACHINERY, MATERIALS TOTAL 2001 TOTAL TOTAL
FURNITURE & AND EXCLUDING LOCAL ASSESSED OPERATING ASSESSED
OTHER EQUIP.' SUPPLIES LAND RATIO EXCL. LAND LAND VALUE
2,138 76,668 1,717,864 85.0 1,460,184 52,794,220 54,254,404
CHARLOTTESVILLE: 1,349,625 365,833 0 571 0 1,716,029 93.3 1,601,055 -~ 5,035,535 6,636,590
CHESAPEAKE:
South Norfolk Borough 720.372 8,053 4,878 35,537 0 768,840 72i ,172 ' 2,104,580~ 2,825,752
Washington Borough 726,177 3,741 0 0 0 729,918 684,663 1,016,575 1,701,238
TOTAL CHESAPEAKE, CITY OF 1,446,549 11,794 4,878 35,537 0 1,498,758 93.8 1,405 835 3,121,155 4,526,990
DANVILLE: 3,528,141 315,678 627 2,464 143,930 3,990,840 88.6 3,535,884 1,606,100 5,14t,984
MARTINSVILLE; 157,586 20,000 0 0 0 177,586 93.2 165,510 46,800 212,310
NORFOLK: 780,243 0 0 0 0 780,243 88.2 688,174 2,132,205 2,820,379
RICHMOND: 2,107,140 81,875 4,878 27,372 0 2,221,265 87.9 1,952,492 4,687,030 6,639,522
VIRGINIA BEACH:
Bayside Borough 799,254 9,494 0 0 0 808,748 722,2~ 2 1,928,500 2,650,712
Kempsville Borough 35,255 0 0 0 0 35,255 31,483, 64,700 96,183
Lynnhaven Borough 980,926 3, ! 64 0 0 0 984,090 878,792 1,882,000 2,760,792
TOTAL VIRGINIA BEACH 1,815,435 12,658 0 0 0 1,828,093 89.3 1,632,487 3,875,200 5,507,687
TOTAL CITIES: 17,227,366 2,223,545 10,383 69,476 376,629 19,907,399 18,058,435 ~ 82,641,915 100,700,350
COUNTY
ALBEMARLE: 7,267,442 1,278,866 0 1,179 0 8,547,487 93.4 7,983,353 1,115,615 9,098,968
AMELIA: 3,591,041 1,500 4,067 726 0 3,597,334 92.1 3,313,145. 187,800 3,500,945
......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ~ -.~ ...... -, .......................
AMHERST: 4,671,756 828,531 0 10,164 940,996 6,451,447 4,928,906~ 328,400 5,257,306
Amherst, Town of 312,933 53,710 0 140 0 366 783 280,222 . 24,900 305,122
TOTAL AMHERST COUNTY 4,984,689 882 241 0 10 304 940 996 6,8181230 76.4 5,209,1'28, 353,300 5,562,428
........................................................................................ ; .......................................... '- .................... ' ............................................................ .L.. .....................
CAMPBELL: 4,345,542 739,148 0 696 0 5,085,386 4,490,396, 3t3,200 4,803,596
Altavlsta, Town of 585,275 50,092 0 151 0 635,518 561,162 110,400 671,562
TOTAL CAMPBELL COUNTY 4,930,817 789,240 0 847 0 5,720,904 88.3 5 051,55.8 ..... 423,600 5,475,158
CHESTERFIELD: 2,778,983 0 2,877 645 0 2,782,505 91.4 2,543,210 ' 1,319,810 3,863,020
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPELINE CORPORATION
MACHINERY AUTOS GENERAL TRANSMISSION MATERIAL, TOTAL 2001 TOTAL LAND AND TOTAL
COUNTY OPERATING AND AND PLANT MAINS SUPPLIES & EXCLUDING LOCAL ASSESSED NONCARRIER ASSESSED
IMPROVEMENTS EQUIPMENT TRUCKS & OTHER AND LINES CONSTRUCTION LAND RATIO EXCL, LAND PROPERTY VALUE
ALBEMARLE: 259,509 54,953 149,201 294,921 0 448,929 1,207,513 93.4 1,127r817 168,855 1,296,672
APPOMATTOX: 586,955 4,564,266 70,620 148,180 3,788,531 703,913 9,862,465 73.1 7,209,462 119,500 7,328,962
2,348 21,743 0 0 792,916 0 817,007 82.6 674,031 2,500 676,531
...................... ~ ................................. 'T; .......................................................................................................................................................................................................
BUCKINGHAM: 0 0 0 0 6,660,425 272,146 6,932,571 80.8 5,601,517 0 5,601,517
CAMPBELL:
2,986 27,041 0
CHARLOTTE: 0 0 0
CULPEPER: 2,174 31,064 0
.............................. ;- ........ ;;;;;7 ...............
Centrevllle District #5 26,747 0 0
Dranesville Set. Dist.#1 2,864 0 0
TOTAL FAIRFAX 29,611 52,611 0
FAUQUIER: 0 0 0
FLUVANNA: 284,097 2,266,588
GREENSVILLE: ' 21,459 188,158
HALIFAX: 2,323 20,313
LOUISA: 8,554 26,233 0 0 2,523,052 109,118 2,666,957 99.6 2,656,289. 12,000 2,668,289
MECKLENBURG: 516,616 3,757,857
ORANGE: 768,418 7,522,376
PITTSYLVANIA: ~. 7~9.,134 4,889,576
PRINCE WILLIAM:
Brentsville District 0 0
Evergreen Fire District 13,366 0
Gainesville Fire Dist. "' ' 0 0
Nokesville Fire Dist. 0 0
Stonewall Jackson F.D. · 396,223 7,192,338
Wellington Fire Dist. 0 0
TOTAL PRINCE WILLIAM ' 409,589 7,192,338
AGGREGATE TOTAL: 3,653,773 30,615,117
0 4,331,002 181,110 4,542,139 88.3 4,010,709 4,500 4,015,209
0 182,787 0 182,787 81.1 148,240 0 148,240
0 2,044,433 77,135 2,154,806 90.2 1,943,635 0 1,943,635
0 5,044,551 213,513 5,310,675 4,429,103 164,655 4,593,758
0 0 0 26,74~ 22,307 316,550 338,857
0 0 0 2,864 2,389 599,080 601,469
0 5,044,551 213,513 5,340,286 83.4 4,453,799 1,080,285 5,534,084
0 3,329,458 139,210 3,468,668 87.2 3,024,678 6,500 3,031.178
24,412 21,005 3,901,742 295,567 6,793,411 84.1 5,713,259 99,000 5,812,259
0 0 549,259 0 758.876 87.4 663,258 7,500 670,758
0 0 1,065,151 0 1,087,787 86.4 939,848 6,000 945,848
29,196 1,690,520 11,585 6,036,177 84.9 5,124,714 42.900 5,167,614
145,356 4,917,228 1,863,828 15,303,366 87.3 13,359,839 240,900 13,600,739
68,353 9,251,885 1,074,661 16,108,453 84.4 13,595,534 91,900 13,887,434
30,403
86,160
64,844
0 0 0 0 0 0 13,050 13,050
0 0 0 0 13,366 12,230 20,600 32,830
0 0 43,933 0 43,933 40,199 0 40,199
0 0 935,415 0 935,415 855,905 0 855,905
74,930 144.645 631,154 885,933 9,325,223 8,532,579 1,664,265 10,196,844
0 0 424,689 0 424,689 388,590 0 388,590
74,930 144,645 2,035,191 885,933 10,742,626 91.5 9,829,503 1,697,915 11,527,418
500,570 851,656 52,108,131 6,276,648 94,005,895 80,076,132 3,580,255 83,656,387
29
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Soccer Organization of Charlottesville-Albemarle
(SOCA) Jurisdictional Boundary Request
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing to consider amending the ACSA
jurisdictional area boundary to provide public sewer
service to the SOCA soccer field complex on Polo
Grounds Road (tax map 46, parcels 22 and 22C).
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish
AGENDA DATE:
September 12, 2001
ACTION: Yes
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
The applicant is requesting public sewer service for the SOCA soccer field complex now under construction on Tax Map
46, Parcels 22 and 22C (Attachment A). This site is located on the south side of Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd,
approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29. The property is bordered on the north by Route 643 and on the south by the
South Fork Rivanna River. The property is zoned Rural Area, and is designated Rural Area in the County's Land Use Plan.
The Board approved a Special Use Permit (SP98-18) on September 9, 1998, for the SOCA soccer field complex. The
purpose of the request is to provide sewer service.
The Board of SuperviSors approved water and sewer service for Parcel 22 on February 12, 1992. That approval was limited
to service to only the church building (800 seat) approved under SP 90-35 for Covenant Church of God. The Board denied
a request on September 9, 1998 for sewer service to the Soccer Complex. This request was made during the review of the
Special Use Permit for the soccer facility. The Board's action was based on the request's inconsistency with the County's
policy for extending public utilities in the Rural Area. Attached is the staff report for the 1998 request, which includes as an
attachment information regarding the Covenant Church of God 1992 request (Attachment B).
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following policy concerning the provision of water and sewer service in the
County, including the Rural Areas:
"General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)."
"Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)."
[] "Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.125)."
[] "Only allow changes in the jurisdictional areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where the
property is: 1 ) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety are in danger (p.125)."
DISCUSSION:
This site is located in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the policy for providing
public water and sewer outside of the Development Areas states "Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of
designated Development Areas in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health and/or
safety is in danger." A sewer line does cross the property. However, there is no current health or safety concern on the
site. The request for public sewer for this site is made in order to alleviate the need to construct drainfields. Due to the
topography of the site and the existence of significant floodplain, there is limited area on-site to locate adequate sized
drainfields to support the use. The drainfields would need to be located in, or along the fringe of, the flood plain and would
be more prone to leaching with inundation, or located at an elevation above the proposed building requiring the installation
of a pumped system. Pumping of effluent is not a desirable design because pumps can fail. A gravity system is the
preferred method for disposal of effluent. 'Therefore, while this proposal is not consistent with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan for providing service to the Rural Area in that there is no existing health or safety issue, approval of
this request may be preferable from a Public perspective for the ultimate health and safety at the site as a soccer complex.
David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, has provided comments regarding the various alternatives to public sewer
(Attachment C) and has concluded that the public sewer is the best technical solution from an environmental perspective.
Comments have also been provided by Nick Evans, Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation
District (Attachment D).
From a land use perspective, the intent of the rural area designation for this site was to recognize importance of maintaining
the cdtical resources and greenspace provided by river corridor and protect it from urban development. The Comprehensive
Plan recommendation for this area states: "The area between the southern boundary of the Development Area and the
South Fork of the Rivanna River is to remain-in an open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the Community of
Hollymead. This boundary is critical as it preserves the distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and prevents
continuous development from the City of Charlottesville to the North Fork of the Rivanna." (Hollymead Community Profile,
p. 79). The soccer field complex generally maintains the open space character and is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. These two properties contained most of the developable land between the Urban Area and Hollymead. Almost all
of the remaining property in this area is in the 100-year floodplain and has very limited development potential. Therefore,
the provision of sewer service to this property would not encourage develop inconsistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board will need to weigh the request's immediate inconSistency with the jurisdictional area policy against the possible
future health and safety issues associated with a private septic system that requires either pumping or potential floodplain
location, and the practical effect of encouraging development inconsistent with the County's growth management policy.
Given the circumstances of this site, staff opinion is that providing sewer service for this use on this site is appropriate.
Staff reCommends amending the jurisdictional area boundary to provide sewer service to the SOCA South Fork Soccer
Complex (Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C) only as approved under SP 98-18 and SP 98-22.
CC:
Mr; J. William Brent
Mr. David J. Hirschman
Mr. Bill Mueller
01.158
ATTACHMENT A
45
/
i
18C
RIO
RI/ANNA DISTRICTS
910
91C ':*
SECTION" ,4..6
ATTACHMENT B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Hurt Investment and South Fork Land Trust ~.~i~c~;0~r~i
:..Bounda!7~ ~e.quest .~:.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:.
Request to allow a proposed soccer field complex to
connect to public sewer
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish, Fritz
· AGENDA DATE:
September 9, 1998
ACTION: Yes
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Yes
RECEIVED
$,_? 0 2
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
!
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting that public sewer service be permitted for Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C. This site is located on
the south side or Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd, approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29. The property is bordered on the north
by Route 643 and on the south by the South Fork Rivanna River. The purpose of the request is to provide sewer service for to
a proposed soccer field complex.
.;ACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors approved water and sewer service for Parcel 22 on February 12, 1992. That approval was limited
to service to only the church building (600 seat) approved under SP 90-35 for Covenant Church of God. Staff has attached the
original staff report, action letter and Board minutes.
DISCUSSION:
This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that for the
Hollymead Community "The area between the southern boundary of the Development Area and the South Fork of the Rivanna
River is to remain in an open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the Community of Hollymead. This boundary is
critical as it preserves the distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and prevents continuous development from
the City of Charlottesville to the North Fork of the Rivanna". The Comprehensive Plan recommendations for providing public
wa[er and sewer outside of the Development Areas are contained on Page 125. The recommendation states "Only allow
changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing
lines; and (2) public health and/or safety is in danger". A sewer line does cross the property. However, there is no current health
or safety concern on the site. The request for public sewer for this site is made in order to alleviate the need to construct
drainfields. It should be noted that; due to the topography of the site, the drainfields would need to be located at an elevation
above the proposed building. This location for the drainfields will require pumping. Pumping of effluent is not a desirable design
as it involves the use of pumps, which can fail. A gravity system is the preferred method for disposal of effluent. Therefore, while
this proposal is not consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for providing service to the Rural Area in
that them is no existing health or safety issue, approval of this request may be preferable from a public health perspective for
the ultimate development of the site as a soccer complex.
This request is for sewer service only to the proposed soccer fields. The Board has already determined that an 800 seat church
connected to public water and sewer is appropriate on this property (Parcel 22). Staff opinion is that if the proposed soccer field
use is approved and the church is not developed (the Board is reviewing two special use permits concurrently), it will create less
;wer/septic use than the previously approved church.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 11, 1998, recommended denial of the two Special Use Permits required
for the approval of the soccer complex.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff opinion is that should the Board choose to approve the soccer complex proposal, the Board will need to weigh the request's
immediate inconsi.stency?ith the jurisdictional area'-p01!~;aga!ps_t the, possible' future health and safety issues associated
a private se~ S~m that requires pumpingS' stiff does not recommend amendment to the jurisdictional area for sewer ser~,.~. -
if the special use permits are denied.
. _
Should the Board ~i~'p'rb,;/e.this~jurisdictional area requeg-t;-staff ~6~0'm'm~ndS that the jurisdicljOnal area be amen~.d~ to,p[ovide
~ Sewer service only~q:~e~ .s~.,_c_cer complex as approve_d~unde~,S.P 98-18 and SP 98-22J~?
98.184
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning ;nd///~
· - Community Development ~
December 4, 1991
Request for Inclusion in Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area - Covenant Church of God
On February 13, 1991, the Board heard a request from the Covenant fihurch
of God to include Tax Map 46, Parcel 22 in the Jurisdictional ~rea of
the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service.
Attached is the February 8, 1991 staff report for that request'
(Attachment A). The Board denied the request for a public hearing at
that meeting. *
The Covenant Church has resubmitted the same request with supporting
Justification (See Attachment B). In summary, Mr. Muncaster's reasoning
on behalf of the church i§ that the parcel to be served is part of a
very limited area thatcould be developed between Hollymead and the
Urban Area due to the restrictions of floodplain and topography. He
also argues that the reason this parcel is not included in the growth
area is because it is part of an area with very limited development
potential. Therefore, Mr. Muncaster feels that providing public water
and sewer to this parcel would not undermine the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan in this case.
Staff.recommendation remains ~s presented, in its February 8 staff
report. While development'potential may be limited in this area, it was
purpos~lly not included in the growth area due to the decision to
~retain~the. area between Route 643,,and the.South Fork Rtvanna as a
buffer. ~Consistently, staffhasi'~ecommendedthat'-any-,area' not in
growth area not be included in the jurisdictional area, particularly
because public utility capacities should be reserved to support
development of designated growth areas.
VWC/mem
cc: Tom Muncaster
Bill Brent
....................... !ATT~OHM E NT~J '.
.:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors :.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and ~/
Community Development '
February 8, 1991
Request To Amend ACSA Service Areas To Provide
Public Water and Sewer To The Covenant Church of
God (Tax Map 46, Parcel 22) /
In June,.1990, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-35
Covenant Church of God to allow construction of an 800 seat
church on this property. At this time, the Board is being
requested to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
service areas %o allow public water and sewer service to
this site without restriction (request attached).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN~
As was noted in the special use permit report, this site is
in thelRural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding provision of public*utilities, the Comprehensive
Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies
as~towhere 'and under what circumstances public utilities
shoUld~be made'available (p. 146):~ ,, - . .
'~ "~ OBJEdTIVE~ Pr lde~-publlc"water "and"s~Qer'se~ices to
.... the-Urban Area~and communities~ '~'~
-*, ~ ']- '.' .,- ~':'~ ..... ~ ..... - ...... ~, i ....: . -,-7''~ '' F*%~'~
STRATEGiES:~.~'~ ..... - ,. -~.: ....
o Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth
Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas';
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Page 2
February 8, 1991
Only'allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside
of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases
where' the property is: (1) adjacent to existing
lines; and (2) public health or safety is
endang'~red.
This request is inconsistent with both the objective and
applicable strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are
no identified quality or quantity'problems with water on
this property that staff is aware of. Further, the
Comprehensive Plan warns that "such utilities are not to be
extended-to the Rural Areas as these services can increase
developmentjpres~sures" (p. 146). ~
In the special use permit report, staff suggested that~this
project was of an urban scale and orientation and would be
more appropriately located in a designated growth area'~
Currently, the Board is being requested to provide urban
'utilities to the site. It should be noted that the applicant
has stated that !'approval of this petition would also
preserve acreage for much more practical uses than
drainfield" as well as their position that "the
governmental disposition towards this parcel is
commercial." Should the Board provide this site with public
utilities it could enhance argument for further development
in the future.
RECOMMENDATION
This request is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan
objective and applicable strategies for provision of public
water and sewer service. Public utility capacities should
be reserved to support development of designated growth
areas. Allowance for water and/or sewer services to this
property would be inconsistent with Past actions by ~the
Board to l'imit utility service outside the designated growth
areas. Staff recommends that public water and sewer service
not be made available to this property.
Sho~id the BOard choose to approve ~he' applic.ant's ~r~quest,
service shoUld be limited to the 10.3 acres to occupied by
the church and further limited to only the church building
as approved under SP-90-35 Covenant Church of God.
VWC/j cw
ATTACHMENT
IRON
SET
-PARCEL A
IO.3O AC.
D.B. 231 - 45
D.B. 639-544
~ON
SET 336°
FRAME
IRON
SET
T.M. 46 - 22
FREDERICK · GENEVIEVE MORSE
D.B. 2:31 - 45 , 49 PLAT
D.B. 6:~9 - 544 HWY. TAKE
RESIDUE - 71.927:i: ACRES
PURSUANT TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONtNO ORDINANCE
IN EFFECT THIS DATE ANO ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATION
"R~OSES ONLY, THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
NNING WITH THE I. AND AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON THIS
T.M. 46 - 23E PLaT is NOT INTENDED TO IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH.
PETER G. HALLOCK
D.B. 916 - 306 /~ PARCEL A MAY NOT BE FURTHER DIVIDED.
D.B. 596 - 71 PLAT B. THE RESIDUE MAY BE FURTHER DIVIDED INTO.
4 LOTS OF AREAS LESS THAN 21 ACRES ~:AC~,
PROVIDED THEY DO NOT AGGREGATE MORE THAN
20.70 ACRES, AND AS MANY LOTS OVER 2J
T.M. 46~- 26C ~CRES EACH AS THE RESIDUE WILl. ALLow.
J JOHN H CLARK
24" WALNUT/ ~ ·
N. BANK / u.B. 352-216,217 PLAT
STREAM /
99.00
- IRON FOUND
'E
IRON SET
- S75'1:~':34"E 19.78
S79'41'11"E 57.91
{38.57
DRIVEWAY.
SSO'I9'39"E 75.86
126.04
~,I"E 51.85
S83°42'25"E 70.:36
$"E 66.80
.9:3.34
66.2:3
THE FI~£~ OON~NT ~0 IN ACCO~D~NC£ WtTH THE DESIRE (
L PARCEL A g~ T~ RESCUE EACH HAVE A 'M~
OF 30,000 S.F. OF AREA WITH SL~ES LESS
TH~ 25%. ~
:2. PARCEL~A;;:*'~ Lg DOES NOT LIE WITMN T~ I00
YE~ FLOOD PLA~ ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD
~ANCE RATE MAPS.
· APPROVED FOR RECORDATION
DIRECTOR OF PLANMNG
MON.
FOUNO
SOS'I2'Z4"E
316.74
FOUND
T.M. 46 - 228
F.A. IACHETTA
D.B. 441 - 649
D~. 661 - 700 PLAT
PLAT SHOWING
SURVEY OF PARCEL_A , CONTAINING 10.:50 ACRES
A PORTION OF..THE FR. EDERICK.&,GENEVlEVE MORSE PROPERTY,... ....
LOCATED ON ST. RT. 643, ABOUT* !.I~MI.E. OF U.S. RT. 29
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ,~VIRGINIA
SCALE :1"- 200' DATE: 6-27-90
FOR ~- REV. :' 7-2-90
CHURCH OF GOD
, ROGER W. RAY & ASSOC.
CHARt. OTTESVILLE, VA.;,~' ·
~28
IRON
SET
THE ~ANO USE REGULATIONS LISTED BELOW ARE iMPOSED
PARCEL A
10.30 AC,
D,B. 231 - 45
D.B, 639-544
pURSUANT TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
IN EFFECT THIS DATE AND ARE SHOWN FOR iNFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY, THE)' ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON THIS
T,M. 46 - 23E PLAt IS NOT INTENDED TO IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH.
PETER G. HALLOCK A. PARCEL A MAY NOT BE FURTHER DIVIDED.
D.B, 916 - 306 B. THE RESIDUE MAY BE FURTHER DIVIDED IN.TO
D.B. 596 - 71 PLAT 4 LOTS OF AREAS LESS THAN 21 ACRES EACH, .
PROVIDED THEY DO NOT AGGREGATE MORE THAN
20,70 ACRES, AND'AS MANY LOTS OVER
T.M. 46 - 26C ACRES EACH AS THE RESIDUE WiLL ALLOW.
~. JOHN H. CLARK
24" WALNUT /D.B. 352-216 ,217 PLAT
N. BANK /
STREAM
S84o4r13"E 99.00
IRON FOUND
{51o46'37'E 116.13
IRON SET
~'34"E 19~78
s79-4rlr'E 57.91
S82'48'47"E 138,57
- S80'19'39"E 75.86
THI[ DIVISION OF 'rR; LANO D£SCRI~D HF_~roN 13 WH
R[F~R~N~ TO ~UT~ POTENTML D~[LO~NT 13 ~
O~[MED aS TH~OR~GaL ~ aLL STaT~M~NT~ AF~IX~
TO TH~ ~AT AR[ T~ AND CORRECT ~ TH~ B~ST OF MY
NOTE S:
I. PARCEL A L THE RESIDUE EACH HAVE A
OF 30,000 S,F. OF AREA WITH SLOPES LESS
THAN 25%.
2. PARCEL A DOES NOT LIE wIT. HIN THE I00
YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD
INSURANCE RATE MAPS.
APPROVED FOR RECORDATION
SET
FRAME
!IRON
SET
DRIVEWAY -40'46"E 126.04
sET
10.3 ~9'05'4r'E 51.85
- S83'42'25"E 70.36
S22o 45'19"W _. S89'20'45"E 66.80
400.00 484'lrsr'E .93.34
NSO'32'or'E 66.23
OlREC:I'OR OF PLANNING'
T.M. 46 - 22
FREDERICK L GENEVIEVE MORSE
D.B. 251 - 45 , 49 PLAT
O.D. 639 - 544 HWY. TAKE
RESIDUE = 71.927~ ACRES
FOUND
/
/
/
/
MON.
FOUND
S08'12'24"E
5.74
T.M. 46 - 22B
F.A. IACHETTA
D.~. 441- 649 ~
D.B. 66l- 700 PLAT
PLAT SHOWING
SURVEY OF PARCEL A, CONTAINING 10.30 ACRES
A PORTION OF THE FREDERICK& GENEVIEVE MORSE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON ST. RT. 643, ABOUT IJ MI. E. OF U.S. RT. 29
ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA
SCALE: r' · 200' _ DATE: 6-27-90
· " '"Fi:)R ;':; '"-" :. ,' REV. · ~-Z-~O
~ .- ..... .....',,: ;:-.~
cHURCH OF GOD
RoGER W. RAY & ASSOC., INC.
CHARLOTTESVILLE , V~
Covenant Church of God,,
January 11', 1991
Mr. F. R. Bowie, _Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Bowie:
JAN 1 4 1991
PLANNING ~.~NI~ION
Please accept this petition as a formal request to include
TM 46 Parcel 22 in the jurisdictional area for public
water and sewer.
As you are aware this property has been approved for con-
struction of a church, complex. Included in our purchase
of the property were easements to the public sewer which
runs adjacent along'the eastern boundary of the above
cited parcel. Less than 300 feet of natural fall is
between our boundary and the sewer line.
Our petition incorporates historical studies of the county
growth plan, even back to the 70's, which anticipated
growth parallel with sewer and water lines. The sewer.
line is already installed. Forest Lakes' plan anticipates
southerly development approaching Route 643. In addition,
Meadow Creek Parkway, which is part of the Comprehensive
Plan, will certainly dictate growth.
Approval of this petition would als~ preserve acreage for
much more practical uses than drainfield. It is
noteworthy that the-Tax Assessor's office has designated
8+ acres as being taxable--non-agricultural, which
indicates that the governmental disposition towards this
parcel is commercial.
The petitioner understands thatinstatlation of lines and
hookups are the cost.of the petitioner. We have already
talked with Paul Shoop'of the Al~emarl~ Service Authority
regarding the logistics, and a letter.from Mr. Shoop is
attached. Our expectation would be to act expeditiously
consequent to approval
'SENDR PASTOR
Hm'old L B~m, ~.
Ed~ ~ ~
LBEMARLE OUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BOx 1OO9 401-MclNTIRE RD. CHARLO-Fi'ESVILLE. VA. 22902 (804) 296-58tO
January 9, 199I
Pastor Harold L. Barei Sr.
1025 E. Rio Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Sanitary Sewer Service for TM 46 Parcel 22
Dear Pastor Bare:
I have reviewed the availability of public waterand sewer to
yourpart of parcel 22 above. Unfortunately, this property is not
currently within our jurisdictional area. You must petition the
Board of Supervisors to have this included.
There is a sanitary sewer line onsite with adequate capacity
to provide service to this property. Connection to this line will
require authorization from the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. If
you are successful in your petition to the Board, we will support
this connection and intervene to have it approVed by Rivanna./
Water service is somewhat distant, the nearest available line
is at Rt. 29 approximately 6600 if offsite.
I hope you are successful in petitioning the Board~ The
proximity of other properties included in our jurisdictional area
should support your request. If I can be of further assistance,
please let me know.
PAS: dmg
Sincerely,
Paul A. Shoop, P.~.
Director of Engineering.
Obviously, we are most anxious for a favorable
vote. What we have petitioned se'ems to us quite
logical.
Your consideration and cooperation will be
deeply appreciat..ed~;
' Gratefullv_~ ~/~'/~
-
~~61d L. Bare, sr.
EnclosUres (2): Plat
.......... Letter from Paul Shoop
cc: Paul Shoop
~. Wayne Cil~mberg
I?
ALBEMARLE COUN'I '(
'x
OHARLOTTESVI LLE
\
SECTION 46
JURISDIC
,-..KEY
wA'TER ONLY
'WATER AND'SEWER
WATER ONLY TO EXISTING
STRUCTURES
These are existing structures as of the
adopted date, either. 10-1-82 or 8-10-83
Please see "List of Existing StrUctures
OR Development Rights" for. specifi'c
structures and. dates.
LIMITED SERVICE
Please see "List. of Erx
Development
Righ:ts'"
for:~s
i M,.~ r, ca :ster
338 Rio Road
Charlottesville, VA
804-978-7879
DEC
PLANNING DIVISION
22901 I-..'_.-L..I i
.IATTACHUEHT
December 2: lqql
Hr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Directnr o£
Planning & Community Deve].opment
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Covenant Church of God
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
I am wrU:irJg in ~.~,jdrd to the CoveJlant Chu£ch of God (Tax Map.:46
- Parcel 22D)'s request to be included i~ the Albemarle County..
Service Authority's jurisdictional area. As you stated in youn.
February 8, 199]. staff report, the Comprehensive Plan is "inten-
tioually specific in objective and strategies as to where and
under what circumstances public utili'ties should be made
available:
OBJECTIVE:
Prnv[de public water arid sewer services to the Urban
Area and .communit. ies.
STRATEGISS: Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas
in delineating jurisdictional areas."
The'Comprehensive Plan's reasoning behind that strategy is that
"such utilities are riot to be extended to the rural areas as
these services can increase development pressures." The develop-
ment potential does not exist Jn this case. The flood hazard
overlay maps clearly sl~ow that there is no developable land
between the Holllm'~ead Growth Area and the Rivanna River until
4,000' down Route 643 from Route 29. Everything else is in the
floodplain. 'As a matter of fact, a detailed flood study was done
in this area and virtually everything is in the floodway, which
as you know, prohibits all ~fill'under any circumstance.
The total area bo,]haled by Route 643, the SO,.lth F~.,rk Rlvar, na
River, Route 29 and Powell Creek is ,approximately 200 acres. Of
that total, 120 acres is .flogd_w_av. There are just over 30 ac:res
which are not part of the church property, not in the floodplain
and b~yund setback'-require].ents. A significant portion of the 30
acres would be unbuildahle due to critical slopes and the align-
ment [,roposed F. or the Meadowcreek Parkway.
V. Way~e Cil]mberg
Dec:ember 2, 1991
Page~ ~
The church property fronts ,m ~, r.c~.'-wl wl~ict~ is the southern bound-
ary uf the [I,~].lymead Growt[~ Ar.e.~ .-~,d the back of origi~al tract
abuts the boundary for the N{.ig]~borho¢,d 2 Growth Area. Why then
is this property not part of a growth area? The answer is found
in the Comprehensive Plan wlHct~ stat[~s:
The area between the southern boundary of Route 643 and
the South Fork of the Rivanna River to remain in an open
state as a buffer between the urban area and the Community of
Ho]3.ymead. This boundary ~s critical as it preserves the
distinct identity of the community from the urban area and
prevents continuous, de. ve]upmer, t Er. om the City of
Cl~arlottesville up Route 29 North to the North Fork of the
Rivanna. Thi:~ ar. ca is included in the R]vanna Rix;er Greenway
corridor and pr. ovides a~ oppnrl'unity for passive recreational
uses.
Again, please look a~ tl~e flood },azard overlay. You will find
that'the 100-year floodplain and floo,-]way accomplish the stated
objectives of. the Comprehensive Plan, providing a buffer and
opportunity for a 9reenway corr].dor.
Staff said that they w-re aware of the lira.]ted opportunity for t
gr'owth in this ar~_a and tI~at was cn~e reason why this property was
nut included in tl~e Hollymead Gr.,,wt:l~ Area. Yet, the Comp Plan
says "utilities are not to be extended to the rural areas as
tl~ese services can increase development pressures".
This put~ the churcl~ in a position where it can't be included in
a growth area and have utilities because there's not enough area
to develop, but at .the same time, it can't have utilities if it
isn't in a growth' area because too much may develop. }{ow can it
be both ways? If there isn't enough developable land tu be
included in a-growth area, there can't be an increase in
development pressure, and therefore, utilities should be allowed.
-This request is consistent with the reasoning which supports the
strategies and objective of the C_nmprehensive Plan for provision
of public water and sewer service. Finally, according to the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, the sewer which the church would
be connecting: to (Powetl Creek.-Interceptnr) was: originally de-
signed to include, the church property and has plenty of capacity.
Thank yo~ for~your~ c~onSiderat~0~ .o£ th~s- request..~-Please let"me
know if you n-.ed any additional ~nformation.
Sir,ce. rely,
W. Thomas Mullcaster, Jr., P.E.
Attachments
27'30"
:i
Oily .-
Hem
' Cem~'
..-' ,i * ....
/
/
· , ./.;-
; Redb~ "'
-\
,.,2
/
COMMUNITY OF HOLLY
...................... _'.__.' 2---- ................
II
II,
tt
\\
I1o
j "= tOc~t
26C
,!
M.B. 40, Pg.
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
intersection with the origin of Barn Branch; then southwest with Barn
Branch to its confluence with the RivannaRiver; then meandering west
with the Rivanna River to its intersection with the eastern city
limits of Charlottesville; then northeast wtththe city limits to its
intersection with State Route 631 and the Southern Railroad
right-of-way, the point of beginning.
Agenda ~tem No. 8. Public Hearing on a request to amend the set%ice area
boundaries' of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include TH46,P22D,
Covenant Church of God, for water and sewer service. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on January 28 and February 4, 1992.)
Hr. Ciltmberg noted that, the tax map relating to the Covenant Church of
God idantifi}sthe parcel of land in question as Parcel 22. He pointed out
that the original special use permit was for parcel 22, but that was before
this particular ten acres was subdivided from the original tract to create th~
site for which the particular use is being proposed. Mr. Cilimberg went on to
say that this request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service
areas to provide public water and: sewer to The Covenant Church of God was
originallx made a year ago, but the applicant chose at that time not to go to
public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant subsequently returned
with information supporting his feeling that it is appropriate to provide
water and sewer service to this particular location for the proposed church.
.The applicant then chose to go to public hearing in December for this request.
hr. Cilimberg pointed out the Albemarle County Service Authority's
existing service areas on a map to show the relationship of this particular
parcel to surrounding service areas. Adjacent to the north and across the
South Fork Rivanna River. there a~e full water and sewer service areas. These
areas coincide with the growth area boundaries for Hollymead and for the urban
area.' This request is for an area shown in the Comprehensive Plan outside of
those growth areas identified as open space between the two growth areas.
This particular site was approved for a church by special use permit, and a/t
that time, it was thought that a well and septic system would be used.
Further research into the site and: further identification of the applicant's
need for the development sit% itself has since identified the need for consid-
ering public water and sewer to avoid a large area of septic fields and
disturbance on the site.
Mr. Cilimberg reminded Board members that they were provided a report in
December summarizing the staff's position on the request. Also provided in
that report as Attachment A was a report of February 8, 1991, and an Attach-
ment B'which is the justification as presented on behalf of The Covenant
Church of God by Mr. Tom Muncaster. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Muncaster's
reasoning is that the parcel to be served is part of a very limited area that
could be developed between Hollymead and the urban area. Mr. Cilimberg
pointed out that due to the general restriction of flood plain and topography,
there is little area identified outside of the growth area that could be
developed. Hr. Cilimberg commented that Mr. Muncaster argues that the reason
this parcel is not included in the growth area is because it is part of an
area of limited development potential, so Mr. Muncaster feels that providing
public water and sewer to this parcel would not undermine the general intent
of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff recognizes that
fact,, but the area was purposely:not included in the growth area due to the
'decision to retain the area between Route 643 and the South Fork Rivanna River
asageneral buffer between the two growth areas.. Mr. Ciltmberg noted that
staff has consistently recommended that any area that is not currently in the
growth~area.should not be included in public utility service areas. A strong
attempt'is'made kb make~'~urel that these' boundarieh Cbincide. The staff feels
that public utility capacity shoUld be reserved .to Support development in
'designated growth areas,'and forithaf reason, even with approvals outside of
growth areas for nonresidential development or special use permit types of
uses, the staff.has notreco-w-ended water and sewer service-. He reiterated
that t~e staff feels that the capacity is most important to those areas
designated, for growth.
Mr. Bain asked if staff has determined that the area within the buffer
between the two communities is buildable. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the
basic area Mr. Muncaster identified is shown in the report. The staff can
February 12, 1992 (Reguiar Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
M.B. 40, Pg. 121
confirm, based on Mr. Muncaster's information, that it is a reasonable assump-
tion that the area he has identified will be the limit of any developable
area. He directed the Board's attention to Attachment B, and described
several maps at the back of the package. He said there is ~n area that
encompasses the site for the church, outlined in yellow on the map. The staff
would agree that this is the area where, if'development is expected in this
area, this is where it would happen. The area beyond is very unlikely for
anything besides the normal flood plain type uses. The staff told Mr.
Muncaster and Mr. Bare that if they wanted to pursue the service areas re-
quest, the staff would reconmmend looking at an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan first so the areas could be recognized as being in the growth area.
Mr. Bain stated that he has a hard time supporting something that is
outside of growth areas, because of the Comprehensive Plan and the procedures
that need to be followed. He added, though, that if this is a limited area
that can be ~sed for something, then he thinks the Board should consider
putting that limited area in the .Comprehensive Plan as a growth area. He went
on to say that it could be attached to the Hollymead growth area, and then
there would not be a problem. He said that the growth area and the water and
sewer service areas can be treated as they have been treated in the past. He
then.asked where the water and sewer lines now cross the buffer areas~.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that the sewer line travels up the South Fork
Rivanna River and follows Powell Creek up into Hollymead. He does not know
how close the water lines are, but Mr. Bill Brent or. Mr.~ Muncaster would point
them out. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is water service in Hollymead and in
the Wrban area. He then called the Board's attention to the fact that the
reason the Route 643 boundary was used on the north and the Rivanna River
boundary was used on the South is because it was considered that the whole
area provided a green space between the two growth areas. He noted that if
this request is approved, it would be in recognition of the fact that this
area is not that valuable as a green space between the two growth areas. He
stated that the easiest thing for the staff would be to consider this request
along with the other expansions of growth areas to be considered next year.
Mr. Martin said since the church received a special use permit to build a
church in that area it really is not a green area now. He does not think the
water and sewer service will affect whether or not it becomes a green area.-
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that if the special use permit is exercised, the area
will not serve as a green space.
Mr. Marshall remarked that the staff is recommending that water and sewer
service be denied to this property, and he doesn't agree. He'asked why the
staff iS not recommending water and sewer service for the church. He inquired
if the only-reason is because the property is out of the growth area. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that the property is out of the growth area and approval
wduld be inconsistent with the County's planning approach. He reiterated that
the capacity of'the water and sewer system needs to be reserved for develop-
ment of designate~ growth areas. Each incremental addition outside of the
growth areas, wkich uses public utilities, takes some of the capacity away.
Mr. Marshall then inquired if this property is going to be incorporated
into the growth area.
Mr. Bain stated that he had raised this as a possibility. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that if the Board thinks that it is'important to have this property
incorporated into'a growth area, thenthe Comprehensive Plan could be emended.
'~ ~M~ 'Bai~ meh'~ioned~that if~thi~property i$~eallyVin-alimited area,
from a policy perspective, the Board~ probably should agree-to incorporate this
pr~erty~into theSpian'as a growth a~e~~' Mr.~ MArshall r~marked that he agrees
' Mr~ Bain'~'ai~ %he Board 'had ~e'C~ived~i~forma~i6~ last year which con-
tained quotes/from the Comprehensive Plan indicati~g that' the 'service areas
should be followed wherever possible unless public healthor safety are
involved.
February 12,
(Page 9)
1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
M.B. 40, Pg. 125
Mr. Bain replied that the Board can do that, but he cannot support the
motion as it was stated. He understands that the church group has a lot of
money involved in this project, but he reminded the church representatives
that he voted against the motion in the beginning because it represents
putting an urban use in a rural area.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Bain could support the motion if the church
were allowed to connect to the utilities and the Board made aresolutton to
follow this action. Mr. Bain responded, "no." He said that he would support
the resolution, but the matter ShoUld be brought back to this Board in 60
days. The property-is a limited area of 30 or ~0 acres of land~ and if the
staff feeis that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is a way to handle the
sttUatipn~ then he could probably support a motionat that time. He believes
that supporting the request before a Comprehensive Plan amendment is consid-
ered would not allow the matter to p~ogress in the proper order.
Mr. Bowprman stated to Mr. Bare that he believes there is Board support
for considering ~a Comprehensive Plan change first and delaying action on this
request for 60 days. Mr. Bowerman said he does not know if the motion will be
approved or disapproved if it is voted on now. He asked Mr. Bare his feelings
about waiting for60 days to look at a Comprehensive Plan change. Mr. Bare
replied that he realizes that to wait would create a greater probability of a
favorable vote. He said, again, that the 60 day wait would almost assuredly
not allow the church to be built this year because the winter months would be
here before any construction could be started. He also understands this
Board's poli~i6al position. He knows the Board has a legal right to vote
tonight, and it is as legal as ~aiting six years and going through 50 Compre-
hensive Plan changes. He added that this is due procedure, and he stated that
this is the church group's position.
Mr. Perkins commented that he can support this request because the
important thing for this church group is the time element. He thinks this
piece of property is unique. If the Board only adheres to the Comprehensiv~
Plan there would not be any need for the Supervisors to meet as often as they
do. He thinks the Comprehensive Plan was made to be changed, and he thinks
that this is one of those times when it can be changed. He would not be
opposed to the request b~cauge the timing is very important to these people.
He will support a change in the service area boundaries.
Mr. Bain said the issue before the Board is land use, and that is what
the Board should base its decision on. He said that Mr. Bare and his congre-
gation have the right as landowners to come before this Board and ask for a
change. He added, though, that this Board makes decisions that are related to
land ute and the Comprehensive Plan, etc. This Board has already approved the
request for the church to be built on that property, but now this Board is
having to make another decision tonight. Mr. Perkins replied that a lot of
requests have been before this Board, and some have been approved and some
have been denied. He Said that there will always be requests from people, and
some of the requests will continue to be approved, unless there is a change in
~he Board members.
Mr. Marshall stated that he feels each case has its own merits.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that the Board has turned down a lot of requests
along Hydraulic Road, north ~f Albemarle High SChool, because the property was
in,the drainage area of the Reservoir.- He thinks that .this :is important. He
said that this is not the case with the piece of property in_question, and he
thinks that this situation is unique.
:'-. Mr. Marshall agr~ed.'~i~h Mr; Perkinsi-~revious S~ate~ent that if the
supervisors.were only. going.to .adhere 'to the Comprehensive i!an',-then they
have no reason to-be at.'these meetings.
· .' MrsJ. Humphris~re~arked ~hat '~he whofe~poiht is'that' if the supervisors
don't want tO adhere to the Comprehensive P~an, then the Comprehensive Plan
should be changed, but exceptions should not be'made to the Plan.
Mr. Marshall said that he does not agree. He stated that a whole text-
book would not be changed just because it was necessary to change one area in
M.B. 40, Pg. I26
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
it. He said that the Comprehensive Plan is good, but it is not the Holy
Bible.
Mr. Martin stated that he would support a motion for Mr. Bare's request
because a special use permit was given to the church, and he: feels that once
that special use permit was given, any legitimate argument of using that space
as a buffer disappeared.
Mr. Bain explained that any agricultural land outside of the flood plain
can be developed, so this property could have been developed with houses. He
said that in a rural area, there are still development rights.
Mr. Martin remarked that he thought the special use permit was given with
the idea that a church would be built there. He reiterated that once the
special use permit was issued, then it was already determined that some of the
buffer space"would be lost. This ~ecision was made when the special use
permit was issued. He understands what Mr. Bain is saying about the order in
which these matters should be handled, and he thinks that the Comprehensive
Plan is a guide and should be treated as a guide. He also believes that the
Board should always try to stay within the Plan except when there are excep-
tions. To him, this is one of the exceptions that the Board should approve,
but he ~ealtzes that perhaps the next request will not be approved.
Mr. Bowerman co~ented that he has not supported any exceptions since he
has been on this Board or when he was a member of the Planning
where there was a question of extending the service areas into a watershed of
any of the ~ater supply reservoirs, including the Totier Creek watershed. He
voted against changing the service lines for exactly the same reason. He
pointed out that this property is not in a watershed area. He asked if there
is a motion.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to approve inclusion of
Parcel 22-on Tax Map 46 in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for both water and sewer service, for the 10.3 acres to
occupied by the church, and further limited to only the church building as
approved under SP-90-35 for Covenant Church of God.
Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Mr. St. John pointed out that this request is for water and sewer ser-
vice. He asked, if this request is approved, how will the water be routed to
the church. He pointed out that the sewer service is not on the church
property, but it is near to the property. He stated that someone on the staff
Should-supply this information.
Mr. Bowerman' asked if there is service area coverage between the water
and sewer lines and this parcel. Mr. St. John answered that there has to be a
service area where the lines are. He said that there are houses adjacent to
this church along Route 643. He added that if the water line is brought along
the road to reach this church, it will be in the street adjacent to these
houses. He said that this raises the question of whether or not these people
might make the sam~ request.
Mr. Marshall noted that his motion stipulates that the water and sewer
service will only be tO the church.
Mr. Martin asked if this would be a matter that will be brought 'ba~k to
this Board. Mr. St.' John replied that the matter would be brought back to the
Board if someone else made such a request.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bill Brent if he could comment on the Proximity of
'water'and sewer service' tothis specific site. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Brent
to explain how the new lines wil~ be r6uted if new lines are necessary to get
the utilities to the site.
Mr. Brent responded that the applicant has not made a specific design as
to how to extend the water line to the particular site. He added that the
Path of least resistance and the obvious route would have the water routed
f/Februaryt2, 1992(RegularNightMeeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 12?
(Page 11)
H down Route 643 from'Route 29 because the closest water line is located at
H Route 29. He went on to say that he is not sure if the sewer line crosses the
~property in question, but if it doesn't, it is very close to it.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the sewer line is on a portion
parcel. He pointed out on the map the portion of the property the sewer line
Crosses.
Mr. St. John asked if the sewer line crosses a portion of the property
nowowned by the church. Mr~ Cilimberg answered that as far ashe knows the
church owns the property where the sewer line is routed. Mr. St. John ex-
that easements would have to be gotten if other people's property is
involved.
Mr. Brent stated that there are easement rights. Mr. St. John stated
that this answers his question.~ He went on to say that it would probably be
impractical to connect to sewer service without also connecting to the water
service.
Mr. Brent next exPlained that if the church was not connected to the
County's water system~ it would be imPossible to know how much sewer service
was being used. He said that, in such a case, the church representatives
would be required to put a meter on the well.
Roll was called ahd the motion carried by the following recorded vote.:
AYES: . Messrs. Bowerman, Marshall, Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-~i-12. Beechtree Associates Limited Partnership.
Public Hearing on a request to rezone 1.12 acs from CO (proffered) to C-i
(proffered). Property in SE quadrant of Whitewood/Hydraulic Rds inters is
located in'Neighborhood I. Property show~ in the Comprehensive Plan for
Neighborhood Service. TM61,P25. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily-Progress on January 28 and February 4, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
g "CHARACTER OF ~HE AREA: This site is currently developed with a
commercial building consisting of multiple rental spaces. Adjacent
properties are als~ developed commercially. This site has access
directly to Whitewood Road and is connected to Hydraulic Road through
the adjacent commercial development. Albemarle High School is located
on Hydraulic Road opposite this site.
- APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to amend the exist-
ing zoning of the property in order to broaden the range of permitted
uses. 'The applicant has proffered to delete uses which are inconsis-
tent with the Neighborhood Service. designation of this site or which
~ may. be inappropriate in this location .due to proximity~ to the high
~. school and/or access. The applicant's proffers are included as
Attachment ~ (set out in full below).
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
. March '13, 1963 - Subdivision 6rearing parcel under review was ap-
proved. ~ ~- '~'~': - ::' -~: ;'
January 28, 1976 - The Board of Supervisors rezoned the one parcel
~: from R-2,~Residen~ial,~o B-l,~ BdsinesS,. subject to the entrance to
:, .... ~- .~. the site. being limited to Whitewood Road.
March 2~, 1981 - The Planning Commi%~i0n'~Pproved th~'~te'pla~ for
.this property.
July 20, 1983 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-83-08'(Prof-
feted). This action rezoned the property from C-l, Commercial, to CO,
Commercial Office.
ATTACHMENT C
COUNTY~OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
David Benish, Chief of Community Development
David Hir~chman, Water Resources Mana rg~~
August 7, 2001
South Fork Soccer Center - Sewer Hook Up
I have met briefly with Wayne on this subject and also discussed it with Alyson Sappington from the
Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water. Conservation District and Bill Craun with the Thomas Jefferson Health
District.
I understand the long-standing policy for not allowing hook up to public sewer outside of the
jurisdictional area, except in cases supported by the Comprehensive Plan. In general, the policy is a' firm
statement linking public utilities with land use, and is philosophically sound. However, in certain cases,
the policy prevents the best technical solution, and the best option from a water quality perspective, even
in cases where future land use is of little concern. The South Fork Soccer Center is the latest and perhaps
most dramatic example I have observed.
I understand that the. property in question is not within a Development Area. However, it is sandwiched
between two such areas, divided only by the Rivanna River and its flood plain. If the intention is to
provide a green swath along the River and between the Development Areas, then the soccer park seems
consistent with that intentiOn. The owne?ship of the property is by a non-profit organization, and even if
the ownership were to change in the future, restrictions on flood plain development would restrict other
more intensive uses.
Given that theBoard of Supervisors has approved the use for that particular site, I believe it would be
prudent from both a land Use and environmental perspective to allow for the best technical,
environmentally-sound means of sewage disposal. In this case,.hooking up to the sewer line is the clear,
best alternative. The reasons for this are as follows:
Septic fields are an alternative to sewer hook-up. However, the site is quite limited for septic
drainfield disposal due to the extensive flood plain, and limited area outside of the flood plain
suitable for such a sYstem. Bill Craun from VDH has expressed his preference for the site
connecting to the sewer because of technical limitations with finding an adequate drainfield and
reserve drainfield. According the Bill, the solution they have found meets only the minimum
requirements, and may not be able to meet peak needs during events.
MEMORANDUM
South Fork Soccer Center - Sewer Hook Up
August 7, 2001
Page Two
The soil in flood plains tends to be more alluvial and porous than other soils in the area. They are
not suitable for accepting septic waste because of the increased chance for waste to leach through
them and because of periodicinundation. Even drainfields just above the flood plain level (as in this
case) present more risk for septic leaching than drainfields further removed from flood plains and
streams. Also, the drainfield area must be graded to install the system, instead of leaving the hillside
undisturbed.
Furthermore, this septic system will require a private pump station for the waste to get to the
drainfield. These types of pump stations can best be described as "accidents waiting to happen." We
have personally observed these types of pumps backing up directly into streams in our community.
The issue is that they require constant maintenance, and the consequences of failure are very bad for
downstream waters. There is no way to guarantee that periodic maintenance is taking place, so
monitoring and oversight is difficult or non-existent The best motto for private pump stations is to
prevent them if at all possible, especially when other alternatives are readily and economically
available.
Finally, septic systems always provide some level of risk for sites that must also use wells for
potable water. This site will require several wells. While Health Department standards impose
certain minimum setback requirements between drainfields and wells, this is far from absolut~
protection, especially when drainfield conditions are not optimum. From a risk reduction
perspective, eliminating the need for a drainfield is the best option.
Other types of non-conventional systems, such as composting toilets, may be an option. However,
we have never clarified County policy on the use of such systems, and they probably would be
incapable of handling the event-type loads that will be generated at the soccer park. In some cases,
they have proven an excellent solution at remote sites with intermittent and small sewage flows. I
don't know all the technical particulars of these systems, but my suspicion is that they would be very
expensive to handle flows at the soccer park, and may not do an adequate job. In my mind, the use
of such a system would be hard to justify when there is a sewer line running through the site, and we
know that the waste will be adequately treated at the Moores Creek Treatment Plant.
· Presently, SOCA is proposing to use port-a-johns to fill the gap between what the septic field can
provide and expected demand. The environmental aspects of a row of port-a-johns may not be an
issue, unless one considers their inherent drawbacks for odor, aesthetics, and sanitary conditions.
The main issue with port-a-johns is that if the County approves of the use of the site as a soccer
facility, bYall means ~allow them a sewage disposal option'that does not require the need for a row of
permanent port-a-johns. From a regulatory standpoint~ I also wonder whether permanent port-a-
johns is tantamount to permanent pump and haul.
· In this case, hooking up the sewer line is environmentally sound. The sewer tine is already there and
is not going away.' It seems most prudent to ho°k onto an existing system rather than to create a
redundant sewage disposal system on the site, especially one of dubious effectiveness. ~ Hooking up
to the sewer line will necessitate less site grading and will-afford more enduring protection for the
site's drinking water wells. Also, there is no doubt that the line can handle even the largest event-
type flows that the site will generate.
MEMORANDUM
South Fork Soccer Center - Sewer Hook Up
August 7, 2001
Page Three
In general, if future land use is not a serious concern, I feel that we should seek the best technical,
environmentally sound option for sewage disposal. I know that we cannot always know what all future
land uses may be, or what potential there is for undesirable' or more intensive uses that otherwise would
not be feasible without sewer hook-up. However, I am advocating for some balance - that on sites
where our best judgement tells us that future land use is not an overriding issue, that we allow for sewer
hook ups when it can be demonstrated to be the best technical and environmental alternative.
I would be glad to discuss this issue further with you and your staff and help find an agreeable solution.
DJH/ybv
Copy: Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering
File: Hirschman\SOCAsewer.doc
Louisa Office:
3°` Industrial Dr., Ste 2
Louisa, VA 23093
Tel: 540-967-5940
ATTACHMENT D
E-mail: tjswcd@avenue.org
Web Page: avenue.org/tjswcd
OMAS JEFFERSON ·
tou~s~SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2134 Berkmar Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901
Tel: 804-975-0224, Fax: 804-975-1367
June 28, 2001
Mr. wayne Cilimberg
Director of Pla,nning and Community Development, Albemarle County
401 'Mclntire Road
Charlottesville VA 22901
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
The Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water conservation District partnered with Albemarle COunty in
establishing and holding a Ripadan Easement at the South Fork Soccer Park on Polo Grounds Road (Rt.
643).
'A plat of this property showSthat a sanitary sewer line is located directly under the proposed Soccer Park,
however the .property is outside of the jurisdictional area for sewer connections. While we are aware of,
and in support of, the policies that restrict connections to the sewer system to areas designated for growth,
we believe that this project .is deserving of an exception.-A similar exception has already been granted to a
church, located on the parcel from which the soccer park property was divided.
When the Soccer Organization of Charlottesville Albemarle (SOCA) initially submitted an application for a
Jurisdictional Area Extension in 1998, the property was under the control of Dr. William Hurt. SOCA, a
non-profit community service organization, is now the sole owner of the property, with intentions to
maintain the property as a recreational facility for the long term. SOCA has no interest in any profit-making
uses of the property.
As planned now, the Soccer Park will have a small septic system just above the flood plain area. The
septic system will not supPort heavy usage from the general public, and will therefore need to be
supplemented with portable toilets. Due to the site restrictions, the Albemarle County Health Department
recommended that a connection to the sewer line be granted (as noted in a March 1, 2001 e-mail from Bill
Craun to Margaret Doherty, County Planner). Neither the septic system nor the portable toilets, serve the
interests of water quality protection or .public health protection.
It is the recommendation of the TJSWCD that SOCA's request for a Jurisdictional Area Extension be
granted. The County may wish' to qualify the approval with a requirement that SOCA be responsible for
disconnections from the sewer line if the use of the property changes.
Thank you for your consideration of this request, and we look forward to headng from you.
H. Evans
Chairman
Cc.
Albemarle county Board of Supervisors
David Hirschman, Albemarle County Water Resources Manager '
David Benish, Albemarle County Planning Department
"To exercise leadership in promoting soil and water conservation by
providing technical expertise and education to policy-makers and the public"
RECEIVED
-"" '",I,*..":NG AND
~.,0Mh._ ; bEVFI OPMEN~
PROFFER FORM
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer
(Amendment #
Date: August 24, 2001
ZMA # 01-09
Tax Map and Parcel Number 78-58H
09-12-01 A08:44 IN
1.818 Acres to be rezoned fi.om R-A to C-O
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 re-zoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1)
Proffers for River's Edge Office ZMA-01-09
l. The plan entitled "site "Plan for TMP 78-58G" produced by Rivanna Engineering and last revised 8/7/01 is proffered
as the Rezoning Concept Plan. The development on TMP 78-58H shall be in general accord with the Rezoning
Concept Plan
2. The existing driveway connecting TMP 78-58H to Free Bridge Lane will be closed and access prohibited to Free
Bridge Lane prior to the issuance ora zoning clearance for the use in the existing structure on TMP 78-58H.
3. The owner shall provide vehicular access to Route 20 for all uses located on TMP 78-58H through TMP 78-58G prior
to the issuance of a zoning clearance for the use in the existing structure on TMP 78-58I-L A sidewalk for pedesUSan
access shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access way fi.om the proposed office use on TMP 78-58H to
Route 20. The sidewalk will be four feet in width and constructed of concrete to VDOT specifications. This sidewalk
will be constructed in conjunction with improvements for the development of the parking lot for TMP 78-58H.
4. Parking lot improvements in the floodplain shall be limited to the parking improvements shown on the Rezoning
Concept Plan. The provision of this parking shall create no net fill in the floodplain.
5. The Owner shall record a plat dedicating 25 feet of right of way to public use along the property boundary between
TMP 78-58H and Free Bridge Lane prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for the use in the existing structure on
TMP 78-58H~
6. No additional structures shall be constructed on TMP 78-58I-I, inside or outside of the floodplain as shown on the
Rezoning Concept Plan.
7. The existing structure on TMP 78-58H shall not be expanded beyond the existing footprint shown on the Rezoning
Concept Plan nor shall the vertical height of the building be increased beyond the present roofline of the 1 ½ story
house.
8. The owner shall not disturb the 100-foot stream buffer, which is designated under the Albemarle County Water
Protection Ordinance on TMP 78-58I-I.
9. In the area between the power line easement on TMP 78-58H and the proposed contractor's office, the owner will
provide sufficient landscaping pursuant to Section 32.7.9.8 to screen development and parking on TMP 78-58G from
the RA district on the opposite side of Free Bridge Lane, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community
Development in consultation with the Albemarle County Design Planner. This landscaping shall be shown on the site
plan for the development on TMP 78-58G and provided in conjunction with the improvements for TMP 78-58G.
I0. The existing structure shall no longer be used for residential purposes unless a Special Use Permit is approved to allow
a residential use in a commercial district.
Printed Names of All Owners
Date
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road. Room 218
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax I804} 972 - 4012
August 24, 2001
08-24-0t P02:34 IN
Katurah Roell
Free Bridge Land Trust
195 Riverbend Dr
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: ZMA-2001-009 Rivers Edge Offices; Tax Map 78, Parcel 58H
Dear Mr. Roell:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 14, 2001, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note
that this approval is subject to proffers as set out in Attachment A of the staff report signed by
Katurah Roell (copy attached).
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on September 12, 2001. Any new or additional
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Planner
MB/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIIshouse
Bob Ball
ATTACHMEN~ A
C.W.
HURT CONTRACTORS.
VIRGINIA L~rD COMPANY BUII.~ING
PO~T O~ BOX 8147
C~~~J ~-~ V~G~ 22~6
Proffers for River's Edge Office ZMA-01-09
L.L.C.
AREA CODE 804
TELEPHONE 979~ 181
FAX 296-3510
1. Theplan produced by Rivanna Engineering and last revised 8/7/01 is proffered as the
Rezonmg Concept Plan for ZMA 01-09. The development ~n TMP 78-58H shall be in
general accord with the Rezoning Concept Plan
2. The existing driveway connecting TMP 78-58H to Free Bridge Lane shall be closed a~d
access prohibited to Free Bridge Lane.
3. The applicant will provide vehicular access to Route 20 for all uses located on TMP 78~58H
through TMP 78-58G. A sidewalk for pedestrian access will be provided on both sides of the
vehicular access way fi:om the proposed office use on TMP 78-58H to Route 20. The
sidewalk will be four feet in width and constructed of concrete to VDOT specifications. This
sidewalk will be constructed in conjunction with improvements for the development of the
parking lot for T~MP 78-58H.
4. Parking lot improvements in the floodplain will be limited to the parking improvements
shown on the Rezoning Concept Plan. The provision of this parking will create no net fill in
the floodplain.
5. The applicant will record a plat dedicating 25 feet of right of way to public use along the
.property boundary between TM2P 78-58H and Free Bridge Lane.
6. No additional buildings will be constructed on TMP 78-58H, inside or outside of the
floodplain as shown on the Rezoning Concept Plan.
7. The existing structure on TMP 78-58H will not be expanded beyond the boundaries shown
on the Rezoning Concept Plan nor will the vertical height of the building be increased
beyond the present roofline.
8. The owner will not disturb the 100-foot stream buffer, which is designated under the
Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance on Parcel 58H.
9. In the area between the power line easement on TMP 78-58H and the proposed contractor's
office/storage are& the applicant will provide sufficient landscaping to screen development
on TMP 78-58G, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community DeveloPment in
consultation with the Albemarle County Design Planner. This landscaping shall be shown on
the site plan for the development on TMP 78-58G and provided in conjunction with the
improvements for TMP 78-58G.
Katurah Roell
2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 01-009 River's Edge Offices
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to Rezone
1.819 acres from R-1 to CO. Property is located in the
Floodplain Overlay District
STAFF CONTACT(S): Michael Barnes, Elaine Echols
AGENDA DATE:
August 14, 2001
ACTION:
Recommend approva
of proffers with modifications.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBERS:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission meeting held July 17, 2001 on the River's Edge rezoning proposal, the
Commission asked the applicant to defer action on the proposal to make commitments (proffers) to particular aspects of
the development of parcel. Specifically, consideration was requested for commitments to:
· Have no construction in the floodplain other than a parking lot.
· Close the entrance from the property to Free Bridge Lane.
· Dedicate r.o.w, along Free Bridge Lane for a potential greenway.
· Not expand the building.
The applicant was asked to work with staff to develop a set of proffers to meet staff and Planning Commission concerns.
DISCUSSION: The attached proffers (Attachment A) reflect:
A proffered plan of development (Attachment B).
A commitment to clOse a driveway providing access to Free Bridge Lane and opening of a driveway through adjoining
properties from RoUte 20.
Provision of a sidewalk from Route 20 to the proposed office use.
A commitment to limit parking to the improvements shown on the concept plan and to make these improvements
without filling the floodplain.
A commitment to dedicate r.o.w, along Free Bridge Lane.
A commitment to build no more buildings on the tax parcel nor expand the structure outside of the footprint shown on
the Concept Plan. The prohibition against expansion includes increasing the height of the building.
Prohibiting disturbance of the 100 foot stream buffer.
The provision of additional landscaping and screening between development on parcel 58 G and parcel 58H.
Staff believes these proffers address both Planning Commission and staff concerns. Several minor changes to the
proffers will need to be made. They include, for example, the need for exact language between the proffers and the title of
the plan of development; clarification of the area on the plan to which the proffers occur. Right now the contractor's
office/storage yard on TMP 78-58G could be construed as being proffered. Other items include the need to match the five
foot sidewalk shown on the plan with similar language in the proffers and provide a sidewalk along the driveway to the
parking area. The proffers need to be provided on the County's proffer form, dated, and signed by the owner. More minor
changes will likely be needed after the County Attorney's office and Zoning review the proffers. These changes ca.n be
accommodated between the Planning Commission meeting and the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 12. The
substance of the proffers, though, appears to meet the expectations of the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: In its original staff report, staff recommended disapproval of the rezoning without commitment to
develop only the part of the parcel outside of the floodplain. The Planning Commission agreed that commitments for
development were necessary but did not go so far as to ask the applicant to prohibit use of the existing building for an
office use or leave the floodplain totally undisturbed. Staff has worked with the applicant to develop proffers that reflect the
desires of the Planning Commission. Staff believes that, with minor changes, the proffers can be approved.
ATTACHMENT A
C. W. HURT CONTRACTORS. L.L.C.
VIRGINIA LA~D COMPANY' BUILDING
POST OFFICE BOX 8147
C~m~rr~s~. Vman, w 22906
AREA CODE 804
TELEPHONE 979-8181
FAX 296-3510
Proffers for River's Edge Office ZMA-01-09
1. The plan produced by Rivanna Engineering and last revised _8/7/01 is proffered as the
Rezoning Concept Plan for ZMA 01-09. The development on TMP 78-58H shall be in
general accord with the Rezoning Concept Plan
2. The existing driveway connecting TMP 78-58H to Free Bridge Lane shall be closed and
access prohibited to Free Bridge Lane.
3. The applicant will provide vehicular access to Route 20 for all uses located on TMP 78-58H
through TMP 78-58G. A sidewalk for pedestrian access will be provided on both sides of the
vehicular access way t~om the proposed office use on TMP 78-58H to Route 20. The
sidewalk will be four feet in width and constructed of concrete to VDOT specifications. This
sidewalk will be constructed in conjunction with improvements for the development of the
parking lot for TMP 78-58H.
4. Parking lot improvements in the floodplain will be limited to the parking improvements
shown on the Rezoning Concept Plan. The provision of this parking will create no net fill in
the floodplain.
5. The applicant will record a plat dedicating 25 feet of right of way to public use along the
property boundary between TMP 78-58H and Free Bridge Lane.
6. No additional buildings will be constructed on TMP 78-58H, inside or outside of the
floodplain as shown on the Rezoning Concept Plan.
7. The existing structure on TMP 78-58H will not be expanded beyond the boUndaries shown
on the Rezoning Concept Plan nor will the vertical height of the building be increased
beyond the present roofline.
8. The owner will not disturb the 100-foot stream buffer, which is designated under the
Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance on Parcel 58H.
9. In the area between the power line easement on TMP 78-58H and the proposed contractor's
office/storage area, the applicant will provide sufficient landscaping to screen development
on TMP 78-58G, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development in
consultation with the Albemarle County Design Planner. This landscaping shall be shown on
the site plan for the development on TMP 78-58G and provided in conjUnction with the
improvements for TMP 78-58G.
Katurah Roell
2
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
ZMA 01-09 RIVER'S EDGE COMMERCIAL PARK
MICHAEL BARNES
JULY 17, 2001
AUGUST 8, 2001
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant, the Virginia Land Company, is requesting a rezoning for Tax Map 78 Parcel 58H
(see vicinity map - Attachment A) from R-1 Residential to (CO) Commercial. The intent of the
proposal is to allow the house currently on the site to be converted into an office as part of the
River's Edge Commercial Park. The applicant has suggested that the house on Parcel 58H be
used for a real estate office. The applicant has discussed several proffers for the property, but no
written commitments have been made.
Petition for Rezoning:
The applicant has submitted a request to rezone 1.818 acres from Residential [R-l] to
Commercial Office [CO] to allow conversion of existing home to commercial office. The
property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 58H, is located in the Rivanua Magisterial District on
Free Bridge Lane [Route 1421] approximately 1/4 mile north of the Route 250/1421
intersection. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, as Regional Service in the
Pantops Neighborhood. The Flood Hazard Overlay Zone is present on the property.
Character of the Area:
The property to the north (TMP 78-58) is zoned R-l, and the Comprehensive Plan designates the
parcel as Urban Density (6-34 dwelling units per acre). This parcel is currently vacant. The
property to the east and south (TMP 78-58G) is zoned CO (Commercial Office). It contains two
single-family residences. The Virginia Land Company also owns TMP 78-58G and has a site
plan for a contractor's office and contractor storage area currently under review (See
Attachments C & D). The site plan proposes grading to the property line with TMP 78-58H.
Because of the requirement for a 20-foot undisturbed buffer between commercial and residential
uses, the outcome of this site plan on Parcel 58G depends on the rezoning of Parcel 58H to CO.
To the west, the property is bounded by Free Bridge Lane (Route 1421). The Rivanna River is
on the other side of the road.
The property slopes down towards the Rivanna River (Attachment D). Approximately three-
quarters of the parcel is located in the 100-year floodplain. The sole structure on Parcel 58H is a
brick house. It is surrounded by floodplain. There is a small, unnamed drainage on the northern
side of the boundary. There is a wetland at the confluence of this stream and the Rivanna River.
A Dominion Power easement for a high~-voltage powerline hms along the southern portion and
prohibits the construction of structure on about a quarter of the property. The sole access for the
property is Free Bridge Lane, which is entirely within the floodplain. Free Bridge Lane was
formerly Route 20 until Route 20 was constructed in its current location.
Zoning and Subdivision History:
/n 1998, the applicant requested to rezone Parcel 58H and 58G to PDSC (Planned Development -
Shopping Centers) (ZMA 1998-025). That rezoning proposal called for a project similar in
nature to the one currently proposed for the two parcels. The important difference was a special
use permit requesting a considerable mount of fill of the floodplain. The applicant withdrew
both the rezoning and special use applications.
There is no recent subdivision history on this parcel. The construction o fnew Route 20 bisected
Parcel 58G creating two parcels. The second portion of the parcel, across Route 20, is zoned R-
I.
By-riqht Use of the Prooerty:
Approximately three-quarters of the 1.818-acre parcel is in the floodplain. The Flood Hazard
Overlay District (Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance) severely restricts the uses allowed in the
floodplain. Approximately one-third of the property outside of floodplain contains a powerline
easement, which further restricts development. The exact amount of acreage that is unrestricted
is not known; however, it is estimated to be a quarter of an acre. Thus, one (1) single-family
home would be allowed under current zoning. The applicant might be able to use the Bonus
Factors in Section 13.4 to get an additional dwelling unit, but it is unclear. In either case, the
applicant would have to provide alternative vehicular access to the State Road System outside of
the floodplain for dwelling units (Section 32.7.2.3).
Applicant's Justification for the Request:
The applicant also needs to rezone this property from a residential to commercial designation so
that the TMP 78-58G is not subject to buffering requirements which are impeding their efforts to
get site approval for a contractors office and storage facility.
Recommendation:
Staff cannot recommend rezoning any portion of the property in the floodplain as currently
proposed because it allows for intensification of the use in the floodplain. Staff could support a
rezoning of.the portion of the property outside of the floodplain (the upland portion), if the
applicant further explained their intentions for the upland portions and limited any floodplain
impacts to the current conditions. The applicant has discussed several proffers for the property,
but no written commitments have been made.
Review of the proposal with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Regional Service in Neighborhood 3 (Pantops).
The proposal for a commercial business would be consistent with the uses envisioned under this
designation. The designation in the Comprehensive Plan and the commercial zoning on the
neighboring parcel (Parcel 58G) are the major reasons that staff can support rezoning a portion
of the property to commercial. However, Other parts of the .Comprehensive Plan are specific'
(i.e, the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Section) about keeping development outside of
floodplain areas and away from water resources like wetlands. It is these sections that cause
staff to oppose any intensification of use in the floodplain, even if the applicant never expands
the footprint of the building.
· The Comprehensive Plan does not otherwise directly address the property under consideration.
It does, however, mention the need to develop a greenway trail for both pedestrians and
bicyclists along the eastern edge of the Rivanna River (Attachment B). The Neighborhood Three
Study, which the Comprehensive Plans looks to for guidance, encourages "river oriented
development." It suggests that new facilities be designed to encourage trail users to utilize the
commercial -facilities adiacent to the trail. As currently proposed, staff feels that neither the
proposed office on Parcel 58H nor the proposed contractor's office on Parcel 58G are the types
Of uses envisioned by this study. Staff would look more favorably on the rezoning if the
propo, sed uses embraced the river, the proposed greenway trail and the opportunities that they
afford.
A second aspect of the proposed greenway trail is the construction of the trail itself. There are
several options proposed for the trail's construction. The first is to construct a sidewalk between
Free Bridge Lane and the river. This option is problematic because the eroding bank could make
siting and maintaining the trail in this area difficult. The second option is to close one lane of the
road and make it one-way. This would allow the trail to be placed in the unused lane. This
option would allow the trail to be moved back from the riverbank's edge. Unfortunately, this
option could also lead to problems related to separating the pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
providing vehicle access to properties along the road. A final option is to abandon Free Bridge
Lane and convert it to a greenway trail. In order to achieve this final option, an alternative
access would have to be provided to any parcel that would become landlocked by the
abandonment. Under this scenario, proViding alternative access to Parcel 58H through Parcel
58G would remove this situation, but the applicant is not proposing to provide this access
(Attachment B).
Staff has also analyzed this proposal for conformity with'other sections of the Comprehensive
Plan and with the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model.' These principles are identified
below and highlighted within this section for context within the Land Use Plan. The 12
principles of the Neighborhood Model are as follows:
· Pedestrian Orientation
· Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
· Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
· Parks and Open Space
· Neighborhood Centers
· Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
· Relegated Parking
· Mixture of Uses
· Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
· Redevelopment
· Site Planning that Respects Terrain
· Clear Edges
Please note that while Parcel 58H is a separate parcel, any development of Parcel 58H is best
understood in combination with a sister parcel (Parcel 58G). The Virginia Land Company owns
both parcels. The developer is trying to develop them as a single entity as demonstrated by ZMA
98-25 and site plan for the contractor's office and storage yard. Both parcels contain older
homes that take their access offofFree Bridge Lane. The applicant has offered, at least
originally, to provide a single point of access to both parcels off of Route 20. Finally, it is the
buffer requirement between Parcel 58G and Parcel 58H which is driving the need to rezone (see
the below for details). Therefore, while the site plan for Parcel 5'8G is for a by-right
development, it is extremely difficult to separate the proposed contractor's office and storage
facility from the rezoning proposal because of questions related to access, the floodplain, and
buffer requirements.
It is also important to note that Parcel 58G is zoned CO and the contractor's office and storage
area is a by-right use.
Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20
- 22 of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Section)
1. Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks
and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain).
The two significant environmental features on the site are the floodplain and the 100-foot
riparian buffer established by the Water Protection Ordinance.
The 100-year floodplain consumes a large portion of the parcel in question as well as
adjacent parcels. At this location, the floodplain is driving the pa.ttem of development (See
bold line on Attachment C & D). On Parcel 58G, the applicant is attempting to maximize the
site potential without filling any portion of the floodplain (which would necessitate a special
use permit). As a result, the proposed contractor's office and storage facility is wedged
between the floodplain and the property line for Parcel 58H. A portion of the travelway on
the northern end of the site is within a 20-foot undisturbed buffer required between
commercial and residential uses (Attachment D), In order to get a site plan approved for a
contractor's office, the applicant either needs to:
a. Reduce the scale of project on Parcel 58G,
b. Redesign to utilize more of the upland portion of Parcel 58G,
c. Fill the portion of Parcel 58G opposite of Parcel 58H; or,
d. Rezone Parcel 58H.
The applicant has chosen to rezone Parcel 58H, which is the subject of this rezoning.
On Parcel 58H, the floodplain continues to present a problem. The applicant is requesting a
change in use within the existing structure that is within the floodplain. Flood Hazard
Overlay District does not permit structures for human habitation. If the home were to be
built today, it would not be allowed in its current location. Staff believes that allowing the
rezoning of this structure as proposed is tantamount to sanctioning the use in the floodplain
and would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance.
The applicant has countered staff's claim with several arguments. The first is evidence that
the first floor of the home is one (1) foot above the 100-year flood elevation (See Attachment
F). The applicant has also suggested a proffer that would limit any development in the
floodplain to only the existing structure with no expansion of the building or its footprint or
additional filling o f the floodplain. Their proposal may seem straightforward and reasonable
considering that the structure is akeady in existence. However, staffmaintains its opposition
to the use of the building as currently proposed on the general grounds of the Flood Hazard
Overlay District provisions. It is for this reason that staffbelieves the applidant should seek
to rezone and develop,only the portion of the site outside of the floodplain.
Currently, the applicant is not proposing to alter or disturb the 100-foot riparian buffer. Staff
encourages all development to occur outside of this buffer. Furthermore, under certain
circumstances, Section 17-317 of the Water Protection Ordinance requires a developer to re,
establish the buffer during redevelopment. From a planning perspective, staff would like to
see a buffer re-established to screen the proposed (and visually objectionable) uses on Parcels
58G and 58H from the future greenway trail. Thus, either through the requirements of the
Water Protection Ordinance or through the rezoning, staff believes that the applicant should
4
be required to plant additional vegetation in the buffer area during the site plan review
process.
2. Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions.
The project does not propose to disturb the forested wetland area between the property and
the parcel zoned residential to the north.
3. Limit access points to minimize the impact of development on major roads.
The County always strives to consolidate ingress and egress points when improvements to
safety, circulation, and/or traffic concerns can be made. With this rezoning, there are several
important improvements that can be made to alleviate these concerns. The foremost is
safety. Parcel 58H currently takes its access off of Free Bridge Lane, which is entirely within
the floodplain. During flooding events, this property could be easily cut off. If the
development on Parcel 58G proceeds without establishing an alternative access to Route 20
for the uses on Parcel 58H, then this parcel will be inaccessible in such flooding: events.
In the reZoning application, the applicant suggested closure of access to Free Bridge Lane for
Parcel 58H, and instead, called for providing access through Parcel 58G to Route
20(AttaChment E). However, since staff has stated its opposition to this rezoning proposal
for use of Parcel 58H; the applicant has stated an unwillingness to abandon the vehicle access
to Free Bridge Lane and provide alternative access through Parcel 58G.
Closure of Parcel 58H's access to Free Bridge Lane and providing alternative access through
Parcel 58G would have additional benefits. It would provide for a unified, cohesive entrance
onto the public road system for the River s Edge Commercial Par . It could allow for
internal circulation throughout the Commercial Park. It would remove the sole access for a
parcel to Free Bridge Lane, thus furthering the possibilities for converting Free Bridge Lane
to an exclusive greenway trail (Attachment B). This, in turn, would allow for Free Bridge
Lane to be closed as a state road, thus removing VDOT's maintenance responsibilities for the
rroad after flood events. Finally, there is no cross-over at the Free Bridge Lane/Route 250
intersection. This means that, if the sole access to Parcel 58H for a commercial business is
Free Bridge Lane, the left turning movement out of Free Bridge Lane will have to cross a
busy, multilane highway to make a U-turn at the light on the City side of the bridge. This
may lead to a safety hazard.
Staff sees this rezoning as the best possibility for the County to' get the applicant to move the
access for this property, from Free Bridge Lane tO Route 20. We feel that the applicant
should provide the access via Route 20 whether the entire parcel or only a portion of it is
rezoned.
4. A sense of cormmunity should be maximized by providing connections between
developments; such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased
open space area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and
access to schools, parks, and other public facilities. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected
Streets and Transportation Networks)
The remarks in the previous comment speak directly to the intent of this criterion and the
benefits that can be realized through the provision of access to Parcel 58H through Parcel
58G. It should also be noted that Free Bridge Lane lies in a prescribed easement along Parcel
58H. It'would be desirable for the applicant to donate the land under Free Bridge Lane to the
County so that if the road is converted to a greenway trail and removed from the vehicular
use as a state road the County would have clear ownership of the land necessary to
accommodate the greenway.
It should be noted that the applicant has not fully developed the internal pedestrian between
Parcel 58H and Route 20 (Attachment E).
5. Provide for ultimate future transportation improvements and'new road locatiOns through the
reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner
consistent with planned transportation improvements, including auto, bus, bicycle, and
pedestrian modes (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation
Networks).
As mentioned above, if the applicant would abandon their access to Free Bridge Lane, it
would be desirable for them to also donate addition land to provide sufficient land for a
possible greenway.
6. Underground utilities should be provided in new developments.
As proposed, the utilities serving the building would not be affected. There are two power
transmission lines that traverse the property. The first is the large, high-voltage line. The
two developments will not affect this line. The second line is a smaller transmission line. It
is unclear whether or not the applicant will have to relocate an existing pole (See Attachment
D & E) to provide the driveway alignment proposed for Parcel 58H.
7. Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided.
It has not been determined if the additional parking for the commercial use would require a
water quality structure, but treating runoff for water quality can most likely be accomplished
relatively easily. Sinc~ site drains to the floodplain, detention of stormwater runoff for water
quantity is not required.
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)
. No new building is proposed with the rezoning of Parcel 58H. The existing building on
Parcel 58H is orientated towards Free Bridge Lane.
On Parcel 58G, the building orientation and site layout shows the contractor's office's
backside to the river (i.e., the storage facility's loading bays will face the fiver and be visible
from the greenway trail). The Neighborhood Three Study proposes that new "commercial
properties should consider opportunities for river oriented development...to encourage trail
users to come up to the shopping center and encourage shoppers to visit the river." The
contractor's office and storage complex are completely opposite of the stated goals from this
study. Staff is concerned that the development proposed for the sister property, Parcel 58H,
may be in a similar vein.
It is for this reason that staff would like more information on how the remainder of the two
parcels, including the upland portion of Parcel 58H, will be developed. More importantly,
staff would like to understand how the applicant's proposals would embrace and utilize the
river as a resource.
9. 14/here site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used.
The development will have to meet the requirements of the Ou. tdoor Lighting Ordinance
(4.17).
10~ Historic buildings should be adaptively reused.
(Redevelopment)
There are no buildings of historical importance on this site. Conversion of the house to an
office would represent an adaptive reuse. Whether or not structures in the floodplain should
be used more intensively is considered a different issue.
11. The phasing of developments should match service and infrastructure availability and
capacity.
Water and sewer service is available to serve this development.
12. Overall development density should be as high a level as is practical.
By-fight development potential of the property is very limited as is the development potential
of Parcel 58G because of the floodplain and powerlines. No residential units are proposed
with either the rezoning or the site plan for 58G. Rezoning of Parcel 58G would provide for
a higher intensity of development on Parcel 58G.
13. The integrity of adjacent residential areas should be maintained through use of buffering,
screening, and separation of adjacent non-residential uses.
The project does not propose to disturb the forested area between the property and the parcel
zoned residential to the north. The parcel to the north, TMP 78-58, is vacant and zoned R-l,
although, the Comprehensive Plan designates it as Urban Density (6 to 34 dwelling units).
The chances are reasonably good that a proposal for a high density, mixed-use development
will be'made for Parcel 58 in the future. The proposal to rezone Parcel 58H would be looked
upon more favorably if it was setting the stage to compliment the future development of this
neighboring parcel. The proposal for a real estate office adjoining Parcel 58 will not provide
a valuable amenity for Parcel 58's furore residential possibilities.
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).
Because the applicant has stated they only want to convert the existing building, it is not
known how or where other development could take place on the parcel. Staffnotes that, if
the rationale for rezoning Parcel 58H is to support development of 58G, it would be
appropriate that 58G meet the goals of the Land Use Plan. As currently designed, the
development on Parcel 58G is not in line with the concept proposed in the NeighborhOod
Model. It does not utilize the fiver as an asset. It does not create a sense of place by fronting
the buildings along Route 20 and regulating the parking internally. Finally, it treats Parcel
58H as an unwanted appendage by not integrating it into the development of Parcel 58G (i.e.,
there are no pedestrian or vehicUlar interconnections between the contractor's office/storage
facility and 58H (Attachment E)).
15. Provisions should be made for innovative design that reduces housing costs. (Affordability
with Dignity)
The project offers no residential component.
16. Lot design and residential layout should be based on a rational use of land that reflects
topographic and other physical features rather than massive grading to eliminate or
counteract those features. (Site Planning that Respects Terrain)
No changes to the grades of Parcel 58H are proposed; however, without additional
information on development plans, it is impossible to know how the applicant intends to use
the portion of the land outside of the floodplain.
As for the proposed office on Parcel 58H, the applicant has signaled that they will not n.eed to
fill the floodplain. However, no grading plan has been provided for the parking lot uphill
from the house (Attachment E). Thus, it remains uncertain that placement of the parking can
be accomplished without impacting the floodplain.
There is evidence that the designer has attempted to work with the terrain on Parcel 58G.
The loading bays for the storage area take advantage of the slope and are located, on a lower
level than the main door to the offices. This unfortunately also means that the bays are that.
much closer to the level of the proposed greenway trail.
Other Staff Comments
Analysis of the Rezoninfl
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
The CO district's intent is to permit development of administrative, business, and
professional offices. It is also intended as a transition between residential districts and other
more intensive commercial and industrial uses. The proposed office use meets the intent of
the CO district. Staff does not know of the use oft he remainder of the non-floodplain
property.
Public .need and justification for the change
Staff sees no public justification for the zoning change. The applicant has not provided any
indications on the concept plan or written comments that would:
· Prevent additional development in the floodplain;
- Remove access to Free Bridge Lane and provide access through Parcel 58G to Route 20;
· Re-establish the riparian buffer/vegetative screen between the development and the
greenway trail; or,
· Develop the two similar parcels in a unified manner consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Water and Sewer - Public utilitieS already exist either on-site or nearby and capacity is
sufficient. Extending service to the site is not a serious issue.
Roads - The applicant is not providing any offsite improvements associated with the
rezoning e f Parcel 58H. VDOT has suggested that the applicant dedicate 25 feet of right
of way from the centerline of Free Bridge Lane. Staff would like to see the applicant
proffer the dedication of this land to the County to'accommodate a greenway trail should
the road be converted to such use.
As part of Parcel 58G's development, the applicant is providing a sidewalk and lane
widening along Route 20 which Will help alleviate both traffic problems and facilitate
pedestrian movement between the Pantops Shopping Area and the FontanaJ Wilton
Farms area. While this development will add to traffic issues at the Route 20/250
intersection, the sidewalks and lane widening will help offset those impacts.
Stormwater management - As mentioned above, the project site appears capable of
handling stormwater management issues.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources
No impact is expected on natural, cultural or historic resources.
.Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
As currently proposed, the layout and design of the Projects on Parcels 58G and 58H will not
aesthetically or functionally complement the adjoining commercial developments to the
south.' However, they should not have a direct negative impact on the functionality of
adjoining properties either. Still, staff remains concerned that the layout and proposed uses
on Parcel 58G and 58H do not take full advantage of the possibilities that the Rivanna River
could provide and may negatively' impact any future greenway trail.
As mentioned abovel the development of Parcels 58G and 58H do not lay the groundwork for
the possible residential development that will occur on Parcel 58 to the north.
Fiscal impact to public facilities
A fiscal impact analysis is provided as Attachment G.
SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to rezone Parcel 58H from R-1 to CO in order to convert a residence
into a small office and remove the buffer requirement between commercially and residentially
zoned parcels. This rezoning will then facilitate the appro-Cal of a contractor's office and storage
facility on the adjacent parcel, Parcel 58G. Staff takes the position that any intensification ora
grandfathered use in the floodplain is tantamount to approval or recognition that this use is
suitable in the floodplain. For this reason, staffcannot support a rezoning of any portion of the'
floodplain unless the use has some relation suitable to the floodplain or the river.
The staff could support rezoning the upland portion of the parcel (i.e., the portion outside of the
floodplain). However, staff feels that the applicant must further define their intent with this
upland portion and better utilize the Rivanna River and Parcel 58G in order to gain our support.
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request:
1. The Comprehensive Plan calls for uses compatible with the Regional Service designation
on this parcel. Profession office uses are compatible with the Regional Service
designation.
2. The neighboring parcel (Parcel 58G) is zoned commercial and extending the commercial
designation across the upland portion of Parcel 58H would allow for a unified
development on the two parcels.
3. If approved as presented by the applicant, it is possible that the applicant would provide
access for Parcel 5.8H through Parcel 58G and closing off access to Free Bridge Lane.
This closure would remove a major obstacle to the abandonment of Free Bridge Lane and
would greatly facilitate the creation of a greenway trail along this portion of the Rivanna
River.
Staffhas identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request:
1. A majority of the parcel, including the sole structure and proposed parking area, are
within the floodplain. Permitting the intensification of any use in the floodplain runs
counter to the intent of the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
9
2. No information on the development of the non-floodplain area is provided for Parcel
58H.
3. No written commitments are made concerning the use or possible future expansion of the
structure on Parcel 58H.
4. There is not sufficient information aboutthe parking lot construction to recommend
approval of this use in the floodplain.
5. .Although only a small portion of the parcel is developable by-right, the proposal does not
integrate well with the proposed development on Parcel 58G and Parcel 58.'
6. Moving the CO boundary to provide roi: greater developability of Parcel 58G does not
advance the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The development does not incorporate the Rivanna River as an element of the site.
Instead, it turns away fi:om the river.
8. The development of the two parcels (58G and 58H) is not in keeping with the concepts of
good site design put forth by the Neighborhood Model.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff cannot recommend approval of the rezoning at this time.
Staff believes a rezoning could be supported for the portion of the property not in the floodplain,
with the following' commitments:
1. A plan of development with the non-floodplain portion of the property integrated into
an overall development scheme for two parcels.
2. Assurances that there will no expansion of the existing single family home and
limitation of any future use of the existing home to residential uses only.
3. Any parking provided will be outside of the floodplain.
4. Provision of access through Parcel 58G for all uses on Parcel 58H.
5. Close off all vehicular access to Free Bridge Lane.
6. Re-establish the riparian buffer to meet the requirements of the Water Protection
Ordinance and provide screening between the proposed office uses and the greenway
trail.
Attachments:
A - Vicinity/Tax Map
B - Enlarged Tax Map showing Greenway Trail
C - Site Plan for Parcel 58G with Parcel 58H included
D - Enlarged site plan showing 20-foot undisturbed buffer
E - Proposed access and parking for office.
F - Flood elevation certificate.
10
7"'/'
-\
ATTACHMENT A
zoP
i
5O
49
SECTION 7'8
11
ATTACHMENT B
58
58G
5&
r
6
!
!
15 i ;
~.TTACHMENT B
K
\
R~V,4NNA RlIrgR
gloor: 6. ooo
............. (T~.
~,.Tower /
.gENCHUARK: "
Ele',=361.28 (~..~) '
ATTACHMENT C
30 0 30 80 go
gellc~
2':5'R
';.
'} 2.5'R
L BENCHMARK: \
\ .,~pp
"X' In co~crete bese/L
Ele~=361.28 ~,
x £~57.s] .. '"
/
\., /"..,,
/\
/ \
\
\
\
I
!
/
/
/
/
!
/
\
\
J
ATTACHMENT D
.. ..~,,:.,.~.7%~.... .~,......% ....
· . ..'. '..';.L/':,",~., .':' ,~';2. ::~ ":',~.'....~. .......
'- .... '~; .' ,.'~c~:';~,'4'. .';'* '-~:~: -'
· .., .;e-k-.~ ~-Z.~ .~ .,~
'*' (::".j"..~ "'.~ "v' "'.'~;,: ',Z.~.;"'
\
\
\
/
/
\
.... x . / . " "~
:.. I ..... / \ :
· .. '~ / \ :
/
· -,. ... .. \:.,
.. " "" ' ~4
ATTACHMENT E
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT G
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Michael Barnes, Planner
:Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner
July 10, 2001
ZMA 01-09 (River's Edge)
I analyzed two separate scenariOs for the properties in question. Normally, the fiscal impact analyses
that I perform involve estimating the costs and revenues associated with new development only. In
the present case, however, I have to take into account the existing SFD, since that structure would
not remain under the proposed scenario. The first scenario that I analyzed involved the maximum'
build-out that could take place under current zoning while the second scenario involved the build-out
that would eXist if the County approved the proposed zoning changes for the properties. The results
of these two analyses appear in the attached "Budget Summary: Current Zoning" and "Budget
Summary: Proposed Zoning" documents.
In the case of the first scenario, I assumed thattwo single family detached residences (SFD's) would
exist by 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 $2,000
Other Revenues 5,000
Total Revenues $7,000
School Expenditures
County Govt. Expenditures
($4,000)
(2,000)
Total Expenditures
($6,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact $1,000
17
ZMA 01-09
July 10, 2001
Page Three
CIP Impact -- Current Zoning
Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0)
Schools CF Debt Service ($0)
Total Schools CIP Impact ($0)
County CF pay-As-You-Go ($0)
County CF Debt Service ($0)
Total Cry. Govt. CIP Impact ($0)
Net Annual CIP Impact ($0)
The second scenario that I ran involved the proposed redevelopment of the property's existing SFD
into 1,200 square feet of taxable office space. 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 $1,000
Other Revenues 4,000
Total Revenues $5,000
School Expenditures
County Govt. Expenditures
($2,000)
($1,ooo)
Total Expenditures
($3,ooo)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($2,000)
19
0£; I
ATTACHMENT E
Post Office Box 7603
Charlottesville, VA 22906
June 29, 2001
RIVANNA ENGINEERING
SURVEYING, PLC
ATTACHMENT F
(F) 434.984.8863
RESI@cstone.net
Michael Barnes
Planner
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road. Room 218
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA 01-09 Rivers Edge Commercial Park
Dear Michael:
This is in response to your request for the finished floor elevation of the existing house
on parcel 58H.
The benchmark on the base of the transmission tower was used to determine a finished
floor elevation of 341.08.
The FIRM 510006 0240 B was used to interpolate a 100-year flood' elevation of 340.8 for
this location.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
·
Timothy Miller. P.E., P.L.S.
President
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTACHMENT G
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Michael Barnes; Planner
Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner
July 10, 2001
ZMA 01-09 (River's Edge)
I analyzed two separate scenarios for the properties in question. Normally, the fiscal impact analyses
that I perform involve estimating the costs and revenues associated with new development only. In
the present case, however, I have to take into account the existing SFD, since that structure would
not remain under the proposed scenario. The first.scenario that I analyzed involved the maximum-
build-out that could take place under current zoning, while the second scenario involved the build-out
that would exist if the County approved the proposed zoning changes for the properties. The results
of these two analyses appear in the attached "Budget Summary: Current Zoning" and "Budget
Summary: Proposed Zoning" documents.
In the case of the first scenario, I assumed that'two single family detached residences (SFD's) would
exist by 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 $2,000
Other Revenues 5,000
Total Revenues $7,000
School Expenditures
County Govt. Expenditures
($4,000)
(2,000)
Total Expenditures
($6,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact $1,000
17
ZMA 01-09
July 10, 2001
Page Two
Note that this net annual impact of positive $1,000 is somewhat problematic. As a rule, SFD's
generally do not pay for themselves, much less generate a positive net annual fiscal impact. Note,
however, that CRIM rounds dollar figures to the nearest $1,000. This fact helps explain the
discrepancy, but a second quirk in CRIM also contributes to the odd result obtained in this analysis.
The second quirk involves the way that CRIM analyzes very small numbers of residential units and/or
square feet of non-residential development. CRIM assumes, for example, that an SFD will result in
an increase of 0.47 students in the County's public schools. The model proceeds to estimate school-
related costs and revenues according to this fractional figure. In the real word, of course, new
residents of Albemarle County generally do not hack their children into bits and pieces and keep only
the best parts. One SFD, in other words, should generate a non-negative whole number of new
students. To see the difference the use of a fractional number would make in estimating costs and
revenues, suppose, hypothetically, that one student costs the County $5,000 in expenditures, but
takes in $1,000 in state and federal aid. This situation would mean a net cost to Albemarle of $5,000
- $1,000 = $4,000 per student. Now, according to CRIM, one SFD renders 0.47 students, so the _.n.et
school costper SFD would be only (0.47)($5,000) - (0.47)($1,000) = $2,350- $470 = $1,880. Tins
latter figure is $2,120 less than the net cost of a whole student. Assuming that non-school costs and
revenues remain consistent, regardless of whether a fractional or whole student is used in estimating
school-related costs and revenues, this $2,120 difference can generate a positive net annual fiscal
impact estimate when, in fact, the net annual fiscal impact might be zero or even negative.
in the case of River's Edge, and in the case of other projects involving only modest development,
CRIM's generation of estimates based on fractional numbers, and the model' s rounding numbers to
the nearest thousand dollars, can render improbable results. As a general nde, CRIM's cost and
revenue estimates are more accurate in scenarios involving large numbers of residential
dwelling units and/or non-residential development than in scenarios involving only small
numbers of units or square feet.
FOr the purposes of this memo, I have taken CKIM's estimates at face value. In terms of the annual
impact that the development that one SFD would have on the County's capital costs, CKIM estimates
a zero dollar value, as shown on the next page.
ZMA 01-09
July 10, 2001
Page Three
CIP Impact -- Current Zoning
Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go
Schools CF Debt Service
Total Schools CIP Impact
County CF Pay-As-You-Go
County CF Debt Service
Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact
Net Annual CIP Impact
($o)
($o)
($o)
($o)
($o)
($o)
The second scenario that I ran involved the proposed redevelopment of the property's existing SFD
into 1,200 square feet of taxable office space. I assumed the development would be completed in one
year. CRIM estimates that, at~er build-out, this project would have the following net annual fiscal
impact:
Fiscal Impact -- Proposed Zoning
Property Taxes
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
School Expenditures
County Govt. Expenditures
Total Expenditures
Net Annual Fiscal Impact
$1,000
4,000
$5,000
($2,000)
($1,ooo)
($3,000)
($2,ooo)
19
ZMA 01-09
July 10, 2001
Page Four
As for the impact of this proposed development on the County of Albemarle's capital costs, CK1M
estimated the following outcome:
CIP Impact - Proposed Zoning
Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0)
Schools CF Debt Service ($0)
Total Schools CIP Impact ($0)
County CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0)
County CF Debt Service ($0)
Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact ($0)
Net Annual CIP Impact {$0)
Note that if the County denied ZMA 01-09, Albemarle could end up with two SFD's on the property.
If, on the other hand, the County approved ZMA 01-09, Albemarle would end up with 1,200 square
feet of taxable office space, but the existing SFD would no longer exist. For this particular site, in
other words, the net annual fiscal impact generated under existing zoning would be $1,000, while the
net annual fiscal impact resulting from the proposed zoning would be $2,000. The differential net
annual fiscal impact, in other words, would be $2,000 - $1,000 = $1,000. This number means
that, annually, the County would be $1,000 better off approving ZMA 01-09 than denying the
amendment. Note, however, that, because of the rounding and fractional estimate quirks that I
mentioned previously, this $1,000 differential should not be taken too seriously. The differential, in
fact, is probably negligible.
Note also, that, although CRIM's analysis suggests that approval of ZMA 01-09 would result in a
net annual fiscal benefit to the County, this fact alone.does not necessarily mean that ZMA 01-09
should be approved. When deciding whether or not to approve a site plan or zoning change, the
County of Albemarle takes into consideration a number of issues other than just a project's fiscal
impact. These issues include, but are not necessarily limited to, transportation impacts and
environmental well-being.
SAMsaa
-)
Budget Summary -- Current Zoning
Year => 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Values in $000%) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
REVENIIES
PROP Residential Real $2 $2 $2 $2. $2 $2 $2
TAXES Nonresidential Real $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Res Personal Prop $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nonres Personal Prop $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other (Agricultural) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal: Property Taxes $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2
OTHER 1 Public Service Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2 Pers Prop Tax*Resid $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
3 Pers Prop Tax. Nonres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
4 Mach& Tools Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5 Sales & Use Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6 Cons Util Tax. Resia $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
7 Cons Util Tax-Nonres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
8 BPOL Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
9 Util Co Licenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
10 Motor Vehicle Licenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
11 Permits & Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12 Fines & Forfeitures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
13 Charges for Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
14 State Aid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
15 Categorical Aid. Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
17 Delinc uent RE/Pealties $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
18 State Aid to Schools $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2
19 Meals Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
20 ANNUAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
21 SF Detached $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
22 SF Attached/TH $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
23 Multifamily $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
24 Mobile Homes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
8
2008
$2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
$0
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal: Other Revenues
Average Costs
9
2009
$2
$O
$O
$O
$0
$2
$0
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$O
$0
$O
$O
$0
$O
$O
$0
$0
$0
$2
$0
$0
$O
$0
$O
$0
IO
2OlO
$2
$o
$o
$o
$o
$2
$o
$1
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$2
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5
TOTAL ADDITIONALANNUAL REVENUES: $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7
EXPENSES
SCHOOLS
Operating Costs $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4
StaffCosts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CF Pay-As. You. Go $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CF DebtService $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SUBTOTAL. SCHOOLS $5 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4
COUNTY GOVT
Operating Costs $1 $1 $I $1 $1 $1 $1 $I $1
Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CF Pay. As.You. Go $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CF DebtServlce $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $0
SUBTOTAL. COUNTY $3 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2
IOTALADDITIONALANNUAL COSTS: $8 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6
$1 , $1
$1
$6
$7 -- $8
NET FISCAL IMPACT
Annual
Cumulative
$1
$1o
($13 $1 $1 $1 $1
($1) $0 $2 $3 $4
$1
$o
$o
$o
$2
$6
$1
WK4
CRIM Proprietary Sol,are 07/12/2001
07/12/200110:01 AM
Page 1
Budget Summary .- Proposed Zoning
(Values in $O00's)
R EVE NI.:IE S
PROP
TAXES
Subtotal:
OTHER
Year =>
2000
1
2001
2
2002
3
2003
4
2004
5
2005
6
2006
7
2007
Average Costs
8 9 '10
2008 2009 2010
Residential Real $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
Nonresidential Real $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0
Res Personal Prop $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nonres Personal Prop $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0
Other (Agricultural) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$1
$1
$1
Property Taxes
1 Public Service Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2 Pers Prop Tax. Resid $1 $t $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
3 Pers Prop Tax-Nonres $1 $1 $1 91 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
4 Mach& Tools Tax $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0 90 $0 $0 $0
5 Sa es & Use Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6 Cons Util Tax. Resid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
7 Cons Util Tax-Nonres $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
8 BPOL Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0
9 Util Co Licenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
10 Motor Vehicle Licenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
11 Permits & Fees $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0 90 $0 $0 $0
12 Fines & Forfeitures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $0 90 $0 $0
13 Charges for Services $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
14 State Aid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
15 Categorical Aid - Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
17 Delinquent RE/Pealties $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 90 -$0 $0
18 State Aid to Schools $1 $1 $1 $1 $], $! $1 $1 $1 $1
19 Meals Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0-~
20 ANNUAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
21 SF Detached $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0 $0 $0
22 SF At[ached/TH $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
23 Multifamily $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
24 Mobile Homes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal: Other Revenues
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REVENUES:
EXPENSES
SCHOOLS
Operating Costs
Staff Costs
OF Pay-As. You. Go
CF Debt Service
SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS
$4 $4 $4 $4 $4 94 $4 $4
COUNTY GOVT.
Operatin8 Costs
Staff Costs
CF Pay. As-You. Go
CF Debt Service
SUBTOTAL, COUNTY
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS:
$4
NET FISCAL IMPACT
Annual
Cumulative
$6
$2
$0
$0
$0
$2
$1
$1
$2
$o
94
$5
$4
$5
$2
$0
$0
$0
$2
$5
$2
$o
$o
$o
$2
$5
92
90
$0
$0
92
$5 $5 $5 $5 $5
$2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$0 $0 90 $0 90
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$5
$2
9o
9o
9o
92
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2 $2 __.~2 $2 $2 $? _ga 92 .$2
$3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3
$2 $2
$0 $2
$0
$2 $5 $7
$2 $2 $2 $2
$9 $11 $13 $I5
CRtM Proprieta~ )ftware 07/10/2001
$2 ' $~
$17 $20
07/10/200110:3~7_
Page I
Location Public Hearing
Meadow Creek Parkway-
Route 63!
Albemarle County
(Project Number Project: 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657)
Date:
Time:
Location:
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Room 241, County Office Building,
401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
1. What effect will the proposed improvement have on your everyday travel?
2. What traffic problems do you feel could be solved with this project? __
3. Which of the proposed alternatives do you favor? A
4. Please provil;l~us with any additional information thatj/otl,feel would assist in the comoletion of this
project? _L ,~:}-,A4 ,-J~07.~ ,~/~.~,t
5. How did you hear about this meeting?
Newspaper ~" Direct Mail Other
6. Were County and VDOT representatives able to answer YOUR questions?
you offered further assistance?
· If not, were
Please leave this comment sheet at the designated location or mail WITHIN 10 DAYS to the address at
the top of this page.
Date:
Time:
Location:
Location Public Hearing
Meadow Creek Parkway-
Route 631
Albemarle County
(Project Number Project: 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657)
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Room 241, County Office Building,
401 Mclnfire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
NAME:
1. What effect will the proposed improvement have on your everyday travel?
2. What traffic problems do you feel could be solved with this project? -f~6'~/~--
3. Which of the proposed alternatives do you favor? A
4. Please progide us w~th any addiIional informati~on that you feel would assist in the completion of this
5. How did you hear about this meeting?
Newspaper Direct Mail
6. Were County and VDOT representatives able to answer YOUR questions? ./V' 0f~
you offered further assistance? A/O 0P--
· If not, were
Please leave this comment sheet at the designated location or mail WITHIN 10 DAYS to the address at
the top of this page.
~ ssmpp~ aq~ o~ SA~V(I OI NIII, I,IA& Lmm :to uoB~oo
oJ~a 'loujI -
/,ootrels.tss~ :toqlanj pmojjo no,(
gsuo.qsonb ~IFIOA :to~stre ol olq~ so,x.tl~luoso.tdoa &OGA puu Klunoo o.tOA5 '9
[.miA! loo:t.t6 ~ ~oduds~xoN
/,~u.tloom s.tq:t lnoq~ :moq noX p!p ~xoH
'1~
V g~o,x~j noK op soa!luuaoliu posodoad oqljo qo.tqA~
~ f~f /&ao.fo~d s.rq:l ~:l.r~ po~_[os oq plnoa iooj noXl op smo[qo.td m. jjml l~qA~ 'g
/pj~c~_!5)/ LIO~tml X~pdao~to .mo.g uo o,xmI luomo,xo.tdttr[, posodo~d oti1 [[.t~a loojj, lmlRi ' !
i[06~5 VA 'oI[.UtsolloFreqD 'puokI m.rlUlOlAI 10t~
'~u.tpl.ml~t oat. JJO KmnoD ' 117i~ moo~t
· m'd 00:L
100~ 'i[I xoqtttold*s '~gpsoupoAt~
:uoB~,ol
:om[&
(Lg91t '~I9t~I 'i[0gD '8~I-i~00- [ £90 :loo.fo&I xoqmnN
/qunoD @IJeLu@qiv
'[£9 @:jno~l
- AeM)lJed )l@@J3 MopeoIN
6u!jeOH ::)!lqnd uol:je3o-!
Date:
Time:
Location:
Location Public Hearing
Meadow Creek Parkway-
Route 63:[
Albemarle County
(Project Number Project: 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657)
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Room 241, County Office Building,
401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
ADD.SS: ~ / 7 fl,4//12 A
1. What effect will the proposed improvement have on your everyday travel?
2. What traffic problems do you feel cOuld be solved with this project? ~ h
3. Which of the proposed alternatives do you favor? A
Why?
5. How did you hear about this meeting?
Newspaper Direct Mail
4. Please provide us with any additional information that you feel would assist in the completion of this
project?
Other
Were County and VDOT representatives able to answer YOUR questions?
you offered further assistance?
· If not, were
Please leave this comment sheet at the designated location or mail WITHIN 10 DAYS to the address at
the top of this page.
~u sso:tppu oq~ o3 SXVO 0[ hllI-I&IA~ I.mm ~o uo.tluoo[ po~uu$.tsop oq~ ~ ~ooqs 3uommoo s.tq~ oauoI osUOIcI
oao~a '~ou JI' ~
/,ootreas!ssu soqlanj po.to$$o noA
6suo.qsonb ~I/IOX .to,sug o~ o[qe so,x.t~u~uoso.tdm ~LO(IA puu KlunoD moAk '9
[mlAI looat(I //~ aoduds~oN
/,~u¢oom Sitll lnoqt~ auoq no,~ p!p ~OH '~
s.rqlj6 uo.~loldmoo oql u.~ ls!ssu pino,,~ IOOj no,q luql uo~ttuoju.t IUUO.rl.tppu .~uu tll.~,,a sn op.hxo~a osuoI8
'~t' /A V/,ao~uj no,( op so,~.~lumolIu posodo.td oql jo qo.ttlAk
Lloofo~d s.tql tll!ax paalOS oq plnoo IOOJ no,( op smolqo~d o~jux~ lutlA~
:moa uo o,xt, q luomo,xo~dm.r posodo:~d oql II[ax loojjo lmlAk ' I
:SSgg(IGV
:5tlAIVN
i506~i5 VA 'OlI['~soll°lx~qD 'puo~I oz!lUlOg[ 10~,
'~u.tp[.m[t oa~jO &unoD 'It, i/moo~I
'm'd 00:L
[00i5 'gI ~oqmold°s 'XupsoupoA~
:uo.tluoo'I
:om?&
(Lg9 {t 'i519 {t 'i5053 '8~5 I-~00- I g90 aaa.fO:roi xoqmnN loo.fo:rd)
/qunoD @laeuJ@qlV
1:£9 olno~l
- ABM>IJBd )JOOaD Mope@IN
fiu!ae@H 3!!qnd uol:je3o-I
Location Public Hearing
Meadow Creek Parkway-
Route 631
Albemarle County
(Project Number Project: 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657)
Date:
Time:
Location:
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Room 241, County Office Building,
401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
1. What effect will the proposed improvement have on your everyday travel?
2. What traffic problems do you feel could be solved with this project?
/
3. Which of the proposed alternatives do you favor? A %/ , B ,
4. Please provide us with any additional informatiori that you l~ei would asmst ~n me compteuon oftlus
project?
5. How did you hear about this meeting?
Newspaper Direct Mail Other
6. Were County and VDOT representatives able to answer YOUR questions?
you offered further assistance?
· If not, were
Please leave this comment sheet at the designated location or mail WITHIN 10 DAYS to the address at
the top of this page.
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
NAME (Please print clearly)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)
~,o¥) ~ ~- xz ~ ~. ,4. ~. ,4. ~ .
Dunlora Community Association, Inc.
Post Office Box 5689
Charlottesville VA 22905-5689
Telephone 804-295-$781 Facsimile 804-295-1835
September 21, 2001
Board of Supervisors, County of Albemarle
Albemarle County Office Building
Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Meadowcreek Parkway
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter constitutes the post-hearing comments submitted on behalf of the Dunlora Community
Association (DCA) with regard to the matters discussed at the recent public hearing held before
you on September 12, 2001 concerning the location of the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway.
On behalf of the DCA, I wish to make the following points:
We strongly prefer the "Alternate A" route as set forth in the report of Messrs. Jones & Jones
over the "Alternate B" route.
We believe that the lands which will abut the parkway should be preserved as open space, with
the addition of walking trails and bike paths that are designed in such a way as to be accessible
by Dunlora residents. We therefore strongly urge that all ~ofthe property related to the execution
of the project, over and above what is actually needed for the roadway itself, be maintained as
open space and parkland. Further development of lands adjacent to the Parkway should not be
undertaken. The Parkway should be built through a Park not a subdivision or shopping area!
We are particularly concerned, given the recent approval of the new connector to run from Rio
Road to Free State Road in the vicinity of the existing railroad tracks, that the interface between
the,connector and the parkway be designed in such a manner that it will not act as a funnel
conducting traffic to the vicinity of the entrance to Dunlora or to the Dunlora roadway network.
09-24-01
Dunlora Community Association, Inc.
September 21,2001
Page 2
Additionally, we are concerned that the existing right-of-way of Rio Road as it passes in front of
Dunlora will be reconfigured in conjunction with the creation of a roadway connection between
Dunlom Drive and the parkway so that there will be no "double intersection" and that traffic flow
on Rio Road past the Dunlora entrance as an alternate ~to flows along the parkway will not be
permitted.
I. thank you for your kind attention and assure you of our continued interest in this matter.
Very truly yours,
By:
John Springett,
President
Location Public Hearing
Meadow Creek Parkway-
Route 631
Albemarle County
(Project Number Project: 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657)
Date:
Time:
Location:
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Room 241, County Office Building,
401 Mclntire Road, CharlotteSville, VA 22902
1. What effect will the proposed improvement have on your everyday travel? /~//(
2. What traffic problems do you feel could be solved with this project?
3. Which of the proposed alternatives do you favor? A
Why?
4. Please prop/de us with any additional information that you feel would assist in the completion of this
project?
5. How did you hear about this meeting? Od~O~~, ~P~.~e //~., ,
Newspaper DirectMail Other (~(/~//~/ /~/(~/_ ~ /_~gO~/]
6. Were County and VDOT representatives able to answer YOUR questions?
you offered further assistance?
. If not, were
Please leave this comment sheet at the designated location or mail WITItlN 10 DAYS to the address at
the top of this page.
Location Public Hearing
Meadow Creek Parkway-
Route 631
Albemarle County
(Project Number Project: 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657)
Date:
Time:
Location:
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Room 241, County Office Building,
401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
1. What effect will the proposed improvement have on your everyday travel? f0~j./~¢ _/~_~
2. What traffic problems do you feel could be solved with this project? ~JT~:
3. Which of the proposed alternatives do you favor? A
Why? ~P/a ~/~ £tn/~'~
,B ,
project?
5. How did you hear about this meeting?
Newspaper f Direct Mail
Please provide us with any additional information that you feel would assist in the completion of this
Other
6. Were County and VDOT representatives able to answer YOUR questions?
you offered further assistance?
· If not, were
Please leave this comment sheet at the designated location or mail WITHIN 10 DAYS to the address at
the top of this page.
Location Public Hearing
Meadow Creek Parkway-
Route 631
Albemarle County
(Project Number Project: 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657)
Date:
Time:
Location:
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Room 241, County Office Building,
401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
1. What effect will the proposed improvement have on your everyday travel?
2. What traffic problems do you feel could be solved with this project? __
3. Which of the proposed alternatives do you favor? A ~ , B ,
4. Please provi~us with any additional information that,lrott.geel would assist in the completion of this
5. How did you he~ about this meeting?
Newspaper ~ Direct Mail O~ ~
6. Were County and VDOT representatives able to answer YOUR questions?
you offered further assistance?
· If not, were
Please leave this comment sheet at the designated location or mail WITHIN 10 DAYS to the address at
the top of this page.
Location Public Hearing
IVleadow Creek Parkway-
Route 631
Albemarle County
(Project Number Project: 0631.002-128, C502, B612, B657)
Date:
Time:
Location:
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Room 241, County Office Building,
401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
1. What effect will the proposed improvement have on your everyday travel?
2. What traffic problems do you feel could be solved with this project?
3. Which of the proposed alternatives do you favor? A__
4. Please pro)~de us v~ith any add~.t, ion~al ~nformation that you feel would assist in the completion of this
project? )~0/A] 6~- ~ ~7~///J~-~ 7~ 7P~
5. How did you hear about this meeting?
Newspaper Direct Mail
Other fi C ~ O ~L
6. Were County and VDOT representatives able to answer YOUR questions?
you offered further assistance? /Vt9 De--
· If not, were
Please leave this comment sheet at the designated location or mail WITHIN 10 DAYS to the address at
the top of this page. (~)~_~6_.X/ [,
Location Public Hearing
Meadow Creek Parkway-
Route 631
Albemarle County
(Project Number Project: 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657)
Date:
Time:
Location:
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Room 241, County Office Building,
401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
1. What effect will the proposed improvement have on your everyday travel?
2. What traffic problems do you feel could be solved with this project?
3. Which of the proposed alternatives do you favor? A Mt' , B ,
4. Please provide us with any additional information that you feel would assist in the completion 9fthis
project? ]~ o_~P-~ c,C/~, .'~ q ~ o~ ~~,~.> ~'
5. How did you.hear about this meeting?
Newspaper ~ Direct Mail
Other
6. Were County and VDOT representatives able to answer YOUR questions?
you offered further assistance?
. If not, were
Please leave this comment sheet at the designated location or mail WITHIN 10 DAYS to the address at
the top of this page.
Location Public Hearing
IVleadow Creek Parkway-
Route 631
Albemarle County
(Project Number Project: 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657)
Date:
Time:
Location:
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Room 241, County Office Building,
401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
ADDRESS: ~z~ g I°la~; tv~q'[.~ ~f. .,, O_..k,*,./,~ ~o-v~{(4.. l/,,q'- 2. zcto Z-~":~[
1. What effect will the proposed improvement have on your everyday travel? ~ ~ P ~,
2. What traffic problems do you feel could be solved with this project?
3. Which of the proposed alternatives do you favor? A q~/t , B ,
~.~ ~x~, _~_~~~ a~~~... "~'~~'~om~,: ....
4. Please provide us with any addifionat information ~nat you ~eei woum asses p euon of this
project?
5. How did you hear about this meeting?
Newspaper Direct Mail Other v/
6. Were County and VDOT representatives able to answer YOUR questions?
you offered further assistance?
. If not, were
Please leave this comment sheet at the designated location or mail WITHIN 10 DAYS to the address at
the top of this page.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DAVID BENISH
AUGUST 15, 2001
SEPTEMBER 12,2001
COMPREFIENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 2001-06)~ MEADOW CREEK
PARKWAY TEXT AND MAP AMF~NDMENT, AND LOCATION PUBLIC HEARING
FOR PARKWAY ALIGNMENT
PURPOSE:
The Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to consider an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Meadow Creek Parkway.Final Report, dated May 2001,
developed by Jones and Jones consultants. The Planning Comm~smon reviewed and
unanimously recommended approval of the proposed COmprehensive Plan text and map
amendments at their meeting on August 15,200I.
This public hearing is to receive comment on the final report and the proposed text and map
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the study into the Plan. It is also to receive
public comment specific to the proposed parkway alignment location. Public comments
regarding the road location will be forwarded to VDOT for further consideration. The
recommendations of the final report are included as Attachment A, and the proposed text and
map amendments are provided as Attachments B and C, respectively. A- full copy of the final
report has also been provided to Commission and Board members.
BACKGROUND:
In October 2000, the consultant began evaluating the proposed VDOT alignment for the Meadow
Creek Parkway. The purpose of the study was to develop design recommendations for a two-
lane parkway, an adjacent park and urban development areas along a corridor of land between
the railroad bridge on Rio Road and Melbourne Road. The study establishes a design of the road
consistent with characteristics established for the City portion of the project and consistent with
the County's Neighborhood Model, as well as acceptable AASHTO and VDOT standards. The
study establishes a proposed alignment for a two-lane road that would allow for expansion to a
four-lane divided road, if necessary, and incorporates a linear park and land use/development
recommendations for undeveloped areas adjacent to the proposed alignment.
The consultants and staff have involved the Meadow Creek Parkway Design Committee,
Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors, through work sessions during the study
process, to provide information and receive comment regarding the development of the study
recommendations. These recommendations are focused into four areas: the Parkway Concept,
including preferred location/alignment (Attachment A, p.p. 16,17); Urban Development
Concept (p.p. 18-19); Park Concept (p.p. 20-21); and, Corridor Land Use Concept (page 22).
09-06-0~ P02:4.1 ~N
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT:
Four text amendments are proposed tO Comprehensive Plan. In the Neighborhood Two
Profile, page 47, the "Transportation improvements" recommendation regarding Meadow
Creek is proposed to be modified as follows (with new text language in italics):
Development of the Meadow Creek Parkway linking Hollymead with Mclntire Road
in the City. Phase I of the Parkway in the County, from Melbourne Road to the
railroad bridge on Rio Road, should be developed in a manner consistent with the
Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001, by Jones and Jones. In the
planning and development of Phase II of the Parkway, consideration should be given
to continuing design concepts of Phase I, including a parkway design with
landscaping, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and linear park features. W4den--Rio
._,1: .......**.~ ~..~.~ ........ ~.~ ..:1.^.,1 +.~,.1~. Reserve usable right-of-way for the
location of the Meadow Creek Parkway in areas of new development. With final
alignment determination, reserve right-of-way in all areas. Direct access to the
~ Parkway north of Rio Road and south of the South Fork Rivanna
River (Phase II) from adjacent areas may be permitted at one location (one
intermediate, access poinO.
Also included as an amendment to the Neighborhood Two Profile (page 47) is a new
recommendation specifically noting the land use and park recommendations of the
Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report. This recommendation states:
Consider the land use and park/open space recommendations of the Meadow Creek
Parkway Final Report, May 2001, by Jones and Jones, for the areas adjacent to or
near the Meadow Creek Parkway/Rio Road corridor.
The third amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is in the Transportation section, page
175. This amendment revises the current description of the Meadow Creek ParkWay.
The proposed amended language reads as follows:
The Meadow Creek Parkway, from the intersection of Mclntire Road and the
Route 250 Bypass in the City of Charlottesville to Route 29 North in Holtymead
will provide a north-south road connecting.the Hollymead Community, Urban
Area and City and will provide an essential alternative north-south road to Route
29 needed to accommodate anticipated traffic. ,r~.: .... :~, ...;11 .... ,4.1 ,1
!'
concept. The parkway is anticipated to carry up to 24, 000 vehicles trips per day
n eyear 2015. c ..... ~ ..... , .................... .~ .............. .~
The Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001, by Jones and Jones
consultants, establishes an alignment location and design standards for the
development of the of Phase I of the Parkway in the County, from Melbourne
Road to the railroad bridge on Rio Road. This report can be found under
2
separate cover. In summary, the study calls for a two-lane road constructed on.
sufficient right-of-way to allow for its upgrade to a four-lane road, if necessary.
The proposed design calls for [t parkway concept, which includes pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, landscaping and an adjacent linear park. The linear park will
provide an open space and recreational benefit to the community and will serve to
connect to McIntire Park, Greenbrier Park, the City/County greenway along
Meadow Creek, and, with additional linkages, Pen Park, Charlottesville High
School, CATEC and Charlottesville Catholic School. The proposed road
alignment and design in the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report are consistknt
with the alignment and design for the City portion of the road.
The second phase of the.project, from Rio Road to Route 29 in Hollymead, should
continue the parkway design concepts of phase I, including 'road corridor
landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and linear park/open areas to the
extent feasible. Phase II is intended to be designed to have three intermediate
points of access; one between Rio Road and The Rivanna River and two between
the River and Route 29 (at Route 643 and for undeveloped land between Route
643 and Route 29).
The fourth amendment is to the recommendation regarding the parkway on page 175,
which will be modified as follows:
Develop the Meadow Creek Parkway and Route 29 (Western) Bypass with a parkway
design. Location and design of the Meadow Creek Parkway shall be consistent with
the recommendations of the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001.
The Land Use Map for Neighborhood Two will be amended to reflect the proposed
alignment for Phase I of the Parkway and better reflect the adjacent park/open space areas
(Attachment C).
RECOMMENDATION: -
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text and map amendments incorporating the
Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001, and recommends approval of the
road alignment location as proposed in this report.
ATTACHMENT A
FI NA L
REPORT ·
MAY 2001
4
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Beginning in 1967, the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) proposed the development of a new north-south
arterial at the northeast edge of Charlottesville, initially
named the Mclntire Road Extension, the new road was
intended to improve access Co downtown Charlottesville,
provide an alternative to ROute 29 North and relieve traffic
volu me on local residential roads and streets,
In 1979, following a series of designstddies, a corridor was
selected for the new.road, Approximately 2 miles'in length,
the road corridor consisted of~two segments; the first segment
lay within the city limits Of Charlottesville and traversed
~Mclntire Park betWeen SR250 and Melbourne Road, while the
second segment lay on undeveloped land along Meadow Creek
in Albemarle County between Melbourne Road and Rio Road
As the route for the new road coalesced, and as funding was
secured, the project came to be identified as Meadow Creek
Parkway, Initially envisioned as a fourJane divided ,road with
limited access, the City of CharlotteSVille resolved in the early ~1~
1980s that the road should be designed as 'ia true parkway
which would follow the contours of the land:" Through
subsequent years of design and deba.te, the City placed other
stipulations on the design df the new road, including a owered
design speed, use of an urban (curb and gutter) croSs-section,
consideration of'a 2-lane versus 4:lane design, provision of
separated pedestrian trail, and road engineering for passenger
vehicles only. Continued debate over the need'and design for
the road finally prompted the City of Charlottesville to
commission astudy in early 1999 to evaluate alternative
design approaches for Meadow Creek. Parkway a nd to
better convey to VDOT the City's preferences.
The study, referred tO as the Rieley Report after the planning
f rm which prepared it, primarily focused on the design (~f the
Parkway for the City's portion of the' project, through Mcintire
Park from SR250 to Melbourne Road. Various alignments
and lanerconfigurations (2-lane, 3:lane, and 4-lane divided
and undividedl as well as the VDOT design were compared.
Alignment and design recommendations in the Riele¥ Report
were based on design principles that have been applied'to
other parkways and scenic roads: Design guidelines for the
Parkway includecl the careful coordination of horizontal and
vertical alignment to create a pleasing 3-D tine. incorporation
of transition spiral curves for safety and aesthetic value, use of
minimum pavement widths, and variable side-slope grading
to blend the road cut and fill slopes with the adjacent terrain.
In short, the Rieley Report promoted a desig~ for the Parkway
that was sensitive to the Mclntire Park setting and blended with
the terrain to ensure minimal impacts upon the park resources.
The Report also recommended that the linear park setting for
the road needed to continue north of Melbourne Road over
the County's portion of the project to Rio Road.
In early 2000. following the City's initiative, Albemarle County
decided to c~mm~ssion a study for their portion of the Parkway.
Tile report presented here is a culmination of a process
whereby design options for the Parkway were evaluated
n conjuction with concepts for urban and park development.
5
PARAMETERS
The purpose of this project is to develop design
recommendations for a 2-lane parkway and adjacent
park and urban development areas along a corridor of land
between Melbourne Road and Rio Road in Albemarle County,
Virginia. The corridor, occupies mostly undeveloped land
flanking a stretch of the Meadow Creek just outside the
northeast city limits of Charlottesville. The corridor
adjoins the north ene of Charlottesville's portion of
the parkway between SR250 and Melbourne Road.
The overall vision for the project is that it be true to the
idea of a "parkway," joined with the creation of a linear park
which acts as the framework for a scenic road. This type
of vision has guided the development of the finest national
~arkways. The park simply cannot consist of planter strips or
buffers along the road; rather, it must have sufficient capacity
and area to support recreation and preserve natural features
as well as provide a setting for the parkway. Additionally,
the park needs to provide connections and linkages to other
parks and open space areas and: accommodate a n extension
of the Rivanna '[rails System.
This study is alsb being conducted to suggest design concepts
and strategies for areas in the corridor that possess potential
for urban development. Design concepts for these areas must
be consistent with the principles for density, mix, connectivity,
etc. set forth by the Albemarle Development Steering
Committee [DISC) report. The County's Comprehensive Plan
and other city and county planning documents also have
influence u pon the development concepts. In defining the
urban concepts, continuous open space along the Parkway
must be preserved tO maintain the linear park atmosphere.
integration of park and open space throughout the urban
develcpment areas are also important project objectives.
While the park and urba~n development elen~ents are
important components of the prolect, this study considers
the design of the parkway to be the most pressing msue
and the One requiring the greatest:level of resolution.
The Parkway design is required to be basea on state-of-the-art
techniques and Practices for parkway and aesthetic roadway
design. Equal attention must be given to AASHTO and
VDOT design standards and safety ~equirements,
The Parkway portion within the COunty also needs to
mirtor the characteristics established in the Reiley Report
for the City's portion of the parkway, including:
· coordination of the horizontal and vertical alignment
to create a pleasing three-dimensional line
· use of a 35 m ph design speed
· integration of stor mwater management concepts into the
road design
· incorporation of spiral transition curves
· use of variable side slope § rading to blend cuts and fills
for the new road into the adjacent terrain.
Additionally, the MPC Meadow Creek Parkway Design
Advisory Committee established design criteria for the project
which are included in Appendix E. These criteria, while fairly
detailed and explicit, are utilized as general guidelines for
this st~ud¥ and ilo not fnclude detailed ~n~!ysis or respop, se.
Throughout the course of the project, the progress and
findings of the study were reviewed during meetings with
the Albemarle County Engineering and Planning Departments
and the Planning Commission. These periodic review meetings
provided the Consultant team with additional information
about other issues ~n the study area and allowed the County
an opportunity to have input on various issues and approval
on the direction of the project.
PROCESS
The design process for this project began by concurrently
looking at the ch aracteristics of the land and collecting and '
reviewing planning studies relevant to the project.
Following this, the design team developed alternatives
that illustrated a range of values and approaches
in response to various issues and project requirements.
Finally, as a result of collaboration with the community,
an optimal design was created.
October 2000. Thedesign team of Jones & Jones,
Okerlund Associates, and Lochner Engineers visited
Albemarle County to discuss goals for the project,
investigate the project site and site vicinity,
and collect.existing reports and pl~3ns,
The design team synthesized observations a nd
existing materials.
December 2000. The design team returned to review and
discuss their analysis of the project vicinity and existing site
conditions. TIds analysis formed the basis'of a site suitability
diagram that described the best use Of various landscape units
within the project area. The design team also presented
a number of transportation corridor design precedents,
The impact of the transportation corridor on the urban
development and park areas were identified for further
study in conceptual alternatives.
The design team examined a range of parkway alignments
and their implications for the development of urban
neighborhoods and park and opeh space areas.
January 2001. The design team returned to present
three alternative parkway alignments and urban development
approaches. Alternative A explo red building the parkway
further west to create more continuity for the urban
development and parkland areas. Alternativ~ B was similar
to the proposed VDOT alignment. Alternative C explored
moving the transportation Corridor to the west side of the
CATEC high school. In the end, Alternative A was
recommended by'the design team and approved by
the County as the direction for further reft nement.
The design team refined the parkway alignment and urban
development approach of Alternative A. The design team
also developed a parklands strategy that included investigation
of the impacts of urbanization upon Meadow Creek and
techniques for restoring and protecting the creek.
March 2OO1. The design team returned to present and discuss
a d raft recommendation for the parkway, urban development
area and parklands. Tile parkway,alignment was resolved
in greater detail and strategies for the urban development
and parklands were illustrated
The design team finalized the recommendations for
the parkway, urban development, and parklands,
Simulated views of the parkway, cost estimates,
and an implementation strategy were developed
for inclusion in this report.
6
R E C 0 M M E N D A T I 0 N
Our recommendations for the Meadow Creek Parkway project are illustrated first with design concepts
for each aspect of the project--.parkway, urban development, and parklands. These concepts are followed
by digital simulations of the transportation corridor alignment, a diagram of overall land use within
the project, and an estimate of costs associated with development of the transportation corridor.
PARKWAY CONCEPT
The preferred alignment for. the Parkway as presented here
meets the criteria for the project set forth by Albemarle County.
The Parkway design is consistent with both the design
philosophy and the techniques that have guided the design
of the nation's best parkways. At a fundamental level,
the preferred alignment has minimal impacts on the natural
resources and man-made features in and along the corridor.
Furthermore, the alignment corn plies with design standards
for an urban collector as established by V DOT and maintains
and enhances the integrity of the proposed park and urban
development areas. Finatl y, the preferred road alignment
has been carefully designed to create an aesthetically
pleasing composition as it winds through the hilly
landscape of the corridor.
The most prominent feature of the Meadow Creek corridor
is the terrain. Moderate to Steeply sloping hills and ravines
flank the Meadow Creek channel and floodplain. Although
obscured and softened by summer foliage, the rounded hills
and relatively flat Meadow Creek floodplain are the defining
features of the corridor. Apartment buildings and other
constructed features such as the rail road and the high school
athletic fields are visible at certain locations in the corridor,
but these man-made features do not diminish the prominence
of the natural landforms.
The preferred alignment crosses Meadow Creek just east
of the cur.rent Southern Railroad crossing. As a result.
disturbances to the creek due to the parkway and railroad
crossing structures wil be consolidated in one location.
Construction of the Parkway bridge here would provide an
opportunity to repair the severely degraded Meadow Creek
channel just below the railroad culvert. Ideally, design and
construction of the Parkway bridge would spur replacement
of~the small existing railroad culvert with a larger structure
that accommodates flood flows and provides for a pedestrian
connection into Greenbriar Park. ~
The preferred alignment also crosses Meadow Creek at a point
where the floodway is relatively na trow. The bridge span
at this location is estimated, at approximately 180' as compared
to a 230' span that would be required for the proposed
VDOT bridge. The bridge elevation for the preferred alignment
would be approximately 404' MSL, well above the 100-year
flood elevation and about 14' below the railroad crossing.
Due to the narrow floodway and high banks at both ends of
the proposed bridge, high fill berms will not be required for
the bridge approacbes. Geotechnical information and
additional engineering analysis will be needed to determine
the structural system, actual span lengths, and final deck
elevation for the bridge.
For the Parkway to appear or feel like it is part of this
landscape, the road needs to move with and around
the natural landforms rather than move against or cut
through them. Since the route for the road is across rolling
and curving terrain, a horizontal alignment that curves and
bends with the terrain will be betteF visually and physically
~ntegrated with the land. To accomplish this, the preferred
alig nment makes use of a continuous curvilinear horizontal
alignment--that is, an alignment made up of simple curves,
spiral transition curves, and short tangents. The curvil[near
alignment blends with the curving, rolling terrain resulting in
a road that will be visually attractive as well as safe to drive,
Like the horizontal alignment, the vertical alignment consists
of a series of curves which closely follow the existing
topography. Care was taken to coordinate the vertical
and horizontal alignment whereby horizontal curve vertices
generally coincide with vertical curve vertices to enhance
the curvilinear character of the road. Another benefit of having
the vertical alignment closely folio.wing the terrain is that
less cut and fill will be required, thus reducing disturbance
to existing terrain and vegetation and reducing earthwork
costs. The only area of'relatively extensive cut is through
the knoll north of the proposed bridge where an excavation
10' to 14' deep will be required. Fortunately, this cut is
~i~r a shOrt'distance, and the cut banks can' be rounded - ~
to blend into the existing knoll..
During rdview meetings, discussion occurred regarding
views of the creek from the bridge as well as views of
the bridge from nearby vantage points. Given the proposed
location of the bridge, views over the Meadow Creek basin
should be afforded on the bridge approaches. From the bridge
itself, views eastward of the creek may occur if the bridge rail
is of an open design. Views-to the west from the bridge will be
of the heavily vegetated berm below the railroad line.
Views of the bridge will occur from trails alon~ Meadow Creek
and possibly from developed upland areas north of the bridge.
Sidewalks on the bridge will link pedestrian trails in the park
and open space areas flanking the creek. It is important that
the bridge be aesthetically designed for the location and
close-up visual exposure, as it will be viewed from many
different vantage points by motorists and pedestrians.
.I
URBAN 'DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
Introduction
There are valuable opportunities for the planning,
urban design, and development of privately owned parcels
designated for Urban development in the study area.
These opportunities are only heightened by the proposed
location of the Meadow Creek Parkway with its linear park,
bike and pedestrian circulation, and open space components.
The intent of the urban design concept presented here
is to balance density and devele pment opportunities with
the protection of sensitive landsca pcs and the enhancement
of open space and recreation opportunities. This concept
is consistent with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
which states growth should occur in "...areas where a variety
of land uses, facilities, and services are planned to support
the County'S future growth with an emphasis on
infilt development."
The following design is conceptual, providing a framework
for a development pattern that encompasses multiple parcels
and multi pie ownership while allowing development flexibility
based upon changing needs, markets and conditions.
Future development plans and refinements should respect
and evolve from the special characteristics of their setting
and embody the principles of community and mixed use
development, as described in the Neighborhood Model
of the Development Area Initiatives Project.
Objectives
The following is a summary of objectives drawn from
various sources for mixed use. cohesive, walkable urban
developments. These objectives helped define and influence
the development patterns and concepts presented in this study.
· Discourage excessive linear-style development
(strip development) along major roads;
instead encourage compact communities
with strong centers and clearly defined boundaries.
· Maintain the linear park atmosphere along the parkway,
thus enhancing the overall value of future developments
bordering the parkway.
· Create districts and neigh borhoods th'at have centers
or focal points :[or congregating. These centers may
include parks, plazas, schools, community centers,
or small commercial and social areas. Centers
should be within easy walking distance for most
residents in the neighborhood.
· Establish mixed-use areas and neighborhoods
made u'p of residences, shops, places of em ployment,
and civic, religious, and cultura institutions.
· Ensure that there is adequate developable area to provide
the necessary "critical mass" for a mixed-use center.
· Establish an ordered network of streets, bikeways,
pedestrian paths, and transit routes that will connect
new neighborhoods, existing residential areas and
non-residential districts.
· Create appealing streetscapes and public spaces with
street ! tees and landscaping to makelhe neighborhood,
inviting and to connect residential areas to each'other
as well as to commercial centers and common areas.
· Integrate residential and commercial development
with open space and recreation opportunities, including
the par:kway, parks and natural areas, and pedestrian/bike
paths. :Connect to surrounding park and recreation
amenities such as Pen Park and the proposed Rivanna
river walk, as well as to other existing developed areas.
· Protect and enhance existing views and capitalize on
newly available views from the parkway.
· Encourage new development that respects the existing
landscape and that is compatible in scale, form, and
character with the terrain features.
Description
The following development concept'is an elaboration on
the preferred Alternative A scheme. Future refinements
of development schemes for the site should be subject to
more detailed design development, economic and market
analyses, development and infrastructure cost assessments.
and topographic and environmental assessment. The urban
development concept provided here is described first as
an overall concept and is then followed by more specific
components: the urban development pattern, pedestrian
circulation and open space, and vehicular circulation.
Conceptual Diagram
The development concept is set within a site area framed by
the proposed parkway, the existing railroad. Rio Road,
Meadow Creek, CATEC, and other existing residential ~
development. Two high points on the site are proposed
as primary and secondary urban, mixed-use centers. These
centers would be joined by a connecting link of lower intensity
development to form the spine of the concept. Open space
corridors including the parkway and the open space in the
Iow area between high points would provide important trail
and recreational connections within the area and beyond.
Potential Transit Stops
IRgh Point:
Prm~ary Urban Ce~
LOW Point; /
Corridor Open Space
Urban Development
Edge
Remnant Area
Pedestr~ar
Oriented
Frontage
Meadow Creek ";
Parkway CerrK~or ,.
Nol~olk,
Southe'~'n
Railway
Suppo~ive
Urban
Develooment
t Creek
Meadow Creek
r?rkwa_ y~_.._. ,.
9
Urban Development Pattern
As portrayed on the diagram below, tl~'e s~Jg§ested
develo pment revolves around two centers, each
ancl~ored by parks or plazas and surrounded b~ a relatively
high density of mixed-use development. Surrounding
this high-density development is lower-density, primarily
residential development. A partially gridded street pattern,
adapted to topographic changes, gives structure and cohesion
to the development. Streets would have differing levels
of function but all would be pedestrian-friendly. Primary
entrances or"gateways" into the development area occur
at the north and south ends off R o Road.
Build-out of the entire developable area ~s most likely to be
incrementa, taking place over a period of time. One purpose
of this plan is to provide a long-term framework to guide this
development. The area in Zone 1 s currently in single
ownership and may be developed at one time. Zone 2,
however, is in multiple ownership, is underdeveloped.
and can be expected to be redeveloped over time.
Zone 3 is underdeveloped and offers the opportunity for
additional de~elo pment and the creation of a coordinated
path and trail system throughout the area.
Urban Development
Yahicular CIrculalioe
Meadow Creek
Parkw?___~_y~,..-- ._:_
Pedestrian Circulation and Open Space
A matrix of pedestrian paths and open space corridors
creates a circulation network within the urban developmen!
area and provides inks with the larger park and trail
system beyond. Key elements in the proposed urban
development area include formal parks and plazas,
pedestrian-oriented streets, and continuous sidewalks
and bike and pedestrian trails. Paths would help define
the outer boundaries of development and the edges
of open spaces. These paths connect with the adjacent
park path system and could incorporate signing,
wayfinding assistance, viewpoints, and
interpretive elements.
While creating an architectural image and character
that is sensitive to the land is important, so too is
the creation of open spaces that fit with existing intrinsic
landscape qualities. Preserving agricultural remnants
along the Rio Road co rridor and utilizing open space
areas for run-off remediation, wildlife habitat, and
view protection as well as for recreation activities,
all contribute to a multifaceted open space system
that reinforces place character and "fit" to the land.
Urban DeveloDrne,nt
Vehicular Circulation
Vehicular circulation, in the form of a hierarchical system
of parkway, roads, streets, and their intersections, provides
a functional network for access. The system of roads and
streets also contributes to orientation as well as gi~/es shape
to development patterns. Direct vehicular access to the
urban development area is not permitted from the parkway.
Major access points are provided from Rio Road:
one intersection at the northern end and possibly two
at the southern end.
The fnterior streets are proposed in the form of a g rid modified
by topography. This network defines development blocks,
pedestrian paths, and connections to the broader landscape,
19
10
P. ARK CONCEPT
Introduction
The Meadow Creek Parkway project parklands concept
is based on some simple, but aggressive goals to improve
the environmental and civic quality of Meadow Creek and
adjacent lands. The first goal is to restore and protect
the natural resources. The second goal is to connect
and integrate the park and its neighbors. The third goal
is to make the park a place c~f environmental learning
that leads to action beyond the park.
These goals led to the development of systems that can be
considered the layers of the park, The first layer is design
for water quality. Tl~e second layer is planting vegetation
appropriate to the distinct con ditions of the park.
The final layer is recreation and education
the use of the park by people.
Goals
Restore and Protect:
Meadow Creek channel and bottomlands
Sce nic ant historic resources; rural character
Pervious surface for groundwater recharge
Connect and Inte.g rate:
Charlottesville and Albemarle County park and trail system
Neighborhoods and schools with pa rks
Terrestrial and aquatic habitat
Learn and Act:
I~atural history of the creek, valley and region
Environmental education about impacts of urbanization
a md remediation techniques
Interdependence of parks, urban development,
and transportation for "smart growth"
Systems
Water System
Improved Meadow Creek
a. constricted aperture to spread flood flows
over adjacent wetland and bottomland terraces
sinuous meanders to slow velocity
pool & riffle sequence to ~m prove aquatic habitat
d. Iow flow channel to improve aquatic habitat
Wetland terraces
a. stabilized banks and vertical surfaces:
riprap,
gabion; bio-eng ii'~'eerfncj-'t~ch niq~ es
b. horizontal surfaces planted in appropriate
wetland species
c, terrace elevation and configuration related to
1, 5, 10, 100 year storm events, each terrace has
different character and capacity
d. terraces provide stormwater detention, retention,
and remediation
Stormwater swales
a. integrated with neighborhoods
and transportation corridor
b. weirs detain and retain stormwater for absorption
and slower release
c. planted witl~ appropriate water-tolerant species
2O
11
21
VEGETATION SYSTEM
Scenic Meadows
Urban Foresl I
Vegetation System
Scenic meadows
a. protect rural and historic character
open space network for the neighborhood
c. pervious surfaces for groundwater recharge
Wetlands and Bottomlands
a. detain'and retain st0rmwater, reduce downstream
flooding, and improve stormwater quality
b. prov de habitat diversity and connectivity
c. create educational and recreat dna amenity
3. Urban forest
a. filters out air pollution, produces oxygen,
and moderates temperatures
shade improves creek habitat
c. pervious surfacesallow groundwater recharge
d v sua ly buffers road from developed areas
and developed areas from each other
e. provide habitat diversity and connectivity
Recreation and £ducation System
Circulation network
a. Roadway/parkway
b, bike and pedestrian trails
c. pedestrian-only trai~s
d. bridges
2. Scenic Vistas and Viewpoints
a. overlooks from upland meadows
b. views from Rio Road and Parkway
c. view from CATEC school.
3. Interpretative signage
a path entrances, intersectionsj and footbridges
b. overlooks and viewpoints
c. significant natural and cultural features
Restoration and stewardship programs (building and
maintaining wetlands, trails and interpretive signage)
a, local schools-University of Virginia, CATEC,
CHS, Catholic High School, Greenbrier School
b. conservation organizations--Environmental
Education Center, Rivanna Trails Association,
Natural History Museum
12
CORRIDOR LAND USE CONCEPT
'~-he diagram below shows land uses that would begin to take shape in the corridor as a result of the recommended
conceptual design. The acreages shown for the areas are approximate. Many of them occupy multiple parcels under
multiple ownership. It is not tile purpose of this study to determine how contiguous land areas are created out of
these multiple parcels; rather, this diagram is intended only to show an overall land Use strategy.
LEGEND
13
ATTACHMENT B
Amendment to Transportationf Roads Section, of the Comprehensive Plan
¢D.47}, Adopted XX, (CPA 2001-06, Meadow Creek Parkway)
Albemarle County Land use 'Plan
· Limit the Neighborhood Service designation along Rio Road to existing develoPed
areas.
Transportation improvements include:
Improvement to the Free State Road bridge over the railroad track to allow access
for emergency vehicles and development north of Dunlora.
Development of the Meadow Creek Parkway linking Hollymead with Mclntire
Road in the City. Phase I of the Parkway in the County, from Melbourne Road to
the railroad bridge on Rio Road shouM be developed in a manner consistent with
the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001, by Jones and Jones. In the
planning and development of Phase II of the Parkway, consideration should be
given to continuing design concepts of Phase I, including parkway design with
landscaping, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and linear parks features. W~den
-^"" .... ~' abl right f-
....... o ..................... Reserve us e -o
way for the location of the Meadow Creek Parkway in areas of new development.
With final alignment determination, reserve right-of-way in all areas. Direct
access to ,h~,~ ~.~,~,.,~,,x~^~ .... .. t-~r,~,~,~ Parkway north of Rio Road and south of the South
Fork Rivanna River (Phase II) from adjacent areas may be permitted at one
location (one intermediate access point).
Provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with all major road
improvements in the area.
Utility improvements include:
- Upgrade water distribution in the entire Neighborhood to ensure adequate service.
Construct the Carrsbrook sewer to provide service to the area.
Evaluate the Woodbrook Channel to determine the need to widen in the vicinity
of the .area upstream of the old Woodbrook sewage lagoons. Retain easements for
improvements if the property is sold.
47A
'14
· Retain open space areas in the Meadow Creek floodplain, the area along the proposed
Meadow Creek parkway corridor, the lake and stream system north of Rio Road in the
Woodbrook, Carrsbrook, and Northfields areas, and along the Rivanna River
floodplain.
· Consider the land use andpark/open space recommendations of the Meadow Creek
Parkway Final Report, .May 2001, by Jones and Jones, for the areas adjacent to or
near the Meadow Creek Parkway/Rio Road corridor.
· Construct a greenway along the South Fork of the Rivanna River and Rivanna River.
This provides a pedestrian connection of the Ivy Creek Natural Area to the Urban Area
and an opportunity for passive recreation adjacent to the Urban Area. Develop the
greenway to meet the recreational and conservation needs of the residents in
Neighborhood Two, and the entire County.
· Maintain a wooded buffer between the Community/Regional Service located on
Route 29 and adjacent residential developments.
47A1
~5
Amendment to Transportation, Roads Section, of the Comprehensive Plan
¢D.175~, Adopted XX, (CPA 2001-06)
Albemarle County Land Use Plan
IVleadow Creek Parkway
The Meadow Creek Parkway, from the intersection of Mclntire Road and the Route 250
Bypass in the City of Charlottesville to Route 29 North in Hollymead willprovide a
north-south road connecting the Hollymead Community, Urban Area and City and will
provide an essential alternativ, e north-south road to Route 29 needed to accommodate
anticipated traffic, ,m.; .... :~+ ...;11 .....
· ..~.,.-.~-, ,._:~.1 ~r, ~..1 ............ + The parkway i ip
............. ., v ....... v ...... ,, ...... v~. s antic ated to carry up to 24, 000
vehicles trips per day in the year 2015
The Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001, by Jones and Jones consultants,
establishes an alignment location and design standards for the development of Phase I of
the Parkway in the Cottnty, from Melbourne Road to the railroad bridge on Rio Road.
This report can be found under separate cover. In summary, the study calls for a two-
lane road constructed on sufficient right-of-way to allow for its upgrade to a four-lane
road, if necessary. The proposed design calls for a parkway concept, which includes
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, landscaping and an adjacent linear park. The linear
park will provide an open space and recreational benefit to the community and will serve
'to connect to Mclntire Park, Greenbrier Park, the City/County greenway along Meadow
Creek, and, with additional linkages, to Pen Park, Charlottesville High School, CA.TEC
and Charlottesville Catholic School. The'proposed road alignment and design in the
Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report are consistent with the alignment and design for
the City portion of the road
The second phase of the project, from Rio Road to Route 29 in Hollymead, should
continue the parkway design concepts of phase I, including road corridor landscaping,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities and linear park/open areas to the extent feasible. Phase
II is intended to be designed to have three interrnediate points of access; one between Rio
Road and The Rivanna River and two between the River and Route 29 (at Route 643 and
for undeveloped land-between Route 643 and Route 29).
175A
16
Route 29 (Western) Bypass
The Western Bypass is a proposed six-mile long roadway from the interchange of Route
29 and Route 29/250 Bypass to just north of Route 643 (PolO Grounds Road). It is
planned to connect with Route 29 and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway. The
purpose of the Bypass is to alleviate traffic on Route 29 North and allow the road
network to operate at a higher level of service in the State. The Route 29 (Western)
Bypass is a project initiated by VDOT.
Recommendations
Design the Route 29 and Route 250 corridors to accommodate the anticipated traffic
demands from existing and future development.
Construct the Meadow Creek Parkway and Route 29 (Western) Bypass to provide
more direct access to the Urban Area and City and alleviate traffic congestion on
Route 29.
Develop the Meadow Creek Parkway and Route 29 (Western) Bypass with a parkway
design. Location and design of the Meadow Creek Parkway shall be consistent with
the recommendations of the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001.
175A1
ATTAi
C
IVY CREEK
NATURAL
AREA j~
/
ak~~,-~ ~vv MAP B
~,....,, ... ~0~0¢N URBAN NE I GBORHOODS
,,. \ map_b(mcp_alt_a).dgn 08/14/2001 04;37;58 PM
18
1'o: Members, Board of Supervisors
From: EJla Washington Carey, CMC,~.~
Sul~le~ Reading fist for September
Oat, e: September 6, 200 /
March 21 (A), 200 I
Ap~f125, 2001
July II, 2001
Ms. Thomas
Ms. Thomas
Pages f- 17 (end at Item # t I) - Mr, Dorrier
/ewc
Resolution
on September 11, 2001, the United States was suddenly and brutally attacked by
foreign terrorists, and;
Whereas,
these terrorists hijacked and dest/oyed four civilian aimrafl, crashing two of them
into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the
Pentagon outside Washington, DC, and;
thousands of innocent Americans were ldlled and injured as a result of these
attacks, including the passengers and crew of the four aircraft, workers in the
Wodd Trade Center and in the Pentagon, rescue workers, and bystanders, and;
these cowardly acts were by far the deadliest terrorist attacks ever launched
against the United States, and, by targeting symbols of American strength and
success, clearly were intended to intimidate our nation and weaken its resolve,
and;
these horrific events have affected all Americans. It is important that we carry on
with the regular activities of our lives. Terrorism cannot be allowed to break the
spirit of the American people, and the best way to show these cowards that they
have truly failed is for the people of the United States and their counties to stand
tall and proud,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, condemns the cowardly and deadly actions of these terrorists, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
supports the President of the United States, as he works with his national security team
to defend against additional attacks, and find the perpetrators to bring them to justice,
and;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
recommends to its citizens to support relief efforts by giving blood at the nearest available
blood donation center.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, this 12~ day of
September, 2001.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
Bob Tucker, County Executive
Mark B. Graham, Director of Engineering and Public Works
12 September 2001
Old Dominion Electric Company- Louisa County
Pending Air Quality Permit
With regard to the concerns over the subject permit, this department has discussed the
facility with Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) staff and summarized
our findings regarding the proposed facility. DEQ will receive public comment for the
Air Quality permit application until September 26th. Based on conversations with DEQ
staff, it appears DEQ has made a preliminary determination the applicant satisfies all
permit application requirements under State regulation. The other potential concerns that
are noted below are outside of the scope of that permit and comments made regarding
those issues may not have an appreciable impact on DEQ's permit decision.
Facility description: This is a 550 Megawatt "peak" electric generating facility to be
located approximately 1.5 miles south of Gordonsville on a 92 acre site bounded by
Route 860 on the north and the CSX Railroad on the east. That places the facility less
than ½ mile from Albemarle County and less than one mile from Route 231 in Albemarle
County. The facility will use natural gas for fuel, with fuel oil as a backup source, and is
only intended for use during peak generation times (e.g. summer days, cold winter days).
That differs from a "base load" facihty which is designed to provide electricity year
round. The facihty is also located on existing electric transmission lines and plans to use
those lines rather than constructing new lines.
Air quality concerns: This facility is natural gas or fuel oil powered, which are two of
the cleanest type of fossil fuel facilities. The prevalent winds blow the emissions away
from Albemarle County. No visible smoke is anticipated from the facility, though there
will be pollutants emitted as with any fossil fuel burning facihty. DEQ indicates they
have reviewed the air quality modeling supplied by the applicant and believes it
demonstrates compliance with existing regulations.
Visibility concerns: The facility will have a relatively low profile for a electric
generation facility. There will be four, fifty-five foot tall stacks and one, 90 foot tall
stack for exhaust emissions. Lighting for those stacks will be required but the relatively
low height does not require the brilliant strobes often seen with high stacks. We were
unable to find 'information regarding light pollution from this facility, but were able to
determine this is not regulated by the Air Quality Permit administered by DEQ and
appears to be strictly a local land use decision. The facility will be primarily visible to
properties significantly higher than this facility. A review of topographic maps shows
most of Albemarle County, including Monticello, will be screened by the Southwest
Mountains. While no sight line information was available, we estimate the facility will
be mainly visible to properties along the east side of the Southwest Mountains which are
north of Cismont. Without a detailed study, it is not possible to determine the precise
sight lines.
Traffic concerns: The heaviest road use in Albemarle County from this facility will
occur during construction. While most of the heavy equipment and materials would be
transported by rail, workers and lighter materials will use the roads, including Routes 22
and 231 in Albemarle County. After construction, traffic ~om workers at this facility is
not anticipated to be significant. Traffic is not regulated by the Air Quality Permit and it
was not possible to estimate increased traffic.
Water concerns: The facility is located within the Happy Creek watershed which flows
into the South Anna River and away from Albemarle County. Electric generation
facilities often require sizable water bodies to be used for cooling. We have contacted the
Northern Virginia DEQ office that is responsible for permitting any water uses in this
area, but they indicate that no permit application has been received for this facility. The
press has previously reported that the facility would use a pipeline from Lake
Gordonsville instead of on-site wells. That cannot be confn'med at this point. The use of
on-site wells to draw large amounts of water would constitute a concern for Albemarle
County, particularly for nearby properties. We have requested DEQ to advise us of any
permit applications for either withdrawl or discharge of water. For the current air permit
application, the water issue will not be considered by DEQ.
Should the County Board desire to comment on this permit application, we would
recommend the comments focus on the need for better information. Potential concerns
where better information would aid Albemarle County in its evaluations would include:
visual impacts from the stacks and facility lighting, possible traffic impacts to Albemarle
County during construction of the facility, and the need for more information on the
water source and discharges associated with this facility. While we could also include
concerns regarding the air quality, it appears there is little to be said that could influence
the decision.
Finally, it should be noted that this permit application and facility is only the first
anticipated for this area. Two additional electrical generation facilities are currently
planned. Those are the Tanasca facility to be located in Fluvanna County and the Louisa
Generating Company to be located in Louisa County. Both of those facilities will be
"base load" facilities, which means the likelihood that air quality impacts become
significant is increased. We have requested DEQ advise us when those facilities submit
any permit applications and supply copies of any information readily available with
regard to those permit applications. The one remaining concern, which we have heard
raised, is the number of facilities planned for such a relatively small area. At present, the
only way we have found this is considered in permitting is the already permitted facihties
must be included in any modeling of impacts. For example, an air quality permit
application for a new facility would need to include the impacts from already permitted
facilities in its supporting model of air quality impacts. Provided the air quality standards
are still being met, there is no provision for maintaining an air quality level above those
standards. That is a legislative policy question much larger than the permit applications
before us.
/
?
Bob Tucker
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Graham
Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:16 PM
Bob Tucker; Tom Foley
Wayne Cilimberg
FW: old dominion electric - air quality permit application - louisa county
Importance: High
Forwarding David's additional info as background on the subject. I'm attaching for Wayne's consideration the same memo
I earlier sent to Bob and Tom. I only put a short discussion about multiple power plants at the end of the memo I sent you.
The big problem with that issue is it is a much larger State and Federal environmental policy question. Following the regs,
you could conceivably have a large number of power plants in a very small area. In some ways, this is similar to our
reviewers complaining about what some developers submit for land use. Whether we like it or not, they are complying with
the applicable regulations We need to focus on changing the State law and regulations if that is our concern.
Alternatively, we can appeal to Louisa and Fluvanna that their land use policies may not be adequately considering the
concerns of their neighbors.
Trying to look beyond the immediate permit issue, the water pipeline being discussed is somewhat disconcerting. The
proposed 12" water main carries 9 times the water of the 4" water main that Old Dominion says they need. Hypothetically
speaking, that means there could conceivably be 9 power plants up here rather than the one currently being considered or
some fairly significant industrial development using this water and relatively cheap electricity generated from these power
plants. That has the potential of a much larger impact to the County than what is currently on the table and the County
might never even have an opportunity for input on the decisions.
Next, the withdrawls from the James are somewhat disconcerting. While the idea of Rivanna Water & Sewer using water
from the James has currently fallen out of favor, I'd hate to think we are going to be the last ones in line and needing to buy
unused capacity from someone with a withdrawl permit at some futu re date.
Louisa Air Quality
Permit memo..,
---Original Message--
From: David Hirschman
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:55 PM
To: Mark Graham
Subject: RE: old dominion electric - air quality permit application - louisa county
Importance: High
Mark, I just heard back from Dan Holmes at PEC and got his perspective. I will try to summarize:
1. The ODEC facility is proposing to construct a water line from Bowlers Mill Reservoir, which is just south of Gorc~onsville.
It is not being used for drinking water purposes at present. The company can'do with a 4" line, but the County is pushing
for a 12" tine to support further industrial development in that corridor. This could mean a real change of character and
traffic and water use for the northeast corner of Albemarle.
2. Other regional water issues include the two plants that Tenaska wants to build in Fluvanna and Buckingham,
respectively. Tenaska is proposing a 42'.'. line from the James River to supply 16 mgd (for perspective, the entire urban
service area current demand is around 12 mgd). Again, there is potential that the line is oversized to provide for future
industrial uses, again along the borders with Albemarle's rural areas. Dan also mentioned another plant, proposed for
Sussex County with a projected demand of 35 mgd. Regional water issues are bound to be huge.
3. With regard to air discharge permits, Dan's comment was that the regs have a cut-off at 250 tons per year of NOx.
Above that level, the required modeling and pollutant abatement becomes more sophisticated. Of course, what is
happening is that all these plants are getting approved for 248 and 249 tons/year, at which level cumulative impacts are
not addressed. This includes the proposed ODEC facility in Gordonsville. The permit specifies 248 and 249 tons per year.
The bottom line is that cumulative impacts are not being addressed, and there are 10 such facillities proposed in PEC's
region, and 20 state-wide. Also, Dan stated that NOx will be emitted "in small blasts" during the worst times for ozone --
hot summer days and cold winter days.
There are web sites available for further investigation. Of course, this is PEC's point of view, but you can see why
Charlotte got concerned. The regional implications appear to be large, and spin-off land use issues along AIbemarle's
border with Fluvanna and Louisa are very worthy of note, especially as we try to update our Rural Areas section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
dhirsch@albemade.org
David 3. Hirschman, Water Resources Manager
Albemarle County Department of Engineering & Public Works
40] Mc/ntire Road
CharlottesVille, VA 22902-4596
(804)296-5861 FAX (804)972-403.5
URGENT REQUEST
URGENT REQUEST
September 12, 2001
Dear County Leader,
Today is a sad dayin America. On behalf of the National Association of Counties,
we want to express our grief and anger over the terrorist events of yesterday, and make
request of counties nationwide, a
NACo requests that your county board consider passing a resolution condemning the
cowardly and deadly agtions of these terrorists; and supporting the President of'the
United States, as he w~rks with his national security team to defend against additional
attacks, and find the perpetrators to bring them to justice.
As your citizens ask you what they can do to assist in the aftermath of this tragedy,
the White House has recommended that giving blood could be the single most useful
action Americans can take. Blood supplies are always in need of replenishment; and
large quantities will be needed to help victims of these senseless acts. Please urge
everyone to make this important contribution.
, These horrific events have affected all Americans~ but it is important that we can3,, on
with~ the regular, activitiesv of our lives. Terrorism cannot be allowed to break the spirit' ' of
the American people, and the best way to show these cowards that they have truly failed
is for the people of the United States and their counties to stand tall and proud.
NACo salutes your leadership in this time of uncertainty, and thanks you for your
consideration of our request.
Javier Gonzales
President
National Association of Counties
S~ncerely,
Larry E. Naake
Executive Director
National Association of Counties
SEPTEMBER I P_--, P__O01
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL
COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING PROBABLE LITIGATION
RELATING TO A PUBLIC SAFETY INCIDENT.