Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2001-12-12
Board ol ACTIONS Supervisors Meeting of December 12, 2001 AGENDA ITEM/AC'I'ION 1. Call to order. 4, From the Public: Matters Not Listed o · There ware none. 5.1 Proclamation recognizing January 20( Month. · ADOPTED and presented to Mr. Ton; 5.2 Funding request from TransDominior Committee. REQUESTED the IDA to authorize e~ TransDominion Express Steering CDr Resolution to accept Stonewood Driv Subdivision into the State Secondary ADOPTED resolution. Resolution to accept roads in Cory F; State Secondary System of Highway. ADOPTED resolution. 5.3 5.5 Appropriation: Special Election for 2: $23,040 (Form #2001037). ,, APPROVED Appropriation ¢¢2001037 $23,040. 5.6 Department of Human Resources R( APPROVED an additional Human R~ for the current fiscal year at a total cc to be taken from the Board's Conting 5.7 Resolution endorsing the naming of~ · ADOPTED resolution. 6. ZMA-1999-011. Clover Lawn Villag (Sian #42). 7. SP-2001-006~ Clover Lawn Village APPROVED ZMA-1999-011 to rezor HC to PD-MC, as proffered and sign, December 12, 2001 Board meeting. APPROVED SP-2001-006 to allow zone. 8. SP-2001-039. The Clifton Inn (Sian APPROVED SP-2001-039 subject k recommended by the Commission, at the BOS meeting. 9. SP-2001-045. Seven Oaks Farm (S . APPROVED SP-2001-045 subject t( 10. December 13, 2001 ASSIGNMENT the Agenda. 2 as Leave A Legacy Kennedy. Express Steering penditure of $1,000 to the ~mittee. 9 in Stonewood System of Highways. ~rm Subdivision into the iTM State Senate District, in the amount of ,organization. :sources Manager position st of $8,510, with Funds .~ncy Fund. .;arter's Bridge. e (Preston Stallin.¢lS) rpreston Stallin;s} {Si~n ~e 6.8 acres from R-1 and .=d by the applicant at the =.sidential uses in a PD-MC , the two conditions ~ith condition #2 amended ~ns #26&27)~ the one condition Meeting was called to Order at 7:01 p.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. None. (Attachment 1) Clerk: Prepare necessary paperwork for consideration by IDA at its January 9th meeting. Vlelvin Breeden: Prepare appropriation form for Board approval on January 9~h. Clerk: Forward signed SR-5A form and resolutiOn to Glenn Brooks. (Attachment 2) Clerk: Forward signed SR-5A form and resolution to Glenn Brooks. (Attachment 3) Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to Melvin 3reeden and copy appropriate individuals. Melvin Breeden; Prepare appropriation form for Board approval on january 9t". Clerk: Forward to CTB with copies to VDOT Resident Engineer and copy to Mrs. Robert Carter. Attachment 4) Clerk: Set out p~-offers in Attachment 51 recommended by the Commission. SP-2001-050. TOmlin ('rriton PCS APPROVED SP-2001-050 subject t( recommended by the Commission, CVR 385D) (Si~n #87). the conditions ~ith conditions amended at Clerk; Set out conditions in Attachment 6. Clerk: Set out condition in Attachment 6. Clerk: Set out conditions in Attachment 6, the BOS meeting. 11. SP-2001-048. Regional Public Safe1 Mtn) (Signs #'/7&78). · DEFERRED SP-2001-048 until Janu; 13. From the Board: Matters Not Listed ( · Mr. Perkins mentioned a call he recei~ regarding cats. A neighbor has 13 ca there are any ordinances regulating c, "no", Mr. Perkins asked that a representati~ be included on the focus group studyi of the Comprehensive Plan. Board members expressed appreciati her service to Albemarle County. The Board voted to appropriate $1,0C the High Growth Coalition for the 200 session. 14. Adjourn. · At 10:15 p.m., the Board adjourned u p.m. /ewc Attachment 1 - Leave A Legac Attachment 2 - Stonewood Re Attachment 3 - Cory Farm Re,, Attachment 4 - Carter's Bddg~ Attachment 5 - ZMA-1999-1, Attachment 6 - Conditions of y Radio Proiect (Peters ry 9, 2002. ~n the Agenda. ,ed from a constituent :s and he wondered if ~ts. Mr. Davis replied from the Farm Bureau ~g the rural areas section ,n to Ms. Humphds for to the retainer fund for General Assembly ~til January 9, 2002, 4:00 y Proclamation solution ~lution ; Resolution :lover Lawn Proffers 3proval for Planning items WHEREAS, the Thomas JE not-for-profit o~ WHEREAS, Leave A Leg; collaborative E pla~qning profe outlets; and WHEREAS, the Leave A L~ encourage pr( already suppo relationship, t¢ WHEREAS, on January 1, month-long ec their estates; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RJ declare in the County Leave A Lega, LEAVE A LEGACY MONTH Attachment t ferson Area chapter of the Leave A Legacy program is a consortium of lanizations and professional advisors; and 7y, a program of the National Committee On Planned Giving, is a ~ort among local not-for-profit organizations, the estate and financial talons, community foundations, corporate funders and a variety of media .=gacy campaign is a community-based county-wide program designed to spective donors to work with the development officers of charities they rt, or the estate planning professionals with whom they already have a establish a charitable bequest or other planned gift; and 2002, the Leave A Legacy program of the Thomas Jefferson Area begins a ucation drive to encourage people from all walks of life to make gifts from :.SOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, does hereby January 2002 as Leave a Legacy Month of Albemarle and encourage all our residents to support the goals of the ~y program of the Thomas Jefferson Area. The Board of County: day of December 2001, adopts WHEREAS, the street, SR-5(A) fully incorporated her Circuit Court of Albemarle Cou WHEREAS, the Resid~ Board that the streets meet th Virginia Department of Transp( NOW, THEREFORE, requests the Virginia Departrr described on the attached Ad( to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, BE IT FURTHER RES described, exclusive of any recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVE Engineer for the Virginia DePa Attachment 2 ~upervisom of Albemarie County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 12th d the following resolution: RESOLUTION '.s) in Stonewood Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form .~in by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the lty, Virginia; and .~nt Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has a(tvised the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the ~rtation. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of Court/ Supervisors ent of Transportation to add the road(s) in Stonewood Subdivision, as litions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and ~)LVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as lecessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the D that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident 'tment of Transportation. The Board of County day of December 2001, adoptE WHEREAS, the street SR-5(A) fully incorporated her Cimuit~Court of Albemarle Cou WHEREAS, the Resid, Board that the streets meet th Virginia Department of Transp( NOW, THEREFORE, requests the Virginia Departrr described on the attached Ad( to {}33. t-229, Code of 'Virginia, BE IT FURTHER RES described, exclusive of any recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVE Engineer for the Virginia Depa Attachment 3 Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 12th d the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~s) in Cory Farm Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form ~n by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the ~j, Virginia; and .~nt Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the ~rtation. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors ent of Transportation to add the road(s) in Cory Farm Subdivision, as litions Form SR-5(/¥) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and 3LVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as ~ecessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the D that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident lment of Transportation. WHEREAS, there is approximately midpoint betwe~ WHEREAS, this bddg~ WHEREAS, this bddg near a large tract of land k generations, is a local, state Carter; and WHEREAS, John Har that one of the pioneers of the in the 1700's was "John Carter colony of Virginia;" and WHEREAS, the Virgir Bddge; and WHEREAS, this plant the Albemarle County Board o WHEREAS, the bridc. bddges by the Virginia Depart~ WHEREAS, the Boar Bridge as being the only know WHEREAS, the Boar heritage of the John Carter an County; NOW THEREFORE approximately midpoint betwe to include the late John Carter BE IT RESOLVED Department of Highways purs~ Redlands Farm Road, Chariot Unanimously adopted County. Attachment 4 RESOLUTION FOR CARTER'S BRIDGE a bddge located in Albemarle County on State Route 20 South ,n Charlottesville and Scottsviile, Virginia; and has been known for its long history as Carter's Bridge; and ;, crossing the Hardware River in southem Albemarle County, is located lown as "Redlands," the ancestral home of the Carter family for six ~nd national historic landmark and is presently the home of Mrs. Robert tmond Moore, in his book Albemarle Jefferson's County, 'i727-'1976, notes attempt to extend the Tidewater to the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountain son of the wealthy Robert Carter of the Northern Neck .... secretary of the ia Department of Transportation has approved a plan to realign Carter's ed realignment of Carter's Bddge has received the unanirr~us support of Supervisors; and e called Carter's Bddge has not been included among formerly named ne~ of Highways; and d of Supervisors of Albemarle County recognizes the name of Carter's name for the said bridge; and of Supervisors of Albemarle County recognizes the contributions and :! Robert Carter families to the Commonwealth of Virginia and to Albemarle BE IT RESOLVED that the bddge located on State Route 20 South ~n Charlottesville and Scottsville, Virginia, be named for the Carter fame, and Robert Carter and their descendants; and :URTHER, that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Virginia rarff to Virginia Code § 33.1-250 and to Mrs. Robert Carter, "Redlands, 852 :esville, Virginia 22902. this 5th day of December 2001 by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Date: 12/12!!,/0!12001 ZMA 2.65/4.15 Acres' Pursuant to Section 3; authorized agent, hereby volt property, if rezoned. These c( that: (1) the re. zoning itself gh reasonable relation to the rezc (1) See attached "Clover I fSioned) Preston O. Stalli~ Signatures of Ali Owners In connection with the applica[ PROFFER FORM #. 99 - 11 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 56- 107,107A, 107(A)1 :o be rezoned from RI/HC to PD-MC L3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly ntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the ,nditions are proffered as a part of the requested re. zoning and it is agreed 'es dse to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a ning requested. .awn Proffers" I through 6, on pages 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 12-12-01 ~qs Preston O. Stallinqs !! 0! 0! Printed Names of All Owners Date Clover Lawn Village - Proffers ~t's rezoning application, the following proffers are made: Attachment 5 and screenin.( Architectural I A maximum ~imum of Radford Lane, as sho, demand of the Count~ The area to be dedic~ more than 25 feet fror area is wider as show {eview Board shall be deemed as consistent with this proffer. 29 residential units which includes a maximum of 24 townhouses and a residential units overtop the commercial buildings. m on the Application Plan, shall be reserved for dedication upon the ', should the CoUnty establish the need for a public road at this location. ted shall be the minimum amount required for a public road and shall be no the property line except at the entrance to RT250 where the reserved on the Application Plan. if before the Count,:/den~nds dedication for a The Application Plan, :lated November ~t 1__9.9, 2001 Sheet 2 of 2 is proffered as the Application Plan for the developm =.nt and is attached hereto. Specific features of the Application Plan that will be a part of the develqpment are: a. A unified development of all three parcels of land (TMP56-107, 107(A)1, and TMP 56- 107A) includir~g a combination of these parcels by plat or deed prior to site development plan approvallfor the first site plan. This does not preclude phasing this development and it does nc t preclude a subdivision of this pamel. b. Access from ~ single entrance across RT250 with a pessible future intemon.nection to Radford Lane. WHEN RADFORD LANE BECOMES A PUBLIC ROAD OR PRIVATE ROAD WITH. ~UBLIC ACCESS. c. A mixed-use (levelopment with residential uses at the rear of the development and commercial a~ Id residential uses at the front of the development. d. Pedestrian ac ~ess in the locations and widths as shown on the Application Plan. Sidewalk and ~edestrian paths shall meet standards established by the Director of Engineering. e. Architectural II ~tures in general accord with the elevation of the Commercial Building by Stoneking/vo~ Storch dated 7/05/01 and front elevation of the TownhouSe(s) dated ............ · ' ..... ="~"' .................. " .................. 2, ..... ~v ............nt The rear faceJof Townhouse block A and block G shall have additional window treatme as approved by Architectural Review Board. Modifications required by public road, the Cou~ then the land reserved proffer shall be in effe( approve the pdvate r(~ released from the obli.( not proffering to consh Recreational amenifi~ which a Tot Lot shall I: minimum, recreational on the Application Pial certifmate of occupan¢ Planning and Commu~ facilities satisfy the re( No structure or landsc Application Plan with along the rear prope~ development shall ren where the Old Route buffer. A privacy fenc~ Application Plan. Thi.~ the old Route 250 roa~ project. The Owner shall mak~ potential locations - ei RT 250. The Owner's that signal is warrants amount of the contribl this site as determinc~ effect until December If a subregional storm Owner shall make a c stormwater managem designated for recreal Uses allowed by-right 1, 23.2.1 Commercia ordinance in effect at following exceptions: a. The following Cemeteries ( Fire and res( Funeral horr Indoor theat~ Au~ truck r~ Gasoline pul Automobile The following Laundries, dr Laundromat Nurseries, d~ ~ approves a private road at this location under the Subdivision Ordinance, for dedication shall be available for construction of a private road. This t until December 31, 2011. Should the County not make demand or id design plan at this location within this time period, the owner shall be lation. The Owner is not proffering a gift of the land for a private road and is uct any improvements to that road. shal~ consist of a "recreational area" es shown on the Application Plan in installed. The area shall be a minimum of 20,000 square feet. At a 3menities shall include two benches, a sidewalk, and a pathway es shown These amenities and the Tot Lot shall be installed or bonded prior to of the 15th residential unit. This proffer does not prohibit the Director of lity Development from substituting recreational facilities provided those uirements of Sections 4.16.2.1. ~ping shall be placed within the Old Route 250 road bed shown on the he exception of the six-foot tall privacy fence in the general location shown line. Existing vehicular access across the rear boundary of the ~ain unobstructed. Screening plants required at the rear of the development ~50 mad bed abuts the property line shall be placed outside of the 20 foot of six-feet in height is proffered in the general location shown on the proffer acknowledges that the segment of the privacy fence located within ~bed may be relocated in the event it obstructs any future County road ; a pro-rata contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at one of two her the ir~ersection of Clover Lawn Lane and RT250 OR Rz~:lford Lane and )ro-rata contribution shall be based on the cost established by ',/DOT when L The location of the traffic signal shall be determined by VDOT. The lion shall be based on a pro-rata share of the traffic volume contributed by by the Albemarle County Engineering Department. This proffer shall be in 31,2011. water management facility is available for use by this development, the ~)ntribution consistent with the County's program in lieu of an on-site ent facility. The area shown on the Application Plan for this use will he ional use. in the PDMC district are attached hereto as Section 22.2.1 Commercial --C- Office -CO, and 24.2.1 Highway Commercial - HC, from the Zoning lhe time of this rezoning, copies of which are attached hereto, with the uses shall not be permitted in this district: Sections 22.2.1 (b)(3), 23.2.1 (4),24.2.1(5)) :ue squad stations(Section 22.1.1(b)(6)) es (Sections 22.2.1(b)(7),24.2.1(14)) .~rs (Sections 22.2.1(b)(9), 24.2.1 (38)) pair shop(Sections 22.2,1(b)(22), 24.2.1(2)) T~ps :rvice stations (Sections 22.2.1(b)(~6), 24.2.1(3)) uses shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6a.m. and 11 p.m.: r cleaners (Section 22.2.1(b)(10)) Section 22.2.1(b)(11)) ~care centers (Sections 22.2.1(b)(13), 23.2.1(12)) Indoor athletic fa¢ili§os (8ocUon$ 22.2.1(b)(24), 24.2.1(42)) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2 increased seating in dining are approx 0.25 mis from intersec Approval is limited to ~ seating) plus fourteen restaurant, and any si: Hours of restaurant o1: special events, shall b Agenda Item No. 9. request to allow Home Occ 98.54 ~. Loc at 200 Seven Dist. The home occupation (Coleman Cottage). Agenda Item No. 10. on a request to allow 105' higt Loc at 1064 Goodwin Farm Lr The top of the pole, a~ the top of the tallest t~ (ASL). No antennas the top of the pole; The facility shall be d Guy wires sh~ b. No lighting sh number nine ( c. The ground el the pole shall file) entitled T d. A grounding r exceed one (' top of the pole e. Within one (1', provide a stat measured bot f. The diameter (12) inches at g. The pole, anti The facility shall be Io PCS, Tomlin, dated N Attachment 6 COnditions of Approval ~01-039. The Clifton Inn (Sign #68).. Public headng on a request to allow a of Clifton Inn. Znd P,~ TM79,P23B. Contains 7.85 acs. Loc on Pt. 729 N/Rt. 250. Scottsville Dist. ~ rrlty-two (52)-seat restaurant with full dinner hours available (no limited (14) guest rooms. At no time shal~ the aggregate of guests of the Inn, the ecial events on the premises exceed eighty (80); and eration for the pubic, other than guests of the Inn, and those attending from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. ~-200t-045. Seven Oaks Farm (Signs g26&27).. Public headng on a us B for artist management company. Znd RA & EC. TM55,P15. Contains ~aks Farm, off Rt 250, approx 1 mi W from 1-64/Crozet interchg. White Hall shall be located in an existing 1,076 square feat accessory structure ~P-2001-050. Tomlin (Triton PCS. CVR 385D) (Si;n #87). Public hearing wireless telecom steal monopole. Znd RA. TM75,P9. Contains 10.32 acs. on E side of Rt 29S, approx 2 mis S of 1-64. Samuel Miller Dist. ;measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet above ~ within twenty-rr~e (25) feet of the facility, as measured A~bove Sea Level equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, s,hai! be located above ~gned, constructed and maintained as follows: not be permitted; ~ll be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition 9) herein; luipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and ail equipment attached to be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan (copy on iton PCS, Tomlin, dated November 6, 2001; 3d, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not ~-inch diameter at the base and tapedng to a point, may be installed at the month after the completion of the pole installation, the permittee shall ~ment to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, h in feet above ground level and in elevation Above Sea Level (ASL); of the po~e shall not exceed twenty-six (26) inches at its base, and twelve the top; and .,nnas and ground equipment shall be painted a fiat, dam brown color; :ated and built as shown on the attached plan (copy on file) entitled Triton ~vember 6, 2001. 10. 11. 12. Equiprr~ shall be att a. The number o plan (copy on' No satellite or c. Only flush mo~ pole beyond tt in no case sh~ more than 14.' monopole; Prior to beginning con~ of access for vehicles specifying tree protect removed on the site b submitted to the Direc or installations associ~ construction or installs tree removal expressl3 permittee shall not ren vehicular or utility acc~ rerr~.~al within the two The facility shall be di., its use for wireless tell determines at any tim~ required, the permitt(~ surety satisfactory to t sufficient for, and con~ be to the satisfaction ¢ The permittee shall s~ than July I of that yea user fl-~t is a wireless No slopes associated steeper than 2:1 unle., the County Engineer ~ Outdoor lighting shali fully shielded such th~ towast pert of the shi~ iuminaire is a complel designed to distribute power supply; The ~ittee shall c( The permittee shall st Community Developn Planning staff shall re special use permit h~ The applicant shall o~ development on the I: facility's fall zone; an( ~ched to the pole only as follows: ~ antennas shall be limited to two (2), at the sizes shown on the attached ~le) entitled Triton PCS, Tomlin, dated November 6, 2001; microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; ~nted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the ~e minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However, il the outside edge of the antennas project out from the face of the pole inches. The antennas shall be painted to match the color of the iruction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation 3r utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arbodst, on methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be ~th inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be Dr of Planning and Community Development for approval. Ali constnmtion ~ted with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary ~ss for tion, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the ~ve existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the ,.ss. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any flJture tree hundred (200)-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; ;assembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date :communications purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator ; that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as ; shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with ~e County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount litioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall ~f the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney; bmit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later r. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall ident~ each telecommunication service provider; with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are s retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to ~re employed; be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be ~ all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the Id or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a e lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts the light, to pOsition and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the ~ply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; ~brnit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and ~ent. Pdor to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the fadlity, ~iew the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the ~e been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans; ,tain an easement, acceptable to the county attorney, prohibiting art of the abutting lot sharing the common lot line that is within the wireless 13. If trees exist along the include a note on the EC, outside the right-of-way, that contribute to the screening of the poise, ~an indicating that these trees will remain. WHEREAS, the Tho consortit Leave z Giving, the esta corporat the Lear designea professi~ charitab, on Janm Area be~ walks oJ NOW THEREFORE Supervis in the Cz goals of LEA VE A LEGACY MONTH sas Jefferson Area chapter of the Leave A Legacy program is a tm of not-for-profit organizations and professional advisors; and Legacy, a program of the National Committee On Planned a collaborative effort among local not-for-profit organizations, e and financial planning professions, community foundations, funders and a variety of media outlets; and ,~ A Legacy campaign is a community-based county-wide program to encourage prospective donors to work with the development of charities they already support, or the estate planning ,nals with whom they already have a relationship, to establish a 'e bequest or other planned gift; and ~ry 1, 2002, the Leave A Legacy program of the Thomas Jefferson ;ins a month-long education drive to encourage people from all life to make gifts from their estates; ' BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of 9rs, does hereby declare January 2002 as Leave a Legacy Month ,unty of Albemarle and encourage all our residents to support the the Leave A Legacy program of the Thomas Jefferson Area. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS The Honorable Members of County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229(] RE: TransDominion Expres Dear Honorable Members oft The TransDominion Express lobbying efforts in the 2002 the station locations identified For a county of our populatior directly is similar to the probl( As you will recall, we eventu; fund the TransDominion Expn I am enclosing a copy of th Agenda item, we will prepa TransDominion Express Com~ RWT,Jr\ 01.163 Enclosure COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-584I FAX (804) 296-5800 December 3, 2001 e County Board of Supervisors '~e Board: Steering Committee is soliciting suppod for education, marketing and ;eneral Assembly. As you know, Charlottesville is scheduled to be one of in the 1998 Feasibility Study. ~ size, they are requesting $1,000. Unfortunately, contributing to this entity ~m we faced with funding the High Growth Coalition a couple of years ago. ~lly funded their lobbyist directly. Under this proposal, however, we could - ;ss through our IDA, the Visitors Bureau or some other similar entity. Steering Committee's request and, with your approval of this Consent re the proper appropriation, if necessary, for transfer of funds to the nittee. Sincerely, - 12-03-0i P05:4~ IN The November 26, 2001 Albemarle County Mr. Robert Tucker Jr. 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Tucker, Exciting things are happen/ TransDominion Express ha abtyard-the~Caseades Rail s-~ Committee will take as ma] The goal of'these tours is f( We also have developed a ~ contact information, a route The Virginia Department o: with regard to track usage ~ Despite these new developi supporter of this project wE your help is greatly needed. Enclosed is an investment s and lobbying efforts in the: Express will be seeking adc With your support and with a reality. We would ask tha With a looming air transpo] Express makes more sense you can-help us cvca~e this Sincerely, Samuel V. Wilson President Emeritus, Hamde: (Lt Gen, USA-Ret) Chairman Steering Commit Committee to Advance the P.S. Please take a few mom to expand passenger rail se~ The P.C mmittee to Advance the TransDominion Express ~g with the TransDominion Express. As you may already be aware, the s been awarded a grant to conduct two study tours in the Pacific Northwest :rvice, which is -theprototype -for4zhe TraasDomin/on-Express. O ur S4:eering- ty as 32 Virginia legislators to experience this quality passenger rail service. ,r legislators to appreciate the need for this type of service in Virginia. ¢ebsite that can be viewed at 3~v3_v_._t__dxij]._!~.r_._9_r_g. Here, you will find Committee and station map and a progress summary of the TDX. .-'Rail and Public Transportation has begun negotiations with Norfolk Southern nd improvements. It is estimated that this service could begin as soon as 2004. aents, our education and advocacy efforts require financial support. As a o sees the necessity of expanding quality passenger rail service across Virginia, chedule that the Committee is using to solicit support for education, marketing ~.002 General Assembly. The Committee to Advance the TransDominion ifional funding to position the project for success within the next few years. this legislative appropriation, the TransDominion Express is poised to become your organization make a three-year commitment to the project~ :ation crisis and severely congested highway system, the TransDominion :ran ever. With your fmancial support and by contacting your area legislators, :xciting new u ansportat~on alternative. ~-Sydney College ~ee l'ransDominion Express snts to send us your financial support. Thanks you for assisting our efforts vice across Virginia! Contact Us: ~ommittee to Advance the TransDominion Express Box 2027 - 2015 Memorial Avenue · Lynchburg, VA 24501 434.845.5966 · Fax 434,522,9592 www. tdxinfo.org POINTS T£ · The need for increa is in need ofpositiv · TransDominion Exl COmmonwealth. (S · This passenger rail western part of the Rail Corridor. · It is imperative to ti contacts with your preliminary phase o is nearing completi( · As these discussion: regarding details of · Current estimates ~ million. The Gener~ Because of the recent redisl changing. We therefore rec, take support~ f{his importa If they are new, congratula1 Express. If they are standin importance of their support As committee appointment~ supporters list, please conta Please visi~ VIBI~INIA r'lN THE MOVE COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR LEGISLATOR Items to Include in Letters to Legislators led passenger rail service via thc TransDominion Express is critical. Virginia alternative transportation options. :ess has immense community and citizen support throughout thc upported ~bYover l'56-counties~ ci~ies~ ~hambers~-and/51arming divisions.) ~ervice will benefit all of Virginia, not just one locality. It will connect the tate to Washington and Richmond, in addition to linking with the High Speed .e success of the TransDominion Express that supporters continue to make rea legislators to ensure ongoing progress toward beginning service in 2004. A discussions between the Department of Rail, Norfolk-Southern, and Amtrak 1. ~ enter a second phase of a joint study, information will soon be available service and cost estimates. dicate that service for the TransDominion Express will cost about $100 Assembly has already approved a good down payment of $9.3 million. Legislative Contacts icting and elections, it is likely that some committees and chairmanships are )mmend that you contact all of your own legislators to make sure that they nt-t-egislation-with them to Richmond. e them on their victories and familiarize them with the TransDominion members or recently re-elected, send appropriate greetings and reinforce the are made, we will keep our list of supporters informed! If you are not on our ct us, and we will add you. TransDominion Website the new TransDominion website frequently: www.tdxinfo.org PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS BY DECEMBER 15~ 2001 TO EXPRESS YOUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE TRANSDOMINION EXPRESS Commitf The Steering Corem funds for expenses to b 2002. Time is of the es submit the appropriate This effort requires businesses, and individ Express a reality. Station Locations (note ] $1,000 between 5,000 and 21 Other Cities and Towns: $250 for less thanS,000 Counties: $1,000 for popul~ than 30,000. Colleges and Universitie~ enrollment Chambers of Commerce: less than 250 Business Patrons: $500 or Non-Profits: $250 or $100 Individuals: $250 or $100 Station Locations Iisi Bristol, Charlottesvilt Marion, Orange, Pule Organization Address Contact Person RETU Yes No (check app~ Can we coun Will you con~ Please fax this completed rom Committee to Advance the Tt VA 24501. Call Rex Hamm~ ee to Advance the TransDominion Express Sunoort Investment Schedule ittee has devised an investment schedule to solicit necessary incurred for education, marketing and lobbying efforts for ence. Based on the following investment schedule, please request to your organization. rapport from cities, towns, counties, colleges, chambers, ·als from across Virginia in order to make the TransDominion ocations below): $2,000 for city/town population of more than 20,000; ),000; $500 for less than 5,000 $1,000 for population of more than 20,000; $500 between 5,000 and 20,000; Ltion of more than 50,000; $500 between 30,000 and 50,000; and $250 for less ~: $1,000 for large enrollment; $500 for medium enrollment; $250 for small $500 for membership of more than 500; $250 between 500 and 250; $100 for $250 (investor option) investor option) .nvestor option) '~d in the 1998 feasibility study are: Abingdon, Alexandria, Appomattox, Bedford, e, Christiansburg, Culpeper, Farmville/Prince Edward, Lynchburg, Manassas, .ski, Radford, Richmond, Roanoke, and Wytheville. RN THIS FORM BY FAX OR MAIL City, State ZIP Email Address ~priate response) on your organization to invest according to this schedule? mt your legislators about your organization's support? n to (434) 522-9592. Or, mail your check and this form to: ansDominion Express~ P.O. Box 2027, 2015 Memorial Avenue, Lynchburg, · d at (434) 845-5966 if you have any questions. The Board of County 12th day of December 2001 WHEREAS, the streel Form SR-5(A) fully incorpora Office of the Circuit Court of WHEREAS, the Resi, advised the Board that the sl Requirements of the Virginia NOW, THEREFORE, requests the Virginia Dep~ Subdivision, as described o state highways, pursuant to § Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RES way, as'described, exclusive on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVE Engineer for the Virginia De Recorded vote: Moved by: Ms. Hump~ Seconded by: Mr. Bc Yeas: Mr. Bowerman Nays: None. Absent: Mr. Dorrier. ;upervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION ',s) in Stonewood Subdivision described on the attached Additions ted herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in-the Clerk's Albemarle County, Virginia; and tent Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has reets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Department of Transportation. 3E IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors ~rtment of Transportation to add the read(s) in Stonewood 3 the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street ~)LVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- )f any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident ~rtment of Transportation. ~ris. werman. Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. A Copy Teste: arey, Clerk, ~ Board of County Suers By resolu The following Form SR-SA ix hereby at secondary system of state highways. A Copy Testee Report of Ch~ Form SR-fA Secondary Roads Division 5/1/99 Addition The following additions to hereby requested, the righ Reason for Change: Pursuant to Code of Vi Project/Subdivision Stonewood Type of Change: Route Number and/or St · Stonewood Drive, In the Coun__t_ty of Albemarle tion of the governing body adopted December 12, 2001 tached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the nges in the Secondary System of State Highways :he Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed: Addition, New subdivision street inia Statute: §33.1-229 feet Name ~tate Route Number 1034 · -D~sc&ti~n: l~o~n~: r-lni~rs~-ct~n bf ~t. ~-84 ........................................ To: Cul De Sac A dista~ ce of: 0.21 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 1/19/1999. Deed Book 1812 Pg.421-422, with a width of 50' Page 1 of 1 The roads described 1) ,Stonewood DI cul-de-sac, as Court of Albem of-way width, f, 3n Additions Form SR-5(A) are: ive (St Rt 1034) from the intersection of Route 784 to the end of the shown on plat recorded 01/19/1999 in the office the Clerk of Circuit ~rle County in Deed Book 1812, pages 421-422, with a 50-foot dght- )r a length of 0.21 mile. Total Mileage 0.21 mile. The Board of County 12th day of December 2001 WHEREAS, the stree' Form SR-5(A) fully incorpor~ Office of the Circuit Court of WHEREAS, the Resi advised the Board that the s .Requirements of the Virgini~ NOW, THEREFORE, requests the Virginia Departn as described on the attached pursuant to §33.1-229, Code and BE IT FURTHER RE: way, as'described, exclusive on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVE Engineer for the Virginia De Yeas: Nays: Recorded vote: Moved by: Ms. Huml: Seconded by: Mr. Bo Mr. Bowerman None. Absent: Mr. Dorrier. Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION :(s) in Cory Farm Subdivision described on the attached Additions ted herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Albemarle County, Virginia; and dent Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has Ireets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Department of Transportation. 3E IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors lent of Transportation to add the mad(s) in Cory Farm Subdivision, Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; OLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted dght-of- 3f any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident )artment of Transportation. hris. ,verman. Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. A Copy Teste: BE~aa rdW~)fC~euYr;ty S ~o rs By resoh The following Form SR-$A is hereby secondary system of state highways. In the County_ of Albemarle [tion of the governing body adopted December 12, 2001 tached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the A Copy Testee $igned (County Official): ~____~~__.. , ~_~ o [nges in the Secondary System f State Highways the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provtsion or provisions cited, are t of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed: Addition, New subdivision street ginia Statute: §33.1-229 reet Name Cory Farm Road, ~tate Route Number 1260 Report of Form SR-5A Secondary Roads Division 5/1/99 'Project/Subdivision Cory Farm Type of Change: Addition The following additions to hereby requested, the rig~ Reason for Change: Pursuant to Code of Vi~ Route Number and/or Sl To; A dista Right of Way Record: Filly Run, State R To: A distm Right of Way Record: Glenview Ct., Stat~ · Description: From: To: A distar Right of Way Record: Summit View, Stat Description: From: To: A distar Right of Way Record: End State Maintance ~ce of: 0.09 miles. Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 3/5/1997, Deed Book 1597 Pg.210-219 Deed Book 1899 Pg.661-666, with a width of 120' ,ute Number 1265 -RC12~1 ~/Vi~-dy~idge Road Cul De Sac ~ce of: 0.16 miles. Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 3/5/1997, Deed Book 1597 Pg. 210-219. with a width of 50' Route Number 1264 Rt. 1260 Cul De Sac ce of: 0.03 miles. Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 3/5/1997 Deed Book 1597 Pg.210-219, with a width of 50' e Route Number 1262 Rt.1261 Windy Ridge Road Rt.1265 Filly Run ce of.' 0.05 miles. Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 3/5/1997, Deed Book 1597 Pg.210-219, with a width of 50' Page I of 1 The roads described 1) 2) 3) 4) on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: Cory Farm Read, (St Rt 1260) from the intersection of Windy Ridge Road (Route 1261) to the er~d of State maintenance, as shown on plat recorded 03/05/1997 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book t597, pages 210-219, and I~eed Book 1899, pages 661-666, with a 120-foot right-of-way width, for a length of b.09 mile. ' / Filly Run {St.l~t 1265) from the intersection of Windy Ridge Road (Route 1261) to the end of the ~:ul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 03/05/1997 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed BOok 1597, pages 210-219, with a 50.foot right- Glenview Cou~ to the end of th Clerk of Circuit a 50-foot right- Summit View to the intersecti in the office tht pages 210-21 Total Mileage- of-way width, for a length of 0.16 mile. t (St Rt 1264) from the intersection of Cory Farm Road (Route 1260) -= cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 03/05/1997 in the office the Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1597, pages 210-219, with 3f-way width, for a length of 0.03 mile. St Rt 1262) from the intersection of Windy Ridge Road (Route 1261) on of Filly Run (Route 1265), as shown on plat recorded 03/05/1997 Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1597, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile. 0.33 mile. APPR( FISCAL YEAR: 01/ TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATI( FUNDING FOR SPECIAL ELE( CODE 1 1000 13020 120000 OV 1 1000 13020 210000 FIC 1 1000 13020 312510 ELI 1 1000 13020 350000 PR 1 1000 13020 360000 AD' 1 1000 13020 390000 OT 1 1000 13020 520100 PO 1 1000 13020 520300 TEl 1 1000 13020 540200 LE/ 1 1000 13020 550100 TR~ 1 1000 13020 600100 OFI I 1000 13020 601700 CO I 1000 95000 999990 CO CODE REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~PRIATION REQUEST 32 NUMBER 2001037 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ? YES NO GENERAL ~N: ;TION FOR THE 25TH STATE SENATE DISTRICT. EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT =RTIME WAGES A -.'CTIO N OFFICIALS NT & BIND-EXTERNAL /ERTISING -..IER PURCHASED SERVICES 3TAL SERVICES .ECOMMUNICATIONS ~SE/RENT-BUILDINGS \VEL-MILEAGE :ICE SUPPLIES :::'Y EXPENSE $ 1,230.00 95.00 14,060.00 400.00 375.00 5,300.00 165.00 700.00 115.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 ~ITINGENCY FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS (23,040.00) TOTAL -- $ REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $ ~NSFERS FINANCE SIGNATURE DATE DEC 4 2001 I¢.o / AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation for Conducting a Spec SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation amount of $23,040 for conducting a Albemarle County for the 25th State Dec. 18, 2001. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs· Tucker, Hildebeidel; Ms. WJ BACKGROUND: A vacancy ~n the 25th State Senat, Special Election to fill the seat is sc of the 27 voting precincts (includin! DISCUSSION: The Department of Voter Registral $23,040 to cover the cost of holdin for a Special Election was not knov additional costs were not anticipate( of election support for the special ~ These costs include overtime for D to staff the polls, and the costs of p other related costs. The funds to cover this request w therefore, do not need to be proces of Virginia. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ap election in the Albemarle County v< 01.232 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ;iai Election 2001037 in the special election in Senate District on lite AGENDA DATE: December 12, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes / )rial District occurred upon the death of State Senator Emily Couric, and a ~eduled for December 18, 2001. The 25"~ State Senatorial District includes 25 the Central Absentee Precinct) in Albemarle County. an and Elections is requesting an additional appropriation in the amount of ~1 the special election on December 18, 2001 in Albemarle County. The need ~n at the time that the original FY 2001/2002 Budget was adopted, and these · The additional costs reflect the requirements to provide nearly the same level .~lection as done for a regular election in 25 precincts of Albemarle County. epartment staff members, paying approximately 110 to 120 election officials 'eparing and delivering voting machines to the polls, advertising, printing, and II be derived from the already appropriated Board Contingency Fund and, sed as a Budget Amendment under the provisions of {}15.2-2507 of the Code ~ropriation #2001037 in the amount of $23,040 for conducting the special )ting precincts encompassed within the 25th State Senatorial District. 12-06-01 P03:39 IN AGEN DA TITLE: Department of Human Resource SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUE Request additional $8,510 to fun Resource Manager position for STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, White, Suyes COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: A comprehensive review of the Human human resource needs of the School · Needs Analysis with internal~ · Task Analysis of all current h~ · S.W.O.T. Analysis - Strength., · Focus group discussion with ( · Comparison to other school d This comprehensive review led by our order to align as a strategic business pl requires one additional position, which DISCUSSION: In addition to the analysis, which show~ there are some immediate staffing issue budget request process to request th~ Coordinator, are either on medical leav, two HR Specialists and the Assistant 17 the next 6 months will be a time of sigf Because of this high degree of transiti( to both local government and the schoc from other governments supports this r been completely adequate. Albemarle ~ (175) employees in comparison to: · Hanover County · Henrico County · Chesterfield County In order to realign Human Resources Human Resources Manager position b the current structure and an organizati( with customers through an assigned proactively provide services and soluti, S Reorganization ST: d new Human 9mainder of FY01/02, AGENDA DATE: December 12, 2001 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ,~~fi'""~"'~'"'"'~ / Resource Department's operations has been conducted to define the current and future :)ivision and Local Government. This review included: Jstomers (Principals, Department Directors & Administrators) man resource procedures , Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats .ustomers to identify issues and solutions visions human resources support new HR Director, Kimberly Suyes, identified the need to re-design the department in ~rtner with its customers. To be effective, the implementation of the proposed re-design is being requested to be effective January 1,2001. ~d that the Human Resources department requires an additional person to be effective, ~s that require that this position become effective now, rather than waiting for the normal ; additional position. Three staff members, two HR Specialists and the Recruitment .~s of absence for up to twelve (12) weeks each. In addition, three other staff members, irector of HR are resigning by their own choice over the next 30 - 60 days. Therefore, ~ificant transition and stress for this department. ,n and because of some past concerns about the quality of human resources support I division, staff believes it is critical to add this position on January 1,2002. Information eed by showing that Albemarle County's level of staffing in Human Resources has not .~ounty is staffed at one (1) Human Resource Staff member to one hundred seventy-five 1:145 1:85 1:167 Nith the appropriate span of control and line of site, it is recommended that one (~1) ~ added to the Department. The attachment shows an organizational chart based on nal chart based on the proposed structure. The new structure will allow for partnering =lient group. This Manager will become an integral member of the team and will ~ns to all customers needs in such areas as: 12-07-01 A09:~2 IN ACTION: X INFORMATION: AGENDA TITLE: De partment of Human Resources December 12, 2001 Page 2 · Performance management, · Attracting, selecting, and ret; · Improving people systems an The request of the additional position i.~ and procedures and is necessary to ac a comprehensive strategic planning p~ Budget Implications (Short and Lor Short term - FY 2001-02 - Approxima Long term -Approximately $17,250 ir RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests approval of one additic $8,510. These funds can be taken fror be brought forward at the Board's Ja $28,490 (77%) from its contingency re 01.233 Prepared: Reviewed: Recommended: Reorganization ining the best talent possible processes. in the context of a critical examination of the Department's service demands, functions, complish the objectives, strategies and tactics that have already been identified through 'ocess with the Human Resources Management Team. ~g Term) :ely $8,510 in salary and benefits (General Government's share). annual salary and benefits (General Government's shara). nal Human Resources Manager position for the current fiscal year at a total cost of ~ the Board's approved contingency fund and, if approved, an official appropriation will luary 9th meeting. The School Board is scheduled to approve their contribution of serve on December 6% Item Number: Department of Human Resources October, 2001 k~7 ~ Human Resources Team ~ Proposed Re-Design Compeasatioa & Bea~fits I David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, ,Jr. Scotlsville · Charlotte Y. Humphris .. ~ Jack Jouctt The Honorable Shirley Chairman Commonwealth Transpc 1401 E Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Secretary Ybarra: At its meet4ng on Supervisors adopted a re Board offidally name tN Attached is a cop) information, please do n, /EWC CC: Mrs. Robert Carte Mr. H. Carter My COUNTY OF Al BEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntim Road Charlottesville, Vir§inia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX {804] 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins White H~Ii Sal¥ H. Thomas Samuel Mille~ December 18,2001 Ybarra rtation Board December 12,2001, the Albemarle County Board of ~olution requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation described bridge as "Carter's Bridge". of the adopted resolution. If you require any additional ~t hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Ella ~V. Carey, ~erk,~' r ers, III Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION FOR CARTER'S BRIDGE WHEREAS, the: approximately midpoint ] WHEREAS, thi: WHEREAS, thi~ is located near a large :e is a bridge located in Albemarle County on State Route 20 South >etween Charlottesville and Scottsville, Virginia; and bridge has been known for its long history as Carter's Bridge; and bridge, crossing the Hardware River in southern Albemarle County, act of land known as "Redlands,' the ancestral home of the Carter family for six generation{, is a local, state and national historic landmark and is presently the home of Mrs. Robert Ca~ter; and 1 WHERFa~, Jol~n Hammond Moore, in his book Albemarle ]~fferson's Count, 1727- 1976, notes that one of l~ae pioneers .o,f the attempt to extend the Tidewater to the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountaia'. in the 1700 s was "John Carter; son ofthe wealthy Robert Carter of the Northern Neck, ... se cretary of the colony of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the realign Carter's Bridge; WHEREAS, tl~ support of the Albemarle WHEREAS, the named bridges by the Vh WHEREAS, the Carter's Bridge as being WHEREAS, th contributions and heri Commonwealth of Virgi~ NOW THEREF, South approximately mk the Carter famity, to im and BE IT RESOLV Virginia Department of Carter, "Redlands, 852 1; Unanimously ad, Albemarle County. Attestz Virginia Department of Transportation has approved a plan to id planned' realignment of Carter's Bridge has received the unanimous County Board of Supervisors; and bridge called Carter's Bridge has not been included among formerly ginia Department of Highways; and Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County recognizes the name of he only known name for the said bridge; and Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County recognizes the rage of the John Carter and Rob[rt Carter families to the 5a and to Albemarle County; 2)RE BE IT RESOLVED that the bridge located on State Route 20 [point between Charlottesville and Scottsville, Virginia, be named for lude the late John Carter and Robert Carter and their descendants; ED FURTHER, that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Highways pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-250 and to Mrs. Robert edlands Farm Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902. )pted this 12m day of December 2001 by the Board of Supervisors of Cler Board of Supe 4 5 Albemarle County, ~ D a t e: |.,1~/~[,r/~2(2 2. )01 .35/4.!5 PROFFER FORM Original Proffer Amended Proffer 24 (Amendment # z ZMA# 99- 11 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 56- 107,107A. 107(A)1 Acres to be rezoned from R1/HC to PD-MC Pursuan! duly authorized applied to the pr rezonmg and itl and (2) such col (1) See atta, to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be operty, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested s agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions: lditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. ;hed "Clover Lawn Proffers" 1 through 6, on pages 2 'of 3 and 3 of 3 r ~ ,~----'' '. ' ~ : ~ ~'~Preston O. Stallin.qs L-..--Si'gnatures of A~ qwn'ers /¢~/Printed Names of All Owners Signature of Attorn (Attach Proper Po~ PROFFORM.WPD Rev. December! 994 ~ of 3 Page: 9y-in-Fact ¢er of Attorney) OR Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact Clo~ In connection with the 1. The Applic~ Application the Applica a. Au and dee, doe sub~ b. Acc~ inte~ c. Am dew dew d. Ped App esta e. Arcl' Coif elev t~wr Tow and Arc~ profl f. A m; towr buiic 2. Radford Lar upon the de public road. amount req~ property lin( as shown o~ public road, Subdivision for construc 31, 2011. SI design plan from the obi and is not p~ Page 2 of 3 Recreationa Application I minimum of include two Plan. Thes, certificate of the Director ~er Lawn Village - Proffers t/~Yh f[e~ollowing applicant's rezoning application, proffers are made: ~tion Plan, dated Novembe 001 Sheet 2 of 2 is proffered as the Plan for the development and is attached hereto. Specific features of :ion Plan that will be a part of the development are: nified development of all three parcels of land (TMP56-107, 107(A)1, TMP 56-107A) including a combination of these parcels by plat or prior to site development plan approval for the first site pla~. not preclude phasing this development and it does not preclude ivision of this parcel. .~ss from a single entrance across RT250_with aA~e,~le future{ connection to Radford Lane. ~ xed-use development with residential uses at t~e re;r-of the A ~'~-~ ;Iopment and commercial and residential uses at the front of th; u ~,,~ z'/7., ;Iopment. ~strian access in the locations and widths as shown on the ication Plan. Sidewalk and pedestrian paths shall meet standard~ blished by the Director of Engineering. itectural Features in general accord with the elevation of the [ .m. ercia, l..Buil.._ding ,by Sto.ne. ki.n .g/von Storch dat ,ed~,,,7/~0~0+~and front/~.~. ~on o~ tne ~ownnousel, s) aated 10/31/01 ana p~ ...... - ..... ....................... +. attached hereto. The rear face 3house block A and block G shall have additional window treatment screening as approved by ARB. Modifications required by itectural Review Board shall be deemed as consistent with this er. ~ximum of 29 residential units which includes a maximum of 24' houses and a maximum of 5 residential units overtop the commercial ings. ~e, as shown on the Application Plan, shall be reserved for dedication mand of the County, should the County establish the need for a ~t this location. The area to be dedicated shall be the minimum ~ired for a public road and shall be no more than 25 feet from the except at the entrance to RT250 where the reserved area is wider the Application Plan. if before the County demands dedication for a lhe County approves a private road at this location under the Ordinance, then the land reserved for dedication shall be available :ion of a private road. This proffer shall be in effect until December )ould the County not make demand or approve the private road at this location within this time period, the owner shall be released gation. The owner is not proffering a gift of the land for a private road offedng to construct any improvements to that road. amenities shall cOnsist of a "recreational area" as shown on the ~lan in which a Tot Lot shall be installed. The area shall be a 20,000 square feet. At a minimum, recreational amenities shall )enches, a sidewalk, and a pathway as shown on the Application amenities and the Tot Lot shall be installed or bonded pdor to occupancy of the 15th residential unit. This proffer does not prohibit of Planning and Community Development from substituting recreation; 4.16.2.1. 4. No structu shown on ti along the re of the deve rear of the, line shall b( height is pr~ proffer ackr Route 250 ~ road projec 5. The Owner at one of ~ RT250 OR based on th location of t contribution by this site ~ This proffer 6. If a subregi~ developmer program in l on the Appli 7. Uses allowE Commercial Commercia copies of w~ a. The Ce~ Fire Fur Ind ,x ~ b. The' ; ¢ \ and t_~ Page 3 of 3 facilities provided those facilities satisfy the requirements of Sections : or landscaping shall be placed within the Old Route 250 road bed ~e Application Plan with the exception of the privacy fence shown :ar property line. Existing vehicular access across the rear boundary opment shall remain unobstructed. Screening plants required at the Jevelopment where the Old Route 250 road bed abuts the property , placed outside of the 20 foot buffer. A privacy fence of 6 feet in )ffered in the general location shown on the Application Plan. This ~owledges that the segment of the privacy fence located within the old oadbed may be relocated in the event it obstructs any future County ;hall make a pro-rata contribution for the installation of a traffic signal o potential locations - either the intersection of Clover Lawn Lane and ~adford Lane and RT 250. The Owner's pro-rata contribution shall be e cost established by YDOT when that signal is warranted. The we traffic signal shall be determined by VDOT. The amount of the shall be based on a pro-rata share of the traffic volume contributed ~s determined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department. shall be in effect until December 31,2011. )nal stormwater management facility is available for use by this ~t, the Owner shall make a contribution consistent with the County's ieu of an on-site stormwater management facility. The area shown cation Plan for this use will be designated for recreational use. d by-right in the PDMC district are attached hereto as Section 22.2.1 -C-1, 23.2.1 Commercial Office -CO, and 24.2.1 Highway - HC, from the Zoning ordinance in effect at the time of this rezoning, ~ich are attached hereto, with the following exceptions: following uses shall not De permitted in this district: ~eteries (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(3), 23.2.1 (4),24.2.1 (5)) and rescue squad stations(Section 22.1.1(b)(6)) leral homes (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(7),24.2.1 (14)) 3or theaters (Sections 22.2.1(b)(9), 24.2.1 (38)) .., o truck repair: shop(Sections 22.2.1 (b)(22), 24 2 1 (2;~ _ - ~es shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6a.m... 1 p.m.: undries, dry cleaners (Section 22.2.1 (b)(10)) undromat (Section 22.2.1(b)(11)) lrseries, day care centers (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(13), 23.2.1(12)) ~m~b!!e service .~t~ti,,n~_ (Sect!e?_ 22.2. !(5)(!_~), 2a..2. !(3)) ._. toor athletic facilities (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(24), 24.2.1 (42)) , Clover Lawn Village Nmlh and South Elevations i/ Sections: 22.1 INTENT. W 22.2 PERMITTE 22.2.1 BY RIGHT 22.2.2 BY SPECIAl 22.3 ADDITION 22.1 INTENT, WHERE PER C-1 districts are hereb' to pen'ntt setecred rera to central business con urban area communiti~ PERMITTED USES 22.2. 1 BY RIGHT The following uses limitations of these reg planning and other apl permitted; provided and more specifically visual impact and traff generally provided in a. The [ollowing fetal i. Antique, gift, j 2. Clothing, appa] 3. Department stc 4. Drug store, phs 5. Florist. 6. Food and groce and wine and 7. Furniture and ALBEi'rlARLE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 22 COMMERCIAL - C-I -IERE PERMITTED USES USE PERMIT L REQUIREMENTS 4ITTED created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map sales, service and public use establishments which are primarily oriented enrrarions. It is intended that C-i districts be established only (vithin the :s and villages in the comprehensive plan (Amended 9-9-92) s~all be permitted in an,.,, C-1 district subiecr_ to the requirements and ulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of ~ropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not st~ecificallv t such use shall be similar to uses permirted by right in generai character similar in terms of' locationaI requirements, operational characteristics. : generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decisirJn shall be as ction 34.0. sales and service establishments: welry.', notion and craft shops. 'el and shoe shops. re. r-~l acv. 2,' stores including such specialty, shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensarw c. mese sho~s. ' - h ~mc applianccs (sales and sep,,ice). 8. Hardware 9. Musical insta- l 0. Newssta~dg, 11. Optical good~ 12. Photographic t3. Visual and au 14. Sporting goo{ 15. Retail nurseri The ~'ollowing set' t. Adminisrranv 2. Barber, beaut 3. Churches, ce~ 4. Clu,s, lodges: 5. Financial insti 6. Fire and rescu ? - Funeral home. 8 Health spas. 9. Indoor rnearer 10.Laundries, dr I 1. Laundromat 1" -. Libraries. taus 13. Nurseries, day 14. Eating establis 15. Tailor, seamst] t6. Automobile se 17. Electric, gas, poles, lines, ta service and ox collection line Albemarle Cot ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ~re. lments. nagazines, pipe and tabacco shops. oods. dio appliances. [$. .'s and green.houses. ,ices and public establishments: -% professional offices. shops, e~eri-es. civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.02). rations. squad stations (reference 5.1.09). cleaners. : covided that an attendant shall be on du~, ar ail hours during operation). :urns. care centers (reference 5.1.06). nments. ess. .-vice stations (reference 5.1.20). ,il and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including ansformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local ~ned and operated by a public utiliD'. Water distribution and sewerage s, pumping stations and appurtenances o~vned and operated by the nt¥ Service Authority. (Amended Zon,ng Supplement #6. 12-30 18. Public uses and bu offices, parks, play federal agencies { treatment facilities Rivarma Water ~¢ t9. Temporary constru 20. Dwellings (referen~ 21. Medical center. 22. Automobile, truck 23. Temporary nonresi 24. Indoor athletic fac 25. Farmers' market (r 22.2.2 BY SPECIAL US E PER] l Commercial recrea bowling allevs, poo 2. Electrical power su lines, pure ping stat wave and radio-wa,~ 3. Hospitals. 4. Fast food restaurant. 5. Veterinary office an, 6. o II Motor vehicle sales comprehensive plan. Parking structures 1o, Drive-in windows se 92) ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE .Idings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, grounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or nun3: lines pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5. i. 12). (Amended 11-1-9) :non uses (reference 5.1.1 ). :e 5.l.2l). epair shop excluding body shop. (Added 6-3-81; Amended 9-9-92) tential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-6) ities. (Added 9-15-93) ?erence 5.1.36). (Added 10-I 1-95) vIIT :ion ~stablishments including but not limited to amusement centers, halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83) Isranons, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmissmn ons and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. hospital (reference 5.1. I i). Unless such uses 'e otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, residential - R-15, [~ compliance with regulations ~brth may be imposed.pu [uant to section 31.2.4. set therein, and such conditions as Hotels, motels and itns. 1 and rental in communities and the urban area as designated in the (Added 6-I-83) Uses permitted by four hundred (400) . public sewer, involvi 6-14-89) 12. Body shop. (Added :ated wholly or partly above grade. (Added 1 I-7-4) :ving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9- t, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding allons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served bv ag anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Adde~t '-9-92) 18- ,__-_, Zoning Supplement aS. o-t6-o9 /'7 13. Animal shelter 22.3 ADDITIONAL RE_Q..UI In addition to the r~ districts, generally, s ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 'eference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99). REMENTS quirements contained herein, the requirements of section 21.0, commercial ~all apply within all C-1 districts. (Amended 3-17-82; 7-10-85) 18-22-4 Zoning Supplement #5. 6-16-99 ALBE3,£4RLE COUNTY CODE Sections: 23. I INTENT. 23.2 PERMIT'T 23.2.1 BY RIGHq 23.2.2 BY SPECI 23.3 ADDITIOt 23.1 INTENT, WHERE PEI CO districts are here to permit devetor~rr accessory, uses and t and other more inten 23.2 PERMITTED USES 23.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses limitations of these re 1. Administrative a 2. Professional offi~ 3. Financial instimt 4 Churches. cemet~ 5. Libraries, musem 6. Accessory uses a combination shal the site. The foil -Eating establish -Newsstands: -Establishments -Data processing CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 23 COMMERCIAL OFFICE - CO VHERE PERMITTED ED USES iL USE PERMIT ~AL REQUIREMENTS ~.MITTED >y created and may hereafter be established by amendmen~ to the zoning map ent of administrative, business and professional offices and supporting acitities. This district ~s intended as a transition between residential districts ;ire c~>mmercial and industrial districts. shall be permitted in any CC> district, subject to the requirements and ~utations: business offices ~es. including medical, dental and optical. OhS. ties. ~1s. ad structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such uses in no[ occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of buildin, gs .on... wm,,¢ accessory uses shall be permit-ted: lents~ the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment; ,ervices: /9 -Central reprodu -Ethical pharma, optical or prosth, -(Repealed 3M7- -Sale/serv ice of instruments, taus (Added 12-3-86 7. Electric, gas, oil lines, transforme owned and open pumping stations Authority.. Exc, sewerage system. applicable law. 8. Public uses and parks, playgrour (reference 31.215 facilities, pumpm Sewer Authority 9. Temporary const~ 10. Dwellings (refere~ [ l. Temporary nonre~ t2. Da.y.care, child ca 23.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PEt 1. Hospitals. 2. Funeral homes. 3. Electrical power s lines, pumping st~ wave and radio-w 4. Parking structures .5. Commercial uses 6 School of special 7. Clubs. lodges, civ 8. Uses permitted by four hundred (400 public sewer, invol 6-14-89) ,4LBEi}IARLE COUNTY CODE :tion and mailing services and We like; ties, laboratories and estabishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of ~tic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical Offices; 82) Foods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical icat scores, text books, artist's supplies and dancing shoes and apparel. nd communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, rs, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and tted by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines. and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service ~pt as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other qmended 5-12-93) mildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, [s and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies ); public water and sewer transmission, main .or trunk lines, treatment g stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and reference 3 1.2 5; 5.1.12). (Amended 1 I-1-89) ~ction uses (reference 5.1.18). tce 5.1.2 t ). (Added 3-17-82) idential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 'e or nursery facility reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92) [MIT abstations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission tions and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- ve transmissmn and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. ocated wholly or partly above grade (Added I 1-7-84) therwise permitted having drive-in windows (Added 11-7-84) tstruction. (Added 1-1-87) fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). (Added t- 1-87) ght, not served ay public water, involving water consumption exceeding gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by ring anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Adde~ 9. Unless such us residential R- 15 be imposed pur~ I0. Hotels. motels a 11. Supporting com: 12. Research and de 13. Laboratories, mi 14. Indoor athtetic 23.3 ADDITIONAL REQU In addition to the re disu'icts, generally, si ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ,~s are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0. . in compliance with regulations set forth therein and such conditions as may uant to section 31.2.4. (Added 6-19-91 ) ad inns (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) nercial uses (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91 ) velopment activities including experimental testing. (Added 6-19-91 ) ..dical or pharmaceutical. (Added 6-10-92) tcilities. (Added 9-15-93) REMENTS quirements contained herein, the tall apply within all CO districts. requirements of section 21'.0. commercial 18-23-3 2[ ALBE~IARLE CO UfVT¥ CODE Sections: 24.1 INTENT, V 24.2 PERMITTI 24.2.1 BY RIGHT 24.2.2 BY SPECI3 24.3 MINIMUM 24.4 ADDITION 24. I INTENT, WHERE PER HC districts are hereb to permit developme oriented to highway h districts be establish comprehensive plan. sprawling strip comm permit controlled acc~ 24.2 PERMITTED USES 24.2.1 BY.RIGHT The following uses limitations of these n planning and other a1 permitted; provided th and more specifically visual impact and trail generally provided in t. Automobile launt 2. Automobile, truck 3. Automobile servk~ 4. Building materials 5. Churches, cemeter 6. Clubs. lodges, civi~ 7. Convenience store CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 24 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL- HC HERE PERMITTED ;D USES- .L USE PERMIT FRONTAGE, SHAPE OF DISTRICT AL REQUIREMENTS MITTED created and may hereafter be established by' amendment to the zoning map nt of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily ~caticms rather than to central business concentrations. It is intended that H~ .~d on major highways within the urban area and communities in the It is further intended that this district shall be for the purpose of limiting ercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to ss to public streets. hall be permitted' in any HC district subject ro the requirements ano ~ulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of propriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not?specifically ~t such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character. similar m terms of locarional requirements, operational characteristics, ic generation. Appeals from the zoning adminisrrator'.s decision shall be as ection 34.0. [CS. repair shops. stations (reference 5.1.20). sales. es. fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 8. Educational, technical and trade schools. 9. Factory outlet s:ties - clothing and fabric. 10. Feed and seed s: ores (reference 5.1.22). 11. Financial institu 12. Fire extinguishe 13. Fire and rescue 14. Funeral homes. 15. Furniture stores. 16. 17. Food and grocex wine and cheese Home and busir other repair and 18. Hardware. t9. (Repealed 6-3-8 ~) 20. Hotels, motels a~td inns. 21. Light warehousi2 22. Machinery and 23. Mobile home a~ 24. Modular buildin: 25. Motor vehicle 26. New automotive 27. Newspaper publi 28. Administrative, i 29. Office and busin 30. Eating establishn 31. Retail nurseries ~ 32. Sale ofmajorrec 33. Wayside stands 34~ Wholesale distri fions. r and security products, sales and service. ;quad stations (reference 5.1 ·09). y stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk' dispensary and shops. ess services such as grounds care, cleaning, ex'terminators, landscaping and ~aintenance services. ~g~ quipment sales, service and rental. 1 trailer sales and service. sales. es, service, and rental. >arts sales. hing. ,usiness and professional offices. :ss machines sales and servme. tent; fast food restaurants. nd greenhouses. reational equipment and vehicles. vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19). ution. 18-24-2 35. 36. Electric, gas, oil a~ lines, ~rans fonner~ owned and op~}I~a~ pumping stations Authority. Exce sewerage systems applicable law. (A Public uses and bi parks, playground: (reference 31.2.5 facilities, pumpin~o Sewer A~thoriw (~ 37 Temporary consrru 38. Indoor theaters. 39. Heatin~ oil sales ar 40. Tempora_ry nonresi 41. Uses permitted b'~ (Added 6-19-91; .~ Indoor athletic fac Farmers' market (r 24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PER I. Commercial recrea alleys, pool halls a~ _. Septic tank sales ar 3. Livestock sales. 4. Veterinary office a~ 5. Drive-in theaters (r 6. Electrical power st lines, pumping sta wave and radio-wi 5.1.12). 7. Hospitals, nursing 8.' Contractors' office 9. ,Auction houses. ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE d communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, · p~pes, meters and related facilities .for distribution of local service and :d by a public utility,. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, tnd appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service ,t as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies an) central in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other mended 5-I2-93) tildings including temporary, or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and fference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) :tion uses (reference 5.1.18). d distribution (reference 5.1.20). 'ientiaI mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86'~ rio, hr pursuant to subsection 22.2.! of secnon 22.1. commercm[, C-1. me~ded 9-9-92) ities. (Added %15-93) ference 5.I.26). (Added 10-I 1-95'} MIT :ion establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling ,d dance hails. (Amended I-l-833 -_. d related service. ~d hospital (re£erence 5.1.11). fference 5.1.08). tbstations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission :ions and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro- /e transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference tomes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13). md equipment storage yard. .., i 8-24-3 Zoning Supplement g6. 12-30mo 10. Unless such us residential - R- may be imposed 11. Commerci~½ ker 12. Parking structur 13. Drive-in windo~ 92) 14. Uses permitted four hundred (,~ public sewer, in 6-14-89) 15. Warehouse facil 16. Animal shelter 24.3 MINIMUM FRONTA, Minimum frontage r, hundred and fifty (1.' not apply to HC distx 24.4 ADDITIONAL REQUI In addition to the re districts, generally, si ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, 5, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as mrsuant to section 31.2.4. nels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11). (Added 1- 1-83) ;s located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-84) ~s serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9- right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding 00) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by ~olving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added nes not permitted under section 24.2.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6- t 9-91 ) · eference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99) ;E, SHAPE OF DISTRICT :quired on a public street for the establishment of an HC district shall be one 0) feet. Frontage of an HC district shall not exceed depth. This section shall icts established at the adoption of the zoning map. REMENTS tuirements contained herein, the requirements of section 21.0, commercial all apply within all HC districts. 18-24-4 Zoning Supplement #6. I2-30-99 Ella Carey From: Jeanne Cross [jks6w@vi~, Sent: Monday, December 10, 2t To: Sally Thomas; david@sm Perkins; Ella Carey Subject: Radford Lane Homeowne~ To: Albemarle County Board of S From: Radford Lane Homeowners RE: ZMA 99-011, Clover Lawn PI ~Mc Page l of 5 ]inia.edu] )01 12:35 PM artspaceonline.com; Charlotte Humphfis; Lindsay Dorder;, Charles Martin; Walter · s Comments on Clover Lawn Proposal >ervisors December 10, 2001 SP 01-006, Residential Uses a Clover Lawn PD-MC SDP 10-016, Clover Lawn Sit~ Plan / As .the homeowners living on Radford Ilane, which borders the proposed Clover Lawn project on the northern and western sides, we have two paramount concerns about Ithe plan: (1) the residential component of the proposed development does not comply with existing guidelines--it is too dense and is not harmonious with the existing neighborhood; and'(2) the Radford Lane-Blue Ridge HC road alignment problem has ~ opportunity, have never been addressed to approve the Clover Lawn project in il Clover Lawn Residential Area Although the County's master plan for l recommendations f~r development in tl~ contrary to Albemarle County Code, the Neighborhood Model, and recommenda this project as presented will have the e] master plan for Crozet is completed. The residential portion of the project ha: fence. To accomplish this density the d, regulations in order to place some of the Reducing the setback creates a number 1. It makes the project more in, 2. It eliminates the possibility o 3. It complicates the Architectt~ being asked to help disguise a developm will be placed on the highest point of Since the ARB is concerned only with ff applicant to provide us with specific 'deta neighborhood [Attachment 2]. This inf{ comment on this topic if the proposal is tot been addressed. These two issues, which we have raised consistently and at every by the developer, despite the urging of the Planning Commission. We ask the Board not s current form. ~owth in Crozet has not been completed, there are already existing rules, guidelines, and , Crozet growth area--and the Clover Lawn project violates nearly all of theM It is Comprehensive Plan, the Crozet Community Study, most of the principles of the ions from the Route 250 West Task Force and VDOT [see Attachment 1]. To approve [ect of establishing a precedent for other developers to follow in the interim before the ~ a density of R8.5 and is comprised of attached units enclosed on three sides by a privacy ~veloper is requesting a variance from the 50-foot setbacks called for in.the zoning buildings within 25 feet of the property line. problems. asive to the existing neighborhood. .' effective landscaping a!c~g the western and northern boundaries of the project. · al Review Board's mission of protecting the entrance corridor. In effect, the ARB is mt whose residential component is tOO dense. Without greater setbacks, the townhouses ~d, where they will be clearly' visible' from Rt. 250 as a blemish on the rural landscape. e view from the entrance corridor and not from Radford Lane, we have asked the ills (fencing, landscaping, and elevations)of how this project will affect our rmation has not been forthcoming, and. ~.UC,~e the ARB, we do not get another chance to ~pproved. We request that the applican~ b~'directed to provide us w~th this information and that we have adequate opportunity things are obvious: (1) a fence should ~ adjoining property; and (2) ifthere is a The very fact that a privacy fence has 1: not a compatible addition to our ueight harmonious--as required by Code--bu corridor. It clearly does not foster the s the.recommendations of the "guiding d however, the fence could possibly be eli eliminate the need for setback variance: property line for the northern sets of tot community instead of a walled barracl~ We have asked the developer in two lee setbacks, and to replace the attached un were asking for nothing more than curt developer on more than one occasion tc surrounding neighborhood, we have ne We know that development is inevitabh development does not have to mean cra consideration be given to the approprial the growth area. If any members of the invite you to do so. Misalignment of Radford Lane and E We continue to be very concerned aborn Lane. This situation was further compl (which did not require road alignment) organizations, including the 250 West ~ Planning Commission has strongly supl over traffic conflicts; they originally wa the mistake will be corrected, VDOT re This mistake creates an unsafe interseei acres in the growth area. Page 2 of 5 o review it prior to any plan approval. Even without a detailed landscape plan, two ot be placed in the middle of the old Rt. 250 road bed, which is the only legal access to an fence, there should be landscaping outside it to soften the "unnatural" effect. ~n added to the plan is an admission by the developer that the proposed development is orhood of rural residences and small farms. A high-density, walled project is in no way : rather is in stark contrast to both our low-density neighborhood and the entrance ense of eommtmity and rural character envisioned in the Board's May 2000 resolution. If ~mment," the Crozet Community Study, on density and housing types were followed, minated. A reduction of density and a minor reworking of the site plan would also ~. Something as simple as substituting single-family detached homes facing the rear rehouses would go a long way toward making this development a real part of our in the midst of it. ers [Attachments 3 and 4], to reduce the density of the residences, to maintain the 50-foot its with a combination of detached and attached homes. In making these requests, we snt guidelines and rules stipulate. Despite the Planning Commission's instructions to the work with the neighbors in creating a development that would be harmonious with the rer received a response to our requests. ;, and we have never opposed the commercial component of this project. But riming as many buildings as possible into every available space. All we ask is that eness of the residential component of the project in this rural location on the periphery of Board of Supervisors have not yet seen our neighborhood and the Clover Lawn site, we lue Ridge HC entrance the misali~nment of the proposed entrance to the Blue Ridge HC site with Radford .cated in S~ptember when the Planning Commission granted a 21-month extension to Great Eastern Management for the Blue Ridge HC site plan. A number of 'ask Force and VDOT, have recommended alignment (see Attachment 1), and the ,orted it. VDOT stated that the misahgnment was an oversight and expressed concern ~ted the entrance for the Clover Lawn project to come from Radford Lane. In hopes that aested that a traffic light be proffered at this intersection. 9n, complicates Orderly traffic control, and effectively blocks the development of 50 In recognition of the safety problems, 1~. r. Stallings has proffered land for a right-in/right-out traffic triangle. We find this solution particularly objectionable. Notlonly would it be extremely inconvenient, it does not address access to the 50 acres in the growth area on Radford Lane. In a meqting with Planning Department staff and VDOT, we were told that because of safety concerns, Radford Lane could not be us~ for access to future development until the road misali~£mment problem is solved. Access from the east is blocked if the landowners (as planned) place their land in a conservation easement, and the property to the west owned by the Masonic Lodge is zoned c~mnnercial and therefore would be prohibitively expensive for use as a road. There are no new roads for this area in the six-yealr road plan. At least four alternatives exist for Mr. S Stallings to defer the Clover Lawn prop a site plan amendment that would direo considered together based on Mr. Stallit fact that the traffic from the Clover Law misalignment~ If another alternative bec required, to reflect any reasonable reloc; the applicant. It is not in the public interest to procee~ control, and future development have b Because of the potentially very serious :allings to effect the alignment (covered with Mr. Perkins). The best solution is for Mr. ~sal and work with Great Eastern Management, his partner in the Blue Ridge HC site, on ly align the Blue Ridge HC entrance with Radford Lane. The two sites should be :gs's ownership of both, the expressed benefits ofjoint stormwater management, and the project will contribute to the safety and traffic control issues caused by the ~mes necessary, the Radford Lane homeowners have agreed to change their deeds, if .tiou of Radford Lane, providing the costs associated With such a relocation are borne by with additional development in this area until the problems of safety, orderly traffic 'eh resolved msequences of allowing the Radford Lane-Blue Ridge HC misalignment to be carried Page 3 of 5 ~orw.~d .into an.o~h.~ er. ap_proved site p~a~, and because of the project's failure to comply with the most basic rules and guidelines tor aeveiopment in the Crozet growth ~lrea, we appeal to the Board of Supervisors to reject the Clover Lawn proposal unless these problems are addressed and satisfactorily resolved, SUMMARY OF RULES AND RECO .Albemarle County Code §32.1 states tl efficient, harmonious with neighborinl The Comprehensive Plan suggests a & guiding docamaent for development in The Crozet Community Study further- recommends a density orR1 to R4 and The Resolution of Board of Supervisors of the corridor." The Neighborhood Model lists 12 princ rather a townhouse "enclave" set apart: development. Even the expanded ~ bike to school or activities." There are cannot safely walk or bike on Rt. 250. what will be built on adjoining properti VDOT "originally... suggested that fl proposed by the applicant. The applic~ Shopping Center across the street and fl approved the entrance to the site, as she shopping center, who also owns this sit~ conflicts between cars entering and lea~ Department StaffReport, May 22, 2001 The Route 250 West Task Force, in ale Lawn Village and the plans to allow fox entrance to Blue Ridge-HC [should] be (Radford Lane) from Clover Lawn Vilh strongly recommends that only one inte intersection should be provided from all development directly on Route 250 [she scenic highway." 3, 2001 To: Jo Higgins From: Radford Lane Homeowners ATTACHMENT 1 /IMENDATIONS Lat it is the developer's responsibility to "ensure that land is used in a manner which is property and in accordance with the comprehensive plan." ~sity of 1t3 to R6 in the growth area and recognizes the Crozet Community Study as the ~e Crozet growth area. ,~fines the Comprehensive Plan recommendations, taking location into consideration, and Dingle-family (detached) residences for the area around Clover Lawn. May 2000, "commits the County to preserve the community, scenic and rural character iples, of which this project fails to meet at least 9. It is not a mixed-used development but ~om the commercial buildings, with no connectivity either within or outside the ng path does not meet the "true test ofwalkability.., when children can safely walk or ao schools or activities within several miles of this location, and in any case children the "affordable-homing 'enclave'" is not balanced by other housing types and dictates ~S. te [Clover Lawn] property take access from Radford Lane rather than from the entrance ~t explained to VDOT that Radford Lane does not line up with the proposed Blue Ridge tat the applicant did not own the entire right-of-way for Radford Lane. VDOT then wn on the plan, but has consistently requested that the owner of the property for the ~, realign the entrance to the shopping center. VDOT is concerned about possible traffic ing Radford Lane and cars entering and leaving the new shopping center" (Planning ). .~er dated 10/22/01, recommends that "in view of potential development behind Clover additional future access from Clover Lawn Village onto Radford Lane .... the main :ined up with Radford Lane. The Task Force believes access onto the private road ge is appropriate. Should a traffic signal prove necessary in this area, the Task Force 'section with Route 250 have a signal. Furthermore, internal access to this signal developments on the ~torth side of Route 250., .. The Task Force believes... ,Id] be minimized in order to maintain a safe corridor for the public and preserve our ATTACHMENT 2 RE: November 19 Clover Lawn Village Site Plan There are a couple of issues raised by t to call to your attention. First, the placement of a privacy fence Planning staff's recommendation that t property (shown as TM 56, parcel 89D Ferneyhough property; it was placed th Second, we have learned that the Archi corridor. With this in mind, we reques minimum, landscaping outside the fen¢ neighborhood. Let's work together to eliminate these To: Preston Stallings / Jo Higgins From: Radford Lane Property Owners, Re: Clover Lawn Village The Radford Lane property owners haxn Commission requested~we would like existing neighborhood. The major objection we have to the pr~ density of the development is too high. intrusive. The zoning change to PD-MI two apartment buildings. This would r~ residents of apartments. It would also Commission was concerned about. We suggest, as a compromise between buildings with a combination of single. commercial shops. With this variety of In addition, we strongly urge you to inc] the 25-foot reservation from the centerli the development to Radford Lane; and We have also reviewed the potential co find appropriate, some you have profferl We would be glad to meet with you to d: Page 4 of 5 te latest site plan--which we received from the Planning Department--that we would like n the old Route 250 right-of*way is inappropriate. Aside from the County attorney and ae right ofway should be unobstructed, this is the only legal access to Elmer Shiffiett's on the site plan). The driveway that he uses was never recorded and goes across the re solely for the convenience of a previous owner of the Clover Lawn area. Iectural Review Board is only interested in how the project looks from the entrance : specific details on the fence, landscaping, and elevations as they will affect us. At is necessary in order soften the effect of an urban barracks in the midst of our rural ~ncems before the Board of Supervisors meeting. ATTACHMENT3 June 25, 2001 ~ssociation met several times to discuss the Clover Lawn Village project, and---as the Planning ko give you our suggestions for making the development more harmonious with the ent site plan is the same one that the Planning Commission focused on: the proposed We also find the placement of both the apartment buildings and the parking lots 2 would be more acceptable in our view if single-family homes were substituted for the suit in a more stable and compatible addition to our neighborhood than the transient xtuce the number of parking spaces required-~another problem the Planning our high-density plan and our low-density neighborhood, that you replace the apartment hmily attached and detached homes, while retaining the apa~h~ents above the [~ousing types your village could become a village in fact and not just in name. ude in the revised site plan the maximum setbacks called for in the zoning regulations; ae 0f Radford Lane recommended by VDOT; dedication of an access easement through rovisions to protect the well and the privacy of Kenneth and Lenora Shiflett, nnercial usem Attached is a list of those we think are appropriate. Of those we do not out already and some already exist in Crozet. scuss these matters further. ATTACHMENT 4 October 21, 2001 Page 5 of 5 To: Jo Higgins From: Radford Lane Property Owners RE: Clover Lawn Village Thank you for letting us see the sketch Department. We have had a neighborh neighborhood by rotating the buildings the plan was that we cannot support it. table about at every opportunity, have s residential portion of the proposal is st5 Your suggestion that Mr. Stallings wou l. ame is particularly objectionable. It w coming out of Radford Lane and not be effectively address neither the safety c~ growth area. Once again, we repeat the project. The best solution ~vould be to { Rotgin plans to submit, and, as you men different stormwater management apprl amendment to proceed, then he should both safe and convenient for access to ~ west of Radford Lane. We were heartened by the clear consent, revision of the residential portion ofyol commissioners requested density in the expected to see a significant reduction i the same number that was deemed unac beginning, we prefer single-family deta detached houses. We cannot Support th work toward a resolution to these two is of Mr. Stallings's most recent Clover Lawn proposal prior to submitting it to the Planning ood meeting to discuss it, and although we appreciate your efforts to protect the existing and moving the parking away from the property boundaries, the unanimous response to In fact, we are very disturbed that our two major objections, which we have pounded the :ill not been effectively addressed: the road ali~tmment issue has not been resolved, and the too dense and out of harmony with our neighborhood. proffer the land to place a traffic triangle at the intersection of Route 250 and Radford atld be a major inconvenience to the Radford Lane residents to only be able to turn right able to turn left into Radford Lane when coming from the west. A traffic triangle would lcems we have expressed nor the County's need for efficient development in the Crozet t the road alignment issue needs to be resolved prior to the approval of the Clover Lawn oordinate the timing of the Clover Lawn proposal with the site plan amendment that Mr. ttioned, the Clover Lawn site plan may be revised anyway at that point to incorporate a nmh. If Mr. Stallings is not willing to wait for the Blue Ridge Shopping Center >roffer an alternative route for Radford Lane through Clover Lawn Vitlage~-one that is ~ture development of the property within the County's growth objectives to the north and us of the commissioners at the September 18 Planning Commission meeting that the last x project was too dense and in stark contrast with our neighborhood. When several range of 14-16 units--and you yourself asked if 18 was a reasonable number~we ~ the number of units. A reduction of three units is not significant, and 24 townhouses is eeptable at the July 24 Planning Commission meeting. As we have said from the :hed homes in that location, but we would support a combination of attached and is plan; however, we wilt be glad to meet with you at your convenience in an effort to SUes. WedneSday, December'l ~,'2001 9;55 IAI ~× from t-434- 823- 1720 63 Browns ~p 'l'urnp~ke, Svill~ VA 22901 Cell ~bone (804) 242 - 3080 small musx[t~aOI.com. F~ Tra~mitfal / bATE: 12 Cc: Charlotte Humphms, ~alter Perkl~, Elaine ~chols, ~osh Goldschmid?, Pr~ton Stallings From: ~o H~ggi~ RE: Potential Future Use o' E~dfopd Lane Dear Mrs. Thomas: In our discussion, the issue of ~ planned RT 240/260 Connector There are in my opinion two rear of Clover Lawn Village. 1. Using the old RT 250 roac Only a portion of the which is noted on the Applicat distance of about 4001{ from time - Lots of curves. At a the development ares land b~ Creek. 2. Upgrade of Radford Lane pare/lei to RT250 which ~ If Radford Lane is car Creek, there would be more o~ Plea~e see the atta~ecl s/eetc CLOVER LAWN VILLAGE Wi~ connection for Clover Lawn Vi uDorede Radf~rd Lane is also on RT 2~0 at the Radford Lan~ if the property currently ownec is reasonable to assume that t~ Cross is the only adjacent lane future development, over time the next section and so forth. During the process involving ~ any lines amross the neighbors because it would cause opposi property to be Jn the path of a ~ property's location within the ch Your favorable consideration hesitate to call me. ow to ~nterconnect the Clover Lawn Development internally to the currently ~cod was mentioned. potential general alignments to open up the development area towards the bed has been mentioned. f RT250 Roadbed has been identified at the rear of Clover Lawn Village ion Plan. This section of the old roadbed is para#al to RT2~O and is at he existing RT250. The old RT250 is characteristio of the roads at thai '~anco of 4OOft from RT 250, it would not prov/de opportunity to ~open up .~veen Ivy Creek and RT 250 without having numerou~ cul de sacs at Ivy 'o continue northward to inter, eot a parallel road that would be generally ~utd be on the 3outh side of Ivy Cree/<, ~ied North to a point which would split the distance from RT250 and Ivy ~ortunity to balance the land areas on either side and serve this area. .L FIT. INTO EITHER OF THESE CONC_EPTS. There is a ~roffered laae to cp.nnect to Radforc/ Lane. The reservation of daht of way b? ~roEered, There. is also a crofter to cont#bu~e to a l~ossible traEic signs,~, ; inter~ection or the entrance .to C/over Lawn ~- by Mr. Cross (7 acres) comes in to the County with a development plan, it 3e next section of Radford Lane could be part of this plan. Although Mr. 'owner that has indicated that their property was intended for investment & this may change. When the property behind Mr. Croso's is considered- e development of Clover Lawn Village, ! have specifically avoided drawing property to represent roacls that may be planned to aevelop this ama Iion to Clover Lawn in general. Because the blame for causing their oad on a master plan may fall to Clover Lawn when actually, their ~signateO Growth ama is the mason for master planning roads. ill be appreciated, if you have any additional ~uestions, t~lease do not p,01 \ \ \ Thomas J. Goodrich 3680 Country Lane Charlottesville,Va,229C 12/9/01 Albemarle County Bom Dear Sirs and Madame' Please enter these con Clover Lawn applicatio My concerns with at originally planned goe~, that Clover Lawn is a, density in the developrr you forgotten about the very much affected by With essentially no ~ to travel east. The proxi The result of this is mo: would impact on its sc residents in Ivy, offOw As I hope you know, groups that have forme, Board of Supervisors. prohibitive in cost and So my concerns invO impact any zoning chin round trips per day pe constructed home in Ck am therefore opposed originally planned for. Respectfully, Thomas J. Goodrich d of Supervisors: S: rnentS into the official record of the minutes kept regarding the before you. y change in zoning that permits additional housing beyond that beyond the impact to the immediate neighborhood. I'm aware lesignated growth area and that the County is trying to encourage ent areas in order to have the rural areas remain rural. But have areas in between the designated growth areas? These areas are rowth. ~rk or shopping available in the Crozet area, residents are forced mity of 250W lends itself to a much more desired route than 1 64. :e traffic than Route 250W can handle without major changes that enic nature and unencumbered pace. This adversely affects the ~nsville Road, West Leigh and other easterly neighborhoods. my widening of 250W is opposed by several community interest t in the past few years. This position has been affirmed by the VDOT has even stated that any widening at the Ivy RR Bridge is robably will never be undertaken in our lifetime. .ve your department taking into serious consideration the adverse tge would have on 250W. Are you aware that VDOT uses 5 r household as an average figure in its planning? Every newly ,ver Lawn will generate 10 additional cars on 250W each day. I to any change in zoning that will permit more housing than De TO: Albemm FROM: Ro'ttte 2~ REF: Clover L DATE: October The Route 250 West Ta~ Plan. The Task Force is, will have on the traffic fl strongly supports limitin. After reviewing the mosl supports the plan to aligr commercial entrance to I In view of potential deve additional future access t recommends that the mai Task Force. believes acce is appropriate. Should a recommends that only on access to this signal inter: of Ronte 250 (Clover Lm Route 250 (Blue Ridge B Additionally, the Task F( cross-section as opposed notes that in the May 200 by the Board of Supervis~ scemc and. rural characte~ enhance the scenic beaut The Task Force. believe: Route 250 minimized in c scenic highway. Thank yt xc: Albemarle Cotmty Pta Elaine Echots Route 250 West Task Force County of Albenmrle mrtment of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 e County Board. of Supervisors 0 West Task Force awn Village Preliwdnary Site Plan ~2, 2001 7ery concerned about the impact developments along the corridor ow and. safety of Route 25~ West.. Therefore, the Task Force g the number of entrances on the Route 250 West corridor. current Clove~ Lam Village site plan, the Task Force strongly the Route 250 entrance to Clover Lawn Village with the ~lue Ridge Builders Supply. [opment behind Clover Lawn Village and the plans to allow for rom Clover Lawn Village onto. Radford Lane; the Task Force n entrance to Blue Ridge - HC be lined up with Radford Lane. The ss onto. the private road (Radford Lane) from Clover Lawn V/tIage xaffie signal prove necessary in this area, the Task Force strongly e intersection with Route 250 have a signal. Furthermore, internal ~ecfion should be provided from all developments on the north side m and any subsequent development) and from the south side of ailders Supply and the Food Lion (Blue Ridge - HC project)). rce supports the Planning Commission recommendation for a rural [o the urban cross-section proposed by VDOT. The Task Force Route 250 West Corridor Study Resolution; adopted unanimOUsly ~rs, the Board "commit[s] the County to preserve the commtmity, of the corridor., The Task Force believes a rural cross-~ction will of Route 250 West. he items above ~ould be addressed and development ~ectly on rder to maintain a safe corridor for the public and preserve our for the opportunity to share our comments and concerns'. nning Commission TO: Albert FROM: Elaim SUBJECT: Modi: DATE: Decet Attached please f'md appropriate attachm~ received the proffers: the rear face ~)fthe to' Architectural Review relating to the rear fac Staff views this chang photographs were ori~ rears facing the comm townhouses on the mc Staff believes the prof COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ,epamnent of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM .arle County Board of Supervisors Echols, AICP, Principal Planner ~~_~ ed Proffers with Attachments berl0,2001 · copy of the ZMA 99-11 Clover Lawn Village proffers with the ts. You will see that a minor modification hhs occurred since you n your packet. Because of the poor quality of the photographs of rehouses in the original proffers and the confusion it caused at the Board (ARB), the applicant has deleted the portion of the proffer of the townhouses. as appropriate and advantageous to the rezoning. The inally placed in the proffers when some of the townhouse units had srcial area and Route 250. When the applicant reoriented those st recent application plan, the proffer was no longer important. ?ers, with all attachments, are in good order for your action. RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING D,,t,,: Agenda Item #: Clerk's Initials: Date: 11/19/2001 ZM 2.65/4.15 A~ Pursuant to Section duly authorized agent, here applied to the property, if re2 rezoning and it is agreed tha and (2) such conditions haw (1) See attached "Clovel ..,.~Signatu res'of/~,llfl:~:)wn~ s~ - Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney PROFFORM.WPD Rev. Deceml~er 1994 Page 1 of 3 PROFFER FORM A# :res to be rezoned from RI/HC Original Proffer Amended Proffer X (Amendment # ) 99 - 11 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 56- 107,107A, 107(A)1 to PD-MC 3.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its y voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be oned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested t: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. Lawn Proffers" 1 through 6, on pages 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 ~:z"'~r~' Preston O. Stallings Printed Nam es of All Owners OR Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact CIove~ In connection with the al: 1. The Appricati( Application PI. the Applicatio~ a. A uni and T deed does n subdiv b. Acces: interco c. A mixe develol develo d. Pedesl Applic~ establi,~ e. Archite, Comm~ elevati, Townh¢ and scr~ require( with thi., f. A maxir~ townhot building 2. Radford L~ne, upon the dema public road at ti amount require~ property line ex~ as shown on thc public road, the Subdivision Ord for construction 31, 2011. Shoul, design plan at ti' from the obligati and is not proffe 3. Recreational am Application Plan minimum of 20, include two bern Plan. These art certificate of occ the Director of PJ Page 2 of 3 Lawn Village - Proffers ~licant's rezoning application, the following proffers are made: n Plan, dated November 19, 2001 Sheet 2 of 2 is proffered as the an for the development and is attached hereto. Specific features of ~ Plan that will be a part of the development are: ed development of all three parcels of land (TMP56-107, 107(A)1, tP 56-107A) including a combination of these parcels by plat or rior to site development plan approval for the first site plan. This ~t preclude phasing this development and it does not preclude a sion of this parcel. from a single entrance across RT250 with a possible future ~nection to Radford Lane. :t-use development with residential uses at the rear of the ~ment an(~ commercial and residential uses at the front of the )mont. 'lan access in the locations and widths as shown on the [ion Plan. Sidewalk and pedestrian paths shall meet standards hed by the Director of Engineering. :tural Features in general accord with the elevation of the rcial Building by Stoneking/von Storch dated 7/05/01 and front_. n of the Townh~use(s) dated 10/31/01 ~,-,~ ~-~, ..... ~, ,,~- .- ~ _.- _ --o110-1-attac-hed-.hem~._ The rear face-- of use block A and block G shall have additional window treatment .~ening as approved by Architectural Review Board. Modifications by Architectural Review Board shall be deemed as consis~en~ proffer. um of 29 residential units which includes a maximum of 24 ~ses and a maximum of 5 residential units overtop the commercial is shown on the Application Plan, shall be reserved for dedication ~d of the County, should the County establish the need for a is location. The area to be dedicated shall be the minimum J for a public road and shall be no more than 25 feet from the ;ept at the entrance to RT250 where the reserved area is wider : Application Plan. If before the CounTy demands dedication for a County approves a private road at this location under the nance, then the land reserved for dedication shall be available of a pdvate road. This proffer shall be in effect until December the County not make demand or approve the pdvate road 'is location within this time period, the owner shall be released ~n. The owner is not proffering a gift of the land for a pdvate road ring to construct any improvements to that road. enities shall consist of a "recreational area" as shown on the in which a Tot Lot shall be installed. The area shall be a ~00 square feet. At a minimum, recreational amenities shall hes, a sidewalk, and a pathway as shown on the Application .=nities and the Tot Lot shall be installed or bonded prior to ~pancy of the 15t~ residential unit. This proffer does not prohibit ann~ng and Community Development from substituting Page 3 of 3 recreational f; 4.16.2.1. No structure ( shown on the in the g6~peral ~cilities provided those facilities satisfy the requirements of Sections )r landscaping shall be placed within the Old Route 250 road bed Application Plan with the exception of the six-foot tall privacy fence location shown along the rear property line. Existing vehicular access acros~the rear :)oundary of the development shall remain unobstructed. Screening plaints required at the rear of the development where the Old Route 250 road bedlabuts the property line shall be placed outside of the 20 foot buffer. A privacy fenqe of six-feet in height is proffered in the general location shown on the Applicatio~ Plan. This proffer acknowledges that the segment of the privacy fence Iocated~ithin the old Route 250 roadbed may be relocated in the event it obstructs anYlfuture County road project. The Owner sllall make a pro-rata contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at one of two I)otential locations - either the intersection of Clover Lawn Lane and RT250 OR R, dford Lane and RT 250. The Owner's pro-rata contribution shall be based on the location of the contribution si by this site as This proffer si~ If a subregiom development, · program in lieL on the Applica' Uses allowed Commercial -. Commercial - ~ copies of whict a. The foil Cemet Fire a~ Funer. Indoo~ Auto t~ Gasoli b. The foil and 11 Laun. Laun Nurs~ Autm Indoc ;ost established by VDOT when that signal is warranted. The traffic signal shall be determined by VDOT. The amount of-:the all be based on a pro-rata share of the traffic volume contributed determined by the Albemarle County. Engineering Department. all be in effect until December 31,2011. stormwater management facility is available for use by this le Owner shall make a contribution consistent with the County's ~ of an on-site stormwater management facility. The area shown :ion Plan for this use will be designated for recreational use. )y-right in the PDMC district are attached hereto as Section 22.2.1 ;-1, 23.2.1 Commercial Office -CO, and 24.2.1 Highway lC, from the Zoning ordinance in effect at the time of this rezoning, 1 are attached hereto, with the following exceptions: :)wing uses shall not be permitted in this district: eries (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(3), 23.2.1 (4),24.2.1 (5)) ~d rescue squad stations(Section 22.1.1(b)(6)) 21 homes (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(7),24.2.1 (14)) theaters (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(9), 24.2.1 (38)) 'uck repair shop(Sections 22.2.1 (b)(22), 24.2.1 (2)) ne pumps )wing uses shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6a.m. ~.m.: 'Jries, dry cleaners (Section 22.2.1 (b)(10)) :tromat (Section 22.2.1 (b)(11)) ;des, day care centers (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(13), 23.2.1 (12)) nobile service station s (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(16), 24.2.1 (3)) r athletic facilities (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(24), 24.2.1 (42)) AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 99-11 and SF Lawn Village SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: acres from R-1 Residential District a Commercial to PD-MC Planned Der Commercial, a special use permit to a PD-MC zone STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tu¢ Echols BACKGROUND: On November 13,; 4-3 Vote. they recommended approv; 1 Reorientation of the townhouse u 2. ProviSion of a proffer that Radfor Blue Ridge Shopping Center (BE; Supply building and regional stor 3. Make the pedestrian pathways ir 4. Make the building footprints mat( The Commission expected minor wo about the plan after a revieW on Dec, could not be handled during the site tl~e Special Use Permit for residentis The history on this project is extensi, included in the packet. These three issues relating to BRSC and afforda! DISCUSSION: The applicant has pr, reorientation of the townhouse units realignment of Radford Lane througl footprint. The reonentation of the townhouse pathways through the townhouse u~ extends through the stormwater ma if the stormwater management area COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12-07-01 A10:13 IN '01-006, and Clover Request to rezone 6.8 ~d HC Highway ~iopment Mixed ~llow residential uses in ~er, Foley, Cilimberg, Ms. AGENDA DATE: December 12, 2001 ITEM NUMBERS: ACTION: INFORMATION.: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: yes REVIEWED BY: :001 the Planning Commission took action on the above referenced requests. On a ~1 of the rezoning on condition that four items be changed. These four items were: nits whose rear portion faces the commercial area and Route 250. Lane be available to be relocated in the stormwater management area should the SC) design be modified to move the entrance closer to the Blue Ridge Builders "nwater detention provided to serve this drainage area. terconnect better, especially with a reorientation of the townhouse units. :h up with the elevations. rding changes to the proffers. They also expected the ARB to provide comments .~mber 3. Staff was asked to convey any issues of the ARB relating to design which ~lan process or with the proffers The Commission also recommended approval of use without conditions. ,e. For that reason, only three of the staff reports provided to the Commission are reports contain the review of the original request for PD-MC, the report outlining the )ility, and the last report provided to the Commission. )vided a revised set of proffers (Attachment A), a revised application plan showing the and pedestrian pathways. The applicant has not proffered reservation of r.o.w, for the ~ the stormwater management area. Neither has the applicant modified the building mits follows exactly the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The pedestrian its interconnect with sidewalks. The pathway in the southwest portion of the site ~agement area to connect to the lower parking lot. This option would only be followed is moved across the street. Regarding the proffer to allow for a }ossible relocation of Radford Lane. the applicant has provided a faxed letter (emailed to staff) from Don Wagner indicating' hat Great Eastern Management does 'not have under consideration any plan which ~ould move the entrance to any Iocl~tion other than opposite Radford Lane." (See Attachment B.) This letter also says, The modification to the BRSC site I~lan necessary to allow for the shopping center entranc,e, to line up with Radford Lane will require county approval under tt~e redeve opment clause of the water quality ordinance. Great Eastern has sent severa letters to the County indicating their opinion that the redevelopment clause of the Water Protect on Ordinance exempts them from the required 1013 foot stream buffer br 50 foot stream buffer w th mitigation. The Engineering tDoerPe laor tcn~ ~en tthhea sS hd~ ~ ignr; ecde n~ et hr eGnr~aa tn cEea iSst ecron'n~ i na~eS~ trt iu°pno ~ tthh~s ~ (~gu~ ~ 'a pS~ lay iffn dg ~tess r~ .~tu Ikant i°o~ is fd iGffr~ rate net I~S toenr I~ 'h~sP~ iCteP °P~:ln. Staff continues to believe that the issues relating to Radford Lane and the entrance to the Blue Ridge Shopping Center are separate from this rezoning. The Planning Commission's request for the proffer to realign Radford Lane on the Clover Lawn site, however, allows for more flexibility in the redesign of the Bide Ridge Shopping Center site, particularly with relocating the entrance. The applicant has provided a response to the Commission's request regarding difference between the footprint of the buildings shown on the Application Plan and the proffered perspective drawings (Attachment C). In the response, the applicant has asserted that the footprint shown on the Application Plan provides specific guidance about the location of the commercial structureS. Details are expected at the final site plan. Staff believes that the Application Plan can easily accommodate the architectural features shown in the perspective drawings and details matching footprints to elevations are not critical at this time. A footprint consistent with the features on the perspective drawings, however, should be shown on the preliminary site plan which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The ARB reviewed the proposal on December 3 for the second time and a summary of their comments is shown in Attachment D. Their comments concerning the rezoning were as follows: Based on the plan reviewed, the ARB expressed no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit or the ZMA, with the understanding that staff/ARB recommendations will be followed, with final ARB review, and with the condition that landscaping be added at the southeast and southwest comers of the property to achieve a more natural forested appearance in those locations. OTHER ISSUES: Since the Planning Commission meeting, an adjoining property owner has raised issues about the proffered privacy fence at the rear of the parcel. He has asserted that the placement of a privacy fence in the old Route 250 right-of-way is inappropriate because it is the only legal access to another property owner's property. Staff has reviewed the location of the fence at the rear of the property and with proffers has ensured that no access will be impeded to adjoining parcels, with the proffers provided by the applicant. If the County needs the old 250 r.o.w, bed for a future public road, the fence can be moved. Since the Planning Commission meeting, this property owner, who requested the privacy fence, has also requested landscaping on the back side of the fence so that the fence that is seen from his property is softened with plantings. This item was not considered by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Although the applicant has not responded directly to all of the Planning Commission's issues, believes that the concerns are addressed with the exception of the relationship of the Blue Ridge Shopping Center entrance to Radford Lane. Staff believes that this ~ssue will be worked out through a subsequent site plan application by Great Eastern Management. If the board concurs with staff, approval of the rezoning with the attached proffers and the specJial use permit is appropriate. Date: 11/19/2001 2.65/4.15 A~ Pursuant to Section ~ duly authorized agent, here[ applied to the property, if re; rezoning and it is agreed th~ and (2) such conditions haw (1) See attached "Clove ..Sigfl'~tures'of Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorn PROFFORM.WPD Roy. December 1994 Page I of 3 ATTACHMENT A Original Pro,,~, Amended Proffer X (Amendment # ) PROFFER FORM ~,# 99- 11 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 56- 107,107A, 107(A)1 :res to be rezoned from R1/HC to PD-MC ;3.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its ~y voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be :oned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested ~t: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; .~ a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. Lawn Proffers" I through 6, on pages 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 _?~_~'~ ~p Prest ° n O~i Slta '~vn~q,,Sr tinted Names o Al O e s ~Y) OR Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact ATTACHMENT A Clover Lawn Village - Proffers in connection with the applicant's rezoning applicatiOn, the following proffers are made: 1. The Appli~;ation Plan, dated November 19, 2001 Sheet 2 of 2 is proffered as the Application Plan for the development and is attached hereto. Specific features of the Application Plan that will be a part of the development are: a. A unified development of all three parcels of land (TMP56-107, 107(A)1, and TMP 56-107A) including a combination of these parcels by plat or deed prior to site development plan approval for the first site plan. This does not preclude phasing this development and it does not preclude a subdivision of this parcel. b. Access from a single entrance across RT250 with a possible future interconnection to Radford Lane. c. A mixed-use development with residential uses at the rear of the development and commercial and residential, uses at the front of the development. d. Pedestrian access in the locations and widths as shown on the Application Plan. Sidewalk and pedestrian paths shall meet standards established by the Director of Engineering. e. Architectural Features in general accord with the elevation of the Commercial Building by Stoneking/von Storch dated 7/05/01 and front elevation of the .Townhouse(s) dated 10/31/01 and photograph of the townhouse rear face dated 10/31/01 attached hereto. The rear face of Townhouse block A and block G shall have additional window treatment and screening as approved by Architectural Review Board. Modifications required by Architectural Review Board shall be deemed as consistent with this proffer. f. A maximum of 29 residential units which includes a maximum of 24 townhouses and a maximum of 5 residential units overtop the commercial buildings. RadfOrd'Lane, as shown on the Application Plan, shall be reserved for dedication upon the demand of the County, should the County establish the need for a public road at this location. The area to be dedicated shall be the minimum amount required for a public road and shall be no more than 25 feet from the property line except at the entrance to RT250 where the reserved area is wider as shown on the Application Plan If before the County demands dedication for a public road the County approves a private road at this location under the Subdivision Ordinance, then the land reserved for dedication shall be available for construction of a pdvate road. This proffer shall be in effect until December 31,2011. Should the County not make demand or approve the private road design plan at this location within this time period, the owner shall be released from the obligation. The owner is not proffering a gift of the land for a private road and is not proffering to construct any improvements to that road. Recreational amenities shall consist of a "recreational area" as shown on the Application Plan in which a Tot Lot shall be installed. The area shall be a minimum of 20,000 square feet. At a minimum, recreational amenities shall include two benches, a sidewalk, and a pathway as shown on the Application Plan. These amenities and the Tot Lot shall be installed or bonded prior to certificate of occupancy of the 1,Sth residential unit. This proffer does not prohibit the Director of Planning and Community Development from substituting Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3 recreational t 4.16.2.1. No structure shown on the in the g~.'aera access acros Screening pi; 250 read bed A pdvacy fen the Applicati¢ fence Iocatec obstructs an, The Owner., at one of two RT250 OR R based on the location of th, contribution by this site a,, This proffer s If a subregior development program in lie on the Applic Uses alloweC Commercial Commercial copies of wh a. The fc Cem~ Fire Fum Indo Auto Gas, b. The f( and 1 La~ La{ Nu, Au1 Ind ATTACHMENT A milities provided those facilities satisfy the requirements of Sections ~r landscaping shall be placed within the Old Route 250 read bed Application Plan with the exception of the six-foot tall privacy fence I location shown along the rear property line. Existing vehicular s the rear boundary of the development shall remain unobstructed. mrs required at the rear of the development where the Old Route abuts the property line shall be placed outside of the 20 foot buffer. ;e of six-feet in height is proffered in the general location shown on n Plan. This proffer acknowledges that.the segment of the privacy within the old Route 250 roadbed may be relocated in the event it future County road project. lall make a pro-rata contribution for the installation of a traffic signal potential locations - either the intersection of Clover Lawn Lane and adford Lane and RT 250. The Owner's pre-rata contribution shall be cost established by VDOT when that signal is warranted. The .;traffic signal shall be determined by VDOT. The amount of the hall be based on a pro-rata share of the traffic volume contributed ; determined by the Albemarle County'Engineering Department. hall be in effect until December 31,2011. ~al stormwater management facility is available for use by this the Owner shall make a contribution consistent with the County's ~u of an on-site stormwater management facility. The area shown ation Plan for this use will be designated for recreational use. by-right in the PDMC district are attached hereto as Section 22.2.1 -C-1, 23.2.1 Commercial Office -CO, and 24.2.1 Highway HC, from the Zoning ordinance in effect at the time of this rezoning, :h are attached hereto, with the following exceptions: )llowing uses shall not be permitted in this district: ;teries (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(3), 23.2.1 (4),24.2.1(5)) and rescue souad stations(Section 22.1.1 (b)(6)) :ral homes (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(7),24.2.1 (14)) 2r theaters (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(9), 24.2.1 (38)) truck repair shop(Sections 22.2.1 (b)(22), 24.2.1 (2)) )line pumps )llowing uses shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6a.m. p.m.: ldries, dry cleaners (Section 22.2.1 (b)(10)) indromat (Section 22.2.1 (b)(11 )) series, day care centers (Sections 22.2.1(b)(13), 23.2.1(12)) omobile service stations (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(16), 24.2.1 (3)) 2or athletic facilities (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(24), 24.2.1 (42)) N/F Cr~ 61~ R~'d L~r~,Ch~rlc~il~vllle I TI~ 56 parc,~AI ~tl~ o 610 ~d Po~hwoTs tO ~o ~IoJd ~ I ' ' - ~ , eXl st l~g t~roph~, ~eoCures ~n~ vega¢~ i~ 65 F3 ~o~ ~o~ / / 8 'SAN TI~ 56 p~rc, 9~O z~ ~J~ N/F Sltl£f ~ 5168 ROC~ISh Gap T~e. Eh~rlo~tr~vllle T~ 56 p~ro, lOT-B-I Zoned RI C?O Vtflll~m T, WOod~.Jr, 49E4 Jo~$ I~III Rood, Crozet Blolqj Ite~ witm plon~-x[ng~ / / J 6CJ' Bldg, 175' x // Jlst floor: jlO,5OOs.f, ~]_ ~rd rloorp~.400 s.f, jeO' x 6~' FloOr= J~ ,sO0 FlOOr= ~,800 future ded cation. / U.S. RT. 250 / ",, Food LiOn SiCe (N,OT lnoluded or- o¢t=~ Devel'_cc. er-: Oreo± Easter-n Mdnagmen~ Sl,te plan: Blue Ridge HC TM .56 Porc, flOJlO A Z~ HC ~2J8 W~lllr~ord ~r~,Ke~wlck Scale 1 = 30' 18" 48 6097 Bu i I ders .03'Pt ATTACHMENT A Nov-28-O1 !0:58P D. Facsimile Date: Novembe To: Jo Higgi~ cc: Elaine Ec From: DOn Wag Subj: Status, B! Confirming our teleph, plans. Our first ta~k I facility to be built behit Ridge ShOpping Center that was denied, to buil¢ U.S. 250 and half in the ~ facility would have met: drainage basin, but we k requirements. We engaged Roudabus Wagner' 804 974-~ 1847 - ATTACHMENT FAC$1 L MEMORANDUM gAS ,TERN MANAGF. MENT COMPANY P, O, BOX $$26 ariotte lle, Virginia 41526 ', (434) 293-5197 . Telephone (434) 296-4141 There is/are __'1w page(s) in this transmission r 28, 2001 (Fax) bols (e-mail) Ridge ne conversation yesterday, we are making progress on our Blue Ridge Is been to verify the potential capacity of a sub-regiOnal water quality ] the existing Blue Ridge Builders Supply (BRBS) and proposed Blue (BRSC). We prOffered, many years ago, as part ufa rezoning request a similar facility to serve approximately 95 acres, roughly centered on ~owth area, that does not drain into the Lickinghole Creek basin. That :he then county requirements for storm water detention for the entire xew that a larger facility would be required to meet current water quality i and Gayle to secure additional topographical data and Muncaster Engineering to prelimin~ trily desig~ a water quality facility. Tom Muncaster has completed the basic initial design work ~o,r a sub-regional wet pond facility that will meet current County water quality requiren~ents forlall of the existing and proposed commercial development the drainage basin, plussignificant fu]ure development in the area that drains through the sites. The existing and p{opose~ facilities i~elude BRSC, the portion of the existing BRB~ that will still exist after- the BRSC is built, the re] ~lacement BRBS storage area to be built along with the construction of BRSC, Clover Lawn Viii age and the portion of U.S. 250 which is within the drainage area. The modification to the line up with Radford La~ water quality ordinance Resource personnel go o a facility, with its excess c the ordinance requirem¢ Once this has been agre~ quality facility and Shank the entrance opposite R would move the entrant informed or our progres., E~RSC site plan necessary to allow for the shopping center entrance to m will require county approval under the redevelopment clause of the We have asked for a meeting later this week with County Water ,er Tom's prelimi nary design to verify our opinion that in principal such lpacity for future off-site developmentwithin the drainage basin, meets nts for mitigation and thus allows the redevelopment. :d upon in principal, Tom will complete the engineering for the water and Gray will complete the BRSC site plan revision which will relocate adford Lane. We do not have under consideration any plan which to any location other than opposite Radford La/isle. I will k~ep you ATTACHMENT C PR O,J'E¢ T O E I/EL EN T L Z',44Z' TED L. F~x Transmittal To: Elaine Echols From: 30 Higgins P.E: 2463 Browns ~ap Turnpike, Cville VA 22901 (804) 823 - 1224 Fo~x 823 ' 1720 Cell phone (804) 242 - 3080 email "musxit~aol.com" DATE: 4 December 2001 Application Plan for Clover Lawn Village The Application Plan as submitted to go to the BOS next week shows the two proposed PD-MC buildings. In order to have a compact footprint and improved design, the shape of the building footprints have been reduced from an "L' to a rectangular shape. This has affected only the rear of the buildings and the front elevation has remained consistent. The Front elevation which is proffered reflects the slightly more detailed exterior than shown on the Application Plan. This elevation is based upon the buildings having alternating sections of the front wall approximately 20fl wide that are recessed less than 2ft. This is an architectural feature to add depth and character for the commercial appearance .to be aesthetically pleaSing. Although the footprint is not exact, the features represented in the front elevation only vary slightly from the ,'plan" view represented on the Application Plan. It is my understanding that it is appropriate for the final site plan to reflect the more detailed building footprint which is in substantial conformance with the Application Plan. Once the Board action has been taken, the building design will be completed as will the site plan design. At that time, the commercial building footprint will be incorporated into the final plan. If you have any questions, please advise. Elaine Echols From: /--Sent: ;o: Subject: Margarel Wednesc Elaine cloverla~ 12/5/01 ARB-P(SDP)-2001-20: Clover Lam West. Regarding the request for the Based on the plan reviewed, A'lq'ACHMENT D Maliszewski lay, December 05, 2001 11:49 AM :hols vn - Preliminary review of a plan to construct a mixed use development on Route 250 ~P and the ZMA, the Board unanimously took the following action: :he ARB expressed no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit or the ZMA, with the understandin~ that staff/ARB recommendations will be folloWed, with final ARB review, and with the condition that lands{aping be added at the southeast and southwest cOmers, of the property to achieve a more natural forested appear[ncc in those locations. 1 Regarding the preliminary site plan, [he following comments were offered for benefit of the applicant's next submission: EC trees should be 3½" caliper, 35' on center, minimum, and should extend along the SMA. Add one more perimeter tree along the row of parking that faces the stormwater management area. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Add one more perimeter tree Parking lot perimeter shrubs Screening trees should be pl~ If the storm water managem¢ appearance of the area, as vie Landscaping will play an iml 7. Provide complete lighting in: development. Avoid the ove~ than safety and security. 8. Provide a proposal for coord: character and scale of the de' illustrated. 9. Clarify the statement regardi other conditions that could ir utilities and site conditions. 10. Provide final elevations, incl elevations for the townhouse 11. The depth of detailing illustr. carried through to the finish¢ inappropriate but the size, sc overall character and detail appearance illustrated in the buildings). Appropriate archi 12. The rear and side elevations appropriate for the EC. 13. An illuminated window in th too large. Reduce the size of show the change. 14. Show the locations of sheds/ 15. Add landscaping south of to~ 16. The ARB expressed concern should be carefully landscap, surrounding area. More trees in fact, be planted as shown. landscaping in these areas. 17. The ARB expressed concern just south of townhouse Al. should be spaced 5' on center, minimum. ced in a staggered row, 15' on center. nt area will remmn, provide details, including a perspective sketch, for the ~wed from the EC. This area should appear to be fully integrated into the site. )ortant role in this integration. !ormation. Lights should be coordinated with the character and scale of the -illumination of parking lots and the illumination of buildings for purposes other nated signage throughout the site. Sign types should be coordinated with the ~elopment. Channel letters and cabinet signs are not appropriate for the buildings ~g the 80' right-of-way, utilities, and required landscaping. Show all easements or apact required landscaping. All required landscaping must be coordinated with all ading fronts and sides of both the commercial and townhouse buildings, and rear ~ted in the color renderings of the commercial and townhouse buildings should be d buildings. For example, the applied louver visible in the townhouse photo is ~le. and character of the mangular louvers in the rendering are appropriate. The lustrated in the color rendering of the townhouses is appropriate. The flat, cold ~hoto of the townhouses is not appropriate (for the townhouses or the commercial :ectural detailing and materials can contribute to the desired appearance. ~f the townhouses should include additional architectural detail to make them ~ cupola will be inappropriate. With the window removed, the cupola will appear the cupola so that it is appropriately scaled to the building. Revise the elevations to nechanical equipment. vnhouse block A to screen sheds and mechanical equipment. about the appearance of the southeast and southwest comers of the site. These areas :d to achieve a more natural, forested appearance that is better integrated with'the should be added. Provide additional information to demonstrate that the trees can, It was suggested that the amount of parking provided does not allow for adequate about the three-story height, the appearance, and the visibility of the shifted 1 ATTACHMENT D townhouses, and the relationship between the townhouses and the topography of the site. The townhouses must be of a design that is meant to sit on a hill. Provide sections illustrating how the townhouses and the topography have been coordinated. 18. Provide perspective views to clarify the appearance of the proposed development as seen from the EC. 19. Clarify the materials proposed for the basements of the townhouses. Materials should be compatible with the other building materials and should be appropriate for the EC. Landscaping may be necessary to soften the appearance. 20. Provide a detail for the proposed privacy fence. The fence should be articulated and the design should incorporate rhythm. 21. The applicant indicated that the neighbors requested that some landscaping be provided on both sides of the fence. Show this proposed change on a revised landscape plan. 22. Revise the landscape plan to reduce the appearance that the site is simply being ringed with trees. The landscape plan should be designed to address the specific challenges of this site. Plants should be added to soften the impact of the development and create a more natural and integrated appearance throughout. 23. Show the actual building footprints on the plan. Margaret M. Maliszewski, Design Planner Albemarle County Planning Department 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902 804-296-5823 x 3276 804-972-4012 FAX mmaliszewski@albemarle.org TO: Albe FROM: Elai~ SUBJECT: ZMa DATE: Nov, At the last Plannin twelve issues relate · · · · · · · This staff report wi] Applicant .has addre Attachments A - F Design Attachment A cont~ of the development COUNTY OF ~BEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 -5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM marle County Planning Commission e K. Echols, AICP, Principal Planner ~ 99-11, SP 01-006, and SDP 01-016 Clover Lawn Village mber 6, 2001 Appropriateness of density ARB status Commitment for residential units in the commercial section Alignment of Radford Lane Greater definition of the green area--qualities, amenities, relationship of townhouses Stormwater management Pedestrian access within the site Pedestrian access through the site - clarification in the proffers Elevations for back part of the site Good integration into the surrounding area Parking Proffers 1 highlight changes from the last plan and the way in which the ssed the Planning Commission's concerns. Please reference ['or information relative to the discussions below: .ins the Application Plan for the development. The redesign with a well-articulated central amenity responds to both staff Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the following to the application/site plan for the development and the rezoning. and Planning Commission's concerns. The character of the central amenity is now well defined as a "lawn" surrounded by sidewalks and in which a tot lot is placed. The townhouses east and west of the recreational area sit on the lawn as well and provide a well-integrated urban amenity. The Applicant has also removed the double row of parking across the front of the west side of the development that substantially helps to relegate the parking on the site. The "jog-off-set" has also been corrected in the front. Although the jog offset continues to appear behind the commercial buildings, it is of less concern when located in one place rather than in two places. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Because of the later-than-anticipated submittal of this plan, staff is unable to present the plan to the ARB for comment. The previous concerns were for the b.m.p, and landscaping across the front and the relationship of the landscaping to the utilities. On the Application Plan, utilities are shown on Radford Lane, rather than traversing the front of the site. For that reason, staff believes that landscaping can be provided easily in the portion of the lot-facing Route 250. The location of the stormwater facility has not changed. The Applicant has proffered that it.will participate in a sub-regional detention basin if one is built behind Blue Ridge Builders Supply. If the detention basin is available for use, it will mm the area shown as a stormwater facihty into a b.m.p, and recreational area. Before final site plan approval, the Applicant will have to obtain approval by the ARB. Elevations are proffered (Attachment B) that acknowledge the final authority of the ARB in architectural review. Additional comments from the Design Planner will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. Parking A single row of parking spaces across the front of the lot substantially improves the appearance of the development facing Route 250 and relegates parking appropriately. In the previous staff report, the Appl!c .ant made a formal request for PD-SC parking standards. The Planning Commission discussed this item favorably in previous meetings. If approved, at PD-SC standards, only 4 additional parking spaces are provided on the site. These 4 spaces are for visitor parking for the townhouses. Staff recommends that, when the Planning Commission is ready to recommend approval of the rezoning and the site plan, it approve this request for PD-SC parking standards. Traffic Signal As a result of VDOT's request for a contribution to a traffic signal, the Applicant has proffered a pro-rata contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at the entrance to the property based on the cost established by VDOT when that signal is warranted. This proffer is now good for ten years rather than five. 2 Alignment with BI The Planning Corn~ into the Blue Ridge versa. The Applica extension of the Bh change to the shop[ the shopping center to be provided by ti commitments to m~ proffered additional VDOT wanted to ir. and right-mm traffi for the improveme~ location. Radford Lane and As with the previou reservation for dedi frame is given for tl are appropriate. Th r.o.w, unobstmctec fence. The Applic~ could be relocated c for the old Route 25 Stormwater Mana Stormwater manage Lawn site. The loc problematic to the Shopping Center re~ shopping center site The Applicant has stormwater manage: attractive landscaph Setbacks, Buffers, With the previous p setbacks and the net feet from the reside] shown on the Appli, should be granted. ue Ridge Shopping Center Entrance nission stated strongly at earlier meetings that the driveway Shopping Center should be aligned with Radford Lane or vice tion Plan shows no change to Radford Lane. With the te Ridge Shopping Center site plan, it is unknown when or if a ing center entrance will occur. If alignment to the entrance of is necessary for this rezoning to be approved and alignment is te developers of the Blue Ridge Shopping Center, ke those improvements are needed. The Applicant has r.o.w, at the entrance to Radford Lane and explained that if ~prove the entrance m Radford Lane by adding a right-turn in : device, the additional area for the r.o.w, would be available t. Staff does not support use of such a traffic device at this the old U.S. Route 250 Roadbed ; iteration of this plan, the Applicant has proffered a :ation of'Radford Lane for a public road. A ten-year time tis dedication. Staff believes these proffers for Radford Lane e.Applicant continues to proffer to leave the areas near the old and free from improvements, with the exception of a privacy at acknowledges through the proffer that the privacy fence loser to the townhouses if the County ever acquired the r.o.w. 0 roadbed for a public road. ement ment continues to be shown on the front portion of the Clover Ltion of the stormwater basin in the front of the lot has been '.ommission in each review of the project. The Blue Ridge tesign shows a possible detention facility southeast of the that could provide for detention from Clover Lawn. adicated that, if a regional solution is to be used the nent area could function solelyas a b.m.p, within Which lg could be placed. and Grading :oposal, the Applicant has made a request for reduced v design continues to show two townhouse sections located 30 ltial boundary to the rear. Staffbelieves that the setbacks :ation Plan are appropriate and that the reduction requested With the previous proposal, the Applicant requested the ability to disturb the 20- foot buffer between the requested zoning district and the adjacent residential districts. On the site plan for the current proposal (Attachment C), grading is proposed to the rear of the property close to the old r.o.w, bed and on the east side of the property. The Applicant has requested a waiver of Section 21.7.3 to disturb the buffer along two boundaries. Regarding the buffer along the rear property line, staff believes that the buffer can be disturbed and graded, then replanted without adversely affecting the development or the adjacent property. A privacy fence appears to be desired by the neighbors that would go into the buffer area. Regarding the buffer along the eastern boundary, grading, planting and a privacy fence are proposed in a portion of the buffer that staff views as appropriate. In the southeastern portion of the site, grading is shown at 2:1 slopes on the proposed site plan. Although a bench is shown at the top of the slope, this bench is not sufficiently wide to install screening trees. Staff has recommended more gentle grading to the Applicant. The Applicant has indicated that an off-site grading easement has been obtained for gentler grading; however, the grading will not be totally at 3:1 slopes. Because the ARB will be reviewing and approving the appearance and landscaping for this portion of the site, staffbelieves that allowing for disturbance of the buffer at this location is appropriate. Staff would recommend that a condition be placed on the waiver to disturb the buffer at this location. This condition would be that adequate benching be provided at the head of the slope to allow for the installation of screening trees related to the parking lot. Density In the most recent submittal, the residential component consists of 24 townhouses which face each other in a '~lawn like" setting. The proffers state that, at the Applicant's option, five additional residential units may be added above the commercial structures in the front of the development. The net density of the residential area is 8.5 dwellings per acre; the gross density on the site is 3.5 dwellings per acre. From the beginning of the review o f this project, staff has suggested that density be a factor of design rather than a set number. Until this version of the plan, staffhas not seen a design that appropriately supports the proposed density. The design now proffered shows a well-articulated recreational .area and design of the townhouses provides the appropriate relationship of parking to structures and structures to recreational areas. Staff now supports the density shown. The Land Use Plan would support approximately 16 dwellings in the area shown as Neighborhood Density. The Land Use Plan states that Urban Density residential uses as secondary uses are supported in the Neighborhood Service Area. The Crozet Community Plan, referenced in the Land Use Plan recommends 1 - 4 dwellings in the area shown as Neighborhood Density on the Land Use Plan. Neighborhood Service is recommended in the same way it is shown on the Land Use Plan. Since the development is proposed as a mixed-use project, and urban density is suggested 4 as a secondary use units can be suppor Elevations Attached to the pro shows the commen townhouses. Thetl backs of the townh~ proffered that the tc photographs. Addit side of Clover Law: buildings will be ot sectional drawings site modifications ,~ Pedestrian Access The sidewalk syste~ ,e, nde~_v,,ored to brin~ green could enha access from Radfor path. Staff suppop Proffers The proffers submi~ Attorney's office fc form requested by t development. It is: Planning Commissi STAFF RECOM3 ZMA 99-11 Staff has reviewed design is approprim modifications to thc shown on the Appli parking standards il Staff acknowledges accomplished with Commission previc the Applicant and r, i~r NeighborhoOd Service ar6as, staff believes an additional 13 Ied on this site and be in keeping with the Land Use Plan. ?fers are three sets of elevations. The first set-of elevations iai area. The second set shows the fronts of the proposed drd set of elevations is actually color photos that show the ~uses where they will face Route 250. The Applicant has ,wnhouses will be in general accord with the elevations and ~onally, the applicant has provided a section view of the west Village from Route 250. The section, shows that all but two of the line of site from Route 250. The ARB will review the md all photos and elevations to determine if architectural or 7ill be necessary. n shown on the site plan is very good. The Applicant has also : a pedestrian path from the rear of the parking lot to the ~ce pedestrian access. A previous proffer for pedestrian Lane is shown on the site plan as a constructed pedestrian s the pedestrian access system as shown. ted With this package have not yet been reviewed by the County r most recent changes in language. Generally, the proffers follow the he County Attorney approval and represent cOmmitments to the mticipated that these minor wording changes will be made before the on meeting on November 13. ]ENDATION ne most recent application plan and proffers and believes that the e for the development and recommends approval with minor ~, proffers. Staff recommends approval of the modified setbacks, as cation Plan. Staff also recommends approval of use of PD-SC the commercial portion of this development. that the alignment of Radford Lane with Route 250 has not been Ihis proposal and associated proffers. As discussed with the usly, the preferred solution to this alignment is out of the control of ~'lates to the Blue Ridge Shopping Center design. SP 01-006 Staff also recommends approval of the special use permit for the mixture of residential and commercial uses in the commercial buildings and acknowledges that the residential use is approved through both the rezoning and the special use permit. This recognition is important in that the rezoning allows for residential uses to be placed in the commercial buildings at any time, even if they are not constructed within two years. SDP 01-016 Staff recommends approval of a waJ. ver to modify disturb the 20 foot buffer on the rear and eastern boundaries of the site with the condition that reconstructed slopes along the eastern boundary allow for adequate benching at the top of the slope to support screening trees. Staff recommends approval of a critical slopes waiver to allow grading as shown generally on the preliminary site plan. Finally, staff recommends approval of the preliminary site subject to all standard final site plan requirements. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - The Application Plan dated November 2, 2001 Attachment B - .Proffers dated 11/01/01 Attachment C - Preliminary Site Plan dated October 18, 2001 Attachment D - Attachment E - Attachment F -- Section View' of the West Side-of Clover Lawn Village fi:om Route 250 dated 10/18/01 Applicant's Summary of Comparison dated 10/18/01 Memo fi:om the Route 250 West Task Force dated October 22, 2001 6 25' Strip ~es t/ ,I T/~ 5~ Porc. 9~A Zo~d RI 610 Ro~ord Lor~Ct~rleYaSvllle H2 21 I/' / F1 IF2 om~ ~llll t~2d, Croze~ / I / / /% / / / / ! / / / / / / ~5~ x 6q' Bldg. 20' 250 ( Ro3k-F i$I~ GeD Tut-rip i Ke ) Easter~ Managment Pr~ 30 O ~0 60 gO Scale 1" = 30' Tot LOt~ . i 20' U?I I ! Easmf. I~ ATTACHMENT A To Charlotfesv} lie .................... ~ .......... (Dm 7 Date: 11/01/2001 Zk 2.65/4.15 ,z Pursuant to Section duly authorized agent, her~ applied to the property, if n rezoning and it is agreed ff and (2) such conditions ha' (1) See attached "Clov ,._..-~ign~at'~res of A~ Owners ATTACHMENT B Original Proner Amended Proffer (Amendment # ) PROFFER FORM A# 99- 11 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 56- 107,107A, 107(A)1 ;res to be rezoned from RI/HC to PD-MC 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its ~by voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be ;zoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested ~at: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the ne~d for the conditions; /e a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. ~r Lawn ~'rorre 1 through 6, on pages 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 '~--- ~/~ ' :/ Preston O. Stallings .. inted Names of All Owners / -4/ OR Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact PROFFORM.WPD Rev. December 1994 Page 1 of 3 I t-0'5-0 '! p(_',~; :43 Clover Lawn Village - Proffers In connection with the applicant's rezoning application, the following proffers are made: 1. The Application Plan, dated November 1, 2001 Sheet 2 of 2 is proffered as the Application Plan for the development and is attached hereto. Specific features of the Application Plan that will be a part of the development are: a. A unified development of all three parcels of land (TMP56-107, 107(A)1, and TMP 56-107A) including a combination of these parcels by plat or deed pdor to site development plan approval for the first site plan. This does not preclude phasing this development and it does not preclude a subdivision of this parcel. b. Access from a single entrance across RT250 with a possible future interconnection to Radford Lane. c. A mixed-use development with residential uses at the rear of the development and commercial and residential uses at the front of the development. d. Pedestrian access in the locations and widths as shown on the Application Plan. Sidewalk and pedestrian paths shall meet standards established by the Director of Engineering. e. Architectural Features in general accord with the elevation of the Commercial ,Building by Stoneking/von Storch dated 7/05/01 and front elevation of the Townhouse(s)dated 10/31/01 and photo of the townhouse rear face dated 10/31/01 attached hereto. The rear face of Townhouse block A and block G shall have additional window treatment and screening as approved by ARB. Modifications required by Architectural Review Board shall be deemed as consistent with this proffer. f. A maximum of 29 residential units which includes a maximum of 24 townhouses and a maximum of 5 residential units overtop the commercial buildings. Radford Lane, as shown on the Application Plan, shall be reserved for dedication upon the demand of the County, should the County establish the need for a public road at this location. The area to be dedicated shall be the minimum amount required for a public road and shall be no more than 25 feet from the property line except at the entrance to RT250 where the reserved area is wider as shown on the Application Plan. If before the County demands dedication for a public road, the County approves a private road at this location under the Subdivision Ordinance, then the land reserved for dedication shall be available for construction of a private road. This proffer shall be in effect until December 31,201.1. Should the County not make demand or approve the private road design plan at this location within this time period, the owner shall be released from the.obligation. The owner is not proffering a gift of the land for a private road and is not proffering to construct any improvements to that road. Recreational amenities shall consist of a "recreational area" as shown on the Application Plan in which a Tot Lot shall be installed. The area shall be a minimum of 20,000 square feet. At a minimum, recreational amenities shall include two benches, a sidewalk, and a pathway as shown on the Application Plan. These amenities and the Tot Lot shall be installed or bonded prior to certificate of occupancy of the 15th residential unit. This proffer does not prohibit the Director of Planning and Corem unity Development from substituting Page 2 of'3 Page 3 of 3 o recreational f, 4.16.2.1. No structure ~ shown on the along the rea of the develo rear of the dE line shall be height is pro proffer acknc Route 250 re road project. ~cilities provided those facilities satisfy the requirements of Sections )r landscaping shall be placed within the Old Route 250 road bed Application Plan With the exception of the privacy fence shown r property line. Existing vehicular access across the rear boundary ~ment shall remain unobstructed. Screening plants required at the velopment where the Old Route 250 road bed abuts the property )laced outside of the 20 foot buffer. A privacy fence of 6 feet in "ered in the general location shown on the Application Plan. This wledges that the segment of the privacy fence located within the old adbed may be relocated in the event it obstructs any future County The Owner s i~all make a pro-rata contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at one of twoI potential locations - either the intersection of Clover Lawn Lane and RT250 OR IF~dford Lane and RT 250. The Owner's pro-rata contribution shall be based on thai cost established by VDOT when that signal is warranted. The location of th~. traffic signal shall be determined by VDOT. The amount of the contribut on .,;hall be based on a pro-rata share of the traffic volume contributed by: this site a ~ determined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department. This proffer., hall be in effect until December 31,2011. If a subregio~ developmen: program in Ii, on the Applk Uses allowe~ Commercial Commercial copies of wh a. The 1 Cem Fire Fun Indc Aut, Gas b. The and ' La La NI. In( ~al stormwater management facility is available for use by this , the Owner shall make a contribution consistent with the County's .~u of an on-site stormwater management facility. The area shown ~tion Plan for this use will be designated for recreational use. by-right in the PDMC district are attached hereto as Section 22.2.1 -C-1, 23.2.1 Commercial Office -CO, and 24.2.1 Highway - HC, from the Zoning ordinance in effect at the time of this rezoning, ich are attached hereto, with the following exceptions: allowing uses shall not be permitted in this district: eteries (Sections 22.2.1(b)(3), 23.2.1(4),24.2.1(5)) and rescue squad stations(Section 22.1.1 (b)(6)) .~ral homes (Sections 22.2.1(b)(7),24.2.1(14)) or theaters (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(9), 24.2.1 (38)) ~ truck re pair shop(Sections 22.2.1 (b)(22), 24.2.1 (2)) aline pumps allowing uses shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6a.m. p.m.: undries, dry cleaners (Section 22.2.1 (b)(10)) Jndromat (Section 22.2.1 (b)(11 )) rseries, day care centers (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(13), 23.2.1 (12)) tomobile service stations (Sections 22.2.1 (b)(16), 24.2.1 (3)) Ioor athletic facilities (Sections 22.2.1(b)(24), 24.2.1(42)) 56 P~r~g't'A Zoned RI N/F Cr~ Rmffor{f L~r~.C~orloh~m, llle Fill~lam ! ; 7 / ,'/ Tm ~ ~rc,~'W ' #/F c~ / ' , 25' // I! /: G2 G3 / / .,. 6l~' '.ged Tl:~e. Ch~rle'Ye~vffle r. (Typ) A1 A2 ~0' Ufl I l ~ [QSk'11~, ( T 25 U.S. Rt. 250 ',, Food Lion Site (Not Devel~lT.~r: Qreat_Easterq Managment $l,~e p~an: u ue Ridge HC lgB.o3f? Clover Lawn Village Ntnth and South Elevations CLOVER LAWN VILLAGE TOWNHOUSE VIEW OF REAR FACE DATED 10/31/01 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE Sections: 22.1 22.2 22.2.1 22.2.2 22.3 CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 22 COMMERCIAL - C-1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 22.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED C- 1 districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to permit selected retail sales, service and public use establishments which are primarily oriented to central business concentrations. It is intended that C-i dist-ricts De established only within the urban area, communities and villages, in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 9-9-92) 22.2 PERMITTED USES 22.2. I BY RIGHT The followin_o uses shall be permitted in any C-1 district .subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specificallv permirted: provided that such use shall be similar to uses permit-ted by right in general character and more specifically, similar in terms of [ocational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generatmn. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decisi6n shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. a The following retail sates and service establishments: I. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops 2. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops Department store. 4. Drug store, pharmacy. 5. Florist. 6. Food and grocer3' stores including such specialw shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. Furniture and home appliances (sales and service). Zoning Supplement ~6. t2-30-99 8. Hardware stl 9. Musical insrr 10. Newsstands, 11. Optical good 12. Photographic 13. Visual and 14. Sporting goo 15. Retail nurse~ The following se i. Administrati 2. Barber, beau 3. Churches, ce 4. Clubs, lodge Financial ins 6. Fire andresc ?. - Funeral 8 Health spas. 9. Indoor theat, I 0. Laundries. II. Laundromat 12 Libraries, m lB Nurseries. d 14. Eating estab 15. Tailor, seam 16. Automobile 17. Electric, ga poles, lines. service and collection I Albemarle ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 'e. lments. magazines, pipe and tobacco shops. gooOs. clio appliances. res and greenhouses. ~vices and public establishments: ~e. professional offices. ~ shops meterles. civic, fraternal, patriotic treference 5. i.02). tltutlons. ue squaa stations treference 5.1.09 ~. eS. r-v cleaners. tprovided that an anendam shall be on duty at ali hours during operation). [seuITtS v care centers ~ reference 5.1.0r>,. [ishments. ' " stress. service stations (reference 5. t,20). oil and communicauon facilities excluding tower structures and including transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage ines. pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the ;ount~' Sera'ice Authority'. (Amended 5-2-93~ 18-22- 2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 18. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, oWned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-9) 19. Temporary construction us'es (reference 5.1.1). 20. Dwellings (reference 5.1.2t). 21. Medical center. 22. Automobile, truck repair shop excluding body shop. (Added 6-3-81; Amended 9-9-92) 23. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-6) 24. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) 25. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added I0-11-95) 22.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT '7. Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited to-amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83) Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. Hospitals. Fast food restaurant. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1. i 1 t. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section t8.0, residential - R-15. in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to secnon 31 ..~.4. Hotels, .motels and inns Motor vehicle sales and rental in communities and the urban area as designated in the comprehensive plan (Added 6-I-83~ 9. Parking structures located whollv or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-4) t0. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permirted uses. (Added 1 t-7-84; Amended 9-9- 92) 11. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred ~400~ gallons per sIte acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) I2. Body shop. (Added 9-9-92) 18-22-3 Zoning Supplement #5.6-16-99 /7 13. Animal shelter ~ 22.3 ADDITIONAL REQUi In addition to the r~ districts, generally, ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE' eference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99). I~EMENTS :quirements contained herein, the requirements of section 21.0, commercial hall apply within all C-1 districts. (Amended 3-17-82; 7-10-85) 18-22-4 Zoning Supplement #5, 6-16-99 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 23 COMMERCIAL OFFICE - CO Sections: 23.1 23.2 23.2.1 23.2.2 23.3 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 23.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED CO districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to tile zoning map to permit development of administrative, business and professional offices and supporttng accessory uses and facilities. This district is intended as a transition between residential districts and other more intensive commercial and industrial districts. 23.2 PERMITTED USES 23.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted m any CO district, subject to the reqmrements and limitations of these reuulattons Administranve and business offices. 2 Professional of'rices, including medical, dental and optical. 2. Financia't instlrutmns. Churches. cemeterms. 5 Libraries. museums Accessory uses aha structures mctdent:51 to Ihe principal uses provided herein. Such uses m combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of buitdir!gs _on... the site. The followin,~ accesso~' uses shatl be permitted: -Eating establishments: -Newsstands: -Establishments for the sale ol' office supplies and servme of office equipment; -Data processing servmes: 18-23-1 /? ALBE_~IARLE COUNTY CODE -Central reprodu -Ethical pharma, optical or prosth -(Repealed 3-17. -Sale/service of Instruments, mu: (Added 12-3-86 7 Electric, gas, oil lines, trans form~ owned and ope~ pumping station Authority. Ext sewerage syste~ applicable law. 8. Public uses an( parks, playgrom (reference 31.2. facilities, pumpi Sewer Authorit 9. Temporary con 10. Dwellings (refe: t 1. Temporary nonr I2. Day.care, child~ 23.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE Pi 1. Hospitals. 2. ?uneral homes. 3. Electrical powe] lines, pumping wave and radio- 4. ?arking srructur, 5. Commercial usc 6. School ofspeci, 7. Clubs. lodges, c 8. Uses permitted four hundred (4 public sewer, in 6-14-89) tion and mailing services and the like; :les. laboratories and estabishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of ·,tic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices; 82) goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical 3cai scores, text books, artist~s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel. and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, :rs, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and ated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, ~ and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service ept as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central ~s in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other 'Amended 5-12-93) buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as Schools. offices, ~ds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agenctes 5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treaunent ag stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) ruction uses treference 5.1.18). ence 5.l.213. tAdded 3-17-82) zsidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) tre or nurser~ facilitv (reference 5.1.65. (Added 9-9-92) RMIT substations, transmissmn lines and related towers: gas or oil transmission stations anc~ appurxenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- ~ave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. :s located wholtv or partly above grade (Added I 1-7-84) otherwise permitted having drive-in windows (Added 11-7-84) instruction, tAdded 1 -1-87) ,lc, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). (Added 1-1-87) Dy right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding 00) gallons per sac acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served bv ¢olving anticzpated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 18-23-2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 9. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permit~ed in section 18.0. residential R-15. in compliance with regulations set forth therein and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. (Added 6-19-91) 10. Hotels, motels and inns (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) I 1. Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) 12. Research and development activities including experimental testing. (Added 6-19-91 ) 13. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical. (Added 6-10-92) '14. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added9-15-93) 23.3 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS In addition to the requirements contained herein, the requirements of section 21.0. commercial districts, generally, shall apply within all CO districts. 2/ ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE Sections: 24.1 INTENT, ~ 24.2 PERMITT 24.2.1 BY RIGH~I 24.2.2 BY SPEC[ 24.3 MINIMU~v 24.4 ADDITIOr 24.1 INTENT, WHERE PEI HC districts are here to permit developm oriented to highway . districts be establis comprehensive plan. sprawling strip com~ permit controlled acc 24.2 PERMITTED USES 24.2.1 BY RIGHT The following use.< limitations of these planning and other permitted; provided and more specificat visual ~mpact and trz generally provided tr 1 Automobile [aur 2. Automobile. trw 3. Automobile Ser' 4. Building materu Churches, ceme' 6. Clubs. lodges, c 7. Convenience sic CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 24 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - HC HERE PERMITTED ED US ES' ~L USE PERMIT [ FRONTAGE, SHAPE OF DISTRICT IAL REQUIREMENTS ~MITTED ~v created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map .=nt of commercial establishments, Other than shopping centers, primarily ~ocauons rather than to central business concentrations. It is intended that HC led on major highways within the urban area and communines in the It is further intended that this district shall be for the purpose of limiting nercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to ess to public streets_ shall be permitted tn any HC district subject to the reqmrements and eguiations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of ippropnate officials, may permit, as a use bv dent. a use noti;specifically hat such use shall be similar to uses permitted ay right in general character. y, similar n terms or' Iocauonal requirements, operational characteristics. ffic ~oenerauon. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as sectmn 34 0 dries. :k repair shops. ice stanons~reterence 5 1.20L is sales. eries. vic, fraternal pamotic I reference 5. 1.2 ~. res I 8-24- I 2Z ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 8. Educational, technical and trade schools. 9. Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric. 10. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1 ;22). 11. Financial institutions. 12. Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service. 13. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 14. Funeral homes. 15. Furniture stores. 16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. 17. Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning., eiterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance services. 18. Hardware. 19. (Repealed 6-3-81) 20. Hotels, motels and inns. 21. Light warehousing. 22. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental. 23. Mobile home and trailer sales and service. 24. Modular building sales. 25. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental. 26. New automotive parts sales. 27. Newspaper publishing. 28. Administrative, business and professional offices. 29. Office and business machines sales and service. 30. Eating establishment: fast food restaurants. 3 t. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. 32. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles. 33. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19). 34. Wholesale distribution. 18-24-2 35 Electric, gas, oil'a lines, transformer owned and opera' pumping stations Authority. Exce sewerage systems applicable law. (~ 36. Pul~lic uses and k parks, playgroun( (reference 31.2.5 facilities, pumpin Sewer Authority 37. Temporary const 38. Indoor theaters. 39. Heating oil sales 40 Temporary. nonrt 41. Uses permitted (Added 6-19-91 4_,. Indoor athletic fa 43. Farmers' market 24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE Pi 1. Commercial'reci alleys, pool halls Septic tank saIes 3.Livestock sales. 4. V'eterinarv off'~c~ Drive-in theater: 6. Electrical oowe lines, pumping wave and radio- 5.t.t2). 7. Hospitals, nursi 8.- Contractors' off 9 Auction houses ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE id communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, ;, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and ed by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service pt as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and ali other ~mended 5-12-93) ~ uildings including temporary, or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, .s and roads funded, Owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies 1; public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment g stations~and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and referen__ffe, 1.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11~1-89) uction uses (reference 5.1.18). .nd distribution (reference 5.l .20). idential mobile homes t reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) )y righ't pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of section 22.1, commercial, C-I. Amended 9-9-92) ciliries. (Added 9-15-93) 'reference 5. t.36'1. (Added 10-11-95) ;RMIT cation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling and dance halls. (Amended 1-t-833 ~ and related service· :ana hospital ireference 5.1. 115. treference 5.1.081. substations, transmission lines ana related towers, gas or oil transmission ;rations and appurtenances: unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro- wave transm~sston and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference ~g homes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13). ce and equipment storage yard. 8-24-3 Zoning Supplement/t6, 12-30-99 ALBEMAP~LE COUNTY CODE 10. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0. residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31 ~2.4. 11. Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11). (Added 1- 1-83) 12. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-84) 13. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 1 I-7-84; Amended 9-9- 92) 14. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by fight, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) 15. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.2.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) 16. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99) 24.3 MINIMUM FRONTAGE, SHAPE OF DISTRICT Minimum frontage required on a public street for the establishment of an HC district shall be one hundred and fifty (150) feet. Frontage of an HC district shall not exceed depth. This section shall not apply to HC districts established at the adoption of the zoning map. 24.4 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS In addition to the requirements contained herein, the requirements of sectiOn 21.0, commercial districts, generally, shall apply within all HC districts. 18-24-4 Zoning Supplement #6, 12-30-99 f~-t~ ~ gft~ ~l to be ~lev~. l~nu~7 ~?, L ~0RK ~ALL B~ ~UBJ~CT T0 I~SP~CT~0~ BY ALB~MARL~ COU~TY S~VICZ AUTHORIT~ /N~PECT0~. TH~ CON~CT0~ WILL BE ;. THg LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES ACROS~ THO LINE 0F THE ~HOWN, AR~ ONLY APP~0XI~ATL~Y C0~. TH~ CONTRACTOR SHALL ~AHUAB~ 15, 5. TH~ COHT~ACT0~ SHALL gg ~PON~IBL~ FOR NOTIF~I~G "MISB UTILITY" g. ALL ~ATEB AND SEWER PIP~ SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM O~ 3 FEET OF COVER MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF PIPE. OVE~ THE CENTERLINE OF PIPE. THIS INCLUDES ALL FIRE HYDRANT LINES. SERVICE LATERALS AND ~ATE~ LINES. ETC. T. ALL WATER AND SE~EH APPUHTENANC~ ARE TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF ~OADStDE DITCHES, VALVES ON DEADEND LINES SHALL BE 80DDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE ~ESTRAINT FOR DU~NG A FUTURE EXTENSION OF T~E LINE. Crozet, Vicinity MaP (No Scale) 2/23/01 C- O. 7mg/L ~OosT~ 183080 s.~ o~ 62% PI- 0.9 RV- 0.06 lS3080 ~.~. pm' 4.2 I S. 6eLDW. po~ld $ ~'o~o 15257 e4s3 Sr'oM'm oep t~o ATTACHMENT C ~nd Flor Eas~ 5,500 5.5/1000 s.~. 30 O~rcl~l Or ResJd, ,~ ~s~'i:~7-_~ ..... l,J:~o}-,--'_ .,.'~;57i~F;_~ii''~- ..... ~i .... Use snd ~enSltles Proposed ~. O~e~LLing C~.If~= ·, . Z~ Propas~d.Typq uy. eL!l~9 .~llrS= I /o~ousa/Condos Ares or Kcs dent aL POrTIOn= , l' U1 AC 6ross ReqlaeflhsL Iknslfy ; ]Sdu/acre ~t Resiaenhat ~ens~fy= _, 8 5 du/acre · I~t~ ~ohan~[ 5d~ on top ~n [o~merDgk~rossf ¢ ] du/acrel Ares of Co~rc~a[ Port,on= 3 98 Ac ~l~m ~er of E~Layaes; variable o~ote~ ~ b ra ~ 610 I?odf*ord L~fle, c~l114 , E2 ES 6E~ Redfe~d i.,~e, Chgrl~eavllle ................ ~' ""::::;:"~" ..... TO'I' Lo~ C~ N/F SNt'flett gemt. (T~p) B2 TI/.' N/F $' StrTD Reserved ~or\ \ / O,I dg, I 7/ [] I x 6~ Bldg. 1 U.S Rt. 250'-(R.ockfish Gap TurnpiKe) ...~o~,~-,o++..~L,,.._ ""., Food Lion Site .... (Not [noJudedor o~fTITated) ~ Deve ~.er: greot_~ost~rq Ma~gment I .............; Sl.~e plan: ~rue Hiage HU ~ ...... ~ ). 46,6097 ,i ~ ', / "',. Scale 1" = 30' , B Blge Ri_dge . uT aers :~upplY : C~n ~ C~ 0 "l'- rn z ATTACHMENT E CLOVER LAWN VILLAGE o/ 8/ol1 of Compare Preliminary Plan 7/3/01 to PRELIM]~NARY PLAN REVISED ZO/:LS/0! Revised' dtd Based upon PC Meeting ,Tuly 241h and Sept 18th, there were several items to be addressed: ! - open space ~s central amenity, more user friendly, needs to include ordinoce required tot lot and recreational space. 2 - Density - mixed PC response on this. Either quantity/or square footage too much or density ok IF design is improved to better address other items (need to show decks/patios to better assess design) 3 - Existing ec~sements - The old RTS§O road bed was discussed. Not clear on how this was an issue.Possible problem if old roadbed is impeded by Clover Lawn Design ie bldgs to close, plantings in roadbed 4 - Radford Lane issue -what is future? Existing entrance does not align with Blue Ridge HC SP entrance. IF Radford upgraded - who upgrades? Will users give right of way? Give up old easement? SUMMARY OF COMPARISON ]:tern PRELT~ SP Revised 7/3/0! REV]:$ED OCTOBER !8th Difference Open/Recreation tot lot area not shown Tot Lot - 2,000sf Meets Ordinance requirement Space Provided approx. 15,000 possible Open Space over 21,000sf I exceeds required area Design Open Space Located on West side of site Center of Residential Central - user friendly .ess Grading & keep trees View straight in from RT250 SW M&MT Designated on Plan Proffer to keep Recreational use & join in regional Detention PD-MC Bldgs 32,295sf (includes 2 story) 32,000sf (includes 2 story) 295sf less leasable space Commercial 2nd fir-lO units or office use ~Snd fir - likely office space apts over commercial possible Possible 5 unit on top not incl.residentiai number Pm,king Commercial Deleted 16 spaces Across front ARB Preferred reduction' of West Camm Bldg Footprint 2 commercial bldgs: 2:L,§68sf 2 bigs: 20,100sf 1,468sf less footprint Residential . 24 Twhs w/10 apts:34 units ' 24 Twhs w/5 apts(optiopz~l) Over 5 less units Footprint of Res c)o0sf footprint each unit 8 units-63Osf/16 units-TC)2sf Footprint reduced 12 & 30% Design of Res Decks faced rear boundary Half face rear boundary Less intrusive to neighbors and not shown on plan beck/patio shown on plan Better review possible PRIVACY FENCE ENTIRE Fence to Screen Mr. Shifflett RESIDENTIAL SECTION & all adjacent prop. Owners Buffer/~etback 20-25ft to Res. Bldgs Residential Twhs at 25,35,40 Privacy Fence along boundary 2Oft buffer plantings req Exist Easement??? No buffer area between old Plantings to be outside of No plantings to be placed RT~50 road bed old Rt250 roadbed : in path of old roadbed Setback 50'setback to Comm. Bidgs 50'setback to Camm Bldgs No reduction requested Request reduction of setback Request reduction of setback from 50'to 25' from 50' to 30' - On Residential bldgs only Buffers 20' undisturbed along 3 sides . Portion of 20' to be disturbed Request permission to grade Section along East to be To optimize buffer plantings small portion of East buffer ., disturbed and planted buffer ' and NW corner rLO EP, LAWN VZLLA E age Z of :[ssue RE:Entrance SW mgmt area can I~e adjusted Same - if needed to accommod revision to Site Plan - Blue Ridge HC : , / Blue Ridge ,HC development plan owned by Great E~stern p---ible Upgr~do Reserved 25 for dedication E~erved Z5 & Triangle at ~50 for possible intersection Affordable Housi~l R~id~tial priCed / ' , R~id~tial approx. $[50K Better for [st time buyer ' $~55,000 / ' - ~' Affordable Range Overall D~ign R~id~t~l Twhs allln line Symmetrical Layout More Integrated / Improved Ped~trian System ! Pathway ~stem ~more equal ~oubte row Parking ~cross Camm Bldgs Parking changed Only 1 row across front Front of W~t Co~m. Bldg ~. Units Fac~ On~ another Pa~king to side of Units ~ / ' Scale of ~ch Pod is close to ~picol square footage of / ~adjac~t r~idential hom~- approx. 2,214 footprint for e~ch Oval ~ndsca~ Underground utiliti+ ~ements 5,ormwoter-b,oretent,on better to o~co~m~da]~ m~ conflict With ~lontings allows sheet flow & no u9 ~Cl~r strip To p~anT aT TrOnT / pipe & ~sem~ts at front ~CE~C ~UE~ ~TZSO View of Tow~hous~ Twhs Scale ~s close~ to ~dent~aJ s~ze ~ ' full frOnt view - ac~ss site bldgs wJJl app~ smalle~ Op~ 5~ along ~t side Open 5pace at cente~ as you Planted ~ d~ not 'b¢~k ul" site - look up Lane f~om R~50 View ~raight in [mp~oved ~ 5W MGMT at F~onJ ~ Proff~ to keep ~ ~ec~tion use and join in R~ional b~in Pa~king along ~sp- Double ~ow Comm. Pkg - 5ingle row at f~ont ' parking strip acro~ R~id~tial Parking surrounded by Twhs Parking reduced im~ct Route 250 West Task Force County of Aibemarle Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 ATTACHMENT F TO: FROM: REF: DATE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Route 250 West Task Force Clover Lawn Village Preliminary Site Plan October 22, 2001 The Route 250 West Task Force has reviewed the Clover Lawn Village Preliminary Site Plan. The Task Force is very concerned about the impact developments along the corridor will have on the traffic flow and safety of Route 250 West. Therefore, the Task Force strongly supports limiting the number of entrances on the Route 250 West corridor. After reviewing the most current Clover Lawn Village site plan, the Task Force strongly supports the plan to align the Route 250 entrance to Clover Lawn Village with the commercial entrance to Blue Ridge Builders Supply. In view of potential development behind Clover Lawn Village and the plans to allow for additional future access from Clover Lawn Village onto Radford Lane, the Task Force recommends that the main entrance to Blue Ridge - HC be lined up with Radford Lane. The Task Force believes access onto the private road (Radford Lane) from Clover Lawn Village is appropriate. Should a traffic signal prove necessary in this area, the Task Force strongly recommends that only one intersection with Route 250 have a signal. Furthermore, internal access to this signal intersection should be provided from all developments on the north side of Route 250 (Clover Lawn and any subsequent development) and from the south side of Route 250 (Blue Ridge Builders Supply and the Food Lion (Blue Ridge - HC project)). Additionally, the Task Force supports the Planning Commission recommendation for a rural cross-section as opposed to the urban cross-section proposed by VDOT. The Task Force notes that in the May 2000 Route 250 West Corridor Study Resolution, adopted tmanimously by the Board of Supervisors, the Board "commit[s] the County to preserve the community, scenic and rural character of the corridor." The Task Force believes a rural cross-section will enhance the scenic beauty of Route 250 West. The Task Force believes the items above should be addressed and development directly on Route 250 minimized in order to maintain a safe corridor for the public and preserve our scenic highway. Thank you for the opportunity to share our comments and concerns. xc: Albemarle County Planning Commission Elaine Echols TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Corn Elaine K. Echt Additional Inf 01-016 - Ret Setback Req~ DATE: September 5, ~ At the Planning Commission the Planning Commission frc plan, parking reduction, and additional information or mo issues discussed were: · What is the si property? · Can the storrr or can a regio · The need for' · The need for Highway Cot · Demonstratie · The need to r · Additional ir. A revised application plan/l; report as Attachment A. Prt application plan/preliminary way that both highlights the responded to the Planning C to the Applicant on August: made by staff: Other issues Design The redesign of the develop Commission's concerns. U defined and, as shown, is th parking lot. From the appel "natural area". Greater deJ MEMORANDUM aission ~s, AICP, Principal Planner )rmation for Clover Lawn Village: ZMA99-011, SP 01-006, SDP lest for Critical Slopes Waiver; Request for Removal of 50 foot rement; Request for modification of 20 foot Buffer ~001 meeting held July 24, 2001, several outstanding issues prevented m taking action on the rezoning, special use permit, preliminary site .ritical slopes waiver. The Planning Commission asked for tification of several aspects of the proposed development. The Ltus of the old Route 250 right-of-way roadbed and its effect on the water management facility be moved away from the front of the lot ual detention facility be used instead? >rovision of a central recreational amenity. alignment of Radford Lane with the entrance for the Blue Ridge arnercial Property. n that requested setbacks are appropriate. .~move gas pumps from the list of uses allowed for the rezoning. Formation on affordable housing. eliminary site plan, dated August 3, 2001, is attached to this staff ,ffers are provided as Attachment B. Because the resubmitted site plan contains several changes, staff is writing this report in a changes and reports on the way in 'which the Applicant has ommission's concerns stated above. Staff provided a detailed letter ~.4. The Applicant has respOnded positively to several suggestions are highlighted for the Commission's review. aent with a central amenity responds well to the Planning ffortunately, the character of the central amenity is not well back yard of one set oftownhouses and the front yard of a ........ c^.-~al ",,ark like" area or a wance of the plan, It COUtU oe ia ~vt,,, v - ' inition of the area through use of small fencing or a sidewalk surrounding "the green' would help provide amenity value as well as provide a place for active andpassive recreational. Staff suggests that the amenity value could be improved by fronting two sets of townhouses on '~he green ': Staff also strongly recommends that the project be reviewed by the/IRB prior to a recommendation for approval of this plan by the Planning Commission. Physical changes on the plan are shown from the last review and new ARB members are anticipated to have a major interest in the design of this project. In addition, both Engineering and the Design Planner have concerns about the b.m.p and the landscaping. Staff continues to recommend that the front two buildings be aligned on the same plane. The buildings are "jogged" so as to provide for a double row of parking in the front of the western building. On the previous site plan, the Applicant had removed part of the parking in the front, but on this plan, parking has been added back. The Applicant has stated that the utilities previously shown near that area are being moved to accommodate landscaping that will be required by the ARB. Staff believes that aligning the two buildings on the same plane will allow for a single row of parking across the front and improve the quality of the travelways between buildings. Parking Ten extra parking spaces have been provided for the townhouses at the rear of the lot. These spaces could be eliminated. With the mixed-use aspect of this project, staff anticipates that overflow parking for the residential use could take advantage of the commercial spaces not used during off-hours. There are several dumpsters that appear to be located in the "backing up'~ space of the adjoining parking spaces. The Applicant needs to clarify on the plan where the dumpster is located and where "backing up" space may be available in order to assess accurately how parking is provided. The proffers identify that 5 residential units may be provided above the commercial buildings. Ifa commitment were made that there would be 5 residential units on the second floor of the commercial buildings, a significant reduction in parking spaces could bepossibla The Applicant does not wish to make this commitment and believes the number of parking spaces provided in the development is adequate for the retail and service needs of the businesses. Attachment C includes the formal request for PD-SCparking standards. The Planning Commission discussed this item favorably in previous meetings. Staff recommends that, when the Planning Commission is ready to recommend approval of the rezoning and the site plan, it approve this request. VDOT Road Requirements Both VDOT and the Albemarle County Department of Engineering believe strongly that an urban cross-section should be used across the frontage of the parcel along Route 250. They believe that, with the urban cross-section, full frontage improvements are appropriate and should be req the preference of Planning Co Engineering Department and ~ improvements is a recommen, Commission may wish to disc cross-section road with a turn which is consistent with the £ VDOT has requested that a The Applicant has proffered at the entrance to the pmperg warranted. The proffer is Staff believes that such a pn is desirable because it is unl suggested that consideration development and Radford L signal also be available for; interconnection to Radford Commercial site is aligned. less than the share of the sig~ Blue Ridge Shopping Cent~ The Planning Commission s~ Blue Ridge Shopping Centex application plan shows no c[ redesign of the Blue Ridge S The Applicant has not proffi described in the following p: On September 4, 2001, the ~ plan to Planning, EngineeriJ entrance to match up with t~. encroachment in the stream building setback. The Plato fired as a condition of approval, planning staff conveyed remission for a rural cross-section to VDOT and the tscertained that the urban cross-section with full frontage lation of VDOT and not a requirement. The Planning uss this issue further. The Applicant proposes a rural · taper on the eastern end of the property to the entrance, ommission's current position on this issue. ,ntribution to a traffic signal be provided for the project. · pro-rata contribution for the installation of a traffic signal 'based on the cost established by VDOT when that signal is ,d for five years. ffer is important but suggests that a ten-year commitment nown when the warrants may be met. I/DOT has be given to requiring an interconnection between the ~ne. I/DOT has suggested that the contribution for the !adford Lane instead of the Route 250 entrance, if the ~,ane is made and the entrance to the Blue Ridge -Highway YDOT has suggested that this contribution would likely be ~al would be at the entrance from Route 250. ~r Property ated strongly at earlier meetings that the driveway into the should be aligned with Radford Lane or vice versa. The ange to Radford Lane. Attachment D shows a possible hopping Center to realign the entrance with Radford Lane. red this redesign, but its relationship to the proposal is tragraph. evelopers of the Blue Ridge Shopping Center presented a g, Zoning, and VDOT staff. The plan shows a realigned e Radford Lane. It also shows additional square footage, t)uffer, more parking in the front of the building and a greater .ing Director determined that, if submitted, such a plan woul.d be reviewed as a major site lflan amendment. Staff asked the developers if they would be submitting the plan for revi¢~w as an amendment to their site plan. The developers responded that they would riced a commitment from the Planning Commission as to their support for the redesign, pri~r to submitting it for approval. / Staff has not had an oppomlnitY to fully discuss among themselves the ampacts of the redesign on the stream buffi,~r, the appropriateness of the retaining wall at the rear of the parcel, the appropriateness I parking lot and the retainin would also be reqUired befi areas in the front could be [ )f the reconstructed slopes at- a grade of 2:1 between the wall, and the adequacy of circulation. Review by the ARB :e approval and the relocation of the building and parking uportant issue~ to the ARB. At the writing of this staff report, staff is only able to comment on the fact that there are several very positive aspects to the redesign and there are outstanding issues that staff hopes to provide comment on at the Planning Commission meeting. If alignment to the entrance of the shopping center is necessary for this rezoning to be approved and alignment is to be provided by the developers of the Blue Ridge Shopping Center, commitments to make those improvements are needed. Radford Lane and the old U.S. Route 250 Roadbed The Applicant has proffered a reservation for dedication of Radford Lane for a public road. A ten-year time frame is given for this dedication. The proffer extends to offer the area for a private road; however, the Applicant does not intend to "gift" the land to a private developer. Staff believes these proffers for Radford Lane are appropriate. Regarding the old U.S. Route 250 roadbed, the Applicant and adjoining property owners have provided several deeds that have been reviewed by the County Attorney's office. As best the County Attorney can tell, there appears to be a private prescriptive easement across the old r.o.w. Easements are not described in the deeds; only rights of access across the old r.o.w, appear. Staff concurs with the Applicant that it could be a very difficult exercise to determine the exact status of whatever right of passage exists across the old roadbed for all the properties served by the old r.o.w. Staff believes that the Applicant's approach to leave the areas near the old r.o.w, unobstructed and free from improvements, as proffered, is appropriate. Stormwater Management Stormwater management continues tobe shown on the front portion of the Clover Lawn site. The location of the stormwater basin in the front of the lot has been problematic to the Commission in each review of the project. The Blue Ridge Shopping Center redesign shows a possible detention facility southeast of the shopping center site that could provide for detention fi:om Clover Lawn. The Applicant has indicated that, if a regional solution is to be used the stormwater management area could fimction solely as a b.m.p, within which attractive landscaping could be placed. As with the road alignment issues above, ifstormwater management is to be provided off-site on a property not associated with this rezoning, commitments to making the improvements are needed. Uses A list of prohibited and restricted uses is attached to the proffers. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked that gas pumps be prohibited from the development. The ApPlicant has proffered this use out of the allowable uses. The Applicant has asked for the option of mixing of residential uses and commercial uses in the commercial buildings on the front. The residential uses that are part of the development, either as townhouses or within a mixed-use building require the special use permit request. Staff believes that the mixture of residential uses in the development is appropriate and encourages building. Setbacks, Buffers, and Grad The Applicant has made a rec The Applicant notes that-two boundary to the rear. Anothel and the fourth set of townhou: townhouses have been oriente boundary. The Applicant not feet from the property line. S Plan are appropriate and thg Attachment F is a request to ~ requested zoning district and waiver should be provided iN grading will allow for vegeta screens the parking areas and Staff notes that a dumpster is recommends that no improv removed from this section of Density Staff believes that the centra townhouses around the centr the area. (See comments 1 & believes the density is suppo plan should state: Gross deJ alu/acre. Placing "R4" on Planning Commission. Pedestrian Access The sidewalk system shown sidewalk from the rear of ti access. The proffered pede site plan and constructed b2 frown Radford Lane to prov, adjoining properties to the Affordability The Planning Commission will be provided with this p follows: Rental and "for pt not exceed 30%.ofhouseho esidential use of the upper stories of the commercial ng aest for reduced setbacks as indicated in Attachment E. :ownhouse sections are located 30 feet from the residential . townhouse section is located 43 feet from the boundary ;es is located 47 feet from the prOperty line. The d so as to provide the least intrusion into the 50-foot :s that the commercial buildings are located more than 50 taff believes that the setbacks shown on the Application t the reduction requested should be granted. llow disturbance of the 20-foot buffer between the the adjacent residential districts. Staff believes that the order to allow grading of slopes out to. 3:1 or 4:1. Gentler :ive buffering and tree screening in a way that actually dumpsters on the eaSt and in the northwest part of the site. shown in the buffer on the east side of the lot. Staff · ~ments be placed in the buffer and this dumpster pad be the plan. amenity supports the density shown, but the design of the al amenity needs !,,mprovement in order to makethe most,of~,. 2 under "Design ) With a better-articulated amenity, staJ, t fred. The '~proposed residential density" note on the site ~sity 4 du/acre; Net density on residential section: 8 ~e plan is more confusing than helpful to the staff and on the site plan is very good. Bringing a pedestrian path or ~e parking lot to the "green" could enhance pedestrian ~trian access from Radford Lane should be shown on the ~ the Applicant from ~the point it connects with the property !de safe and convenient access for pedestrians from the dte. sked for additional information on how affordable housing roiect The County's definition of affordable housing is as r~has~" housing, ~vhich is decent, safe, and sanitary, and does Id income. Albemarle County targets resources at the following three income ranges having the greatest need: Rental housing occupying 0 - 80% of the median income and "for purchase" housing at 50 - 80% of the current median income. Attachment G describes the Applicant's plans for providing affordable housing. Proffers The proffers in this package were submitted on August 30 and most of the departments who need to review the proffers have not yet been able to do so. The wording of most of the proffers is very close to the wording suggested by the County Attorney's office. Staff will provide additional comment on the proffers, if necessary, at the Planning Commission meeting on September 11. Additional Attachments Several additional pieces of correspondence have been received by staff since the last Planning Commission meeting. Attachment H is a letter from a local realtor indicating a need for affordable housing in Crozet. Attachment I is a comparison of the proposed development to by- right development offered by the Applicant. Attachment J is a letter of support from the Masonic Lodge for the development. Attachment K is an emailed letter received by staff from Scenic 250. STAFF RE C OMMEND.4 TION Staff believes that the Applicant has redesigned the site in a way that addresses many of the concerns of the Planning Commission and staff. Staff has noted on this report several outstanding items that should be addressed before a recommendation for approval can be made. The Planning Commission is requested to review the items highlighted in this report and provide advice to the Applicant or take action onthe proposal. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Revised Application Plan dated 8/1/01 Attachment B - Proffers dated 8/1/01 Attachment C - Request for PD-SC Parking Standards Attachment D - Blue Ridge Highway Commercial proposed revision dated 8/29/01 Attachment E - Request for Reduced Setback dated 8/27/01 Attachment F - Request for Disturbance of Buffer dated 8/27/01 Attachment G - Information on Affordable Housing dated 8/30/01 Attachment H - Letter from Ray Caddell received 8/22/01 Attachment I - Comparison between by-right and proposed development dated 8/23/01 Attachment J- Letter from King Solomon's Lodge dated 8/31/01 Attachment K - Letter from Scenic 250 dated 8/30/01 Date: 08/01/2001 ZMA # 2,.65/4,.15 Acres' Pursuant to Section 33.3 duly authorized agent, hereby vol applied to the property, if rezone( rezoning and it is agreed that: and (2) such conditions have a r( (1) See attached "Clover La~ Signatures of All Owners Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM.WPD Rev. Decemloer 1994 Page I of 3 ginal Proffel Amended Proffer (Amendment # PROFFER FORM 99 - 11 Tax Map Parcel(s)# 56, 107,107A, 107(A)1 :o be rezoned from R1/HC to PD-MC ATTACHMENT B ) ff the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its untarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; ,asonable relation to the rezoning requested. Proffers" 1 through 6, on pages 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 Preston O. Stallin.cls . Pdnted Names of All Owners Date OR Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact 9 ATTACHMENT B Clover Lawn Village - Proffers In connectiOn with the applicant's rezoning application, the following proffers are made: The Preliminary Site Plan, dated August 1, 2001 and entitled" Preliminary Site Plan and Application Plan for ZMA 1999-011" is proffered as the Application Plan for the development and is attached hereto. Specific features of the Application Plan that will be a part of the development are: a. A unified development of all three parcels of land (TMP56-107, 107(A)1, and TMP 56-107A) including a combination of these parcels by plat or deed pdor to site development plan approval for the first site plan. This does not preclUde phasing this development andit does not preclude a subdivision of this parcel. b. Access from a single entrance across RT250 with a possible future interconnection to RadfOrd Lane. ,, c. A mixed-use development with residential uses at the rear of the development and commercial and residential uses at the front of the development. d. Pedestrian access in the locations and widths as shown on the Application Plan. Sidewalk and pedestrian paths shall meet standards established by the Director of Engineering. e. Architectural Features in general accord with the elevations dated 7/05/01 attached hereto. Modifications required by Architectural Review Board shall be deemed as consistent with this proffer. f. A maximum of 32 residential units which includes a maximum of 27 townhouses and a maximum of 5 residential units'overtop the commercial buildings. Radford Lane, as shown on the Application Plan, shall be reserved for dedication upon the demand of the County, should the County establish the need for a public road at this location. The area to be dedicated shall be the minimum amount required for a public road and shall be no more than 25 feet from the property line. If before the County demands dedication for a public road, the County approves a private road at this location under the Subdivision Ordinance, then the land reserved for dedication shall be available .for construction of a private road. This proffer shall be in effect until December 31,2011. Should the County not make demand or approve the private road design plan at this location within this time pedod, the owner shall be released from the obligation. The owner is not proffering a gift of the land for a pdvate road and is not proffering to construct any improvements to that road. Recreational amenities sh all consist of a "recreational area" as shown on the Application Plan in which a Tot Lot shall be installed. The area shall be a minimum of 20,000 square feet. At a minimum, recreational amenities shall include two benches and sidewalk as shown along two sides of the recreational area. These amenities and the Tot Lot shall be installed or bonded prior to certificate of occupancy of the 15"~ residential unit. This proffer does not prohibit the Director of Planning and Community Development from substitutions of recreational facilities provided those facilities satisfy the requirements of Sections 4.16.2.1, Page 2 of 3 Page 3 o~' 3 No structure or Existing vehicular remain unobstructe where the Old Rou' of the 20 foot buffe Pre-rata contdbutic Clover Lawn Lane signal is warranted share of the traffic Albemarle County December 31,200 Uses allowed by-d~ Commercial -C-1, Commercial- HC, with the following a. The followi~ Uses und Dry CIE b. The followi and 11 p.n #1¢ #11 #2 scaping Shall be placed within the r,. =,oute 250 road bed. ccess across the rear boundary of the development shall d. Screening plants requi'i;~i~ at the rear of the development :e 250 road bed abuts the property line shall be placed outside n for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of and RT250 based on the cost established by VDOT when that The amount of the contribution shall be based on a pro-rata olume contributed by this site as determined by the !ngineering Department. This proffer shall be in effect until Iht in the PDMC district are attached hereto as Section 22.2:1 23.2.1 Commecial Office -CO, and 24.2.1 HighWay 'rom the Zoning ordinance in effect at the time of this rezoning ~xceptions: · ~g uses shall not be permitted in this district: ~r C1 - #3 Cemeteries (under HC #5) ~ Fire and rescue squad stations (under HC~13) #7 Funeral homes (under HC#14) #9 indoor theaters (under HC#38) #22 Auto truck repair shop (under HC#2) aner processing only -not to include drop off& pick up Gasoline pumps ng uses shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6a.m. Launddes, dry cleaners Laundromat Nurseries, day care centers (under CO#12) Automobile service stations (under HC#3) Indoor athletic facilities (under HC#42) 11 m Z --t South Elevation (Porches not shown) 0-"'5 Sou th ElevaUon IT1 Z '-I EcTsl JI Clover Lawn Village North and South Elevations Sections: 22.1 INTENT, WHE 22.2 PERMITTED E 22.2.1 BY RIGHT 22.2.2 BY SPECIAL U 22.3 ADDITIONAL 22.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMI' C-1 districts are hereby cr to permit selected retail s; to central business concer urban area, communities 22.2 PERMITTED USES 22.2. 1 BY RIGHT The following uses sba limitations of these regul planning and other appr~ permit'red; provided that and more specifically, s visual impact and traffic generally provided in sec a. The following retail l. Antique, gift, je 2. Clothing, appar 3. Department stor 4. Drug store, phar 5. Florist. Food and groce~ and wine and cb 7. Furniture and hz ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT B CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 22 COMMERCIAL - C-I tE PERMITTED SES SE PERMIT tEQUIREMENTS 'TED .'ated and mav hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map ,les, service and public use establishments which are primarily oriented .t-radons. It is intended that C-1 disr. ricts be established only within the nd villages in the comprehensive Dian. (Amended 9-9-92) be oermiued in any C-i district subject to the requirements and :ions. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of >priate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specifically ;uch use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character milar in terms of iocational requirements, operational characteristics, ;eneration. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decisi0'n shall be as ion 34.0. ales and service establishments: ,elry. notion and craft shops. and shoe shops. macy. y stores including such special~ shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary eese shops. ~me appliances (sales an.d service). 18-22-1 Zoning Supplement #6. t2-30-99 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 8. Hardware store. 9. Musical instruments. I0. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops. 11. Optical goods. 12. Photographic goods. 13. Visual and audio appliances. 14. Sporting goods. 15. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. · The following services and public establishments: I. Administrative, professional offices. 2. Barber, beauty shops. 3. Churches, cemeteries. 4 Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, parriottc treference 5.1.02~. 5. Financial institutions. 6. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5. t.09). 7. Funeral homes. 8. Health spas. 9. indoor theaters. 10. Laundries, dry. cleaners. ~ t 1.Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all hours during operation). 12. Lib[aries, museums. l 3.Nurseries, day care centers (reference 5.1.06). t4. Eating establishments. 15. Tailor, seamstress. 16. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20). 17. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Amended>-_-%)' '~ " ATTACHMENT B t 8-22-2 Zoning Supplement #6. 12-30-99 4LBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT B 18. Public uses and buildin Offices, parks, playgrot federal agencies (refe treatment facilities, put R.ivanna Water and Se~ 19. Temporary constmctio 20. Dwellings (reference 5 21. Medical center. 22. Automobile, truck re 23. Temporary nonresiden 24. Indoor athletic facilitie 25. Farmers' market (refer~ 22.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIr 1. Commercial recreatic bowling alleys, pool hi 2. Electrical power subs~ lines, pumping statio~ wave and radio-wave ~ 3. Hospitals. 4. Fast food restaurant. 5. Veterinary, office and 6. Unless such uses are residential - R- t5, in may be imposed purst 7. Hotels,.motels and inr s. 8. Motor vehicle sales comprehensive plan. 9. Parking structures loc 10. Drive-in windows ser 92) 11. Uses permitted by rig four hundred (400) g public sewer, involvil 6-14-89) 12. Body shop. (Added ~ gs including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, rids and roads fuhded, owned or operated by local, state or · ence 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines lping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the 'er Authority (reference 3122.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-9) us'es (reference 5.1.1). 1.21). shop excluding body shop. (Added 6-3-81; Amended 9-9-92) :iai mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-6) (Added 9-15-93) '.ncc 5.1.36). (Added 10-I 1-95) establishments including but not limited to amusement centers, dis and dance halls. (Amended l-1-83) ations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- ransmission and relay rowers, substations and appurtenances. ~spital (reference 5.1.1 I). otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as ant ro section 31.2.4. and rental in communities and the urban area as designated in the 'Added 6-1-83) tted wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-4) ring or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-~- it, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding allons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added -9-92) 18-22-3 Zoning Supplement #5, 6-16-99 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT B CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 23 COMMERCIAL OFFICE - CO Sections: 23.1 23.2 23.2.1 23.2.2 23.3 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 23.1INTENT, WHEREPERMITTED CO districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established bv, amendment to the zon lng map to permit development of administrative, business and professional offices and supporting accessory uses and facilities. This district is intended as a transition between residential districts and other more intensive commercial and industrial district~;. 23.2 PERMITTED USES 23.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the reqmrements and limitations of these regulations: 1. Administrative and business offices. 2. Professional offices, includin,~ medical, dental an(: optical. 3. Financial institutions. 4. Churches. cemeteries. 5. Libraries, museums. 6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of buildings ,on the site. The following accessor3., uses shall be"permirted: '" -Eating establishments: -Newsstands: -Establishments tbr the sate of office supplies and service of office equipment: -Data processing services: ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT B -Central reproductiox -Ethical pharmacies, optical or prosthetic ~ -(Repealed 3-17-82) - Sale/service of gooc instruments, musical (Added 12-3-86) Electric, gas, oil and lines, transformers, owned and operate~ pumping stations m Authority. Except sewerage systems in applicable taw. (Am Public uses and bull parks, playgrounds ,~ ,-) (reference facilities, pumping s Sewer Authority (ref 9. Temporary, construct 10. Dwellings (reference t 1. Te'mporary nonresid, 12. Daycare, child care 23.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERI~ I. Hospitals. 2. Funeral homes. 3. Electrical power sut lines, pumping stat~ wave and radio-way 4. Parking structures lc 5, Commercial uses otl 6. School of special in 7. Clubs, lodges, civic. 8. Uses permitted by four hundred (400 public sewer, invo 6- t 4-89) and mailing services and the like; laboratories and estabishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of ppliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices; s associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical scores, text books, artist's supplies and dancing shoes and apparel. :ommunication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, fipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and by a public utility, Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, t appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and afl other ~nded 5-12-93) lings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, nd roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies ~ublic water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment rations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and erence 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) ion uses (reference 5. I. 18). 5.1.21). (Added 3-I7-82) :ntial mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) ~r nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92) liT ;tatlons, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission OhS and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- ,~ transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. cated wholly or partly above grade (Added 11-7-84) terwise permitted having drive-in windows (Added 11-7-84) ,truction. (Added 1-I-87) fraternal, patriottc (reference 5.1.2). (Added 1-1-87) ight. not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by 'lng anttcipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 18-23-2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 24 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - HC Sections: 24.1 24.2 24.2.1 24.2.2 24.3 24.4 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES- BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT MINIMUM FRONTAGE, SHAPE OF DISTRICT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 24.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to theZoning map to permit development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations rather than to central business concentrations. It is intended that HC . districts be established on major highways within the urban area and communities in the comprehensive plan. It is further intended that this district shall be for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip commercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to permit controlled access to public streets. 24.2 PERMITTED USES 24.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any HC district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations, The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of ptanning and other approprmte officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not?specifically permitted: provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general characte~-~ and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements,'operatiorial characteristics, v suat impact and traffic generanon. Appeals from the zoning a ' ' ' ' ' dmlnmtrator s decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. I Automobile laundries. -. Automobile, truck repair shops. 3. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20). 4. Building materials sales. 5. Churches. cemeteries. 6. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). 7. Convenience stores. 8-24- t 18 3 5. Electric, gas, oil and lines, transformers, p owned and operated pumping stations and Authority. Except sewerage systems in applicable taw. (Amc 36. Public uses and bulk parks, playgrounds a~ (reference 31.2.5); I: facilities, pumping si Sewer Authority (ref~ 37. Temporary construct~ 38. Indoor theaters. 39. Heating oil sales and 40. Temporary. nonresid 41. Uses permitted by (Added 6-19-9 l: AtT 42. Indoor athletic faciIi 43. Farmers' market (ref 24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERt 1. Commercial rec'-eat alleys, pool halls an 2. Septic. rank sales an, 3. Livestock sales. 4. Veterinary office ~r 5. Drive-in theaters (r~ 6. Electrical power s lines, pumpi.ng sm wave and radio-wa 5.1.12). 7. Hospitals, nursing 8. Contractors~ office Auction houses. ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT B ommunication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, pcs, meters and related facilities for dismbution of local service and ~y a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Ls otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central :onformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other nded 5-12-93) .ings including temporary, or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, ~d roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies ublic water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment ations and the like. owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and ronco 31.2.5' 5.1.[2). (Amended 11-1-89) on uses (reference 5. I. 18). 'tistribufion (reference 5.1.20/. ntial mobile homes [reference 5.8'/. (Added 3-5-86) · ight pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of section 22.I. commercial. C-1. :nded 9-9-92) es. (Added 9-15-93') ,~rence 5.I.36). (Added 10-11-95) liT on establishment including but not limited ro amusement centers, bowling dance halls. (Amended l- 1-833 ~ related service. d hospital (reference 5. I. I II. :ference 5.1.08). tbstations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission :ions and appurtenances: unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro- ce transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference tomes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1. t3). md equipment storage yard. 18-24-3 Zoning Supplement #6. t2-30-99 '~ 9 PI OJECT OEYE£ OP EN T L£1A£TED £. C. Tronsmittal To: Elaine Echols From: .To Higgins 2463 Browns Gop Turnpike, Cvill¢ VA 22901 (804) 823 - 1224 Fox 823 - 1720 Cell phone (804) 242 - 3080 email "musxit~aoi.com" bATE: 27August 2001 RE: Clover Lawn Village 5bP-Ol-O16/ZNtA#99 - 1I - PARKZNG ATTACHMENT C This is to request approval to use the PD-SC parking standard for the PD-MC use The PD-SC parking standard is 5.5 spaces per 1000 gross square footage. In order to provide an appropriate number of parking spaces, the uses within the PD-MC will "share" parking in the same manner as within the PD-SC district. This will reduce the number of parking spaces planned for this development and promote a more compact design. This standard is to apply to the commercial building space only and not the residential units to the rear of the site. The parking for the 27 townhouse units is 2. 3 spaces per unit for a total of 61 spaces. The required number of spaces is 2 per unit. The 7 additional spaces are for "guest" use as needed in a development where the majority if not all the occupants will own two cars. There are also 3 spaces designated for "tot lot" use which will can be dual use for "guest" parking. Although this plan reflects an overall reduction in parking spaces, it is functionally necessary to provide adequate parking within the residential area to avoid undue conflict between the townhouse owners and the commercial businesses. Having safe and convenient parking for the residents with a minimal provision for guests in proximity to the townhouses is not unreasonable. The parking as calculated for the commercial buildings at the front of the site is 5. 5 spaces per 1000 gross square footage. The total number of parking spaces includes the provision for a limited amount of office use on the second floor of each building. This has been done for several reasons. Although the proffers state a maximum of 5 residential Units ontop of the commercial, it/s unknown at this time if the condo-apartment concept for the second floor is feasible. It has also been expressed by the neighbors that "owned" units are preferred over "rented" residential units. It is anticipated that the condo-apartments have a greater potential for the rental market. Ali things considered, the development needs to demonstrate that the compact design supports adequate parking for.the intended use. This plan reflects 48% open/grass area. It is impossible to ~)redict the popularity of shops and services that may find a home in Clover Lawn Village and Rave the exact number of spaces available. This is to request approval of the parking standard requested. 'f you have any questions, please advise. Thanks/. 20 ATTACHMENT D f Wayne Cilimberg, Director Planning and Cgmmunity D~ Albemarle County 401 McIntire Rd., Suite 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902-45' Dear Wayne: Following our telephone con' of the county staffon Tuesda staff. The purpose will be t~ (Radford Lane) and VDOT re to the Blue Ride Shopping Cz To give you and the staff son reduced scale site plan whick a recent version of the propos within the Crozet Growth A Runoff Control Basin. That The main site plan change re the same time 'addressing the move the store and its main l between the entrance locatie offset will also allow for al screening between U.S. 250 These changes move the de' Via Hand Delivery August 29, 2001 velopment )6 Re'. Blue Ridge Shopping Center Revised Site Plan :rsation on Monday, we will plan to meet with you and .other members September 4 at the late afternoon time you are able to confirm with your ~ review our site plan changes needed in response to county, neighbor quests to accommodate an alignment of Radford Lane with the entrance :nter. te advance time to consider our revisions, enclosed are nine copies of a I believe is pretty close to a 100 scale. We have included on this plan ed Clover Lawn development plan and a smaller scale outline of the area :ca which does not naturally drain into the Lickinghole Creek Regional trea is shown in the lower right hand comer. uired to align the shopping center entrance with Radford Lane, while at need to keep the majority of the parking in front of the grocery store, is to ~arking bay far enough back from U.S. 250 to provide room for anoffset n and the main north-south travelways within the shopping center. This ndscape planter in front of the entrance which wilt result in additional nd the main parking bay. ~elopment into the previously honored 100 ft. setback from the drainage swale behind the shopping c :nter. To accommodate this move, we have relied upon the section of the water quality ordinance whi~ :h does allow an exception for "redevelopment" on a "lot" to occur within this setback. We interpret th~ ordinance as giving the "program authority", which we assume is the head of the Engineering Departmlent, the authority to allow redevelopment as permitted in the underlying zoning district, subject to th~ approval of an appropriate "mitigation plan". Based on Preliminary work done twelve years ago in .connection with our proposal to then construct a sub-regional runoff control basin (copies of relevant [ ages from letter to Bill Fritz enclosed), it is possible to provide post development pollutant lo~[ing (phosphorus and sediment) downstream oi' the shopping center in amounts less than the prese~ It pollutant loading at the same downstream location. P.( Box 5526 · CHARLOITESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22905-5526 · GENERAL OFFICE (434) 296.4141 · PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (434) 296-4109 · EACSIMIL£ (434) 293-5197 · 21 Wayne Cilimberg August 29, 2001 Page 2 ATTACHMENT D Community_ Benefits: The shopping center entrance will be aligned with Radford Lane allowing for future tie ins to Cory Farms and the proposed Route 240/250 connector road. This design also satisfies the safety issues raised by VDOT and preserves the future opportunity.to achieve the planning goal of an integrated road network within a significant portion of the Crozet Growth Area. To the extent it is visible, given the change in elevation and the screening along U.S. 250, the northern side of the main building facing U.S. 250 will be 20 feet further back from the road and the facade will be storefronts rather than the side of a large building. Landscaping along Route 250 will shield most parking just below the. road, and a planter with landscaping at the base of the entrance road will also provide significant shielding of the center of the recessed main parking lot. Additional fill required to accommodate the revised site plan will come from the relocated Blue Ridge Builders Supply storage area, thereby lowering the new storage area so that it will be even better screened from U.S. 250 and from the single family residence to the south of the storage area property. There is a connection to the Blue Ridge Builders Supply parking lot which will provide customers access to and from the shopping center. Also, with the proposed Clover Lawn entrance directly across from the existing Builders Supply entrance, Clover Lawn users will have access to the shopping center without having to take a circuitous route along Route 250. The construction of a sub-regional mn-off control pond will provide for better water quality (which is the intent of the 100' setback) than the existing approved shopping center site plan and can potentially eliminate the need for a series of smaller ponds on individual properties located within the Crozet Growth Area which do not naturally drain into the Lickinghole Basin. The proposed new shop space adjacent to the grocery store allows for future expansion of the store on site, thereby helping to avoid creation of a situation where the initial size of the store is insufficient to serve the demand and pressure builds to relocate (the Food Lion store at Pantops has expanded twice, Giant at Seminole Square is undergoing a second renovation, the Food Lion stores at both Willoughby Square and Forest Lakes have expanded and Kroger has moved several times in order to maintain market size stores). Quid Pro Quo for ShopDing Center: The revision represents a better layout with opportunities for more creative design and landscaping. Preserves the ability to expand the grocery store to avoid the risk of a shuttered or secondary use building in the future which could be detrimental to the entire community. Provides opportunity for tie in and ease of access to the shopping center from future development which is planned to occur north of Route 250 in the Crozet Growth Area. 22 Wayne Cilimberg August 29, 2001 Page 3 C__h Development within ordinance): Additional 8,000 squa~ cubic yards of addition 6 - 12 month delay). · Extension of existing Request to apply PDS( parking requirements Walmart), the current] of retail space are exc I trust that the site plan and the meeting. Please feel free to information. Also, either call time for the meeting. CRJr:ddm Enclosures c: Donald J. Wagner, G:~DOCS\WP~BLURIDGEXaMbemarle( August 29, 2001(1 l:39am) ATTACHMENT D tt ~e -100' setback (as anticipated by the redevelopment language in the feet of space (an offset for the extra cost associated with 35-40,000 fill and the carrying cost and market risk associated with the resultant ,pproved site plan to allow time for full review of site plan revision. parking standards initially and acknowledgment of an effort to study all cfi the ordinance. Except in the case of very large stores (e.g. Sam's, larking requirements of more than 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet ssive and create unnecessary impervious surface cover. narrative will give your staffsome food for thought prior to our Tuesday call me in the interim if you have any questions or need any further or email us (gemc2~gemc.com. _ or gemc5~,aol.com)_ with the scheduled ~h~rles Rotg~, Jr. )unty\CilimbergSitePlanRevisionDetail.wpd ATTACHMENT D GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. POST OFFICE BOX ~5~26 CHARLC~'TTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22905-0~528 GENERAL OFFICE (804) 296-4141 ~OPERTY ~NAGEMENT (804) 296-4109 - TELECOPIER (804) 2~3-5197 May 10, 1989 HAND DELIUERED William D. ~ritz, Planner Department of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 Dear Bill: Re: Blue Ridge Shopping Center You will remember that at the si%e review meeting on December 15, 1988, I raised the possibility of constructing a sedimentation basin downstream of the proposed Blue Ridge Shopping Center to serve not only the shopping center, but also what I estimated as approximately 45 acres located on the opposite side of U. S. 250 which are included in the Crozet Community growth area. I followed up with a letter on December 20, 1988. We have not received a formal answer to that letter, but when I asked you about it late last year you told me that it did not appear that the County would be interested. Of-course, we have always known that protection of the reservoir is a consideration of the highest priority, and it is a concern to -which we are committed, we have come to realize, after reading and listening to your presentation of the staff report and listening to publ$c comments, that there.is widespread misunderstanding about the effect of our proposed development. Therefore, in spite of your indication that the'county is apparently not interested in providing any additional reservoir protection for properties which are in the growth area but do not drain into Lickinghole Creek, we commissioned a study to see what could be reasonably accomplished-by a'ba$in on the Stallings property. The study was made by W. Thomas Muncaster, Jr. of Muncaster Engineering and Computer Applications. Tom was formerly employed by the Albemarle County Engineering Department, where he was deeply involved in administration of the Run-off Control 24 Ordinance. He.was th on the Lickinghole Cz of Supervisors and wh proceed with that pro which is used by the firms for .making sto~ requirements imposed In short, he is emin ATTACHMENT D The enclosed report that: 1) The proposed in the removal of phc Lickinghole Creek Bag 2) If the Blue e principal author of the April 1984 report eek Basin which was prepared for the Board ich provided the basis for their decision to ject. Also, Tom wrote the computer program Albemarle County and many local engineering m water computations required in meeting by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. ently qualified in this area. is the result of. Tom's study. It shows run-off control basin will be 60% efficient sphorus vs. a 45% efficiency for the in. Ridge Shopping Center is constructed as 4) The proposed in the removal of se, Lickinghole Creek Ba: '5) Sediment not control basin, is 19', place, the sediment E the proposed shopping lbs/year for subseque 6)~ At such time proposed, including ?he proposed run-off control basin, the total phosphorus reaching the reservoir from the drainage basin (including run-off fzom the 40.7 acres north of Route 250 in the growth area) will be reduced from the current pre-development 44.85 lbs/year, to 20 69 lbs/year. 3) At such tim~ as the entire area which drains through the site is fully developed in accordance with Comprehensive Plan, the total phosphorus reaching the reservoir will be 41.14 pounds per year, still 10% less than the current 44.85 pounds. run-off'control basin will be 92% efficient iment vs. a 71% efficiency for the in. reaching the reservoir, without a run-off 002 lbs/year. With the proposed basin in ill be reduced to 4,116 lbs. for the year center is under construction an~ 1,767 nt years when it is in place. as the entire area is fully developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, the total sediment reaching the reservoir will be 3,599 lbs/year. 7) Appropriate rip-rap placed downstream of the outlet of the piped portion of the stream will eliminate the danger of the increased erosion at that.point postulated by the staff report. We have not made any estimate of the cost of the basin considered in this report. HowEver, we have been authorized by Preston Stallings, owner of the property, to make the proffer that if our requested rezoning is approved as applied for, he will d.onate to the county the land for the basin described in the report, In addition, we would, of course, pay our pro-rata share of the cost of construction of the Stallings Basin, just as developers in the Lickinghole Creek drainage area will pay their pro-rata share of the cost of that bas ~. O TECT O E VEL OP/ 6 2463 (804) Cell phone ( Tronsmittoi To: Elaine Echols From: 3'0 Higgins RE: Clover Lown Village $bP-01-01 L TED L. wns Gap TurnPike, Cville VA 2290[ 823 - 1224 Fax 823 - 1720 BO4) 242 - 3080 email 'musxit~aol.com" bATE: 27August 2001 This is to request a reduction of the 21.7.2 READS: "Adjacent to residential and rura shall be located closer than fifty ( parking or loading space shall be areas district." This section applies under Gen( ~'~,ar to provide a distance of 5~ .Jjacent use. This does not tak6 commercial district. It may be as Commercial Zoning. In this cas( be located within the commercial Based upon the Application plan; property line is 30ft. There are one at 47ft. The design was sp, property boundary where the' adj was preferred to minimize the ends of the parking areas towarc plan to demonstrate their/ocatio~ buildings are more than 5Oft fron This is to request that FOR RES accepted with the layout as shov If you have any questions, pleas WZMA#99- 11 50ff setback to 30ff ( reference 21.7.2.) areas districts; No portion of any structure, excluding signs, 50) feet to any residential or rural areas district. No off-street located closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural lily Commercial districts. The intent of this section seems (measured from the property line) from the structure to the into account the "mixing" of residential structures within a ~umed that only commercial structures are located within the ;, the Special Use would allow for residential use structures to zoning. ATTACHMENT E the distance from the closest residential structure to the vo building comers 3Oft from the property line, one at 43ft and ;cifically intended to locate residential buildings along the ~cent use is residential in character. To the extent possible, it 'el of intrusion by putting the ends of the townhouses and the 's the rear property line. The deck/patios are shown on the with respect to the adjacent properties. The Commercial the property boundary 'DENT/AL STRUCTURES ONLY the Application plan be 'n with the minimum distance of thirty (30) feet. advise. Thanks! ! 27 O, TECT D E VEL OPA4 EIV T L£t4£ TED L. C 2463' Browns ¢=ap Turnpike, Cville VA 22901 (804) 823 - 1224 Fax 823 - 1720 Cell phone (804) 242 3080 e '" ' " - mad musxmt~aol.com Transmittal To: Elaine Echols From: .To Higgins DATE: 27August 2001 ATTACHMENT F RE: Clover Lawn Village 5DP-O1-O161ZMA#99 - 11 This is to request a waiver to allow some grading within the 20ft "buffer" zone (reference 2! .7 3) In order to provide an improved design, this is to request a waiver to grade within a limited section of the 2Oft buffer along the East boundary and in the Northwest corner, in both locations, the area is ali grass and no clearing is necessary. Therefore, there is no existing landscaping to be restored. Screening requirements will be met once the grading has been completed. The grading is intended to flatten the slopes which will improve the benefit of the plantings intended for screening purposes. At the Northwest comer, the flatter slope will result in an improved cut slope along the edge of the existing gravel lane. The screening plants will be more effective. Along the East boundary, approximately 1901f of the 3851f buffer wouJd be graded. There are no existing trees within the 20fl buffer at this location. The slope would be flatter and tie in more smoothly with. the existing grades. This will result in an improved fill slope whereby the screening plants will be located at a higher elevation (rather than a hole) which increases the screening benefit for the adjacent property owner. If you have any questions, please advise. Thanks! Thursday, August 30, 2001 2:44 PM 246, ( Cell ph~ Fo,x Trc~nsmi'l'tctl To: Elaine Echols From: ,3'o Hi99ina RE; Clover' gown Village 5DP-0 Elaine: The issue of Affordable Recently, you provided some inf( referred me to Ron White as the in order to get a handle on how associated With affordable housit for affordable housing in Albema~ in 1998 the housing committee /,..?.rioe range. At that time, the · ~,alCulation in 2001, the adiuSted As previously stated, the reside range. This price range is depet affect the price of each unit. Thl costs. This is to request favorable con,~ Application plan. If you have any questions, plea', CC: Ron White - Pax ~293 - 02 (804) 823- 1224 804 - 823 - 1720 p,01 ATTACHMENT G EN T L ZiIit I TED Browns ~ap Turnpike, Cville VA 22901 ~4) 8g$ - 12Z4 Fox 8Z$ - 17Z0 ne (804) Z42 - 3080 email "musxif~aol.com" DA, ~ I::: 30 Augus'l' ~00! -016/ZN~A#99- i1 -"AFFORDABLE HOUSTN~" lousing has been raised several times over the past months. ~rmation regarding how "affordable housing"is defined. You also contact person to discuss this issue. ;lover Lawn Village townhouse units will support the County goals lg, I contacted Ron White and asked what the current price range is ~e County. Based upon our discussion, it is my understanding that ~fined affordable housing based upon a calculation that resulted in a =ulation reaulted in an upper limit of $125,000. Baaed upon the same ran.qe is $80,000 to $145,000. 3tial townhouse units are targeted f ortho'S135,000 to $I45,000 ~dant upon the density allowed on this site. All development costs costs include process, design, and infrastructure & building ideration of the proposed dens ty of townhouse units as shown on the e advise. Thanks! ATTACHMENT H Ray Caddell & Associates 1131 East Rio Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Business (804) 975-2121 Toll Free 1-800-223-5831 Fax (804) 975-3180 July 24, 2001 To' From: Re: Albemarle County Plarming ComZmssion Ray Caddell. Jr. Clover Lawn Village Members of the Commission: I am a property owner, real estate broker, landlord, and small businessman in Albemarle County. As the owner of Century 21 Ray Caddell and Associates, I am in a position to offer qualified opinions regarding residential real estate in the county and surrounding areas. Over 95% of my firm's transactions deal with residential real estate of less than 200 thousand dollars. Many of these transactions also represent purchases by first time homeowners. It is always a challenge to fred suitable product in Albemarle County under 200 thousand dollars and particularly in the western parrs of the county. As an example, there are currently only 2 properties on the market under 200 thousand dollars in the Brownsville Elementary School district. One of these is $198,900 and the other is a 2 bedroom t bath home that is 55 years old. As a real estate broker, I would be very excited to see housing, (and especially new construction) hitting the market in this area and in the 155,000 dollar pr/ce range. I have no doubt that these homes would sell very quickly. It is interesting to note the developer's plan to provide for complete groundskeeping and exterior maintenance, there by insuring the quality and attractiveness of the neighborhood. I see the target buyer for these homes as young professional couples, small families, and some retirees. I currently marker a neighborhood hq Charlo[tesville with a similar product and buyer mix. Sales there have exceeded 9C homes in the last 12 months. The average family income to purchase one of these proposed homes would be about $54,000, barring any unusual debt load. Interestingly, most county employees, including single income schoolteachers make less than this amount. It seems to me that it's important to encourage builders and developers to get involved in projects of this nature before the housing affordability ratio in our county gets even more impossible. I wouldn't necessarily call this project "affordable housing", but at least it's "obtainable housing". Thank you. Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated 3O ATFACHMENT I PRO TECT'DEVEL OP ENT L£A4£TED L. C ~ I 24631 BroWns Gap Turn[)ike, Cville VA 22901 (8 Cell phol Transmittal To: Eloine Echols ' From: ~To Higgins RE: Clover Lown Village SDP-0 Elaine: With respect to the big picture, I cc previously. The last was added to~ 1 TO SHOWWHERE WE A previous Plan 2 TO SHOW WHAT COULD developments to proposed 3 TO SHOWA SIMILAR DEl Compare the CroZet Comn Your assistance is appreciated. T 04) 823 - 1224 Fax 823 - 1720 ~e' (804) 242- 3080 email "musxit~aoi.com" DATE: 23 August 2001 L-016/ZJ~A~9- 11 ° @ ,. pages nposed some comparison sheets. The first 2 you have seen Jay. !E NOW-Comparison of Preliminary Plan Revised 8/1/01 to the BE DONE BY RIGHT- Compare Two Possible by Right HC PD-MC development /ELOPMENT RECENTLY APPROVED IN THE CROZET AREA ions commercial and residential to Clover Lawn Village banks 31 ATTACHMENT I CLOVER LAWN V' LLA ,E s/z/oz P,,ge ! of Z I Compare Preliminary Plan Revised dtd 7/3/01 to PRELIMINARy PLAN REVISED 8/1/01 Based upon PC Meeting July 24, 2001, there were several items to be addressed: ! - Open space as central amenity, more use- f~iendly, needs to include ordirmce required tot lot and recreational space. 2 - Density - mixed PC response on this. Either quantity/or square footage too much or density ok ]IF design is improved to bette~ address other items (need to show decks/potios to better assess design) 3 - Existing easements - The old RT250 ~oad bed was discussed. Not clear on how this was un issue. Possible problem if old roadbed is impeded by Clover Lawn Design ie bides to close, plantings in roadbed 4 - Radford Lane issue -what is future? Existing entrance does not align with Blue Ridge HC SP entrance. TF Rad~Co~cl upgraded - who upgrades? Will users give right of way? Give up old easement? SUMMARY OF COMPAP. Z5ON Ttem PRELTJIA SP Revised 7/3/01 ~ AUGUST 1ST O~ tot lot area not shown Tot Lot - 2,000sf Meets Ordinance ~equirement Space Pl~vided approx. 15,000 possible Open 5pace 21,926sf exceeds required area Design Ope~ Space Located an West side of site Center of Resi~ial Central - user friendly ~Fmw Straight ahead from Errter PI)-MC Bides 32,295sf (includes 2 sto~y) 32,00Osf (includes 2 story) 295sf less lemmble space Commercial 2nd fir-lO units or office use 2nd fir - likely office space !apts over commercial possible not incl~-esidential number Footprint 2 commercial bidgs = 21,568sf 2 bl~ = 20,100sf 1,468sf ie~ footprint Residential 24 Twhs w/lO apt~34 units 27 Twhse units Overal 6 less units Footprint of Res 900sf footprint each unit 119, units-6OOsf/8 units-720 Footprint reduced by 30% besign of Res , becks faced rear boundary No deck/petio face rear ~ss intrusive to neighbors and not shown un plan beck/petio shown on piun Better review possible I row towards side w/fence Fence to screen Mr. Shifflett Buffe~/~ ZO-ZSft to Res. Bldgs 2 Res Bldgs at 30' Ends of Residential bldgs 2 Res Bldgs at 43'to47' face rear proper~ line instead of decks/patios I Less intrusive to neighbors F.~dst Ea.qunent???No buffe~ area between old Provides 35'to40' along No plantings to be placed RT250 road bed old Et250 roadbed in path of old roadbed Setback 50'setback to Comm.Bldgs 50'setback to Corem Bldgs No reduction requested Request reduction of setback Request reduCtkm of setback from 50'to 25' from 50' to 30' - On Residential bldgs only ~ 20' undistm4oed along 3 sides 20' und~ along 3 sides Request permission to grade Section along East to be Same small portion of East buffer dishsrbed and planted buffer still needed -to be planted 32 ATTACHMENT i GLO/ER LAWN 'WLLAGE PQ~ z of z / eadferd Line ,. ZOft E~d~t sho~.-ex.ting L~ ~:~ 5W agar ~ c~ ~ ~j~ ~e - if ~ to ac~m~ate . [ .~i~to Site e~ - ~ Ri~ ~ ' e~ i~i~ [~ Z5 & '~ ~ ~ ~ck lO ?o this li~ ~! ~ ~id~tei Te~ all in li~ . E~ Te~ & ~iff~ M~ ~,~ . ~ c~li~ e~hl~i~ ~ 5t~e~ bi~t~i~ C~ ~p to pl~ ~ - ~ ~11 f~ ~--a~ s~e bl~ will ~ ~1~ I / ~ ~ al~ ~ side ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ PI~ ~ Zm~. d~ mt "b~ site I~k up ~ from R~ Vi~ ~i~t in Zm~ , P~H~ ~ripI~ R~id~tial P~H~ bmk~ ~ i~o 3 ~ P~ki~ ~ im~ 33 ATTACHMENT CLOVI::: t L WN V'J LLAGE (7/z6/ot) Compare TWO Possible ByRight He developments to proposed Pb-M¢ development 4.15 Acre ByRight Retml Deve~ Byl~jht Mini~ ~ 2.65 Acre P~I ~ R-1 11009 sf same as East Bldg on Pb-MC 9500 sf 2nd Fir He uses-same Blclg lgO00 Rear Z Story He uses Bldg bi-level emcess commercial bldg 238 parkin9 spaces required 65000 sf -5 bldgs Ixu't climate control 38500 sf Added 2nd fir Future request consistant w/Comp Plan Comp Plan calls for 3-6 units/acre R-6 = 16 units R-5 = 13 units R-4: 10.6 units R-3: 3 units 39509 total 5F of HC uses 103500 total 5F NO Proffers No Proffers 8 to 16 residential units - future rezone Pkm'A' Retail By Right HC with future ~,~131e reza~e un West parcel results i. 39,509sf of HC use with passible 8 to 16 units XF approved in future for undeveloped IXu~el Plan B - MiaiStorage By Right HC without future rezune on West Parcel results in 103.500sf COMPARE TO Tntegroted Development PO-MC as proposed (4.15 + 2.65 = 6.8 Acre combined) 11009 sf West PD-MC bldg - Zst floor 10559 sf East PDLMC bldg - Lst floor 10727 sf Znd Fir of both East(§,718sf) & Wast(5,09Osf) OR 10 units 2nd Fir split between 2 bldgs Residential - 24 attached Townhouse approx. $150,000 to $160,000-affordable housing 238 parking spaces as shown on plan** 32295 sf plus 24 attached residential townhouses (R-4) **OR** ' ' 21,568 sf PD-MC with 24 attached twhs + 10 condo/apt above PD-MC = 34 total residental (R-5) 5inca apt/condo market demand is unknown - compared worst case of larger comm. 5pace SUMMARY OF COMPART. SON RetaiVMiniS 5~= 39509/103500 Residential -Zero- Zf future rezone 8 to 16 Lond 4.15 ocre 32,295 24 al~ached Twhs incl 24 as above 6.8 acre Numerous -see attached Perking Spaces Site Design A~chitecttre Affoedable Housing 238 approx./4 4.15 oare Not integroted ARB oppr 238 6.8 acre (adds 2.65aare) Zntegrated site plan Proffe~ a ARB apl~ 24 res. Units lbifference _:. I 7,2o5sf ar 71,zo5 less with PO-MC 24 Res.units added in PO-MC PI:)-MC is increase 24-8/16=16to8 2.65 more land in dedicated toPD-MC Many uses-not permitted and limited hoars No diffeeence~m Less concentr~ed in PO-MC $ Parcels develop together More constrained in PO-MC $150k to $160K n~nge **based upon Pb-5c standard allowed under Pb-MC CONCLUSION: PO-MC AS PROPOSED IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO HC WITH RESIDENTIAL ADDED "ON-TOP" 'H;C BY'Right 2 concept plans attached - Plah~X'J~*'"R~tail, Plan B is Mini Storage Proposed PO-MC plan attached 34 This is to comp Crozet Camm( I Compare Preliminary Plan Revised ATTACHMENT I ~re ~he commercial and residential components of is to the Proposed Clover Lawn Village Plan 8/;>3/01 Page i of 1 dtd 8/1/01 to the recently approved Crozet Commons SUMMARY OF ¢OMPARZSON 'rl-em Crozet Commons T I¢lover I. cmm ,.~ ;.~n/Recreation Not included · ! Tot Lot - 2,000sf Meets Ordinance requirement -~"" ~'~ _,~,_~ / Ooen 5tx~ce 21,926sf exceeds required area ~lxic:e r~ovlaca · / r- - -- . I~ign Open 5pace ! Center of Residential C~ntral - user friendly · / View straight ahead from Enter Commercial Use , 8,000sf of C-! us~ on 1.37 acre 32,000sf (includes Z story) Per acre Clover Lawn isa ?-nd fir- tO units ot~ Residential ;>nd fir - likely office space 1,139sf less which is ;>0Yo This is 5,839sf pe~ acre ' 3;>,000sf on 6.8 acre=4,705sf of u.,,,o, un,,, per acre soy d-7 say R-4 commons ~'~""'~" ' 'I , the density or 4570 more ~ / ' on -~nacc COMMERCIAL 7,7085F MORE COMMERCIAL XF CLOVER LAWN ~,,vu~. . WHERE SAME ' ! WITH 49 RESIDENTIAL 22 UNIT5 MORE TO BE Al)l) ATTACHMENT J King Solomon's Lodge No. 194, A.F. & A.M. 4924 3ones Mill Road Crozet, VA 22932 August 31,2001 Ms. Elaine Echols Department of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, virgtnia 22902-5823 Dear Ms. Echols: King Solomon's Lodge as an adjoining property owner has paid very close attention to the proposed development immediately to the east of us known as Clover Lawn Village. We have been kept abreast of the progress of and proposed revisions to this project by Ms. Jo I-Iiggins. The members of this lodge have voted to express our support for this project as we are of the opinion that it will enhance the value of adjoining properties such as ours. The commercial space will provide oppommifies for small businesses wishing to locate in the Crozet area and certainly there seems to be a need for residential townhouses of this quality and in this price range. In addition, it appears to us that the developer has bent over backward to accommodate the wishes and demands of the surrounding We wish to go on record In support of this development as presented on the latest site plan and building elevation dated August 1, 2001 Sincerely, William T. Woodson, Jr., Secretary cc: William W. Finley Walter F. Perkins 36 Ms. Elaine Echols Albemarle County Planning 1 Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Clover Lawn l Dear Elaine: I am writing on beha] revised proposal is schedule( will be at the meeting and wi will provide final comments you and others on your staff. information available to us a Overview Generally, we contk development at this site as a and for the overall Crozet g~ highway commercial use by and appropriately scaled int~ be a better result than comn: with all of the potential neg~ approval from the staff and development is in the growt should be approved. This p Crozet proper or any future intense the development on of the corridor. We should stretch of the imagination 1: Although the develc address some concerns, ore to the original proposal. It ATTACHMENT K Scenic .250 Scott Peyton, President PO Box 5 Greenwood, VA 22943 804/456-6400 (tel) 804/456-8600 (fax) August 30, 2001 }epartment 'roi ect ?of Scenic 250. It is my understanding that the Clover Lawn for the September 11 Planning Commission meeting. Scenic 250 told like to have an opportunity to speak and participate, and we on any final proposal by the developer and recommendations from The following represents our latest comments based on the this time. ~e to view commercial development and intense residential very negative thing for the Scenic 250 corridor, for Crozet proper, owth area. We recognize, of course, that there is a grandfathered .right that we all must liVe With, and we agree that a Well designed ~grated residential and commercial development has the potential to ~rcial and residential separately. We feel strongly, hoWever, that :ives, the developer should bear a heavy burden of proof to gain :he Commission. Although the residential portion of the a area, this should not necessarily mean that maximum density :oj eot is not connected internally to the rest of the growth area, nor to commercial zones on the interior of the growth area. The more this site, the greater the impact on Route 250 traffic and the character aot want this to be a "neighborhood activity center" nor can it by any : viewed as a "pedestrian village." ~er has worked with the planning staff and has made changes to all we are very disappointed that the proposal remains very similar s still far too dense with too much asphalt and, we believe, will still ATTACHMENT K stick out like a sore thumb without any meaningful transition to the rest of the corridor. If the current proposal were submitted for review in its cun'ent form, we would oppose approval, preferring instead that the developer move forward with separate commercial development by- right. We offer the following specific comments with the hope that further changes in plans will be made. Landscaping It is our understanding that the only landscaping plan provided to date was the original plan, preliminarily reviewed by the Architecture Review Board, and that there will be another plan submitted. Scenic 250 has a very strong interest in the view of this project from the corridor and the landscaping aspects of it. We therefore offer the following comments on the original plan and ARB preliminary comments. Most fundamental to our concerns is the need to provide landscaping and tree plantings that look natural and relate to the native landscape and vegetation in the corridor. The proposed plantings, even with ARB suggestions, do not relate closely enough to existing vegetation in the corridor and are not arranged in any natural way. As we understand it, the proposal is to simply plant a row, or alternating rows, of evergreens along the east, west, and north side of the project, with evenly spaced, larger street trees adjacent to the roadway. (A good example of what we find unacceptable is the pitiful straight line of small pines planted adjacent to the roadway on the Cory Farm project.) Although this approach may provide screening, it will guarantee that the project does not blend into the surrounding areas. We urge much more thought and creativity to develop a more meaningful landscaping plan that is appropriate to the area. For example, lower vegetation can be used to screen parking and asphalt and larger trees can be clustered in appropriate places rather than in uniform rows of"soldiers." The developer should ensure an adequate planting zone of 40 feet between the roadway and the edge of parking to ensure space for adequate, large trees and other natural vegetation. It appears that to provide adequate space for plantings between the right-of-way and the parking lot, the parking lot and east building will need to be moved north somewhat to provide adequate space for proper tree plantings. We also are unclear whether there are limitations on the size and type of plantings in the biofilter zone on the August 1 preliminary site plan. We also urge that the stormwater management zone (if any) be designed to have a more natural shape, and that, as with other landscaping, tree plantings and other vegetation be as natural looking and as consistent in type with sun'ounding vegetation as possible. Density We continue to oppose the high density of the project. There has been very little change in the number of free-standing residential units since the original proposal. The original proposal called for 30 free-standing units with the possibility of 10 units in the commercial buildings. The latest revision calls for 27 free-standing units, a reduction of only 3. By right, the developer can 38 have only 2 units and the Co~ parking, we favor limiting th{ additional parking beyond thl required parking. For the rea development at this particula more parking, more asphalt, the 250 corridor. We favor a reduction the development have more ~ Architecture Review We are a bit confuse~ Commission and Architectm Generally, we think that it is and the Planning Commissk overall feelings about the pr, project from the roadway th: information on the table. F¢ view from 250 from differex the buildings, and the mater design of the bUilding itself. preliminary. For example, t three stories in various secti relationship between the sty across the roadway. We be] building styles to complem{ Proffers We are quite confus to have them rex~ritten by tl commented upon. In partic important to nail down to h We look forward to project and would apprecia as you receive or develop ti ATTACHMENT K ~prehensive Plan calls for 3-6 per acre. Similarly, with regard to ~ amount of asphalt as much as possible and certainly oppose any tt required by ordinance. Of course, less density means less sons explained earlier, we view high-density residential site as very inappropriate. Aesthetically, the higher density means nd less green space, all important to maintaining the character of in residential density to 9-12 units. Under no circumstances should tnits than the maximum called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Board about the overlapping jurisdiction between the Planning Review Board on a variety of issues of importance to us. very important for the applicant to present final plans to the ARB n prior to Planning Commission review of a final proposal. Our ~ject are so dependent on issues related to the appearance of the tt it is impossible for us to form a final opinion without all relevant r example, we would like to see elevations of the buildings in profile Lt angles. We are also concerned about lighting, signs, the style of als used. To this point there has been very little discussion about the Although drawings have been provided, they appear to be very ae site plan shows a two-story building, but the drawings indicate >ns. To our knowledge, little consideration has been given to the le of the buildings and the proposed Food Lion shoppihg center ieve an effort must be made to select commercial and residential ~nt and reflect the best elements of the character of the corridor. :d on the status of proposed proffers. It would be most helpful to us e applicant and set out in a form that can be easily understood and alar, we feel that the proposed uses and hours of operation are ~ve a full understanding of the impact of this proposal on the corridor. continuing to participate as more information is developed on this :e it very much if you would send us all key documents and materials lem. Sincerely, Frederick S. Middleton III For Scenic 250 804/977-4090 (T) ATTACHMENT K Cci Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Planning Commission Ms. Jo Higgins Ms. Margaret Maliszewski Scenic 250 Steering Committee 40 Engineering l,Prlor fo any construction elf bin any existing public rlghf-of-~y, lncludi~ c~ecfl~ 1o All el~oe~ or~ disturbed Gross ore to De fertllt zed. Seeded ~nd ~iChed, The i~10XlnL.11 f~r-fo~e ~ better ore to be o~hleved. Paved, rip-r® or st®llizafi~q mot Iioed dit~') II~y De re~/Jlred ~hen In the oPinion of fha neoeaa~y In ~der to af~lllze o ~oln~ge chapel, 6. All trofflo control signs shell conform with the ' Virginia Uonuat for Uniform Troffla Control Devises ', the Consfruoflon Industry 129 CFR P~t ~a~uary GENERAL WATER & SEWER CONDITIONS 1. WORK RHALL DE SUBJECT ?0 INSPEC?ION BY ALBEMARLE COUNTy SERVICE AUTHORITY INSPECTORS, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOE NOTIFYING THE PROPER SERVICE AUTHORITY OFFICIALS AT THE START OF THE WORK. THE LOCATION OF SXIST1NG UT~ITIES ACROSS THE LINE OF THE PROPOSED WORK ARE NOT NECESSARILY ,SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND WHERE SHOWN, ARE ONLY APPROXIMATLEy CORRECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND LINES AND STRUCTURES AR NECESSARY. 3. ALL MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH GENERAL WATER AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AS ,4DOPTED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE A[/T}JORITY ON JANUARY IS, 19BE, 4 DATUM FOR ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN NATIONAL GEODETIC ~URVEy. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING "MISS UTILITY" S, ALL WATER AND SEWER PIPES SHALL HAVE .4MINIMUM OF 3 PEET OF COVER MEASURED FROM THETOP OF PIP~, OVeR TH~ C~NTERLI~E OF PIPE.THI~ INCLUDES iLL FIRE HYDRANT LINES, SERVIC~ LATERAL~ PI= 0.9 Rv= 0.06 16,68Lbs, AND WATER LINES, ETC. ? ALL WATER AND SEWER APPURTENANCEE ARE TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF ROADSIDE DITCH~ S. VALVES ON DEADEND LINES SHALL BE RODDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATER~STRAINT FOR TIlE VAI, VL~ DURIRQ ,4 FUTURE EXTENSION OF THE LINE, on Ar o (e,~.) Par-klna i ReSulted Prov/~d Eastor ResJd. 5,500 - § !~t. 700, ''1' ~0' 30 West Commercial 16,~6(~ '~.§/1600 so~ .... 58 ' 58 ~u ~O~'West 6,400 s.5/~ooo ContneFc ~ a I OF Res i d. TownhOUSeS 15,600 2/un I t 54 61 Tot Lo+ 2,0~J~J Nomlnol 0 rs= 27 ts= To~nhouse/Condos rfi~n: ~ecrea~lon Area= ~ 21,926 s.f Area of Commercial Portion= 3 5~ Ac Haximum Number of Employees= variable ATTACHMENT A 7 _l .... u.. ,..~u~ .~ ............... U.S. Rt. 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike) Il FIN',Jrt. ~, 4E ~ la. ' STAFF PERS?N: PLANNING (~OMM] BOARD OF SUPERb ZMA 99-11 ClOver L~ SSION: ISORS: ELAINE IC ECHOLS, AICP MAY 22, 2001 JUNE 20, 200i twn Village; SP 01-006 Clover Lawn Village SDP 01-106 Clover L twn Village with Critical Slopes Waiver and Cooperative Parking' Applicant's Proposal: Pre Crozet, has requested a rez~ Commercial to PD-MC PI~ was included in a rezoning Commission and the Board further considering the req~ three parcels owned by the Since that time, the applica residential uses. The reque residential units and prelim for cooperative parking. Ti Attachment B. Petitions for Rezoning, Si from R-1 Residential Distr Mixed Commercial, a spec preliminary site plan appro 22,000 square feet of cotrm parking area also included. contains 6.8 acres and is lo Turnpike, Route # 250, We Rockfish Gap Turnpike. T1 designates this property as units per acre in the Villag. Character of the Area: TI undeveloped. A commerci proposed across the street street from this site. Zoning History_ - There is rezoning for Tax Map 56P By-right Use of the Prop{ developed residentially wi! ~ton Stallings, the owner of 3 parcels of land along Route 250 in >ning of a 6.8 acres from R-1 Residential and HC Highway nned Development Mixed Commercial. A portion of this property request made in 1999. At the time of the rezoning, the Planning of SUpervisors asked for significantly more detail on a plan before test. Additionally, they asked the applicant to consider combining all applicant into a single unified development. nt has worked to prepare a site plan for commercial uses as well as st under consideration is for a rezoning, a special use permit for the inary site plan approval with a critical slopes waiver' and permission he apPlication plan/site plan is Attachment A. Proffers are ~'cial Use, and Site Plan Approval: The requests are for a rezoning ct and HC Highway Commercial to PD-MC Planned Development [al use permit to allow residential uses in a PD-MC zone, and val. The specific proposal includes up to 40 multi-family units and ~ercial uses. A critical slopes waiver and request for cooperative The property, described as Tax Map 56 Parcelsl07, 107A, and 107Al :ated in the White Hall Magisterial District on Rockfish Gap st, across the street from the Blue Ridge Building Supply at 5221 te property is in the Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Density Residential, recommended for 3 -6 dwelling of Crozet. (See Attachments C & D.) te area surrounding the property is low-density residential and al center of about 49,000 square feet, including a grocery store, is i-om the parcel. Blue Ridge Builders Supply is also located across the no zoning history for the parcel other than the previous request for a arcel 107. rtv: With a zoning classification of R-l, the property could be h 2 dwelling units. With bonuses for environmental preservation and provision of low-to-moderate income housing, density could be 3 dwelling units. The HC use of the property represents a wide-range of commercial uses available as indicated in Attachment E. Also included in Attachment E are C-1 and CO uses. Specifics on the Proposal: The application plan/site plan shows four buildings and associated parking. The buildings facing Route 250 are proposed as commercial buildings with the potential for residential uses on upper floors. The buildings at the rear of the parcel would be for two 16-unit residential buildings. Attachment F shows an elevation of the possible appearance of the buildings. The elevations are for information only and are not proffered. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant's justification for the rezoning and special use permit request is provided in Attachment G. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and cannot recommend approval at this time. Comprehensive Plan.'. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be Neighborhood Density residential, recommended for 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre in the Community of Crozet. Specific recommendations for this community relevant to this rezoning include: · Strengthen the downtown as a shopping area and the focalpoint of the Crozet Co~nmunity by encouraging all new commercial uses to locate in the downtown as opposed to Route 250. Limit commercial development on Route 250 to existing commercial land only. Unless such downtown commercial element is encouraged, pressure will increase for a suburban-type shopping center located outside of the Communi~. . A portion of the land under consideration for rezoning is already zoned commercially. The other portion is zoned residentially. · Consider the recommendations of the Crozet Community Study to serve as a guide for development in this community. The Crozet Community Study also suggests that downtown be the commercial focal point of the Crozet Community. This development is not a part of downtown Crozet and, for that reason, the rezoning could not be viewed as in keeping with the Crozet Community Study. The property is zoned HC already and, unless this rezoning is granted, the ~HC zoning would likely be used for the 4.6 acre part of the development. Other aspects of the Crozet Community Study recommend: · Employ innovative housing design and site planning techniques in housing development that minimizes the amount of impervious surfaces. This development proposes two types of housing and the mix of uses on the site is considered as innovative. What is not known, though, are the proposed uses of the commercial buildings so that analysis can be made for compatibility of uses and shared parking. · Provide open space and protect natural features. Open space is provided on the western part of the parcel. Steep slopes, woodlands, wetlands, and streams are not present. · Provide neighborhood activity centers within convenient walking distance to new housing. This development has the potential to be a neighborhood activity center as does the emerging commercial complex across Route 250. The applicant will provide pedestrian access to this center from the development. Provision of a crosswalk across Route 250 has not been 2 endorsed by VDOT, wi as being difficult to sup Sidewalks should be lot provided throughout th~ sides of the 'entry drive develops as a public rot sidewalks should be rec Sidewalks should be loc Staff suggested that the pedestrian connection. lack of other sidewalks the location of utilities Staff has analyzed this pro For informational purposes development proposals for were endorsed at the Board identified below and highli 12 principles of the Neighl~ · Pedestrian Orientation · Neighborhood Friendly · Interconnected Streets · Parks'and Open Space · Neighborhood Centers · Buildings and Spaces o · Relegated Parking · Mixture of Uses · Mixture of Housing Ty · Redevelopment Rather · Site Planning that Resp · Clear Edges Land Use Standards for -22) Development should be co. and Open Space; Site Pla rolling and fairly clear of.x~ cluster. Limiting access points sho development shows a singl site has been approved and Engineering. ich sees pedestrian traffic cr6ssing Route 250 without a traffic signal ~ort. ~tted in areas of dense residential development. Sidewalks are ; development; they could be enhanced further if provided on both and provided across the frontage ofthe site. IfRadford Lane ever d to provide access to undeveloped parcels to the rear of this site, uired on both sides'of the street. 'ated in areas connecting residential to office or commercial zone. applicant provide a sidewalk across the frontage of Route'250 as a The applicant declined to proffer this improvement because of the on Route 250, the unlmown status of future road improvements, and n the r.o.w. ,osal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. and at the request of the Board of Supervisors, staff is also assessing relationships with the 12 princiPles of the Neighborhood Model that of Supervisors meeting on May 3, 2000. These principles are ghted within this section for context within the Land Use Plan. The orhood Model are as follows: Streets and Paths md Transportation Networks ."Human Scale ~es and Affordability than Abandonment ects Terrain ~esignated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. '20 tcentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks aning that Respects Terrain) The topography on the parcel is flat to 'oods. There are no important environmental features around which to dd minimize the impact of development on major roads. The e access point to the property. The location of this accessway into the endorsed by VDOT and the Albemarle County Department of ,'1 sense of community should be maximized by providing'connections between developments; such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools, parks, and other public facilitie& (Pedestrian Access, Parks and Open Space, Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks) The applicant has stated that the sense of community comes from the internal orientation of the development. The parking areas, driveways, pedestrian paths, are provided as connections. The site plan also shows apotential connection to Radford Lane. At this time, the applicant does not plan to make this connection; however, it could be made at some time in the future. Any connections would require upgrading of Radford Lane which thc applicant does not propose. Fifty percent (50%) of the development is characterized by the applicant as "open/grass." Staff views thc access shown on the site plan as appropriate to the development. In looking at ways to increase a sense of community, staff has suggested many changes to the application plan/site plan that are noted in Attachment H. In summary, staff asked the applicant to provide for a more "urban" streetscape using curb, gutter, and sidewalks across the frontage on Route 250. Staff asked that the buildings be brought closer to Route 250 and the parking be placed in the rear. Staff asked that an open space/recreational amenity be more centrally located within the development. The applicant's response is provided as Attachment I. In summary, the applicant desires to have an internal orientation of the development facing the internal road system and a "rural road" appearance along Route 250. In part, the applicant is trying to satisfy the design concerns of the Scenic Route 250 organization, which wishes for Route 250 retain a rural and undeveloped appearance. The applicant has also indicated that the speed limit along Route 250, even if it is reduced from 55 mph to 45 mph, does not lend itself to residential uses located closer than is shown on the application/site plan. Staffbelieves that design with an urban streetscape along Route 250 is essential to the creating more urban and less suburban development areas. Staff also continues to believe that a better recreational amenity could be created for the development with a redesign. Underground utilities should be provided'in' new developments. Underground utilities are required. Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided. A stormwater facility is shown on the front of the development close to Route 250 since the site slopes forward to Route 250. The applicant intends to use this area for water quality as well as detention. Additional information will be needed prior to preliminarY site plan approval. The Design Planner has suggested that this prominent feature be treated with more care than shown on the site plan because of its impacts on the Entrance Corridor. 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) As previously stated, the staff asked that the two mixed use buildings fronting Route 250 be located closer to Route 250 with parking placed in the rear. The buildings are set back 80 feet. The commercial district regulations require a minimum of 30 feet, unless approved differently by 4 the Board of Supervisors. spaces for the site are pro'v/ The Architectural Review ] streetscape. The ARB will comments to date include t stormwater management a~ Regarding the architecture, because the mass is broken shapes, a variety ofwindo'~ buildings. She has suggest and Other features have a c, Official comments will be' Where site illumination 'is t Although no lighting infon will be required with the ti Historic buildings shOuld The phasing of developmet Water and sewer service is relatiOn to utilities. Overall development densi design that not only uses ti residential density for the t 2.6 acres are zoned R-1 res The previous rezoning req~ 15 units: This reZOning rec use. With the requests tm~ highway commercial use o designation of the Compre articulated recreationaluse of this high density plus th The integrity of adjacent rt screening, and separation plan to provide evergreen .1 shrubs are shown across th development. The applic~ the residential dwellings tc buffering. kdditionally, the applicant has stated that only 32% of the parking ded in the front. 5oard (ARB) often comments on issues of building orientation and review the preliminary site plan on June 4, 2001. Design Planner ae need for additional information on the proposed appearance of the ca, a more detailed landscape plan, and complete building elevations. the Design Planner has commented that the human scale is good up with the appearance of individual joined structures. Different roof ~s and doors, columns, porches, and fences help to give form to the ~d that other unifying elements will be needed to make the buildings )ordinated appearance and that care should be used with colors. ~rovided from the ARB at their June 4 meeting. ~roposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used. nation is provided, site illumination plans that meet County standards ~al site plan. e adaptively reused. No historic buildings exist on the property. .ts should match service and infrastructure availability and capacity. available to serve this development. No known issues exist in ,y should be as high a level as is practical. The applicant has created a .e commercial area to a high level, but also provides maximum ull 6.8 acres. At present, approximately 4.2 acres are zoned HC and idential. test was for only 2.6 acres, which provided a development potential of leUeSt is for 40 dwelling units and 22,000 square feet of commercial r review, it is important to determine if the maximum density plus a n 2/3 of the site is in keeping with the neighborhood density aensive Plan. Staff believes that changes to the design, better s, and inclusion of a more urban streetscape could justify the inclusion commercial use at this location. :sidential areas should be maintained through use of buffering, 9fadjacent non-residential uses. Attachment J shows the applicant's rees along the sides and rear of the development2 Street trees and e front of the parcel as well as along the internal entry drive for the ~nt has endeavored to keep the parking for the apartments away from the rear of the site and add evergreen trees for screening and DeveloPments should be designed with an internal orientation to.foster a sense of place and avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl. (Buildings and spaces of Human Scale). The driveway into the development is proposed as a tree-lined street for about half the depth of the development. Sidewalks are shown on one-side of the internal entry drive. Staff believes that the commercial buildings on the front should be part of the Route 250 streetscape. Internal sidewalks shouldbe provided on both sides of Clover Lawn Lane. Provisions should be made for innovative design that reduces housing costs. (Affordability with Dignity) This proposal allo-vvs for two types of residential units - apartments to the rear of the parcel and apartments over commercial uses. These mt types are viewed as positive amenities for the Development Area. Apartments can prowide for additional affordable housing oppommities in an area; staffhas no information from the applicant relating to anticipated rental rates.. 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) Although the land has a very gentle slope, there are a few places of critical slopes for which a critical slopes waiver request has been made. The approximate critical slope area is 0.12 acres, which is about 2% of the site. Approximately 83% (0.10 acres) of critical slope area on the subject property will be disturbed during construction. The Engineering Department has recommended in approval of the slope waiver in Attachment K. They also recommend that the 2:1 slopes on the eastern part of the site be stabilized with low maintenance vegetative ground cover. The vegetative cover must be a variety selected from Table 3.37-C on page 111-391 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or an equal approved by the:Engineering Department. Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Land Uses (Residential Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses; Res idential Development Design, pp. 22-23) For larger developments, layout and design should provide for varying building orientation and setback, dwelling unit type, fagade treatment, and lot size to avoid repetitiveness. Open space should be employed as a design feature to establish and define smaller neighborhood areas within the larger developments. The PRD/PUD approach is particularly applicable for larger developments. (Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Parks and Open Space) The 6.8 acre site itself is relatively small for a planned develOpment; however the unified design approach is preferable to development of three separate and unrelated uses. As previously stated, the applicant has made application to the ARB concerning the site plan. Elevations have been provided as examples of the type of buildings that could be built, The planning Commission has requested that applicants for rezonings provide perspective drawings and the make commitments to these drawings. The applicant is concerned that proffered perspective drawings might conflict x~ith the desires of the Architectural Review Board. By and large, the ARB has asked that the Planning Commission leave issues of architectural design and landscaping to them. 6 STAFF COMMENT on ti ~ Rezonin~ Staff routinely reviews rezo Relationship between the district The purpose and intent of ti with a broad range of coma MC districts be established comprehensive plan." The The only zoning district th use permit) is the PD-MC special use permit; and PD- developed as a "planned" d, zoning classification is app~ Public need and |ustificat The Comprehensive Plan pi communities, and the Villal developments should have. Areas: This property is sho zoning. By bringing in a m As previOusly stated, a qued, justifies maximum density Anticipated impact on pul Transportation - Princ GapTumpike. Enginee~ to the commercial cent¢ has also been accommo Route 250 is a heavily t employment and school Complaints have been anticipated by the propc Staff acknowledges thai looked at improvement: right turn-lane into the ~ feet. VDOT and staffb of Route 250 since the ~ provided a rural cross-s nings against the criteria below: application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning te PD-MC is to "permit development of large-scale commercial areas Lercial uses under a unified planned approach. It is intended that PD- on major highways in the urban area and communities in the ~ppticant already has commercial zoning that he would like to retain. tt allows the same commercial uSes plus residential uses (by special )ne. PUD requires a large acreage; PRD allows only office uses by SC does not allow residential uses at all. If the property is to be ~velopment, PD-MC is the only available zoning. Staff believes this 'opriate. on for the change omotes infill development in the designated neighborhoods, ;e of Rivanna. It further describes characteristics which new Housing demands in the County are to be filled in the DeVelopment wn to accommodate 3 - 6 dwellings per acre. It has existing HC dried plan of development, both needs are provided for on the plan. tion particular to this development is whether or not the development ~md 22,000 square feet of commercial development. )lic facilities and services ipal access to the property will be from Route 250 which is Rockfish ing has approved this entrance because it lines up with the entrance r across the street. Access to the adjoining parcel to the northwest ~ated. 'aveled thoroughfare for traffic carrying east ~ west traffic to centers. It is a 3-lane rural highway with a speed limit of 55 mph. aised from residents who travel along Route 250 because of the traffic ,sed development. the proposed development will add traffic to Ronte 250 and has necessary to serve the development. The applicant has provided a teveloPment which VDOT and staff believe should be widened to 12 oth believe that an urban road section is important along this stretch tevelopment will be serving commercial traffic. The applicant has ~ction. VDOT has asked that the applicant proffer to provide a signal at this location when the warrants for a signal are met. Staff also believes that, as development occurs, the speed limit will need to diminish as Route 250 enters the Development Area. VDOT comments are provided in Attachment M. The issues related to the need for a signal need further discussion between the staff, VDOT, and the applicant. Schools - With 40 new dwelling units, additional 29 students would be added to Albemarle public schools. Sixteen new students would go to Brownsville Elementary; five new students would go to Henley Middle School; and eight new students would go to Western Albemarle. All three of these schools are below capacity and can support the additional students. Water and Sewer: Public water and sewer would be extended to the property. No known fire flow problems exist. Stormwater Management: The property drains towards Rockfish Gap Turnpike. The applicant has shown facilities in the front of the property. Fiscal impact to public facilities_- The County has reviewed the anticipated fiscal impacts and that analysis is provided in Attachment L. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources - No impact is anticipated on cultural or historical resources of the County. Verbal comment from members of the Scenic 250 Committee reflect concems with the impact on the view of natural resources along Route 250. Proffers -- The applicant has provided the following items: · development in general accord with this plan · a concrete sidewalk or asphalt pathway for the pedestrian system · vehicular access on a joint entrance to Route 250 · vehicular and pedestrian access to Radford Lane · usable open space for passive recreation · churches and cemeteries, indoor theaters, and auto truck repair "proffered out" of permitted uses More specificity is needed with the proffers; they represent a good starting point for addressing issues pertaining to this proposal. Other Issues Related to this Rezonin£ With this rezoning and the previous requested rezoning, concerns about the future use of Radford Lane, which adjoins the property, have been raised. Radford Lane is an unapproved private road serving existing houses in this part of the Development Area. Originally, VDOT suggested that the property take access from Radfbrd Lane rather than from the entrance proposed by the applicant. The applicant explained to VDOT that Radford Lane does not line up with the proposed Blue Ridge Shopping Center across the street and that the applicant did not own the entire right-of-way for Radford Lane. VDOT then approved the entrance to the site, as shown on the plan, but has consistently requested that the owner of the property for the shopping center, 8 who also owns this site, rea possible traffic conflicts be leaving the new shopping c Staffhas explored this entrance with Radford ] rezoning. Staffhas ask, Lane, should Radford I_ SPECIAL USE PERMIT With the rezoning and the approval of residential use per acre, are permitted by sl dwellings per acre. The spt with the commercial uses p unknown commercial uses provide more specificity in said that he does not know' cemeteries, indoOr theaters Attachment E contains the of the uses in the first two c proposed for this developm staff. Of particular concern equipment sales, service, at homes. Staff is concerned ~ generation activities where Staff generally has few con where noise and traffic corr The Board of Supervisors permitted hereunder. Speci upon a finding by the Boart adjacent property_, At present, all highway cot believes that the residential than stand-alone commerci~ In its analysis of this sectio] the parcel. The parking for at the rear of these building have the apartment buildin lign the entrance to the shopping center. VDOT is concerned about ,ween cars entering and leaving Radford Lane and cars entering and ~nter. ssue and finds that, although a realignment of the shopping center ,ane would be preferable, it has no real relationship with this ~d that the applicant consider proffering right-of-way along Radford ane ever need to be dedicated as a public road. kNALYSIS ite development plan request, the applicant has also.asked for in the PD-MC. Residential uses, with a maximum of 15 dwellings )ecial use permit in the PD-MC zone. The applicant is asking for 6 ,~cial use permit analysis here is for the residential uses in combination roposed. Staff has had difficulty analyzing the relationships between md proposed residential uses in the same building. When asked to the commercial uses for the proposed buildings, the applicant has ~vhat would go into the buildings. He has '.'proffered out" church and and auto.truck repair as potential uses in the development. ists of permitted uses in CO, C-l; and HC districts. Most, but not all, istricts would be viewed as being compatible with residential uses as ~nt. The long list of uses for the HC zone, however, is problematic to are service uses such as exterminators and dry cleaners, machine and ~d rentals, motor vehicle sales, automobile service stations and funeral tbout the storage of chemicals, track traffic, and large traffic the uses might be mixed with residential uses in the same building. :ems with the stand-alone residential uses in the development except ]icts for major loading and unloading activities may occur. ereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits al use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued [ of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to tmercial uses are allowed on two-thirds of the parcel. Therefore, staff use in this area would be of less detriment to the adjacent parcels tl uses. ~, staffhas looked at the proposed apartment buildings at the rear of these buildings is proposed to be in front of the buildings rather than 5. According to the applicant, the adjoining property owners prefer to :s closer to their properties than the parking lots. 9 Until recently, staffhas not known whether ornot a setback problem exists at the rear of the parcel because of requirements of the zoning ordinance for a 50 foot setback for commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. The Zoning Administrator has told Planning staff that the Board of Supervisors can vary the 50 foot setback requirement by taking specific action to do so with the rezoning. The new setback will need to be shown on the application plan as will any designated buffer area between the apartment uses to the rear of the parcel and adjoining low density residential uses. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The character of the area surrounding this property is mostly low density residential and undeveloped with the exception of the building supply store across the street. The development of the parcel with eXisting zoning would change the character of the area. The addition of residential uses to a commercial use, though, should not change the character of the district or the area, once the commercial uses are established. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, As previously stated, the purpose and intent of the PD-MC zoning district is to "permit development of large-seale commercial areas with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach. It is intended that PD-MC districts be established on major highways in the urban area and communities in the comprenens~ve p . The residential use is reviewed under the special use permit process to ensure compatibility of commercial and residential uses within a mixed-use community. Staff believes that, with more information on the commercial uses within buildings with the residential uses, a residential use could be viewed as being in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The by-right uses are shown in Attachment E. When compatibility issues are resolved, residential uses can be deVeloped to be in harmony with permitted commercial uses. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5 contains the supplementary regulations for certain uses in the Zoning Ordinance. There are no supplementary regulations relating to the residential uses in a commercial district where residential uses are requested by special use permit. Supplementary regulations do relate to clubs and lodges, community centers, day care facilities, rescue squads, rest homes/nursing homes, sale and/or storage of petroleum products, agricultural museums, and towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles. Staff has not analyzed what affect these supplementary regulations might have on the residential uses because staff does not know what commercial uses are proposed for the development. 10 and with the public health, Without more information know whether or not the pt development will be retain, SITE PLAN ANALYSIS. PARKING REQUEST The site plan has been revi, waiver request has also bee and stormwater. The applicant has provide( spaces are also provided. spaces per trait. Of the 40 e contain 2 bedrooms. The ~ "Combined parking area b: participating in the combin establish the general requir safety and general welfare. ~n the commercial uses proposed with residential uses, it is difficult to .blic health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the ~d. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER, and COOPERATIVE ~ved for compliance with site plan regulations. A critical slopes n analyzed. Three outstanding site plan issues are parking, recreation, parking at a ratio of 1 space per 300 square feet. An additional 40 'arking for the stand-alone apartments is provided at a ratio of 2 xtra spaces, 32 might be attributed to the residential uses, if the units pplicant has requested cooperative parking with these statements, ~ reason of different hours of normal activity than those of other uses ation. A minimum "required" parking calculation has been used to ements under the site plan. As individual uses are submitted to the Zoning Department, it is axtticipated that they may not be of a retail nature which will prohibit the over 5000 square foot [~duction. Whenever possible, this is to request that cooperative parking be,,made part of t[ ~ approval to provide the flexibility t° keep the parking at a minimum. / At this juncture, staff knox, s of no way to approve cooperative parking without a better definition of the commercial uSes req aested. In order to approve a preliminary site plan, the uses must be identified. Perhaps, with t~etter defined commercial uses, staff and the applicant can work together to ensure that no Approximately a half acre area there is a pedestrian p. facility. Staff has suggeste tot for the commercial use~, applicant has indicated tha reason, the applicant propc believes that at least one tc residents of the developme already shown on the site Regarding stormwater fac information prior to appro~ hortage of parking will exist for the joint uses. >frecreational area is for the residential uses. Within the recreational tth, a proposed bench, and a storm drain emptying into a stormwater d that a recreational amenity could be provided between the parking and the apartment buildings with parking behind the apartments. The neighbors do not desire parking closer to their homes. For that sed a recreational area adjacent to the northwesterly parking lot. Staff lot should be provided as well as picnic tables and trees for the ~t. These features should augment the proposed path and bench lan. ities, the Engineering Department has asked for additional 5ng the site plan. 11 SUMMARY OF THE REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REQUESTS Staff believes that there is merit to the rezonmg, special use permit, and site plan request, but numerous outstanding issues prevent a recommendation for approval at this juncture. Some of the issues represent different perspectives between staff and the applicant in relation to concerns of the Scenic 250 Committee. The applicant recognized that, without input from the Planning Commission, many of these issues would not be resolved. The issues are: 1. Should a rural or urban streetscape be provided along Route 250? 2. Should the buildings be brought closer to Route 250? 3. Should a maximum residential density be allowed along with 22,000 square feet of commercial use? 4. Should the access easement along Radford Lane be reserved for dedication? 5. Should greater specificity be provided for commercial uses? 6. Should more commercial uses be proffered out? 7. Should building perspective drawings or elevations be proffered or referenced in the proffers? 8. Is the parking shown appropriate in quantity and location? 9. Is the recreational amenity appropriate to the development? In completing this staff report, staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to the requests: 1. The applicant has provided a unified plan for development that combines the three parcels. This unified plan shows building and parking locations. 2. The rezoning would allow for more housing at this location than what is currently zoned for residential use and the density is in keeping with the upper end of the density recommended in the Land Use Plan. 3. Opportunities for housing types other than single family detached are made available. 4. No disturbance of environmental features would take place with development of the property. 5. Joint access is provided to serve three properties and furore access is allowed to Radford Lane. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: 1. Pedestrian access is not provided across the front of the lot along Route 250. 2. Enhancement of sidewalks is needed within the development. 3. The buildings are too far from Route 250 to create an urban streetscape. 4. A rural road profile is inappropriate at this location in the Development Areas since a commercial development across the street will provide for curb and gutter. 5. The wide range of commercial uses available with residential uses may create major incompatibilities. 6. There are no commitments made to elevations or building appearance. 7. An access easement along Radford Lane has not been reserved for dedication. 8. An appropriate recreational amenity, for 40 dwellings has not been provided. 12 9. Conformity with parki~ are provided. RECOMMENDED ACTI For the reasons stated abow permit, and site plan with c: Commission agree, staffre raised by staff and provide addressing these matters. ATTACHMENTS: A - Clover Lawn Prelimim B - Proffers dated C -Tax Parcel Map D - Vicinity Map E-- Permitted Uses in HC F - Example Elevations G --Applicant's Justificati( H - Staff comment letter I - Applicant's response to J - General Landscape Plm K -- Engineering Commen~ L - Fiscal Impact Analysis M - VDOT letter regulations cannot be determined with the site plan since no uses ON :, staff cannot recommend approval of the rezoning, special use ~itical slopes waiver and cooperative parking at this time. Should the quests that the Planning Commission review the issues and questions ,,uidance to the applicant and staff as to its expectations for ry Site Plan dated 5/7/01 C-l, and CO Zoning Districts n comment letter [ ,S 13 ATTACHlVlENT A Al{)~le County Gonn-ol Construction Notes f~ Site 1.Prl~ to ~y ~m.fr~fl~ ~lfhln ~y exlsfl~ p~llc ~lm ~tr~l ;1~ ~ ~11 Be in~talle~ ~i~ fo ~y ole~Ing, ~adlng ~ other 4, All sl~ea ~a dlsf~b~ areas ~e fo ~ f~tlllz~, seeded ~ ~1~, The ~1~ GENERAL ~ATER & SEWER CONDITIONS 1. WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT T0 I~SPECTION BY ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY INSPECTORS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL R~SPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING THE PROPER SERVICE AUTHORITY OFFICIALS AT THE START OF THE WORK. THE LOCATION 0F EXISTING UTILITIES ACR0$~ THE LINE 0F THE PROPOSED WORK AR~ ~OT NECESSARILY SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND WHERE SHO~N, ARE ONLY APPROXIMATLEY CORRECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OH HIS OWN INITIATIVE LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND LINES AND STRUCTURES AS NECESSARY. 3. ALL MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY ~ITH GENERAL ~ATER AND SE~ER COH~TRUCTIOH 3PECIFICATION~ AS ADOPTED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY 0N JANUARY 15. 1998. 4, DATUM FOR ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN NATIONAL GEODETIC 3URVEY. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING "MISS UTILITY" (1-800-552-7001L S. ALL WATER AND SEWER PIPES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET OF COVER JiEASURED FROM THE TOP OF PIPE. OVER THE CENTERLINE OF Vicinity MaD (No Scale) l-pre= 15% C= O.7mg/L Step 2: De*ermine Reglonc Facl.l,y loost= ~83080 s.f o~ 52% 4.2 0.0 oo. Parking Summary Parking Required Provided l/lOOs.f. {1/200 o~er 5000) l/lOOsf (1/200 over 5000) 80 32 32 32 33 Sechon Area (SF i Eas[ Com~rtJaJ -11009 Wesf Co.roma{ 10996 Wes~ Res{denha{ 8680] _ ~6 units ~ 2 per un{~ IPE THIS INCLUDES ALL FIRE HYDRANT LINES, SERVICE LATERALS Intenoeo 8~ Type:£x~encleQ De*en*lon O~y potlcl one N~tructurol ....... fi'Ts- A-QFt~nTs P · . pcoposed lyre uwet J ing~ u, i - ~ J DURING A FUTURE EXTENSION OF THE LINE none Maxt~m Nu~or of /~l~yees variable __~Ff~f~_ ,~ J~ 14 ATTACHMENT A 610 Rc~rd L~n~Cl~rle~mvflle ,; EX. ~SX Slope---~-~- ~' (Typical) ~ .... ~.. ' ~..---.~ ... t': , "- --~ :j'-': /~__ ...-"" ~ ' [ tl~~ / .' .... : ~ / · ~. ~ . x{ffid Oefffif[~ Dry P~ ~0' Ut11 l*y x , / ./ \20' Utl I ll*'y ' x~r~ i Bldgo i ' I 15.$. R±. 250 (Rock~isl~ +t-4900 ft. to R*. 635 O~P Turnpike) / - "-, Food L ion $ te (Not InCluded or a-IH:il iafed) Oeve '~Per: Great Eastern Managment S"kte plan: Blue Ridge HC ', 30 0 50 i ATTACHMENT B Date: 02/21/2001 2;65/4.1 .~ Pursuant to Sec1 its duly authorized ager be applied to the propel requested rezoning anc the conditions; and (2) ,' requested. This development wil will include: (1) A concrete side~ (2) Vehicular acces access easeme~ (3) Vehicular acces the adjoining Ps (4) Usable open (5) The following Uses un. t-~Sig-n~a{ures o~ ~AI/OwneF~ Signature of Attorney-in-F (Attach Proper Power of ~ 'PROFFORM.WPD ,; ~e,~:Dec .em. her 1994 Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # PROFFER FORM ZMA # 99 - 11 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 56- 107,107A, 107(A)1 Acres to be rezoned from RI/HC to PD-MC ion 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the.owner, or t, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed b~low which shall ty, if rezoned, These conditions are proffered as a part of the it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives dso to the need for ;uch conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning be In general accordance with this plan, the important features vaik or asphalt pathway for the pedestrian system will be provided. will be provided via a joint entrance to Route 250 on a recorded it with Parcel 56-107A. and pedestrian access will be allowed through this development to rcel 56-97A1: 3ace for passive recreation area will be provided. ~ses shall not be permitted: 'ier C1 - #3 .Church and cemeteries (under HC#5) #9 indoor theaters (under HC#38) #22 Auto truck repair shop (under HC#2) ~.~,-~ Preston O. Stallings Printed Names of All Owners - act [ttomey) OR Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact 16 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT C .-/ 69 13 ZO / 26 / WHITE HALL DISTRICT SECTION \ ., . .................................................... ATTACHMENT D lITTLE FOX ' i x662.~, ' x6 ] ]..?' · ... ., .. , . . ,, ............ ......., ....... ~:~-' .- .... '",.. .. ....... ~ !} ! ============================ N CLOVER LAWN ZMA- 99 - 11 0 200 400 600 800 1000 FEET 1 ": 600' ( 18 'iLBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT E Sections: 22.1 INTENT, 22.2 PERMIT3 22.2.1 BY RIGH 22.2.2 BY SPEC. 22-3 ADDITIO 22.1 INTENT, WHERE P~ C-1 dislxicts are her to permit selected r to central business urban area, commm 22.2 PERMITTED USES 22.2. 1 BY RIGHT The following use limitations of these planning and othe~ permitted; providec and more specific: visual impact and t generally provided a. The following I. Antique, 2. Clothing, 3. Departme: 4. Drug stor~ 5. Florist. 6. Food and and wine 7. Furniture CHAFFER 18 ZONING SECTION 22 COMMERCIAL - C-1 ~rI-IERE PERMITTED 'ED USES r ~AL USE PERMIT NAL REQUIREMENTS RMITTED ,'by created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map .-tail sales, service and public use establishments which are primarily oriented :oncentrafions. It is intended that C-1 districts be established only within the [ties and villages in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 9-9-92) shall be permitted in any C-1 district subject to the requirements and regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of appropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specifically that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character ~lly, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, :affic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as in section 34.0. retail sales and service establishments: iR, jewelry, notion and craft shops. ~pparel and shoe shops. It store. pharmacy.. rocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary ad cheese shops. md home appliances (sales and service). 18-22-1 Zoning Supplement #6. 12-30-99 9 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT E 8. Hardware store. -~ 9. Musical instruments. 10. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacc° shops. I 1. Optical goods. 12. Photographic goods. 13. Visual and audio appliances. 14. Sporting goods. 15. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. The following services and public establishments: 1. Administrative, professional offices. 2. Barber, beauty shops. 3. Churches, cemeteries. 4. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.02). 5. Financial institutions. 6. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 7. Funeral homes. 8. Health spas. 9. Indoor theaters. 10. Laundries, dry, cleaners. 11. Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all hours during operation). 12. Libraries, museums. 13. Nurseries, day care centers (reference 5.1.06). 14. Eating establishments. 15. Tailor, seamstress. 16. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20). t7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines~ pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority, (Amended 5-2-93) 18-22-2 Zoning Supplement #6. I2-30-99 20 lg. Public uses ~ offices, park federal age lrean'nent Rivanna-W~ 19. Temporary ¢ 20. Dwellings (r 21. Medical cen 22. Automobile 23. Temporary 24. Indoor athk 25. Farmers'.ma 22.2.2 BY SPECIAL US 1. Cornmercia~ bowling all~ 2. Electrical p lines, pump wave and r~ 3. Hospitals. 4. Fast food r~ 5. Veterinary 6. Unless suc. residential may be imp 7. Hotels, mol 8. Motor veh comprehen 9. Parking sm 10. Drive-in w 92) 11. Uses perm four hundr public sew ALZr cov a.r Coot. ATTACHMENT E d buildings includingte 'm~ or mObile facilities such as schools, ;~ playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local state.or ' lcies (reference 312..5); public water and sewer transmission, main or mink lines [lities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the onstmction uses (reference 5.1.1). ;ference 5.12.1). ;er. truck repair shop excluding body shop. (Added 6-3-81; Amended 9-9-92) tonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-6) 5c facilities. (Added 9-15-93) rket (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95) E PERMIT recreation establishments including but not limited to amusement centers, ~,s, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-I-83) )wer substations, u-ansmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission ng stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- io-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. taUl-ant. ffice and hospital (reference 5. I. 11). ~ uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0. · R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as osed pursuant to section 31.2.4. els and inns. :lc sales and rental m communities and the urban area as designated in the five plan. (Added 6-I-83) ~ctures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 1 I-7-4) ndows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9- xed by right, not served by public water, involving, water consumption exceeding :d (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by fight, not served by :r, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 18-22-3 Zoning Supplement #5, 6-16-99 6-14-89) 12. Body sho[ (Added 9-9-92) 21 ALBEMARI. E COO'NIT CODE ATTACHMENT E 13. Animal shelt~ (refe~,ence 5.I.11). (Added 6-16-,99)? 22.~_ADDI~IOI~ALRE_O._UIREMENTS In addition to the requirements contained herein, the requirements of section 21.0, commercial districts, generally, shall apply within all C-I districts. (Amended 3-17-$2; 7-10-85) 18-22-4 Zoning Supplement#5.6-16-99 22 ATTACHMENT E Sections: 23.1 INTE! 23.2 PERI~. 23.2.1 BY R1 23.2.2 BY SF 23.3 ADDr 23.1 INTENT, WItERI CO districts are to permit dew accessory uses and other more 23.2 PERMITTED US 23.2.1 BY RIGHT .The following limitations of t 1. Administr 2. Professior~ .3. Financial 4. Churches, 5. Libraries. 6. AccessoD combinati the site. T -Eating e~. -Newsstm -Establis~ -Data pro CHAPTER 18 -ZONI~G SECTION 23 COMMERCIAL OFFICE - CO iT, WHERE PERMITTED ITTED USES GIlT ECIAL USE PERMIT - FIONAL REQUIREMENTS PERMITTED hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map lopment of administrative, business and professional offices and supporting and facilities. This district is intended as a transition between residential districts ntensive commercial and industrial districts. uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and ~ese regulations: ~tive and business offices. al offices, including medical, dental and optical. nstimtions. :emeteries. useums. uses and structures incidental ro the principal uses provided herein. Such uses in on shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of buildings on ~le following accessory uses shall be permitted: tablishments: ids: ments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment; :essing services; 18-23- ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT. E -Central reproduction .and mailing services and the like; -Ethical pharmacies,..laboratories and estabishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices: -(Repealed 3-1%82) -Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited m: musical instruments, musical scores, text books, arti~s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel. (Added 12-3-86) Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly Provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16'of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); pUblic Water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) 9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.I 8). 10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82) 11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92) 23.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1. Hospitals. 2. Funeral homes. 5. 6. 7 8. Electrical power substations, transmisaon lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers: micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. Parking structures located wholly or partly above ~ade (Added 1 I-7-84) Commercial uses otherwise permitted having drive-in windows (Added 1.1-7-84) School of special instruction. (Added 1-1-87) Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). (Added I-1-87) Uses permitted by right, not served bv public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per s~te ~tcre per day. Uses permitted by fight, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of~ewa~e other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) 18-23-2 24 9. Unless such residential R- be imposed p 10. Hotels, motel 11. Supporting c( 12. Research and 13. Laboratories, 14. Indoor athleti 23.3 ADDITIONAL RE(~ In addition to th( districts, generall,. ATTACHMENT E ~ses are otherwise prOvided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, 15. in compliance with regulations set forth therein and such conditions as may xrsuant to section 312.4. (Added 6-19-91) and inns (re ef~ff~x)--0~ amercial uses (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) development activities including experimental testing. (Added 6-19-9 I) medical or pharmaceutical. (Added 6-10-92) facilities. (Added 9-15-93) UIREMENTS requirements contained herein, the requirements of section 21.0, commercial shall apply within all CO districts. 25 '~'" 4LBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT E CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 24 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - HC -Sections: 24.1 24.2 24.2.1 24.2.2 24.3 24.4 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES- BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT MINIMUM FRONTAGE, SHAPE OF DISTRICT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 24.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by mnendment to the zoning map to permit development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations rather than to central business concentrations. It is intended that HC districts be established on major highways within the urban area and communities in the comprehensive plan. It is further intended that this district shall be for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip commercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to permit controlled access to public streets. 24.2 PERMITTED USES 24.2,1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any HC district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning ad~ninisrrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted: provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and more specifically, similar in terms of locafional requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traff~c generation. Appeals from the zoning administrators decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. 1. Automobile laundries. 2. Automobile, truck repair shops. 3. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20). 4. Building materials sales. 5. Churches, cemeteries. 6. Clubs. lodges, civic, fraternal, pamotic (reference 5.1.2). 7. Convenience stores. 18-24-1 26 ALBEMARLE COUNIT CODE ATTACHMENT E 8. Educational, 9. Factory outle I 0. Feed and see 11. Financial ins 12. Fire extingui 13. Fire andresc 14. Funeral horr 15. Furniture stc t6. Food and gn wine and ch( 17. Home and b other repair ~ 18. Hardware. 19. (Repealed 20. Hotels, mote 2t. Light wareh 22. Machinery 23. Mobile horn 24. Modular bu 25. Motor vehic 26. New autom( 27. Newspaper 28. Administrat 29. Office and 30. Eating estat 31. Retail nurse 32. Sale of ma 33. Wa~,vside su 34. Wholesale ~ technical and trade schools. sales clothing and fabric. ~ stores (reference 5.1.22). rations. aer and security products, sales and service. e squad stations (reference 5.1.09). (cery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and ~ese shops. asiness services such as ~ounds care, cleaning, exterminators, landscaping and md maintenance services. ~-81) Is and inns. )using. nd equipment sales, service and rental. and trailer sales and service. lding sales. le sales, service and rental. )rive parts sales. }ublishing. .ye, business and professional offices. usiness machines sales and service. tishment: fast food restaurants. des and greenhouses. )r recreational equipment and vehicles. nds- vegetables and a~icultural produce (reference 5.1.19). [istribution. 18-24-2 27 ATTACHMENT E ALBEMARLE COUNIT CODE 35. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles. .lines,_transformers~-pipes~-meters-and-re tated-facitities-for-distribution-o f-h~'a~er~ric~and -owne-d-an~d-op~red~by-~-publi-c~tltility.~-W-~t~r--di-~tiff~ ~ sewerage coiiection-lYn-~ pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) 36. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.$); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivarma Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 1 t-1-89) 37. Temporary construction uses (reference'5.1.18). 38, Indoor theaters. 39. Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20). 40. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 41. Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of section 22.1, commercial, C=I. (Added 6-I 9-91; Amended 9-9-92) 42. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) 43. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added I0-11-95) 24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1. Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance hails. (Amended I-1-83) 2. Septic tank sales and related service. 3. Livestock sales. 4. Veterinary, office and hospital (reference 5,1. I 1). 5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.08). 6. EleCtrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances;, unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro- -wave and radio-wave transmlssion and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Hospitals. nursing homes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13). 8. Contractors' office and equipment storage yard. 9. Auction houses. 18-24-3 Zoning Supplement #6. 1.2-30-99 28 ATTACHMENT E 10. Unless such residential - may be imposed 11. Commercial ke~ 12. Parking structur t.3. Drive-in windo' 92) 14. Uses permitted four hundred (~ public Sewer, ii 6-~4-S9) 15. Warehouse faci 16. Animal shelter 24.3 MINIMUM FRONTA ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE :s are~'otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, 5, in icompliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as pursuant to section 31 ~.4. .nels - indoor only (reference 5Z.I.11). (Added~-~) -- located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-84)~ serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9~ by fight, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding ~00) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permit~d by right, not Served by ~volving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added lities not permitted under section 242.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) reference 5.1.1 I). (Added 6-16-99) GE, SHAPE O'F DISTRICT Minimum frontagelrequired on a public street for the establishment of.an HC district shall be one hundred and fifty ([50) feet. Frontage of an HC district shall not exceed depth. This section shall not apply tO HC districts established at the adoption of the zoning map. 1 24. ^DmT O'NAL U ,Q mE ENTS In addition to the districts,.generally, requirements contained,, herein, the shall apply within all HC districts. requirements of section 21.0, commercial 18-24-4 29 Zoning Supplement :%. I2-30-~o Clover Lawn Village Stoneking/von Storch Architects Crozet, Virginia 19 March 2001 ATTACHMENT G ATTACHMENT' What is the Comprehensive PI; 'Existing by dght - 4.15 acres Zor this area as Neighborhood Densit3 What public need o r benefit do{ the County's intent to support infill development pressure. This deve currently available in the Crozet C housing. They will provide a choic to the four schools serving the cot Are water, sewer, and roads avL- water and sewer is available to thc sewer to be extended from Cory F ACSA and should be adequate fo~ Gap Tpke (RT 250West). There VDOT residency and have been a entrance which aligns with the pdr secondary entrance on the appro~ attached a copy of the memo frorr Village will be served under this jc With respect to the traffic conside~ Associates. (ATTACHMENT C) TI addresses the addition of the resi¢ When the rezoning request was di development would affect Radfor( Masonic Lodge. Clover Lawn Villl entrance to Parcel 56-107 is provi future traffic contribution from Par Jack Kelsey and the summary he What impact will there be on Cc natural, cultural or histodc resoun Describe your request in detail This request is to provide a cohes ad_Jac_e__nt_ _2_ ~.6_ .5_~cre_ pa _~r~c~e__ I_ _t~ .c_r_~_t_~ proposed mixed zoning deveiopm three types of units. Within the t~ building. Although not designed 1 residential condo/apartments rang bedrooms. This will allow for sma ¥' TO APPLICATION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (dated 02/24/01) 1 designation for this property? Clover Lawn Village is composed of 3 parcels. ed HC with adjacent 2.65 acres Zoned R1. The Comprehensive Plan designates Residential. s this re, zoning serve? Clover Lawn Village provides the opportunity to meet development as it is within the designated Development Area andavoid rural Iopment as proposed provides for residential condo/apartment units that are not ommunity. Residential units of this scale fall into the category of affordable ~ for young couples, teachers, and those residents that may seek housing close ~munity and the community itself. liable to serve this site? Will there be any impact to these facilities? Public .~ site. The recent Blue Ridge HC plan proVides for a 12" waterline and public arms to the SouthWest comer of this property. FirefloWdata is available from this development. With respect to roads, Clover Lane is accessed off Rockfish ~re two entrances to Clover Lawn Village that have' been worked out with the local pproved by AC Engineering. There is a right in only to the East and the main ~ary entrance to Blue Ridge Builders Supply. This entrance is alSO the ed site plan 'Blue Ridge HC" where the Food Lion is to be located. (! have , Bill Fritz advising of the status of the project. SEE ATTACHMENT B) The entire iht entrance arrangement with internal access as shown on the plan. ation, I have attached the information from Thomas E. Flynn, PE of Wilbur Smith le ITE information assumes the by right HC use as a baseline and only ,ential units. scussed by the BOS earlier, there was a question regarding how this I Lane. Radford Lane is located between Clover Lawn Village and the adjacent lge will not impact Radford Lane. In fact, based upon the proposed plan the :led by the joint entrance located to the East across 107A which relieves any :el 56-107. The history on Radford Lane's potential upgrade was researched by 3rovided is attached. (ATTACHMENT D). unty's natural, scenic, and historic resources? No impact is anticipated on es. With respect to scenic, Clover Lawn is subject to ARB review and approval. ncluding why you are requesting this particular zoning district? ve development to merge the 4.15 acre parcels already zoned HC with the the proposed 6.8 acre PD-MC. There are three significant components of this nt-: -~e~side~tial,-c6rh-r/ie?(~ial,' ~d-i'eCreatYoi'i~E'Tlig're~d~nfi.~l-c0rfij~oi'ientq~a~ (2) buildings, 'Village Houses" towards the North, there are 16 unit in each ~) exact detail at this time, it is anticipated that there will be two sizes of ing from 1100sfto 1300sf in each Village House: Each unit will have two (2) families or single persons with office/PC room. 31 ATTACHMENT G PAGE 2 OF 2 -A'I'i'ACHMENT "A" TO APPLICATION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (dated 02/24101) Adjacent-to-the-V'~age+touseWest~there-is-a~ssived'ecreation-area-of approx--. 20-~O00~~es-larger~ than the previous proffer of 4,000sf). Although not measured in square footage, there is a pathway through the recreation area that leads to the sidewalk system around the commercial/residential area which allows for a couple different loops for an evening stroll. For recreation/exercise, residents living in the Village House East can walk through the recreation area and around the Village Shops and loop back to accomplish a walking distance of about one-half mile. The commercial/residential buildings towards the South portion of the site provide for approx. 22,000sf of business/commercial use with 8 residential condo/apartments constructed above. This will provide for the potential owner or business operator to live above there business. These units are anticipated to be larger than the Village House units and could be in the range of 1300sf to 1600sf with a study/PC room and some additional spaces. In conclusion, the PD-MC designation which requires a minimum of 3 acres is approp date for the proposed mixed' use and provides an opportunity to incorporate the concepts of the Neighborhood Model from DISC. On ATTACHMENT E, the sPecific elements of the 12 Principles are addressed. ATTAcHM]~NT C, BACKGROUND INFORMATION: REQUESTED: PD-MC - 6.8 act( that Per 4.12.4 Cooperative' Parki~ Cooperative Parking Request: of other uses participating in the the general requirements under th anticipated that they may not be o this is to request that cooperative at a minimum. .As a PD-MC district, this proVides Neighborhood Model within an urt: PEDESTRIAN ORIENTA'I INTERNAL RELATIONSH sidewalk/pathway system automotive movement. A have convenient access w Residents can take an aft( exercise or shopping. NEIGHBORHOOD FRIEN shows Clover Lawn Villag, scape features are to inclu pedestrians. This will also commercial areas which ~ distribution of traffic and ir INTERCONNECTED STR directly off RT 250 at the h Building Supply commemi: interconnection to the rear spaces on the West side o undeveloped parcel behin( development at this time. -intei'connection between-ti- encouraging pedestrian m( PARKS AND OPEN SPA(: addition, there are several is to provide a small meeti~ ATTACHMENT "E" (dated 02/24/01) Existing by dght - 4.15 acres Zoned HC with adjacent 2.65 acres Zoned R1 s with Special Use grated for residential within PD-MC. In addition, it is requested lg be allowed. ;ombined parking area by reason of different hours of normal activity than those ~mbination. A minimum "required" parking calculation has been used to establish site plan. As individual uses are submitted to the Zoning Department, it is a retail nature which will prohibit the over 5000sf reduction. Whenever possible, ~arking be made part of this aPproval to provide the flexibility to keep the parking the opportunity to incorporate concepts as outlined in the 12 Principles of the an residential seeing. 'ION: This concept is specifiCally described in 25A.5 SITE PLANNING- IPS under PD-MC district. Within Clover Lawn Village, the pedestrian s arranged in a fashion to encourage pedestrian access and minimize internal s shown, patrons may park in one location and walk the entire Village. Residents ithout using vehicles. Crosswalks are provided to cross the internal travelways. ,moon walk through the recreation area and around the commercial area for 3LY STREET AND PATHS: As described in the Neighborhood Model, this plan is to be centered around a tree lined "Lane" into the development. The street Je trees, bushes, and plantings to enhance the quality of the walk for soften the appearance of par~ing that haS been relegated to the rear of the ill be located on both sides of the Lane. The traveiways are designed for a temal parking areas area specifically designed to have a traffic "calming" effect. EETS AND TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS: Clover Lawn Lane comes ~,,ation approved by VDOT because it aligns with the Western most Blue Ridge ~1 entrance. It does not impact Radford Lane but does allow for the potential x)rtion of Radford Lane by the alignment of the travelway serving the 14 parking ; the building. In addition, there is potential to connect through to the [ the Masonic Lodge (56-97A1) although this parcel is not included in this The network of travelways intemai to Clover Lawn Village provide for the e mixeduse area-with the-commercial-concentratiOn, and residential.area while ,vement. :E: A recreation area is provided in the Northwest comer of the village, tn green areas inside the pedestrian sidewalk system of the commercial area. This ~g or gathering place for residents and patrons alike. 33 ATTACHMENT G ATTACHMENT "E" - PAGE 2 OF 2 (dated 02/2410'1_) NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS: Clover Lawn Village is a small scale mixed use area thatwiil compliment the HC use on the South side of RT 250 known as "Blue Ridge HC'. The intent is not to take away from the "heart" of the Crozet community but to provide a measure of diversity for residents that are near in Cory Farms, Western Ridge, and in Crozet. This "village, will become a piece of the overall picture when the RT250/240 connection road provides an additional connection to Western Ridge and Highlands subdivisions. 6. BUILDINGS AND SPACES OF HUMAN SCALE: The orientation of the commercial buildings with entrances from each face of the building and green areas within the heart of the commercial area. This is to give a measure of human scale to this area. With several apartment/condo units above sections of the building, there will be decks for residents to enjoy the view and overlook the activity below. This will make it possible for entrepreneurs to live above their business and give a family orientation. 7. RELEGATED PARKING: At first glance, it may appear that more parking can be relegated behind structures as you perceive the development from RT250. From the perspectiVe of entedng Clover Lawn Village from the heart of the Village, all,_the Parking has been relegated to the sides and rear of the mixed use buildings with the lesser proportion on the RT 250 "side". As much as possible, the parking has been broken up into components as shown to diminish the impact of the quantity of spaces. Only 32% of the total spaces are located in front of the buildings. The East side has single "loaded" parking spaces between the building and RT 250. In order to provide required parking spaces and less paved area, this is a compromise. Since single loaded parking spaces take 40% more pavement to support each space, it is a significant factor to not have excessive paved area by providing the majority of the parking with double loaded parking spaces. (It takes 270sf of paving per space for double loaded spaces and 378sf for single loaded spaces because the 24ft travelway is required regardless of loading.) IF PD-MC COULD BE TREATED SIMILAR TO PD-SC -THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS COULD BE REDUCED ~._~_~ SIGNIFICANTLY. The parking spaces for the residential condo/apartment units has been partially relegated to the sides of both buildings. 8. MIXTURE OF USES- The requested zoning of PDMC provides for a wide Variety of uses at this location. The residential component is important to balance the commercial use. This is also complimentary to the HC development across RT 250 where a large grocery store is proposed. The mixture of housing types with the two buildings with 16 residential 1100sf condo/apartment units towards the North and 6 to 8 condo/fiat 1250sf to 1550sf units above the commercial units provides for a range of affordability. 9. MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES AND AFFORDABILITY: Clover Lawn Village as shown includes an array of 2 bedroom condo/apartments of approx. 1100sf which are geared for singles and family life These apartments are towards the rear to buffer the transition between the commercial area and residential behind Clover Lawn. Above the commercial area, there is a provisIon for 2 to 4 condo/apartments of approx. 1300sf which are slightly larger than condo/apts towards the rear of Clover Lawn. These are to be located above each end 'of the commercial buildings. This will allow for entrepreneurs or shop keepers to locate close to their buSiness if desirable in a "live/work" unit concept. 10. REDEVELOPMENT: A portion of ClOver Lawn Village is a redevelopment of a gas station and basket shop. This new development is to revitalize this area which will help with sprawl elsewhere. This land was previously underutilized. 11. SITE PLANNING THAT RESPECTS TERRAIN: The placement of structures, travelways, and Parking ........ S-paSes- is design&d to-W-orl~ With- Jh~-~XjstJ~ig-r~llin-~-J~-n;~in-~hi:l-stitl-me-~t C0-unty-Engin'e~rin[~ ~equirements. 12. CLEAR BOUNDARIES WITH THE RURAL AREAS: The proposed plan shows a clear boundary between ,'-'~ this development and the rural area. 34 DEPARTM] I Date: September 18, 2000 To: Jo Higgir~ Fax #: 823-I 720 Re: Blue. Ridge HC Final Si From: Bill Fritz ~e?H o; The sit~ plar~ for the Blue R:idge HC 8/28/02 in aceoffi~ce wi~ the pro~ pm: "~ ~p~ved final sub~visio~ re~ to ~ ~orded plat or fin~ of ~v~ ~of~ ~r tach lo~ approval, dete~ine to be r~sonabl A site: pt~ sh~l ~ de~ final on remai~ng to be satisfied in ord~ to If you have any other questions pl¢, YOU SHOULD, IF I,Z~f. r DO N ATTACHMENT G COUNIT OF ALBEMARLE OF BUILDING CODE AND ZONING SERXflCES 401 Mdntire Rond Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Telephone (804) 296-5832 Fax: (804) 972-4012 Email- b ffitz~albcmarle.cn'g FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET i re Plan project was s,gned by the County on 8/28/97. This plan will expire on isions of Section 15.2-2261 of thc Code of Virginia. This provmon states in ] plat which hasbeen recorded-or an approved final site plan, hereinafter site plan," shall be vahd for a period o/:not less than five years from the date wperiod -as~ the local plaxming'commission or ottxer-agent may, at the time of :, taking into consideration the size and phasing of the proposed development. :e it Fas been reviewed'and approved by the loca~tity Wthe only reqmrement obtain a building permit is the posting ofar~y bonds and escrows. se contact mc. ~.EC..E[t/'E ~ PAGE(S), INCLUDING TI-IlS COVER SHEET. 7T R. ECEI~E ~ rt~ PAGE,~ ,~I2E. ASE C.4LL (804) 296-$825. 35 iATTACHMENT G Wilbux Smith Ass Ii 0 East l;~mklin Street -, ...... a '~:~ 232-t9-2-I-3t February 22, 2001 (804) 64~-6651 (80~) 644-270~ fax www. wiibursm;th.r, om. Ms. Jo Higgins Project Development Limited, LC 2463 Browns Gap Tmpk. Charlottesville, VA 22901 SUBJECT: Route 250 Planned Development Dear Ms. Higgins: Per your request, we h ave estimated traffic generation for the above referenced planned development. These resutts are presented in this letter. We understand that the proposed commercial uses re allowed "by dght", so the need is for the traffic generated by the remaining proposed development: 40 condominium/apartment residential units. We used the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, 6"~ Edition, Code 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse), copies of which are attached. It should be noted that the "Peak Hour of Generator' rates are identical to the "Peek Hour of Adjacent Roadway" rates. The peak hour and 24-hour trips for the residential units are estimated to be as follows: i , TRAFFIC CONDITION { VEHICLE TRIPS. AM Peak enter exit total PM Peak enter exit Total 3 15 18 14 8 22 24 Hours 23~ C~,,~i,, 5r.;, r,2,.~,.,,,{,v~ 0~', D,~,,, 'tX, L~l,ai UAE F.i{, Qu,,~, vA, r.Z,,...,.ak Poughb:~pgle NY. Raleigh NC, Richmond VA. 5att bakt C;~? LFJ~ Sa,', I*tanmico C.~. Tall~h.~ge~ Employee-Ow'ned Company 36 Ms. Jo Higgins February 22, 2001 Page 2 Please feel free to call if Very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH'ASSO( Thomas E. Flynn, P.E., Vice President TEF/pk Attachments ATTACHMENT G you have any questions. ;IATES ~TOE 37 Residential .ondominium/T°wnh°u (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwetling Units On a: Weekday ATT ACI-IMENT G Number of Studies: Avg. Number o! Dwelling Units; Directional Distribution: Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate 53 185 50% entering, 50% exiting Range~..of Rates 1.83 - 11.79 Data Plot and Equation 7,000 5 o lo~ 2oo 3¢)o 400 5~) 6o0 700 8oo X = Number ot Dwelling Units X &cl~al Ol~l ~1~ ~t~ Cu~ ~ Cu~ Eq~t[on: ~ ~ 0.850 Ln{X) ...... &vmra, ge Rate R2 = 0.83 Trio Generation, 6th Edilion 361 Institute o! 'l'ransportation Enginee= 38 Res Average Avg. N[ Trip Generation pe Average Rate 0.44 :)ate Plot and Eq~; " 200" l- ATTACHMENT G da, trial Gondominium/'row..toua (230) I Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour of Generator . Number of Studies: tuber of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 49 187 18% entering, 82% exiting -: Dwelling Unit Range of Rates Stendarcl Deviation 0.15 0.97 0.69 ion lOO. Fitted Cunn~ Ec Trip Generation, 6th Edilic X ,X 34 X 11oo 12o~ 131X) ,~oo 3o0 4oo see 6oo 7oo 8oo 9oo lO00 X = Number of Dwelling Units dnt~ Rllell Cum uatlon: Ln('T') = 0.808 Cfi(X) .)- 0.209 364 ...... A~ R2 -- 0.76 h~ilUfe of Trans0orlation Engineers 39 ~ um/Townhot.-,e · -a Condomini Remdentl I~ (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends rs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Generator ATTACHMENT G Number of Studies: 45 Avg. Number o! Dwelling Units: 196 Directional Distributk)n: 65% entering, 35% xiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate ~ 0.54 0~18 - 1.24 . Data Plot and Equation Trip Genera~ion, 6th Edition 365 Instilute o! Transponalion Engineers 10 EAST FDANKLIN STOl NO. OF PAGES: DATE; JOB NO. TO FAX NO: PLEASE NOTIFY: FROM: SUBJECT: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS o PLANNEI~ :ET · I~K~HMOND, VA 23219 · (8(M)643-6651 · FAX (IIG4) 644-2709 ATTACHMENT G (INCLUDING THIS SHEET) FAX TRANSMISSION FAX NO. (804)644-2709 PHONE: 804-643-6651 ALBANY. NY · ALLIANCE, OH · CAit~O. EG HONG KONG * NOUSTON. TX · KNOXVILLE. NEW HAVr~N, C~ · OAKLANO.. CA- O R~CHMON0. VA r~v~$1OE. CA ~OSELLE. · CHAgLESTON SC * COLUMBIA. SC - COLUMBUS.~ OH..o. DES.MOINES~IA ._~ALLS..CHURC~'..VA TN · L~XINGTON. KY · LONDON. ENGLAND · LOS ANGELES. CA - MIAMI. FL , NEENAH, Wi ~LANDO. FL · PITTSBURGH. PA - POI2TSMOUTH. NH · ¢~OVIDENCE, mi o RALEIGH. NC L . SAN F~TANCISCO, CA · SAN JOSE. CA - SINGAPOI~E · TO~ONTO. CANADA · WASHING'ION. DC:: EMPLOYEE?OWNED COMPANY 41 ATTACHMENT G Subj: Radford Lane -"Rural Addition" Project ~ 12~21-/99-'tl:t0~t~AM Paci§c Standard Time From: JKELSEY(~exch.co.albemarle.va.us (Jack Kelsey) To: mUS,Xit~com(Jol-~gins-(E-~tai~); wl~rk~nc~2~~=xch-c°:aibemafle'va'us (Walter Perkins) CC: BMAWYER@exch.co.albemafle.va. us (Bill Mawyer) Per-ye~requ~t I-seamhed-our-ffies-te-see. if there was any history of a "Rural Addition" project for this road. I found that there was a project in earty t990-to-upgra~~ at, take-it into the state system as a "rural addition". However, this project was terminated when the residents could r~ agree-t~the-roa~improvement~(refluim~.to upgrade the road to state standards) or to the dedication of the right-of-way. I have summarized the project- history in the bullets below. * An application was made to the Board of Supe~sors on 21 November t984- requesti~th¢ mad-be-~and-taken into the state system as a "rural addition". * The-project-.was-~a,,-d2-2-1-gO-~onceptual plans were drawn. The plans included widening the road to 22 ft. of pavement, realigning the mad-tew~t~me-the-2--90° cupids w .... an "S - curve", and providing a culdesac at the terminus. * Th~ pmpert~ ownem-~ by letter (3-16-90) of a public meeting to discuss the road project and right-of-way dedi cation. , c~,.,,, .,-,_,.-~,v = '~'~L~*~--,,,~ COU~/-received-a-tette~ from Mr. Dean Strong (TMP 56-107) that refused any current and future dedication for County purposes. * Acco~ding-te-the-meeth~ minu*,es-(-3-2-7-90)~ the meeting was attended by Mr. Richard Moodng (Director of Engineering), Walter Perkins (BOS), and area-ci~i-zefls~, q~-citl.--cn~-did-net-agree-wlt~the proposed improvements. Their expectation was that VDoTwould pave the road and take it as it was - not widened-ner-strai§htcr, c'J: Consideration was given for providing a culdesac at the tirst 90° cur~. However, right-of-way dedication issues could-net- be-reseke~. Att-ag~od-the-projeCt would not proceed unless the citizens otherwise noffiied Mr. Mooting within two weeks of the meeting. * O~-1-7 Af~i--t99~, M~: RichamLMeering sent a letter to Mr. Dan Roosevelt (VDoT Resident Engineer) notifying him that this project was teFmmated-an~Lthat-the-Coun~ woutd-pumue-the next project on the project list. Smce-the-pmject-was-termmate~it-is-no lop, er listed on the Engineering Department Work-plan. Should there be a renewed interest in the project by the-cifi-zer~, they~ll-need-to-make-e~ new-~ and demonstrate that 75% or more of the abutting landowners support the project and are willing to dedicatethe-f~lht-ef-way-. Howev~; please-re)re that the Board or VDoT may determine that "speculative interests" (potential or pending development) are-prese~t- rrraklng the-ro~t- et~jible-f~"Rural Addition" ("Highway Law" §33.1-72.1.C & D). Hopefully thi~w~-answcr your questions-. If not please call or e-mail me. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Jack M. Kelsey, PE Wednesday, December 2~ lggg' Amerfcl onrfne: ~Fusxft 42 P'age: I ATTACHMENT" QUESTIONS FR What is the Comprehensive Pla Existing by right - 4.15 acres Zo~ this area as Neighborhood Densit How will the proposed special; Rockfish Gap Tnpk), residential t¢ adjacent to the Masonic Lodge. residential to create a mixed use, proximity to the straight commerc How will the proposed special proposed special ~se to allow resi character of the surrounding distri Neighborhood Model are addres,~ How is the use in harmony with to allow residential use within the mixed use. It will facilitate enhan~ opportunity to provide a developr~ In addition, it facilitates an approp development areas. The opportul condo/apartment units if special u How is the use in harmony with the requested rezoning to PD-MC. mix to accomplish the urban resid new commercial development thr( for mixed residential and comme~ How will this use promote the the public health, safety, and welf; to be adequate with use of spdnkl{ DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF T} The residential use is to provide ti' towards the North, there are 16 un anticipated that there will be two si Village House. Each unit will have .... office/PC-room. - ........... ATTACHMENT G A" TO APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT (dated 02/24/01) )M THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION n designation for this property? ClOVer Lawn Village is composed of 3 parcels. led HC with adjacent 2.65 acres Zoned RI. The Comprehensive Plan designates , Residential. ise affect adjacent property? The surrounding area is commercial (across , the North and East, with Masonic Lodge to the West. Cory.Farms is immediately 'he existing zoning of 4.15 acres is HC designation. The proposed use to allow ~iil provide appropriately scaled commercial uses and residential uses in close iai area and residential zoning. ise affect the character of the district surrounding the property? The :lenfial within the requested PD-MC zoning will have a positive affect on the ,-'t. The 'Village" concept as applied to the Twelve principles proposed with the ~ in ATTACHMENT B. the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? The proposed special use =D-MC zoning will provide an appropriate scale commercial use and residential :ed utility of both zones and the adjacent commercial zoning. This is the ent that provides an urban residential setting near the Crozet Development Area. riate scale to the infill development necessary to avoid increasing the overall ty for categories of affordable housing can be accomplished with ~e is allowed. the uses permitted by right in the distfic~ This request is concurrent with Assuming this is the by dght use for this district, the residential will provide a .~ntial area that will allow for a human scaled environment. This also encourages ~ugh redevelopment, reuse, and infill. Residential use is in harmony by allowing cial uses within the same buildings and within the same 'Village". ;blic health, safety, and general welfare of the community? With regard to ire, public water and sewer is available to serve this project and fire flow appears ;rs in the Village House buildings. IE REQUESTED RESIDENTIAL USE: tee types of residential units. Within the two (2) buildings, 'Village Houses" ts in each building. Although not designed to exact detail at this time, it is zes of residential condo/apartments ranging from 1100sf to 1300sf in each two (2) bedrooms. This will allow for small families or single persons with 43 TO: Jo H FROM: Elair DATE: April RE: Z1VLt SP 0 SDP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 9epartment of Plarming & Community Development MEMORANDUM .ggins, Applicant K. Echols, AICP, Principal planner 3, 2001 ~ 99-011 - Clover Lawn PD-MC 1-006 Residential Uses at Clover Lawn Village PD-MC 01-016 - Clover Lawn Village Site Plan As you know, this r,:zoning to a planned district requires an application plan and, as I understand it, tl~ e site development plan has been submitted as that application plan. Tlte Planning Department staff has reviewed this proposal for the rezoning first, ~ e special use permit second, and third, as a site plan. If changes are made tc the Site plan, an additional review will identify any deficiencies or need :d changes. The Planning Commission public hearing for the rezoning and specia~ use permit is set for May 22, 2001 which gives us about five weeks to resolve anf outstanding issues. We Would strongly recommend that you resubmit itemq in response to this letter by April 16 to ensure and opportunity to respc]nd back to those items before May 8. Please be advised that all major issues will need to be resolved by May 8 in order for staff to complete its staff report for ac tion on this proposal. (The staff report for the project is sent from our office on l~lay 15 for the May 22 meeting.) The Board Hearing is set for June 13. For the rez,)ning and special use permit, I offer the following comments: Changes from Pre~ious Rezoning PropoSal The rezoning propo~'.al you originally submitted several years ago has been expanded to include ~dditional properties which have been intended to share the same access. Staff~ ews this inclusion of the additional properties to be very positive in terms of >ppommities for improved design. We also believe that inclusion of these ar.ditional properties is what the Board of Supervisors had in mind when they last viewed the proposal. Design Issues The proposed desig~t reorients the commercial uses ;o the front of the parcels and the residential uses l o the rear of the parcels rather than having side-by-side commercial and resi clential uses. This change supports a more integrated design. The perspective drw ring also shows a multi-storied building with different fagade treatments, which m e positive features. ATTACHMENT H 45 ATTACHM]r; .~ ~T H Staff would suggest the following changes be made for the development to have more of an "urban" rather than ',suburban" commercial design: Create an urban streetscape along Route 250. An example of how to accomplish this streetscape would be to put a 10 foot green strip, a 4-6 foot sidewalk, and planting strip with trees between Route 250 and the buildings. Paths from the sidewalk to the buildings would be important as would a sidewalk in front of all of the buildings Bring the buildings as close to the street as possible; place the Parking behind the buildings. VDOT requirements for driveways will place the parking lots .at least 100 feet from the intersection with Route 250.. Since you cannot move the driveways into the parking lots closer to the intersection, moving the buildings into this place creates a positive design feature that is in keeping with the Land Use Plan. o Staff acknowledges the desire of the Scenic 250 Committee to create a "rural buffered" appearance along Route 250. With the adoption of the Entrance Corridor Overlay Zone and the existence of the Development Area boundary adjacent to Route 250, staff believes that the "urban appearance" described here is more in keeping with the County's Land Use Plan than a rural corridor. Provide a central amenity for the development. As noted in the comments from Zoning, recreational features for the 40 dwelling units are important. The walking path and bench may be requested to substitute for the active features of the development. As shown, though, they are "off to the side" rather than a feature of the development. Place a green strip between the parking area for the commercial buildings and the residential units to the rear. This green strip could help. provide a central amenity. Pedestrian Access Good pedestrian access is shown through the development. Any redesign should keep the pedestrian in mind. Staff recommends a sidewalk across the frOnt of the development for the full frontage of Route 250. Since VDOT is requiring full- frontage improvements, a sidewalk should be easy to reconstruct in this area. Interconnections You have noted in the narrative that interconnections to Radford Lane can be achieved through the dumpster pad or north from the northwestern most parking lot. The locations possible connections should be shown on the plan as should connections to the East. If you do not believe these connections are appropriate to the development, please show how the properties to the north of these parcels should be served by a road network from Route 250. Site Grading Grading to the east is proposed with 2:1 slopes as is grading to the rear. Is there a EKE ATTACHMENT H less steep grade th~ can be used? What kinds of landscape features or other features can or will you use to mitigate the visual impacts of these slopes on both Route 250 and the ear of the lot? ' Proffers 1. The proffers yo~ site plan/applic~ features you int~ 2. You may want features shown 3. The second pro Mixed Use Aspect 1. The combinatic development is Plan. Of most i: commercial use~, relation to resid~ want to "proffer setting. For exa this close to the COoperative par assess how the r without know w commercial use: that you review Commission mi: parking. Site Plan Regarding the site p preceded by the app 1. [Section 32.5.6a north arrow. 2. [Section 32.5.6t residential densi Please contact me a~ additional informati have provided need to be more specific in reference to the .tion plan. You need to set up any internal setbacks or design md to comply with. o consider proffering architectural features, such as those in the elevations. Per isn't exactly a proffer and probably is not needed. of commercial and residential uses within the same concept that is largely supported by the Comprehensive nportance, however, is the compatibility of the residential and ;~ one to another. The wide range of commercial uses in ,ntial uses Should be considered. It is possible that you may out" uses that would not be looked at as compatible in this mple, it may not be appropriate to have an automobile garage residential uses or in the same building. ring is important to mixed-use communities. It is difficult to esidential and commercial parking needs relate to one another hat the commercial needs will be. More specificity in ; is requested for our review. I would strongly recommend Ihe Crozet Commons proposal for uses and the Planning autes for guidance on compatibility of uses and cooperative lan, the following comments are offered: [Each comment is licable reference.] A new vicinity map which shows more major roads and a List the specific commercial uses proposed, the gross ~, and maximum height of all structures. your earliest convenience if you have questions or require }n. 47 PROJECT D E VEL OPiIII EN T LTIAT TED L. C. 2463 Browns &~p Turnpike, Cviil¢ VA 22901 (804) 823 - 1224 Fax 823 - 1720 ..... ?~!1 .p_~on~ (804) 242 - 3080 cmail "musxit~aoi.com" Transmittal To: Elaine Echols From: ,To Higgins P.E: Clover Lawn Village 5DP-01-016 2001 - Response for attachment to PC Package ATTACHlvIENT I GENERAL INFO: This request is to rezone 2 parcels totally 4.15 acres HC and 1 parcel of 2. 65 acres R'I to PD-MC- 6.8 acres with special use to allow residential Elaine Echois comme~L~ Department of Plannin,q & Community Development dated 413101; 1. The staff suggestion to create more of an "~rban" design was applied internally to Clover Lawn Lane, As you enter on Clover Lawn Lane, the West side has a sidewalk then 15ft wide planting strip with an additional wider sidewalk along the building. On the East side, there is an 18ft to 10ft wide planting strip with sidewalk which wraps around the building. The more rural character still applies to the RT 250 frontage. DUE TO THE SPEED LIMIT ON RT250, THERE IS A SAFETY CONCERN RELATED TO PROVIDING AN ADJACENT PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK/PATHWAYS Even if the required speed study is requested by the County~ it is not anticipated that the speed limit would be reduced significantly. A reduction from 55mph to 45mph is what may be expected. Based upon our meeting at VDOT (4/24101), you requested curb & gutter along RT250. The typical justification for curb & gutter is in cases where the ng ht of way is constrained and a narrower cross section is dictated. The urban section is narrower because shoulder and ditches are not necessary due to the drainage going underground in pipes and drop inlets. A second justification is when a drainage problem exists due to proximity of entrances (by deleting the East entrance, this goes away.) In this case, there is adequate right of way to provide an urban section and it will not create a drainage problem. In addition, there is no standard by the County or VDOT that dictates the urban section requirement. To construct curb & gutter and drainage structures~ to make a character change to this section of RT250 without widening is not supported by VDOT because of the speed on this road and putting curb in proximity to the travelway. Although it appears simple to add concrete curb & gutter for appearances, the drainage system necessary to collect water off the public road would be substantial. It is a waste of money if it has to be tom out later; The widening is a separate subject addressed below. As a matter of fact, the recent VDOT improvements along the front of Bellair subdivision are a good exam pie where the rural section design is used by VDOT for public projects WITHIN THE GROWTH AREA AND ACROSS THE ROAD FROM URBAN SECTION as Bellair Market and Piedmont Tractor where curb and gutter was constructed. The curb & gutter has not been maintained and the appearance is very poor along Piedmont Tractor due to the grass growing in the gutter pan, cracked concrete etc. The section along Bellair subdivision is very attractive, more easily maintained and at less expense to the public. Snow plows damage concrete curb over time and the broken concrete is not replaced. After RT250 is repaved several times, the gutters need to be raised or the aphalt milled down to tie into the gutter pans. Based u pon our meeting at VDOT(4/24/01 ), this plan has been revised to show the 12ff lane along the East portion of the Clover Lawn Village site as a compromise. The East entrance has been deleted as part of this compromise. In this meeting, Juan Wade indicated that there Is no plan for widening RT250 and that most recently the Bas was not supportive of a widening discussion. We are seekinq input from the Plannin,q .... Commission as to the character for this section of RT250. We are also seekinq Planninq Commission inout on the extension o f the 12ft lane to the West side of the entrance to the corner of the oarkinq lot.. Since the RT250 Scenic Committee does not want the widening nor the curb & gutter character, it is no[ the applicant's ntention to go against the committee's desire and do not want to be viewed negatively by County staff while making best effort to be responsive to the community input. 48 2. Your suggestion to move the from public right of way. Reg~ The residential units are imp¢ buildings are fairly close in eh (or even 45mph) is not favore these factors and in order to I is only_32_%_of_~the sP_a__c__es_ I_o_c. on three sides which is also a 3. The more rural appearance fl plan. Although the rural buffe preliminary plan is a ccmpron 4. Arranging the site features wi residential occupants, to get t commercial area. The reside if a resting spot for shoppers is a favorable concept, the co the edge of 'the development is less (than if located in the c walking path System and ben~ 5. There is a green strip betwee separation by an elevation dif The square footage of the rec screening trees per tandscapi Pedestrian Access The pathway system is aimed to [ between shops without having to ~ Interconnections The possible future interconnectid Site Grading There is an area with 2:1 slopes i: work with the adjacent property o~ Site Plan Two Comments: A revised vicinit3 sheet. Second comments, the cot Since a significant portion of this .~ appropriate, A revised proffer sh( With respect to the "gross resider less than R-6 The maximum height of 35ft is all~ Jeff Thomas comments ENGINI 1 AND 2 - The easements as me to work out the suggestions. 3. This will be done 4. A Staff requested the Easterr 4/24/01, we have removed th entrance to the East property 4. B Based upon our meeting ~ appear that the design is appl from an intersection of two pu East and parking area at the f to provide one inbound anc~ t~ definition to the internal traffic 4.C. Some parking islands have t 5. This will be clarified. ATTACHMENT I buildings closer to RT250 is in conflict with 18-21-7.1 which requIres 3ott setback ~rdless, it is not favorable to the residential component to be any closer to RT250. rtant and proximity,to RT250 may decrease the viability of this component. The ;vation to RT250 and if shifted closer to RT250 with vehicles traveling at 55mph ble to buildings of this scale. The proposed preliminary plan is a compromise of )reak up the impact of the parking lot, the parking spaces have been split. There ;ated between the buildings and RT 250. This supports the d_is_tdbution of parki_n~q~ n element in DISC. om RT250 with the internal urban feel is presented within the elements of this that the RT250 committee desires, has not been totally attained, the proposed rise. :h the recreational area to the Southwest was to optimize the use by the ~3e best view of the surrounding mountains, and to get a partial isolation from the ntial occupants should have a feeling of "ownership" more than would be attained similar to the central area of a mall. Although mixing residential with commercial rner location of the recreational area works with the SW basin area, buffers along ',add to the area by being in the ,c, omer),,,the elevations work for View, the grading enter) and it is still a significant .feature of the plan. This is to request that the ;h concept be allowed to substitute for the "tot lot" feature. 1 the parking area and residential units. It is 20ff wide. It als0 accomplishes the ;erence which is beneficial to the residential units being above the tops of cars. reational area has been maximized while this has been minimized. With ng requirements between uses, this area still accomplishes the purpose. ~rovide choices for residents and shoppers alike to take an evening walk or move Jrive around. n to the West is shown dashed on the revised plan. ehind the South Bldg and along the East edge. If possible, we may be able to vner to flatten the slope towards the East. map ~s provided. The North Arrow has been included on the left side of the nmerciat uses allowed under PD-MC include CO,C1, and HC are proposed. ,ite is already'zoned HC, the scale of the uses under CO and Cl seem ,et is attached to proffer out several of the by right uses. rial density", based upon 6.80 acre and 40 residential units the gross density is )wed and should be appropriate in this case. :.ERING DEPARTMENT dated 4/2/01: 3tioned will be addressed with final engineering details. We should also be able ~ right-in only entrance be removed. Based upon our meeting with VDOT ~ Eastern entrance as a compromise and added the 12ft lane from the Main iine (or to the extent possible without having to grade on the adjacent property) vith VDOT 4/24/01 and upon reviewing the standard being applied, it does not cable in this case since this entrance is outside the right of way and not set back :)ftc .roads. Regardless, the revised plan reflects changes to the entrance to the -ont to maximize the separation from RT250. The entrance has been redesigned 'o outbound (per VDOT's comment dated April 5, 2001 ) while giving better coming from the East side. ~een incorporated. Other comments relate to Final Si :e Plan. ...... -J~ S~:~iC~t'h-~i~'-~:'0mme-nl~S-d~t~';~l- 3~;15101 CG-12's provided for ADA access are shown. Jan Sprinkle comments with re.,~pect to proffers: dated 3123101 1. Final site plan will provide des ign of asphalt pathway and concrete sidewalk. The asphalt section is from the 2 49 ATTACHMENT I parking area through the Recreational area. Since the pathway system is shown on the plan, it will be constructed with specific phases of the overall development. (Grading will be done bUt specific building pads, curbing, parking areas may be phased - this is not decided as yet. It may need to be addressed on final site plan.) 2. Proffer from revised to not permit C1 - #3 Church & cemeteries, #9 - indoor theaters, #22- Auto, truck repair shop under HC g2 -Auto, truck repair shops, #5 Churchs & cemeteries, #38-Indoor theater janSprin k!~com..ments~ith~espectto-plan: 1. The revised Preliminary Plan notes the proposed PD-MC zoning on 1 of 2: The setbacks per section 21 have been shown with the exception of the 50ft building setback across the rear of the site that applies between commercial use and reSidential use. THE TWO BUILDINGS ALONG THE NORTH (REAR) ARE RESIDENTIAL USE, The special use required to allow residential in PD-MC has also been requested. Since the placement of residential use buildings within the PD-MC is adjacent to the residential use,the 50ft commercial setback has not been applied. Since PD-MC is a "mixed" zoning, the application of the 50ff setback under "Commercial Districts-Generally" for commercial to residential does not seem appropriate in this case. IF THIS IS A PROBLEM, WE NEED TO REEVALUATE THE ZONING LINES AND LOOK AT KEEPING A RESIDENTIAL AREA BETWEEN THE PD-MC AND EXISTING RESIDENTIAL. We are to provide screening trees between the residential and residential/commercial buildings internal to the site. The setbacks - Per Section 21 Commercial Districts - Generally -21.7.3 requires limits grading or clearing closer than 20 feet to any residential or rural areas district. This is to request an exception to allow grading closer than 20feet. The eXisting vegetation within the 20feet is grass. Since the PD-MC is proposed to include residential under special use, the PD-MC will include residential use. There is a 20ft setback shown to the Residential bud ng. This is 'to request that an exception be alloWed for grading. - With respect to the transportation analysis plan. it was discussed with Elaine atthe time of the preappiication that because the majority of the site was already zoned HC(4.15 of the 6.8 acres), that some very basic traffic analysis may suffice in this case. Information was submitted. Special Use permit has been requested. The revised plan shows the delineation of Recreational Use Area and square footage. The significant area shown with I~ench and pathway system is proposed in lieu of a "required" ' tot lot..If the residential owner(s) desire to add this later, the area shown can be used for this purpose. Since the concept is focused more on adults either single professionals and/or adults past the stage of young families, the need for a tot lot may not exist. Mar.qaret Maliszewski comments dated 3/30101 It is anticipated that the ARB certificate of appropriateness will be required. At this stage in the process, the preliminary package for ARB has not been compiled. Elaine was to advise if informal comment from ARB was possible based upon the submittal of Preliminary Plan with rezoning and special use applications. Marqaret Doherty comments dated 3130101 New vicinity map provided. See response to' Jan Sprinkle above #2. Gross residential density R6. Max. height 35ft. Bruce Crow comments dated 3112101 Fire flow available has been verified at 2580gpm ~,2.0psi based upon info from ACSA Either the building Type 3 will be necessary or fire separation to be provided to limit the area to 7,700sf per my discussion with Bruce back in August. Bruce confirmed that his comments areapplicabte to Final Site Plan approval. Based upon the proximity to ACSA flow test, the information should be adequate to confirm this is not an issue'with this rezoning. Patrick Powell comments dated 3109/01 All Road names added to revised plan ie Rockfish Gap Tnpk, Clover Lawn Lane, and Radford Lane If you have any questions, please advise. 3 50 Landscaping Sum~ry TM zS~= Per~g~41 RI TM .5~ Z~r~ RI +/- 25.17G ,.f. / / ! 1 on Dry P0r~l 20' Utiltty x ; t. osnrt. I Typ)~ 160' ~0' Uti 0' U?I I I aSrllt. ( T i , 160' CoJldo/ApClr~ment lB I dQ. i r'-i ;'0' IJ4tl I/fy I~a~mf. {Typ! I ; Bldg. j f let F;om-= 11 ~009 s.f.L xed Rep den+Iai ~ Coe~er~f~T ......... i ~20' Utl · ' B'SAI/ -- ~ Eo,smt'. (Tyj~) U.S. Rt. 250 Food L ~on S te (Not Included or off Deve l oder: great E. ast_ern. Managment ~/F Site p~an: B~ue Hiage HC Scale 1" = 30' B' Blue RLdge , ulldeFs bupp~y ATTACHMENT j 51 Albemarle County De~ SPIN Submissio ~lopment Departments and Comments ATTACHMENT K SDP-2001-016 Clover Lawn Village Preliminary Engineering reviewer Jeff Thomas Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan sub The Engineering Department satisfactorily addressed. 1. In our April 2, 2001 comm( with appropriate plantings an( provide additional landscapin! design, and install this type of 2. The proposed storm sewer Provide a note indicating that public use. The public use sE the outfall at the SWM basin. [18-32.7.4] 3. The Engineering Departme must reach resolution with VI; 4. Please clarify if the propos, proposed SWM basin) will at.~ corner of the parking area. [1; The following items must be A. An erosion control plan, ns B. A completed application ar C. A stormwater manageme~ and detention routings for the D. A completed stormwater n E. Drainage computations. [1 VDOT approval will also be n Critical Slope Waiver The critical slope waiver reqL site plan received on the sarr critical slope area of 0.12 acr slope area on the subject prc the Zoning Ordinance, the fol granted. 1. "movement of soil and roc~ Proper slope construction, c( 5/17101 09:16 AM prel. site plan 2 & cs waiver revision2 received reviewed decision 5/9/01 5/15/01 requested changes 3ittal for Clover Lawn Village received on May 9~ 2001 has been reviewed. ~/ill recommend approval when the following comments have been ~ts, we suggested that the proposed SWM basin double as a large biofilter pervious soils. This should meet the required pollutant removal and along the U.S. 250 frontage. The applicant has indicated a willingness to acility. The design details must be included with the final site plan. system along U.S. 250 receives some runoff from the state right-of-way. the drainage easement along the U.S. 250 frontage will be dedicated to ction runs from the point at which the storm sewer leaves the right-of-way to The basin must also be in a drainage easement dedicated to public use. nt supports VDOT comments in a letter dated May 11, 2001. The applicant ~OT regarding the concerns listed in this letter. ;d storm sewer structure on the west side of the site (northeast of the o function as an inlet. It appears that runoff will otherwise pond in this 3-32.7.4] ubmitted with the final site plan for review by the Engineering Department. rrative and computations. [18-32.7.4.3, 17-203] ~d fee for erosion control and stormwater management. [17-203, 17-303] t/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, 2yr and 10yr storms. [17-304] ~anagement facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [17-323] ~-32.7.4, Policy] quired for final site plans that affect right-of-way. est received on May 9, 2001 has been reviewed. Based on the preliminary e date, the site has a total area of 6.80 acres. This includes an approximate 9s, which is about 2% of the site. Approximately 83% (0.10 acres) of critical perty will be disturbed during construction. As stated in Section 18-4.2 of lowing concerns must be addressed before any critical slope waiver is ,ntrol of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT K Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comments Engineering prel. site plan 2 & cs waiver reviewer received reviewed decision Jeff Thomas 5/9/01 5/15/01 requested changes SDP-2001-016 Clover Lawn Village Preliminary revision 2 soil. The reconstructed slopes on the eastern edge of the site will be 2:1. The applicant has mentioned the possibility of obtaining a grading easement from the adjoining property owner to the east. This would allow for the currently proposed 2:1 slopes to be flattened.. We encourage the applicant to explore this option fully. 2. "excessive stormwater runoff" The applicant is proposing a dry detention pond on the southwest corner of the site as a BMP and stormwater detention facility. A stormwater management plan that meets the requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance must be submitted with the' final plans for approval. 3. "siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction that meets state erosion control standards. Proposed stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. 4. "loss of aesthetic resource" Some aesthetic loss is expected from tree removal. This site is located in the Route 250 entrance corridor. Landscaping must meet ARB requirements. 5. "septic effluent" This is not a concern, as this site wilt be served by public water and sewer. Based on the review above, the Engineering Department recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver with the condition that the 2:1 slopes be stabilized with Iow maintenance vegetative ground cover. The vegetative cover must be a variety selected from Table 3.37-C on page 111-391 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or an equal approved by the Engineering Department. 5117/01 09:16 AM Page 2 of 2 TO: Elaine Ech, FROM: Steven A_ A DATE: May 11, 20( RE: ZMA 99-11 I have mn two updated sce amendment. The first scen~ Per your instructions, I assr the year 2001. According t~ 3 SFD's on this site would 1~ that this number is different November 16, 1999. This I have entered since the ti~ · proposed development of 4{ feet of taxable office space. built entirely in the year 200 this development would be Over the course of the next denying the proposed devel necessarily mean that the C¢ development likely would ta particular zoning map ame~ account issues such as tm deciding whether or not to matter, please do not hesita~ SAA/s~ Attachments ALBEMAR MEMORANDUM ~, Senior Planner [lshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner 1 (Clover Lawn) aarios involving the property covered under this proposed zoning map 50 reflects the development that could take place under can'rent zoning. reed that 3 Single family detached residences (SFD's) would be built in the County's Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRIM) the development of ye a twenty, year cumulative net fiscal impact of negative $83,000. Note from the negative $73,000 figure mentioned in my memorandum dated 10,000 difference results from the updates to CRIM's assumptions that ~e that I wrote that memorandum. The second scenario involves the multifamily units, 11,000 square feet of retail space, and 11,000 square I assumed that the dwelling units and non-residential space would be [. According to CRIM, the twenty year cumulative net fiscal impact of ~egative $299,000. twenty years, in other words, the County would be $216,000 better off apment than accepting it. Note, however, that this statement does not unty should reject ZMA 99-11. The growth embodied by this proposed ~e place elsewhere in Albemarle, whether or not the County rejected this tdment. Note, also, that Albemarle County can and should take into asportation, environmental protection, and affordable housing while mCept zoning map amendments. If you have any questions about this :e to contact me at X3389. ATTACHMENT L 54 Budget Summary -- Current Zoning (Values in $O00's) REVENIIES PROP TAXES Year => I 2 2000 2001 2002 Average Costs 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Residential Real $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 Nonresidential Real $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Res Personal Prop $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Nonres Personal Prop $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other (Agricultural) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal: Property Taxes OTHER 1 Public Service Tax 2 Pers Prop Tax-Resid 3 Pers Prop Tax*Nonres 4 Mach& Tools Tax 5 Sales & Use Tax 6 Cons Util Tax-Resid 7 Cons Util Tax. Nonres 8 BPOL Taxes 9 Util Co Licenses 10 Motor Vehicle L~censes 11 Permits & Fees 12 Fines & Forfeitures 13 Charges for Services 1'4 State Aid 15 Categorical Aid. Federal 16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax 17 Delinquent RE/Pealties 18 State Aid to Schools 19 Meals Tax 20 ANNUAL REVENUES 21 SF Detached 22 SF Attached/TH 23 Multi/amity 24 Mobile Homes $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $7 Subtotal: Other Revenues $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REVENUES: $11 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 EXPENSES SCHOOLS Operating Costs $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 Staff Costs $t $t $I $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 CF Pay. As.You-Go $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CF Debt Service $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS $13 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 COUNTY GOVT. Operating Costs $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 Staff Costs $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 CF Pay. As. You-Go $3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CF Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL, COUNTY $6 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 ~2 ~2 TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS: $19 $14 $14 $14 $14 $1~-' $14 $14 $14 $14 ~L'T FISCAL IMPACT Annual Cumulative ($8) ($8) ($4) ($4~ ($4) , ($4) ($4) ($4'~ ($4~ ($4) ($12) ($16) ($20) ($24) ($27) ($31) ($35) ($39) CRIM ProprieI~- '~oftware 05/11/2001 ($4~ ~ ($43) / /' ~ M 05/11/200111,,._~/~ Page 1 --% Budget Summary .. Current Zonin (Values in $O00's) PROP TAXES Residential Real Nonresidential Real Res Personal Prop Nonres Personal Prop Other (Agricultural) Subtotal: Property Taxes OTHER I Public Service Tax 2 Pars Prop Tax. Resid 3 Pars Prop Tax. Nonres 4 Mach& Tools Tax 5 Sales & Use Tax 6 Cons Util Tax-Resid 7 C~nne Illil 8 BPOL Taxes 9 Util Co Licenses 10 MotorVehicle Licenses ! 1 Permits & Fees 12 Fines & Forfeitures 13 Charges for Services 14 State Aid 15 Categorical Aid - Federal 16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax 17 Delinquent RE/Peal(les 18 State Aid to Schools 19 Meals Tax 20 ANNUAL REVENUES 21 SF Detached 22 SF Attached/TH 23 Mu ttifamily 24 Mobile Homes Subtotal: Other Revenues TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REVENUES: EXPENSES SCHOOLS Operating Costs Staff Costs CF Pay, As. You. Go CF Debt Service SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS COUNTY GOVT. Operating Costs Staff Costs CF Pay-As-You-Go CF Debt Service SUBTOTAL, COUNTY TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS: NET FISCAL IMPACT 11 2011 Albemarle Co,VA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o Cumulative T°taI $71 $o $o $o $o $71 $1 $40 $o $o $o $7 $o $1 $3 $o $o $o $4 $o $1 $o $1 $o $o $o $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $137 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $208 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $120 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $I $1 $1 $1 $1 $21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $98 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $241 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $36 $1 $1 $I $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $12 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $3 $o $0 $o $o $o $o $o $0 $o $o $o $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 t ~51 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $292 Annual _ ($4) ($4) ($4) ($4) ($4) ($4) , ($4) ($4) ($4') ($4) Cumulative ($47) ($51) ($55) ($59) {$63) ' ($67) ($71) ' ($75) ($79) ($83) 2.WK4 CRIM Proprietary Software 05/11/2001 05/111200101:53 PM Pa~ ~.~ Budget Summary -- Proposed Development Year => 1 (Values in $O00's) 2000 2001 REVENUES PROP TAXES Residential Real $33 Nonresidential Real $10 Res Personal Prop $0 Nonres Personal Prop $0 Other (Agricultural) $0 Subtotal: Property Taxes OTHER Average Costs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 I Public Service Tax $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 2 Pers Prop Tax-Resid $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 3 Pers Prop Tax. Nonres $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 4 Mach & Tools Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5 Sales & Use Tax $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 6 Cons Util Tax. Resid $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 7 Cons Util Tax. Nonres $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 8 BPOL Taxes $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 9 Util Co Licenses $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 10 Motor Vehicle Licenses $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 1] Permits & Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Fines & Forfeitures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Charges for Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 14 State Aid $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 15 Categorical Aid. Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 17 Delinquent RE/Pealties $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 18 State Aid to Schools $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 19 Meals Tax $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 20 ANNUAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 21 SF Detached $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 22 SF ARa ched/TH $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Multifamily $4 $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 $142 $136 $136 $136 $136 $136 $136 $136 $136 $136 TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REVENUES: $185--$179 $179 $179 $179 $179 $179 $179 $179 $179 EXPENSES SCHOOLS Operating Costs $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 Staff Costs $47 $47 $47 $47 $47 $47 $47 $47 $47 $47 CF Pay. As. You-Go $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CF Debt Service $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $§0 $50 $50 $50 $50 SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS $159 $147 $147 $147 $147 $147 $147 $147 $147 $147 COUNTY GOVT. Operating Costs $37 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 Staff Costs $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 CF Pay. As.You-Go $52 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CF Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL, COUNTY $103 ~;44 _~ .~44 ~44 $44 $44 '~;44 $44 $44 TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS: $262- $1~ $191 $191 $191 $191 $191 $191 $191 $191 NET FISCAL IMPACT Annual Cumulative ($77) CRIM Proprie~'~- '~oftware 05/11/2001 05/11/20011~_5~PM Page Budget Summary -. Proposed Dev (Values in $O00's) REVENIlES PROP TAXES Residential Real Nonresidential Real Res Personal Prop Nonres Personal Prop Other (Agricultural) Subtotal: Property Taxes OTHER 1 Public service Tax 2 Pers Prop Tax,Resid 3 Pers Prop Tax. Nonres 4 Mach & Tools Tax 5 Sales & Use Tax 6 Cons Util Tax-Resid 7 f~nn~ Ilhl T~v.lqnnrm~ 8 BPOL Taxes 9 Util Co Licenses 10 Motor Vehicle Licenses 11 Permits & Fees 12 Fines & Fodeltures 13 Charges for Services 14 State Aid 15 Categorical Aid · Federal 16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax 17 Delinquent RE/Pealties 18 State Aid to Schools 19 Meals Tax 20 ANNUAL REVENUES 2] SF Detached 22 SF Attached/TH 23 Multifamily 24 Mobile Homes Subtotal: Other Revenues TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REVENUES: EXPENSES SCHOOLS Operating Costs Staff Costs CF Pay. As-You-Go CF Debt Service SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS COUNTY GOVT Operating Costs Staff Costs CF Pay,As-You. Go CF Debt Service SUBTOTAL, COUNTY TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS: NET FISCAL IMPACT Annual Cumulative D.WK4 11 12 2011 2012 $33 $33 $10 $10 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $43 $43 $1 $1 $26 $26 $13 $13 $o $o $26 $26 $6 $6 $i3 $~3 $1 $1 $2 $2 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $3 $3 $o $0 $1 $1 $3 $3 $30 $30 $5 $5 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o 13 14 2013 2014 $33 $33 $1o $1o $o $o $o $o $o $o $43 $43 $1 $1 $26 $26 $13 $13 $o $o $26 $26 $6 $6 $1 $1 $2 $2 $o $o $o $0 $o $o $3 $3 $0 $0 $1 $1 $3 $3 $30 $30 $5 $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $o $o $o $136 $136 $136 $136 $179 $179 $179 $179 $50 $50 $50 $50 $47 $47 $47 $47 $o $o $o $o $50 $50 $50 $50 $147 $147 $147 $147 $30 $30 $30 $30 $14 $14 $14 $14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 __~4__4 $44 __ $44 $44 $191 $191 $191 $191 _ ($1~1_ -----~i~4) ($205) -} Albemarle Co.,VA 15 16 17 18 19 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 20 2020 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $I0 $0 $0. $0 $0 '$0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $I $1 $1 $1 $1 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $26 $13 $0 $26 $6 $13 $1 $2 $0 $0 $0 $3 $0 $1 $3 $30 $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $136 $136 $136 $136 $136 $136 Cumuh tive Tobl $662 $t92 $0 $0 $0 $854 $15 $529 $262 $0 $513 $252 $16 $43 $2 $7 $5 $59 $5 $16 $54 $595 $109 $0 $1 $0 $4 $0 t2,734 $179 $179 $179 $179 $179 $179 $3,588 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $999 $47 $47 $47 $47 $47 $47 $938 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12 $50 $50 $5o $50 $50 $50 ~1,007 $147 $147 $!47 $147 $147 $147 $2,956 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 15606 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 j $272 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52 $o $o $o $o $o $o ) $o $44 ...$44 $44 $44 $44 $44 j $931 $191 $191 $191 $191 $191 $191 ~3,a86 ($12) ($12) ($12) ($12) ($12) ($12) ~$2~9) ($240) ($252~'' ($264) ($275) ($287) ($299) ' 05/11/200101:58 PM ($21~___ ($12) ($2i'~y'---- ($229) CRIM Proprietary Software 05/11/2001 Page ATTACHMENT M CHARLES NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ V/R( /NIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 JAMES I- BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER May ll,2001 Route 250W, Clover Lawn Village ZMA-99-11, SP-01-006, SDP-01-18 Ms. Elaine Echols Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Echols: Many items discussed at our recent meeting (4/25/01) and included in our previous comments (letters dated 3/28/01 and 4/5/01) have not been adequately addressed. We offer the following comments: · With this site and the Blue Ridge commercial area being added to the existing Blue Ridge Building Supply, this section of Route 250W will not be rural in character as far as traffic is concerned. Based on ITE Trip Generation rates, there will be about 8,500 vpd at these three commercial sites, and these are all turning movements to / from Route 250W. The commercial sites along the other side of 250W will have full frontage improvements with curb and gutter. As this site is also highway commercial, ~ve feel that this applicant should construct full frontage improvements along Route 250W as well, with 12' lane plus curb and gutter. However. if requested by the County. and applicant, we will agree to these frontage improvements from the easternmost point of their property to the western end of their parking area. For safety reasons, we do not want curb and gutter installed along Route 250W without the additional right turn lane. · Frontage improvements must be 12' lane plus curb and gutter, not 10' lane plus curb and gutter as shown on plan. · Frontage improvements at eastern property line require relocation of existing guardrail. · Site plan should include ROW lines, existing and proposed roadway draping, dimensions for mane widths, radii, etc. · Applicant must stripe Route 250W for left turn only at main entrance. · Applicant must install traffic signal at site entrance when warranted and requested by VDOT. We recommend the applicant construct internal access to adjacR E~t~~ County's designated growth area. GO,~¢UNiTY DEx/ECOP~AEi~II TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY 59 ATTACHMENT M Ms. Elaine Echols Route 250W, Clover L-'.wn Village ZMA-99-11, SP-01-006 SDP-01-18 · We recommend Ridge Commerc Radford Lane f( along Radford L Page 2 ay-n 2oo ............ If you have any question cc: J.H. Kesterson Ihe alignment of Radford Lane and the future entrance to proposed Blue iai Area. This site plan does not appear to accommodate future use of ~r nearby parcels. We recommend reservation of 25' from centerline me, with setbacks from this point rather than from centerline. or concerns, please advise before releasing to the applicant2 Regards .... R:P. Ball Transportation Planner 6O COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢lntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 May 24, 2001 Jo Higgins 2463 Brown's Gap Turnpike Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA-99-11 Clover Lawn Village (Preston Stallings); SP-2001-006 Clover Lawn Village (Preston Stallings) and SDP:2001-016 Clover Lawn Village Dear Ms. Higgins: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22, 2001, accepted without prejudice, your request for deferral of the above-noted items. Therefore, this item has been resc heduleci as follows: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 24, 2001 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -AUGUST 8, 2001 If you have any questions, please cio not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elaine Echols Principal Planner EEljcf Cc: Ella Carey William W. Finley White Hall District Albemarle County Pk 5281 Free Union Roa, Free Union, VA 2294 RE: Misalignment ~ with P~dford I Dear Mr. Finley: When the Planning C~ 99-011, SP 01-006, an development on this si aligning the entrance ~ Food Lion complex--, Route 250 from the BI Ridge site and the Clo As the property owner entrance road shown o of Radford Lane. Mr. This misalignment cr, (1) Radford Lax which have legal road are in Albemarle Coun except for the Masonic recommending a housi with representatives fr~ Transportation (VDO~I without the alignment development of proper safety reasons. As wel negatively impacts ord, Mr. Stallings's represe] buy access for develop~ is proposing at the Clo' May l7, 2001 nning Commission ,f entrance road to approved Blue Ridge HC site on Route 250 ane ,remission reviews the Clover Lawn Village proposals (ZMA d SDP 01-016), we ask that the Commission make any te, now or in the future, contingent on Preston Stallings oad to the Blue Ridge HC site---the proposed location of the arith Radford Lane, an existing road situated directly across ue Ridge site. Mr. Stallings is the owner of both the Blue ver Lawn Village site, which adjoins Radford Lane. on Radford Lane, we were dismayed to find that the n the Blue Ridge HC site plan is approximately 60 feet west Stallings is responsible for this tn[s-alignment. ,tes several problems. .e is the only access to our properties (50+ acres), all of easements and maintenance agreements. These properties ty's designated growth area, and are currently zoned R1, Lodge, which is zoned commemial. The county is ag density of R3 to R6 for this area. Some of us have met ~m Albemarle County and the Virginia Department of in an effort to resolve the road problem and were told that )f the Blue Ridge entrance road and Radford Lane, future .~es served by Radford Lane would not be approved for las having a negative effect on our property value, this ,~rly growth within the growth area. To add insult to injury, ~tative suggested that the adjoining property owners could nent from Ivlr. Stallings if the controversial development he ~er Lawn site is approved. RADFORD LANE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION~2 (2) Safety! Even without further development, the misali~ment of roads is a safety issue for the residents of Radford Lane. Since Radford Lane, a legal easement, is the only access to Route 250 for most of its residents, this misalignment exposes the residents and users of Radford Lane to greater ris~ffc[- increases the probabili~, of accidents. In the recent past at least two accidents have occurred directly in front of the site. Development is occurring at a rapid rate in this area. Using the number of parking spaces as an indicator of future traffic, the combined parking spaces for the Blue Ridge Food Lion site (350) and the proposed Clover Lawn Village site (265) equal the total parking spaces in downtown Crozet. (3) Both Albemarle County officials and VDOT have indicated that if Radford Lane and the Blue Ridge entrance road were aligned, that intersection would be a logical point for a traffic fight at some point, for safety reasons and to insure an orderly flow of traffic. It is unfortunate that the site plan with misaligned roads was approved. The problem originated when Mr. Stallings and Great Eastern Management submitted a site plan to Albemarle County and VDOT that did not show Radford Lane--a road that has been in existence for over fifty years. Both Albemarle County officials and VDOT have stated that the misalignment was an "oversight," which should be remedied, but which they are unable to correct without the cooperation of Great Eastern Management and Mr. Stallings, since the prior approval is legally binding. When the situation was brought to their attention, however, the county planning and engineering deparnnents did take the initiative to work with Great Eastern Management to facilitate the re-engineering of the site plan, but without success. R would seem that the only means left to correct this distressing and dangerous situation is to require that the approval of Clover Lawn Village site be contingent on alignment of the roads. Mr. Stallings and Great Eastern Management have been aware of this problem since late 199% if not before. When we asked Mr. Stallings to addi'ess it, he responded that "due to expense and problem with County approval, the site plan will not be amended" [Stallings's notes, prepared for meeting with Radford Lane Property Owners Association representative]. Mr. Stallings is the only one who benefits from the mistaken road alignment. As the owner of both sites, and since he submitted an inaccurate plan for approval, he should be held responsible for correcting the error. RADFO~ LANE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION cc: Albemarle County Planning Commission members Albemarle County Board of Supervisors members i~kDFORD LANE PROPERTY )WN ~.RS ASSOCIATION--3 Sincerely, Frederick S. Middleton HI Secretary, Scenic 250 CC: Elaine Echols Jo Higgins Albemarle County Plann Dear Planning Commissi, ~g Commission m Members: Thomas J. 3680 Coy- '"v Lane Clmrlor~,~ Ac,Va. 22903 May 19, 200I ~a~o~i~ .g~..,.wth .ar~ I Sl~cifi .c~..y my concern w~re relar, ed to the absence or' nag raemue, mm w~uld re,nit m increa.~ uaft~c on 250W_ t~cc ~ rccommcrlapuons ~o/tee~p 230W aS a olle lane scenic road t no bnild and flae fact. ,t~at..there a~..still no shol~..mg or work alternatives to Charlottesville, I would like ?u ~.o co.m. me~r_~me folio, ms as you dise,,-, and vote on ZMA-99.11 Clover Zawn Villak~ on lay lVlay z2--. T In the past year bypass and Bmomley Rr Inn and 1 at Broomley commut~ complntn with i and frustration_ The passJ rendered useless in passm subdivision being built on necessitate anoth~ mffi:ic that use Owensville Rd. re The addition m ~ will create will result in e~ In dec/ding please 1. Rt. 250W is a ~ reflected in the Board of! 2. As creatures oJ current and future reside. going w/b on 250W to I6' 3. The teclmology ~ stopping of the east andy when traffic is stopped an, result of this is aggressiv, tailgating to get through th additional traffic lights have been inmalled on 250W between the ut: 1 at Bellair, 1 at the exit ramp of the bypass, I at the Boar~' Head d. This has eh-nged the leisurely drive from Crozet into a bom fide nemased decision making, stop and go traffic, womening gas mileage ng lane at the bo.ttom of th~ hill just west of Broomley Rd. h~. been g slow macks during the mami~ commute. And I now notice ahother the "S' curve on Rt. 240 coming down the hill out of Croze~ Will this light? How soon b~fom the residents of West Leigh and the residents qu~ there own traffic lights? ; idential dwellings that approval of the Clover Lawn special use Permit 'on more traffic on Rt. 250W. keep in mhad the following facts: ne-lane mad and will rema~ so due to thc wishes of local residents as upervisors decision. habit commuters will take the most direct route to work: this haeans xs oftl~ Crozet and Ivy area will continue to use 250W and!avoid )f the current traffic detection devices in place to alleviate mmecessarv ,est flow of traffic 'is not perfected yet. There are countless oecasior;s no cars are mining out of the traffic light controlled side mad& One drivers over utilizing thc few reminiag passing lane~. Another is green / yellow light. [I efforts to cominue to designate Crozet as a growth area until .:viable 50W are in ptaee and deny the special use application ZMA-99-11. Please reconsider a alternatives to driving on 2 R._espect~ly, Thomas J. O'oodrit 804-979-4764 Scenic 250 Scott l'eyton, President PO Box 5 Greenwood, VA 22943 804/456-6400 (tel) 804/456.8600 (fax) May 22, 2001 Albemarle Planing Commission County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Clover Lawn Village Development Proposal Dear Commission Members: We submit the following comments with regard to the CloverLawn Village rezoning and special use permit proposals. We request a deferral of this proposal at this time, or, in the alternative, that approval of the project as currently submitted be denied. It is the desire of Scenic 250 to work constructively with the owner and the planning staff to create the best'possible use and design of these parcels. In the past few weeks, the planning staff and the owner haVe shared information with Scenic 250. However, we have not had adequate time to understand and respond to the proposal, nor to provide meaningful input for improvements. In addition, we view this proposal as the first in a cluster of proposals that will have a major impact on futUre Planning and development in the Crozet growth area, in the town of Crozet proper, and in the 250 corridor. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to proceed with all deliberate care and with a view towards overall goals for the Crozet community and Route 250. Pending further information and review, we offer the following overview principles and specific comments which we hope will be helpful in the Commission's deliberations. Overview Principles Wc strongly ' the downtown as a encouraging all new c Limit commercial deve downtown commercial shopping center locate~ Contrary to initial staff as a potential "neighbo: either in density .or des] directly contrary to the have a negative impact corridor. We favor the DISC apl; community and growth downtown Crozet propt Lawn Village, which at of the overall DISC coz inappropriate immediat The proposed Clover L adjacent proposals, spel Montclair proposal, wh commercial zoning on ~ commercial usage on th possible, to be small~sc~ favor maximum setbac~ Residential devetopmer developments, and all c activity. Specific Comments · The proposed developr for 40 housing units anC · There is a need to pin dc opposed to retail compl{ .~ping area and the focal point of the Crozet community by mmercial uses to locate in the downtown as opposed to Route 250. lopment on Route 250 to existing commercial land only. Unless such element is encouraged pressure will increase for a suburban-type t outside of the community." recommendations, we do not think that this parcel should be viewed · hood activity center," nor should it be considered an "urban zone," gu. Viewing this as a potential neighborhood activity center is or,arching goal of strengthening downtown Crozet. It also would on Route 250 traffic, and ultimately the character of the Route 250 roach for the Crozet growth area as a whole, but the focal point of the area and the higher density zones should principally be focused on ,~r. We view small-scale developments such as the proposed Clover tempt to incorporate DISC principles on a few acres, as a perversion .cept. We especially view these DISC-like clusters as being ,qy adjacent to Route 250. ~wn development must be viewed in light of other nearby and :ifically the so-called Food Lion proposal, Cory Farm, and the new ch in the latest version that we have reviewed, calls'for even more '.50 frontage. We are strongly opposed to any expansion in total e 250 corridor. As a general rule, we prefer commercial uses, where tie uses consistent with highway commercial on a rural highway. We :s and maximum buffers. t on the property should be interconnected to adjacent roadways and )nnected to downtown Crozet as the focal point of commercial ent proposes entirely too much in too small of a space with a request 22,000 square feet of commercial uses. ~wn the nature of proposed commercial uses. We are generally :xes/shopping centers or "shopping villages" on Route 250. · As-currently planned, it appears that the proposed apartments will be too tall and highly visible from the 250 corridor, and completely out of character with surrounding areas. ~ Response to staff questions In its report, the staff has sought input on nine issues. At this time, we offer the following response to some of the issues raised: o Should a rural or urban streetscape be provided along Route 250? We do not think this area is appropriate for an "urban" streetscape. Portions of this zone are currently rural, portions are currently more suburban in nature, and portions are currently zoned commercial. We do not yet have a f'rrm recommendation for design of the streetscape in this zone other than to say that urban is inappropriate. Should the buildings be brought closer to Route 250? No. Generally, we favor lower buildings set back as far as possible from the roadway with significant buffers. Should a maximum residential density be allowed along with 22,000 square feet of commercial use? Clearly not. Should the access easement along Radford Lane be reserved for dedication? Yes. Should greater specificity be provided for commercial uses? Yes. Should more commercial uses be proffered out? Yes. Should building perspective drawings or elevations be proffered or referenced in the proffers? Yes. CC: Sincerely, Frederick S. Middleton HI · Secretary, Scenic 250 Elaine Echols Jo Higgins William W. Finley White Hall District Albemarle County Planning Commission 5281 ~ r e e- e U-~-n-R~-a-d ' Free Union, VA 22940 ZMA 99-011, Clover Lawn PD-MC SP 01-006, Residential Uses at Clover Lawn Village PD-MC SDP 01-016, Clover Lawn Village Site Plan Dear Mr. Finley: We are writing to express our opposition to the Clover Lawn Village rezoning and special use permit proposals. We ask that these proposals be rejected. In the event the Planning Commission does not concur with us, we would like to request substantial changes to the site plan. Preston Stallings, by attempting to place forty apartment units and perhaps ten to fourteen shops on a 6.8-acre parcel is trying to do too much in too small a space. The location he chose for this village is wrong, and his proposals are contrary to the requirements of the Albemarle County Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Neighborhood Model. Additionally, this development will have a negative effect on the town of Crozet, the existing neighborhood, the scenic value of Route 250, and the commuters and schoolchildren who use Route 250 on a re~oxdar basis. Specifically: (1) Location. According to the comprehensive plan, all new commercial uses should be located in downtown Crozet rather than on Route 250. Furthermore, Mr. Stallings states in Attachment A to ZMA 99-011 that his proposal "provides for residential condo/apartments that are not currently available in the Crozet Community." Please note: (a) The location chosen to fulfill this need is not in the Crozet community. It is not even a zip code serviced by the Crozet post office. It is a rural community. (b) Western Albemarle High School and the Henley and Brownsville schools are as close to downtown Crozet as they are to his proposed site. The Crozet and Crossroads schools are more easily reached from Crozet (c) Crozet is the established population, retail, and business center. Both job opportunities and shopping needs are more readily available from central Crozet. (d) There are areas in Crozet that can and should be redeveloped for affordable housing: (2) Not in compliance with Albemarle County Code. Section 32.1 of the code states that it is the developer's responsibility to "ensure that land is used in a manner which is efficient, harmonious with neighboring property and in accordance with the comprehensive plan and with the provisions of this chapter." Mr. Stallings's proposal meets none of these requirements. It is neither efficient (see point 1, above), harmonious with neighboring property (which consists of rural, single-family homes on 2-30 acres), nor in accordance with the comprehensive plan. For example, as :Jan Sprinkle poims out in her comments dated 3/23/01, "the setbacks shown on the plan are incorrect for the proposal." Ms. Sprinkle cites sections 25A. 6 and 21 of the Albemarle County Cx~de, which require a mmimttm 50' building setback for all structures and at least a 20' NEIGHBORS AGAINST CLOV undisturbed buffer from an, proposal allows for only a 2 allow grading closer than 2( -preserve-the~ppe~rance,-ch setbacks and proposed land our scenic natural resource~ Mr. Stallings's proposal no, development would impact rejected by the Planning Co: to what type of developme~ neighborhood (see point 3, a "massive urban barracks." nor the traffic study submitt (3) Not in complia~ Neighborhood Model is tha' "blend into the neighborhoe concentrated in one place" an affordable-housing-only ~ development of adjoining p~ Who would want to build a is no designated neighborho through a parking lot to a r( site; (d) the pedestrian orier "a true test of walkability is being driven (p. 11); (e) ther affordable housing enclave off to the side and not integ~ (4) Redevelopment is "a redevelopment of a gm demolished the gas station a fourteen stores as well as a: redevelopment of existing c~ in Crozet proper where ther (5) Traffic. The crc busy highway even busier. coincides with the traffic to Route 250 is at present. As of the Albemarle County Cc application. The traffic stud requirement. It is a generic does not take into account t amount of other developme~ been several accidents in fro more traffic lights? The adc robs the regular commuters [R L~ ~¢/N VILLAGE~2 residential or rural areas for PD-MC zoning. Mr. Stallings's 0' setback, and even for that setback he asks for an exception to }'. Section 32.7.9 of the code requires that landscaping "protect and Ut ILII~ n=,~t,bormgproperttes~.---~he~nummum ~caping are not sufficient to protect the neighboring properties and and should be expanded significantly (see point 6, below). Neither the Planning Department staff comments even address how the existing homeowners. Even atter Mr. Stallings's first proposal was xhmission in 1999, he has not consulted with area property owners as t would be acceptable. New development should blend into the below). Mr. Stallings's proposed development has been described as Ms. Sprinkle also notes that neither the recreation area proposed ed is in compliance with the code. ce with the Neighborhood Model. One of the principles of the :affordable housing should not be created in"enclaves" but should-- d and.., be scattered throughout the neighborhood rather than p. 21). In violation of this principle, Mr. Stallings is clearly creating mclave. Worse yet, in our opinion he is dictating that any operties be in the form of additional affordable housing enclaves. $300,000 house next to an apartment building? In addition: (a) there od center; (b) the proffered interconnection to Radford Lane is ,ad that does not align with the entrance to Mr. Stallings's Food Lion ration claimed is questionable---to quote the Neighborhood Model, When children can safely walk or to schools or activities rather than are no active recreation areas, as would be appropriate for an ~f young tenants; and (f) the open space indicated is a steep area set 'al to Mr. Stallings's proposed neighborhood. In Attachmem E to ZMA 99-011, Mr. Stallings claims that his plan station and basket shop.'? This is clearly nOt the case. He has nd .basket shop and proposes a new retail complex of perhaps ten to 'orty-apartment housing complex. The Neighborhood Model stresses )mmercial buildings (p. 102). Clearly, the need for redevelopmem is ~ are currentlY empty stores. ation of additional stores and apartments on Route 250 will make a )ne only needs to try to enter Route 250 when normal rush hour or'from the Western Albemarle schools to understand how busy Ms. Sprinkle points out in her comments of 3/23/01, section 25A. 6 de requires a transportation analysis plan to be submitted with the y submitted with this application does not comply with the estimate of the traffic generated by forty residential units only and ne addition often to fourteen shops and the fact that a significant it has occurred and been proposed in the immediate area. There have nt of the proposed develoPment in the recent past. What's next-- ition oftraxffic-lights or even unnecessarily reducing speed limits and schoolchildren who use this road of something important--lime. NEIGHBORS AGAINST CLOVER L,,-~WN Vt[ J.AGE~3 (6) Negative impact on the county's scenic resources and existing neighborhood. As can be seen from a contour map, the Clover Lawn property elevates from Route 250 toward the -northr-The~aree~lx~fapartmentbufldings m ~ ls~u ~,,~ m~ m~,~ l~u-~ of the property~ will be clearly visible from Koute 250 and in our opir, ion will stick out like a sore thumb. The apartment buildings placed at this point will also block the view and detract from the value and character of neighboring properties. Clearly, these are compelling reasons to reject the requested zoning and special use permits.' Should the Commission approve the plan, however, we--as the taxpayers most affected by Mr. Stallings'S proposal--request that the following items be incorporated in the site plan: (1) Scale back the height of the apartment buildings to minimize their visual impact on the neighborhood and scenic Route 250. (2) Increase the minimum setbacks to protect the appearance, character, and value of the neighboring properties. (3) Move items such as dumpsters to locations internal to the site rather than next to Radford Lane and utilize path lighting rather than "security lights." (4) We support the view of the Scenic 250 Committee that a rural buffer be created to separate Clover Lawn Village from Route 250. (5) Part of the Planning Department staff's recommendation is to "place the parking behind the buildings." To be very clear, we feel strongly that all parking should be kept in front of the apartment buildings and not to the rear or to the side. Placing the parking in the manner indicated by the site plan is clearly disruptive to the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties. It exposes us to the noise, light, and potential problems that could be caused by a transient community. This alone will have a negative effect on the property values of all parcels that adjoin Clc~ver Lawn Village. Who would want a house with a parking lot in the front yard? Mr. Stallings is trying to accomplish too much in a 6.8-acre space. His proposals are contrary to Albemarle County zoning regulations and detrimental to the Crozet community, the existing immediate neighbors, and the people who use Route 250 to commute to school and work. We appeal to the commissioners to reject them. NEIGHBORS AGAINST CLOVER LAWN VILLAGE cc: Planning Commission members Board of Supervisors members 'EIGimlORS AGAINST CLOVER LAWN VILLAGE ADDRESS NEIO~dORS AGAINST CLOVER LAWN VILLAGE NAME ADDRESS December 5, 2001 Larry J. McElwain 1425 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP-2001-039 Cliftor Dear Mr. McEIwa~n: The Albemarle County Plan unanimously recommendec Please note that this appro~ 1. Approval is limited to a ! plus 14 guest rooms. At any special events on ti- 2. Hours of restaurant ope to 11 p.m. Please be advised that the J receive public comment at ti information regarding your ~ Supervisors at least seven If you should have any ques hesitate to contact me. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE :partment of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 Inn, Tax Map 79, Parcel 23B ning Commission, at its meeting on November 27, 2001, approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. 'al is subject to the following conditions: i2-seat restaurant with full dinner hours available (no limited seating) no time shall the aggregate of guests of the Inn, the restaurant, and e premises exceed 80. · ation for the pubic other than guests of the inn shall be from 6 p.m. klbemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and ~eir meeting on December 12, 2001. Any new or additional pplication must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of lays prior to your scheduled hearing date. tions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not Since.Cely, ,4 ×? I ~cott CI ark Planner sc/jcl Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey 12-07-0 Amelia McCulley Steve AIIsh ouse A10:04 tN STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMI BOARD OF SUPERVi SP 01-039 CLIFTON 1 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The applicant wishes to amend restaurant (all evening diners serv restaurant to 52 seats with mulfipl capacities. LOCATION AND DESCRIPT1 The property, described as Tax M District on Route 729 approximat an early-19th century plantation h~ HISTORY August 5, 1987: The Bo~ restaurant ~ April 3, 1990: The Plar~ with a 50-seat restaurant [] November 25, 199t: The a 14-room inn, a 24-seat like." (see Attachment C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property is zoned RA Rural RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of SP STAFF COMMENT (Special U Staff will address each provision The Board of Supervisors hereby Special use permitsfor uses as pr that such use wilt not be of substa Activity for this use will currently permitted use. that the character of the district This amendment would change the character of t maintenance of the histo and that such use will be in harm~ ,SION: [SORS: NN Scott Clark November 27, 2001 December 12, 2001 9t-058, which allows for a 14-room bed and breakfast and a 24-seat single-seating :d at one time), with occasional larger events. The amendment would increase the seatings, and would remove the approval for any special events in excess of current ON OF PROPERTY ap 79 Parcel 23B, contains 7.8 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial fly 0.25 miles from its intersection with US 250. The main structure on the property is ruse, and is a state registered historic landmark. rd of Supervisors approved SP 87-49, which allowed for a 7-room inn and a 50-seat ing Commission recommended approval of SP 89-83, a request for a 12-room inn This request was withdrawn prior to review by the Board of Supervisors. Board of Supervisors approved SP 91-58, an amendment to SP 87-49 that allowed for restaurant, and "occasional luncheons, wedding receptions, cocktail parties, and the ~reas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. 01-039 with conditions. De Permit) >f Section 31.2'.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: ,eserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. >vided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervtsors ntial detriment to adjacent property, be concentrated at the center of the parcel, and will not differ significantly from the rill not be changed thereby, LIIow changes that are internal to the structure of the Inn, and would not significantly ae area. Use of the building as an inn and restaurant provides income that supports 'lc structure. my with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, This use is not expected to negatively impact the community benefits that are the purpose of the ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Use of this historic property maintains the character of the area and is not expected to conflict with by-right uses. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 for this use. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The proposed use is not expected to have significant traffic impacts. The change from 24 to 52 seats would increase the number of trips (see table below); however, the site still has the appropriate facilities for its level of use. The Virginia Department of Transportation will not require any changes to the existing commercial entrance. The following traffic-count estimates (in trips per day, each visit being two trips--one in, one out) are taken from data supplied by Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner. These estimates are based on ITE standards, and are not specific to the Clifton Inn site. The figures are meant to indicate only an estimated increase of traffic to and from the site. Average Trips Per Day (predicted) 24 Seats I 52Seats Weekday 68.64 148.72 Saturday ': 67.44 t46.12 Sunday 51.6 111.8 The zoning department has determined that the Inn has sufficient parking (33 spaces) for the proposed use. (Parking standards are based on area of the restaurant and assume multiple seatings; therefore the change from single seating to multiple seatings is no! significant.) As no physical changes are taking place on the site, the Engineering Department has found that no improvements or mitigation measures are necessary. The Health Department has found that the recently-expanded septic system has sufficient capacity for the proposed increase in seating. (The approval for the drainfield that serves the restaurant assumes 6 bed-and- breakfast rooms, not 14; the other 8 rooms are on a separate system that is sufficient to support them.) SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request: 1. The inn's existing facilities are sufficient to support the increased restaurant seating, and the requested changes are expected to have no significant tmpacts on the surrounding area. 2. The applicant is giving up permission for occasional events that might have had higher levels of traffic and parking ~mpacts than normal daily use, Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request: 1. The request might increase overall use because of the availability of multiple seatings. However, multiple seatings can spread the traffic impacts out more evenly. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Planning Department recommends approval of SP 01-039 with the following conditions, which are adapted as requested from those applied to SP 91-58: 1. Approval is limited to a 52-s At no time shall the aggregat, 2. Hours of operation for there., ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Tax Map C. Report and approval letter fo~ at restaurant with full dinner hoUrs available (no limited seatirig) plus t4 guest rooms. ~ of guests of the Inn, the restaurant, and any special events on the premises exceed 80. taurant shall be from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. SP 91-58 couNTY OF' ALBEMARLE Dept. oi planning & Communit.v Development 401 MctnUre Road Charlottesville, lTirginia 22901-4596 (804} 296-5823 ATTACHMENT C November 25, 1991 clifton Inn ATTN: steven H. Boehmfeldt Route 13, Box 26 charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP-91-58 clifton dt: ~r Mr Boehmfel ~ ~ts meeting on ~ . ' . . _ _~~ su~ervisors~~_ ~-~t to amend - ~~rle county Boar~ ~ ~hove-noted requ~_~ ~ ~4-seat The A~ ....... .~ =~rove~ ~= ~-- ~ =-~=~fast aha ~ ~ ~ovember 20, ±~~-room bed ana ~ .... the east -~p-87-49 to permlL ~ ~= .zoned RA. Property on 250. restaurant on 10.1 acres .side of Route 729 approximately 0.4 mile south' of Route Tax Map 79, parcels 23B and 23C. please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is limited to 14 rooms for overnight travellers 5nd .a 24 seat restaurant- Except for lodging guests and occasional luncheons, wedding receptions, cocktail parties and the like, restsurant usage is limited to not more than twenty-four (24) diners per evening, and such 24 diners shall be seated during those hours set forth in condition ~3; 2. Building and Fire official approval; 3. Hours of operation for the restaurant shall be from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m., except for occasional activities outlined in condition ~1; 4. Health Department approval; Clifton November Page 2 5. Compl~ sight ~n 5, 1991 :ion distance; VWC/mem cc: Country Amelia ~ Jo Higgi] ~0~Ou S~ou~d have . ye noted/action, an~ questions or comm~ PLease d ....... ents Sincerely, ! . ~ not hesitate to ~la~& Community Development of entrance improvements to obtain necessary regarding the COntact me. Inc. Inns EXtraordinaire, ~tterson STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ NOVEMBER 7, 1991 NOVEMBER 13, 1991 SP-91-58 Clifton Petition: Clifton, The Country Inn petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend SP-87-49 in order to permit a 14 room bed and breakfast and a 24 seat restaurant [10.2.2(27)] on 10.1 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas . Property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcels 23B and 23C, is located on the east side of Route 729 approximately 0.4 miles south of Route 250. in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area IV). Character of the Area: The property is currently developed with several structures. The main dwelling known as Clifton is a early 19th century plantation house. The building is a state registered historic landmark. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to amend SP-87-49 which permitted a seven room bed and breakfast with a 50 seat restaurant. The applicant's current proposal is for a 14 room bed and breakfast with a 24 seat restaurant. The restaurant would be limited to a single seating per day and 2 rooms are anticipated to be used by the staff of the Inn. The rooms would be distributed in various existing buildings on the property as follows: 6 rooms in the main house, two rooms in the cottage, 3 rooms in the carriage house and 3 rooms in the stables. The location of the structures and improvements to the property are shown in Attachment 'C. The notations regarding the number of rooms in each structure, as noted on attachment C, are no longer valid. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of SP-91-58 subject to conditions. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: August 5, 1987 - The Board of Supervisors approved SP-87-49 to .allow for a 7 room Inn with a 50 seat restaurant. April 3, 1990 - of SP-89-83, a ] restaurant. Th~ the Board of Su COMPR~SIVE ~ This site is lo( Plan. Clifton Shadwell Estate Jefferson. The The conversion compatible in ct historic preser~ -commercial use surrounding the growth area (0.~ 1.0 mile east ti that this propo~ the Rural Areas STAFF COMMENT: Staff has calcu. approximately 7] based on the 4ti available for B~ a business hotel hotel most clos~ traffic generat~ rooms and a 50 trips per week request represer The applicant's volume of activJ the seating cap~ that the restau] night schedule. of the restaura] During the appr¢ site plan appro~ submitted or ap~ relocating the Department of Tz the Health Depaz needed. Those in the near fut~ structures are The Planning commissi°h~ recommended approval ~equest for a 12 room Ihn with a 50 seat .s request was withdrawn prior to review by )ervisors. :ated in Rural Area IV of the Comprehensive ~as part of Peter Jefferson's original which was in turn, deeded to Thomas site is on the Virginia Landmark Register. ~f historic buildings to commercial uses [aracter should be considered a method of ,a~ion. Due to the site's existing ~s~an~ Inn, an extensive-wooded a~ea lot, and the lot's close proximity to a miles west of the Village of Rivanna and ~e Urban Area). It is the opinion of staff ;al would not have a detrimental impact on of the County. .ated that this use will generate ~2 vehicle trips per week. This figure is ~ ~ edition of the I.T.E. manual, using figures .siness Hotel. While the proposed use is no~ ., the I.T.E. manual definition for business ~ly fits the applicant's use. An analysis of .on under the currently permitted use (7 ~eat restaurant) indicates that 861 vehicle :ogld be generated. Therefore, the proposed .ts a traffic reduction of 17%. request represents a reduction in the total" ty permitted on site due to the reduction-of .city of the restaurant and the provision ant will be operated on a one seating per Guests of the Inn are the most likely user~ val of SP-87-49 a condition of approval was 'al (Attachment D). No site plan was ever ~roved. The applicant is currently ntrance to the site as recommended by the ansportation and the applicant has contacted tment tc determine what improvements are mprovements are scheduled to be undertaken re. All structures are existing and no new r'~posed. DUring field inspections staff has identified deficiencies on the site which must be corrected. Discussions with the Zoning Administrator indicate that a minimum of 20 parking spaces are required. Currently graveled parking areas exist for approximately 12 cars. It is the opinion of staff that other areas exist which could be used for parking and would involve little or no grading. The access road for the site from Route 729 is not shown on Attachment C, but is approximately 450 feet long. This access way is approximately 10-12 feet wide and does not afford the opportunity for two vehicles to pass. This access way should be widened to a minimum of 20 feet in accord with Sections 4~12.6.2 and 32.7.2.5 (Attachment E). Staff recommends that the existing one way access aisles in front of the existing parking area and house be permitted to remain. This recommendation is due to the existing character of the site which would be changed if these access aisles were widened. ~ In addition to the provision of additional parking and increasing the width of the access road to the site, all parking areas and access ways shall be improved as required by the provisions of Section 4.12.6.3 (Attachment F). In order to insure compliance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance, s~aff will recommend that a plan be submitted to the Planning Department for administrative approval. SUMMARY The applicant's request represents a reduction in the total amount of activity permitted to occur on site. It is the opinion of staff that this request will not affect adjacent properties or change the character of the districtl The use may be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as stated previously in this report. Staff recommends approval of this request subjec~ ~o the following conditions of approval. Recommended Conditions of Approval: Approval is limited to 14 rooms for overnight travellers and a 24 seat restaurant. Except for lodgingg~u~sts and occasional luncheons, wedding receptions, cocktail parties and the like, restaurant usage is limited to not more than twenty-four (24) diners per evening, and such 24 diners shall be seated during those hours set forth in condition ~3; December 5, 2001 Andy Dondero P O Box 1911 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: SP-2001-045 Seve Dear Mr. Dondero: The Albemarle County Pta unanimously recommende Please note that this appr( The home occupat structure (Colemar Please be advised that the receive pUblic comment at information regarding your Supervisors at least seve If you should have any quE hesitate to contact me. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE )epartment of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804~ 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 n Oaks Farm; Tax Map 55, Parcel 15 ming Commission, at its meeting on November 27, 2001, d approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. ,val is subject to the following condition: on shall be located in an existing 1,076 square_feet accessory Cottage). Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and their meeting on December 12, 2001. Any new or additional application must be submitted to the Clerk of the BOard of days prior to your scheduled hearing date. :stions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not Juandiego Wade "--...-=._1......~ Transportation Planner JW/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse 12-07-01 A09:24 IN STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JUANDIEGO WADE NOVEMBER 27, 2001 DECEMBER 12, 2001 SP 2001-45 SEVEN OAKS FARM Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to establish a Home Occupation Class B. The applicant will manage artists involved in the music industry. There will be two emploYees, other than the owner, on-site. Petition: Request a for special use permit for a Home Occupation Class B for an artist management company in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for home occupation. The property, described as Tax Map 55 Parcel 15, contains 98.54 acres, and is located on Route 250 approximately 1 mile west from I- 647Crozet interchange(200 Seven Oaks Farm) in the White Hall Magisterial District. The property is zoned Rural Areas~RA and Entrance Corridor-EC. The COmprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area (1). (Attachment A and B) Character of the Area: The area can be described as rural. The property is located on a large agricultural lot. The areas surrounding the property consist of large lots with agricultural uses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with a condition. Plannine and Zonine History: There is no planning or zoning history associated with this property. Comprehensive Plan: If approved, this home occupation will not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address eachprovision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The'Board of SuPervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue: all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. It is staff's position that the proposed home occupation will not have a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. The home occupation will be located in an accessory building located in the center of the property, which is approximately 100 acres. The Home Occupation will involved in the music u The applicant anticipat~ with vendors will take [ take place at Seven Oa~ that the charactc The character of the dis move ihto an existing b amount of additional tr~ and that such us ordinance, Staff has reviewed the and 1.6. Staff finds no with the uses pe: If permitted, the home in the immediate area. with additional 5.2.2.1 The following r{ a. Such occup~ structure, or floor area of and in no or both, de' (1,500) sqm permitted The home Coleman C square feet. b. There shall premises, or provided th, Class B sit structures sl garage, shed rave two employees responsible for directing the careers of artists ~dustry. All bUsiness will be done via intemet, telephone, and fax. s only one delivery a day for the home occupation. All meetings ,lace at another location. No business meetings are anticipated to s Farm. of the district will not be changed thereby, xict should not be changed in any way. The home occupation will ~ilding in the middle of 98 acres and not generate a significant ,fflc. will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this urpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, :onflict with these provisions of the ordinance. :rnitted b.y right in the district, ccupation will not negatively impact any uses permitted by right :gulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, gulations shall apply to any home occupation: tion may be conducted either within the dwelling or an accessory both, provided that not more than twenty- five (25) percent of the the dwelling shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation ent shall the total floor area of the dwelling, accessory structure, :oted to such occupation, exceed one thousand five hundred .re feet; provided that the use of accessory structures shall be ly in connection with home occupation, Class B; ccupation will take place in an existing building on the farm- ~ttage. The size of Coleman Cottage is approximately 1,076 be no change in the outside appearance of the buildings or other visible eVidence of the conduct of such home occupation .t a home occupation, Class B, may erect one home occupation n as authorized by section 4.15 of this chapter. Accessory tall be similar in facade to a single-family dwelling, private barn or other structure normally expected in a rural or residential C.r do area and shall be specifically compatible in design and scale with other development in the area'in which located. Any accessory structure which does not conform to the setback and yard regulations for main structures in the district in which it is located shall not be used for any home occupation; The home occupation will take place in an existing building on-site, The building is located in the middle of a 98-acre farm and meets all County regulations. There shall be no sales on the premises, other than items hand crafted on the premises, in connection with such home occupation; this does not exclude beauty shops or one-chair barber shops; There will be no sales on the property. No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off the street; This proposal will not generate greater traffic volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. Staff anticipates additional daily traffic from the two employees and one delivery. Staff does not consider this abnormal traffic for a residential neighborhood. Ail home occupations shall comply with performance standards set forth in section 4.14; This proposal will meet the standards set forth in this regulation. Tourist lodging, nursing homes, nursery schools, day care centers and private schools shall not be deemed home occupations. Not Applicable and with the public health, safety and ~eneral welfare. This use will not negatively impact the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. VDOT has recommended that the main entrance onto Rt. 250 and the farm entrance on the eastern end of the property onto Rt. 690 meet the minimum site distance for those entrance (see Attachment C). The entrance onto Route 250 is the main entrance to the home. The Route 690 entrance is chained and seldom used. The entrance on Route 250 meets VDOT's-site distance requirements. The Route 690 entrance only meets the site distance to the north. The site distance to the south is approximately 401 feet. A large oak tree prevents full site distance. Staff does not recommend that the applicant to meet the south site diStance: provided information c RECOMMENDED A Staff recommends app~ 1. The home occupatio structure (Coleman Co ATTACHMENTS: A- Application B- Location Map C-VDOT's Recommen D- Applicant's Letter ."or Route 690 as this entrance is seldom used. The applicant has anceming VDOT's request in Attachment D. CTION: oval of SP 01:045 Seven Oaks Farm with the 'following condition. :t shall be located in an existing 1,076 square feet accessory :tage). dation :onceming Site Distance ATTACHMENT A IOwner of band (As nsted i. the Comy's records): .~¢,~*~' 0 ~.k.~. ":~'~.$rn L~ ~Address Zoo ~eq~ ~ ~ ' ..city ~'n~°o~ ~Daytime Phone (q~q) Fax~ (~} ~ E-mail State Address.'7.,oo ..5~ O~-'.S F~,t",~'n City Cr£~-,~..~t. '~ State ¢.~- ZiP Daytime Phone ( Fax # E-mail [Tax map and parcel 0~'00 ~' O0 -00 - Otto o PhysicalAddress(ifassigned) ZoO Lo~ation of prope~y (landm~ks, interactions, or other) ' -q - ' o c~ 9 If es, le~ list Does the owner of this prope~y own (or have any owne~Np interest m) any abutu% prop :~. :~ eec amount · ~, ui,to,:-- = smm~ u~. ,=mi=: . =.mA, ~nd ~off=5 401 Mclntire Road 4* Charlottesville. VA 22902 4° Voice: 296-5832 °> Fax: 972-4126 APPLICATION FOR Si ECIAL USE PERMIT What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property? 1 The property is located, i~. a rural area district. The Comprehensive Plan provides for various agricultural actNities. How will the proposed The proposed use should to be used for the office 100 acres. Parking will: the office should be shie ? How will the proposed s property? The district surrounding combination of agricultu activities currently locat, small fruit stands, a cam surrounding the propert5 How is the use in harmo For certain of the agricui agricultural activities~ T individuals) located on t How is the use in harmo Home offices are altow~ take place in the Colema What additional regulati use? We are not aware of any se affect adiacent property? have no effect on adjacent properties. The accessory building .s located in the center of the property which is approximately >e provided adjacent to the office.. Accordingly, the activities of .ded from adjacent properties. ecial use affect the character of the district surrounding the he property is the Whitehall district. Current uses are a ral activities and small commercial business. Commercial :d on Route 250 within several miles of the property include >ground, and a lumber yard. The character of the district will remain unchanged. v with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? tural uses in the district, small staffs are utilized to manage the he Home Occupation. Class B will result in a small staff (2 ne property. ny' with the uses permitted bv right in the district? t by right within the home. The Home Occupation. Class B will n Cottage which is adjacent to the personal residence. ons provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this other regulations which apply to this use. How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use? Seven Oaks Farm LLC is seeking this Permit to allow for a home occupation, Class B. The home occupation will take place in an accessory building know as the Coleman Cottage. Coleman Cottage consists of i.076 square feet, and is located in the center of the property. Coleman Cottage will house an office for Red Light Management which is wholly owned by R. Coran Capshaw, the sole owner of Seven Oaks Farm LLC, Red Light Management is an artist management company responsible for directing the careers of artists involved in the music industry. Two employees of Red Light Management will occupy Coleman Cottage. Their chief activities consist 0f contact with artists and others in the industry via telephone, the intemet, and facsimile. Operating hours for the office will be Monday through Friday. 10:00 am to 6:00 pm. The office employees will enter the property from its separate entrance on Route 250. Parking is tO be provided adjacent to the Coleman Cottage. Business visitation will be minimal as most transactions are conducted via the telephone. Meetings typically occur at vendor offices. -I- (_ TJd. ~.5 - H, · ~ C~AY ~ liB, D.tl, 13,5 - IM TJ,4. 55 -'15 98.5~ AC~ES I~LRIDARY 5U~V~Y 99.54 ACRES. 5.21 ACR~, 2.Z8 A~ES ~ 0.57 ~ ~EVEH O~<S F~ TI{~ ~ OF THE F. ~ADLEY ~T~, Ill R~ABLE 1f~T A~EEMENT LO~A~D ~ D~T~TATE ~, U.S. R~E 250 ~ sTATE ~OUTE 690 ~E t~LL ~s~T '- '.-!-N~i. lf-~-~U"~ requesting a special use perrmt~only for a poruon of the property, it ":'~ ' needs JO be.described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of ~y type 'of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a' document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the'subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my Signature Printed Name Date Daytime phone number of Signatory q ,,/ 748 ATTACHMENT B SP 01-45 seven Oaks ATTACHMENT C CHARLES NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIR( INIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 October 23, 2001 JAMES L. BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Spedal Use Permit Submittals Mn David Banish Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Benish: Please find our comments for the November Special Use Permit Review Meeting: SP-2001-047 Albemarle Baptist Church (Steve Bail) All access to the proposed Church is to'be from Rte I390. The proposed commercial entrance needs to meet minimum site distance of 250 feet for the 25 MPH on Rte 1390 and should have 100' by 100' turn and taper. SP-2001-045 Seven Oaks Farm (3uandiego Wade) The existing entrances to the property (the main paved entrance on the western end of the proPerty and the Farm entrance on the eastern end of the property) need to meet minimum site distance of 550 feet for the 55 MPH on to Rte 250. SP-2001-046 Duanne Snow (Yadira Amarante) Please see previous comments for SDP-2001-074 (Sept. 27, 2001 letter from .]. H. Kesterson) SP-2001-048 ECC 800 MHz System (Peters Mountain) (Stephen Walker) The existing entrance off of Route 640 is adequate. SP-2001-049 Thomas Harris (]oan McDowell) The existing entrance does not meet the current site distance requirements of 450 feet at the current location posing a hazard to motorist. The entrance should be moved north a distance to provide the 450' site distance from the'crest of the hill and the fence in front of the property removed. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Mr. Jriandiego ~R] Wade Transportation Planner County of Albermarle Dept. of Planning and Co~ 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Special Use Pe Dear Mr. Wade: Enclosed is a Sigh Seven Oaks Farm. The si. Virginia Department of Tt the posted speed limit. Tt padlocked. There is no ct As we do not inter County consider the U.S. purposes of the special us, information, please contac ATTACHMENT D Red Light Management, Inc. P.O. Box 35 Ivy, Virginia 22945 Telephone (804) 923-8997 November 7, 2001 lmunity Development mit for Seven Oaks Farm Distance Sketch detailing the sight distance from the two entrances at ht distance from the U.S. Route 250 entrance complies with the msportation's requirement of sight distance equal to at least ten times e entrance on State Route 690 is currently not being used andis trrent or future plan to use this entrance as access to the property. J to utilize the State Route 690 entrance~ we are requesting that the ',oute 250 entrance to be the sole method of accessing the property for permit. Should you have any questions, or require additional me at the number above. Sincerely, Andrew J. Dondero Controller Hov O? 01 12:13p Roudabush, Gale & 8ssoc. (804) 28.G-5~20 p-2 EXlS, TIN~ ENTRANCE '"J"l'~P .~:~'~- J,.,~ .~IC:~HT ~I~HT ~ DISTANGE= ~30' j ~ DISTA~E = ~ NO~TH A~ON ~A~O~VI~E IN~TA~ ~ ~ 5~15 PlSTA~E, = ~0~' SIGHT OISTANCE ~ SE~N OAKS , 5IOHT OISTANCE = ~EHA~E COUN~ U. 5. RE. ~ 42" OAK 'RO~~US~ GAI.E & ~S~~, ~C. NO~MBER 7, 2~1 ENGINERS. SUR~ORS ~O ~O P~NN~S ~ A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Ella Carey From: Wayne Sent: Tuesday, To: Charles IV Perkins Cc: Ella Care~ Craddock Subject: FVV: Wirel removalsuretycondition .~o~ For SP-2001-050 '[ which is consistent with the condition ~ Board wants this to be a standard con( appropriate. ---Original Message .... From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Tuesday, December 11,2001 1 To: Stephen Waller; Joan McDowell; Cc: Wayne Cilimberg Subject: Wireless conditions Standard condition ~ should be revb your staff reports. Greg Kamptner Assistant County Affomey County of Albemarle gkamptne~albemade.org imberg )ecemb~r 11,2001 1:23 PM artin; Charlotte Humphris; David Bowerman; Lindsay Dorrier; Sally Thomas; Walter ; BOb Tucker; Larry Davis; Dennis Rooker; Jared Lowenstein; Pete Anderson; Pete Rodney Thomas; Tracey Hopper; William Finley; William Rieley ess conditions 3mlin, which will be heard tomorrow night, please, consider the attached condition approved last week for the Orrock wireless communication facility. Assuming the lition, we will be incorporating this into future wireless faCility conditions where :05 AM ~argaret Doherty d as stated in the attachment. Delete the double underline when incorporating it into The facility shaI days of the date If the Zoning AU . .m~_arantee that th to the Zoning At the County., or a for, and conditio . .mtar~ee shall ~ Attorney. be disassembled and removed ~om the site within ninety (90) [ts use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discominued. ministrator determines at any time that surety, is required to e facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish [ministrator a certified check,, a bond with surety satisfactory to letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient ~ed upon,, the.removal of the facility. The type of surety e to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County December 5, 2001 Valerie W. Long McGuireWoods LLP P O Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-2001-050 Tomlin Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Planni~ recommended approval of the approval is subject to the follo~ As shown on the con~ 102 feet, nor shall it e) shall it ever be more tt whichever is less. No ~ located above the top The facility shall be de a. Guy wires sha b. No lighting sh~ number nine (! c. The ground e¢ the pole shall I Triton PCS, T( d. A grounding r( exceed one-in of the pole; e. Within one mc a statement t4 in feet above f. The pole shall PCS, Tomlin, ~ special use pe g. The diameter ~ (12) inChes at h. The pole, ante riton PCS - CVR 385D); Tax Map 75, Parcel 9 [;! Commission, at its meeting on November 27, 2001, unanimously above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this ling conditions: ruction plans, the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total height of ceed a top elevation of 777 feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL) nor an 7 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet of the monopole, Intennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be )f the pole. signed, constructed and maintained as follows: =t not be permitted; ~11 be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition )) herein; uipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to )e no larger than the specir~ations set forth in the attached plan entitled ~mlin, dated November 6, 2001; ,d, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whoSe width shall not ~h diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top nth after the completion of the pole installation, the permittee shall provide the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both round level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); be no taller than the height described in the attached plan entitled Triton lated November 6, 2001, without prior approval of an amendment to this milt; Df the pole shall not exceed twenty six (26) inches at its base, and twelve ~he top; and nnas and ground equipment shall be painted a fiat, dark brown color. Page 2 December 5, 2001 10. 11. The facility shall be I( dated November 6, 2 Equipment shall be a a. The number entitled Tritor b. No satellite o~ c. Only flush mc pole beyond in no case sh more than 14 monopole. '~ted and built as shown on the attached plan entitled Tdton PCS, Tomlin, )01. .tached to the pole only as follows: )f antennas shall be limited to two, at the sizes shown on the attached plan PCS, Tomlin, dated November 8, 2001; 'microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; ~unted antennas shall be' permitted. No antennas that project out from the he minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, 211 the outside edge of the antennas project out from the face of the p01e 7 inches. The antennas shall be painted to match the color of the Prior to beginning co~ struction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicleslor utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree proteclion methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be re.mo...v~l ~ the s~.~ I~th inside a.nd outSide the access easement and lease area shall be su in~a~ldat? the Direr..or of Plann,ng and Community Development for approval. All construction or nstallat~3ns associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressl, ~ authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not rer~ love existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility acc~,.ss. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the tw( The pole shall be dis~ use for wireless telecc The permittee shall su July I of that year, Th ~ identify No slopes associated steeper than 2:1 unles the County Engineer a Outdoor lighting shall t fully shielded such thai lowest pert of the shiel~ luminaire is a complet( designed to distribute' power supply. The permittee shall co The permittee shall suJ Community DevelopmE Planning staff shall rew special use permit haw hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. ~sembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) dayS of the date its rnmunications purposes is discontinued. ~mit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than report shall identify each user of the p e and shall .__rtL, ..... ,,o~ ,,, ~ch user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. vith construction of the pole and accessory uses shall- be created that are retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptableto ,e employed. e limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be ali light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the ~lor shieldin..g part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a ighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts ~e light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the nply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. ,mit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and ,nt. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, ew the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. 12. The applicant shall ob1 development on the p~ facility's fall zone. 13. If trees exist along the include a note on the Page 3 December 5, 2001 Please be advised that the Alt public comment at their meetir your application must be subrr your scheduled hearing date. If you' should have any questic to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Doherty Principal Planner MD/jcl Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Archie Tomlin 3in an easement, acceptable to the county attorney, prohibiting irt of the abutting lot sharing the common lot line that is within the wireless EC, outside the right-of-way, that contribute to the screening of the pole, ~lan indicating that these trees will remain. emarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive g on December 12, 2001, Any new or additional information regarding itted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to ns or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate SP 01-50 Tomlin View fro~ directl) (Triton PCS - CVR 385D) n the northbound lanes~of Route 29, across from Goodwin Farm Lane (looking west) This Jew is visible for only 100 yards SENT BY: ~C~UZEEWOODS ~Mc~uir~W~ ~ '~ FaX= 804,{ t80.2222 McGUIR Dec VIA The Alb, 109 Cha ember 8, 2001 FACSIMILE 296-580( Honorable Charlotte '~ ,mede County Board ol Falcon Drive dottesville, VA 22901 DeI Ms. Humphds: At ~e Board of Supervisor; penlnit application for a wir~ on i~roperty owned by the Dis 1ct. The Planning Co~ apl 'eve the application, s, Arc litectural Review Boar( Tht application is for a tre, sid, of U.S. Route 29 appr Thl lease ama is located mo ~ntain. The lease area use for the access reed. doe not expect to remove Trit, lam age aio~ For WO~ the she rply to the west and up co~ sidereal as a whole, the the short portion without b~ those travelling or living al~ ball eon test photographs b hat ring. Trit ~n aoolied for this fecili ,12-10-01 , 13:32 , --WC DS , Humphris Supervisors SP 01.$0 Tomlin (Triton P,CS - CVR 3850) ~ hearing on Wednes.dey, December 12, I will present a spec ~less telecommunications facility on behalf of our client lairs of Archle Goodwin Tomlin in the Samuel Miller Magister~i~ ~mission unanimously recommended that the Board of S[ bject to a list of conditions, on November 27 in acldition (ARB) approved this application on Noveml er 19, -top wireless facility on pamel 9 on tax map 5, 3ximately 2 miles south of Interstate 64, at C~ ~dwi.n pproximately 590 feet from Route 29 ,on.. the ~ide of a sm is heavily wooded and contains an ax~st~ng Cleared 'path' A/Ith the exception of a single 12-inch tree sion any trees to access or construct the facility. ~n conducted a balloor test for the ARB and Planning Staff which demonstrated ~ility of the facility woulll be quite limited. The balloon was only visible from the .s of Route 29, for a to'Iai distance of 4/10the of a mile. The belloor;, was carnet net a backdrop of tree~ from nearly every angle. The exception was a very sh~ g Route 29 at the interaction of {3oodwin Farm Lane (the driveway to the Total a total distance of 1001yards in the northbound iane,s, only, the balloon was visib ~ded backdrop, but as tqe staff report notes, i! was d~fficult to notice this view. TI short distance involve¢ and the factthat a driver or any passengers has to look st a sharp angle to view the balloon 590 feet from the ARB and Planning staff agreed that the visibility of the ~ckdrop, wes minimal and would not have a substantial ~ng Route 29, For your convenience ! will send you copi, y email, ancl i will have additional copies available at the ¥ at a height of 10 feet over the tallest tree within 25 feet ~ENT 8Y:MGOUIEE~OOD$ De¢ rnber 8, 2001 a tol~ elevation of 770 feet pol~Jlocation has a base tallest tree after adjustmen hav~ a top elevation of 780 tthreaat.lhe application be appr Whqn the Planning Co,mmi~ lowest height, in my op]nior that ~e height should be n( con~ "iflon was drafted to lirn ASL or 7 feet above the tel role1 va to the top of the taft agai net excessive visibility I the tallest tree, but also pro upoi presentation of evider The~ thes pole mon Ioca' was sta~ conl thor Bas~ sev~ app~ ~ have been a few s standard conditions. to a certain fixed haig[~ ~ than 25 feet from the :ed on Route 20. north located 585 feet from ti ~ard conditions were nc itions were applied, an~ are no unusual aspec~ d on this information, ~rai of the conditions as eciate your support for 1. Modify condition nu~ rea(: as follows: "The top exoE ed __ feet above the moa sumd Above Sea Low groL nding rod, shall be Ioca' feet wire is qt diet~ Iow COV~i Rou' I will also request th~ above the tallest tree. ess telecommunicatior ~ite minimal, exists for ~nca from the road. VV]tt evel of visibility warrant,, ;12-10-01 ; 13:33 ; 804~802222~04571#2024410~'0282~2 ;~ 3 Iciition however, the f~ei ty was designed to run,ion et this height to F ,rage along Route 29 to ~Tdton's wireless facilities in either direction. Along this ~ 29 the road contains ~nany curves, and there are numerous mountains very with thick veaetation.~ 1he combination of these factors makes it very ~ptions where the Board's approval of tree-top facilities Of Triton's 15 approved tree-top poles, I believe only t. In both of these applications it was because th )ole. In addition, in one of these two appfications (SP 01, town) the tree that provided the bickdrop screening for~ ~-pole. Because these applications were not ~tandard, ~t applied. However, for all other Triton applications the I believe they should be used for this application as ~ of this application, the Board hearing I will respectfully request that the Bo, ~ey were recommended by the Planning Commission :hose proposed modifications, as follows: · ~ber one to use the standard language for tree-top the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall 3p of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the (ASL). No antennas or equipment with the exception :ed above the top of the pole." t In condition I that the Board approve the pole at a hei[ ,s the Wireless Policy notes, the most important aspect ~ facilities is visibility. The visibility associated with this very short distance in only one direction, and is vi~ its wooded backdrop from the vast majority of vanta the full height of 10 feet above the tallest tree. ~.SL (shown as Tree T-5 on sheets A-6 and TE-1 of the planS), Ti ~vation of 675 feat ASL. At a height of 10 feet over the to t for variations in base elevation, the pole would be 105 feet ASL. Both the ARB staff and the Plann lng staff oved at this requested height of 10 feet above the top of 1 ~sion reviewed this application it recommended approval ~ the Commission's intent was somewhat unclear, for it ini' ~ more than 7 feet above the top of the tallest tree, it the height of the pole to a fixed height of 103 feet lest tree. As you know, the standard conditions limit [he .~st tree, not as a fixed height. This standard condition By creating an extremely strong incentive for the applican. rides the applicant with the flextbll ~ce that the tallest tree has grown. SENT 8Y:MCQUIREW00DS Dec abo ana feet Boa this con, am~ )mber 8, 2001 3 pro larg~ oonl that that ecru One pac ma) rea( to d add and Sine Vah /vwl ;12-10-01 ; 13:34 ; ,,, ~048802222w04,571II2024~,10#0292~2;# 4 Modify condition 20 we: 'fi`he pole can ney litton number one (i) c ndmant to this special re the trees is vitally ir~ portent to the successful function of the facility, Parti~larly .w;hel yzed in light of the Iisi' ed visibility of the pole, I believe that restoration of the heighi ~ above, the tallest tree il~ warranted, Finally, t would note that the Architectural Revi~r~v rd, .v~h. ich is charged with protecting the views from County's Entrance Ccn'idors, apbj~ov application at the requ~stecl height of 10 feet above the tallest tree, ) to use the standard language for tree-top towers, er extend above the top of the tallest tree, exca f these conditions of approval, without prior approval usa pen'nit" have mentioned in he~dngs in the past, it is quite challenging to find a property ida for a wireless facilily that will be functional and yet minimally visible )-scale tree removal tolconstruct an access road, It is even more challengin! arty with those featurel~ that also provides a wooded backdrop for the pole. atns all of these favora..~le factors. In addition, this property also contains a s provides room to Iocat ~ the pole and the ground equipment without risking dam~ ©rk of tree roots in the area, Each of these factors, end especially the very would result, combine :o provide the opportunity for a well-functioning facility th~ ~istent with the chara~r of the area and a minor feature in the landscape. e you have had the cpi ~age, please do not he~ have regarding this ap hsd at my office at 97' ~cuss the issues surr¢ :tonal information, As~ of the proposed modif ;emly, ie W. Long Margaret Doherty, V, Wayne Cilimbe~ Frank 8hortall, Trito Carol Murphy, Tritor Damian Brink, Ams! )ortunity to review the staff report and other materials in ritate to contact me with any questions, comments or con piication or the proposed .modifications to the conditions. .2545 and at my home at 293-8407, and I would be me mding the application with you in more detail, or to ~iways, i appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this :ations to the conditions of approval. epartment of Planning & Community Development Director of Planning & Community Development PCS, Inc, I PC$, 1nc, ican Tower Corporation December 5, 2001 Valerie W. Long McGuireWoods LLP P © Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-2001-050 Tomlin ( Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Plannin recommended approval of the approval is subject to the follo~ 1. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE )artment of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 I'riton PCS - CVR 385D); Tax Map 75, Parcel 9 Commission, at its meeting on November 27, 2001, unammously ~bove-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this /lng conditions: As shown on the cons ruction plans, the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total height of 102 feet. nor shall it e> ceed a top elevation of 777 feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL) nor shall it ever be more t~ an 7 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet of the monopole, whichever is less. No {ntennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top I~f the pole. The facility shall be de,signed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. Guy wires sha~l not be permitted; b. No lighting sh~ll be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (~ c. The ground e¢ the pole shall! Triton PCS, T( A grounding r( exceed one-in of the pole; e. Within one mc a statement to in feet above c f. The pole shall PCS. Tomiin, ~ special use p6 g. The diameter (12) inches at h. The pole, ante }) herein; uipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to )e no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled ~mlin. dated November 6, 2001; ~d, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall not :h diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top nth after the completion of the pole installation, the permittee shall provide the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both iround level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); be no taller than the height described in the attached plan entitled Triton Jated November 6. 2001, without prior approval of an amendment to this rmit; )f the pole shall not exceed twenty six (26) inches at its base, and twelve the top: and nnas and ground equipment shall be painted a flat, dark brown color. 12-07-01 A09:32 IN 12. The applicant shall obtain an easement, acceptable to the county attorney, prohibiting development on the part of the abutting lot sharing the common lot line that is within the wireless facility's fall zone. -~, , 13. If trees exist alon~ the EC, outside the right-of-way, that contribute to the screening of the pole, include a note on the plan indicating that these trees will remain. Page 3 December 5, 2001 Please be advised that the AII3emarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on December 12, 200'1. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Doherty Principal Plan her MD/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Ketsey Steve AIIshouse Archie Tomlin STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMI~ BOARD OF SUPER~ S P-2001-050 TOML Proiect Description: Request for special use monopole in accordan wireless towers and app 10.326 acres, and is loc Lane. Goodwin Farm zoned Rural Areas, (RA) Petition: Triton PCS, Inc. reques telecommunications faei identified as Tax Map 75 site plan requirement f( Ordinance; and 2) a wai easement for the pole's '1 The facility would be cot necessary transmitting a would all be painted a fl~ property owner for a 20- area. The monopole is nc 25 feet of the proposed fa pole 10 feet above the tz approximately one time Character of the Area: The site is currently use( for rural residential and a has mailboxes, signs, an, creates an immediate ch~ facility would not be uncl Comprehensive Plan: Staff notes that the propo~ substantial amoum of cle~ extension of its access ro~ set forth in the Comprehe: from the presence of the f assessment of this propos~ which was recently adopt, [SSION: qSORS: IN (Triton PCS - CVR 385D) MARGARET DOHERTY NOVEMBER 27, 2001 DECEMBER 12, 2001 permit to allow an 105 foot high wireless telecommunications steel :e with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for artenances. The property, described as Tax Map 75 Parcel 9, contains ~ted in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District at 1064 Goodwin Farm ne is off Route 29, approximately 2 miles south of 1-64. The property is The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. :s a special use permit to construct, maintain and manage a wireless lity on property owned by th~ heirs of Archie Goodwin Tomlin, , Parcel 9. In addition, Triton requests two waivers: 1) a waiver of the ~r this application in accordance with Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning ver of Section 5.1.40.b.2., which requires that the applicant obtain an hll zone'. ~prised of a steel monopole with flush-mounted antennas, along with the ad receiving equipment. The pole, antennas and ground equipment .t, dark brown color. Triton has entered into a lease agreement with the foot by 20-foot lease area with the facility located entirely within this ted to be 105' tall with an top elevation of 780'. The tallest tree within cility is 90' tall with a top elevation of 770'. Therefore, Triton requests a llest tree within 25 feet. Once constructed, the facility, will be visited er month for routine maintenance checks. as residential and agricultural. The surrounding area is primarily used gricultural purposes. The site is immediately adjacent Route 29, which utility poles within or immediately adjacent the right-of, way which racter around the highway of utilitarian uses, within which a wireless taracteristic. ed lease area and its service road extension will not requke a ring in preparation for the construction of the proposed facility and d. Therefore, staff's review for compliance with the recommendations ~sive Plan is focused mainly on the possible impacts that could result ~cility in the proposed location. Staff analysis alSo includes an tl's compliance With the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy ~'d as a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December, 2000 to provide the guidelines for siting and review of proposals for wireless facilities. When considering the goals that are set forth in the wireless policy, the County has generally favored and approved new cellular and PCS facilities that satisfy the criteria for Tier One review, which implements facilities that are located within an existing structure; or for Tier Two review which utilizes '~treetop" monopole structures (a treetop structure is defined as a mount for personal wireless facilities no more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet of the proposed mount). Therefore, approval of this application would allow a wireless facility that would meet the concept proposed for Tier Two review. In accordance with the wireless policy, staff considers visibility to be the most important factor when reviewing personal wireless facilities in proposals for all three of those concepts. Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provides guidance for protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and sets the goals for preservation and management of those resources and the environment for future use. The Open Space Plan Concept Map provides an inventory that identifies the areas where the critical resources are present throughout the County. The Comprehensive Plan designates mountains as major open space systems that provide scenic views, naturally forested areas and wildlife habitat, and are recommended for protection in the Rural Areas. Except when strategically sited and designed to minimize visibility and mitigate their impacts upon the natural ' as landscape, these facilities should not be located within "Avoidance Areas such mountains. The proposed facility site is located completely outside of the Mountain Resource Areas that have been mapped on those properties. The only open space resources that are present on the subject parcel and could be potentially impacted by this application are forests. Although forests are recommended for protection within the Rural Areas, because of the limited amount of disturbance that would be necessary, it is staff's opinion that approval of this proposal would not greatly impact the naturally forested state of the subject parcel, or the farmlands present on adjacent parcels in the area. Furthermore, when existing structures are not available, it is recognized that the recommendations of the Personal Wireless Policy favor locating new facilities in forested areas where equipment can be designed to blend well into the natural surroundings. Entrance Corridor: The subject parcel is located within 5-00 feet of an Entrance Corridor. That portion of Route 29 that is adjacent the site is an Entrance Corridor. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the application on November 20th- Therefore, the ARB's action letter was not available at the time this report was written. The Design Planner's report, attached as Attachment B, included the following analysis and recommendation: It is anticipated that distance, topography, and existing vegetation will help minimize the visibility of the telecommunications facility from the Route' 29 South EC. The trees on the mountainside will screen the lower portions of the pole, and from most viewpoints, trees providea backdrop for the pole. Trees along the road, some of which are located within the right-of-way, play a significant role in minimizing visibility of the balloon/pole by blocking the motorist's distant view to the mountain. (Trees in this area have not been surveyed.) The balloon was visible for a total distance of approximately 4/10 of a mile along the EC. It was "skylighted" (i.e., the pole was visible with only the sky beyond it) f( visibility is locm portion of the pc impact could be when non-skyli~ surrounding tree distance along w Staff recommem 1. Include of the ar 2. Regardi~ reconcil~ 3. If trees screenin trees wil STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the iss~ 1. Section 31.2.4.1 2. Section 704(a)(7 3. County's Wirele: 4. Section 5.1 0fth, Section 31.2.4.1 supervisors here. hereunder. Spe, upon aj~nding b2 will not be of su~ Properties on th~ facility is 380 fe. from this propen visible from the I of substantial der that the characte The proposed si buildings with g~ areas. The mour is anticipated th, visibility of the t The character of visible from Rou 'a total distance of approximately 100 yards. That area of ed at the entrance to the driveway into the site. The skylighted le appeared to rise several feet above the surrounding trees. This reduced by reducing the height of the pole. Visibility of the pole hted is not a concern because the pole blends into the ;. The loss of trees in the right-of-way could lengthen the hich the pole will be visible, both with and without skylighting. ts approval with the following conditions: note with the antenna mounting detail indicating that the face tennas will project no more than 12" from the face ofthe pole. ~g trees to be removed from within the access easement, the conditions shown on sheets S1 and Al. xist along the EC, outside the right-of-way, that contribute to the of the pole, include a note on the plan indicating that these remain. ~s of this request in three sections: af the Zoning Ordinance, Special Use Permits; }(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; ;s Telecommunications Facilities Policy Zoning Ordinance, Fall Zone Easement Waiver. of the Zoning Ordinance, Special Use Permits: The board of 5y' reserves unto itself the right to tssue all special use permits permitted ?ial use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued , the board of supervisors that Such use... ~stantial detriment to adjacent property, 'ee sides of the subject property are under common ownership. The It from the only other adjacent property. The facility will not be visible y, therefore there will be no detriment. The facility will be minimally ~roperty. across Route 29, but for such a short distance, that it will not be riment. ~ of the district will not be changed thereby :e is located in a rural area. In the immediate vicinity are residential rages, sheds, and barn s, surrounded by open fields and heavily wooded tain on which the proposed pole would be located is heavily wooded. It distance, topography, and existing vegetation will help minimize the ~lecommunications facility from the Route 29 South Entrance Corridor. the rural district will not be changed as the facility is only minimally e 29. o and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, The purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, with particular reference to Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5. address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service, as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in this technology. Section 1.4.3 states as intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." The visual impact of the monopole is minimal, and therefore will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The provisions of increased wireless communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and by increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 addresses issues of environmental-effects with the following language: "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof my regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent .that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. In orde to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet the Federal Communication'Commission guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 The regulation o,f the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the proviston of personal wireless services. As a component of the Comprehensive Plan, the Personal Wireless Communication Facilities Policy provides guidelines for siting wireless facilities within Albemarle County. The special use permit process or the denial of this particular application does not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Information provided by the applicant has not demonstrated that no other locations within the proposed area of service are available for construction of a new facility. County of Albemarle Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The following discussion considers the purpose, principles, and intended achievements of the Policy: Visibility: The personal wireles not be located proposed in Av balloon test of visibility. The balloon wa~ only location fro northbound lane from this view, 100 yards, maki~ an acceptable lex Utilize existing: area would pen collocation on ar Appropriatenes; agricultural. Thc purposes. The s utility poles witt immediate chara uses, are appropt area. Ground based e, equipment will b~ pole will be painl al be painted to ~ earth tone. The and all equipmen Limited visibili: where the antem panels will'be flu above the top oft Section 5.1,40.b. Section 5.1.40.b. i the height of the Notwiths planning located c~ the appli prohibitit common ~ an eighty ~olicy states that the visibility is the most important principle for siting s service facilities. Further, the Policy states that these facilities should n Avoidance Areas, such as an Entrance Corridor. Should they be fidance Areas, they should be denied or mitigated. Staff witnessed a the proposed facility and provided general comments regarding the camaflouged within a hillside of trees from nearly every angle. The m which the balloon was visible without a wooded backdrop is from the of Route 29 where it intersects with Goodwin Farm Lane. The balloon s "Skylighted" above the .trees'. This view is visible for approximately tg it difficult to notice while driving a vehicle. Therefore, staff finds it el of visibility, ~tructure: The applicant has advised that no existing facility within this nit the additional equipment due to height or structure; therefore, other facility is not feasible, according to the applicant. in any zoning district: The site is currently used as residential and surrounding area is primarily used for rural residential and agricultural te is immediately adjacent Route 29, which has mailboxes, signs, and in or immediately adjacent the right-of-way. These features create an :ter around the highway of a place where utilities or other utilitarian iate. Therefore, a wireless facility would not be uncharacteristic of the luipment in keeping with the area character: The ground-based screened from view by eXisting vegetation and elevation changes. The ed flat broWn and the 'a~tenna panels, equipment cabinet and cables will latch the color of the pole. In addition, the concrete pad will be tinted pplication includes a fence around the lease area to protect the facility from the landowner's cattle. of the antennas: The balloon test determined that the top of the pole, ts will be. is visible from Route 29 for a short distance. The antenna ~h-mounted to the pole, painted to match the pole and will not extend ne pole. Staff finds the limited visibility of the antennas acceptable. Fall Zone Waiver allows the agent to approve a monopole closer to the property line than ole if the applicant obtains an easement for the 'fall zone' as follows: anding section 4.10.3.1(b? of this chapter, the director of and. community development may authorize a facility to be oser in distance than the height of the structure to any lot line if ',ant obtains an easement acceptable to the county attorney g development on the part of the abutting lot sharing the ot line that is within the facility's fall zone (e.g., the setback of (80) foot-tall facility couM be reduced to thirty (30) feet if an easement is established prohibiting development on the abutting lot within a fifty (50)footfall zoned. Per Section 5.1, the commission may modify or waive any such requirement upon a f'mding that such requirement would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety, or welfare; or that a modified regulation would satisfy the purposes of this chapter to at least an equivalent degree as the specified requirement; except that, in no case, shall such action constitute a modification or waiver of any applicable general regulation set forth in section 4.0 or any district regulation. In granting such modification or waiver, the commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. Therefore, if the commission waives the provisions of 5.1.40, then the provisions of 4.10.3.1 apply as follows: The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, a. farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flagpoles, monuments; transmission towers and cables, smokestacks, water tanks, or radio or television antennas or towers. b. Any structure identified in subsection (a), other than one now or hereafter located on an existing public utility easement, shall not: (I) be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and (2) within a residential district, exceed one hundred (I00) feet in height, except for telecommunications facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the county, which shall not exceed one hundred fifieen (I I5)feet in height. The commission may modify or waive either requirement of subsection C. (b) in an individual .case if it determines that the public health, safe~ or welfare would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver. In granting such modification or waiver, the commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. The applicant contends that the adjacent property is under common ownership and clear of any structures. Further, the proposed location is the best site in terms of visibility, and therefore justifies the setback; staff disagrees. The purpose of the administrative approval of fall zone easements was to reduce the number of Planning Commission requests for setback waivers, while protecting adjacent property owners from damage to their property. The fact that the adjacent property is under common ownership allows for the simple granting of a fall zone easement, which will then protect the property in perpetuity. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the waiver. SUMMARY..: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The monopole has a wooded backdrop from almost every angle, and is therefore nearly invisible. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: 1. The monopole i yards; and 2. The request for adjacent properl applicant be rec Staff nOtes that there ar subject property. RECOMMENDED It is staffs opinion that requirements, Section 7( Wireless Telecommunic Section 4.10.3,1. Staffr following conditions of~ As shown on the height of 102 fei Level (ASL) nm of the monopole grounding rod, s The facility shal a. Guy wir b. No light conditio c. The gro~ attached attached d. A groun not exce at the to e. Within ~ provide measure f. The pole Triton P, amendm g. The diar twelve ( h. The pole color. The facility shall Tomlin, dated N, Equipment shall a. The num attached b. No satell ; visible from the northbound lanb of Route 29 for a distance of 100 ~ waiver of the setback requirement is not justified, given the fact that the y is under common ownership. Therefore, staff recommends that the fired to get an access easement for the fall zone. existing and reasonable by,right uses that could be established On the CTION: Lpproval of this proposal would be consistent with the Special Use Permit 4(a)(7)(b)(I)0I) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the County's ~tions Facilities Policy. Staff recommends denial of the request to waive :commends approval of the requested special use permit, with the tpproval: construction plans, the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total :t, nor shall it exceed a top elevation of 777 feet, as measured Above Sea shall it ever be more than 7 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet . whichever is less. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a hall be Iodated above the top of the pole. be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: ; shall not be permitted; tng shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by ~ number nine (9) herein; tnd equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment to the pole shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the plan entitled Triton PCS, Tomlin, dated November 6, 2001; ting rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall :d one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed > of the pole; ne month after the completion of the pole installation, the permittee shall ~ statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, t both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); shall be no taller than the height described in the attached plan entitled ES, Tomlin, dated November 6, 2001, without prior approval of an :nt to this special use permit; ~eter of the pole shall not exceed twenty six (26) inches at its base, and .2) inches at the top; and antennas and ground equipment shall be painted a flat, dark brown be located and built as shown on the attached plan entitled Triton PCS, >vember 6, 2001. be attached to the pole only as follows: ber of antennas shall be limited to two, at the sizes shown on the plan entitled Triton PCS, Tomlin, dated November 6, 2001; itc or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the outside edge of the antennas project out from the face of the pole more than 14.7 inches. The antennas shall be painted to match the color of the monopole. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan; developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installations associated With the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a lum~naire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 10. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. 11. The permittee shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Dep. artment of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. I2. The applicant shall obtain an easement, acceptable to the county attorney, prohibiting development on the part of the abutting lot sharing the common lot line that is within the wireless facility's fall zone. 13. If trees exist alo the pole, includ~ ATTACHMENTS: A. Tax Map B. Architectural R C. Application the EC, outside the right-of-way, that contribute to the screening of note on the plan indicating that these trees will remain. view Board Report for November 19th meeting. ALBEMARLE COUNTY 59' / / / / ?/ / / / ! / : CHARLOTTE SVILLE RESERVOIR ATTACHMENT A 702 74 / / / 02-50 Tomhn (Tr~ton).~ ~', / SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT 43 SECTION 7'5 ARCHITE APPLICA' ATTACHMENT B CTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT ?PLICATION NAME: TOMLIN (TRITON) FION TYPE: PRELIMINARY BUILDING PERMIT Project # ARB-p~p)_2001.18 / Location West sile of Route 29 South at Goodwin Farm Lane Parcel Identification Tax Mat75, Parcel 9 ZOned · Rural A[eas (RA) and Entrance Comdor (EC) Magisterial District Samuel ~iller Proposal : . Rewew ~f a proposal to construct a telecommunications facility consisting of a 105' steel . monopor, two antennas, and associated ground equipment ARB Meeting Date November 19, 2001 ' ' Staff Contact Margare[ Maliszewski PROJECT HISTORY This site has no previous ARB his side of the road): The ARB appm¥ PROJECT DETAILS .,---,,Pole Type: steel monopole, painted Pole Height: 105' with a propo Diameter: 25.5" at base; 12" at Location: In a 20' x 20' lease ~ Tallest Tree: The tallest tree shl of 770'. This tree is situated 25 Other Trees: Other identified in ranging from 712' to 813'. Antenna Type: panel antennas Finish: dark flat brown to matcl Amount: 3 Size: 44.7" high x 6.3" wide x Mounting: The antennas would The center of the antennas wou] Ground Equipment Ground equipment consists of expected to screen all ground e existing driveway to the east and amount of grading. ory. A monopole stands on tax map 75, parcel 22 (to the north on the Opposite ed a change from whip antennas to panel antennas for that facility in 1999. Nat dark brown ~ed base elevation of 675' and a top elevation of 780' top · ea on a mountainside, approximately 590' from the EC. ,wn on the plan is Tree T-5, a 15" Oak measuring 90' high, with a top elevation to the southeast of the proposed pole. 'ees in the general vicinity of the proposed pole location have top elevations the pole L7" deep be flush mounted to the pole. The antennas would not extend above the pole. d be at an elevation of 101'. equipment cabinet, a meter stand, and an ice bridge. Existing trees on site are tuipment from view. Access to the pole will be provided by extending the northeast to the pole site. Creation of the access road will require a significant Tomlin (Triton) Preliminary Building Permit - November 5, 2001 - ATTACHMENT B ,,ro~,osed. One 12" Pagoda tree in the access easement is proposed for removal. The Landscaping: No new trees are e plan indicates that no other trees are to be removed from within 200 of th pole (although Sheet S1 shows a 30" White Oak and an 8" Oak in the easement). Five trees exist within 25' of the pole. Top elevations of those trees range from 716' to 770'. Nine trees exist in the 25-50' range from the pole. Top elevations of those trees range 712' to 786'. Additional tall trees in areas to the northwest and northeast range from 748' to 813'. ANALYSIS Compatibility to Historic Structures: Antennas and other similar types of communication equipment have no relatiOnship to the historic architecture .of Albemarle County. The ARB guidelines indicate that mechanical equipment should be screened from view. Context: The proposed site is located in a rural area. In the immediate vicinity are residential buildings with garages, sheds, and barns, sm-rounded by open fields and heavily wooded areas. The mountain on which the proposed pole would be located is heavily wooded. Visibility: It is anticipated that distance, topography, and existing vegetation will help minimize the visibility of the telecommunications facility from the Route 29 South EC. The trees on the mountainside will screen the lower portions of the pole, and from most viewpoints, trees provide a backdrop for the pole. Trees along the road, some of which are located within the right-of-way, play a significant role in minimizing visibility of the balloon/pole by blocking the motorist's distant view to the mountain. (Trees in this area have not been surveyed.) The balloon was visible for a total distance of approximately 4/10 of a mile along the EC. It was "skylighted" (i.e., the pole was visible with only the sky beyond it) for a total distance of approximately 100 yards. That area of visibility is located at the entrance to the driveway into the site. The skylighted portion of the pole appeared to rise several feet above the surrounding trees. This impact could be reduced by reducing the height of the pole. Visibility of the pole wh~' non-skylighted is not a concern because the pole blends into the surrounding trees. The loss of trees in the right-of~-.~- way could lengthen the distance along which the pole will be visible, both with and without skylighting. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Include a note with the antenna mounting detail indicating that the face of the antennas will project no more than 12" from the face of the pole. 2. Regarding trees to be removed from within the access easement, reconcile the conditions shown on sheets S 1 and Al. 3. If trees exist along the EC, outside the right-of-way, that contribute to the screening of the pole, include a note on the plan indicating that these trees will remain. Tomlin (Triton) Preliminary Building Permit- November 5, 2001 - ~ 2 TrJtonPC ' ' IN RAW ~~~. ~~ ~ . . C~ FOR UNDERGROUNDEMERGENCY.~LmES. PRIOR TO DIGGNG .: ; : n g i n e e r s APPROVAL . r~ ~ ~ ~,-~ R~. NO. DESCRIPTION BY DATE R~. NO. DESCRIPTION BY DATE ~-R 385 D VICINITY MAP ~ , TO,UN · R-5 ' ~ C~ISTOPHER D.W ~ ' 9 / U~ / , \ / / / 75-17 ,L Scale 1"= 100' ! I INO~T~TLtS UNE.~ 11.lAT ~Rt: F'RO~ R~OROS M0 NOT SUR'VCY~D ON 11~ GROUh~. , mO~CAT£$ SUR~"~O LE. ASE: pARCeL. C:OlaM£NC~ AT A C~0NC~'Tr HIG~MAY MONUMENT FOUNIXP.0.B.It) THC ~ ~ ~[R ~ ~ ~Y ~ ~[ O. ~ ~ ~ ~p.o~ I~ N2~07'~ 24.~' TO A ~ ~ N~'I~ 74.25' TO A ~ ~ ~01' TO A ~ ~ ~I~14~5~ ~40' ~ A ~ N~'18~ ~.14' I0 A ~ ~G ~'~'~ 32~' TO A ~T: ~ ~'~ 42~1' TO A ~ ~N~ ~H~y ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ P~ B[~ ~ ~ ~ T~ ; : I ', S1 . , . , rrton '/ ~' ~ . I ' R . 11x17 - 1=200 ' ~" ~" ~" ~' : ~O vA~AY' ~ ~ ~) SCALE ~ FE~ I..~~'~~x ( ~ / ' / ~, ~1, ~ ~ / _' x ~~o~ T~ ' .... / .o. ~.~-~' ~ -.~ ~,~.~ . / / ~ / ,, , .. ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~- ~ . .~. / / ; ~-._ ,, ~~-~ / z~ -7)/ // ,, ~o.~o.~ I ~'~ ~. ~ L .r t~t75-9 I /A~ ~o~L~~ // / · ' z~. ~ ,, . , ./r l / _ _ · : , ~ ., ~ CHRISTOPHER / ~ / ~t ' .... U S ~ 29 ~: ~uu Ouu · ~ L~ DIE P~ ll ' S~ P~ LEGEND CATTLE RESTRAINING DEVICE ~ LEASE AREA -- OVERHEAD TELEPHONE am/an' &: OVERHEAD POWER PROPERTY LINE -- UNDERGROUND UTILITY ........ LINES UTIUTY EASEMENT -1"5' 11"x17" = 24"x36" - 1"=2.5' SCALE IN FEET NEW 20'.-0" ~10E ACCESS ,I ...~ ... lO' wl~ SITE ACCESS ROAD FABRIC /__ I \ \, / / / I~O~DE 100J GEOTD(ltE FN~C N0 / 1t57 SI'ONE I~[HIN LEkS'E N~EA / 8'-6'X 10'-0' CG',IC. E~I~EI, IT st.~B lll, n[~ ~ TO~E 2.5 5 1"5'1 10 15 ENLARGED SITE PLAN PART t~81653 OR EOU~ 105' STEB. MOflOPOLE pAINi~) FLAT DARK ~LIB-UP TRUE NORTH a£chit e c ts e fig i ne e ~s NO, REVISION DESCRIPTION NUMBER: ~-R-385 D{ IOIdLIN 1064. OOODWlN FARM LANI CHARLOTESVILLE, VA 2290 ?HER D.~' MORIN o. CHECKE~ BY: BMQ DAT~ DRAWH: ~18~' ~10~: Z~ EN~GED S~ P~ ,..~T NU..~ 2; ^-2 arChit e c ~s · n g i n e er s F~ ~ ~ 22041-2~6 FAY,: REV1SION ~TRllON CHNGS RGB 10-02-O1 CV-R-385 D IOMUN 1064 (A)ODWlN F~ta L~NE CHARLOTi~ VA 22903 CHRISTOPHER MORIN No, 03~984 D~TE DRAWN= SUBMISSION: ELEVATION SH~ NUMBER: '-R~ : :: 2., =FOOTING TO: EX'IDIO A MINi~LAI 12" BELOW : I I UHI:~STURe[~ sO~L me FROST u~E ~ , I I ' - 4~ e nginee ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~. 11"x17" ' 1 = 1'-0 ' 24"x36'' - 2" 1'-0"' 1/ · : CONCRETE PAD DETAIL a~Jn nFn'nnld .,,....,...-... pRO~AOED BY OWNER AND GR--1 GR-2 EL-1 BL'2 MiCRoFLECT TRI.BRAC~ET I~ICROR.ECT HPE UouHT: 3 1/2'P ~IETAL ~BmDID PART il B1653 OR PART B1478 OR EQUAL : ,ADJUSTABLE TILT IN ~ONCI:Lq[ INSTALLED PER · : Ct'I~LO~ VA, ~290, 032984 0~'-18-01 · r DETAILS NUMBER: ,,: , . A-4 ~J N~T,S. J TRI-BRACKET_,MOUNT.~DETAIL L:~_ : N,T,S.. TRAPEEZE DETAIL · ~ N, IC[ IJG'~NG PN:~' tl 2162-1. .. SE ~NL : . r~ C~ ' L : ~ -, : N;T:S: I ' T~E sECnoN Wire GROUNDING N'T~s-I cONOR~ PAD ) ~ ' ~-R-385 I lo':o" o:c. ~, ~ ~ : . , ~ , - ~, ~ x x x x x x x x X x x x x ~ x x .x x ~ - '~ / ! ~)~ : : :~ ~ooomauooo~oooooooouou~ooOooc ~ ~ : JoOOOooODOOOOOaOOOOODOOOOOOODDaOC . ::E:~ : : CABLE ENCE,,,DmlL ,:: 13 HZ, S'ITREE PROTECnON ENCE A',5: '[REE T-17 e48'0AK90' ~ 667' TOP 757' 113' FRO~I {~ 'IRI~ '1'-16 60' I~[Ctl 105' "L..~:~ I~S£ 663' TOP 768' 113' FROM &lAST 'TREE T-H' e 1RE:[ T-18 48' oN( 70' BASE: 678' ~ T-15 TOP 748' 28' ON( 90' 85' FRO~ BkS~ 669' TOP 759' 81' FROg / TR~ T-20 e ~0. o~ 8?. ( BASE 696' '~ TOP 785' lOP 7~.' 56' ~ 1-9 ~' ~ ~ 87` / 'tREE T-10 8" PINE 49'/ BASE 667' ~r ~0' P~E 65' ~ T~ 7~2' ~ T-12 12' R~ 66' ~ 6~' T~ 731' ~ ~ T-13 42' ~ '" 10'R~76' IREE T-5 15' O~ 90' BAS~ tBASE 680' TOP TOP 770' 2( Fl~O&l &lAST TREE T-~ ~ T-8TR~ '~r¢ T-3 '~l~.~ 666' BASE 669' 25' FROI~ &lAST 675' TOP 7:16' T-4 53' 749' FRO&{ 1. ~ HEI(~"[TS DETE~IHED ~ ItoRIZOflT,~ AND ~ N, IOII:' IHI"ER~ DEC. 5, 2000 FOR TREES WTIHll4 25' 0¢ PROPOSED ~ NiD FOR 'IHE TAI..tE~ II~EES Iii 'II-IE VICIHIIY. 2. ESTI~TE]) PRECISIOH OP HEIGHTS IS C, EHEP~LLY :l: 2 FT, BUT P~Y BE &IORE FOR TREES YATH LkRGE - 3. ADOITIOHN. UHDE~STORY ~ HEX~flS ~F_XSURED DEC. 20, 2000. 4. TXSTANCE FRO~ ~ IS )E. ASUREO HORIZONTALLY lO CEhrIER OF TRUNK AT GROUND ~ 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET 40 60 SITE "20' 11"x17" - 1 = 24"x~6" - 1'= 10' DETAJE PLAN T~ 792' ~ 711' ~ 123' ~ ~ m~ 1-25 ~' ~ 78' ~E 707` ) ~P 7~' 110' ~U ~ ~ 1-26 ~' ~ ~ 110' ~ 7~' ~ T-21 T~ 813' 2~' ~ ~' 62' ~ ~ ~ 697 T~ 7~' 72' ~ ~ ~ 675' T~ ~ 7~' gT' \ \ TRUE NORTH p~ N,,O 'VtSUN. COHT~;T ~ITH 11~ REVlSION NO. DESCRIFllON BY DATE ~ N:)~:~ TRF-[.S RGB 11-O6-O1 ~ NU~E~ CV-R-385 D < lO, UN 1064 ~OY~N FARM LN, IE CHARLOI'ESVlI~ VA 22903 BI, IQ 05--18-01 SITE DETAIL PLAN SHEET NUMBER: A-6 26 SCALE IN FEET 0 25 50 100 11"x17" - = 1" 50' 150 24'x36" - 1"=25' GRADING PLAN TRUE NORTH 20' ~ co~o~ Cfm.)- E:X~N~ CO,tOUR ('~ EXISTING 12' P.'~0D4 TO BE R~l~m~l) \ \ \ \ 1"=10' .\ " .................. 690 ......... L ................ 680 /-~?EW comou~,O-rp.) X, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 11 "xl 7" - 10' 24"x36" = -1"5' ~, ' SC~E IN FED 0 5 10 ENLARGED GRADING PLAN 2O 3O architects engineers FN.J.~ CH~C~t, Y~ :220(,1-2868 {'~) REVISION NO. DF-..SCR[PTiON BY DATE CV-R-385 D TOMUN 10~ GCX)OW1N FARU LANE CHN~LOTTESVILLE. VA 22903 CHRISTOPHER D MORIN CHECKED SHEET T1TLF~ GRADING PLAN SHEET. NUMBER: 27 NTS 38" CHESTNUT TREE ri F'VATION TABLE 769'kSt T-13 T-3 1757,-'~-~-17 T-15 T-5 T-9 T-18 0 0 90 . 1"=30' '~':' ~'~' ~N 11"x17' - 1"=30' 24"x36' - 1"=15' SCALE IN FEET 3O 6O ~T-24 1-20 T-25 ~75o' ~ ----720' k~L -'69o' ksl. --67o' ~ 9O TREE FLEVATION T onPCS architects engineers ~N. LS ~ YA 22041-2868 '~ (~ 671~ 671-~ R~SION TOMUN ~ ~E~: ~~ VA ~903 To: Members, From: F__lla Washir Subject: Reading 13si Date: December September 27(A), 201 October I O, 200 I October 17A, 2001 /ewc ton Carey, CMC,~c'~~ "or December 12, 2001 ),2001 Ms. Thomas Mr. Martin - Mr. PerkJns MEMORANI UM APPROP FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATIO[' FUNDING FOR HIGH GROWTP CODE CODE TF~ I 1000 89000 566230 HIGI 1 1000 95000 999990 BO,~ REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS {IATION REQUEST NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO GENERAL 2001046 COALITION. EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ******************************* *********************************** TOTAL $ REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $ NSFERS ******************************** *********************************** GROWTH COALITION 1,000.00 ,RD CONTINGENCY (1,000.00) COUNTY EXECUTIVE SIGNATURE DATE DEC. 17, 2001 Direct Dial: 804.783.6496 cwalton~williamsmullen.corn Sally H. Thomas Supervisor Albemarle County 899 Leigh Way Charlottesville, Virginia Re: High Growtt Dear Sally: As you know, Bill Coalition through the 2002 WILLIAME~ MULLEN December 5, 2001 }01 Coalition Retainer ~xselle and I are providing legislative services to the High Growth General Assembly session. We have agreed to 1 Scott York, Chairman, Bo Growth Coalition, has requ the amount that member ~ enclosing an invoice in th amount to the retainer fund County Administrator for 1: Should you have an CLW/tmf/ cc: bRobert Tucker, Jr. 7'/9423.01 Two James Center MICHIG 1021 East Cary Sire ~rovide these services for a not-to-exceed retainer amount of $22,000. ard of Supervisors of Loudoun County and Chairman Of the High ested that we invoice each member of the High Growth Coalition for .as agreed to contribute to our overall retainer. Accordingly, I am amount of $1,000.00 which reflects your jurisdiction's committed By copy of this letter, I am transmitting a copy of the invoice to the . ocessing and payment. y questions, please feel free to contact me. Williams Mullen Clark & Dobbins ~,N · VIRGINIA · WASHINGTON, D.C. · LONDON :t (23219) P.O. Box 1320 Richmond, VA 23218-1320 Tel: 804.643.1991 www.williamsmullen.com r~,: 804.783.650~ . . Albemarle County c/o Robert Tucker, Jr., Cott 899 Leigh Way Charlottesville, Virginia 2~ REGARDING: HIC Leg For Professional Services IN ACCOUNT WITH WILLIAMS MULLEN Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins Two James Center Post Office Box 1320 Richmond, Virginia 23218-1320 EIN#: 54-1246519 ~ty Administrator 701 NOVEMBER 16, 2001 032480.0001 C. L. WALTON STATEMENT NO. 254186 GROWTH COALITION ~lative Services mdered as per Retainer Agreement with High Growth Coalition $ $1,000.00 Balance Due $ $1,000.00 ease Remit This Copy Of The Invoice With Your Payment