HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-14
I!
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FIN A L
MAY 14, 2008
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
LANE AUDITORIUM
1 . 3:30 D.m. - Call to Order.
2. Discussion: Land Use Tax Deferral.
3. Recess.
6:00 P.M.
4. Call to Order.
5. Pledge of Allegiance.
6. Moment of Silence.
7. Recognition: Business Appreciation Week.
8. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
9. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
10. Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11. PROJECT: SP-2007-054. SOCA Synthetic Fields near Belvedere. PROPOSED: Soccer Field and associated
parking and spectator seating adjacent to Belvedere and accessory building near soccer fields in the floodplain.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 (4 units/acre). SECTION: Section 15.2.2.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows athletic facilities for fill in the R4 District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:
Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions
and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in Neighborhood 2. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: At the northern end of Belvedere Drive off of East Rio Road. TAX MAP/ PARCEL: Portion of 62A3-1
and 62-2A. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
12. PROJECT: SP-2007-058. SOCA Soccer Fields at Belvedere. PROPOSED: Floodplain disturbance for 5 soccer
fields. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 (4 units/acre) and Neighborhood Model District (residential
[3 - 34 units/acre] mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses); FH Flood Hazard Overlay District-
agricultural, recreational, and utility location uses which will not pose a danger to life or property in the event of a
flood. SECTION: Section 30.3.5.2.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for fill in the floodplain.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre)
and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in
Neighborhood 2. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: adjacent to south bank of the South Fork Rivanna
River at the northern end of Belvedere Drive which is off of East Rio Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: portions of 62-2C,
62A3-1, and 62-2B. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
13. PROJECT: SP-2007-059. John Cann Boat Dock (Sian #2). PROPOSED: Private boat dock on the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre); FH--Flood Hazard: overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding.
SECTION: 30.3.05.2.1 (2) Water Related Uses within the Floodway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/
DENSITY: Rural Area 1 - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/density (.5 unit/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: Dock to be placed at west side of the
Reservoir, approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the Earlysville Road (Route 743) bridge crossing. Dock to serve
Cann property (TMP 45-3A1). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 44-12V. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
14. PROJECT: SP-2007-061. Western Albemarle Hiah School Rowina Club Dock (Sian #20). PROPOSED:
Public boat dock on the Beaver Creek Reservoir. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA __ Rural Areas:
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre); FH--Flood Hazard: overlay to provide
safety and protection from flooding. SECTION: 30.3.05.2.1 (2) Water Related Uses within the Floodway.
COMPRHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 3 - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCTION:
Dock to be placed at east side of the Reservoir adjacent to the Beaver Creek Park entrance road, off of Browns
Gap Turnpike (Route 680). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 57-4. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
II
15. PROJECT: SP-2007-062. Southwood Community Center EXDansion (Sians #24&26). PROPOSED: The Boys
and Girls Club will use the former store space for up to 80 youth members. Improve basketball court, play
field/yard, surface of lot in front of building and the fayade of existing building. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL
USAGE: R-2 Residential (2 units/acre). SECTIONS: 14.2.2.1 and 5.1.04 Community center. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential-residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses
such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR:
Yes. LOCATION: Southwood Mobile Home Park. Northeast corner of the intersection of Hickory Street and
Bitternut Lane. Hickory Street approximately 2,100 feet from the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Hickory
Street. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 90A1-1D. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
16. PROJECT: SP 2007-063. 5th Street DeveloDment (Sian # 27). PROPOSED: special use permit for fill in the
floodplain, no residential units proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC Highway Commercial-
commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre); LI - Light Industrial _
industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use); AlA Airport Impact Area - Overlay to minimize
adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land; and FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and
protection from flooding. SECTION: 30.3.05.2.2 (3), which allows filling of land in the floodway. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Regional Service - regional-scale retail, wholesale, business and/or employment
centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre); Community Service - community-scale retail wholesale, business and
medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre);
Parks and Greenways - parks, greenways, playgrounds, pedestrian and bicycle paths in Development Area 5.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: approximately 1100 feet north of 1-64 on the east side of 5th Street,
north and east of the Holiday Inn. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76-55A, 76M1-1. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
17. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
18. Adjourn to May 21,2008, 1 :30 p.m., Room 241, for Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Board.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
10.1 Approval of Minutes: January 9, 2008.
10.2 JAUNT Stockholders' Meeting and Appointment of Proxy.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of May 14, 2008
May 15, 2008
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 3:32 p.m., in Lane
Auditorium, by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All BOS
members were present. Also present were Bob
Tucker, Larry Davis, Tom Foley, Wayne
Cilimberg, Ella Jordan and Meagan Hoy.
2. Discussion: Land Use Tax Deferral. Clerk: Schedule re-validation discussion on
. DIRECTED, by a vote of 6:0, staff to bring back a June agenda.
re-validation form and a process for re-validation,
including what steps the County will take to Staff: Proceed as directed.
confirm that those eligible for land use tax would
be continued in the program.
. DIRECTED, by a vote of 4:2 (Boyd. Dorrier), staff
to bring back an analysis of option 2 as described
in the Executive Summary dated September 5,
2001, to look at other localities that have put this
option in place, and study the implications,
effects, advantages and disadvantages.
3. Recess.
. The Board recessed at 5:01 p.m.
4. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called back to order at 6:06 p.m., by
the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
NonAgenda.
. APPOINTED Jesica Mauzy to the Crozet
Community Advisory Council with said term to
expire March 31, 2010.
7. Recognition: Business Appreciation Week.
. Susan Stimart introduced and recognized the
following small business owners:
0 Brett Wilson, Horse & Buggy,
0 John Meggs, Nature Neutral, and
0 Tom Thorpe, Afton Scientific.
8. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ann Mallek:
. Asked staff to bring back a discussion on how it
plans to implement erosion impact areas.
. Suggested mailing out renewals for dog licenses
with tax bills.
. Requested staff to bring back the Development
Activity Report. Mr. Cilimberg commented that
staff is working on publishing the report.
Dennis Rooker:
. Mentioned that David Toscano has been
appointed to the Joint House Senate
Subcommittee to study developing land use
tools. He is soliciting input on the types of things
we would like the subcommittee to look at.
. Governor Kaine announced a transportation
funding plan and holding several pUblic meetings
at locations around the State. A meeting is
scheduled to be held in Staunton on May 22,
1
4:00 p.m., at Mary Baldwin College. Discussed
comments Board representative would make at
hearing.
David Slutzky:
. Mentioned recent tragic accident on Route 29
North, near Forest Lakes. Mr. Boyd commented
that Allan Sumpter is convening an engineering
review of the intersection and will bring back
some recommendations. They are also working
on setting up a town hall meeting with the Forest
Lakes Homeowners Association.
9. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
. Megan Jetton, Erin Wise-Ackenbom, Paul
Wellen, Virginia Rovnyak, Heather Peck and
Grace Matijasic, representing Monticello High
School Student Peace Alliance, asked the Board
to adopt a resolution supporting the creation of a
U.S. Department of Peace and Non-Violence.
0 Mr. Boyd read a letter from the Board in
support of the concepts of peace and
nonviolence but declining to officially adopt
the proposed resolution.
. Brian Walden, a farmer and resident of the
Samuel Miller District, commented on the
County's Land Use Taxation Program.
10.2 JAUNT Stockholders' Meeting and Appointment of Clerk: Forward signed Proxy Form to Donna
Proxy. Shaunesey, at JAUNT.
. APPOINTED Juandiego Wade to act as proxy for
the County of Albemarle through September 30,
2008.
11. PROJECT: SP-2007-054. SOCA Synthetic Fields Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
near Belvedere. (Attachment 1)
. APPROVED SP-2007-054, by a vote of 6:0,
subject to the ten conditions recommended by
the Planninq Commission and staff.
12. PROJECT: SP-2007 -058. SOCA Soccer Fields at Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
Belvedere. (Attachment 1)
. APPROVED, SP-2007-058, by a vote of 6:0,
subject to seven conditions recommended by the
Planninq Commission and staff.
13. PROJECT: SP-2007-059. John Cann Boat Dock Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
(Sian #2). (Attachment 1)
. APPROVED SP-2007-059, by a vote of 6:0,
subject to the three conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission and staff.
14. PROJECT: SP-2007-061. Western Albemarle Hiah Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
School Rowina Club Dock (Sian #20). (Attachment 1)
. APPROVED SP-2007-061, by a vote of 6:0,
subject to the four conditions recommended by
the Planninq Commission.
15. PROJECT: SP-2007-062. Southwood Community Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
Center EXDansion (Sians #24&26). (Attachment 1)
. APPROVED SP-2007-062, by a vote of 6:0,
subject to the two conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission.
16. PROJECT: SP 2007-063. 5th Street DeveloDment Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
(Sian # 27). (Attachment 1)
. APPROVED SP-2007-063, by a vote of 6:0
2
subject to the five conditions recommended by
the staff.
17. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Sally Thomas:
. Mentioned that City Council will be holding a
public hearing regarding the water supply plan
and maintenance of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir. CONSENSUS of the Board that they
remain committed to the existing water plan.
Board members indicated that they would be
contacting City Council members to convey their
continued support of the plan.
Wayne Cilimberq:
. Asked Board support in changing the standard
lighting condition to allow for easier interpretation
by the Zoning Administrator. CONSENSUS of
the Board to support new condition as follows:
"All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off
fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light
levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator or their desiqnee for approval."
18. Adjourn to May 21,2008,12:00 noon, Room 241, for
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and
Architectural Review Board.
. At 8:59 p.m., the Board moved to adjourn to May
21,2008, 12:00 noon for closed session, followed
by ioint meetinq with Commission and ARB.
ewj/mrh
Attachment 1 - Conditions of Approval - Planning Items
3
Attachment 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: SP-2007-054. SOCA Svnthetic Fields near Belvedere.
1. The location of the synthetic field shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled,
"Belvedere - SOCA Special User Permit: All Weather Synthetic Turf Field", and dated March 28,
2008;
2. Public streets which provide access to the synthetic field and to the parking area shall be
constructed prior to use of the field;
3. Public streets which provide on-street parking to accommodate parking requirements for the
synthetic field shall be a minimum of thirty-two (32) feet in width or other width as may be
required by the County Engineer and approved as a variation by the Director of Planning;
4. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the end of Belvedere Boulevard to the synthetic field in
accordance with the Albemarle County Design Manual standards for permanent paths;
5. In conjunction with it review and approval of a site plan or subdivision plat that pertains to or
includes TMP 062A3-00-00-00100, the County may require that Belvedere Boulevard be
extended to provide public street access to TMP 06200-00-00-002AO;
6. The applicant shall demonstrate as a condition of final site plan approval that the on-site parking
provided for the use, including on-site on-street parking, is adequate for the proposed use;
7. The hours of use for organized activities and events are limited to the time between 8:00 a.m. and
9:30 p.m.;
8. The applicant shall pay five (5) percent of the cost of a signal at Belvedere Blvd and Rio
Road/Meadow Creek Parkway upon demand of the County or VDOT;
9. The proposed route of the Meadow Creek Parkway or its other manifestation to be designated on
the site plan consistent with the alignment that is shown on the conceptual plan entitled,
"Belvedere - SOCA Special User Permit: All Weather Synthetic Turf Field", and dated March 28,
2008; and
10. If the use or structure is not commenced by May 14, 2013, this special use permit shall be
deemed abandoned and the authority granted by this permit shall be terminated.
PROJECT: SP-2007-058. SOCA Soccer Fields at Belvedere.
1. The fill in the floodplain shall be as shown generally on the plan entitled, "Belvedere SOCA
Special Use Permit: Flood Plain Fields" prepared by McKee Carson and last dated March 25,
2008;
2. If required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the applicant shall obtain a
map revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment. The County Engineer shall be copied on
all correspondence related to changes to the floodplain;
3. Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary
state and federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits;
4. Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a
grading permit prior to placement of any fill in the floodplain, and County approval an erosion and
sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for placement of any fill in the
floodplain;
5. The seven hundred (700) feet-long section of dry-stone wall bounding the inner edge of the
floodplain west and northwest of the proposed flood plain fields as identified in the Phase /
Archae%gica/ Survey and Geoarchaeologica/ Investigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere
Deve/opment Property, A/bemar/e County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be retained and
preserved. The wall shall be clearly identified and labeled on the plan of development. The fifty
(50) feet at the northern end of the wall may be disturbed for the proposed road construction as
currently illustrated on the plan. The stone that is disturbed by the road construction shall be used
to repair remaining portions of the wall or to extend the wall at its south end. A plan detailing the
proposed re-use of the stone shall be submitted for review and is subject to the approval of the
Director of Planning prior to the commencement of road construction. Methods for protecting the
remaining wall during construction and for preserving the remaining wall following construction
4
shall be submitted for review and are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning prior to
the commencement of road construction;
6. Additional archaeological testing, as recommended in the Phase / Archae%gical Survey and
Geoarchae%gica/ Investigation in Two Portions of the Be/vedere Deve/opment Property,
A/bemarle County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be conducted to more fully assess the
extent of cultural resources in Area B of the Belvedere project area. Based on the findings of this
additional testing, additional archaeological studies and/or treatments may be required. The
additional testing shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist who meets the qualifications set
forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. Additional studies
required as a result of the findings of the testing shall be completed prior to disturbance of the
site. Treatments required as a result of the findings of the testing shall be outlined in a treatment
plan that is subject to approval of the Director of Planning; and
7. Construction of the fields and parking lot shall commence on or before May 14, 2016, or this
special use permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall
thereupon terminate.
PROJECT: SP-2007-059. John Cann Boat Dock (SiQn #2).
1. There shall be no lighting within twenty-five (25) horizontal feet of the Reservoir, measured from
the elevation of normal pool, which is Elevation 382 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988);
2. There shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance with the two hundred (200)-foot
stream buffer associated with the installation of the boat dock. The stream buffer is measured
from the edge of the floodplain, which is Elevation 391 (NAVD 1988); and
3. There shall be no other structures, such as decking or stairs, constructed in the two hundred
(200)-foot stream buffer.
PROJECT: SP-2007-061. Western Albemarle HiQh School RowinQ Club DOCk (Sian #20).
1. There shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance within the two hundred (200)-foot
stream buffer associated with the installation of the boat dock. The stream buffer is measured
from the edge of the floodplain, which is approximated to be Elevation 545 (North American
Vertical Datum of 1988);
2. There shall be no other structures, such as decking or stairs, constructed in the two hundred
(200)-foot stream buffer;
3. There shall be a memorandum of understanding or agreement between the Albemarle County
Parks and Recreation Department and the Albemarle County School Board that addresses public
use of the boat dock; and
4. A stable and pervious pedestrian access reviewed and approved by the Director of the
Department of Parks and Recreation shall be constructed and maintained from the closest paved
parking area to the new boat dock.
PROJECT: SP-2007-062. Southwood Community Center EXDansion (Sians #24&26).
1. Development shall be in general accord with the concept plan dated February 26, 2008; and
2. The parking study is based on a maximum of eighty (80) children. There shall be no more than
eighty (80) children served at this location of the Boys and Girls Club.
PROJECT: SP 2007-063. 5th Street DeveloDment (SiQn # 27l.
1. The fill in the floodplain shall be shown on a site development plan and shall be in general accord
with the "Conceptual Site Plan," dated January 8,2002, and most recently revised on March 10,
2008, except as may be modified in order to meet the requirements of the County's Water
Protection Ordinance, as determined by the County Engineer;
2. The County Engineer's approval of an erosion and sediment control plan;
5
3. The County Engineer's receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating
activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. The applicant must obtain a map revision, a letter
of map revision, or a letter of amendment as required from the Federal Emergency Management
(FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all correspondence;
4. The County Engineer's approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for
encroachments into the stream buffer; and
5. The County Engineer's approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the
floodplain. Computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 [verification of
limits of floodway and floodway fringe] and 30.3.3 [general requirements for flood hazard overlay
districts] of the Zoning Ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed floodplain
boundaries and elevations.
6
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Review 0 Land Use Taxation Program
AGENDA DATE:
April 9, 2008
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJEC IPROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Decision garding appointment of study committee
and/or re- alidation of the Land Use Taxation
Program
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF C NTACT(S):
Messrs. T cker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and
Wiggans
REVIEWED BY:
r--
BACKGR UND:
The Boar of Supervisors recently requested that staff bring the County's Land Use Taxation Program to it for discussion
earlier tha currently scheduled in the Community Development Work Plan. Review of this program was included among
the numer us strategies identified in the most recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Rural Areas.
.taff is in t e process of preparing information for the Board's consideration regarding whether to implement are-validation
rogram i order to eliminate potential abuse. This item was scheduled for Board review in May. Re-validation has been
discussed a number of times over the past several years, with no clear conclusion from the Board on whether or not to
proceed.
Both the b oader policy issue of potential changes to the Land Use Taxation Program and the narrower issue of assuring
the qualit of the current program through re-validation was previously discussed by the Board in 2001. The attached
executive ummary and minutes from that meeting (Attachments A and B) provide a good overview of various alternatives
that may b considered in bringing about potential changes to the program, as well as covering the re-validation process.
At the con lusion of the Board's discussion in 2001, a majority of the Board decided not to consider changes to the Land
Use Taxat on Program, but agreed to further review re-validation. However, when this item was brought back to the Board
for consid ration, the Board decided not to pursue re-validation. In 2005, the Board again asked for a review of re-
validation nd once again decided not to pursue it. Finally, in 2007, the Board requested staff to bring forward information
to reconsi er re-validation and subsequently asked for a review of the entire program for various reasons, including the fact
that the pr gram was identified as a potential strategy in the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan.
STRATE Ie PLAN:
Objective: "By June 30, 2010 increase the protection of the County's rural areas by implementing the key strategies in the
Rural Are s Plan."
DISCUSS N:
Given the umerous discussions the Board has had since 2001 regarding the Land Use Taxation Program, clarification of
the Board' objectives for reconsidering the program is needed to determine how to effectively move forward. If the
Board's 0 'ective is to ensure that only truly qualified land is included in the program in order to eliminate potential abuse,
re-validati n is an appropriate option to pursue. However, if the Board's objective is focused on reconsidering eligibility for
end to be laced under land use taxation, the length of time land is restricted from development, or another broader policy
sue, ther are a number of options that could be pursued. The advantages and disadvantages of re-validation and these
other opti ns regarding the eligibility length of time land is restricted from development, etc. are addressed in the 2001
executive ummary (Attachment A). Based on the Board's discussion and clarification of its objectives for addressing this
program, taff will be able to better assist the Board in moving forward on the issues of policy changes and/or a re-
validation rogram.
AGENDA TITLE: Review of Land Use Taxation Program
April 9, 2008
Page 2
Staff is prepared to proceed with an evaluation of the entire program or re-validation, depending on the Board's direction.
As previously indicated, reconsideration of the land use program is among many strategies for protection of the Rural
Areas. In order to evaluate this program, this strategy calls for the establishment a committee, whose charge and
membership would need to be determined by the Board. While the Finance Department is prepared to move forward with
re-validation, the much more extensive evaluation involved with reconsideration of the Land Use Taxation Program overall
will have a more significant impact on staff and will require balancing this initiative with other previously approved work
priorities.
In considering whether to reevaluate the program through the creation of a committee, the Board should prioritize this effort
alongside the work of an already stretched staff. A work session on prioritizing rural area strategies was previously
requested by the Board and is scheduled after the conclusion of the budget process. If the Board wishes to proceed with
the formation of a committee today, it will effectively prioritize this review over other rural area strategies due to the staff
time and effort needed to examine the program through a committee process. Furthermore, in considering whether to
create a committee, the Board should consider whether proceeding is appropriate given the advantages and disadvantages
outlined in Attachment A. In particular, the Board will need to carefully consider the potential consequences to rural area
development with any potential change and also its potential of having the opposite consequence regarding rural area
development, as is outlined in the attached analysis.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact of this item depends on the direction provided by the Board on how to proceed. However, unless
consultant services are required, staff anticipates a minimal budget impact with either direction the Board may pursue.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the current staffing levels in Community Development and the fact that re-validation is a step that would address the
issue of potential abuse of the land use program, staff recommends that the formation of a committee be reconsidered
after re-validation is implemented and its impact can be evaluated. If the Board approves this recommendation, a review of
re-validation will be brought before the Board at the first meeting in May.
Should the Board decide to move forward with the formation of a committee to evaluate the Land Use Taxation Program,
staff will need clarification regarding the Board's objectives so that a clear charge can be developed for the committee's
work. If this is the direction the Board chooses, staff will also bring the Community Development Work Plan back to the
Board for re-prioritization and to determine the committee's membership.
ATTACHMENTS
A - September 5.2001 Executive Summary
B - September 5.2001 Board Minutes
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITLE:
Land Use axation Program
AGENDA DATE:
September 5,2001
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on Ibemarle County's Land Use Value Taxation
Program/ ptions for Changing Land Use Policy and
Implement tion
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKG OUND:
The atta ed report on the Land Use Value Taxation Program is brought to the Board in response to several
questions on program implementation, as well as a request for more information on the Sliding Scale Roll-Back
legislatio . This report includes a brief summary of the enabling legislation, the general policies and procedures
and upda ed figures on the size and deferred value of the program. A separate section discusses some of the
same alt rnatives to the current land-use taxation program that were presented to the Board in a 1994 report, as
well as a iscussion of an annual revalidation process and the Sliding Scale Rollback legislation.
ISCUS ION:
Under th current land-use value taxation policy, the County has approximately 310,319 acres under land use,
approxim tely 65% of the County's total acreage. The annual tax deferral to the County is approximately $7.2
million do lars, a deferral that has been exacerbated over the past 10 years by rapidly declining SLEAC values in
horticultu e and agriculture.
Following the program overview, the second part of the report is divided into three sections to address several
policy or i plementation options:
The first s ction updates the three options for changing land use eligibility that were discussed in the 1994 Board
report. Th S8 three options were:
· Eliminate all categories of use value taxation (only eligible land within agricultural forestal districts would
qualify for land use).
· U e value taxation for open space classification only.
· Eliminate use value on forest land only.
The seCD d section offers two options for tightening land use value taxation eligibility requirements:
· R quire periodic revalidation of land use properties.
· E panded review of parcels in the land use program by County staff.
The third ection provides an analysis of the new Sliding Scale Roll-Back provision:
· All ws a longer roll-back period in exchange for a higher tax deferment.
RECOM ENDATION:
_his repo is brought to the Board for information purposes only and does not require any action at this time.
hould th Board be interested in pursuing any of these options, staff would be prepared to come back to the Board
with a mo e in-depth analysis of the cost, impact, timeframe, etc. of that specific option.
ATTACHMENT A
Land U se Value Taxation
statutory Provisions for Land Use
Under the provisions of Title 58.1-3230 of the Code of Virginia, a county, city, or town may
adopt an ordinance that provides for use-value assessment under four categories: real
estate devoted to agricultural use, horticultural use, forest use and open space use. Land
used in agricultural and forestal production in an agricultural district, a forestal district, or an
agricultural/forestal district is eligible for use value assessment in the absence of a local
ordinance. The state Land Use Advisory Council (SLEAC) was created in 1973 to estimate
the use value of eligible land for each locality participating in a use-value taxation program.
Once a local land use ordinance is adopted for a land use classification, any parcel that
meets the state criteria for that category must be granted use value taxation. The County
does not have the authority to impose additional eligibility requirements based on zoning
restrictions or on the owner's future intentions for the use of the land.
The enabling legislation further states that before use-value assessment is granted, the local
assessing officer must determine that the land meets the uniform standards for agricultural
and horticultural use as defined by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
for forest use as defined by the State Forester, or for open-space use by the Department of
Conservatioh and Recreation.
The County adopted all four categories of land use in 1975. Each category of land use must
meet prescribed standards and minimum acreage requirements:
. Agriculture Use: Land used for agricultural use must consist of a minimum of five acres
and must meet prescribed standards for a bona fide production for sale of crops and/or
livestock or be in an approved soil conservation program.
. Horticulture Use: Land used for horticulture use must consist of a minimum of five acres
and must meet prescribed standards for bona fide production for sale of fruits,
vegetables, ornamental plants and/or ornamental products.
. Forest Use: Land used for forestal use must be a minimum of twenty acres and must
include standing timber and trees devoted to tree growth in such quantity and so
spaced and maintained as to constitute a forest area.
. Open Space: Land in open space must be at least five acres or such greater minimum
acreage, set by local ordinance, and be used to provide or preserve the land for park or
recreational purposes, conservation of land or other natural resources, floodways,
historic or scenic purposes or to assist in the shaping of the character, direction, or timing
of community development, or for the public interest and consistent with the local land
use plan. In 1990, the Board set the minimum acreage for open space at 20 acres.
Application Process
A property owner must submit an application for taxation on the basis of use assessment at
least sixty days prior to the tax year for which the reduced taxation is sought. Anyone
receiving use value taxation must submit a reapplication whenever a change in acreage or
Land Use Report
2
04/04/08
.
.
.
I
I I
a change in land use occurs. Albemarle County charges a fee of $15 per parcei plus 15
c !:;nts for each acre over one hundred acres for initial applications and reapplications.
A. In order to qualify a property owner must certify on the application that the
property meets the standards of classification prescribed by the Commissioner
of Agriculture, the Director of Conservation and Recreation, or the State
Forester.
Lc nd use guidelines provide that the following items may be helpful in determining eligibility for
land use:
1. The assigned USDA/ ASCS farm number.
2. Federal tax forms (1 040F) Farm Expenses and Income, (4835) Farm Rental Income
and Expenses, or (1 040E) Cash rent for Agricultural land.
3. A conservation Farm Management and/or Forest Management plan prepared
by a professional or a letter of intent stating that the land will be forested.
4. Evidence that gross sales averaged more than $1,000 annually over the previous
three years.
AI hough a number of localities require these items, the County requests these documents only
if b physical review of the property is insufficient to determine eligibility. It should be kept in
m nd that most of the property in the land use program originally qualified in the mid 1970s and
nc revalidation has been done since that time.
D Dring the biennial reassessment, the County's real estate division does its best to ensure that
lahd use properties continue to meet the classification standards set by the state. If
cc ntinued eligibility of the property is suspect, the Assessor will require the landowner to
supmit proof that the land is either being farmed or forested. If the County Assessor
dE termines that the property no longer meets the classification standards, the property is
removed from land use and roll-back tax is assessed. Any property owner denied use value
assessment may appeal the County Assessor's decision to the local Land Use Advisory
Be ard.
Rc II-back
W hen land changes to a non-qualifying use, the property is then subject to roll-back taxes
fo the year of the change and for five years preceding the change, including 10% simple
int~rest. In the years 1991-2000, Albemarle County collected $1 ,250,627 in roll-back taxes on
7, 87 acres (see Exhibit A). Legislative attempts to increase the roll-back period from 5 years
to 10 years have repeatedly failed in the General Assembly.
Stc!.te-Wide Utilization of the Land Use Proaram
There are 95 counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia, 69 of them allowed land use value
to ation in 2001. Of this number, 42 counties allow for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and
o~ en space use. Twenty counties allow for only three uses with the major excluded
cc tegory being open space. Six counties allow only agriculture and horticulture as
qualifying uses: Amelia, Floyd, Lancaster, Orange, Prince Edward and Wythe. Only Amelia
Cc unty has changed the status of its land use program (eliminating all categories except
a~ riculture/horticulture) since the program's inception in 1973.
Lan Use Report
3
04/04/08
Current status of Land Use in Albemarle County
Based on current real estate assessment data, Albemarle County has 310,319 acres under
land use, approximately 65% of the County's 473,600 acres. Agriculture accounts for 103,087
of the County's land use acres (33%),204,719 acres (66%) are in forestry and the remaining
2,513 acres (1 %) is in horticulture and open space. Of the total amount of acres under land
use, 21 % (66,100 acres) are currently enrolled in agricultural/forestal districts. Since 1994, the
acreage enrolled in the land use program has declined 7%.
Tax Implications of Land Use in Albemarle County
Exhibit A. below shows the deferred assessment, the deferred tax and the roll-back taxes
collected since 1991. Assuming 2001 deferred tax revenues of $7.2 million, the FY2000/2001
real estate tax revenue at $686,700 per penny, and a tax rate of $0.76, the additional cost to
ineligible properties is approximately 10.5 cents on the tax rate.
Exhibit A.
Number Numb Tax
Calend of er of Rat Deferred Deferred Roll-back
arYear Parcels Acres e Assessment Tax Collected Acres
1991 4,388 329,84 0.72 583,345,0 4,192,884 111 ,407 1,931
1992 4,417 * 0.72 581,014,0 4,183,301 119,111 665
1993 4,550 331 , 14 0.72 751,753,7 5,412,627 139,016 783
1994 4,611 * 0.72 741,335,9 5,337,619 200,901 814
1995 4,613 332,47 0.72 764,241,6 5,502,540 105,755 797
1996 4,680 * 0.72 763,538,5 5,497,478 99,822 547
1997 4,784 321,19 0.72 759,462,5 5,468,131 99,097 648
1998 4,841 * 0.72 761,253,8 5,481,028 108,493 509
1999 4,743 315,30 0.72 761,784,4 5,484,848 176,061 656
2000 4,953 * 0.76 781,041,4 5,935,915 90,964 437
2001 4,983 310,31 0.72 950,530,6 7,222,437 ** **
* Acreage report is done in reassessment years only.
Exacerbating the burden on ineligible properties in the past few years, particularly 1999 and
2001, has been the increasing disparity between the rising fair market values on rural land
and the decreasing SLEAC land use values. Attachment Ashows SLEAC values for land use
properties in Albemarle County over the last ten years. The suggested 2002 SLEAC values
when compared to 2001 values indicate an average decrease of 13% in the agricultural
rates, a 31 % decrease in horticulture rates, and a 10% increase in forestry rates. The 2002
suggested SLEAC rates are being furnished for comparison purposes only, as new SLEAC
rates in Albemarle County will not take effect until 2003, the next general reassessment.
Factors driving the decline include continued low negative returns, a 7% decline in
government payments from TY 2001 to TY 2002, an increase in long-term interest rates (SLEAC
rates are determined using data that is at least two years old) and increased machinery
costs in some counties where producers are switching tillage types in an effort to increase
yields. Orchard values are experiencing extreme declines - on average nearly 50%, due to
Land Use Report 4 04/04/08
.
.
.
II
continued losses resulting in net zero returns. A large number of orchards are going out of
business in Virginia as market preferences change. The varieties of apples grown in Virginia
are no longer in demand and most apples in Virginia are being processed or used for juice.
Orchards that are staying in business are deriving their income from real estate transactions
or retail "niche" stores. Exhibit B. below summarizes SLEAC value trends in the preceding
decade.
Exhibit B. Average SLEAC Values in
Albemarle County
1Il 700
~ 600
'0 500
C 400
l:
_ 300
5 200
o
E 100
< 0
___ Avg. Agriculture
Avg. I-brticulture
~Avg. Forestry
Q; ~ ~ fa ~ (1;-
"f> N..Oj ,~C8 A fl ~\S ~\::)
Cl> Cl>'"' q)J Cl> \ qrJ \::)
Year
As stated above, properties ineligible for use value taxation bear a greater share of the
property tax as a result of the land use program. It is implicit in the concept of Icmd use
taxation that the tax burden is shifted to other taxpayers, as well as implicit in the program
intent that the redistribution of the tax burden is in the public interest both to the direct
beneficiaries of land use and to the other taxpayers who derive indirect benefits from land
preservation. Whether one can demonstrate that land will ultimately be preserved or
protected for the long run benefit of the community is a separate question.
Land Use Value Taxation Policy and Implementation Options
This part of the report is divided into three sections: the first section presents three options for
changing categories of land eligible for land use. The second section offers options for
tightening eligibility requirements - one through an annual revalidation and the other
through a dedicated staff person to monitor land use. The third section provides an analysis
of new legislation that allows a longer rOI/-back period in exchange for a higher deferment.
Land Use Eligibility
Option 1: Eliminate all categories of use value taxation
Result: Only eligible land that meets the SLEAC criteria within agricultural/forestal
districts would qualify for land use.
Advantages:
· Eliminating all categories of land use would have a large impact on County revenues.
With only 66,100 acres currently enrolled in agricultural/forestal districts with $1.3 million in
deferred taxes, the immediate benefit to the County could be approximately $5.9 million
annually. Roll-back taxes would continue to be collected on parcels that were
previously in land use, but not in the agricultural/forestal districts, for up to five years, if
the use changed to a non-qualifying use. Realized revenues may be substantially lower,
Land Use Report 5 04/04/08
since some rural properties would likely join an agricultural/forestal district. (Since this
would have such an immediate and negative impact on the farming community, it is
assumed that the effective date of such a policy change would be deferred to allow
rural parcels to either join an existing agricultural/forestal district or create a new one.)
. Since agricultural/forestal districts are permitted only in the rural areas, land use in the
growth areas would be eliminated. Currently there are 4,371 acres in growth areas with
deferred tax revenues of $334,160 (see Exhibit C.). Of land use acreage in growth areas,
2117 acres are in the urban ring, 797 acres are near airport road, 1269 acres are in Crozet
and 188 acres are east of town, near Boyd's tavern.
Exhibit C.
Zoninq Acreaqe
Ra 1,500
Rl 1,923
R2 273
R4 361
R6 190
R15 97
prd 27
These properties are still in the program because they were rezoned by governmental
action where the property owner had no decision in the rezoning. The vast majority were
zoned during the original zoning process, which went into effect in the late 1960s.
Although this option would eliminate land use in the growth areas, targeted properties
over 25 acres with environmental, recreational, scenic or historical benefit to the County
could receive land use by being designated a mini-agricultural/forestal district within the
growth area.
. Requires a 4 to 10 year commitment from bona fide agricultural/forestal parcels and
ultimately gives local government more control over the location and extent of land use
taxation.
Disadvantages:
. Eliminating all categories of land use may have a destabilizing and devastating effect
on the bona fide agricultural community, because uncertainty will be created around
long-term investment return. The impact on the small farmer may be devastating,
since tax increases may rise to levels exceeding a farmer's annual income.
. Potential loss of important natural resources.
. Property owners no longer qualifying for land use may pose the threat of opening up
their land to immediate development. Although some support this view, others argue
that development is linked to demand and that the rate of growth would not change
significantly.
. Administrative problem to rapidly organize and implement new agricultural/forestal
districts.
Land Use Report
6
04/04/08
.
.
.
II
Option 2: Use Value Taxation for Open Space Classification Only
Result: This option would eliminate use value taxation for agricultural, forestal
and horticultural classifications and allow only the open space designation. Based on
a 1989 amendment to the use-value taxation law, a locality may authorize use-value
for open space only. This option could achieve a similar effect as Option 1, which
would eliminate use value except for eligible parcels within the agricultural/forestal
districts. It may also encourage property owners to grant an easement to a public
body in return for the benefit of use value taxation and the assurance that the
property will be preserved as open space.
If this option is chosen, the property must meet one of the following three requirements:
1. be within an agricultural, a forestal, or an agricultural/forestal district;
2. be subject to a recorded perpetual easement that is held by a public body,
and promotes the open space use classification;
3. be subject to a recorded commitment entered into by the landowners with
the local governing body not to change the use to a non-qualifying use fora
time period stated in the commitment of not less than four years nor more
than ten years. The withdrawal procedures for this commitment are similar to
those of the ag/forestal districts.
Advantages:
· May be best alternative from a planning perspective, because it increases local
government's capability of directing land use taxation toward the goals of the
comprehensive plan.
· Involves governing body in decisions about land to be included in
agricultural/forestal districts or subject to a contractual agreement. Allows more
Board control over the range and extent of use value taxation through the contract
option.
· Requires a commitment from the property owner to preserve the land for a specific
period of time in exchange for the tax benefits of land use.
Disadvantages:
· Would require current recipients of land use to make a commitment not to develop
their land for a specified period of time. However, length of commitment could be
based on proximity to the path of development with a minimum agreement period
of 4 years.
· Administrative problems to either enroll current eligible properties into
agricultural/forestal districts or develop individual contracts for Board approval.
Option 3: Eliminate Use Value on Forest Land Only
Result: In Albemarle County, this would eliminate more than 64% of the land
currently enrolled in land use (199.436 acres).
Land Use Report
7
04/04/08
Advantages:
. Would have initial large increase in revenues. Although it is not possible to break out
the deferred taxes on forest land only, assuming the value of forest land at half that
of agricultural land, the realized revenues could be as much as $3.3 million. However,
since much of the forestland might eventually be incorporated into an
agricultural/forestal district, recovered revenues could be significantly less.
. Parcels in agricultural/forestal districts could still qualify for land use taxation, if eligible
under the forest classification.
Disadvantages:
. Forestland provides non-market benefits to the community, i.e. temperature
moderation, reductions in non-point source pollution, critical slopes, natural beauty
and animal habitat.
. The comprehensive plan purposefully established the 21-acre rural lot size in order to
qualify for all types of use value taxation, including forestal.
Land Use Eligibility Standards
Option 4: Require periodic revalidation of land use properties
Once the property has qualified, the governing body may require any property owner to
revalidate annually on any land previously approved for taxation on the basis of land use.
The code also allows a locality to impose a revalidation fee every six years. The revalidation
fee cannot exceed the original application fee. Currently in Albemarle County there is no
revalidation requirement or revalidation fee.
The four types of documentation listed in the application section could be required in a
periodic revalidation process. Currently appraisal staff visits all properties on a biennial basis.
and the parcels are field checked at the time of the appraisal review for compliance to
state standards. Thus, receipt of these documents has never been strictly enforced, and the
need to revalidate land use parcels on an annual basis has never been required.
It has been the policy of the County Assessor's office to monitor all parcels in the land use
program to ensure they meet and maintain all state and local land use standards.
However, it is becoming more difficult for appraisal staff to provide the ongoing supervision
required by the program.
Advantages of requiring revalidation:
. May ensure that necessary qualifying information concerning land use parcels is
accurate on an annual basis.
. Revalidation fee would be a source of revenue. (The current fee would produce
approximately $72,000 every sixth year.)
. Process would notify all property owners (especially new owners) on an annual
basis that they are enrolled in a tax deferral program.
. Proof could be required from the land use participants of a
farming/forestry/horticulture operation (i.e., Schedule F, income receipts, farm
numbers, etc.)
. Acts as an annual reminder of the standards of qualifying uses.
Land Use Report 8 04/04/08
Disadvantages of requiring revalidation:
· Revalidation fee can only be charged every sixth year.
· Additional cost to administer the program (i.e., increased staff, office space,
storage space). At a minimum this expense is estimated to be $55,000 per year,
compared to $72,000 in revenue every sixth year.
· Appraisal staff currently visits land use parcels on a biennial basis, which makes
revalidation seem redundant.
· Possible confusion resulting from filing land use application and revalidation form
in the same year, if property is subdivided after revalidation.
· Failure to meet deadline(s) would result in parcel being removed from the
program, resulting in taxpayer complaints.
.
Option 5: Ongoing review of parcels in the land use program by a County staff
person devoted solely to assuring program compliance
Currently, County real estate assessors do their best to make sure properties enrolled in
the land use program continue to meet classification standards. County personnel
devoted solely to the land use program were phased out approximately twenty years
ago as the number of new land use program applications declined.
Advantages of specialized land use compliance inspections:
· Increased expertise of inspectors and increased effectiveness of inspections (e.g.
scheduling inspections of agricultural tracts during growing season) could be more
effective in identifying non-complying parcels.
· More cost effective than annual revalidation.
· Places a lesser burden on landowners than revalidation.
.
Disadvantages:
· Additional cost to administer the program (i.e., hiring an assessor dedicated to
land use compliance).
· Possible redundancy with assessor staff visits.
Additional costs that would be incurred by implementing Option 4 or 5 could be partially
offset by raising the County's land use program application and/or reapplication fee.
Albemarle County currently charges an initial application and reapplication fee of $15
per parcel plus 15 cents for each acre over one hundred acres. This fee has not been
changed since the County adopted the land use program in 1975. The table below
compares the application fee in Albemarle with those of surrounding jurisdictions.
Exhibit D.
Localit
.
Land Use Report
A Iication Fee
er acre over 1 00 acres
er acre over 100 acres
er acre over 100 acres
9
04/04/08
Exhibit E. below indicates the amount of fees received by Albemarle County for land use
applications and reapplications for the past five years. Relatively few new parcels come
into the land use program because most eligible parcels are already enrolled in the
program.
Exhibit E.
Number of Application Fees Total
Year Applications Collected
New Reaoolv New Reaoolv # of Aoos. Fees
1996 27 252 $ 405 $ 279 $
3,783 4,188
1997 89 174 263
1,335 2,608 3,943
1998 30 251 281
585 3,772 4,357
1999 41 162 203
685 2,435 3,120
2000 32 254 286
480 3,809 4,289
Total 219 1,093 1,312 $19,89
$3,490 $16,407 7
Legislative Option
Option 6: Sliding Scale Roll-back Legislation
In recent years the majority of urban localities have experienced rapid growth and have
looked at additional methods of containing sprawl. In 2000 a bill was introduced in the
General Assembly and ultimately signed into law that allows localities, upon adoption of
a local ordinance, to provide for a Sliding Scale Roll-back. The Sliding Scale Roll-back
extends the roll-back from 5 years up to 20 years. In conjunction with this extension, the
deferment is also increased up to 99% of the current use value. To participate, a property
owner must enter into an agreement with the locality and by doing so, gives up their right
to change the use of the property for up to 20 years.
There are several options available for setting the contractual time frame. The deferment
can be increased at a rate of 5% each year up to the 20th year where it would be increased
4% and the deferment held at 99% thereafter. The scale could be set up to give a 50%
reduction for the first 10 years of a 20-year contract and increased to 99% for the last 10
years or the scale could be set up to give 99% reduction every year during the 20-year
contract. It could also be set at a fractional part of the 20-year period, for example 10 or 15
years, with a prorated reduction in the deferment.
To date, only Loudoun County has adopted the Sliding Scale Ordinance. They chose to set
their scale at 50% reduction for 10 years and 99% reduction for the next 10 years. A copy of
Loudoun County's ordinance is attached accompanied by some of their statistical
information regarding program participation (Attachment B). At this time only 9 % of the
eligible applicants have signed up for the program. This equates to about 11 % of the land
available for the program. On average, each applicant saves an additional $246 annually.
Land Use Report
10
04/04/08
.
.
.
Albemarle County would need to conduct its own analysis to determine the costs of
implementing the Sliding Scale Roll-back.
Advantages of the Sliding Scale Roll-back:
· Properties under this agreement might not be developed for up to 20 years.
· The additional tax deferment could be insignificant to the locality.
· The roll-back could be up to 20 years versus the current 5 years, thus a source of
additional revenue.
Disadvantages of the scale:
· Data will have to be maintained for up to 20 years, as opposed to the current five
years.
· The current sliding scale roll-back legislation does not require a participant to
continue in the land use program for the entire 20-year period. The sliding scale
agreement is revocable on the part of the landowner at anytime during the entire
agreement period. For example, if the owner chose to change the use of the
property to a non-qualifying use, the parcel would have to be removed from the
program and a roll-back bill issued.
Land Use Report
11
04/04/08
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
Agenda Item No. 13. Land Use Taxation Program, Presentation.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said this report on the Land Use Value Taxation Program is
in response to several questions from the Board on program implementation, as well as a request for more
information about Sliding Scale Roll-Back legislation. Staff included in its report a brief summary of the
enabling legislation, general policies and procedures, and updated figures on the size and deferred value of
the program. A separate section discusses some of the same alternatives to the current land use taxation
program that were presented to the Board in a 1994 report, as well as a discussion of an annual revalidation
process and the Sliding Scale Roll-back legislation.
Mr. Breeden said the County currently has approximately 310,319 acres in the land use program, or
approximately 65 percent of the County's total acreage. The annual tax deferral is approximately $7.2 million,
a deferral that has been exacerbated over the past ten years by rapidly declining SLEAC values in
horticulture and agriculture.
Currently, a property owner must submit an application for taxation on the basis of use assessment
at least sixty days prior to the tax year for which the reduced taxation is sought. Anyone receiving use value
taxation must submit a reapplication whenever a change in acreage or a change in land use occurs.
Albemarle County charges a fee of $15 per parcel plus 15 cents for each acre over one hundred acres for
initial applications and reapplication. This does not provide a lot of revenue. In order to quality, a property
owner must certify on the application that the property meets the standards of classification prescribed by the
State Commissioner of Agriculture, the State Director of Conservation and Recreation, or the State Forester.
Mr. Breeden said the County can require certain items to help in determining eligibility for land use:
USDAlASCS farm number; Federal tax forms (1040F), (4835) or (1040E); a conservation Farm Management
and/or Forest Management plan; or evidence that gross sales averaged more than $1000 annually over the
previous three years. He said the County requests these documents only if a physical review of the property
is insufficient to determine eligibility. It should be kept in mind that most of the
property in the land use program originally qualified in the mid-1970s and there has been no
revalidation of that information since then. (Note: Mr. Dorrier returned to the meeting at 3:51 p.m.)
Mr. Breeden said the major part of the program is the roll-back when land changes to a non-
qualifying use. Between 1991 and 2000, there were 7787 acres on which there was a roll-back and the
County collected $1,250,627 in roll-back taxes. He said that for the year 2001, the deferral was $7.2 million.
On a 76 cent tax rate ($676,000 per penny), that equates to 10.5 cents, so the tax rate could be reduced by
that much if there were not land use taxation.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is a committee which works on the application process. Mr.
Breeden said it only deals with some of the equalization and appeal processes. If it is determined that a
parcel will be disqualified, the property owner can appeal to that board. Mr. Davis said it is an advisory board,
and has no legal status. It was created to provide a citizen review of decisions in regard to land use
valuation.
Mr. Breeden said the amount of the deferred tax over the years has increased from $4.0 million in
1991 to $7.2 million currently. Fair market values are steadily increasing, but SLEAC values have continually
gone down. The decreases have at times been as much as 50 to 60 percent.
Mr. Perkins said the change from $4.0 million to $7.2 million may look alarming, but in looking at the
County's current budget and the current assessment of property, it is really right in line. Mr. Breeden said the
amount of the deferral will continue to increase. SLEAC values are only used each two years because of the
biennial assessment cycle. If the County was using the 2002 SLEAC values, it would be looking at a 13
percent decrease on agricultural and a 31 percent decrease on horticultural values, with a small increase in
forestry. He does not think the 2003 values will be much different.
ATTACHMENT B
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
.
Mr. Dorrier asked if these values are the same throughout Virginia and across the country. Mr.
Breeden said they are consistent. It is hard to compare Albemarle County with others on forestry land
because a lot of the SLEAC values are based on crop values. He said there are counties which have a lot of
commercial crops, but there is not much of that in Albemarle County.
Mr. Breeden said staff also listed some options the Board can consider for the land use program.
Staff does not recommend any of them, but did it only for the Board's information. Option One would be to
eliminate the Land Use Ordinance. Under State law, any land currently part of an agricultural/forestal district
would qualify for land use taxation, but that is all the acreage that would qualify. Of the 310,000 acres in the
land use program, only 66,000 acres are currently in those districts. The County would save about $5.2
million in deferred taxes, but, if the Board did this, there would probably be requests to put more land in
agricultural/forestal districts.
Ms. Thomas asked if there are any properties that could not be in an agricultural/forestal district that
are included in the 310,000 acres currently getting land use taxation. Mr. Breeden said he is not totally
familiar with district requirements, but he believes there are some which would not qualify, lands in growth
areas would not. Mr. Davis said that in the Rural Areas there are some basic size requirements that have to
be met, and there need to be contiguous parcels. It is possible there could be some isolated parcels where
land around it could not be in an agricultural/forestal district. Ms. Sherry Buttrick said the land has to be
within two miles of the core of the district.
.
Mr. Breeden said Option Two would be to allow use value taxation only for the Open Space
Classification. He said it would probably give the Board the most control because it would be able to approve
or disapprove those applications. There would need to be a signed agreement by the property owner not to
develop or change the use of the property for a specified period of time. This option could achieve a similar
effect as Option 1, which would eliminate use value except for eligible parcels within the agricultural/forestal
districts. It might also encourage property owners to grant an easement to a public body in return for the
benefit of use value taxation and the assurance that the property will be preserved as open space.
Option Three is to eliminate use value on Forest Land only. In Albemarle County, this would
eliminate more than 64 percent of the land currently enrolled in land use (199,436 acres). The realized
revenues from this change could be as much as $3.3 million in deferred taxes. However, the land in an
agricultural/forestal district would continue to qualify for that option no matter what the local ordinance says.
Option Four is to require a periodic revalidation of land use properties. Albemarle County has never
done this. By State law, a fee could be charged for doing a revalidation every sixth year.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is a fee which can be charged other than a revalidation fee because she
had been told that Fauquier has an annual fee. Mr. Breeden said he does not know of any such fee. The
Code allows a revalidation every year, but a fee can be charged only each six years, and it can be no more
than the amount of the original fee. He said this would require more staff and place burdens on taxpayers to
comply. Staff thinks it would cost a minimum of $50,000 to do that every year, and only $72,000 of that cost
would be recovered each six years.
Option Five is an on-going review of parcels in the land use program by a County staff person
devoted solely to assuring program compliance. That person would be monitoring (make sure properties
enrolled in the land use program continue to meet classification standards) the parcels currently in the
program. The property owner would have no new requirements placed on him. If this were done, the County
might try to raise some of the original application fees to recover some of the costs. There have not been
changes in the fee since the program was adopted in the mid-1970s.
.
Option Six would be to ask for information on the Sliding Scale Roll-back Legislation. He said that in
2000 a bill was introduced in the General Assembly and ultimately signed into law that allows localities, upon
adoption of a local ordinance, to provide for a Sliding Scale Roll-back. The Sliding Scale Roll-back extends
the roll-back from five years up to 20 years. In conjunction with this extension, the deferment is also
increased up to 99 percent of the current use value. To participate, a property owner must enter into an
ATTACHMENT B
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
agreement with the locality and by doing so, gives up the right to change the use of the property for up to 20
years. So far there has not been a lot of interpretation of this new legislation. Loudoun County has adopted
something, but has not had much participation in the program. The program looks good, but about the only
person who would take advantage of the option is the person who is not going to develop their land.
Mr. Dorrier asked the idea behind the legislation. Mr. Breeden said there are several options
available for setting the contractual time frame. The deferment can be increased at a rate of five percent
each year up to the twentieth year where it would be increased four percent and the deferment held at 99
percent thereafter. The scale could be set up to give a 50 percent reduction for the first 10 years of a 20-year
contract and increased to 99 percent for the last 10 years, or the scale could be set up to give 99 percent
reduction every year during the 20-year contract. It could also be set at a fraction of the 20-year period, for
example 10 or 15 years, with a prorated reduction in the deferment. .
Mr. Dorrier asked why that legislation would not be good for Albemarle County. Mr. Breeden said he
thinks it is good for the taxpayer if he gets a reduced tax, but he does not think it will stop development if that
is the Board's concern. The person who will develop property, once in the program for six years, if he stayed
in the program for one additional year, would immediately wipe out any savings during the first six years with
the additional deferment. He would have to pay six years of roll-back, plus an extra year of the full roll-back
from fair market value down to the land use value.
Mr. Dorrier asked why Loudoun adopted an ordinance. Mr. Breeden said they have been trying
everything possible to slow down growth. They have said that the only parcels applying are those in the part
of the County where there is little growth going on at this time. He does not think it would work as a growth
tool.
Mr. Davis said the statute does not set out a time frame. It just says there can be a longer period of
time for a lower assessed value. Loudoun chose the eight to 20-year provision in their ordinance. That
ordinance sets out one rate for the first ten years, and another rate for the second ten years. They did not do
a true sliding scale, but a step scale. It is not a widely-used piece of enabling legislation. It has not been
found to be very useful.
Mr. Perkins said if someone is going to sign up for the program, they will probably choose the twenty-
year period. If someone is thinking about development, he does not believe they would sign up for the
program at all. Mr. Breeden said the time periods can be set for different commitment periods. If someone
adheres to the period they signed up for, then it goes to a five-year roll-back after they have met their
commitment.
Mr. Bruce Woodzell said if someone in the program decided to stop farming within that time frame,
the County has no choice but to apply the roll-back, and then the agreement is void.
Mr. Breeden said they still have to meet the classification standards and guidelines. If someone
decided to sign up for agricultural use, and then decided to stop farming, the property is automatically
disqualified and out of the program. He does not know if this information helps the Board, but staff will be
glad to do further research on any of the options. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said it bothers her that a lot of people are getting a tax break on 20 of their 21 acres
which they cannot develop anyway because they have no more development rights on the property. There is
not a land use planning tool in that sense, and they are not farming their land. To her, farming is a minimum
of putting fertilizer on the land, keeping up the fences, and getting some produce off of the land, or letting
someone else get produce off of the land. There are no incentives for the owner to do anything other than
bale the weeds they mow, rather than bush hog the weeds they mow down. Because they are not putting
any investment in their land, a farmer who rents pastures for his cows finds the pastures getting worse year
by year because the landowner probably is not putting fertilizer on the land. Even a farmer who truly wants to
farm in the old straight-forward way is having a hard time despite the fact that there is a lot of land getting the
use value tax break.
ATTACHMENT B
.
.
.
II
I
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Breeden said staff looked at that situation, but it is hard coming to any conclusions bn parcels
that are less than 21 acres. Of the parcels in the program, there are about 2000 parcels which contain less
than 21 acres. This is less than 10 percent of the total acreage in the program. Of those parc€ Is, about 500
contain less than five acres, and they qualify because they are contiguous to a larger tract. ThE re are 15,000
acres (1400 parcels) in the program which range from five to 20 acres each.
Mr. Perkins said in reference to the 21-acre parcels, one acre is taxed at market value, but in the
Rural Area there must be two acres for a lot. If a person has an undeveloped parcel and wants to create five,
two-acre lots, the Health Department requires two acres, so why does the County allow one acr~ parcels. Mr.
Breeden said the land use guidelines say that basically all land is eligible. Anything not used fo personal use
in the house/yard area would be eligible for the program. He said of the 21-acre lots, there are bnly 131
parcels of this size in the program.
Mr. Perkins asked if a person bought a parcel of 21 acres for $200,000 and could only se two acres
of that parcel, what are the other 19 acres worth without a development right? Mr. Woodzell sa d that
normally staff considers two acres as the site, and puts the majority of the value on those two a res. If the
property sold for $200,000, the assessment on the site might be $125,000 with the rest being e cess land.
The remaining 19 acres would carry the other $75,000. Mr. Breeden said those 21-acre sites a e a small part
of the issue. If all of them were eliminated, it would not amount to many dollars.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any way to use this as a tool to increase the agricultural a tivity going
on in the community. Since 65 percent of the program is in forestry, there is only 35 percent in griculture.
She does not like people getting a generous tax break for claiming their land is in an agriculture use, when it
is not. Mr. Breeden said in the 1970s, land use was tried as a farmer's tax break, and it never p~ssed until it
became more of an environmental issue. He said the actual number of legitimate farmers in All emarle
County is very small.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Kluge got tax breaks on the 10,000 acres he gave to the Univer 5ity of
Virginia. Mr. Breeden said he did. Ms. Thomas said he was actually farming a lot of that land. Mr. Breeden
said he had one of the most legitimate farming operations in the County.
Mr. Davis said if there is a legitimate agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity on the ~ 1.acre lot,
the State Code does not allow the minimum acreage to be changed. Five acres is the set minin um. The
only category the County can increase acreage on is open space. Albemarle set that at 20 acres, but State
Code minimum is five acres.
Ms. Thomas said she has heard farmers who make a business of farming, say that FauRuier focuses
on getting an annual report to be sure a person is actually farming the land. Farmers don't have any
problems doing that because they have other reports for their business, so it does not add a laYE r of
reporting. For the people who are getting a tax break but barely farming, she would like the Boa d to think
about whether this would impress on them that there are responsibilities for calling their land a fc rm. Mr.
Breeden said he believes that most of the smaller parcels qualify because someone is already fc rming the
property. Most of the parcels in the low twenties qualify as forestry, not as agriculture. In the cu rent
economy and farming environment, he does not believe there is anything that can be done from ~ tax
standpoint to encourage farming.
Ms. Thomas said she was not saying the County should encourage someone to go into arming, but
that they do something more responsible with the land. She thinks a lot of land is growing up intb trees, while
the remainder is being baled even though it is hardly edible as hay. Mr. Perkins said low use ag iculture
might be better environmentally than intensive agriculture. He wondered the intent of the Genen I Assembly
when the law was enacted. He thinks they expected valuable products to come off of the land, a~ well as
other benefits; clean air, clean water, etc. He said the County might use Option 5 and select 25 barcels for
an inspection. In the audit which Westvaco does of its forestry practices, they do not look at eve(ything, but
visit different job sites to see of their standards of sustainability have been met. The County mig lt try doing
the same thing. If it was found that one of 25 did not meet the criteria for land use, that probably means that
one out of every 25 probably does not meet the criteria either. Mr. Breeden said the Board need to keep in
mind its philosophy of the program. If it is intended to encourage agriculture, it's a losing battle. f it's to
ATTf\CHMENT B
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
encourage open space, whether a person is farming or not farming, it is still not being developed. The
question is, how strict does the Board want to be about farming. The guidelines are set up for Abarely
farming in order to meet the criteria.
Mr. Perkins said the Board has to forget that there are $7.2 million which could be collected. If there
was no land use program, what would happen with that land? Also, the Board needs to look at the services
the land requires, which are not many. In that regard, the land is more than paying its fair share. He has a
concern that there were a number of parcels created in subdivisions of 21 acres, and they are getting land
use taxation under forestry. But, individual regulations in these subdivisions do not allow them to cut the
trees. He thinks that from a forestry standpoint, if there are trees which are dying and falling down because
they don't want to cut them, that does not seem to be the intent of the General Assembly. They expected
people to practice forestry and in order to do that, trees have to be cut every now and then. If that person is
not following a forestry management plan, maybe they should not be accorded land use taxation.
Mr. Breeden said he agrees to an extent. However, staff has seen some plans which are as simple
as a one-line statement approved by the Forestry Department that said Atrees should be grown on this
property to avoid soil erosion. That would make it a legitimate, qualified use.
Mr. Perkins said Miller School planted 107 acres in trees this past year on some of the most
productive acres in the County. They will be planting another 100+ acres in trees this coming year because
they are tired of trying to find someone to farm their acreage. They can get more out of trees than renting the
land to a farmer. He hates to see doing away with forest land taxation because he thinks the County gets the
most environmental benefits from forest lands.
Ms. Thomas said she has no interest in removing the forestry category.
Mr. Woodzell said he agrees with Ms. Thomas. If a person has given up all of their development
rights, so what more can they do with the property than what it is designed to do. There is nothing in State
legislation that prohibits the County from not allowing them land use. If the program was written to prohibit
people from developing their property, if the development rights are gone, what are they deferring?
Mr. Perkins said that was not the only intent. Mr. Woodzell said he believes the major intent, the
second time the legislation was presented, was to make sure things remained in an open atmosphere, and to
protect water and air.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is possible to distinguish between those parcels that no longer have any
development rights. Could those parcels be checked to see if there are agricultural or forestal activities
taking place? Mr. Breeden said those parcels could be targeted as the ones to look at, but as long as they
meet the guidelines, there is nothing to be done. Ms. Thomas said the County could change its enforcement
of the ordinance in some way. Mr. Breeden said staff is willing to investigate anything it becomes aware of.
Occasionally, people do call in and ask questions.
Mr. Perkins asked about doing a selective audit; what would that cost? He suggested using the
members of the Land Use Evaluation Advisory Board to do this. Mr. Woodzell said they could certainly go
out with him to view the properties. Mr. Breeden said he thinks staff might conduct the review, and on the
ones which were questionable, then use the Land Use Board.
Ms. Thomas said that before doing that, a package of information should be sent to each person in
the program letting them know the review is about to take place, and explain the steps the property owner
might take to be sure they still qualify for the program. She said the County has not communicated to the
property owners that they have responsibilities if they want this tax break. Mr. Breeden said staff can look at
what it would take to do that. He said that farm management plans are one way to show that a person is in a
farming operation, but if the owner meets the other minimum requirements of the SLEAC Committee, they
would probably qualify without a farm management plan.
Mr. Martin suggested putting together a strategy to do some minor education, and do some checking,
and see what happens.
ATTACHMENT B
.
.
.
II
September 5,2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Woodzell said the appraisers are on the property every 18 months, and they do try to monitor
land use. However, if they are on the property in the winter, there is no way to tell what goes on in the
summer. If they feel there is a neglect of proper use, they do notify that person and give them an opportunity
to correct that situation.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wants another report on what staff decides to do. He said a report can
be put on the consent agenda in the near future.
Ms. Thomas asked if other Board members had problems with this program.
Ms. Humphris said she has always had a basic problem with the program. She has felt that it all
worked to the benefit of the landowner when they had no obligation because there is no contract. They can
go in and out of the program at will. She always felt there should be something. She realizes it is to the
benefit of everybody in the County that these properties be kept undeveloped, but a lot of them do not have
development rights anyway.
ATTACHMENT B
,..
~
o
.~
~
~
~
~
C)
8
8
o
()
C)
~
.
"0
0)
"0
C
0)
+-'
C C
o --
-- C/)
C/) +-'
C/) --
::J 0)
t) C
C/) --
-- >
"0 S-
O)
"0 C/)
S-
C CU E
O 0 CU
co S-
~C/)O)
co ::J e
"'000..
--
- > +-'
~ ~ a5
I 0.. t:
0) ..c ::J
!.... +-' t)
'+-
o
"0
S-
CU
o
co
0)
C
::J
J
+-'
CU
C/)
C
o
+-'
0..
o
C
o
+-'
CU
"00)
==c
cu--
>+-'
I 0)
0)0)
S- E
'+-
..cSm OC/)
~ +-'..c S ~ S-
s a5 +-' 0) 51
+-' C/) 0) "s:--
"'0 C/) 0) C/) 0) 2:
0) - U5 S- 0 s- 0)
O)c~e-=o..
o 0 C/) ::J ::J ::J
o () <( 0.. u.. (f)
!....
a...
0)
0)
--+-'
--+-'
0)--
..cE
--+-'E
00
--+-'0
CJ) '+- C
0)00
0) --
cC--+-'
OCO
co -- "'0
..c --+-' - -
oCOro
0) E >
- !.... I
..cOO)
- - '+- !....
CJ)-,+-
CJ)coo
0--
o.c1:5
!.... 0) co
0) --+-' 0.
..cOE
--+-,0.
o --
"'0
!.... C CJ)
0) co CJ)
"'0 0)
-00 E ~
cCOco
o rn!....
(00)
0)!....4::::
0::: 0. co
I ~
~
'""d
(j)
~
rfl
(j)
~
c::r
(j)
~
~
o
.~
~
u
(j)
~
.~
Q
'""d
~
~
o
~
en Q)
-- ..c
..c ....,
....,
....,
co
-0
5-
co
~
o
'+-
Q)
>
o
E
~
....,
C
::J
o
U
Q)
..c
....,
o
...., ('- -
en E
Q) CO C'-"
0) 5- en
C 0) en
CO 0 Q)
..c 5- ()
t) c.. e
Q.
- C
-~ 0 CD
...., - - ..c
C....,+-'
Q) CO 0
...., >< Q)
o CO E
c.."'" 0
O)Q)en
C en 0
-- ::J Q)
~-o Q)
-ocj:::
.3 co "E
en - E
-occo
-S -- Q) ()
O Q) 5-
..c E :s
CI):+:;t)
0) '+-
C 0
-0 t
0) CO
I c..
C 5-
o CO
c -S ('--
CO 0) E
..c Q) CO
en 5- 5-
==coO)
..0 en 0
CO 5-
....,coc..
en en c
Q) en 0
~Q):+:;
...., t) CO
C 0 ><
::J 5- CO
o c......,
UCQ)
Q) -Q ~
..c ...., ....J
""'CO-o
-o~C
--CO
::JCO_
o ::;- Q)
..cQ)..c
CJ)5-....,
OIl
~
New Face of Albemarle County Business
As part of Virginia's Business Appreciation Week focus, "The State of Small Business"
we would like to encourage the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to recognize and
celebrate the Commonwealth of Virginia for being the best state for business in the nation
as noted by (Forbes.com and CNBCI). As part of celebrating Albemarle County's role
in that overall success, we would like to take this opportunity to recognize the new face
of Albemarle County Business. While we have seen declines in certain types of
businesses such as large manufacturers, as is being experienced all over the state and
country, we are experiencing the emergence of exciting and vibrant new small businesses
that provide economic vitality while supporting Albemarle's goals and values.
A recent study found that local businesses buy more goods and services locally and
employ more people locally per unit of sales (because they have no headquarters staff
elsewhere). Every $1 million spent at local bookstores, for example, creates $321,000 in
additional economic activity in the area, including $119,000 in wages paid to local
employees. That same $1 million spent at chain bookstores generates only $188,000 in
local economic activity, including $71,000 in local wages.2
As a way to highlight the exciting possibilities we are seeing in our local small business
success stories, this evening we have invited three local, small business-owners who each
clearly represent a positive and important direction for the Albemarle County business
community.
· The American Farmland Trust tells the bad news that "Every minute of every
day, we lose two acres of agricultural land to development.,,3 Even while the
land slips away, there is a renewed understanding that the support and
preservation of privately owned farmland generates multiple benefits for the
community and the environment. Farms contribute to a community's stability
by creating local jobs and supporting local businesses.4 Farmland helps the
environment by providing food and cover for wildlife, helps control flooding,
protects wetlands and watersheds, and maintains air quality.5 As we lose
irreplaceable farmland, the fact remains that we still must eat. Led by owner,
Brett Wilson, our largest local crop and food distributor, Horse & Buggy,
brings food from within a 100-mile radius of Charlottesville area and thus
helps our regional farming community to keep their products local. Horse &
1 htto://www.cnbc.com/id/19558099.
http://www .governor. virgi nia .gov /Med iaRelations/NewsReleases/viewRelease .cfm ?id
=461
2 Civic Economics, May 2007, htto://www.civiceconomics.com/SF/
3 American Farmland Trust website: htto:/ /www.farmland.org/default.asp.
4 A northern Iowa study found that "If residents of Black Hawk County spent $10 (of their
total grocery dollars) every week on locally grown food, that would amount to $2 million every
month invested in local people, local farms, and independent local businesses." (See:
http://www.uni.edu/ceee/foodproject/econ.htm .)
5 American Farmland Trust website: http://www.farmland.org/default.asp
Buggy services are an important element in what some label a "community
food system."
. Along these same lines, CEO John Me22s' Nature Neutral offers local wood
products, in support of sustainable forestry and harvesting practices. In
addition to locally-harvested wood flooring and cabinet material, Nature
Neutral offers a wide range of home improvement and construction materials
that have a reduced impact on the natural environment and help to foster our
community goal of sustainability.
. Under the leadership of Tom Thoroe, Afton Scientific, a long-time member
of the Bio-Technology or "Life Sciences" community continues to grow and
thrive in our region, and, at the same time, give back to the community. This
company is taking advantage of the V A Department of Business Assistance'
Jobs Investment Program to train new staff and help existing staff achieve
career-ladder opportunity. Afton also participates in the Charlottesville
Business Council's Technology Tour - a local program aimed at helping high
school students better understand high-tech career options.
COUNTYOFALBE~E
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
David L. Slutzky
Rio
H. Mallek
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
May 14, 2008
M . Erin Wise-Ackenbom
1 00 Independence Avenue
C arlottesville, VA 22902
It is with great appreciation that the Board of Supervisors received your resolution supporting
adoption of a U. S. Department of Peace and Non-Violence. The Board of Supervisors is a
lIy elected body that is charged with responding to matters specific to our community of
AI emarle County. Therefore it has not been our practice as a body to adopt formal positions on
is ues to be determined at the federal level that are outside of our area of jurisdiction, and so we are
no officially adopting your proposed resolution.
ar Ms. Wise-Ackenbom:
We are, however, very committed to the concepts of peace and nonviolence advocated by
proposed legislation and work. hard to incorporate those concepts into our deliberations as is
ap ropriate for our county. Certainly the goals of the program as stated, including greater community
inv Ivement and a strong, stable, cohesive civil society, are very positive and worthwhile initiatives to
pu ue.
We are particularly appreciative of the time and energy you and your classmates are
co mitting to the pursuit of this project. Our community, and indeed our entire country, is
str ngthened when people are willing to get actively involved to support the concepts they believe in.
S cial change through positive civic engagement is an honored tradition of our democratic society,
an we applaud your dedication and involvement.
Sincerely,
L~ CB.+>
Kenneth C. Boyd
Chairman
KC /ewj
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
.
.
.
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ~
RobertW. Tucker, Jr., County Executive dtA/1
May 5, 2008 ~ vv
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
JAUNT Stockholders' Meeting and Appointment of Proxy
Please see the attached memo regarding the upcoming JAUNT Annual Stakeholders' meeting to
be held on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. This meeting requires the appointment of a proxy to vote on
our shares at the meeting. I am recommending that you appoint, for the length of his term,
Juandiego Wade, one of our JAUNT board members, to act as proxy for the County of Albemarle.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me.
RWT,Jr/dbm
08.011
Albemarle County Executive's Office
401 Mcintire Rd.
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
/"..4",4\ "n.c ~OA1'"
0--
;*:*
**
*.
*
RECEIVED
/vi II V {I n )f'IQ.a
l"d~l V.~ ,,-U y
JAUNT, Inc.
104 Keystone Place
Charlottesville, VA 22902-6200
County of AJbemaria
County Exacutlvs'" Ofi~!t
To:
Charlottesville City Manager
County Administrators of Albemarle, Louisa, Fluvanna,
and Nelson Counties
Donna Shaunesey, Executive Director JP
From:
Date:
May 1, 2008
Re:
JAlJNT stockholders' meeting and appointment of proxies
.
JAUNT will hold its annual stockholders' meeting to formally approve
appointment of Board members on Wednesday, July 16th, 2008 at 9:45 AM in
the JAUNT Conference Room. We need your governing body to appoint a
proxy to vote its shares at this meeting. Your proxy may be the City
Manager/County Administrator or one of your appointed Board members. Also,
you may appoint the proxy for only this meeting, or, to simplify matters, for the
length of his/her term of office (if a Board member).
\/Ve will need new proxies from every locality except Louisa County.
Enclosed is a form to be returned to JAUNT officially design-ating the proxy. Also
enclosed is a list of JAUNT Board members with their terms of office.
Thank you for your assistance with this procedure.
Enclosures
.
Phone: (434) 296-3184, (800) 36JAUNT · Fax: (434) 296-4269 · www.ridejaunt.org
Ride with a Star
~
~
I.
~
..
r..... '4~'''''' ..-.. r
~
rr!l
I~
o
U illJ
I Uf ~~
Ut {U!
.....I.I:.b:.
,...... ,(II!I."", . iii... '.1 1'"::1"1 r:'IL
iU".......
. ~ ! I'!
· ,ill I
11111
. I,.
I ~
II I
t~1
lll~
,~.-."\
. ~.~... ...... '.
,~",:, "" "
.'".:..~~.:.. "~.I "'
,y.;.". .-'!.:'-,; .
. ?i;:/~~.\, L. 'I'
.....rV'A"''ti'~ .
;<~... '-\. :~\~';~:';" '"
\. . ....,,'.... . .;. ".
~~..----:-.. .~.. i' >":.., .
~;i.-..', . :.-"1: J..~...
:.
.......... l
~'" ./
" ~~~.:----,...... -'- -.---
"'-"". '.....-..-.--;-. _..
~
lj
~
to.
I~
~
...... 1-:It.Y"'I....
..... .........~,....... ..-
.-.. . I.........
........ .111I......,...
..;;::"'l.,:
.It
. \~.
- I
'. ".' J
'/~
/
1
....
~
I
hili ')
IIll... l
...
,..
c
o
--
+-'
CO
"'0
c
Q)
t:
E
o
o
Q)
a:
~
~
CJ)
c
o
+-'
-0
C
o
(.)
0)
c
.-
S
o
o
'+-
Q)
..c
+-'
..c
+-'
s
CO
>
o
~
0...
0...
<(
C ctS B ctS
~ _ ~ J.."""'"""","
0.... CO C 000
~ .~ ~ > """'" ~ Cl> ECl> .;:: CO Cl>
= ~ ~ (,) 0 (fJ ~ 0.> (,)
C a. (,) C J.. J.. ~ C 0) J..~Occ
o -POl;; ~ ~ ~ Be>.~ ~I.e 0.. ~ .n;
"" "'" <C ~ (,) "0 """'" J.. 0. (fJ -
> 0 ~ Cl> C (fJ > C ctS ~, Cl> ctS (fJ 0.
~ .2 "0 "E -... .0, ~ .Ii Cl> J.. ..0' 0. >.--g
J.. U. Cl> Cl> C C C """'" 0) 0) E O)~ Cl> 0
Cl> ~ E OW '" 0 ctS"""'"o ,"CC~_
C .;..; ctS .- "'" "W'._ :J ~ """'"
Cl> .- "0 Cl> .~ ~"5 ~ ctS Cl> ~'''O 0 0 Cl>
O)E ~ 0)> C :: ~ (,) +-'ctSu~~
J.. (fJ ctS Cl> ""'" 0 ~ ~ C tn' J.. J.. ~
C Cl> C J.. 0.J ~ E "0 ctS 0)"0 0
3: a. ~ ctS 0. U "0 1:: ~:J ~. ctS c.;::.=
o ,,\ "0 -=::: ctS Cl> '" -POl ~ 0 """'" ctS 0.=
- ~ C .::::; E Cl> ~ "'" "" VI 0 ... .-
-- VI > ~ ctS 0. C .- - C C """'"
(fJ :=) ctS (,) ctS I- Q) Cl> ctS 0 ~ Cl>. - ctS >
(fJ - C :: _ J.. C Cl> ~ 0 (,)~a.c
ctS ctS 0 ~..... '" ~ J.. J.. C 0. ctS
.- U) .-. (1) 'v 0 co-
Cl> (,) J.. 0) ctS "E (,) .c oS .- 0. :J "0 0 """'"
.0 Cl> ctS CD ~ C .- (fJ 0.J.. 0. (fJ 0 J.. 0
== wo. U E .0 Cl>E Cl> 0) > ctS (fJ.2"E ~
"" 0 "0 .:: J.. "0 J.. .- """'" 0 C
~ <C ~ W = "0 C > ctS Cl> Cl> Cl> Cl> (,) Cl>
(fJ , '\ ,,~ - ctS co... (fJ C ~~ ~ ~ E
'-' ~ ctS ~ Cl> 0. (fJ (fJ .- "'" ~ ~ C Cl>
.~ 0 .g m (fJ E (fJ J.. (,)Cl> oS C 0 C Cl> (,)
ctS W .::::; -POl ~ ctS Cl> Cl>" \ .0 ctS ~ . - E ctS
- "" C J.. Cl> ~ 0 -=::: J.. -
0. Cl> > Cl> ctS """'" J.. C C .::::; 0 =.- 0.
"0 J...o u. (,) 0 0 .- Cl> (fJ .- ; "0 J..
o ~ -POl Cl> = J.. (,) ~ m .0 (,)Cl> 0.. ~ ~ ~
.2 Ci) Ci) ~ 0. Cl> = W ~ ~ .....-
"""'" > J.. ~ 0.::: ctS ~ (fJ ~ C ctS "0 .":::
Cl> - ctS > ctS ~ C """'" O:J o~"""'" C E
~ Cl> 0. .0 Cl> J.. 0 0 "0 E (fJ 0. 0 ctS J..
~fO ~ "O~ 0"0 C e-c (fJ Cl>c~CCl>
C '" 0. Cl> ~ ... Cl> .- 0 ctS - . a: 0 ::.2 0.
. - .,..;' "' J.. ..-:::. C . - ctS , '\ ... ctS ", - ':.:::: E~ ,,, P"'Ir\
- "" "' .- 0 0. - '-' > > VI __ VI "'"
= Cl> (fJ :J <C ._ 0 0. ......... ~ o:=: ~ ctS 0 C
"""'" - . C'" -=::: "0 ~.- E - 0) Cl> J...-
Cl> :E 32 ~ Cl> .::::; .~ (,) 0 E CO 0.. .a . - (,) Cl> "0
~ C .~ 0 J.. W > Cl> 0 J.. :J 0. m ctS."::: ~ C ~
I- Cl> U. N == ~ ~.o;: <C" ctS o.Z E o.ctS 0)
,....
.
N
.
~
.
M
= U) Cl) 0)
Cl) c::: co . - c:::
. _ ""'" ..s:::::
0):> ""....-
"'C~ ~~ "'CCl)Cl)C:::Cl) c:::
Cl) 0."'0 ...... Cl) Cl) co ..s:::::..s::::: co..s::::: ~ :- c:::
"'CC C..s::::: .0 0......... OCO
Q; 0 ~ .6,1- >:- '0 0) Cl)3: 0 n Cl) '+- a:
c::: 0...... .~. >; Cl) c::: ._ ... Cl)..s:::::"'C '+-
c:::-~~~"'C COc:::..s:::::U)=>:-......Cl)O
.- '+- ~..t: Cl) E Cl)'" C:::.- Cl).2 0 0)=
Cl)"'C ~..... '"' > :- > 0 co :- :- :- C:::. - :-
..s:::::Cl)~~~:-'+-=~.o;~:-a.~-Eg
...U)~oc~o~u"'C:-"'C~O):-~.ou .
0)0~~~Cl)C:::~ Cl)oc::: c:::~Cl)~Cl)c:::
c::: a. ~ C 0 :- co Cl) ~.o a. co "'C .- U) U).: 0
.- 0 (,) 0 (.,) a. -a...s::::: :- 0)- Cl) c::: U) Cl) Cl) c .-
"'0 :-............ ... c::: ~ a. = C:::"'C :- ...
c::: a. 0)1: ~ "'0 Cl) '+- 0....= .- co 0 0..0 Cl) U
~ Cl) ~ 0 1:: ;..s::::: O;.~ c::: <t E a:..s::::: :- =..s::::: 2
O..s::::: 0 a.. ~ ... "'0 U"'O.co ..0 ~ 0 co ... ...
.o...~ E"'Cc::: ~ E"'C~'+- '+-..s:::::'OU)
- '+- ~ 0 ~ Cl) 0 c::: :-. ~ c::: U) o:::a: "'0 U) c:::
-0..t:~~C::: Cl)... Cl)Cl) :- c::: -0
~ ... (,) I-- ...... .co"'C c::: ~ co :- ..s::::: ~ 0 c co g ~ u
U) ~ C Ill::( ... ~ :- o..s:::::.: ... '0 0 c:::; 0 "'0
Cl) ~ Ill::(...... '"' Cl) Cl) ~ u'" co ~ = Cl).';:: 0 U :- co
c::: ~ ~ C ~ :- .0 ... Cl) a. 0 co :- (.).- ~ a. 0
o..s:::::~o~Cl)co:-"'Cc:::Cl)U)..s:::::c~,o:-a.:-
Ui t:: ~...... ~.o - 0 co 0 :- U) U) ~ ~ Ui co '+-
.0~~~="'Cc:::eUiO~Cl)Cl)U):-c:::Cl)0
>c:::..t:O)ocoC:::Cl) ......c:::..s:::::c:::Uio..s:::::...
~"'Ca..~a..~..s:::::co..s:::::"'CCl)"'Ccoo=oc:::u"'C:::
~ U)"'C...Cl)..s:::::Cl)_"'ou oCl)
'+- c::: Cl) ~..... ... Cl)'" U) I- U) co U) "'0 0 0)... E
o co..s::::: ~ C co.- co 0 . ~ :> Cl) co co u c::: ... Cl)
c::: ...... C ~ o:!:: ~ 0. c::: Cl) ~..s::::: > 0 0).;: u (.)
o U)Cl).= ~ E 0 'E ~ 0 ~.o Cl)'" 0 :- c::: o~.~ c:::
.- ~ ~ C\I Cl) ioU :- 0. ..s::::: '+-:- .- .0 Cl)
'0 3:"'C ~ 0 "'"'C Cl) 0. =... 0 0. '0 :i = ~ E
Cl) c:::. ~ ...... ~ <.0 . -..s::::: Cl) Cl) co "'0 Cl) o...."'C ~ U)
U).co:!:: 0) ~ > >1- ..s::::: -= ~ c::: U) co c::: - - Cl) E
O)-'E~~m~~:c::: ~~Cl)Cl)coco:-o
c:::o.Cl)OQ~coc:::ooC:::~Cl)..s:::::E3:3:COU
o "'C"'C ~ :- ~ Cl) '+- .2 Cl) :- ... Cl) "'C Cl)
.. 0.- ~ e.o U E"'C"'C'" 0 "'0 0 U 0) 0) c::: ..s:::::
(:).2 ~ -fi ~ ~ Cl) 0. ~ ~ g... ~:: ~.=.= co"'o
o,+-,w~~ .oO~CO:-:-VlU C:::C::::>
...... Cl) U) ~ ~"'C _:-:- ... 0 0 Cl) E.-.- ~ ...
..s:::::"'Oo~Cl)=Cl)~UiU)-~-ECOCOCl):-
~ = Cii ,~ ~ co ~ ~.~ ~ g ~ e.g 0 ~ ~.~.g
I-O;~~"'CU)"'C"'C=u~o.U)u:-:-:-o.
.
Lt)
Ih Q,) "0 J... . ~ J... c::
~ t:....... ~ 0 Q) +oJ 0"0 0
(1)._ ~ 0 .- .-.t: CU Q) a.
~ r::: ~ - '0 5- c.:: oS g EQ) ::J
a.. 0 1;:"0 "'^ 0 Q)
· - Q,) Q) 1.1.II J... Q) Q) "0 c:: Q) Q) J...
Q) -:: ..Q +oJ '" 0 .0 J... Q)'::: CU (.) '"P"t Q)
.t: ..'" -.. (.) "'" t/) -- t/) +oJ ::3 - c:: """.t:
+oJ .~..q: ::3 ~.- -g ~ t/) Q) ~ t/) a. Q) Q) +oJ
c:: Ui ~"O <(:= CU.t: Q)",J... ~ a. ~ E E .0 =
.- Q,) t: c:: c:: '+- t/) t/):= 0 ::3 E CU Q) E = ~
"0 :s. Q,) 0._ 0 Q) C) t/) 'i: 1ii 0 E CU t/)
Q) t: Q.. (.) t/) t/). - c:: +oJ Q) (.) t/) 0 .t:
"0 -.. 0 Q) Q) C)"O.- Q) -::: -= Q) CU cu (.) t/) J...Q)
c:: -.. .0 (.) ::3 +oJ Q) iIIo.. "'" . _ +oJ
Q) a:J ~ c:: +oJ t/) E - c::.c"O Q) C) - .- "0
E .~ a.. = :i ~ t/) Q) Q) 0 - !>>.:: c:: ~ E c::
,.... ..... CU +oJ.t: . - - - .- -- J... ::3
E "-II t:.t: 0.= CO - 0 +oJ:=: CU.~ CU c:: t/) Q) Q)
.!2 Q,) t/) t/) '+- (.) CU.t: '+- "O.t: 0'" c:: c:: +oJ a. J...
o 0 ~ Q) Q).- c:: :> 0"0 t/) Q).- CU 0 Q)
(.) 1;:.... J... C) 0 ;;> _ Q)
Q) Q,) '" CO -.t: 0.- +oJ > <( C) J... "0 a. ~ t/) .t:
a:J -.c..O CU +oJ -."!::: t/) J... . c:: t/) Q) ""'" '"P"t
J... ..c: .!2 0 J... c:: 0"0. - CU t/):;::::: +oJ c:: '+- c::::3 """
t/) (.) Q,) C\I ::3 0 Q)"O C)+oJ"O t/) c:: = 0 .- _ ~
CU ~:s......::: CU .2 ~ J... Q) Q) +oJ J... ~.~ c::
.... a:J Q,) <.0 ::3"O.t: CU 0 (.) CU +oJ E ::3 0 CU (.) CU
C)oQ.......(.) Q) (.) Q) Q) Q)"O Q)+oJ 0'0 0.Q) J...
c:: Q,) .-. t/) J....t: '" en c:: '" a. C)
._,~ Cb J... '+- CU CU 1-"'" CU.t: "'" Q) Q) "0
"t: '-' ~ CU 0 "'^ .t: Q) +oJ +oJ Q).c.: ,.. t/) >
v, ",,::3 1.1.II - . (.) '+- J... iIIo.. +oJ
Q) "'0"5 J... E . CU"O J....t: en 0 I- = C CU.~.i:
+oJ t: .0 Q) CU c:: Q) CU +oJ c:: . CU Q) t/).t: 0
CO a:J ~ Q) +oJ Q).2.:"O c:: 0 ~~.t:.t: "0 +oJ .t:
(.) ~ -.. L1. >< J... +oJ ::3 Q). - . - . _ t/) +oJ _ J... +oJ
.- Cb Q,)"O Q) CU ~ O'":;:.t: CU.= t/) C)'+- .~ 0 ::3
C) :s. en Q) Q) +oJ "0 Q) = t:: (.)"0 Q) c:: 0 '+- .... CU
.2 == Q,) +oJ.t: g CU J... CU 0:;: C::.t:.- _ Q) <.0 Q)
o .......c: CU +oJ . - .... Q) ::3 '+- = :;: +oJ 1ii CU .t: 'r" .t:
Q) (f) ....."0 t/) 0 C).c O'"+oJ CU Q) '+- Q) > +oJ ~ +oJ
CU-"~a:Jt/)J...c:: Q)::3 O+oJO'+-~~"O
.t: ~ 0'- Q) a.:;::::: ~ CU t/) 0:= Q) Q) a. 0 ~:r"" c::
(.)'- (I).E ~ Q) t/) E > t/) - '+- (.).t: a. c:: 'r" CU
:; 0) t: ~ '" Q) Q) .0 c:: CU 0 c:: +oJ CU 0....... '"P"t
"'" 0 0 ~ "'" +oJ t/) 0 c:: +oJ CU '+- .-.-. """ .
- -.. '- S >"0 - +oJ "0:;::::: 0 -.0 0 0 '0 CU Q) Q)
CU 0 t: - Q) CU c:: Q) CU.- ::3 J... t/) +oJ ::3:iE c:: +oJ
c:: Q,) 0 "'"S > c:: Q) '0 (.) t/) t/)::3 +oJ J... 0 CU
o a:J a.. C'+- -Q) 0 E """.- t/) Q) +oJ ~ (.) +oJ Q)"O c::
. - ..c: . - oJ:= Q) J... t/) iIIo.. Q) t/) J... c::.-
:=:(.)o5Q)m:=:+oJ"O_'+-cu~~..c-c::o,"E
"O~ .....J... "OCUC::CUo """""" '+-""'J...
"O..q:~ooQ)"OQ)O::3J...t/)oC::::3~Q).cQ)
<(-..~OE:=cu'::(.)O'"a.cu+oJ:;:t/)~.ccu+oJ
.
<.0
.
.......
~
I.
.
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Pb,one (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
May 8,2008
Chris Schooley
24-21 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: SP2007-00054 SOCA Synthetic Fields near Belvedere (parking)
&
SP2007-00058 SOCA Synthetic Fields near Belvedere (floodplain)
Dfaar Mr. Schooley:
Tile Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22,2008, reviewed and took action
0111 the above-noted petitions
T~e Albemarle Countv Plannina Commission aDDroved. bv a vote of 7:0. SP2007-00054. SOCA
Svnthetic Fields near Belvedere (Parkina):
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The location of the synthetic field shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan
entitled, "Belvedere - SOCA Special Use Permit: All Weather Synthetic Turf Field", and dated March
28, 2008.
2. Public streets which provide access to the synthetic field and to the parking area shall be constructed
prior to use of the field.
3. Public streets which provide on-street parking to accommodate parking requirements for the synthetic
field shall be a minimum of 32' in width or other width as may be required by the County Engineer and
approved as a variation by the Director of Planning.
4. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the end of Belvedere Boulevard. to the synthetic field in
accordance with the Albemarle County Design Manual standards for permanent paths.
5. In conjunction with its review and approval of a site plan or subdivision plat that pertains to or includes
TMP 062A30-00-00-001 00, the County may require that Belvedere Boulevard be extended to provide
public street access to TMP 06200-00-00-002AO.
Amd the following to be covered by additional conditions (language to be finalized before the Board of
Swpervisors' meeting):
6. The applicant shall demonstrate as a condition of final site plan approval that the on-site parking
provided for the use, including on-site on-street parking, is adequate for the proposed use.
7. The hours of use for organized activities and events are limited to the time between 8:00 a.m. and
9:30 p.m. (The language to be worked out prior to Board of Supervisors meeting.)
8. A pro-rata contribution to the traffic signal at Belvedere Boulevard and Rio Road, the primary access
to Belvedere, to be worked out before the presentation to the Board of Supervisors.
9. The proposed route of Meadow Creek Parkway (Northern Free State Road) to be designated on the
site plan consistent with the alignment that is shown in the documents.
10. If the use or structure is not commenced by May 14, 2013, this special use permit shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted by this permit shall terminated.
Motion on Critical SloDes Waiver:
The motion for approval passed by a vote of 7:0.
The Albemarle Countv Plannina Commission aDDroved. bv a vote of 7:0. SP2007-00058. SOCA
Svnthetic Fields near Belvedere (FloodDlain):
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The fill in the floodplain shall be as shown generally on the plan entitled, "Belvedere SOCA Special Use
Permit: Flood Plain Fields" prepared by McKee Carson and last dated March 25, 2008.
2. If required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the applicant shall obtain a map
revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment. The County Engineer shall be copied on all
correspondence related to changes to the floodplain.
3. Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state and
federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits.
4. Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a grading
permit prior to placement of any fill in the floodplain, and County approval an erosion and sediment control
plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for placement of any fill in the floodplain.
5. The 70Q'-long section of dry-stone wall bounding the inner edge of the floodplain west and northwest of
the proposed flood plain fields as identified in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and Geoarchaeological
Investigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property, Albemarle County, Virginia dated
February 6, 2008, shall be retained and preserved. The wall shall be clearly identified and labeled on the
plan of development. The 50' at the northern end of the wall may be disturbed for the proposed road
construction as currently illustrated on the plan. The stone that is disturbed by the road construction shall
be used to repair remaining portions of the wall or to extend the wall at its south end. A plan detailing the
proposed re-use of the stone shall be submitted for review and is subject to the approval of the Director of
Planning prior to the commencement of road construction. Methods for protecting the remaining wall
during construction and for preserving the remaining wall following construction shall be submitted for
review and are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning prior to the commencement of road
construction.
6. Additional archaeological testing, as recommended in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and
Geoarchaeologicallnvestigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property, Albemarle
County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be conducted to more fully assess the extent of cultural
resources in Area B of the Belvedere project area. Based on the findings of this additional testing,
additional archaeological studies and/or treatments may be required. The additional testing shall be
conducted by a qualified archaeologist who meets the qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. Additional studies required as a result of the findings of the
testing shall be completed prior to disturbance of the site. Treatments required as a result of the findings
of the testing shall be outlined in a treatment plan that is subject to approval of the Director of Planning.
.
.
.
Rlease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on May 14, 2008
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
SUmmer Frederick
Senior Planner
Zbning and Current Development Division
(/Planner for SP-07-54)
Elaine Echols, AICP
Principal Planner
Planning Division
(Planner for SP-07-58)
Cc: Belvedere Station Land Trust; Robert M Hauser & Stan C Manoogian Trs
2421 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA DATE:
May 14, 2008
SUBJEC IPROPOSALlRE UEST:
Request t construct a synthetic soccer field and
associate parking in accordance with Section
15.2.2.4 f the Zoning Ordinance.
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
BACKGR UND:
On April 2, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the special use permit request to construct one (1)
full sized II-weather synthetic turf field, two (2) mini-soccer fields, and a facility to include; a concession stand, locker
rooms, m nager's office, trainer's treatment room and equipment storage; associated parking at Belvedere. The Planning
Commiss on approved the associated critical slope waiver and recommended approval of the special use permit with
condition recommended by staff, along with five (5) additional recommendations. The staff report is Exhibit A-1. Exhibit
B-1 conta ns the action memo from the Commission.
DISCUS ION:
The Plan ing Commission asked that the issue of a contribution to a traffic signal on Rio Road/Meadowcreek Parkway at
the inters ction with the new Belvedere Boulevard to mitigate impacts of the soccer use be worked out between the
~mmiss on and Board meeting. The applicant asked staff to provide a cost figure for this contribution. Staff calculated
_at the a plicant's proportion would be 5%. The signal is estimated at $225,000 and the proportionate share for SOCA
would be 11,250. Staff understands that the applicant agrees to a condition of 5% of the cost of the signal.
RECOM ENDATIONS:
Staff reco mends approval of SP 2007-054 with the following conditions:
.
1. T e location of the synthetic field shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled, "Belvedere -
S CA Special User Permit: All Weather Synthetic Turf Field", and dated March 28, 2008.
2. P blic streets which provide access to the synthetic field and to the parking area shall be constructed prior
t use of the field.
3. P blic streets which provide on-street parking to accommodate parking requirements for the synthetic field
s all be a minimum of 32' in width or other width as may be required by the County Engineer and approved
a a variation by the Director of Planning.
4. P destrian access shall be provided from the end of Belvedere Boulevard to the synthetic field in
a cordance with the Albemarle County Design Manual standards for permanent paths.
5. In conjunction with it review and approval of a site plan or subdivision plat that pertains to or includes TMP
o 2A3-00-00-00100, the County may require that Belvedere Boulevard be extended to provide public street
a cess to TMP 06200-00-00-002AO.
6. T e applicant shall demonstrate as a condition of final site plan approval that the on-site parking provided
for the use, including on-site on-street parking, is adequate for the proposed use.
7. T e hours of use for organized activities and events are limited to the time between 8:00am and 9:30pm.
8. T e applicant shall pay five (5) percent of the cost of signalization (the "signal(s)")at the intersection of
B Ivedere Boulevard and Rio Road/Meadowcreek Parkway as follows:
a. Prior to the issuance of the first building or other permit issued by the County, the applicant shall place
funds in escrow or provide other security ("security") acceptable to the County in an amount equal to the
cost of the signal(s), which amount shall be calculated by the Director of Community Development in the
year in which the security is provided. The security shall continue so long that it is available to pay for the
cost of the signal(s) until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit. Security that
is not in an interest-bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be
adjusted each year according to the consumer price index, as determined by the Director of Community
Development; and
b. If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit, the Virginia
Department of Transportation ("VDOT") authorizes in writing the installation of the signal(s), and VDOT
and the County's Engineer approve the signal(s), whether before or after the applicant has obtained a
building permit, the County may demand payment of the applicant's five (5) percent share of the cost of
cost of the signal(s), and the applicant shall pay its share to the County within thirty (30) days of that
demand.
9. The proposed route of the Meadow Creek Parkway or its other manifestation to be designated on the site
plan consistent with the alignment that is shown on the conceptual plan entitled, "Belvedere - SOCA Special
User Permit: All Weather Synthetic Turf Field", and dated March 28, 2008.
10. If the use or structure is not commenced by May 14, 2013, this special use permit shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted by this permit shall be terminated.
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A-1: Planning Commission Action Memo for April 22, 2008
EXHIBIT B-1: Staff Report dated April 22, 2008
.
.
.
II
unfairly treated under what is being proposed. In the project reviewed last week there has been no effort
in 30 years to vest any rights. As Mr. Kamptner noted under state law it would not qualify for any vesting.
They are trying to address a glaring loophole in the ordinance that goes back to stale zoning that does not
exist any more. Certainly they need to hear about the ones that may feel that they are being challenged
by this.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Strucko seconded to approve the resolution of intent to amend section
8.5.5.2 of the zoning ordinance.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris said that the Commission looks forward to this item coming back.
Public Hearing Items:
ZT A-2007 -00001 Zero Lot Line Residences in the R-2 to R-15 Zonina District
Amend Sections 3.1 (Definitions), 4.11.3 (Reduction of building separation and side yards), 4.11.3.1
(Untitled), 4.11.3.2 (Untitled), 4.11.3.3 (Untitled), 14.3 (Area and bulk regulations, 15.3 (Area and bulk
regulations), 16.3 (Area and bulk regulations), 17.3 (Area and bulk regulations), 18.3 (Area and bulk
regulations). This ordinance would amend section 3.1 by defining "zero lot line" and "zero lot line
development); sections 4.11.3, 4.11.3.1, 4.11.3.2 and 4.11.3.3 by revising and adding regulations
allowing reducing the minimum building separation and side yards for structures where there is adequate
fire flow and for dwelling units in zero lot line developments; and sections 14.3, 15.3, 16.3, 17.3 and 18.3
by revising the respective district yard regulations to allow minimum side yards to be reduced to zero feet
on one side in qualifying zero lot line developments. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in
the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development,
County Office Building, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Elaine Echols)
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded to recommend approval of the adoption of the draft
ordinance for ZTA-2007-01, Zero Lot Line Residences in the R-2 to R-15 Zoning District as submitted by
staff with the following caveats and changes:
1. When the ordinance is presented to the Board of Supervisors the Fire Marshal or other expert
official needs to be available to address any concerns with the 10' separation as raised by Mr.
Loach.
2. The staff recommended changes in the language as shown on the screen for sections A and B be
included.
3. Section B2 be removed as unnecessary.
4. Section C be removed since it is inconsistent with the concerns intended to be addressed by the
resolution of intent approved earlier in the evening.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris said that ZTA~2007-01 would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval at a date to be determined.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:12 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:18 p.m.
SP-2007-00054 SOCA-AII Weather Svnthetic Field-Belvedere (Sian # 16 & 49)
PROPOSED: Soccer Field and associated parking and spectator seating adjacent to Belvedere and
accessory building near soccer fields in the floodplain
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 (4 units/acre)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FINAL ACTION MEMO Exhibit A (
SECTION: Section 15.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows athletic facilities for fill in the R4
District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-
residential uses in Neighborhood 2
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: At the northern end of Belvedere Drive off of East Rio Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Portion of 62A3-1 and 62-2A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Elaine Echols, Summer Frederick)
AND
SP-2007-00058 SOCA-Belvedere/Flood Plain Field (Sian # 16 & 49)
PROPOSED: Floodplain disturbance for 5 soccer fields
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 (4 units/acre) and Neighborhood Model District
(residential [3 - 34 units/acre] mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses); FH Flood Hazard
Overlay District - agricultural, recreational, and utility location uses which will not pose a danger to life or
property in the event of a flood
SECTION: Section 30.3.5.2.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for fill in the floodplain
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-
residential uses in Neighborhood 2.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: adjacent to south bank of the South Fork Rivanna River at the northern end of Belvedere
Drive which is off of East Rio Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: portions of 62-2C, 62A3-1, and 62-2B
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Elaine Echols, Summer Frederick)
Motion on SP-2007-054:
Motion: Ms. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, for approval of SP-2007-00054, SOCA-AII Weather
Synthetic Field-Belvedere with the following amendments to the staff recommended conditions:
1. The location of the synthetic field shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan
entitled, "Belvedere - SOCA Special Use Permit: All Weather Synthetic Turf Field", and dated
March 28, 2008.
2. Public streets which provide access to the synthetic field and to the parking area shall be
constructed prior to JHIbIie use of the field.
3. Public streets which provide on-street parking to accommodate parking requirements for the
synthetic field shall be a minimum of 32' in width or other width as may be required by the
County Engineer and approved as a variation by the Director of Planning.
4. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the end of Belvedere Boulevard. to the synthetic field in
accordance with the Albemarle County Design Manual standards for permanent paths.
5. In conjunction with its review and approval of a site plan or subdivision plat that pertains to or
includes TMP 062A3 0-00-00-00 1 00, the County may require that Belvedere Boulevard be
extended to provide public street access to TMP 06200-00-00-002AO.
And the following to be covered by additional conditions (language to be finalized before the Board of
Supervisors'meeting):
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FINAL ACTION MEMO
4
.
.
.
, I
6. The applicant shall demonstrate as a condition of final site plan approval that the on-site parking
provided for the use, including on-site on-street parking, is adequate for the proposed use.
7. The hours of use for organized activities and events are limited to the time between 8:00 a.m. and
9:30 p.m. (The language to be worked out prior to Board of Supervisors meeting.)
8. A pro-rata contribution to the traffic signal at Belvedere Boulevard and Rio Road, the primary
access to Belvedere, to be worked out before the presentation to the Board of Supervisors.
9. The proposed route of Meadow Creek Parkway (Northern Free State Road) to be designated on
the site plan consistent with the alignment that is shown in the documents.
10. If the use or structure is not commenced by May 14, 2013, this special use permit shall be
deemed abandoned and the authority granted by this permit shall terminated.
Mr. Strucko asked for one clarification on the hours of operation for SOCA sponsored soccer events. He
asked if other type events are being planned for this facility other than SOCA for the synthetic field. He
suggested that the condition be amended to say SOCA sponsored events or broader kinds of events.
Mr. Kamptner noted that SOCA might not be here forever. He suggested that they use language like
organized activities and events or something like that. He would like to work with the zoning administrator
to come up with language so that it is not organization specific.
Mr. Cannon accepted the amendment to the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Strucko.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on Critical SloDes Waiver:
Ms. Joseph noted that the critical slope was a very small intrusion in this area.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, for approval of critical slope waiver for SP-2007-
00054, SOCA-AII Weather Synthetic Field-Belvedere.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris stated that the critical slope waiver was approved. SP-2007-00054, SOCA-AII Weather
Synthetic Field- Belvedere will go before the Board of Supervisors on May 14 with a recommendation for
approval.
Motion on SP-2007 -058:
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, for approval of SP-2007-00058, SOCA-
Belvedere/Flood Plain Field with the conditions as recommended by staff.
1. The fill in the floodplain shall be as shown generally on the plan entitled, "Belvedere SOCA Special
Use Permit: Flood Plain Fields" prepared by McKee Carson and last dated March 25, 2008.
2. If required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the applicant shall obtain a map
revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment. The County Engineer shall be copied on all
correspondence related to changes to the floodplain.
3. Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state
and federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits.
4. Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a
grading permit prior to placement of any fill in the floodplain, and County approval an erosion and
sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for placement of any fill in the
floodplain.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FINAL ACTION MEMO
5
5. The 700'-long section of dry-stone wall bounding the inner edge of the floodplain west and northwest
of the proposed flood plain fields as identified in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and
Geoarchaeological Investigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property, Albemarle
County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be retained and preserved. The wall shall be clearly
identified and labeled on the plan of development. The 50' at the northern end of the wall may be
disturbed for the proposed road construction as currently illustrated on the plan. The stone that is
disturbed by the road construction shall be used to repair remaining portions of the wall or to extend
the wall at its south end. A plan detailing the proposed re-use of the stone shall be submitted for
review and is subject to the approval of the Director of Planning prior to the commencement of road
construction. Methods for protecting the remaining wall during construction and for preserving the
remaining wall following construction shall be submitted for review and are subject to the approval of
the Director of Planning prior to the commencement of road construction.
6. Additional archaeological testing, as recommended in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and
Geoarchaeologicallnvestigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property, Albemarle
County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be conducted to more fully assess the extent of
cultural resources in Area B of the Belvedere project area. Based on the findings of this additional
testing, additional archaeological studies and/or treatments may be required. The additional testing
shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist who meets the qualifications set forth in the Secretary
of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. Additional studies required as a result of the
findings of the testing shall be completed prior to disturbance of the site. Treatments required as a
result of the findings of the testing shall be outlined in a treatment plan that is subject to approval of
the Director of Planning.
The motion passed by a vote of7:0.
Mr. Morris stated that SP-2007 -00058, SOCA-Belvedere/Flood Plain Field will go before the Board of
Supervisors on May 14 with a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Strucko left the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
The Planning Commission took a break at 8:58 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:11 p.m.
Regular Items:
SUB-2008-00022 Bel/air #5- Preliminarv
Request for preliminary plat approval to create 2 lots on 2.066 acres. The property is zoned R-1
Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 76C-02 ParcelS is located in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District on Deer Path Road [Route 809] at the intersection with Old Farm Road [Route 846].
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in Urban Area 6. (Megan
Yaniglos)
Mr. Edgerton said that he heard staff say loud and clear that all easements have to be shown. If that
needs to be part of this plat, then it needs to be shown with something more than a magic marker. He
would like some assurance that it really has been looked at a little bit more than the critical slopes if there
are other issues. With that in mind he was going to recommend denial. Mr. McDaniel has given us an
interpretation how it is against the regulations to have a septic site any closer than 5' to the property line.
It is hard to determine that from the free hand drawing that shows the potential septic site. He asked that
the Commission be provided with some clear engineering on that. He would very much like to have both
Mr. Crauns here to explain exactly what sort of engineering they have done on this.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Ms. Joseph seconded, for denial of SUB-2008-00022, Bellair #5
Preliminary as the plat does not comply with the ordinance. It needs to show all of the easements and
clear engineering needs to be provided for the potential septic site.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FINAL ACTION MEMO
6
.
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Name: SP200700054 SOCA - Staff: Summer Frederick, Senior
All Weather Synthetic Field - Belvedere Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
April 22, 2008 May 14, 2008
Owners: Belvedere Station Land Trust; Applicant: Stonehaus Development &
Robert M Hauser & Stan C Manoogian, McKee Carson
Trustees, and Jacob C. & Charlotte G.
Levenson
Acreage: Approximately 7.5 acres Special Use Permit for: Section
15.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which
allows for athletic facilities, associated
parking and accessory structures in R-4,
Residential zoning district.
TMP: 062A3-00-00-00100, 06200-00- Conditions: Yes
00-002AO
Location: At the northern end of
Belvedere Boulevard (currently under
construction), approximately three (3)
miles from its intersection with East Rio
Road [SR 631], and adjacent to the
Norfolk-southern Railroad line.
Existing Zoning and By-right use: R-4 Magisterial District: Rio
Residential (4 units/acre) which allows for
single-family detached, side-by-side
duplexes, semi-detached and attached
single-family residential dwelling units.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A DA-X RA
Proposal: The applicant purposes to Comprehensive Plan Designation:
construct one (1) full sized all-weather Neighborhood Density residential (3-6
synthetic turf field, two (2) mini-soccer units/acre) and supporting uses such as
fields, and a facility to include; a religious institutions and schools and
concession stand, locker rooms, other small-scale non-residential ues in
manager's office, trainer's treatment room Urban Neighborhood 2.
and equipment storage; associated
parking.
Character of Property: Property is Use of Surrounding Properties:
heavily wooded. Residential and residential to be
developed
1
Exhibit B I
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable:
1. The facility will provide a community 1. The scale of the use is greater than
oriented, community-wide athletic would be typically expected in
facility serving the new neighborhood Neighborhood Density residential
and other parts of the County. development.
2. The facility is proposed within the 2. Public streets are intended to provide
County's designated development on-street parking for the use. As
areas. currently planned, the streets are not
3. The facility will augment recreational wide enough to accommodate the on-
facilities already planned for the street parking. Staff is
neighborhood. recommending a condition to address
this.
3. Timing of construction of the public
streets is not tied down, such that
construction of the synthetic field
could take place before the streets
are built. Staff is recommending a
condition to address this.
4. Pedestrian access from the end of
the public streets to the facility does
not appear to be provided. Staff is
recommending a condition to address
this.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions.
2
.
.
.
S AFF PERSON:
PANNING COMMISSION:
BARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SUMMER FREDERICK
APRIL 22, 2008
MAY 14, 2008
07-54 SOCA - All Weather Synthetic Field - Belvedere and Critical Slope Waiver
Iicant's Pro osal:
Th applicant purposes to construct two (2) facilities located at different sites; one (1) full sized
all weather synthetic turf soccer field and two (2) mini-soccer fields, with seating for 500 and a
str cture to include a concession stand, locker rooms, manager's office, trainer's treatment room
an equipment storage. This location will also have associated parking. (See Attachment A)
Pe ition:
P OJECT: SP2007 -054 SOCA Synthetic Fields near Belvedere
P OPOSED: Soccer Field and associated parking and spectator seating adjacent to Belvedere
an accessory building near soccer fields in the floodplain
Z NING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 (4 units/acre)
S CTION: Section 15.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows athletic facilities for fill in the
R4 District
C MPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential- residential
(3- units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-
sc Ie non-residential uses in Neighborhood 2
E TRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: At the northern end of Belvedere Drive off of East Rio Road
TA MAP/PARCEL: Portion of 62A3-1 and 62-2A
M GISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
Ch racter of the Area :The surrounding area is made up of existing or to be developed single-
fa ily attached and detached dwelling units in the neighborhoods of Belvedere, Dunlora and
No hfields. (See Attachment B).
PI nnin and Zonin Histor: The area specific to the special use permit application has no
zo ing or planning history. However, the area immediately adjacent to the application area is
inc uded in ZMA2004-007, Belvedere. The 2004 action rezoned 206.682 acres from R-4,
Re idential to NMD, Neighborhood Model District, allowing for residential, commercial, and
rec eational uses. (See Attachment C)
Co rehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Neighborhood Density in
Ur an Neighborhood 2. (See Attachment D) The proposed Places 29 Master Plan also shows
thi area as Neighborhood Density residential. The purpose/intent of the Neighborhood Density
de ignation is to provide for a gross residential density of three (3) to six (6) dwelling units per
acr ,a range of dwelling unit types, and neighborhood-scale non-residential uses.
In r lation to the Comprehensive Plan, the scale of this use is greater than would typically be
ex ected for the Neighborhood Density designation. The proposed synthetic soccer field facility
3
with seating for up to 500 spectators and the associated peak use and traffic is more in keeping
with a "community-scale" use than a "neighborhood-scale" facility.
However, the Hollymead Elementary/Sutherland Middle School complex and Crozet Park are
somewhat comparable facilities in or adjacent to existing designated neighborhood areas of the
County.
The ODen Space Plan shows the area as having a wooded buffer in the location shown for the
facility. This wooded buffer was shown on the Open Space Plan as a proposed buffer along the
proposed Meadow Creek Parkway alignment. However, this is now the area of the Northern Free
State Connector Road rather than the Meadow Creek Parkway and potential alignments have not
been finalized.
Neiahborhood Model principles relevant to this Special Use Permit include:
Pedestrian Orientation - The approved master plan for Belvedere provides for a sidewalk network
throughout the community. The applicant has indicated that a large quantity of the parking for the
synthetic field facility will be provided through on-street parking and people could walk to the
facility. Parking spaces are located along (currently unconstructed) neighborhood streets within
the Belvedere community.
However, no pedestrian access is shown on the conceptual plan from the proposed streets to the
synthetic fields. A sidewalk or path will be needed to connect the sidewalks along the future
public streets to the synthetic field. Since on-street parking is to be utilized for such a large
portion of the proposed facilities' parking, staff believes that pedestrian access is essential and
should be provided once the synthetic field is constructed and available for full-time use. This
principle is partially met.
Interconnected Streets and TransDortation Networks - The approved master plan for Belvedere
shows an interconnected street network throughout the community. The concept plan shows a
driveway accessing TMP62-2A, but makes no provisions for future public road access to this
parcel. Staff has provided conditions for this special use permit to ensure such future access is
possible.
Parks and ODen Space - The synthetic field facility will provide a large amount of recreational
area in a highly planned, moderately dense neighborhood, and will utilize land that would
otherwise be developed with single-family residences. This principle is met.
Neiahborhood Centers - The synthetic field facility is anticipated to house a community focused
recreational facility, providing recreational opportunities for large numbers of Albemarle County
residents. Such a facility will provide a gathering center for SOCA participants. This principle is
met.
Releaated Parking - Sixty (60) parking spaces are located at the synthetic field facility. The
applicant expects any overflow parking to utilize on-street parking spaces located on near-by
Belvedere neighborhood streets. Staff believes it is important to note that streets immediately
4
.
adjacent to the proposed facility have not been constructed, nor are there any applications for
approval of their construction currently being reviewed by County staff. The streets are shown on
the approved application plan for ZMA2004-07, which rezoned 206 acres and allowing for the
development of the Belvedere neighborhood. This principle is partially met.
Sit~ Plan that Resoects the Terrain - This principle is discussed with the critical slope waiver at the
end of this report.
~FF COMMENT:
Seption 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as
follbws:
CQmments regarding the synthetic field and associated building and parking.
31,2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for 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
pr(Jperty,
Immediately adjacent properties are in the undeveloped portion of the new neighborhood of
Belvedere. Close-by are the established and virtually built-out neighborhoods of Northfields to the
no~hwest and Dunlora to the south. These neighborhoods primarily have single-family detached
hortnes of low-to-mid level densities. Issues associated with the proposed use that may impact
adj~cent properties include parking and traffic.
.
Th~ County Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has identified the following concerns with
regard to parking and traffic:
Th~ traffic analysis provided with the application has a number of problems. First, the study does
not! have any real, measured data for SOCA events or facilities. Second, the study does not look
at tlhe road categories and how design dimensions might be affected. For example, the study
stops at the village green in Belvedere. This is not where the application is proposed. The roads
pa$t the village green are a concern as well. These will be the lowest design currently, and the
most affected by the development. Below is a graphic of these roads as shown on the Belvedere
zoning plan.
.
\/\.......11,
nty. \'OL:lIlU
. .... ,. , , .' .
Briefly considering only those roads beyond the village green, the roads marked in red will need to
be wider to accommodate parking and traffic as intended in the application. A 32' curb-to-curb
section is needed. The reasons are explained below:
On the rezoning plan, all of these streets are at the minimum standard, which is a 28' curb-to-curb
width. The VDOT standards transition to a 36' section at 400 daily trips or more, and at least the
Belvedere Boulevard links will come under this requirement with the SOGA improvements. In
addition, the 28' section allows only for occasional on-street parking, such as might be seen for
residences with occasional guests or parties. It is not adequate for full parallel parking on both
sides, which would leave only 12 to 14 feet of width for two-way traffic, with doors closed. Typical
neighborhood model streets in these situations use 32 feet widths minimum (7' for parking on
each side, and two 9' travel lanes), which is a compromise between the 36' VDOT standard, and
the goal of smaller streets for new urbanism networks, and allowing on-street parking. In this
case, parking would seem to be the main concern.
Note 6 on the SOGA plan indicates seating will be provided for 500 people. There are 60 parking
spaces on-site. Generously assuming 4 persons per vehicle, there are 125 spaces needed. That
means 65 vehicles will park on adjacent streets in Belvedere. Each parallel space requires about
20' in length, for a total of 1300 linear feet of parking needed. Measuring available spaces on the
roadsides, and assuming there are no unfortunately timed neighborhood parties or too many
guests during the SOGA event, the areas in red will be fully parked.
Third, the traffic study leaves open the questions of what portion of traffic might be considered
cut-through given the fact that this high traffic generator is in the back of a residential
neighborhood. It is generally this pass-through traffic which generates complaints. The most
recent study only considered weekday volumes. Weekend volumes are the larger traffic
generator for SOGA, and perhaps lower for the Belvedere development. This would indicate a
higher percentage of cut-through traffic in Belvedere. It still appears as though cut-through traffic
may be above 30% in some areas of the neighborhood, as well as significant on Free State Road
and in Dunlora.
The lack of empirical data for the analysis is also a concern relative to carpooling. The brief
analysis provided mentions "we have observed a higher degree of carpooling and ridesharing
during the week. The calculations are confirmed by empirical, historical evidence." No additional
information was provided. Although staff thought the applicant would be performing a survey and
vehicle count that documents the percentage and degree of carpooling or ridesharing, and the
vehicle trips and parking area usage during events, this never happened.
Therefore, staff has provided its own estimates as to traffic and parking needs that need to be
accommodated by this project.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
6
.
W~ile the R-4 zoning district anticipates recreational activities of the type proposed, the scale is
thtissue relative to this special use permit. A recreational facility seating 500 is larger than what
w uld be typically expected in an established R-4 neighborhood, but could be expected in a new
R- neighborhood. As the property surrounding the proposed use generally is undeveloped, this
fa4ility can be an integral part of the emerging Belvedere community.
th~t such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Thle property is currently zoned R-4-Residential. The primary purpose of this district is to provide
fo~ moderate density, attached and detached single-family dwelling units within the Development
Ar~as.
In ~ddition to regulations directly associated with the construction of by-right uses, this district is
al~o subject to recreation regulations found in Section 4.6 of the zoning ordinance. Regulations
witlhin this Section are intended to ensure the development of recreational areas within
deyelopments of thirty (30) units of more equal to or exceeding four (4) dwelling units per acre.
Asl a use that is needed in the community and will be available to residents with children who play
so~cer, it is viewed as being in harmony with the residential uses in the R-4 Zoning district.
.
wi h uses permitted by right in the district,
Us s permitted by-right are residential uses, public uses and buildings including temporary or
m bile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or
op rated by local, state or federal agencies, (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer
tra smission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or
op~rated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The use would be similar to an elementary
sCI.ool in terms of size and users. The hours of operation, however, would be dissimilar and
tra fic patterns would be different. Staff believes that with appropriate conditions of this special
us. permit the use can be in harmony with other by-right uses in the district.
,
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
S~ction 5 requirements related to this use are the County's lighting requirements. This use will
hate to conform with County regulations when outdoor lighting is installed. A zoning text
amlendment for modifications to lighting requirements for playing fields is currently being
deteloped by staff. This is a result of recent approval of a resolution of intent by the Board of
Supervisor's to amend the ordinance for lighting.
,
anfi with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Th~ public safety issues have been discussed earlier in this report.
~MARY:
,
,
St~ff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
,1. The facility will provide a community oriented, community-wide athletic facility serving the
new neighborhood and other parts of the County.
12. The facility is proposed within the County's designated development areas.
13. The facility will augment recreational facilities already planned for the neighborhood.
.
7
Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The scale of the use is not in keeping with the expectations for Neighborhood Density
residential development.
2. Public streets are intended to provide on-street parking for the use. As currently planned,
the streets are not wide enough to accommodate the on-street parking. Staff is
recommending a condition to address this.
3. Timing of construction of the public streets is not tied down, such that construction of the
synthetic field could take place before the streets are built. Staff is recommending a
condition to address this.
4. Pedestrian access from the end of the public streets to the facility does not appear to be
provided.
Critical SloDe Waiver Reauest
In conjunction with this special use permit, the applicant has applied for a waiver of Section 18-
4.2.5. Staff review of the waiver request is as follows:
A modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary to allow the construction of an
access road on the property for the synthetic fields and to the proposed fields in the floodplain.
The request for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects
of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-
disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(b) allows the Planning Commission to
waive this restriction.
This request is to disturb approximately 0.3 acres of critical slopes. The critical slopes in the area
of this request do not appear to be man-made. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with
consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled
"Critical Slopes." These concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided
herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the section of the ordinance each pertains to.
Section 18-4.2.5(a)
Review of the reauest bv Current DeveloDment Enaineerina staff:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
This a slope above the railroad track and the floodplain at the edges of the property. The
applicant is proposing to build an access road and a small building and parking area on the
slopes.
Areas Acres
Total site It is not clear what the total site property acreage is. The
SP boundary for the all-weather facility appears to be
about 6.5 acres. The soccer fields in the floodplain, and
the associated building appear to cover about 8 acres.
(The road area is not counted, as it is exempt.) This
totals about 14.5 acres.
8
.
.
.
Critical slopes
approx.O.4 less than 3% of site under consideration.
This is just the portion above the floodplain
and around the small building. It leaves
the river bank alone, which is the other
ortion of critical slo es.
75% of critical slo es under consideration.
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
The access road and associated biofilters and swales are exempt. There is no other reasonable
way to get down to the floodplain without disturbing critical slopes. This road has been moved
from the other side of the property at the county's request in order to minimize disturbance and
impact to the neighbor.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2:
"movement of soil and rock"
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any
movement of soil.
"excessive stormwater runoff"
Stormwater runoff will be increased in this area from parking and roof areas, and constructed
slopes, but stormwater management will be provided according to the final plan requirements.
"siltation"
Inspection and bonding by the County may ensure siltation control during construction. Proper
stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
This area will be visible from the roads and houses in the neighborhood, from across the
railroad tracks, and from the river and across the river. However, the slopes to be disturbed
are not shown on the Open Space Plan.
"septic effluent"
It is not clear whether restroom facilities are provided. It is recommended that they not be
permitted in the floodplain or next to the stream buffer unless a public sewer connection is
provided. There are no objections to facilities at the all-weather complex.
Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns which prohibit the disturbance of
the critical slopes as shown. Stormwater management plans, erosion control plans, and
mitigation plans will be required and will address design details.
Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2:
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3.
The preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included
the provisions of Section 4.2.5(b) here, along with staff comment on the various provisions.
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon
9
finding that:
1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by
the developer would satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or
(Added 11-15-89)
Staff opinion is that strict application of the requirements of Section 4.2 would forward the
purposes of this chapter, as well as the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other
unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of
section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would
result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. Such modification or waiver
shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of
the area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary to sound engineering practices; or (Added
11-15-89)
Denial of this waiver would not prohibit or restrict the use of the property. Alternative designs
for this site and plan were proposed. Staff requested a less environmentally destructive
access plan. The currently proposed location of the access road disturbs the least amount of
critical slopes and avoids intrusion into the floodplain
3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11-15-89)
Approval of this request will allow for a community-wide use of soccer facilities, especially
the fields under review with SP08-58 for fill in the floodplain.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff believes the proposed soccer facility provides a community benefit and can be appropriately
integrated into the emerging community of Belvedere. Staff's concerns relate to the facility's
scope of activity and, in particular, the resulting impacts to the existing and future transportation
infrastructure serving the area. Staff has developed conditions to address these concerns and
recommends approval inclusive of the following conditions:
1. The synthetic field shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled,
"Belvedere - SaCA Special Use Permit: All Weather Synthetic Turf Field", and dated
March 28, 2008.
2. Public streets which provide access to the synthetic field and parking shall be constructed
prior to public use of the facility.
3. Public streets which provide on-street parking to accommodate parking requirements for
the synthetic field shall be a minimum of 32' in width or other width as may be required by
the County Engineer.
4. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the end of the public street to the synthetic field
in accordance with the Albemarle County Design Manual standards for permanent paths.
10
.
.
.
5. Modifications to the proposed extension of Belvedere Boulevard are allowed as necessary
to provide public road access to TMP62-2A.
Additionally, staff recommends approval of the critical slope waiver request.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Plan entitled, "Belvedere SaCA Special Use Permit: All Weather Synthetic Turf Field"
prepared by McKee Carson and last dated March 25, 2008
B - Location Map
C - Zoning Map
D - Comprehensive Plan Map
E - Applicant's request and justification for critical slope waiver
11
V )U~mq;ll~nV
I 5 ~ ~ ft S
Z dVW iX3iNO::l - Ii ~
! j~~~~ 11 i .....-
T~i H ,0
H~l DIUIBJ,^ '^~uno:) 8jJDwaqlV
~ PIB!~ IWi "llB4lUAS JB4l0BM IIV : ilW~3d 3Sn lVI::l3dS V::lOS I!! I I
1: :nJ:aO:aAH& BS S ~ i !
~
00
0< au
.0
~~ !~
:n~ ~~
~~ :;;;
:: ~~
:::><:z:
:;;:~~ an~
~9)1 ~~
~w~ ~z~ .-p~ :; iI
~ ~5
~Q>- III
;~! ;i
~"'z ~'t
;w~u~> ~:;;
;@
j~~ :~
,>,
tOoal 5~
m ~~w"
~~Z~ ~;
~ ~:
~~i ~g
Ow
or
a: 0 <Ii
~~~
~i~
<~~
~;~
;~~
~!~
~~~
~iffi
;~;
~!,.t
~>g
S3 g~~
Z'S ~~~
"U
~~~
~ "~.
tii ~~8
~
,
f
t
i
I
I
i
t
I
i
i
i
J
i
I
i
I
i
i
I
I
[
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
.
I
[
I
f
f
f
I
j
t
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ob~
~
/j
.----.'-'
~ /<"'(
/50,
.'/ ,/
~,~,'\'
'~;.~~"~:'~-'~?~l (()l
'\', ..[ \ "', >.V~< 1 { 1
~;/~::..,~
..'
[il:',"\\
,i : II j:
: )
"(
':.Ic~:
[lJg :)01 \ I
l~\ (
jr~\ \ \
4~~~;\ \\) ~
)~J' '" - ~h~";:~'~"'\~ \~. :~ w
./ I':-~ (,', 1>.<'.\,\ ~ \.... > .
/' / ..:::t '~'" \,./'"--"", 00; \. '" .........."::....'....\ '\.. ~ \.
/ I }, ~_::::-.......~ /'. \,~ '\'... ,"".ft'-, '.-.,>,'\ ,
\\,/ 11/'~c~~~~<\~~-.\';~.~. '. '.
.( , "':>,< ~~~~{.,~.:,~~'\~' ~
\~;i~ ,,<>~~\\~,,~~~,~'~ _ '~~
I "~'" \.'~~\~:~, .......\':\y~." '. ----,
~~;; , '~,. ,.,~ ,'04 "\' 1/" "^,
O~ClUCl: ~~;' \ '\~;\~\~~\'- '" ' \\,\1, ly:;~~'<,","'-...~-,_.,., .,.~. .
c 0 ~, '" '.~\\, "f' \ ~\,~ ...,. ,,-0---, :-------.
n.~:~~ 'lb~ '\?~\~' ,;\\)i\i\.("~':';.;;/.."~::.c:~~:~::::>_~
_ ~~\ \. . r"".,/J:: '-'''~5='~''''~'-'_. '__~
/~~n 'f~~~~~\ ~":"~:"'C'~'-i';~:
/".d~~~-.- ~"-"" ' ~;: \"-~.,.. ..
~3?'----><~~I"-'?Jfl> // . "'* ' \;. '.' ..,..... .
~:;:--- "'-" t // ~"'<r.~,.., '\~.
::<- > ,1/\ <",-,~\ '\:;:.:'"
: ~\" ........ .\. \ ""
,'>(\ "\
\\~ . "'\~
\ r
"'-',- \ },
-\ \
1\:/'
I "
Ii I
Ii
'. . )/
~':< - ~~^f
~ _ _ \ IpV
-'--~- - .
o
<
"
o
r
o
u
<
o
.
~
o
i
o
,<
<~
~Q
;~
<8
oj
~~
~<
j
!
1
...
-<
o
<r
~!e
Oo~
~~~
!!!~~
~~~
~ffiffi
....~~
"!ffi[
~:::l;~
~~~
0"<
N~O
wo
W. <
~5!':l!
"w~
m
;;~b
!d
"OW
<<m
:,~(.:;'~:\:,
~..::?~.\1t.. ,'/"..
r{~I~!~:< .
.- . .- . ,-' (-,. \.... .
.l.......,
/ ~ ,......'~
, '.~~~i
/..
:::.
..,.
it
..............,;,...
....
'.
.. ."-\ " '~~;;~::.:y
..'
I
"""
,<'
.J..
:'11
':
~~'~,:
~
.0
~~~~
~~~:
.ii;'~
!w~
~!
c !
. I
~'
,
.....'.
~-:...,.
",
,"
./"
//
.//C';, -' ~//
./ ~
,/,- :---~
. ;y- ',,-
..~
{ \\ "
, ....,,~
\
~.
/"
~.., ,.."
("
\ \,
) '{
(\. ;;-y!
"" .' f/!t.,:,.
! // '
I /1
~. /,"',
Ii! ''-"
;/J,,-, )
,Q 'v'"
y
( II
I"
lli./
"'"
"--,.'"
",.,....,
".
""
....
"-
';
/
~~~~ /
CO""
;~~~ /
-~.j~--J/~:!,.
, '7
..J...... '
~~.-:
,"
..~
~
~
II I m ~a ft
trf !
i ~
H N
n~ I ~ a ,0
~ ~ I
~ I
I
!
. I
I
,
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
i
i
I
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
.
I
I
I
I
f
J
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
r
V Jua
SNOI!IONO::l
~NI!SIX3
Oz 0:
U. E
~ p: , ..1
~~; !<cj!~~
:i~ *~II
UoI n: ih.
~ .-' -! ~
:E ;3"" l~il~E
PI&!~ jJn! OIUIBJI^ 'Ajuno::>
:l!1&4IUAS J& &IJOW&qIV
4lC&M II'" : !IW
31303^13~3d 3Sn lVl::l3dS ...::lOS
,
::..... ~. '"
.~ ~
,
~
,.
-
... ... ~
~..~ ~.
> 0
~~
.z
~;
z'
;~
~o
~i
< <
. .
~!
~:;
~~~
i~2
I
-
.,)B.J.JV
~
~
u
1:
~
g ~
~ ~ ~
ti ~ ffi"
g ~. ~
5 ~ ~
"'" 0 .....
~ ~ :~
~ i ii
~ 2 Co
; ; g!
~ ~ ~g
g g ~@
; ; ~~
E 3 g~
ll:: a: Co
~ ~ ffi~
~ ~ ~~
..... .... 015
:s :s :s~
i ~ ~~
a: a: a;Q
~~~~ P(j
-< < <<
.'i ~ ZZ
G iJ GG
g; II: a:a:
:> ;; :;::;:
I
.
V lU;lwq:ltmV
NVld lnOAVl dns
II ~~e
ic-r:>
,0
I~ ~~~!
j~~;~
liE~1
!hat
xg". E
u
u
In
DIUIt5JIA 'I.~uno:) 8pDweql'(
Ple!~ jJnl :llle41UAs Je410eM IIV : 11\1U3d 3sn lVI::>3dS v::>os
iHOiAH8
I j 't' '1 I.... III' I I I
~ '" '" :' I . ~ ~;:,
I .. 0 I ' 0, ,
;: I ~ I. i:.1. 11'1 !ll!"~"'""i
,I, :, j In I
o 0
a:~"'" ~ ;:
~~~<~ ~g
~~~~~~~~~
:::lia:,.........:xw<uc..
~~~:g:I~~
;:~i~~~~i
~~~~;;~~~
~:mm~
~;5~~38;~~
~~~~~~i5~>
~~~~~~~~:~
~~5~i~e;~~
immm
~
~
o
I~
~~
!!!~
t;)<!!
Ii
~~
Oz
~~
.~
00 .e
~~ d
~~ .2l ~
~: ij) ~
e "
~ ~
~ :
iiL
lI:l",U a:
Ii
~ I I
~ ~I' :
e I
1
~
I' Ill?~ I' I I I I I
I I II I . 0 ~ I l ~\l.I""""
. I II. I I I ~a!;g~
I IIII I I III
If II <:>,,1 I I I I I&. ,
I ~~~<;s~~~
I II I . II ~ I I I I I I · <
. II. I II /j U'~
111111 II I I 0 :::.o!So
I 11II
o
o
~:~
::a;:z~'!i
~ i~~~
o
_z
~~
o
~
~
<
E w ;
"'~~~
a: 0: Ul:;;;: a:
::I :> '" a:
u U "0 cr:
z>
"z~~
9~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
\ ". !'~l
\ '
, \
\
\
I
I
It''
,.
,P'
<f-
\
-::SCl~
~~~~
9~'i@
;.i!.z
(J~~m2
eO"
"I
,.
Jy4-
t ~'f.~"-S ~:i
c'
I:l'
,.
I'
!
8
~
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
t
I
.
I
I
I
I
i
f
I
i
i
i
t
I
;
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
i
.
I
I
f
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
.
.
.
I
I 1"
~ ~ ~:J J_~ - ".
; - ~': ~S~2~007i~~ .
~~~, "./ ~~" /Y ~A~O~ Jf'-" '"1J
f--\ ~~S 0 . -c Se=20<f8_54"JDIDID D ~ ~
b--~~8Y('; tN" ~ -~~)J ~\?JJf.~M~
r\~ ~~<>~ <c, synth~etiC S.9~~,~~~0 ,I
b ~~~V}~~~~~~_ '(J \.) ~~ \.\0. /;~1i
o ~ ~ 0 ~r,(\\~.fi'\'\. rl 0 ~~\\~J~<'-
,{l Q/'\, ~\ (' ~ '~-<<'1~1~~ \U v ~lOII II
~~~/). <) ~~ ~;~0 ~.~ o.a\""~~ ' ~. ~ "L-lJ
'i:~~"V ""!;)'9\;,,, .~~! ~~ ~.~. ~~. \~ I> ~ d
j~~~~~""\f \\Y()~ (~, "O\) ''0 -;;;~ r- () cO w,~ 1;]
~'~~ f~o. : 0 1~. .~~ Y'ov/ - ,r ..:~ -
-!; ~. M ~c. . \) \ [/ 0 f!yj::'!
,)AY ),,, (:\ "' r,' ,
IkON! . /!~~~~ ~ 'Jx < , 0 Q ^
~~ ~\~~?~~~V>
~~ vAD)A~c>\Q~~!LI ",~p
lli::.l"",~0 '" ~) ~~?/
); f.i.~ RJ ~(/ ~~ ~
~ JY /: (:3~'"A \ 0, () ~ -:Y /) . ()
~ll"--- ,I)', i <::>.
~ ~Oy.-:~ " '
o ~ )09~ ,:/'''' /
I~....->; Y, <f t:;, !). 0-
eY; [< ~ ~ {)'
~ j n Q
~;:, ~(/ (' ,y)- < ~
k D 0:Yh: :-\.<0' !
&:'> e <"] ^ '\.:;.:, v , SP 2008-541
~<' .~. a:, DJ~ . ~
~ /~~ (> . . -2A
~ t',~o .
~ ~r;> ~.
~'~
~
~~~
f5~Ir=\; "' " , '
~~~ \C ~
'\ ~ "" ,.\- cY-
~ '\ l~\ \~ ~~
~ ~~.'C'\& J,u Ik:.~ 0
\. " J '\. <)\Q~ ~ D' '0< ';;:VI ~
) ~.. ""o'tJ[;,ii </ 7 \~ ( ~
_=_ " ~~, ~ ~"(.- ~A
=.~~~- /fJ Jf~7 # ~ /t~
7'
/1-
-
D
(
1
ISp 2007-581
/~
12-28
~
.-" -c .
-
~
12.2C
12A3-1
=
....
=
Q,l
e
.c:
(oJ
Il:
....
....
<
/"J Roads Streams
I~ CJ Driveways ... Water Body
) CJ Buildings CJ Parcels
~~et c::J Parcels of Interest
[:=J Parcels
Streams D Parcels of Interest
Water Body
Zoning
c:J62_2A .. R10Residentlal _ Highway Commercial
f'" ~'] Proposed_Rezoning2 .. R15 ReSidential ~ Planned Development Shopping Center
Rural Areas Planned Unit OevekJpment ~ Planned Development Mixed Convnercial
III Planned Residential Development Light Industry
_ Neighborhood Model District .. Heavy Industry
~ Monticello Historic District _ Planned Development Industlial Park
Commercial ~~~ Natural Resource Extraction Overlay
... Commercial Office Town of Soottsville
u
...
=
~
S
.c:
<:.I
~
...
...
-<
.
.
.
c=J Parcels
Streams D Parcels of Interest
~
...
=
~
5
-=
~
=
...
...
<
Compplan Landuse
C 62_2A .. Neighborhood Service .. Transitional
:~-~_-_] Proposed_Reloning2 Office Service Urban Density
.. Community Service 11II OfficelRegional Service L-.J Rural Area
_ Industrial Service .. Par1ts and Greenways ~ see Development Area Text
.. Institutional Regional Service 0 See Crazet Master Plan
Neighborhood Density Town Center
BELVEDERE NEIGHBORHOOD: SOCA FLOOD PLAIN FIELDS ACCESS ROAD - REQUEST
OF MODIFICATION OF SECTION 4.2.3 TO ALLOW ACTIVITY ON CRITICAL SLOPES.
The proposed development of an access road to practice/training soccer fields at Belvedere includes
activity on critical slopes. The location where activity is proposed on critical slopes is within portions of
TMP 62A3-00-00-1 and TMP 62-00-00-2C.
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance
The areas of critical slope disturbance lie within portions of TMP 62A3-00-00-1 and TMP 62-00-00-2C.
The total area of the study area is 112.19 acres. Approximately 25.58 acres appear to be within critical
slopes.
As apparent in the accompanying plan, only the road alignment, a very small portion of the parking area
and necessary stormwater components encroach on critical slopes.
Areas
Total study area 112.19 ac.
Critical slopes 25.58 ac. 23% of study area
Critical slopes disturbed .4 7 acres 1.8% critical slopes disturbed
Explanation for reauest for critical slopes waiver
We have located the access road within the future Meadowcreek Parkway ROW as a result of a meeting
with County planning and engineering personnel. An earlier alternative for an access road that followed an
old farm road trace was explored, however, the alignment was undesirable for the following reasons:
1. proposed grading encroached on a perennial stream
2. proposed grading went beyond the adjacent property line
3. large areas of critical slopes would have been disturbed
4. area of disturbance was nearly double that of the new alignment
As such, an alternative alignment was proposed with input from County staff. Below, each concern raised
in regards to Zoning Ordinance section 18-4.2 is addressed as each relates to the proposed development
within areas of critical slope:
ACCESS ROAD - REQUEST FOR CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER
The proposed area for waiver is within portions ofTMP 62A3-00-00-1 and TMP 62-00-00-2C. The
request specifically relates to a portion of the proposed access road (approximately 500' of the 3375' total
length) and proposed small parking lot (12 spaces that will also be used as trail head parking for the County
greenway system that will run through the site) for the future multi-purpose building.
"Rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock"
The road was designed to comply with VDOT mountainous terrain standards for both vertical and
horizontal curvature. The section of roadway within critical slopes is mostly "cut" and should be
quite stable.
"Excessive stormwater runofr'
The access road has been designed with swales and bioretention areas that will accommodate a 25-
year storm event. Furthermore, the drainage areas that contribute to the stormwater management
system of the road are heavily wooded and rather small thus producing low volumes of runoff.
Attachment E
.
.
.
II
"Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water"
There is a small feeder stream to the Rivanna River located at the bottom of the proposed access
road, however, the disturbance for the road stops nearly 60 feet from the stream banlc.
Furthermore, the stream buffer in this area is part of the overall site mitigation plan and therefore
will be densely planted and act as a filter strip for any siltation that may occur.
"Loss of aesthetic resource"
The access road alignment runs between both the railroad embankment and a former rock quarry
site - neither of which are very appealing landscape elements. Also, when the Meadowcreek
Parkway is buift, the disturbance to this area will be much more significant than the proposed
access road.
"Septic effluent"
The only potential for septic effluent in this request for waiver is the future multi-purpose
building. At present, it is unknown if the program of the building will include bathrooms. Also,
there is a large existing sewer transmission line located near the future building location.
Attachment E
z
o
V")
ex::
<l::
~
w
:..:
u
I:
,
,
,
/
/
~
~
O[g
~ ..
.
~ 0
,
I
I.
/
I
I
I
/ \
I, t:) \
\
\ ,
I
, !
! /
1181HX3 ~3^IVM S3d01S lV::>llI~::>
O!U!OJ!^ "Aluno:> ejJoweqlV
'PIs" U!Dld poohl : lIW~3d 3sn lVI::>3dS V::>OS
n:lO:lAH8
I
! I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I \
II
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
\ I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
! I
'-
\
\
I
!
\
\
,
I
'- ../
'. \
! /....~ \\ "
/
/ "
I. I
: ! ,
, I
/ ,
(" /
/
., '.I
'1.'\
" r r
(.
\ \
"
. '\
""i /
"-' .)
/,.'
\ c...
/.j I "'.
I !
: 1'\
.. , ,
..../ / r _
;'
(
, \ I ~..
I '
,J.
. L II"
'c ( ....... '- '
I ,'-,
/
\" \
\ \
/-----=--,
,./--- ............."
// "
/~/ "
// /'
//
//
.//
'/ // /
/. / /
./ / I
.. / /
./ /
./
./
i
I
!
I
f /
I
.I
I I
I
./ -.....
./ /' ,
J
",
"
.....
,
'-
.....
" ......
'-
...... .......
....... ......
'- ~ -./_./ ~,/
/"
)
!
g
~
:tI JU;)wq;lUllV
I . mO
g @ ;
~~l~~~i
~
.....
....l
./
/
/
......
!
I
-------
......
'-
......
I
.I
'-
'-.
/
f
I
.......
.......
/
!
'-
.....
.......
'.
'-
......
.......
'"
.....
"
....
'-..
......
w w w Z u 0' :0
Q. Z Z 0
9 ::; ::; ::; " "
>- "" 0 ... 0 .0
'" ~
:;( '" u z N >-
< < Z "0
U 0 ~ 8 - ~ u
;::; z w :0
0< ::> "\ w '0
0 '" 0.
U, '" ~ .g
.....
~ s:!. "0
'" u ~
w 0
Q. <Xl U
0 "'
'" on II<!
Q. N "!
::.
u
0
....
"':
J
~
~
..
,..
II.
'"
~
.
Q)
-
..0
ct1
~
o
>
ct1
LL
en
~
o
.........
()
ct1
LL
.
.....
"0
2 0> C/)
ccrn
ID -- .....
-- > ID rn
~ ~ ~ c
OIDID. 0
~C/)"O ~ .-~
:t= ~ ID C C/) C/) rn
c:t= > ::J W'~ rn ID
::J==Q5 0 +-' ID ~ ~
E~(Q() ~~ ~E
E '+- '+- --J ~
U 0 ID Oc +-,"0
o -- ...c () ,." c ID
U CD "0 +-' ~ ID c
rn-O'+- IDE EC
:f; 0 0 -5 0... ~_rn
ID -...c C/) 0 '-II
"0 rn ~ +-' C - ::J 0...
-- ID 0 ~ -- ID rn ~
6~-E ~~ ~ ="0 .
~ :> ~ -- rn "0
a.so>~ >"0 SIDO
I -- ID 0
= ~ ID...c _~ "0 ~-=
-- :t= C +-' ID:t= rn-E
$ C $ 0 (ij 10 .- C/) 0
~ E::J ID C/) ~ c ~ _~ ..0
- - c rn 0... 0> '+- :~ ...c
E - -- - 0>
U ID Q5 0 C/) ID -0 --
~8-5$O=~~~~
.
.
C\J
.
(V)
~
Q)
-
..0
co
~
o
>
CO
'+-
C
:::>
en
~
o
+-'
()
co
LL
..
.
+-'
0) 0) 0
..0 +-' C '+-
"'0 co CJ) 0 E
::J >. "'00 CJ) C 0
+-' CJ).- 0"-' ~
~ .~ E +-' ...c.- C '+- .
> 0) +-'0 0 CJ)C
cO> ;:-8~ ~1?2:- gLJ
co 0 CO) () '" en +-' +-' "'0 () co
...c ~ '+- CJ) C ()
+-' "'0 ~ () "'0 () 0 co'+-
~o ~coO) o() COCJ)
0) 0 () 0 CJ) ..0 C () C ...c
+-' ...c +-' CJ) ::J 0 0 co co +-'
co ~ CJ)...c 0) c.....;::; +-' >.. ~ 0
0) 0 co 0'> ~ 0) () ~..o +-' +-'
~~ ~ ~ "'0 r- ::J 0 CJ)O) +-'
\...I "...Jo.... 0) ....I "'T""< ...Jo.... ~. - "'0 0) ..-.
.CJ) .0'> . ID g~ :: ~ o.~ -g ~ 6
>. O)"E "'0 0) ~ 0 0 0) CJ) c... en :+-'
.+-' zO)O) 0) ~ C () () ~ "'0 () "'0
. () C E > "'0 .+-' 0 +-' co "'0 0).- C
co . - c... 0). - . - .0 co c... "'0 CJ)..o 0
'+- "'0 0 CO S ~ ...c <( O::J ()
0) \'u;J +-' 9J ~ '" '" ~
.CJ) +-' CD co'+- .- ...c ~ ~ ~ \,u
...c () >.- CJ) en () co u eO'>>.
+-' 0) 0) CJ) C i: C ::J +-' ~ c... C ..0
a c... "'0 Q) ~ +-' 0 CJ) "'0 0 0 +-'CJ) "'0
>< - 0) ~ ~ () ~ ~:> r-._ 0)
0) 0) co ~ \, U 0"-' '+- C ....I.z :.....
- . - +-' ~ '+- co:> 0 0) CJ) 0)>< CJ)CJ)
co >'"E CJ)"'O ~o > () C
() = 0) \...11._ 0'> 0 0)
CJ) co 0) .() C .C.-t= C"'O C+-' .~ a ~
0) .():o ..0 C ~ -g .E "'0 :- ~ 0) "'0-0
...c c... CJ) ::J co co 0 . _ 0) () ~ ...c C <(
r-c~a...c...c...()r-~$CJ)r-O)~
~
.
C\J
.
~
.
(V')
c
o
--
+--'
CO
""0
c
Q)
E
E
o
()
Q)
a:
..
.
co "'0
"'0'0 C
o 0) "'0 co 0)
00...0) "'O..c
o (f) +-' 0) ~
CO <( CO ;,;:: 0
CO 0 "'0 0 0)
:.- 0 "'0 .~ Cf)
~ (f) @ 0) ::J
0) I~~ Eo
0) - C+-'
"'0 >.:.-
C 0)- Cf).0
.- 03 .0) 0) :.-
0) "'0 LL ..c 0...
..0 0) 't: +-' "'0
=>::J 00)
CO 0) ~ +-' +-'
~~.o ~2
"'0 ~ +-' 0) en
- "'0 0) 0
.O)O)E ~6
-+=c Wo
Cf) o.~ >. 0) 0)
C .~ CO) (f) "'0
o 0) .- ..0
:.- >
+-' E C 0) 0=
"'0 C CO..c :.- CO
C >. - +-' o.....c
o Cf) 0... CO ..c Cf)
o O)co~ oCO
O)..c ::J> .- 0)
C +-' +-' . ..c :.-
.- 0...= eX) 5 CO
5150)<(0
o 0..0 ~g
= C c.-=: N 0).-
o .0 0 E ~ O)~
- +-' 0 eX):,-:'-
0) ~O)03N oo~
E o..c o......c 0
- +-' :.- 0 :.= 0) .
E O)..c 0) :.- ..o..c "'0
..c.-=: Cf) CO ::J +-' 0)
5 ~ 5::> ~ 0.....8;,;::
CO
> .
0.,.... N
:.-
0...
0...
<(
C..c "'0
0)0 +-' 1:'- I
.- 5 0 CO 0
"'0 ..0 co :.- 0 > 0
0) >'.;:: 0) 0 I 0) N
.- CO CO 0 C 0') - <.0
-E> C co<(::Jo
.0 '"" _co -NO
+-' Cf) \ U 0 "'0 :.- 0...<.0 0) 0....
0) CO Cf) "'0 o.E 0) 0 0) ~
o E..c CO C 0 Cf) .+-'Cf) 0.... :'-0) ~
+-' C +-' "'0 0) 0 "'0
0) >.~ 0) 0) CO ~ CO ~ "'0 0
C Cf) 5 > \U - ~ 0)> +-'Cf)
.- 0) 0 E.c"'O 0
~:.-:.- C Cf)0)Cf)
:.-..c 0) 0... E "'0 CO '"" 0) N"'\ 0)
CO +-' ..c 0... 0) +-' \ U "'0 u.J 0
0... :.- +-' '"" 0 . - Cf) > ::J +-' , '\
o 0 \U :.- - 0 - CO ~
Q:) - :.- "'0 - 0 CO :.- 0 \ U
0) Cf) 0 C "'O.~::J 0... C E +-'
:.- +-' '"" 0) 0) ~ 0.... - 0)
+-' C..c \ U "'0 lo.... CO :.- 0) 0)
Cf) 0) +-' :.- ._..c CO 0.::: :.-
cE~O) >c~ "'Oo::JOO
09->5~ 2Cf)>'c C+-,O'"
0).::: C.- 0... 0) CO Cf) ~ .0
"'0 ::J.- 0) en 0) 0) .Cf) 5.C >.-E
.- 0'"- C ..o..c 0) '"" '"" ....J
> 0) N w.c +-' 0) .- ~ \U 0...
o :.- 0') C = 0 0 0)> :'-0) E 0)
:.- ~_ ~ C CO +-'
0... c' 0 c CO ..c "'0 .c ~ o....c~
..c .- ::J - Cf):.- C .- +-' C >
o ~ E 0 0.... Cf) CO::J ..c CO ::J 0
i:: CO ::J 0 15 Cf) 5) 0 en .-=: E 0 0..
5 0.... E 0):.- ~::J 0 E 5 co 0 0
Cf)O)c..co OoO)CO C-O)+-' .
+-' +-' . - +-' +-' CO - 0... 0 o.....c 0
O)~ E >.~ cO) ~ +-' .~ C +-' ~<(
~ 0 co..o.::: CO 0) E Coo 0"'0 N
+-' E :.- 0) C.- C 0
Cf) 0) "'0 0 i:- 0) 0) C ::J. Cf) 0 0) 0
o E..o 0) 0) Cf) "'0..0 CO . C > .,.... +-' I
.- .::: ~ 0) 0)....,. E 0 ~ 0 >< 0
- 0= ::J........ >""" ~o 0)0
..0 0 CO 0'" +-' "'0 - 0):'- 0..0 I I
::J o..c 0) >. 0) 0) ..c 0) C ::J 0 0) 0
0.... CO Cf) :.-..0 0.... 0) +-' 0... _ Cf) 0 ..0 0
0')
.
-.::t
l.[)
..
..
.
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax 434 972-4012
C ris Schooley
2 21 Ivy Road
C arlottesville, VA 22903
SP2007-00054 SOCA Synthetic Fields near Belvedere (parking)
&
SP2007-00058 SOCA Synthetic Fields near Belvedere (floodplain)
T e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22,2008, reviewed and took action
o the above-noted petitions
P ease note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The location of the synthetic field shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan
entitled, "Belvedere - SOCA Special Use Permit: All Weather Synthetic Turf Field", and dated March
28, 2008.
2. Public streets which provide access to the synthetic field and to the parking area shall be constructed
prior to use of the field.
3. Public streets which provide on-street parking to accommodate parking requirements for the synthetic
field shall be a minimum of 32' in width or other width as may be required by the County Engineer and
approved as a variation by the Director of Planning.
4. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the end of Belvedere Boulevard. to the synthetic field in
accordance with the Albemarle County Design Manual standards for permanent paths.
5. In conjunction with its review and approval of a site plan or subdivision plat that pertains to or includes
TMP 062A30-00-00-001 00, the County may require that Belvedere Boulevard be extended to provide
public street access to TMP 06200-00-00-002AO.
A d the following to be covered by additional conditions (language to be finalized before the Board of
S pervisors' meeting):
6. The applicant shall demonstrate as a condition of final site plan approval that the on-site parking
provided for the use, including on-site on-street parking, is adequate for the proposed use.
7. The hours of use for organized activities and events are limited to the time between 8:00 a.m. and
9:30 p.m. (The language to be worked out prior to Board of Supervisors meeting.)
8. A pro-rata contribution to the traffic signal at Belvedere Boulevard and Rio Road, the primary access
to Belvedere, to be worked out before the presentation to the Board of Supervisors.
9. The proposed route of Meadow Creek Parkway (Northern Free State Road) to be designated on the
site plan consistent with the alignment that is shown in the documents.
10. If the use or structure is not commenced by May 14, 2013, this special use permit shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted by this permit shall terminated.
Motion on Critical SloDes Waiver:
The motion for approval passed by a vote of 7:0.
The Albemarle Countv Plannina Commission aDDroved. bv a vote of 7:0. SP2007-00058. SOCA
Svnthetic Fields near Belvedere (FloodDlain):
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The fill in the floodplain shall be as shown generally on the plan entitled, "Belvedere SOCA Special Use
Permit: Flood Plain Fields" prepared by McKee Carson and last dated March 25, 2008.
2. If required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the applicant shall obtain a map
revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment. The County Engineer shall be copied on all
correspondence related to changes to the floodplain.
3. Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state and
federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits.
4. Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a grading
perm it prior to placement of any fill in the floodplain, and County approval an erosion and sediment control
plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for placement of any fill in the floodplain.
5. The 700' -long section of dry-stone wall bounding the inner edge of the floodplain west and northwest of
the proposed flood plain fields as identified in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and Geoarchaeo/ogical
Investigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property, Albemarle County, Virginia dated
February 6, 2008, shall be retained and preserved. The wall shall be clearly identified and labeled on the
plan of development. The 50' at the northern end of the wall may be disturbed for the proposed road
construction as currently illustrated on the plan. The stone that is disturbed by the road construction shall
be used to repair remaining portions of the wall or to extend the wall at its south end. A plan detailing the
proposed re-use of the stone shall be submitted for review and is subject to the approval of the Director of
Planning prior to the commencement of road construction. Methods for protecting the remaining wall
during construction and for preserving the remaining wall following construction shall be submitted for
review and are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning prior to the commencement of road
construction.
6. Additional archaeological testing, as recommended in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and
Geoarchaeo/ogical Investigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property, Albemarle
County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be conducted to more fully assess the extent of cultural
resources in Area B of the Belvedere project area. Based on the findings of this additional testing,
additional archaeological studies and/or treatments may be required. The additional testing shall be
conducted by a qualified archaeologist who meets the qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. Additional studies required as a result of the findings of the
testing shall be completed prior to disturbance of the site. Treatments required as a result of the findings
of the testing shall be outlined in a treatment plan that is subject to approval of the Director of Planning.
.
.
.
P ease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
p blic comment at their meeting on May 14, 2008
If ou should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
c ntact me at (434) 296-5832.
S ncerely,
Sincerely,
S mmer Frederick
S nior Planner
Z ning and Current Development Division
~ lanner for SP-07-54)
Elaine Echols, AICP
Principal Planner
Planning Division
(Planner for SP-07-58)
Belvedere Station Land Trust; Robert M Hauser & Stan C Manoogian Trs
2421 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 2007- 58 SOCA Fill in the Floodplain
SUBJEC IPROPOSALlRE UEST:
Request t grade in the floodplain for soccer fields
and asso iated parking
AGENDA DATE:
May 14, 2008
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
NO
BACKG OUND:
On April 2, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the special use permit request for fill in the
floodplain for soccer fields and parking for SOCA at Belvedere. The Planning Commission recommended approval
with cond tions. The staff report is Exhibit A-1. Exhibit B-1 contains the action memo from the Commission.
DISCUS ION:
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has requested that the time period to begin construction be
extended from 2 years to commence construction to 8 years to allow for raising the money for construction. This issue
did not c me up at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff has analyzed this request carefully, since staff has never
.comme ded more than an extension of up to 5 years to commence construction for a special use for a not-for-profit.
all circ mstances in which an extension is requested, staff looks at the potential impact of extending a use where
ounty re ulations or expectations may change in the future. For fill in the floodplain at this location, the County
Engineer as said that the likelihood a greater impact on the floodway is minimal. Staff also notes that the Board of
Supervis rs recently granted a 10 year period to commence the use to Emmanuel Episcopal Church.
RECOM ENDATIONS:
Staff reco mends approval of SP 2007-058 with the conditions below:
.
The fill in the floodplain shall be as shown generally on the plan entitled, "Belvedere SOCA Special Use
Permit: Flood Plain Fields" prepared by McKee Carson and last dated March 25, 2008.
2 If required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the applicant shall obtain a map revision,
letter of revision, or letter of amendment. The County Engineer shall be copied on all correspondence related
to changes to the floodplain.
3 Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state and federal
agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits.
4 Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a grading
permit prior to placement of any fill in the floodplain, and County approval an erosion and sediment control
plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for placement of any fill in the floodplain.
5. The 700'-long section of dry-stone wall bounding the inner edge of the floodplain west and northwest of the
proposed flood plain fields as identified in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and Geoarchaeological
Investigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property, Albemarle County, Virginia dated
February 6, 2008, shall be retained and preserved. The wall shall be clearly identified and labeled on the plan
of development. The 50' at the northern end of the wall may be disturbed for the proposed road construction
as currently illustrated on the plan. The stone that is disturbed by the road construction shall be used to repair
remaining portions of the wall or to extend the wall at its south end. A plan detailing the proposed re-use of the
stone shall be submitted for review and is subject to the approval of the Director of Planning prior to the
commencement of road construction. Methods for protecting the remaining wall during construction and for
preserving the remaining wall following construction shall be submitted for review and are subject to the
approval of the Director of Planning prior to the commencement of road construction.
6. Additional archaeological testing, as recommended in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and
Geoarchaeologicallnvestigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property, Albemarle County,
Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be conducted to more fully assess the extent of cultural resources in
Area B of the Belvedere project area. Based on the findings of this additional testing, additional archaeological
studies and/or treatments may be required. The additional testing shall be conducted by a qualified
archaeologist who meets the qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification
Standards. Additional studies required as a result of the findings of the testing shall be completed prior to
disturbance of the site. Treatments required as a result of the findings of the testing shall be outlined in a
treatment plan that is subject to approval of the Director of Planning.
7. Construction of the fields and parking lot shall commence on or before May 14, 2016, or this special use
permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall thereupon terminate;
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A-1: Planning Commission Action Memo for April 22, 2008
EXHIBIT B-1: Staff Report dated April 22,2008
.
.
.
unfairly treated under what is being proposed. In the project reviewed last week there has been no effort
in 30 years to vest any rights. As Mr. Kamptner noted under state law it would not qualify for any vesting.
They are trying to address a glaring loophole in the ordinance that goes back to stale zoning that does not
exist any more. Certainly they need to hear about the ones that may feel that they are being challenged
by this.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Strucko seconded to approve the resolution of intent to amend section
8.5.5.2 of the zoning ordinance.
The motion passed by a vote of7:0.
Mr. Morris said that the Commission looks forward to this item coming back.
Public Hearing Items:
ZTA-2007-00001 Zero Lot Line Residences in the R-2 to R-15 Zonina District
Amend Sections 3.1 (Definitions), 4.11.3 (Reduction of building separation and side yards), 4.11.3.1
(Untitled), 4.11.3.2 (Untitled), 4.11.3.3 (Untitled), 14.3 (Area and bulk regulations, 15.3 (Area and bulk
regulations), 16.3 (Area and bulk regulations), 17.3 (Area and bulk regulations), 18.3 (Area and bulk
regulations). This ordinance would amend section 3.1 by defining "zero lot line" and "zero lot line
development); sections 4.11.3, 4.11.3.1, 4.11.3.2 and 4.11.3.3 by revising and adding regulations
allowing reducing the minimum building separation and side yards for structures where there is adequate
fire flow and for dwelling units in zero lot line developments; and sections 14.3, 15.3, 16.3, 17.3 and 18.3
by revising the respective district yard regulations to allow minimum side yards to be reduced to zero feet
on one side in qualifying zero lot line developments. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in
the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development,
County Office Building, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Elaine EChols)
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded to recommend approval of the adoption of the draft
ordinance for ZTA-2007-01, Zero Lot Line Residences in the R-2 to R-15 Zoning District as submitted by
staff with the following caveats and changes:
1. When the ordinance is presented to the Board of Supervisors the Fire Marshal or other expert
official needs to be available to address any concerns with the 10' separation as raised by Mr.
Loach.
2. The staff recommended changes in the language as shown on the screen for sections A and B be
included.
3. Section B2 be removed as unnecessary.
4. Section C be removed since it is inconsistent with the concerns intended to be addressed by the
resolution of intent approved earlier in the evening.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris said that ZTA-2007-01 would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval at a date to be determined.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:12 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:18 p.m.
SP-2007-00054 SOCA-AII Weather Svnthetic Field-Belvedere (Sian # 16 & 49)
PROPOSED: Soccer Field and associated parking and spectator seating adjacent to Belvedere and
accessory building near soccer fields in the floodplain
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 (4 units/acre)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FINAL ACTION MEMO Exhibit A I
SECTION: Section 15.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows athletic facilities for fill in the R4
District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-
residential uses in Neighborhood 2
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: At the northern end of Belvedere Drive off of East Rio Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Portion of 62A3-1 and 62-2A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Elaine Echols, Summer Frederick)
AND
SP-2007 -00058 SOCA-Belvedere/Flood Plain Field (Sian # 16 & 49)
PROPOSED: Floodplain disturbance for 5 soccer fields
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 (4 units/acre) and Neighborhood Model District
(residential [3 - 34 units/acre] mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses); FH Flood Hazard
Overlay District - agricultural, recreational, and utility location uses which will not pose a danger to life or
property in the event of a flood
SECTION: Section 30.3.5.2.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for fill in the floodplain
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-
residential uses in Neighborhood 2.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: adjacent to south bank of the South Fork Rivanna River at the northern end of Belvedere
Drive which is off of East Rio Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: portions of 62-2C, 62A3-1, and 62-2B
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Elaine Echols, Summer Frederick)
Motion on SP-2007-054:
Motion: Ms. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, for approval of SP-2007-00054, SOCA-AII Weather
Synthetic Field-Belvedere with the following amendments to the staff recommended conditions:
1. The location of the synthetic field shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan
entitled, "Belvedere - SOCA Special Use Permit: All Weather Synthetic Turf Field", and dated
March 28, 2008.
2. Public streets which provide access to the synthetic field and to the parking area shall be
constructed prior to JHlbIie use of the field.
3. Public streets which provide on-street parking to accommodate parking requirements for the
synthetic field shall be a minimum of 32' in width or other width as may be required by the
County Engineer and approved as a variation by the Director of Planning.
4. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the end of Belvedere Boulevard. to the synthetic field in
accordance with the Albemarle County Design Manual standards for permanent paths.
5. In conjunction with its review and approval of a site plan or subdivision plat that pertains to or
includes TMP 062A30-00-00-00100, the County may require that Belvedere Boulevard be
extended to provide public street access to TMP 06200-00-00-002AO.
And the following to be covered by additional conditions (language to be finalized before the Board of
Supervisors' meeting):
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FINAL ACTION MEMO
4
.
.
.
I
I I
6. The applicant shall demonstrate as a condition of final site plan approval that the on-site parking
provided for the use, including on-site on-street parking, is adequate for the proposed use.
7. The hours of use for organized activities and events are limited to the time between 8:00 a.m. and
9:30 p.m. (The language to be worked out prior to Board of Supervisors meeting.)
8. A pro-rata contribution to the traffic signal at Belvedere Boulevard and Rio Road, the primary
access to Belvedere, to be worked out before the presentation to the Board of Supervisors.
9. The proposed route of Meadow Creek Parkway (Northern Free State Road) to be designated on
the site plan consistent with the alignment that is shown in the documents.
10. If the use or structure is not commenced by May 14, 2013, this special use permit shall be
deemed abandoned and the authority granted by this permit shall terminated.
M . Strucko asked for one clarification on the hours of operation for SOCA sponsored soccer events. He
a! ked if other type events are being planned for this facility other than SOCA for the synthetic field. He
Sl ggested that the condition be amended to say SOCA sponsored events or broader kinds of events.
M . Kamptner noted that SOCA might not be here forever. He suggested that they use language like
organized activities and events or something like that. He would like to work with the zoning administrator
to come up with language so that it is not organization specific.
M . Cannon accepted the amendment to the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Strucko.
Tt e motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mbtion on Critical Slones Waiver:
Ms. Joseph noted that the critical slope was a very small intrusion in this area.
Mption: Ms. Joseph moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, for approval of critical slope waiver for SP-2007-
OC 054, SOCA-AII Weather Synthetic Field-Belvedere.
Tt e motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
M. Morris stated that the critical slope waiver was approved. SP-2007-00054, SOCA-AII Weather
S\ nthetic Field- Belvedere will go before the Board of Supervisors on May 14 with a recommendation for
a~ proval.
M I>tion on SP-2007-058:
M I>tion: Ms. Porterfield moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, for approval of SP-2007-00058, SOCA-
BE Ivedere/Flood Plain Field with the conditions as recommended by staff.
1. The fill in the floodplain shall be as shown generally on the plan entitled, "Belvedere SOCA Special
Use Permit: Flood Plain Fields" prepared by McKee Carson and last dated March 25, 2008.
2. If required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the applicant shall obtain a map
revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment. The County Engineer shall be copied on all
correspondence related to changes to the floodplain.
3. Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state
and federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits.
4. Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a
grading permit prior to placement of any fill in the floodplain, and County approval an erosion and
sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for placement of any fill in the
floodplain.
Al BEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FI ~AL ACTION MEMO
5
5. The 700'-long section of dry-stone wall bounding the inner edge of the floodplain west and northwest
of the proposed flood plain fields as identified in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and
Geoarchaeological Investigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property, Albemarle
County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be retained and preserved. The wall shall be clearly
identified and labeled on the plan of development. The 50' at the northern end of the wall may be
disturbed for the proposed road construction as currently illustrated on the plan. The stone that is
disturbed by the road construction shall be used to repair remaining portions of the wall or to extend
the wall at its south end. A plan detailing the proposed re-use of the stone shall be submitted for
review and is subject to the approval of the Director of Planning prior to the commencement of road
construction. Methods for protecting the remaining wall during construction and for preserving the
remaining wall following construction shall be submitted for review and are subject to the approval of
the Director of Planning prior to the commencement of road construction.
6. Additional archaeological testing, as recommended in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and
Geoarchaeological Investigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property, Albemarle
County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be conducted to more fully assess the extent of
cultural resources in Area B of the Belvedere project area. Based on the findings of this additional
testing, additional archaeological studies and/or treatments may be required. The additional testing
shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist who meets the qualifications set forth in the Secretary
of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. Additional studies required as a result of the
findings of the testing shall be completed prior to disturbance of the site. Treatments required as a
result of the findings of the testing shall be outlined in a treatment plan that is subject to approval of
the Director of Planning.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris stated that SP-2007-00058, SOCA-Belvedere/Flood Plain Field will go before the Board of
Supervisors on May 14 with a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Strucko left the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
The Planning Commission took a break at 8:58 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:11 p.m.
Regular Items:
SUB-2008-00022 Bel/air #5- Preliminarv
Request for preliminary plat approval to create 2 lots on 2.066 acres. The property is zoned R-1
Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 76C-02 Parcel 5 is located in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District on Deer Path Road [Route 809] at the intersection with Old Farm Road [Route 846].
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in Urban Area 6. (Megan
Yaniglos)
Mr. Edgerton said that he heard staff say loud and clear that all easements have to be shown. If that
needs to be part of this plat, then it needs to be shown with something more than a magic marker. He
would like some assurance that it really has been looked at a little bit more than the critical slopes if there
are other issues. With that in mind he was going to recommend denial. Mr. McDaniel has given us an
interpretation how it is against the regulations to have a septic site any closer than 5' to the property line.
It is hard to determine that from the free hand drawing that shows the potential septic site. He asked that
the Commission be provided with some clear engineering on that. He would very much like to have both
Mr. Crauns here to explain exactly what sort of engineering they have done on this.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Ms. Joseph seconded, for denial of SUB-2008-00022, Bellair #5
Preliminary as the plat does not comply with the ordinance. It needs to show all of the easements and
clear engineering needs to be provided for the potential septic site.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FINAL ACTION MEMO
6
II
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2007-58 SOCA Fill in the
Floodplain
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
April 22, 2008
Owners: Belvedere Station Land Trust; Robert M
Hauser & Stan C Manoogian Trust
Acreage: Approximately 12 acres
Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
May 14, 2008
Applicant: Chris Schooley with Stonehaus
Development
Special Use Permit for: Request for fill in
the floodplain for soccer fields in accordance
with Section 30.3.5.2.2.3 of the Zoning
ordinance
Conditions: Yes
TMP: portions of 62-2C, 62A3-1, and 62-2B
Location: At the end of Belvedere Drive (currently
under construction) off of East Rio Road.
Existing Zoning (of all parcels) and By-right use:
R-4 (4 units/acre) and Neighborhood Model District
(residential [3 - 34 units/acre] mixed with
commercial, service and industrial uses); FH Flood
Hazard Overlay District - agricultural, recreational,
nd utility location uses which will not pose a
dan er to life or ro ert in the event of a flood
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Neighborhood Density Residential - residential
(3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as
religious institutions and schools and other small-
scale non-residential uses.
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable:
1. No impact to neighboring properties is expected 1. There are no factors unfavorable.
as a result of this special use permit
2. No increase in flood leve!s will result from the
construction of the access road or fields.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a roval with the conditions.
.
Magisterial District: Rivanna
DA (Development Area): X
RA (Rural Area):
Exhibit B I
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
APRIL 22, 2008
MAY 14, 2008
SP2007 -058 SOCA Soccer Fields at Belvedere
Applicant's Proposal: SOCA (Soccer Organization of Charlottesville Albemarle) has requested
permission to do grading in the floodplain for cut and fill, to create 5 soccer fields and associated
parking adjacent to the Rivanna River in the Belvedere development. The location of the
proposed fields, parking, and accessway to the fields is shown in Attachment A. A proposed all-
purpose building outside of the floodplain is also shown on the plan which is an accessory use to
the soccer fields. The all-purpose building will have storage, restrooms, and a small concession
area.
The fields would be accessed by a drive from the end of Belvedere Lane. This drive would
extend past the driveway for the Levenson property (Tax Map 62 Parcel 2A) and down the hill to
the floodplain. The accessway is not part of the special use permit application except where
grading will take place in the floodplain for access to the parking lot. The majority of the
accessway is outside of the floodplain in an area reserved by the applicant for the Northern Free
State Connector Road, should the County decide at some point in the future that such a road is
desired at that location.
Petition:
PROPOSED: Fill in the floodplain for 5 soccer fields
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 (4 units/acre) and Neighborhood Model District
(residential [3 - 34 units/acre] mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses); FH Flood
Hazard Overlay District - agricultural, recreational, and utility location uses which will not pose a
danger to life or property in the event of a flood
SECTION: Section 30.3.5.2.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for fill in the floodplain
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential
(3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-
scale non-residential uses in Neighborhood 2.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: at the end of Belvedere Drive, adjacent to south bank of the South Fork Rivanna
River
TAX MAP/PARCEL: portions of 62-2C, 62A3-1, and 62-2B
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the floodplain is currently undeveloped; however,
construction activities are taking place adjacent to the floodplain area in association with the
Belvedere development. Across the floodplain are low density residential uses and undeveloped
land. (See Attachment B.)
Planning and Zoning Historv: In October 2005, ZMA 04-07 Belvedere was approved as a
Neighborhood Model District which allowed for 775 units and a small commercial area. Since
approval of ZMA 04-07, There have been at least 21 subdivision plats have been approved,
primarily as boundary line adjustments and easement plats. Because of their number, they are
not all listed here. Zoning for the parcel and they are shown in Attachment C.
2
Com rehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Neighborhood Density
Resi entia I in Neighborhood 2 (see Attachment D). The Open Space Plan shows the area under
cons deration for the soccer fields as Major and Locally Important Stream Valleys and Adjacent
Criti al Slopes. The Greenways Plan shows the area for a greenway which was proffered with
. the elvedere rezoning.
.
.
31.2. .1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding
by t e Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
prop rty,
Alth ugh it is not shown clearly on the plan, according to the County Engineer the floodplain
incre ses appear to be minimal such that placement of fill in the floodplain should not have a
signi icant effect on the floodplain limits or elevations at this location or in downstream areas. The
field are located in an area of FEMA detailed study, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) may
be re uired. At this juncture, there is no specific information regarding FEMA acceptance of
thes changes, but, staff does not anticipate issues related to receiving a LOMR.
he character of the district will not be changed thereby,
eighborhood Model District and the Flood Hazard Overlay Zones are the zoning districts in
the fill would occur. The Belvedere Code of Development allows for athletic fields by-right
location shown in this request. Because the floodplain increases are expected to be
ai, there does not appear to be any change in character of the Flood Hazard Overlay Zone
location.
Regarding the Belvedere Neighborhood Model district, though, the disturbance of the floodplain
will a ect a portion of a 700'-long section of dry-stone wall bounding the inner edge of the
flood lain west and northwest of the proposed flood plain fields. This wall was identified in the
Phas I Archaeological Survey and Geoarchaeologicallnvestigation in Two Portions of the
Belv dere Development Property, Albemarle County, Virginia dated February 6,2008, which was
proff red as part of the Belvedere rezoning. The proposed driveway to the fields will cause
remo al of a portion of the wall and proposed disturbance in the floodplain for the fields could
furth r negatively affect the wall which is noted as an archeological resource. For this reason, the
Desi n Planner has recommended that the portion of the wall not disturbed for the driveway be
pres rved. Also, the Design Planner recommends that further archeological testing take place in
the a eas to be disturbed for the fields. If artifacts are found, the Design Planner has
reco mended that the applicant provide a plan for treatment prior to additional disturbance.
uch use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
lood Hazard zoning has the purpose and intent of restricting development in the floodplain
whic may result in danger to life and property, public costs for flood control measures, public
costs for rescue and relief efforts, soil erosion and sedimentation, pollution of water resources,
and g neral degradation of the natural and man-made environment. The Flood Hazard Overlay
Zone allows for recreational activities such as playing fields by-right. As such, they are
consi ered to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the district. Grading for the access
road, parking lots, and fields will not substantially increase the floodplain elevation which is also in
keepi g with the Flood Hazard Zone.
3
with uses permitted by right in the district,
As previously stated, recreational uses resulting from this special use permit are allowed by-right
in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The Belvedere Neighborhood Model District also allows
recreational uses. The fill activity is not expected to affect the permitted residential uses in
Belvedere or the Flood Hazard District.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no supplementary regulations relating to the placement of fill in the floodplain in Section
5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The County Engineer has reviewed the applicant's proposal and provided the following
information. The floodplain is at elevation 356. The proposed fields and access are as low as
elevation 332. The flood analysis report indicates a flow of 1 O,OOOcfs will reach the level of the
fields. A return interval was not estimated. Using the NOAA data for 24 hour precipitation for
different interval storms as a guide, it would appear that the return interval is less than a 2 year
storm (in order to reach half the flow of the 10 year interval). This is important information to
consider. This means the fields can be expected to flood as frequently as every couple of years.
A brief comparison to the existing soccer fields on Polo Grounds Road: The fields are at
approximate elevation 345', and the 100 year flood is at 359', a flooding depth of 14 feet. The
proposed fields at Belvedere are at elevation 336' I and the 100 year flood is at 356', a flooding
depth of 20 feet.
It is recommended that the timing of the flood stage during the expected rainfall amounts be
estimated, so that the managers of this facility can be aware of the flooding danger, and can
reasonably watch and be prepared for rainfall events which might impact them.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. No impact to neighboring properties is expected as a result of this special use permit.
2. No increase in flood levels will result from the construction of the access road.
Staff has identified no factors which are unfavorable to this request for fill in the floodplain.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions:
1. The fill in the floodplain shall be as shown generally on the plan entitled, "Belvedere SOCA
Special Use Permit: Flood Plain Fields" prepared by McKee Carson and last dated March 25,
2008.
2. If required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the applicant shall obtain
a map revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment. The County Engineer shall be
copied on all correspondence related to changes to the floodplain.
3. Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary
4
. 5.
.
.
I I I
S ate and federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits.
4. Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance
o a grading permit prior to placement of any fill in the floodplain, and County approval an
e osion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for placement of
a y fill in the floodplain.
T e 700'-long section of dry-stone wall bounding the inner edge of the floodplain west and
n rthwest of the proposed flood plain fields as identified in the Phase I Archaeological Survey
a d Geoarchaeologicallnvestigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property,
A bemarle County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be retained and preserved. The wall
s all be clearly identified and labeled on the plan of development. The 50' at the northern end
o the wall may be disturbed for the proposed road construction as currently illustrated on the
pi n. The stone that is disturbed by the road construction shall be used to repair remaining
p rtions of the wall or to extend the wall at its south end. A plan detailing the proposed re-use
o the stone shall be submitted for review and is subject to the approval of the Director of
Panning prior to the commencement of road construction. Methods for protecting the
r maining wall during construction and for preserving the remaining wall following construction
s all be submitted for review and are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning prior
to the commencement of road construction.
6. A ditional archaeological testing, as recommended in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and
G oarchaeologicallnvestigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property,
A bemarle County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be conducted to more fully assess
th extent of cultural resources in Area B of the Belvedere project area. Based on the findings
o this additional testing, additional archaeological studies and/or treatments may be required.
T e additional testing shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist who meets the
q alifications set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards.
A ditional studies required as a result of the findings of the testing shall be completed prior to
di turbance of the site. Treatments required as a result of the findings of the testing shall be
o tlined in a treatment plan that is subject to approval of the Director of Planning.
CHMENTS:
Ian entitled, "Belvedere SOCA Special Use Permit: Flood Plain Fields" prepared by McKee
arson and last dated March 25, 2008
B - L cation Map
C -- oning Map
D - omprehensive Plan Map
5
U.
~i~
U~
" u
j~~~1
i~E~3
ihai
ii~"< i
DjUjBJ'A '''Juno:) 8poweqlV
POOI~ : llVU3d 3Sn lVI::>3dS
sPI"I~ UlOid 9
:lIiO:lAH
V::>OS
<
-
=
~
S
-=
R ft (oJ
I 5 ~ ~
. ~ -
i -
H .. <
I (
Ai I ~
UI B ~ ~ I
z
~
~
~
:E
NVld ld3::>NO::>
r " ~~w
~8 ~ ~g~ ,
o.
;(~ a, " ~g;g::
~o 0.0 Xo
~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ "0
o.
"' ~~~ -,
.0 r
g~~ ~o 0 ~~!
." c
Lt~t;; <. ;~ a~g .
~~~ i~ ~~~ "'0 ~
~8~ ~~ ~~ i~~
~~ .." ~~~ c
~~~ ~:;:;..- 8~~ 0 g~~~~
~~~, ~~~ 0 ~, ~~~ i
g:~Ulx:I:
~;~ :~~ ~~ u mm
, ~~ ~~E
wo-g .0. 0 t
~~~ i~~ ~~ ~~~ ~
~~ffi ~~~ 0 ~8 ~~*
"0 ~~~ " ~~ 0 i~~~f~
~<~ "'<
." . ~~~
".. 0 g:i G~~~~~
,!!;2: . ~~~ ,
~;g o.
u ~i ':l!8vjCl ~:Z;~:r:<~
<-. ~5.~ 0 "-.tz~ ~;;~~~
~ ~o~ ~ o~~~ 0
'.!!~~ ~~~ '.."-00.. ~ mm
"x" :~~ ffi' ~~~~ 0
.0. 0 ~~
~ ~~~ Ou 0
~~~ .-. ~ ." ~S!g~ 0
~~~ ~ n 0
~~~ ..-::;lll ....<(QlZ
,
,
I e I ~ g
i . ~ ~
. ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ .
; .
~ , i . ~
8 . .
~ . , . .
I ~ I
~
<
.
I
.
~
I
i
/
~
]
!
<
~~~
..u
!~i
~~~~
3~~5
~~~~
(,)wWUI
1
,
I
J
I
I
I
!
I
,
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
j
.
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
i
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,~ i
I
,
I
.
I
,
I
J
I
1
I
I
<
<
j ~z
~~i~~
~a~~;
UBi
o
<r
~!~
m
68~
;~ffi
~~~
o "
~~~
00<
"'tii3
\Qc,<
~2~
'."
(!Jz~
~~s
~I;
~~g
ou.
~i~
.1i~~
~~~
~~~
UH
~r
;~>-
~~@
~~~
~::.
0'
"<
g~
0"
~~
;~
e~
,-
z ~s. "
~ ~~; f~~d
;<l; ..- >,"'
~ ~: ~ tiE ~.
~ ,.0 li,; ,I
~~~ :: {fit
_ -" d"" E
lIIr'" <( 0 ..,
, ... u u
NVld SNOllI0NO::l ~
~NI1SIX3
II
H
III
<
-
=
~
e
-=
l:J
~ a ~ eo:
-
~ II -
i <
D!UIBJI^ 'J.juno
SP191~ U 0 ::> etJDweqlV
I Id pDDI~ .
. llV'/~3d 3sn lV
:UUCElA1El& 1::l3dSV::lOS
I~ ~~~I'-
o ~
~ ~
o z
w 0
2 ~
~ 0
e Z
~ 0
~ 2
n
c .
Z w
2 ::
~ ~
~ ~
ffi ~
.oc'o i ~
~~~~~ ~ ~
~:~!~ ~ ~
UBi i i
~ i
I
I
. i
I
I
~ i
, i
~ N I
I
- i
<>
::: <> I
~ i
:
- . .
.~ ~
,
~ , I
~. i
, .
~ ,
~ ;
I
I
- , i
i\ ~
-
~ I
<> I
i\ I
, i
~ .
1
1
f
r
I
i
I
1
I
i
I
1
I
I
,
-,~".
,
~
N
,..,~
~ ~ ' ~-
~ ~ ~ ~
. 6-''''
oz0U ~
~ g;::c.< ~
~ ~a~~
~ !lwtD
'i. ....ffio "-
8 ~
, > '
'r<,i\.~
, ..... "
~,
:::
~
~~
j:~~
:~~~
~~
~:~
..:.~~
~~8
~
~
u
I:
lIs
.<-
liE I
Wi
xj' ~
;p ,;; "
~~~~ ,
iO-=<- J .,
;~i <'
-'::~E ~~ il
"iJO~
~~j ~ .; .::~
~ " ~~ ~E
~;~g ~ 1 " '0 ~~
"'0.,,<> ~ i~
~~!~ ;; I~ .-
~m - . l!
, ;!
. ,-
, 'f:.g, c~~
mfi ;:~
! o' ;; Iii
. .~ . i~
.
I ~~ . ~-~
~: Eif; m
~ -oc<t:i. o. <; .E
E~i~~ , ~'" f~ E~ ~.
~i'~!;'~ i ~~
j ~; '.
illH <0 ~e
j-: -i:;i l,'
j ". ~i
::!:l " .,oj
'" ,=~ ~!~
I
~ i
I
; ~i
~
+l
III
.~
~
i
x
o
.
. ,
, ,
u"
>j z 0
8 ~g:
~ ~ -
~ ~ ~:
5 ~ ~~
~ ~ gi
: : ~:
! Hi
<( <( z......
Cl Cl 00
~ ~ ~~
g g ~!Z
H ;1
a. n. a:z
~ ~ ~~
: ~ ~ffi
o 15 c<
.
~ ~ ~!
nil
~ ~ ~8
.J ~~
~I~ i;~ J
!i~ <".
~ Hi ~~i!
a
IS
+l
j
J
J
~ '1 ~~.. I' ~
1- . I
1; .1: ;",o!
I III?~ I
I II I ^ 0 I
. II ^ I I
I IIII
I II I I <:>1
I II I ^ II I
. II ^ I II I
11111"
!
.t!l
~
.l!I
ij)
,
h~~~~
J
NVld !nOAVl dns
DIUIBJI^ 'AlunO:J 8IJDwaqlV
SPI"I~ UIDld POOI~ : !I1'1~3d 3Sn lVI;)3dS V;)OS
~Ha~^H8
I
0\
ii
~i
~
ii\
~.
w'
~\
~.
~,
"-
'~j-' \
(
l
I
/
,/
.\i
f
~
..
~~u.
;~;c
~..~
:! N
!
)
<
-
=
~
5
.c:
~
~
-
I I Q" ft -
tA <
II i
U I ~
II! I ~ a ~ ~
I
~
~ ~
0
"'
<
u
,
I
t
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
r
i
.
;
I
i
i
i
I
.
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
C< 0 ~~~
G~ 0 mo 0
<0 "' 0' ~~g;
~~ 2~ 'C 0"" ~
, o~~
~~ ~~ ii~ 0
0< ~~ ;~ g
"0
o~ ~
~~ ;~ ~Q >-~~
-z<
~8 "0 ~~ ~~Q 0
~~g '0 ~3z ~
""
0, ~~ "::>-<(
~~~ "z Uu.i!!!
:=8 ~~ !~t ~ 0
g:4!~ ~<(
c(~8 '0 8;
~~" 8~
o~g ~ci ~~
~~ .w ," 0
~~~ s~ ~~~~ ~l); .
", ~
0 8~
m ~g: m" ~o~~ "" fu~
'. <-
-. ~~ ~~~~ "<
'j ",
;~~ "< ~~ 5=0",,... ~~
aa:<(a 0 ~6
~~!~ ~~ 0"
""
~~~ 0" 0< ~, ~~
~. ~~ ~~
0"" 0;0
""< GlE~i wu ~~
~:r~ 0"' ~~ "w
ow' '0 ~~g~ ffi,...u", '"
-., ~<"~ g:~~~ O~ !!!~
wo
S~~ ~~: ~:~~ ~~ '=8
~Jj8 ~~~ ~~~~ ~.1:~~ ~~
0 0
0 -~
<.
.m
< ~~
'-
0 !~
~ u
~ ~ "0
~- ~
~~
u~
'B~ 2
. ~ . ~~
< VJ"::::; 0 -
x z ""
~ ~ ~ ~~ 0'
" >,
ou>:I' o' ~~
!~~ i ~@ Q$ 0
~ ~ ~::: z> 0
"~~ i ~~~ w~
"0, 0"
~ ~ffig ">
~~~ ,<
VJit'::;! -", < 0
< ml 0 ~~~ ."
<. ~~
ZC z>4! ~~
, o~ o ..
0 OIQ<1I,... U m ~~ ~~
~~~~b :~~~ ~~ <<
~ig~ "< ~w .-
"" 00
~~ pO ". ~~
:::"::0>- ~~~ "u
"0
<UZal 6- 0:
.
.
.
. ~- Jfk'j ~~..
\ ~S~12007 -~~~
~ ~/ ~ h3 C) dl \\JLl '&1I!WiB C:-\'...... '
~ v/ ~ \t-' Ij. \ r-o It9/<,0-.!Vl.oz rj'e fJ- Jf_ l
IAo~,0 ~!\~Sfr-20(f8~54 ~O~~\lo
~* YC 0)17"0 ~ ~4\~;~~~ ~\?Jf.-!-"(.f.,.,j D <0
~ ~~~'~~SY~~~~~~~~~~00 \O~
~~~\d1i\% ~~~ ~~ ~ ~
~~0 ~~~ ~~~ ~~k~~~~ --~ ~
~ \ ~ ~ D ~ 09;:;z.; J//:;r-: ~() \ eN rP ,"--' ~~~d\ \( J\d -----
:I:J :d_'</ ,,?~.) X~~~~"031 :J~~~.\~y) \2 <0
, ~~~~ ,\~~ ~v , ,~~(d) " ,
Ie? o~~~~~: ~~~ (
~f<'?X ~ ~~ . ~~ 0 \tK ),
~I ~::0 :~0....: ~~~\ W ,<:(<' ( 0 d~
,~y~' H\~(\~ ~ <0 f;J 0
~ \~ y~~\C- "<<./l:!
'gjf ~ /J >(.. ~ ~~l'\ S5 .?J
,\r::~y/ ~ Z 0 ,,," T~,,^
!:\)) '? ~ 0\(/
~)f' l~ Y;~/~r> ,0 0
.,0; )' )/;, d: 7A_~7
~ Y v ~o' ~ ,1><
v~ "AVA
,0 o~
-:'<2 / '~.
D
)1
-
(
SP 2007 -58J
o
_~008-541
~
-2A 82-28
.....
- ~.
-
,
..
.....~..
82A3-1
82-2C
~
~~
~~~~{ "<0, '\, ,,~
~ ~~~ \ ~~ ~l',
~ ~~I~ \rl;l:\~
~~T'I ~ra,\' '- ...,
~~ -t "I. ~ \ /' 0
. ~...)J ~ ::,~~\'iS rs~0r.. 0-:'
! l-~~/ ~)< ( I?
==-!-' ~K 2'v:-\ ~. /
~~~- A ~~(YZJI' ~(~
/"
/'
/"-./ Roads Streams
I~ c=J Driveways . Water Body
Ii c=J Buildings c=J Parcels
eet ,......,
~~ L.-J Parcels of Interest
~
....
=
~
E
.c:
I;,j
=
....
....
<
c:=J Parcels
Streams D Parcels of Interest
Water Body
Zoning
D 62_2A .. R10 Residential 11II Highway Commercial
t-:-~] Proposed_Rezoning2 .. R15 Residential ~ Planned Development Shopping Center
Rural Areas Planned Unit Development _ Planned Development Mixed Convnercial
.. Planned Residential Development light Industry
_ Neighborhood Model Distria .. Heavy Industry
III Monticello Historic District _ Planned Development Industrial Pal1t
Commercial ~ Natural Resource Extraction Over1ay
.. Commercial Office i Town of Scottsville
u
...
=
~
5
-=
I;J
=
....
....
<
.
.
.
CJ Parcels
Streams 0 Parcels of Interest
~
....
=
~
S
oJ:
<:J
~
....
....
-<
Compplan Landuse
C 62_2A .. Neighborhood Service .. Transitional
[=~"] ProposecCRezoning2 Offtce Service '~~ Urban Density
_ Community Service _ OfficeJRegional SefVice L-J Rural Area
_ Industrial Service .. Parks and Greenways ~ See Development Area Text
.. Institutional Regional SeNK:e D See Crozet Master Plan
Neighborhood Density Town Center
.
.
.
/
V
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
April 25, 2008
Cann, John P.
450 Woodlands Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP200700059 John Cann Boat Dock
Tax Map 44, Parcel12V
Dear Mr. Cann:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 8, 2008, recommended approval of
the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. by a vote of 6:0. - '::'
___ ----.J
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.
There shall be no lighting within 25 horizontal feet of the Reservoir, measured from the elevation of
normal pool, which is Elevation 382 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988)
There shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance with the 200-foot stream buffer
associated with the installation of the boat dock. The stream buffer is measured from the edge of the
floodplain, which is Elevation 391.
There shall be no other structures, such as decking or stairs, constructed in the 200-foot stream
buffer.
2.
3.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on May 14,2008.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
SiiJerely,
~{Ulta
Tamara Ambler
Natural Resource Manager
Planning Division
TAlSM
Cc: City Of Charlottesville
POBox 911
Charlottesville, Va 22902
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2007-59 John Cann boat dock
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
April 8, 2008
Owners: City of Charlottesville
Acreage: 47.94 total acres
TMP: 44-12V
Location: Dock to be placed at west side of the
Reservoir, approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the
Earlysville Road (Route 743) bridge crossing. Dock to
serve the Cann property (TMP 45-3A 1)
Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA -- Rural
Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre); FH--Flood Hazard: agricultural,
recreational, and utility location uses which will not pose
a danger to life or property in the event of a flood.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A
Proposal: To install a private boat dock on the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
Character of Property: Steeply sloped and wooded
Factors Favorable: 1. No direct impact to the water
supply or neighboring properties is expected as a result
of this special use permit; 2. No increase in flood levels
will result from installation of a dock; 3. The proposed
dock is supported by the City of Charlottesville and
meets the requirements of the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority
Staff: Tamara Jo Ambler
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
May 14, 2008
Applicant: John Cann and the City of
Charlottesville
Special Use Permit for: To install a private dock
on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir in
accordance with Section 30.3.05.2.1 (2) of the
Zoning ordinance
Conditions: Yes
Magisterial District: Rio
DA (Development Area):
RA (Rural Area): X
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Area 3
- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/density (.5 unit/acre)
Use of Surrounding Properties: Nearby and
surrounding uses are the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir, low density single family residential
development, and open space
Factors Unfavorable: 1. The applicant has
proposed a fixed deck attached to the boat dock;
2. If a significant number of these requests are
approved, the resulting proliferation of boat docks
could impair the primary function of the Reservoir
as a drinking water supply.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a roval with conditions.
.
1
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP 2007-59 John Cann boat dock
PROPOSED: To install a private boat dock on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre); FH--Flood Hazard: agricultural, recreational, and utility location uses
which will not pose a danger to life or property in the event of a flood.
SECTION: Section 30.3.05.2.1 (2) of the Zoning ordinance
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Rural Area 3 - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes_No_X_ Location: Dock to be placed at west side of the
Reservoir, approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the Earlysville Road (Route 743) bridge crossing. Dock
to serve the Cann property (TMP 45-3A 1).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 44-12V
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The site is steeply sloped and wooded.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL: A special use permit is being requested in accordance with Section
30.3.05.2.1 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a boat dock in the Flood Hazard Overlay zoning district.
The boat dock will serve the adjacent John Cann property at TMP 45-3A 1.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
The property on which the private boat dock is proposed is owned by the City of Charlottesville. The
dock will serve the adjacent Cann property. On January 4, 2006 the Board of Supervisors approved
two private boat docks on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to serve the Bart Neumann property (SP
2005-10) and the Michael Caplin property (SP 2005-30) with conditions pertaining to preservation of
buffer vegetation, prohibition of decks or other structures, and lighting issues. Prior to these approvals
there were very few requests for boat docks on the Reservoir in recent years. Based upon a field
survey of the Reservoir in October 2006 by staff from the County and the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority there are currently a total of 19 boat docks (some older ones in disrepair) on the Reservoir.
Prior to the Neumann and Caplin approvals, the last documented request was made in 1999 by Mr.
James Ogg for a new private residential boat dock (SP 1999-28) and also involved the unauthorized
construction of a freestanding deck. The special use permit was approved by both the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors with the stipulation that mitigation be provided for
disturbance to the 200-foot vegetative stream buffer, and that lighting issues be addressed. In 1997 a
request from Rivanna Rowing (SP 1997-23) to construct a new floating dock in conjunction with
establishing a new private rowing facility was approved by the Planning Commission, but denied by the
Board of Supervisors. The denial was based on the proposal's size, location, safety concerns, and a
determination that it would change the character of the Reservoir from a water supply facility to a
recreational facility. In 1994, Virginia Rowing received approval from both the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors (SP 1994-08) to relocate an existing boat dock associated with an
existing boating athletic facility.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as a surface drinking water
supply. The Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains the
following objective for the recreational use of water supply areas:
"Allow and manage recreational uses of drinking water reseNoirs and adjacent public land
only as incidental uses to the primary function of water supply and in such a manner as to
prevent cumulative impacts that may impair the primary function. "
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that recreational use of water supply reservoirs has the potential
to threaten water quality and water supply functions, and calls for specific consideration of this issue in
2
the folio ing strategy:
.
"The County should take a lead role in developing a recreation and water supply protection
plan for each reservoir to address incidental recreational uses of drinking water reservoirs
and adjacent public land. This effort should be coordinated with the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority, the City of Charlottesville, Shenandoah National Park and other relevant
agencies. "
STAFF OMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
31.2.4.1 Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board 0 Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The add tion of one floating boat dock will not be detrimental to either the Reservoir or nearby
surroun ing properties. As stated above, there are a number of boat docks for private recreational use
already i place on the Reservoir.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
In the pst, the issue of how lighting associated with these docks may change the character and
appeara ce of the Reservoir has been a significant issue. To address this concern, the three most
recent a provals (Neumann SP 2005-10, Caplin SP 2005-30, and Ogg 1999-28) contained the
conditio that there shall be no lighting within 25 horizontal feet of the Reservoir. The same condition
of appro al is recommended in this case to be consistent with past practice.
afs state above, there are currently 19 boat docks already in place on the Reservoir. These boat.
~ocks d not appear to detract from the primary use of the Reservoir as a water supply reservoir
because of their size, materials, and periodic usage. This proposed boat dock would not appear to
change t e character of the Rural Area zoning district or the character of the use of the Reservoir. A
proliferat on of residential boat docks, however, would change the appearance of the Reservoir and
potential y provide for a more recreational character than a water supply character. In recognition of
this and he Comprehensive Plan strategy noted earlier in this report, this issue will be addressed as
part of th upcoming update of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the
Compre ensive Plan.
that suc use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The pur ose and intent of the Rural Areas zoning is to preserve agricultural and forestal lands and
activities to protect water supply, to limit service to the rural areas, and to conserve the natural, scenic,
and hist ric resources of the County. The Flood Hazard zoning has the purpose and intent of
restrictin development in the floodplain which may result in danger to life and property, public costs for
flood co trol measures, public costs for rescue and relief efforts, soil erosion and sedimentation,
pollution f water resources, and general degradation of the natural and man-made environment.
Regarding protection of the water supply and the preservation of natural resources, a concern for staff
is the lik Iihood that the installation of boat docks along the Reservoir would result in clear cutting and
removal f the required 200-foot vegetative buffer. However, based on staff surveys of the Reservoir in
May 200 and October 2006 no correlation was found between disturbance to the vegetative buffer and
the exist nee of a boat dock. In addition, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority authorizes specific
construction methods, materials, design, and size for boat docks to minimize impacts to the water
.uality of the Reservoir.
3
The applicant has proposed a fixed deck attached to the boat ramp and dock, which is not supported by
staff. These additional structures have not been authorized by the County in past approvals and are
not consistent with the intent of Section 17-317 of the County Water Protection Ordinance, which
establishes a two hundred horizontal feet wide vegetative buffer from the floodplain of any water supply
impoundment for the purposes of protecting water quality. In this buffer native vegetation shall be
preserved to the maximum extent possible. The target vegetative cover in the buffer shall be native
riparian forest with ground cover, shrub, and tree canopy layers. Within the buffer, land disturbing
activities and the installation of structures are significantly restricted. Staff recommends that the
proposed boat dock not include the fixed deck, which would require the permanent removal of buffer
vegetation. An example of the type of dock most recently approved by the County is shown below, that
provides access to the dock via a ramp with minimal impact to the buffer.
Regarding the issue of creating a flood hazard, the floating dock will be designed to respond to
changes in flood levels and not impede the natural flow of water, unless it were to break loose and
travel downstream to the dam. The dock will be anchored to avoid being broken loose by floods. The
County Engineer has confirmed that there will be no increase in flood elevations by installing a floating
dock.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
By-right uses in the Rural Areas include single family and duplex uses, public uses and buildings,
agricultural, forestry, boating, and fishery uses. This use would appear to be in harmony with the other
uses permitted by-right.
4
with the additional. regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
.here are no supplementary regulations relating to ~oat docks in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The use of drinking water reservoirs for recreational use creates several risks to water quality and the
ability to adequately treat raw water from the reservoir for public consumption. Swimming and other
recreational activities that involve body-contact with the water can significantly increase the occurrence
of pathogens, such as Cryptosporidium in the reservoir. The use of boats poses a threat of
contamination from gasoline, and more specifically the additive methyl-t-butyl-ether (MTBE). Also, the
launching of boats raises the risk of introducing invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, which can
proliferate and impact the aquatic ecosystem and also damage water treatment facilities.
Sections 11-300 through 11-306 of the Albemarle County Code address water supply reservoirs utilized
by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and regulate the use and activity on each reservoir. Section
11-304 specifically addresses activities on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Authorized activities are
fishing, canoeing, boating (no internal combustion engines), hiking, bird watching, and picnicking.
Swimming is specifically prohibited under this section. An exemption for the use of internal combustion
engines is provided for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Virginia Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries personnel for official purposes.
The County has already addressed the threat of pathogens by prohibiting swimming in the Reservoir
within Chapter 11 of the County Code. The threat of contamination from the gasoline additive MTBE
has also been addressed through the County's requirements in Chapter 11 of the Code to restrict the
use of internal combustion engines on the Reservoir. Lastly, the Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries has advised that the introduction of invasive species such as the zebra mussel has yet
. present a serious risk to Virginia. To date there has been only one documented location of zebra
ussels in a Prince William County quarry. This population of zebra mussels was successfully
eradicated in 2006.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. No direct impact to the water supply or neighboring properties is expected as a result of this
special use permit
2. No increase in flood levels will result from installation of a dock.
3. The proposed dock is supported by the Charlottesville, and meets the requirements of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for residential boat docks.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request.
1. The applicant has proposed a fixed deck attached to the boat dock.
2. If a significant number of these requests are approved, the resulting proliferation of boat docks
could impair the primary function of the Reservoir as a drinking water supply
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions:
1. There shall be no lighting within 25 horizontal feet of the Reservoir, measured from the elevation of
normal pool, which is Elevation 382 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988)
2. There shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance with the 200-foot stream buffer
. associated with the installation of the boat dock. The stream buffer is measured from the edge of
the floodplain, which is Elevation 391.
5
3. There shall be no other structures, such as decking or stairs, constructed in the 200-foot stream
buffer.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Location Map
Attachment B - Proposal from applicant
Attachment C - Boat Dock Permit and Agreement with RWSA
Attachment D - Illustration of dock location with elevations
6
030
031
032
5-1
.~
-- -- .../
L
//-)
! ..../
/' (
\, j
'I--\:
/
.{
\ ~
'-. m
-- ...../
800
1,600
Albemarle County
Tax Map:
045
62
2,400
~
Scale
Feet
Note: This map is for display purposes only
and shows parcels as of 12/3112008.
See Map Book Introdudion for additional details.
Attachment A
Application for
Special Use Permit
Please See the List at the bottom of page 4 for the Appropriate Fee
(staff will assist you with this item)
PROJECT NAME: (how should we refer to this application?): ~D~ ~tA.J ~l:)A.\ i::::JC:>c..K.
rNS.TAI-~ A p{2.\VA~b~ ~~"TI...lc,. 1~\~'~IMll~II'2..btAla.~u...s~ ON~~'S.C.cn-~~~
PROPOSAL: ~\~~..laJr,... ~t~\it.. ') T.t>.1- N\t:.~ 4oS:} "?,,Q.C.~ ~Al'\).
EXISTING COMP PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: SURt-ACE hn..t N"-'N4. \,...tI\.n..>(L~\JN>\...'( I "Ku\2.J\L.- ~
LOCATION: 3~C ~bht\N~~ "R.D~bl ~.HA.~~J\u ~ I "Ar 'Z..:l...'::'}D\
TAX MAP PARCEL(s): T.\YI. 4';;-?~A(j) 4- '-It{ /d-. V
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: _ R~Q I'(l A~\~:i"T~~~~ "t)',~~e-T
# OF ACRES TO BE COVERED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT (if a portion it must be delineated on a plat): ~. 'to
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? HYes provide that SP Number.
Are you submittin a reliminary site Ian with this a lication?
DYES
[iI YES
~NO
DNO
Contact Person (Who should we call/write concerning this project?):
..)O~N ? CJ\N,,)
Owner of Record
S~M~ N=, .A~~~
rL~3
City
City C.J.v~.~H~P-'b.,Jll"t...C State JA.- Zip 'l.:l.. ~O\
E-mail .~....~~~...:\ @. ~~\Z.."T\.\L..\~,,-,~~
~ CfJ~ldk U~~
Address 4~O (NC'hb \..At.Jt\So. 1<.> nJ:..t-..
Daytime Phone (41,~ ~'1" -c1..lS.~ Fax # L-)
[2-../
Address
State
Zip
Daytime Phone L-) Fax # L-) E-mail
Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing?):
Address ~t{\'E: ~ A~Ji:; City State Zip
Daytime Phone L-) Fax # L-) E-mail
Does the owner ofthis property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers
t-b
Sec.~~' '30. ~ .05:2- , l:tt L
ZOH Hi&: ~ i\ \ A-l ~ ( ~~
O'HlL ...('l b11 e 000 D\.4t1lf rt2.c",~ ~
'-l SO ~"'t\.~
o Special Use Permits:
History:
D ZMAs & Proffers:
D Variances:
o Letter of Authorization
c;/I~ 4f ~
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan?
DYES D NO
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP #
Fee Amount $ ~lD~ Date Paid II !oztp/1it7h ~I ~ Receipt # (p73t:!JCk# 4?i:Dq By J~
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, V A 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
Attachment B
, I
.
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent info1111ation sLlch as the number of persons involved in
the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use:
I..s5-rAt..L A ~LCA.TIIJ'1 tier \I- CS;:~ T\...II::: ~o~ ~;:.. iY\"< R \ \I ~ [:)~ ~'?l.=""\'D:"C' \.J
j>.rJ:' c::.~Au-J c..a w \~ ~A. ~ T Jx::.C4,L c.c::......l.s."T R.Uc....\' I ~ N ~ I n.e-ro~~ -tDl2... -n...l~
'~~ ~= i~~~~~:~~ ~~.~,.t~(~:~~; :c~~~~~~~'C~~~~-;:~I~~~I~L ~
A.J.D. Ll5l~ A I t::lt.lc~~-r (:;A'f. mA..~ 4f;';.J 'YA.~'" - ?4). Th!~!A~~ V.-lCHIlt'~fo.L.
us,E:bC""';:: -r,y A \O'TAi.- c::c. '\=D...)\c. "'p~~s..
A TT ACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two (2) copies of each
(2{ 1. Recorded plat or recorded boundary survey of the property requested for the permit. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed
Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
~ 2. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or
organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in
the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted
. certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so.
Ifthe 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:
I2f' 3. Provide 16 copies of any drawings or conceptual plans.
/
0' 4. Additional Info1111ation, if any. (16 copies)
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
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 mformation provIded on thIs applIcatIon and accompanymg infom1atlOn IS accurate, true, and correct to
the b~t jmy\knOlledge.
\ ' \\ ,\ \
~ \.\~ .\ ~J\fVlr \~ '~hJ~~l~ 1DD1-
.Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Date
.J () \4 ...J y, (" A-~,J 4- \.,4 - ~'1 '5' ~ CY1.. ~ <:)
Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory
817106 Page 3 of 4
PHYSICAL SURVEY OF
3.20 ACRES
KNOWN AS 450 WOODLANDS ROAD
JACK JOUETT DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
VIRGINIA
FOR
JOHN P. CANN ,III, TRUSTEE
SCALE ' I" = 12C1'
DATE' MAY 3.2007
OLD ALBEMARLE SURVEYING, LLC
612 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902
i
i
ai
ci
,
:z:
~
Z
5
Q.
S!iO047'42"E
&2.85'
~A
IRON -S- A.
FOUND "0
<?<p ~1-
~".~~
.~.~~
~.,.~~
1-~ 'V
"... ~
~
, ~
~ '" S&rI~25.W
~ 130.02'
IRON FOUND IN HOLl! FROM
FALLEN CEDAR AT DOWN FENCE
tI-'~~--'"
h~THO;;~
:.#~';\
~.~, ,
i !~_A1$r;<'le,-.,- '.
f '1ll.ic. H.). 'PiN ~
\ :5-3,....., .f
\, <~.. {.9":: ;r
~'\L... .4~Sa7.~-~~,":"'"
"'(L; ..; ,. ~._, "'
T.M.415-P.4
T. M. 415 - F! 3F
T.M. 45-P.4B
NOTES .
I. OWNER.,. JOHN P. CANN, III , TRUSTEE
2. REFERENCE - D.B. 3200,P. 32
D.B. 307!:1.P.681 PLAT
3. THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT LIE IN ZONE A
(SPECIAL FLOOO HAZARD AREA) ACCORDING TO
FI.OOO INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMUNITY
PANEL 510006 0280 D.
4. NO tiTLE REPORT FURNIS~~~.l_ESMTS. AND
cma ENCUMBRANCES NOT llHUWN MAY EXIST.
B. THIS PROPERTY IS 8U8iI€CT TO .
A. VEf'CO R/W - 0.8.. !:I64, P. 653
D.B. 517, P. 450
1128
.
.
.
C:A,..l N 1::0 c.~
Co.-
at
">-
11. ".t:~~
S~L-t,.{e:,k~ (!g ,/ ~.
CA~L.l:... t4ARbwNiE ),.-.
'1-)-
J\l-UM\1V~ r"1lA'M\a.
~
$I-\~\~e:-
--= =---
r- _____
--
'SDc.)t(\ ~
\<...l\)P~NI\ ~\.J~
RE-S~~01,R.
l=~.TuJ~
1)Oc::,~
GM~W~"'(
tt.A("t\~
- ~
~
b'" '/.. b \( H'1-~ \='e~'\">
~N~ ~\ j..i!:t::J. :bt::.~
..c:::-- <\) ~
.------
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
PUBLIC WORKS - ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
To: Gary O'Connell
City Manager
From: Kristel Riddervold
Environmental Administrator
Subject: Albemarle County Special Use Permit Application,
Signature Required
Date: 12/18/2007
Gary,
Attached is a completed Application for a Special Use Permit (expected to be SP#2007-059)
submitted by Mr. John P. Cann to the County of Albemarle, Department of Community
Development for the installation of a floating boat dock on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. Cann's application is consistent with the August 26, 2005 application procedure memo issued by
tile Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and the associated boat dock policies (adopted by
the RWSA Board in August 2005). On behalf of the city of Charlottesville, I have reviewed and
approved his application and sent a confmnation letter to this effect to the RWSA Watershed
Manager.
fu the owner of the reservoir, the City must also sign the Special Use Permit application as an
applicant. City Council resolution, dated July 18, 2005, authorizes the City Manager to sign such
applications on behalf of the City.
Your signature at the bottom of this memo will serve this purpose. The completed memo will then
be returned to the Albemarle County Department of Building Code and Zoning Services for further
processmg.
ager
.
.
.
I
I
32
Permit Number
RIV ANNA WATER & SEWER AUTORITY
695 MOORES CREEK LANE
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
BOAT DOCK USE PERMIT AND AGREEMENT
The undersigned applicants (the "Applicants") request that the Rivanna Water & Sewer
.f\uthority (the "Authority") issue a permit to allow construction and maintenance of a boat dock
( n the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (the "Reservoir"). The Authority hereby issues such
ermit subject to the following conditions:
The boat dock shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Construction
Requirements of the Authority in effect at the time the Special Use Permit and the
building permit are issued by the County of Albemarle.
The Applicants agree to purchase and affix 2-inch brass or aluminum numerals assigned
by the Authority to the boat dock for purposes or identification. Numerals shall be
visible from the water side.
The Applicants agree to indemnify and save harmless the Authority. the City of
Charlottesville, their officers. agents and employees from any and all claims, demands,
actions, causes of action. injury or death to persons or damages to property, cost and
expenses. including attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting directly or indirectly from
any action taken by the Applicants, or their guests, invitees, agents, employees or
contractors (including presence upon Reservoir property) or by reason of the Applicants'
dock. The Applicants further agree to obtain from an insurance company licensed to do
business in Virginia, and maintain at all times, a policy of general liability insurance
which covers the boat dock in an amount of at least $1,000,000 combined single limit,
and in such greater amounts as the Authority may determine from time to time. The
Authority and the City of Charlottesville must each be named as additional insureds on
the policy, and the policy or the certificate of insurance must provide that the policy may
not be tern1inated or cancelled without 30 days prior written notice to the named insureds
Cendeavor" clauses are not acceptable). Proof of coverage meeting these requirements
must be provided to the Authority and the City of Charlottesville by a copy of the policy
of insurance or a certificate of insurance from the issuer of the policy, to be submitted to
the Authority and the City prior to construction of the boat dock and annually thereafter.
4.
The Applicants agree to pay an annual inspection fee as established by the Authority, to
monitor compliance with the provisions of this permit and the policies of the Authority
with respect to management of the Reservoir. This fee shall become due April 1 of each
year and is delinquent after June I. Failure of the Applicants to pay the annual fee \viIl
be grounds for revoking this permit The Applicants understand and agree that the
Authority may increase the amount of the inspection fee from time to time.
.. '\\all."fShed,t",\lal dn(k<.rt:\-i"ed Buat Doc,", l
Attachment C
5. Construction and maintenance of the boat dock shall comply with all applicable Federal,
State or local laws. ordinances, or regulations. Specifically, the Applicants shall obtain
all necessary pel111its for any work performed pursuant to this pennit, including a Special
Use Permit and building permit from the County of Albemarle. In the event that the
Applicants are not issued the necessary pel111its from Albemarle County within 9 months
of the date of issuance of this permit, this Boat Dock Use Permit and Agreement is void.
No construction may be initiated without these permits. After all permits have been
obtained, the Authority shall be notified at least one week prior to the start of
construction.
6. All \vork to be performed on Reservoir property under this permit shall be at the sole cost
and expense of the Applicants.
7. This permit shall not constitute an interest in Reservoir property and the activity herein
agreed to shall not in any way interfere with the Authority's lawful operation of the
Reservoir and South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Water Treatment Plant, including t100ding
City of Charlottesville land managed by the Authority and maintaining the Reservoir in a
manner consistent with all rights and privileges conferred upon the Authority. The
Authority reserves the right to prohibit use of the dock at such times as deemed necessary
for the protection of public health and welfare. To the extent that any alteration of
Reservoir property, including the erection of the boat dock thereon, is determined by the
Authority to be inconsistent with the safe and efficient operation of the Reservoir and
Water Treatment Plant, the Applicants shall restore such property to its original
condition. or remove such structures when requested to do so, at the Applicants' sole cost
and expense.
8. This permit may not be transferred separately from the real property adjacent to the
Reservoir owned by the Applicants. In the event such property is sold by the Applicants,
the purchaser shall be bound by all of the terms, conditions and obligations of this pel111it
and on or before the next annual inspection of the boat dock, shall execute a new permit
with the Authority. In the event a purchaser should not accept the terms of this permit,
the Authority may require the Applicant or the new owner, at their sole cost and expense,
to remove any structure erected pursuant to this permit and/or restore Reservoir property
to its approximate original condition.
9. The Applicants shall not disturb the vegetative butTer around the Reservoir except as
expressly allowed in the Special Use Pel111it issued by Albemarle County. Applicants
shall not place em1h or debris on Reservoir land and remove from Reservoir land all
trees, limbs, stumps. brush or other debris which may be cut, removed or transported to
the site in connection with work to be performed with no direct or consequent expense to
the Authority.
10. No activities may be conducted, or materials stored, on the boat dock which could
potentially damage public health and welfare or negatively impact the Reservoir as a
public water supply.
11. This permit is issued pursuant to and in accordance with the Boat Dock Policy Statement
of the Authority adopted August 22.2005. The Applicants hereby agree to abide by all
of the terms and conditions set forth in the Boat Dock Policy Statement.
2
.
.
.
')
The Applicants understand and agree that violation of any provision of this permit shall
be grounds for revocation of this permit by the Authority unless the violation is corrected
to the satisfaction of the Authority within 30 days of notice of such violation from the
Authority to the Applicants. Applicants agree that if this permit is revoked, the applicant
will remove the Boat Dock within 60 days of the date of revocation. If the applicant fails
to do so, the Authority may remove the structure at the sole cost and expense of the
Applicants. Any violation that immediately threatens public health and welfare or
negatively impacts the Reservoir as a public \vater supply, or repeated violations by the
Applicants are grounds for immediate revocation of this permit with no notice and
removal of the dock at the Applicants' sole cost and expense.
3. If any provision of this permit. or the application of any provision of this permit to any
person or circumstance. is held unenforceable for any reason, the application of such
provision to any other person or circumstance, and the remainder of this permit, shall not
be affected thereby.
4. If legal action should become necessary to enforce the tenns and conditions of this
permit. the Applicants agree to pay the Authority's court cost and reasonable attorney's
fees.
o evidence acceptance of this permit upon the terms and conditions stated above, please sign
nd return both copies of this permit to the Authority. Once this permit is approved a signed
opy will be returned to the Applicants by the Authority.
SEWER AUTHORITY
Date:
We, the undersigned owners of riparian property adjacent to the South Fork Rivanna
eservoir and the applicants for this permit, hereby agree to and accept the conditions set forth in
t 1is pennit.
ddress of Property Adjacent to Reservoir:
Printed Name:
450 Woodlands Road
..JD\4N -p, ~N,j
Sjgnt~ \~ \\
\;t4~~,,~ ,L~vt~~~
Charlottesville. VA 22901
ax Map and Parcel Number of Property:
Date:
TM 45-P3A( 1 )
\0 tJ0jl::.'M~~L trJO]-
3
I"
I
I
"'
"-
~I
:;:=
(1)
((I
11)
0::
1:13 >
~: C~
:::
~ ..-
I
.:::: '":::t
0:: '":::t
.:x:. 0...
"- :2
0
LL I-
_::>:.
.~)
()
-;'.:J
~.~
O~I
(J
~:J
"D
'1)
0)
CJ
Q..
,-,
::::.
Q..
'-
ej
:::
,::)
Attachment D
>-
-
c:
~
o
o
Q)
~'t:
co
E
Q)
.c
<(
..
,
".
t
c
c 0
..Y.
>, U ())
Cd ill 0 ....c
5; .r: U -+-'
-+-' Q)
'D ,+-. 0)
0 0 c >
~
0 .......--...- -+-' Q)
~ N CO (j)
Q) --..- 0
,-- 0
..c . '+- ~
+--J N CO ~
c .
L() 0
(f) 0 CO > .,..-
. ~ ~ <t:
<D (Y) (j) Q)
(f) . r- (f) C')
0 :......
~ Q) I
C0 0 a.: L()
u ~
c ~
Q) CO a..
-t-J 0 (/)
CO ~ Q) C ~
- U (/) C
Q) Q) 0 CO I-
~
~ (f) Q) 0..> +-'
o -- CO
Q) ..c () ~CC
~ c o..~ >.
CO ..p....I
CO +--J
S S +--J ~ ~
C C 0 Q)
~ Q) -- CULL a..
0 "0
U ~ U 0
'+- 0 :.= ..c ~
c
+--J m 0.."""'" a..
(/) o..:J
Q) U Q) Q)
::J ~ C ro 0 ........,
a- 0 .,- (/) CO
U C Q) Q) >
Q) U 0 ..c
0: ...c ~
CO N I- a..
........,
...
...
,.
l,oo
.
~
..
"
..
.
..
.
.
.
f
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
p
Fax 434 972-4012
iI 25, 2008
is Dyer, Principal, Western Albemarle High School
1 Rockfish Gap Turnpike
zeW A 22932
R SP200700061 Western Albemarle High School Rowing Club Dock
Tax Map 57, Parcel 4
D r Mr. Dyer:
T Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 8, 2008, recommended approval of
th above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors, by a vote of 6:0. -
---
PI ase note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
There shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance within the 200-foot stream buffer
associated with the installation of the boat dock. The stream buffer is measured from the edge of the
floodplain, which is approximated to be Elevation 545 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988).
There shall be no other structures, such as decking or stairs, constructed in the 200-foot stream buffer.
There shall be a memorandum of understanding or agreement between the Albemarle County Parks
and Recreation Department and the Albemarle County School Board that addresses public use of the
boat dock.
A stable and pervious pedestrian access reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of
Parks and Recreation shall be constructed and maintained from the closest paved parking area to the
new boat dock.
se be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
lie comment at their meeting on May 14, 2008.
u should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
tact me at (434) 296-5832.
.f~
Sue Friedman, Chair, Albemarle County School Board
401 Mcintire Road, Room 345
Charlottesville, Va 22902
County Of Albemarle C/O Finance Administration Rm 149
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Va 22902
.
.
.
I
I I
POLICY
SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS
FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
It is the Board's preference that a public hearing should not be advertised until all of the final materials
fo a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review. To achieve this
pr~ference, applicants should provide final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other
d( cuments deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to the County no later than two
dl ys prior to the County's deadline for submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff
w 11 advise applicants of this date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each
aFPlicant a minimum of two weeks advance notice ofthe deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing shalI not be
ad vertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction ofthe Director of Community Development that
gc od cause exists for the public hearing to be advertised. If not advertised, a new public hearing date will be
sCheduled. If the public hearing is held without final materials being available for review throughout the
ac vertisement period due to a late submittal of documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are
mllde to the submitted materials after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board
to either defer action and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to
d~lny the application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or not forward
the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine days prior to the date of the
ad~ertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes made in proffers at the public hearing
re ulting from comments received from the public or from Board members at the public hearing.
This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board's Rules of Procedure for adoption each year, so that
th policy can be re-examined annually.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
ame: SP 2007-61 Western Albemarle High
owing Club boat dock
Commission Public Hearing:
County of Albemarle
Acreag : 182.55 total acres
TMP: 7-4
Locati
Reserv
road, 0
Existin
Areas:
density
recreati
a dang
Reque
: Dock to be placed at east side of the
r adjacent to the Beaver Creek Park entrance
of Browns Gap Turnpike (Route 680).
Zoning and By-right use: RA -- Rural
gricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
.5 unit/acre); FH--Flood Hazard: agricultural,
nal, and utility location uses which will not pose
to life or property in the event of a flood.
ed # of Dwelling Units: N/A
Propos I: To install a public boat dock on the Beaver
Creek servoir.
Charac r of Property: The site is within the County-
owned aver Creek Park, which is accessible to the
public.
Factor Favorable: 1. No direct impact to the water
supply neighboring properties is expected as a result
of this s ecial use permit; 2. No increase in flood levels
will res I from installation of a dock; 3. The proposed
dock is pported by the County Parks and Recreation
Depart nt
Staff: Tamara Jo Ambler
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
May 14, 2008
Applicant: Albemarle County School Board
Special Use Permit for: To install a public dock
on the Beaver Creek Reservoir in accordance with
Section 30.3.05.2.1 (2) of the Zoning ordinance
Conditions: Yes
Magisterial District: Whitehall
DA (Development Area):
RA (Rural Area): X
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Area 3
- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/density (.5 unit/acre)
Use of Surrounding Properties: Nearby and
surrounding uses are the Beaver
Creek Park and Reservoir, low density single
family residential development, and open space
Factors Unfavorable: None identified
RECO ENDATION: Staff recommends a roval with conditions.
.
1
PETITI
PROJE : SP 2007-61 Western Albemarle High School Rowing Club boat dock
PROPO ED: To install a public boat dock on the Beaver Creek Reservoir.
.ONIN ATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
esidenti I density (0.5 unit/acre); FH--Flood Hazard: agricultural, recreational, and utility location uses
which wi I not pose a danger to life or property in the event of a flood.
SECTIO : Section 30.3.05.2.1 (2) of the Zoning ordinance
COMPR HENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Rural Area 3 - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, pen space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre).
ENTRA E CORRIDOR: Yes_No_X_ Location: Dock to be placed at east side of the
Reservo adjacent to the Beaver Creek Park entrance road, off of Browns Gap Turnpike (Route 680).
TAX MA IPARCEL: 57-4
MAGIS RIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall
CHARA TER OF THE AREA: The site is within the County-owned Beaver Creek Park, and
surroun i g uses consist of the Beaver Creek Reservoir, low density single family residential
develop ent, and open space.
SPECIFI S OF THE PROPOSAL: A special use permit is being requested in accordance with Section
30.3.05. 1 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a boat dock in the Flood Hazard Overlay zoning district.
The boa ock will be placed within the public access area of Beaver Creek Park, and will be utilized by
the Wes rn Albemarle High School Rowing Club and the public. The applicant has coordinated with
the Cou y's Parks and Recreation Department to select a suitable location for the dock within the park.
The doc will be located approximately 350 feet upstream of the dam, close to the entrance of the park
and easi accessible by foot. The WAHS rowing club currently has permission to launch into the
Reservoi through the private property of the Gerard Brikkenaarvandijk at 1714 Browns Gap Turnpike.
Dam is downstream to the left outside of the photo.
2
Entrance to park
ergency spillway for the Reservoir. Dam is to the right outside of the photo. Proposed
ck to be placed to the left outside of the photo, outside of the emergency spillway.
3
PLANNI G AND ZONING HISTORY:
Beaver reek Park and Reservoir currently has one fixed pier and a boat ramp located approximately
1,200 fe t upstream from the dam, adjacent to the parking area at the end of the park entrance road.
County arks and Recreation staff has advised that in years past there was a boat dock in this area
.'so, bu the dock was damaged and removed as a result of a hurricane. Staff was unable to locate
County les detailing the installation of the pier or the dock. No private boat docks exist on the Beaver
Creek R servoir, and the County staff does not intend to support the installation of private docks on this
reservoi in the future.
Confor i with the Com rehensive Plan:
The Co prehensive Plan recognizes the Beaver Creek Reservoir as a surface drinking water supply.
The Nat ral Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains the following
objectiv for the recreational use of water supply areas:
"Allow and manage recreational uses of drinking water reservoirs and adjacent public land
only as incidental uses to the primary function of water supply and in such a manner as to
prevent cumulative impacts that may impair the primary function. "
The Co prehensive Plan recognizes that recreational use of water supply reservoirs has the potential
to threat n water quality and water supply functions, and calls for specific consideration of this issue in
the folio ing strategy:
'The County should take a lead role in developing a recreation and water supply protection
plan for each reservoir to address incidental recreational uses of drinking water reservoirs
and adjacent public land. This effort should be coordinated with the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority, the City of Charlottesville, Shenandoah National Park and other relevant
agencies. "
.
\.
Existing ixed pier and boat ramp, located upstream from proposed floating dock
4
STAFF OMMENT:
Staff will ddress each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
&1.2.4.1 Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
W=,oard 0 Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The inst lation of one floating boat dock will not be detrimental to either the Reservoir or nearby
surroun ing properties. There is currently a pier and a boat ramp in place, and the new dock would
essentia I be replacing a dock that existed at the park in the past. The installation of the boat dock will
move th WAHS student activity from private property to public property. Rather than accessing the
Reservo through private property the students will utilize the public access area of Beaver Creek Park
and Res rvoir.
that the haracter of the district will not be changed thereby and
The exis ng pier and boat ramp and the replacement of a dock within the public access area of Beaver
Creek P k would not appear to detract from the primary usage of the reservoir as a water supply
reservoi . Access by boat is limited to the area of the park, and no private boat docks exist on the
Reservo . Installation of this dock would not lead to a proliferation of public or private docks, as the
Reservo is owned by the County.
that suc
The pur
activities
scenic,
restrictin
flood co
pollution
use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
se and intent of the Rural Areas zoning is to preserve agricultural and forestal lands and
to protect water supply, to limit services to the rural areas, and to conserve the natural,
d historic resources of the County. The Flood Hazard zoning has the purpose and intent of
development in the floodplain which may result in danger to life and property, public costs for
rol measures, public costs for rescue and relief efforts, soil erosion and sedimentation,
f water resources, and general degradation of the natural and man-made environment.
.Regardi protection of the water supply and the preservation of natural resources, installation of the
ropose dock will not require the removal of buffer vegetation. The proposed location is within the
understo of existing pine trees and immediately upstream of the emergency spillway. The emergency
spillway nd dam must be kept mowed in accordance with Virginia Dam Safety requirements. The
County mmunity Development staff will coordinate with County Parks and Recreation staff to
enhance nderstory vegetation in the immediate area where the dock will be placed to provide a water
quality b nefit.
Regardi the issue of creating a flood hazard, the floating dock will be located outside of the
emergen y spillway, is designed respond to changes in flood levels, and will not impede the natural
flow of w ter unless it were to break loose and travel downstream to the dam. The dock will be
anchore to avoid being broken loose by floods. The County Engineer has confirmed that there will be
no incre e in flood elevations by installing a floating dock.
permitted by right in the district,
es in the Rural Areas include single family and duplex uses, public uses and buildings,
I, forestry, boating, and fishery uses. This use would appear to be in harmony with the other
itted by-right.
with us
By-right
agricultu
uses per
dditional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
no supplementary regulations relating to boat docks in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.
and wit he public health, safety and general welfare.
The use f drinking water reservoirs for recreational use creates several risks to water quality and the
ability to dequately treat raw water from the reservoir for public consumption. Swimming and other
.ecreatio al activities that involve body-contact with the water can significantly increase the occurrence
f patho ns, such as Cryptosporidium in the reservoir. The use of boats poses a threat of
contamin tion from gasoline, and more specifically the additive methyl-t-butyl-ether (MTBE). Also, the
5
of boats raises the risk of introducing invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, which can
and impact the aquatic ecosystem and also damage water treatment facilities.
.sections 1.. 1-300 through 11-306 of the Albemarle County Code address water supply reservoirs utilized
y the Ri anna Water and Sewer Authority and regulate the use and activity on each reservoir. Section
11-301 s ecifically addresses activities on the Beaver Creek Reservoir. Authorized activities are
fishing, ~noeing, boating (no internal combustion engines), hiking, bird watching, and picnicking.
Swimmi S is specifically prohibited under this section. An exemption for the use of internal combustion
engines ~ provided for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Virginia Department of Game
and Inla d Fisheries personnel for official purposes.
The Cou ty has already addressed the threat of pathogens by prohibiting swimming in the Reservoir
within C ~pter 11 of the County Code. Installation of the boat dock will reduce body-contact with the
Reservoi : by preventing the need to wade the boats into the water, allowing the rowers to enter the
boats fro the dock. The threat of contamination from the gasoline additive MTBE has also been
address d through the County's requirements in Chapter 11 of the Code to restrict the use of internal
combusticim engines on the Reservoir. Lastly, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
has advi ed that the introduction of invasive species such as the zebra mussel has yet to present a
serious r $k to Virginia. To date there has been only one documented location of zebra mussels in a
Prince illiam County quarry. This population of zebra mussels was successfully eradicated in 2006.
SUMMA Y:
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. N direct impact to the water supply or neighboring properties is expected as a result of this
s edal use permit
2. N increase in flood levels will result from installation of a dock.
3. Te proposed dock is supported by the County Parks and Recreation Department
_taff has not identified any factors which are unfavorable to this request.
RECOM ENDED ACTION:
Staff rec mmends approval of the request with the following conditions:
1. T ere shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance with the 200-foot stream buffer
a sodated with the installation of the boat dock. The stream buffer is measured from the edge
o the floodplain, which is approximated to be Elevation 545 (North American Vertical Datum of
1 88).
2. Tere shall be no other structures, such as decking or stairs, constructed in the 200-foot stream
b tfer.
ATTAC MENTS:
Attachm ht A - Location Map
Attachm fit B - Proposal from applicant
Attachm nt C - Illustration of final boat dock location with elevations
.
6
.
042
Scale
800 1,600
2,400
Albemarle County
Tax Map:
057
Feet
Note: This map is for dispfay purposes only
and shows parcels as of 12/3112006.
See Map Book Introduction for additional details.
Attachment A
.
Application for
Special Use Permit
Please See the List at the bottom of page 4 for the Appropriate Fee
(staff will assist ou with this item)
~"""'",
i~,:~,,~il:,'.;;;\
~" ~
, '.'i--',
"'A, ,..,...
,..,."
.
PRO ECT NAME: (how should we refer to this :p~IiCa~iOn?): Wes~r-n Aibe~a:le ~4 hSchooi Rowmj Club Pea
PRO OSAL: Add/non of fA pre. -f-ab lOW, n9 dock (41 3' x)o J
EXI TING COMP PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: NOhe
LO TION: Beaver Creek. Re..seryo',r
TAX MAP PARCEL(s): 51-1
MA ISTERIAL DISTRICT: W h " +-e HillJ
# OF ACRES TO BE COVERED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT (if a portion it must be delineated on a plat): I (,.,{x) feej-
Or. ·
Is thi an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? If Yes provide that SP Number. 0 YES NO
Are ou submittin a reliminar site Ian with this a lication? 0 YES 0 NO
Contact Person (Who should we call/write conc:rning this project?): .thn ~ Py (Or) Pn no; pdJ I 'Nf st:r~/1ltif'e ~TS:: hOG
Address 5ql{1 Rocth~~ 6'11_p IUrnFiKe. City Crb2t'f State VA Zip 22q32
Daytime Pho~e (434) 823-- B'7bb Fax # (m B2~ ,- B'7 /I E-mail f'dyer@ k/2a)berntvle. orj
Owner f Record ( 'ou n b.t of P, I bernOfle. J VI (g in IOJ ,
Address Hilll\kJhh (l. f<d. City C~r'{y+IPs ~1 Of State VA Zip dd-qOd-....
Daytime Phone (434) Jl1b-,5<644- \ Fax # ~~ Jq 3--0~q9 E-mail frYlU U'1 nc: alhr'mCifle. 0::;
Applica t (Who is the Contact person representing?):SUe fnedtYlM I eMir) A J bemarle CI)UfJD; S:h061 B()cr..:rL/
Address~l McJnl1rL QJ) ({n,.3-f5 City ChtUlv*~~ Y111f State VA Zip J;ZqO~
Daytime Phone ti21; c)12: t.f065 Fax # (424 ][7 h-5~ bq E"mail ~oh ns'iDtitll kl2ti Ibefh4Jrr~( 0 r:J
Does the owner of this property own (or have any own<:rship interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers
'L
o Letter of Authorization
o~~~ CL~C~~~
~
I
o
o
History: A 7 (J ~
~" ZMAs & Proffers: r ()
.FOR FF1Cp/fiLY
Fee A aunt $ , ~ate Paid
SP#-
DYES 0 NO
By who~
Recei pt #
Ck#
By:
.
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, V A 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
S/7/06 Page I of 4
Attachment B
.
.
.
De ribe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the number of persons involved in
the e. operating hours, and any unique features of the usc:
.
w.._-f- -
,
'r---'-----
, I
I
!
,
'--r
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two (2) copies of each
(il'" I. Recorded plat or recorded boundary survey of the property requested for the permit. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed
Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
r::J 2. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or
organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in
the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted
certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so.
If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be 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:
(J 3. Provide 16 copies of any drawings or conceptual plans.
(J 4. Additional Information, if any. (16 copies)
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf ofthe owner in filing this application,
rtifY that the information provided on this application and accompanying infonnation is accurate, true, and correct to
Ormy,bwW~ .
~r1h1 /1-/l~j() 7
er, Contract Purchaser Date I ~
\
if ~ Lf (1 7 ,1 '!-() /J S-
Daytime phone number of Signatory
sn/06 Page 3 of 4
2..( "DE"c...07
I I I
.
FEES
. lJ Rum area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original 1980 development rights have been exhausted under
i'family division" as defined under section 14-106 (15) of the subdivision ordinance == $220
0 Runl area divisions ;c $1.240
a Commercial use = $980
lJ Industrial use == S I ,020
0 Private c1ubl~rcational facility = $1,020
0 Mobile home park or subdivision = $980
a Public utilities = $1.020
0 Grade/fiU in the flood plain == $870
a Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to allow minor expansion ofa non-conforming use"" SilO
a ~"tending special use pennits == $70
lJ Horne Occupation-Class B = S440
a for day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children = $490
a For day care centers - ten (10) or more children = $980
a All other uses except signs = $980
a Signs - Per Chapter IS Section 4.15.5 Electric message signs. off-site signs, and signs in public rights-of-way _ $120.00
(Heard before the Board of Zoning Appeals - BZA).
snlO6 Page 4 of ..
.
I
I
.
FOR OFf'ICE USE ONLY Sf' #
C tt: ,'\n>"lml ~ D.te PaId. :h \'.'no','
{ccc;P[ # __~ CJ.:ii ..._ B~c_
.
Section 312.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, 'The board of supervisors hc:rcby reserves unto
ilSclfthe right to issue all special use permits permitted bereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this
ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use wiD not be of substantial detrimcnllo
adJIII:CIIt property, thai the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that !uch use wiIJ be in barmony with
the PlDJlosc and intent of this ordinance, with the: uses permitted by right in the district, with additions! regulations
provided in section S.O of this ordinmc:c. and with the public health. safety and general welfare."
The ilems that follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your rtq\lCSI. Please: complete this fonn BIld provide
additional infonnati01l which will8llsisl the County in its review of you rcquest.1fyou need a.ssislJll\ce filling oul these
items, staff is available.
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?
Tile proDosed special use will not affect adiacent property,
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district(s) surrounding the
property?
The proposed special use will not affect the character of the districtls) surroundiDe: the
property.
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent oftbe Zoning Ordinance?
Rowin!! for W AHS students does Indeed make the best of the 2reat outdoors ril!ht here at
home. Our mission statement echoes tbe couutv's. in tbat we too value open space and
natural resources. and wish to be l!Ood stewards while enioviD2 the recreational use of
Beaver Creek Reservoir.
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
It creates an enrichment pro2ram in a naturallearnine: environment that is ODeD to all
W AHS vouth.
.
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 ofthe Zoning Ordinance apply to this
use?
..._1 I
~w.......
How will this use promote the public health. safety, and general welfare of the
community?
It will provide a safer and more comfortable wav for the active eniovment opportunities
that the sport of rowine: offers to all hoes of athletes. Tbis is a Iifelonl! health promotln\?
sport that our VouDe:sters have the opportunity to explore in their home community
without havinl! to 20 to far away camps. It also provides them an oDPortunitv to train for
rowine: scholarships currenth offered bv a multitude of universities.
.
8
J
7
I
o
6
p
a
g
e
2
o
(
4
I I
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the number
of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use:
· The Rowine: Club was formed one year a!!o at Western Albemarle H. S.
Our club is unique on the East coast in that we operate without varsity
or VHSL (Vire:inia Hi!!h School Lea!!ue) status, financial or athletic
support. W AHS Rowin!! is a club sport that is entirelv run by volunteers
- includine: coachine:, maintenance of equipment, fund raisin!! and land
stewardship. We are the onlv hi!!h school rowin!! club in the county.
Over 40 students are involved in the club. We have been trainin!!
ree:ularlv all Year, buildin!! strene:th, endurance and team spirit. Thanks
to the University of Vir!!inia, our novice rowers had the opportunity to
use indoor er!!ine: and tank rowin!! facilities as well as take advanta!!e of
two week Ion!! day rowine: camps or!!anized throue:h UV A Cavalier
rowin!! on the Rivanna. The new boat dock will be placed within the
public access area of Beaver Creek Park. This dock would be located
within the flood plain but outside of the re!!ulated dam spillway
boundaries. Please see map for two possible locations. Gettin!! in the
boats "dry" reduces the amount of sand and water in the tracks of the
boat (which in return reduces wear and tear) and eliminates the need to
wade the boats in the water, which tends to e:et colder as the year
proe:resses. Below is useful info on the dock we would like to have
approved. In addition to the dock. we would add a boathouse outside of
the flood plain and the ree:ulated spillwav boundaries.
.
. Easy to install & transport
. Low 8" (20.32 cm) Freeboard
. . Stable edges - No wet feet
. No splinters or nails
. Slip resistant surface
Entering and exiting your shell is simple with the 1000 Series. Its low 8"
(20.32 cm) freeboard and lack of sharp edges makes this possible. Because
the Connect-A-Dock system is modular, docks can be installed and re-
configured to any length. Closely spaced support ribs provide rigidity
underfoot, while the unique design of the float chambers trap air on the
surface of the water for additional buoyancy.
The float sections are rotationally molded of durable, long lasting
polyethylene. This floating dock system endures the elements and the 8-
year warranty ensures its performance year after year. Rowers and rowing
coaches appreciate the dock's stability, creating a safe platform for entering
and exiting shells.
This extra confidence allows the rowers to concentrate on their rowing I
rather than worry about their footing.
Connect-A-Dock is ideally designed for today's user-friendly facility.
.
.
1000 Series-Low Profile FAQ
A: Click Here to view the Connect-A-Dock Warranty.
A: The lightweight, 86 pound float sections can easily be installed
by one person, but two people recomended. Of course,
additional help makes lining your dock up with shore and
anchoring easier.
A: b:.!ll;k he~LQ-'i.Lew the_C.Qpnf;)ct-A-Docl~.jD5J:ructions.
A: This will vary depending upon the size of the dock you are
installing. It takes approximately 5 minutes per float section
plus the anchoring method you choose.
.
A:
The Connect-A-Dock can be assembled as long and as wide as
you wish. The 60" x 45" x 10" 152.4 cm x 114.3 em x 25.4 cm
modular sections allow you to configure to most any size or
design.
'~.....'.'.".-.I'
q;.. .~!
'-'"
;~1
.",,~.':'
.
Q~~
..~:'~'"
A:
We recommend a minimum of 45" ( 114.3 cm) wide for
installing.
'~'I
...._1l...<.
~y~~
:iiLiC
A:
Yes, the Connect-A-Dock can be reconfigured, added to and
moved to another location. The unique connection system is
very versatile, and you can reconfigure the same components
into many different shapes. (i.e.: T, F, L, swim platform, etc.)
Different configurations may require additional float sections
and/or connectors. These can be added at any time.
..,.~.
Q,.
. .,iii~"
'-.-.",j
t~";,.{;,
::Fhl~
A:
Yes, the Connect-A-Dock can be attached to existing docks.
Depending on your current dock there are multiple methods of
attaching. Please call or e-mail for suggestions.
A: Freezing temperatures will not harm the Connect-A-Dock;
.
however, with shifting ice we do recommend removal for the
winter months.
A:
Each Connect-A-Dock float section can support up to 690 Ibs.
(313 Kg)
A:
Yes, when deciding on the width of your dock system, keep
wave conditions in mind. We suggest a broad configuration and
proper anchoring to increase stability.
A:
The walking surface is typically 8" (20.32 cm) above the water.
This will vary depending upon the amount of weight placed on
your dock.
A:
The Connect-A-Dock comes in the color of Gray Oak. This color
reflects sunlight and maintains a safe temperature when coming
in contact with bare skin. This polyethylene dock has a UV
protectant and the color is permanent.
.
A:
We do not recommend painting the Connect-A-Dock. One
advantage of this product is that it never needs painting.
A: Cleaning docks can be donw with a garden hose and whisk
broom. If necessary a mild detergent or biodegradable, non-
abrasive cleaner can also be used. Get these products at your
local automotive, Home & Garden, or discount store.
"'~tk;6~-'plar~d~fO
;.i;:,>~~(~iilil~~i1,Jtj{i{~;
'Q...-....~;
_,"",::l
;;~ .
"":'1
:.~,'~
:.~.A._
~.d;:
A: Yes, the Connect-A-Dock is resistant to oil, gas and salt water.
In saltwater applications we recommend using stainless steel
components or non-corrosive materials when anchoring the
dock.
.....~m~2,;~."..,c"c~!~~~:~~~&}Ef~fi~[t~~I.c-~i.f
A: The top surface is slightly domed to prevent water from
standing on it. It has a molded in slip resistant wood grain
texture to prevent slipping.
, . -,~. ,..,.:~ ";'~-'>~':1:7'~2t:'1:~"'~.'!:~~'-~;v",; "'~'''''"''''~-:/\:':T:'-~",~''9~'':~';; <'-::,,"""'!'>-:': 'J'~~"-'<f".':'" ;"...'''' ilf;'t't{.;. -:'.;::') 'c"-,~f;'- ~:_-: "~*'
Q~i~,;~<:,""rf! g!JCJ~ @~l~.CJvailaQIf! ,for: .~-
:.-:~t,-i1f ;.' ';i;'({~~;?i.;-l'~::i~i-~'l~.:Jk~E:-;';]iL;.{:~~;~d'_Ct:;~~-;2~.L~;;1:i~'t}' - . Jt:~~lif;;~
A: Yes, please see the accessories p~-,-
"."",'."-
,,':'~
_.f_~,..'r
~zi~'
:;>i~'
.
.
A:
It may take on some water; however, it will not sink due to the
unique design. If a section would get punctured you should
repair or replace the float section.
A: We have never known of animals chewing through these docks.
A: The Connect-A-Dock is shipped in the most economical manner
by truck load.
Simple installation and extreme durability
Providing the illtimatulexibjJjJ;VILLQQfl.9.uratiQll, simple installation and
extreme durability, the 1000 Series-LowProfile Connect-A-Dock, floating
dock, Series is the logical choice for extending your waterfront enjoyment.
Its unique connection system allows you to be configured (and re-
configured) in an unlimited variety of shapes to suit your particular needs.
.
Environmentally safe
The lightweight float sections can be assembled with a wrench (in addition
to anchoring). The environmentally safe polyethylene surface assures
season after season of low-maintenance service. The UV-protected,
puncture-resistant deck is color-molded with a slip-resistant surface that
sheds water and the sun's extreme temperature.
Benefits
. Adjusts to fluctuating water conditions
. Modular design
. Easy to install
. Wood grain anti-skid surface
. UV protected
. Environmentally friendly
. Does not contain CCA
. Add-on capability
. Salt water safe
. 8-Year product warranty
.
.
. ~
.
-
-
:..-
L
. ":"
II -
-
.
.
-
~
!.-
-
-
..
(Y)
I -
,
..... I
V
I
i
.
.
..
L
4 ..
I-
:...-
:..-
~
~
~
t ~
I
~
I
-
~ 1.1
I (l,l
L- =
=
0
~I
I~
0
....
.
.
'.0 rn
C.l ~
(l,l 0
;IS t
::"I
CiS =
o
;;
:n
-~
....'~ .....
~ :-e ~
:: III 0
:l ..,. c:
0..0=
8"''-
:l e =
(oJ ~ ~
:n r~ "
".l-~
'C .= -=
':.I (j ~
.n d eoc
~ .. qJ
::>
:.N.....
~ N,-
~i
~
>-
Q:::
()
;:..
I
-
'" Jt ~
j: u _
~ c& t
3 ()
,
-- --~
/
.'
----.
;-;==--- -"--
- --:-_- ---
---- -<
,/' -~----~........
,...., ................
~~
!-
>-
<
-.J
U
j
~
~~
',b
lD jJ
z ~ ""v
- oj: Q
r u <<0
-< 0 ""
o Q :\
-1
1L.
,
rJ
':(
()
~
~
~
I
........
"
\
r.................. \
I ,\'\
\ f \",\
\ \ \ ""
I \ (---" "',~"
{'" "
I \ \ '''-.........''' "-
I \ \ '"
I \ \ \
I \ \ \
\ \ \
: I ( \
I J I \
I J I \
I I I
I / I
J I I
I; I
J I \
/ "'-
/ I ..................._
" ' ....... ')
I "-
\ "-
'............
.........
"
)
-
...-
--- --
--- ,/'-
--- /'
/ /
( / /
~
~
~
~
~
'........
. ........,
" '\
\ \
\ \
~\\, \'''-
. .........."
" "- \
" \
"- '" '. \ \
\ 1 \
\ / \
/ / I
/ / J
" ........- ./ / I
I /
.' I
A' / I
"- - --- /
-- /
"--........._---
.
<(
>
l&.I
...J
oc:~
'<
~
4/'
IX)
;<
La..
o
d
u
z
~n.. 0
<. ........
f=l ~ t-:
<. 0((
g;g.llJ ~
. IJ) 0:::'
~ <( ~
gg~c;
bid ~
~ ~
b!:J C
~ I-
~ f5
~
l-
Q,::
<
a....
l.u
c
;
/
I
'-
-,
)
/
I
../
I
/
f
.J
---
.....
./
,
o
r-4
-J
~
Ir.
Lu
....JI-
-.J~
w-
<0:::
:::>~
0:::0
~I-
~:E~
"00
~I-o
.
>.
ro
:s:
..
Q...
(J)
>.
u
c
Q)
0)
"-
Q)
E
Q)
""0
Q)
:s:
a
.~
"it:
E
ro
o
.
.
.
SP-2007-061 Western Albemarle High School Rowing Club Dock (Sign # 20)
PROPOSED: Public boat dock on the Beaver Creek Reservoir
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre); FH--Flood Hazard: overlay to provide safety and
protection from flooding
SECTION: 30.3.05.2.1(2) Water Related Uses within the Floodway
COMPRHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 3 - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCTION: Dock to be placed at east side of the Reservoir adjacent to the Beaver Creek Park
entrance road, off of Browns Gap Turnpike (Route 680).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 57-4
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall
(Tamara Ambler)
Ms. Ambler noted that because it was spring break the Parks and Rec Department nor the actual
school officials could be present to speak. But, they do have a parent of one of the rowers, Ms.
Cox, who has been kind enough to provide her time tonight to answer questions.
A special use permit is being requested in accordance with Section 30.3.05.2.1 (2) of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow a boat dock in the Flood Hazard Overlay zoning district. The boat dock will be
placed within the public access area of Beaver Creek Park, and will be utilized by the Western
Albemarle High School Rowing Club and the public. The applicant has coordinated with the
County's Parks and Recreation Department to select a suitable location for the dock within the
park. The dock will be located approximately 350 feet upstream of the dam, close to the entrance
of the park and easily accessible by foot. The WAHS rowing club currently has permission to
launch into the Reservoir through the private property of the Gerard Brikkenaarvandijk at 1714
Browns Gap Turnpike.
The applicant would like to construct a small boat house to house their shells or boats. That
would be close to the entrance road where the little bait shop was located in the past. There is
currently an existing fixed pier or boat ramp further upstream.
Mr. Edgerton asked what is going to happen to the existing dock.
Ms. Ambler replied that it is proposed to remain. She noted that it may be a question of activity
around the ramp that might preclude launching there. The existing dock is owned by the county.
Ms. Ambler noted that there use to be a floating dock further upstream. That was taken out by
some big storms. They have a desire to replace the dock that was there. From her
conversations with Parks and Rec there is enough demand for two boat docks. The replacement
of the dock would not lead to a proliferation of docks on the reservoir because this is managed
differently and is county owned. The same safeguards for gasoline, pathogens and evasive
species that protect the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir are in effect here for the Beaver Creek
Reservoir.
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. No direct impact to the water supply or neighboring properties is expected as a result of this
special use permit
2. No increase in flood levels will result from installation of a dock.
3. The proposed dock is supported by the County Parks and Recreation Department
Staff has not identified any factors which are unfavorable to this request.
Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions:
1. There shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance with the 200-foot stream buffer
associated with the installation of the boat dock. The stream buffer is measured from the edge
of the floodplain, which is approximated to be Elevation 545 (North American Vertical Datum
of 1988).
2. There shall be no other structures, such as decking or stairs, constructed in the 200-foot
stream buffer.
Mr. Morris asked if there were any questions for staff. He noted that staff mentioned putting in a
future facility to store their boat. He asked if that has nothing to do with this.
Ms. Ambler replied that has nothing to do with this because it will be well outside the floodplain.
The reason this is before the Commission is that it is in the floodplain.
Mr. Loach asked if the county would own this dock.
Ms. Ambler replied that the dock would be county owned. What is proposed to happen is that the
club has raised funds and they are handling all of the expenses and maintenance. They will be
purchasing the dock and maintaining it. The property would be county property and become part
of the public park.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the drawing in the packet has option one and two. Those were their two
choices and staff has decided that option one is the preferred.
Ms. Ambler replied that either one of those options would be acceptable. The applicant preferred
the location closer to where the boat house would be constructed. Provided that it was outside of
the emergency spill way, staff was able to say that they could locate it in the location proposed in
option one. That is what staff decided to present to the Commission as to where the proposed
dock would go.
Mr. Edgerton asked where they are currently accessing there is no boat dock, and Ms. Ambler
replied that there is not.
Mr. Edgerton asked if option 2 has nothing to do with this application.
Ms. Ambler replied yes, that is correct.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the conditions should specify the location.
Ms. Ambler noted that attachment C references the proposed location, which could be added to
the condition.
Mr. Edgerton said that would be appropriate.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the access getting down to the sites is very steep. What is going to
happen is the people who are going to try to access these docks are going to start making
inroads into this steep hill. That is a concern with this dock because it is going to be hard to
access. She was not against the dock, but the location and the way it was being built. On the
website it did not indicate the depth from the top of the dock down to the bottom of the floaters.
She asked that they make sure that the dock was safe and secure for all public use by possibly
attaching it to the right hand side of the dock with a gangway.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public
comment.
Roberta Mixad, property owner on Beaver Creek Reservoir, supported high school sports. Beaver
Creek is utilized a lot by fishermen and families. She voiced three concerns being the speed,
.
.
.
I
1
noise and numbers. The purpose of going in a shell is going fast. She asked they were going to
make sure it was safe for the fishermen who want it to be quiet and slow and families and
canoeists. The number issue is who would get to use this for shells. She asked if private clubs
and Waynesboro High School could use it. She asked how many shells would be out there at
once and how would they regulate the number. The third point is noise. The way the coach
communicates with the kids is through a mega phone. Across water a mega phone would carry.
She asked if they could restrict the noise in some manner. She supported Ms. Porterfield's idea
of attaching to the current dock for two additional reasons. One is that when coming across the
dam it is just a magnificent view of unspoiled water. The dock cannot be seen coming across the
bridge. But, the dock in the new proposed area would be visible. For other users this dock is
close to the parking lot. People park on the grass up at the proposed site. She asked why they
would want to encourage that.
Julie Cox, parent of a member of the rowing club members, said that she had been asked to
provide the information that if necessary this dock can be removed within 20 minutes. If need be
the dock would be placed in the dock house during the winter and off-season so there would not
be a lot of traffic going up and down from this dock. The students do practice from Monday
through Thursday. Fridays they are loading the docks getting ready for a Saturday event.
Mr. Strucko asked if she knew if the high school is planning to hold competitions here.
Ms. Cox replied that her understanding was not at this moment. They just need it for practice.
The practice starts at 4:30 p.m. and end at 6:00 p.m. On the weekends they would just unload
and put their boats from the trailer to the boat house. The season starts at the end of March and
goes through the end of the school year.
Brian Wheeler, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, said that the Albemarle County
School Board as the applicant is supporting this request. They considered this last fall and the
School Board supported it. Obviously, in cooperation with Parks and Rec they had a good
conversation with Bob Crickenberger in Parks and Rec on how this faCility would come into being
and how it would be maintained. There were lots of questions by the School Board about
ownership and why they needed to be involved. But, it turns out that they were involved because
it is a public park and because the school division was the interested party with their club of
students and that Beaver Creek is in the back yard of western Albemarle It was more convenient
than South Fork, which had other issues as far as scheduling. They felt that it was a win/win
situation. They had parents and boosters coming forth and saying that they would pay for this
facility. It would become a public facility. Parks and Rec was supporting it. There would be no
tax payer expense. They talked about having a memorandum of understanding between the club
at the school and the county to ensure that any details that Parks and Rec were concerned about
or the school division was concerned about in the future could be covered in that memorandum of
understanding. As seen in the pictures, they are using this facility. So this was about improving
public safety and making it more convenience for them. Staff identified a number of favorable
factors. This is a low dock, as pointed out, and it is easier to get into the water. He has been to
this site and the existing dock would not be suitable for the rowers. If they keep it separate that
would allow the school division in the memorandum of understanding to set certain access
requirements. He believed that Mr. Davis, County Attorney, pointed out that the school division
could regulate access to that facility like any other school facility. So if there was a concern about
other entities using by keeping this in a public park that by keeping it separate from that existing
dock it would make that a little easier to put up the appropriate signage or bar there to discourage
other users if that was a concern. He would be happy to answer questions. Again, the School
supports this request and hopes the Commission will support us.
John Cann said that 15 years ago he took up rowing and could speak to some of the questions
about portable docks. The reason they can't use the other dock is that a shell is a vessel with
large outriggers. When it is brought down and put on a dock it has to be very low in the water.
This particular floating dock is designed to accommodate this sort of boat. A typical eight man
shell is 57' in length and weighs about 250 to 300 pounds. When it goes out on the floating dock
the dock has to be about 15" to 18" floatation to support this type of water weight onto it.
Attaching to it to a dock similar to this it might work, but he had not seen the dock or been to the
facility. As seen in the diagrams it goes straight out into the water. That is probably the easiest
way for the youngsters to launch it. They have been walking it into the water and climb into it,
which is messy. The coach tends to use a bull horn so to be heard. The speed can go up to 20
miles per hour, but with a high school team it would be 10 miles per hour at most. It is a
wonderful recreational opportunity for them. As a citizen he would certainly support it.
Mr. Loach said that he had some safety concerns and wondered if they would have to set up
lanes.
Mr. Cann replied not for just practicing. They might want to set up a couple of buoys or markers
on the shore for the 1,000 or 1,500 meters that they would be practicing over as a course. But,
they don't have to necessarily set up lanes. It might be a good idea to set up a buoy system for
people to stay out of the path of it.
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Joseph said that this is a great request and it is a wonderful activity for the children in the
community.
Mr. Loach agreed. But, he also agreed with Ms. Porterfield that it is fairly steep getting down to
the dock. He was more concerned that they were going to have access to this, not only for the
team but for the public, and if there was going to be any erosion of the banks in getting down
there. He was more concerned just about the site and questioned if it would be better, as Ms.
Porterfield said, to attach the proposed dock onto the other dock in getting access from there.
Ms. Joseph said that what they were hearing was that the publiC would only use the one dock.
The proposed dock would give the kids the ability to even pick up that dock within 20 minutes so
that they would have complete access when they needed it. If the practice time was from 4:30 to
6:00 p.m. it would only be one hour and a half.
Mr. Loach noted that if they put that dock there it is going to be there and they are saying that it is
open to the public. So there are going to be other people who are going to be accessing that
dock at the times the high school is not using it. He was concerned about that and questioned
what type of traffic that Parks and Rec was anticipating getting down to the dock.
Ms. Ambler noted that Mary Pitts, who was with the high school and also was the rowing coach,
made several site visits with Bob Crickenberger.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the motion could be amended to give Parks and Rec the ability to move
this dock to the best location possible for its usage in case this area does not work.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that actually Parks and Rec selected this location.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that the proposal was not a dock that could be moved in 20 minutes.
Mr. Edgerton said the points raised were well taken. They need to figure out a way to make this
work the best way possible. Mr. Wheeler, who is the Chairman of the School Board, indicated that
through the memorandum of understanding that they would be able to control the use of the
property. So they could put up barricades to make it less convenient for the public to use the
dock at other times. He suggested adding a condition that the memorandum of understanding
restricts the use of this dock just to the school. If the school actually has the authority to do that,
then that should solve the problem that it won't become yet again another access to the water.
.
Mr. Loach agreed, but noted that the staff report says that the boat dock will be placed within the
public access area and will be utilized by Western Albemarle High School Rowing Club and the
public.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that he was suggesting this as an additional condition to the approval.
The other concern was the steepness. He suggested adding a condition for the installation of the
same sort of walkway as shown on the Cann property. If they added those two conditions that
would address the concerns being brought up.
Mr. Morris suggested that they amend it so that under the memorandum of agreement that the
school may determine who uses the ramp rather than restrict it.
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Ms. Joseph seconded, for approval of SP-2007-061, Western
Albemarle High School Rowing Club Dock, with the conditions recommended by staff, as
amended and modified.
.
1. There shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance within the 200-foot stream
buffer associated with the installation of the boat dock. The stream buffer is measured from
the edge of the floodplain, which is approximated to be Elevation 545 (North American
Vertical Datum of 1988).
2. There shall be no other structures, such as decking or stairs, constructed in the 200-foot
stream buffer.
3. There shall be a memorandum of understanding or agreement between the Albemarle
County Parks and Recreation Department and the Albemarle County School Board that
addresses public use of the boat dock.
4. A stable and pervious pedestrian access reviewed and approved by the Director of the
Department of Parks and Recreation shall be constructed and maintained from the closest
paved parking area to the new boat dock.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Cannon was absent.)
Mr. Morris stated that SP-2007-0061 , Western Albemarle High School Rowing Club will go before
the Board of Supervisors on May 14 with a recommendation for approval.
The Planning Commission took a break at 9:02 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:08 p.m.
.
>.
-
C
::::J
o
()
Q)
'i:
ctI
E
Q)
.c
<C
..
..
..
..
'-
.
.,
,.
~
1;;
!'!
Q)
E
'" '5
~ 11
l\l m
a. a.
7/ II >-
r---J / "8
)\ '" E ~
1:1 l\l Q)
& ~ ~
.
~
0)
c
--
!.....
co
Q)
I
t)
--
-
-D
::::J
a..
Q)
..c
+-'
'+-
o
Q)
en
o
a.
!.....
::::J
a..
\0.
'+- Q)
..0 0 0 ..c Q)
::J +--'..c
- co Q) '+- +--'
00 oOe
+--' J2 Q) --
~ .g? 0.. ~ -0 L!)
:J --:J ~ ro -0
-C)~Q) 00
.~ -0 .E .c -ci' J2 0
Oc +--'~ ..c
Q) ro ~ Q) ~1? 0
o..CJ)ro>_+--..o
CJ)>.o..e32-o.c
rooCJ)o..Q)eo>
e (() Q) E -+= ro-(j)
o Q) ~ -- >. 0> Z
+--.c.8-o~e ~
o +--' en c 0.. -- C \,v
ro ~ ~ ro 32.- ~
o r\ -- 0)
o_Q)CJ)L:Je<(
+-- +-- E ~ :J..o ._ +--
"'Oen~Q)o,+-"'Oc
~Q)o..ooo==Q)
cu::J'+-E ::JE
OO-Q) ="E..o
a:l Q) ..c Q)E jg 0 0> 0..0
~+-- +--~e
Q) +-- Q) Q) - -- <i5
..c -E - en ..c ~ c +--'en >
+--' +--' en --
~ ~ :J:J ro +--"x Q)
cr ~.8 ~..o ..Q Q) 0
'l
''-,., J'
"
-',
(----
J ----
"
r---
I ---
L___~
----.
tl
'"
"
~ Lr-, -'--. -'--
~
o --~
::;! '--
.'
V1
8
z
<(
-J
Q...
!lJ
~
"- (/)
0
u..J
(/) c-:
0 ~
L Cl.... ,-
0 "-
Ck:: :.-
L
''\. LL ""
'\. r-
I
l
~.
L I
!."!
..
~
C
N
'"
L'i
""
l.L!
u..
:~
~~
(0
;E
;E
::J
cn
...
o
-+-'
Q)
..c
ctS
~
o
>
ctS
~
en
~
o
-+-'
U
ctS
~
0')
c
$
o
-
-
o
~
Q)
..c
-+-'
-0
Q)C
~o
-+-' .~
C ctS
Q)U
-0 ==
. - Cl..
enCl..
ctSctS
..cen
~ .-
~ ..c
ctS-+-'
-+-'
CJ)
Q)
~
o
E
$
en
Q)
~ -0
o. 0
~ ~ 0
-o~'~ $
Q)'-::J ..c
-ocE ~"5
Q)Q)E-+-'o
Q) en 'c CJ)
c-+-'o ::J ",
Cu \.V
..c Q) ~ E.=
gEC5 Ec
ECl..O OQ)
0$ uQ)
ctS Q)..c ctS..c
Q) > -+-' -+-'
-oQ)~ Q)~
"> ~ C/) ~.E
e -+-' Q) 0 Q)
::J ~ U
Cl.. 0 E Cl.. ctS 0
':> ~ C = Cl.. ~ cD
> Q)'- $ 0') c .~
->Q)-c oen
m 'en.2: ctS.~ .~ Q)
o~o ~~~~E
Cl....c..c 0Cl.. E . c 0 Q)
eQ)$ ~__::J ~u
Cl.. o....c Cl.. ID E ~ ~
.~ E"5 Q) c E Q)..c
..cOo..cQ)O..cc
l-u~l-uul-Q)
-+-'
u
ctS
~
-0
c
ctS
0')
c
-0
::J
..c
Q)
..c
-+-'
.
.
.
en
..c
-+-'
o
-+-'
Q)
..c
ctS
~
o
>
ctS
~
C
::J
en
~
o
-+-'
U
ctS
~
~
c
ctS
-0
Q)
~
-+-'
C
Q)
-0
.
-+-'c
00
C .~
enctS
ctS.u
..cCl..
~ Cl..
~ctS
-+-'
CJ)
c
o
--
+-'
rn
-0
c
Q)
E
E
o
u
Q)
a:
en
-
~
~
rn
+-'
C/)
-0
C
CD
E CD
E-o..c
oo+-
uo..c
Q) s:t=
~..c S..:....:
0"5 c~cu
.- 0 >
~C/).Q e
.- en 0..
E C\J~ c 0..
E<O ~cu
00 X'+-
()~WO
O,--en
0'>0 CD c
.~ C\J c .Q
c a.. CD:t=
@C/)()-g
a:: '+- ~ 0
O:t= U
Q)- C 0'>
..cCU::JC
+- > E.-
-oeEs
co.. 0
cuo..O=
'+- cu () 0
'+- '+-
cu
+-
C/)
-0
'+- C
~ 00 cu
.~ cO E ex:> en
-00 ::Jc~
'-- C\JO E cu OJ
o .- ..c
u ~X+-Q)
U <0 cu CD..c
CU C\J E '-- +-
~ o'+-
ro,-- cuEo
Q)~ coc
c '-- 0 c.Q
CD.o -0 CD CO
0'> CD Q).o U
CLL en 0
.- -0 cu = -
CDCD.o~en
:: CO .~ enE
ro -0 ~ CD +-
..cc-oQ)cu
en ~ .3..c-O
+- 0.. en ~ CD
c >
CD +- 0'> . '--
o..CCCD .
E CD .- CD en.o
g-g~-oc~
- 0 0..== CD ()
CD ..c'--
>u CD u-o en
Q)CD..c ==~
o..c L- O..c i~
+- .-- co () \-J
~
.
C\J
.
.
.
v
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax 434 972-4012
Cia Gathright, Daggett-Grigg Architects
100 10th St Ne Suite 200
Cha lottesville, Va 22902
RE: SP200700062 Southwood Community Center Expansion
Tax 90A1, Parcel1D
Dea Mr. Gathright:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 8, 2008, recommended approval of
the bove-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors, by a vote of 5:0: 1.
Pie se note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the concept plan dated February 26, 2008.
2. The parking study is based on a maximum of 80 children. There shall be no more than 80 children
served at this location of the Boys and Girls Club.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission also approved the Critical Slopes Waiver, by a vote of 5:0: 1.
Pie se be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
publ c comment at their meeting on May 14, 2008.
If yo should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
cont ct me at (434) 296-5832.
Cc: Southwood Charlottesville LLC
POBox 7305
Charlottesville, Va 22906
.
.
.
S -2007-00062 Southwood Communit Center Ex ansion Si n # 24 & 26
P OPOSED: The Boys and Girls Club will use the former store space for up to 80 youth members.
I prove basketball court, play field/yard, surface of lot in front of building and the fac;ade of existing
b ilding.
Z NING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-2 Residential (2 units/acre)
S CTIONS: 14.2.2 .1 and 5.1.04 Community center.
C MPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential-residential (3-6
u its/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-
re idential uses.
E TRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
L CATION: Southwood Mobile Home Park. Northeast corner of the intersection of Hickory Street and
Bi ternut Lane. Hickory Street approximately 2,100 feet from the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and
Hi kory Street.
T MAP/PARCEL: 90A1-1D
M GISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
M . Joseph stated that she provides services to Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, the
a plicant, and therefore would not be participating in this matter. She left the room.
M . Grant presented a Power-point presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report)
T e Southwood Mobile Home Park is currently developed primarily with mobile homes. The applicant is
re uesting a special use permit to expand the existing Boys and Girls Club into the former neighborhood
st re space for up to 80 youth members, improve the existing basketball court, play field/yard, surface of
10 in front of building and the fac;ade of the existing building. The applicant anticipates increasing
m mbership at the Boys and Girls club from 20 members to 80 members. The applicant is also
re uesting this special use permit in order to abate the violation of the Zoning Ordinance from the current
use of the property as a community center without a special permit.
V OT suggested a right-of-way (ROW) dedication along the southern part of the property on Route 631
could accommodate a future safety improvement to Route 631. This comment is primarily suggested
sh uld this special use permit directly impact Route 631. Since the special use request does not impact
R ute 631, staff and VDOT did not pursue the comment further.
T e applicant submitted a critical slopes waiver request which has been reviewed by staff and is
re ommended for approval. Staff believes the 675 square foot area, as shown on the plan, for
di turbance of the critical slopes is insignificant. Staff does not see any issues with its disturbance and
re om mends approval of this waiver request.
St ff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. This proposal will provide a much needed comprehensive youth development service for more
youth who live in the Southwood community.
2. The proposal will provide a community center/meeting place for the entire Southwood community.
3. The renovations to the building and facilities will enhance the site.
St ff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
R commended Action:
St ff recommends approval of SP 2007-62, Southwood Community Center Expansion with the conditions
lis ed in the staff report.
St ff also recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver.
Mr Morris asked if there were any questions for staff.
Mr Edgerton asked if all of the work would be within the confines of the existing building.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 8, 2008
D FT PARITAL MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR BOARD'S MAY 14 MEETING
1
Ms. Grant replied yes, that it was the renovation of the existing building.
Mr. Morris noted that having visited the site that the expansion was greatly needed due to the number of
children. There being no further questions for staff, he opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
Overton McGee, of Habitat of Humanity for Greater Charlottesville, said that they own Southwood Mobile
Home Park and Southwood LLC, which is the applicant. The club would serve children from Southwood
and the surrounding area. The expansion of the community center will be a huge community service.
Mr. Gathright, of Daggett and Gregg and Tim Sinatra and Paul Humminston, from the boys and girls club,
are present to answer questions.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Motion on SP-2007-00062:
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Strucko seconded for approval of SP-2007-00062, Southwood
Community Center Expansion, with the conditions as recommended by staff.
1. Development shall be in general accord with the concept plan dated February 26,2008.
2. The parking study is based on a maximum of 80 children. There shall be no more than 80 children
served at this location of the Boys and Girls Club.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0:1. (Mr. Cannon was absent.) (Ms. Joseph abstained.)
Mr. Morris said that SP-2007-00062, Southwood Community Center Expansion would go to the Board of
Supervisors on May 14 with a recommendation for approval.
Motion on Critical Slopes Waiver:
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to approve the critical slopes waiver for SP-2007-
00062, Southwood Community Center Expansion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0:1. (Mr. Cannon was absent.) (Ms. Joseph abstained.)
Mr. Morris said that the critical slopes waiver was approved.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 8, 2008
DRAFT PARITAL MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR BOARD'S MAY 14 MEETING
2
.
.
.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Prop sal: SP 07 - 62 Southwood Community
Cent r Expansion
Plan ing Commission Public Hearing:
,2008
rs: Southwood Charlottesville, LLC
ge: Approximately 1 acre
Loca ion: Southwood Mobile Home Park.
Nort east corner of the intersection of Hickory
Stree and Bitternut Lane. Hickory Street
appr ximately 2,100 feet from the intersection of
Old Lynchburg Road and Hickory Street.
(Atta hments A & B)
Magi terial District:Scottsville
Prop sal: The Boys and Girls Club proposes to
use t e former store space for up to 80 youth
mem ers and improve the basketball court, play
field/ ard, surface of lot in front of building and the
fac;ade of existing building.
DA ( evelopment Area): Neighborhood 5
Char cter of Property: Developed with
resid ntial use; the subject site currently has
mailb xes, parking area, a former store, an office
and small facility for the Boys and Girls Club.
Ther are steep slopes at the rear of the existing
buildi g that slope up the hill towards some
mobil homes.
1 This proposal will provide a much needed
comprehensive youth development
service for more youth who live in the
Southwood community.
2 This
1
Staff: Claudette Grant
Board of Supervisors Hearing: May 14, 2008
Applicant: Southwood Charlottesville, LLC with
Clark Gathright, Daggett & Grigg Architects
Special Use Permit for: community center in an
R-2 residential district.
By-right use: R-2 Residential (2 units/acre; and
community center use by special use permit)
Conditions: Yes EC: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0
Compo Plan Designation: Neighborhood
Density Residential-residential (3-6 units/acre)
and supporting uses such as religious institutions
and schools and other small-scale non-residential
uses.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single family
residential, school, church, recreation facility and land
that is currently vacant and wooded, but recently
rezoned for the Biscuit Run development of up to
3,100 residential units with some commercial and
community uses.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. There are no factors unfavorable.
Southwood Community Center Expansion
PC Public Hearing 4/8/08
center/meeting place for the entire
Southwood community.
3. The renovations to the building and
facilities will enhance the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2007-62, Southwood Community Center
Expansion with the following conditions of approval:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the concept plan dated February 26, 2008.
2. The parking study is based on a maximum of 80 children. There shall be no more than 80 children
served at this location of the Boys and Girls Club.
Staff also recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver.
2
Southwood Community Center Expansion
PC Public Hearing 4/8/08
.
.
.
STA F PERSON:
PLA NING COMMISSION:
BOA 0 OF SUPERVISORS:
SP20 7-062: Southwood Community Center Expansion
Claudette Grant
April 8, 2008
May 14, 2008
Petiti n:
PRO ECT: SP 2007-00062 Southwood Community Center Expansion
PRO OSED: The Boys and Girls Club proposes to use the former store space for up to 80 youth
mem ers and improve the basketball court, play field/yard, surface of lot in front of building and the
fayad of existing building.
ZONI G CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-2 Residential (2 units/acre)
SEC IONS: 14.2.2 .1 and 5.1.04 Community center.
COM REHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential-residential (3-
6 unit /acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale
non-r sidential uses.
ENT ANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOC TION: Southwood Mobile Home Park. Northeast corner of the intersection of Hickory Street
and itternut Lane. Hickory Street approximately 2,100 feet from the intersection of Old Lynchburg
Road and Hickory Street.
TAX AP/PARCEL: 90A1-1D
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Char cter of the Area and Ad"oinin ro erties:
The property is located in the Southwood Mobile Home Park in the northeast corner of the
inters ction of Hickory Street and Bitternut Lane. Hickory Street is approximately 2,100 feet from
the in ersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Hickory Street. Uses adjacent and near to the site
include single family residential, school, church, recreation facility and land that is currently vacant
and ooded, but recently rezoned for the Biscuit Run development of up to 3,100 residential units
with s me commercial and community uses. There are several residential subdivisions located
nearb as well as Interstate-64.
The b ildings located on the site vary in age with some buildings in need of renovation. There are
prima ily mobile homes used for residential uses located in the Southwood community. The
buildi gs that are proposed to be renovated for this special use permit request are currently the
forme neighborhood store, an office and the location of the Boys and Girls Club.
The oven ant School is located northeast of the site and the recently rezoned Biscuit Run
devel pment, which has not been built yet, is located to the south of the site. The Mosby Mountain
subdi ision is located to the west and across Old Lynchburg Road.
S eci ics of Pro osal:
The Southwood Mobile Home Park is currently developed primarily with mobile homes. The
applic nt is requesting a special use permit to expand the existing Boys and Girls Club into the
forme neighborhood store space for up to 80 youth members, improve the existing basketball
court, play field/yard, surface of lot in front of building and the fayade of the existing building. The
applic nt anticipates increasing membership at the Boys and Girls club from 20 members to 80
mem ers. The applicant is also requesting this special use permit in order to abate the violation of
the Z ning Ordinance from the current use of the property as a community center without a special
permi.
suggested a right-of-way (ROW) dedication along the southern part of the property on Route
uld accommodate a future safety improvement to Route 631. This comment is primarily
3
Southwood Community Center Expansion
PC Public Hearing 4/8/08
suggested should this special use permit directly impact Route 631. Since the special use request
does not impact Route 631, staff and VDOT did not pursue the comment further. (See Attachments
E and F)
Backaround:
There is currently no additional information.
Applicant's Justification for the Reauest:
The applicant would like to provide comprehensive youth development services to a greater number
of youth who live in the Southwood community. This request will also provide better community
meeting space for the broader Southwood community, and it will abate the violation of the Zoning
Ordinance regarding the current use of the property as a community center without a special use
permit.
Plannina and Zonina Historv:
Southwood Mobile Home Park developed in 1976. The property was zoned R-2 residential prior to
1980. Over the last 25 to 30 years a variety of home occupations, violations, zoning clearances,
signs, and one Special Use Permit (SP 2001-004) have occurred on the site. SP2001-004 was a
special use permit approved with conditions for Rainbow House, a community center located at 750
Java Court. As previously discussed in this report the current buildings and uses for the store, office
and Boys and Girls Club do not have site plans, special permits, rezoning, etc. associated with
them.
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is designated Neighborhood Density on the Land Use Plan Map in
Neighborhood Five.
A full Neighborhood Model Analysis is not applicable for this project since it is an existing
development and does not propose re-development, but proposes improvements to existing
facilities/buildings. Those Principles that this special use permit request supports are a mixture of
uses and neighborhood center.
Staff Comment:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by
the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
The proposed expansion/renovation of the community center and outdoor facilities are not expected
to have detrimental impacts on the adjacent properties. The Boys and Girls club has been operating
in this general location at Southwood for many years. Although the center and club are located
within a residential community, there is a need for this service and its expansion to serve more
youth and provide a good meeting space for the residents of the community.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The existing site is established in the community, having recently served as a neighborhood store,
office and the Boys and Girls Club. The proposed expansion and renovation of the site will provide
a larger space for the Boys and Girls Club, a community center for the residents of Southwood and
an office. The character of the district will not change and the renovations to the site will provide
much needed improvements for this neighborhood center.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The R-2 residential district is primarily for the purpose of providing a potential transition density
4
Southwood Community Center Expansion
PC Public Hearing 4/8/08
.
.
.
en higher and lower density areas established through previous development and/or zoning in
unity areas and the urban area; and to provide incentives for clustering of development and
provi ion of locational, environmental and development amenities. The uses requested in this
speci I use permit provide a service amenity in the district.
with ses permitted by right in the district,
Allowing the proposed uses should be a relatively low impact to the existing residential uses already
on th property, since the Boys and Girls club and the office already exist and the club will mostly
bene it Southwood Mobile Home Park residents. The community center will be a new feature at this
locati n but should also have relatively low impact to the existing residential uses. These uses are
there ore viewed as compatible with the residential uses allowed in the R-2 District.
with he additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Secti n 5.1.04 COMMUNITY CENTER states that "Any such use seeking public funding
shall be reviewed by the commission in accordance with section 31.2.5. Specifically, the
com ission shall find that the proposed service area is not already adequately served by
anot er such facility. In addition, the commission shall be mindful that such use is
appr priate to villages, communities and the urban area of the comprehensive plan." SP
2001 004 is an approved special use permit request for a community center in this general
area. However, that center is a satellite ministry/community center and is affiliated with
Jeffe son Park Baptist Church and provides an afterschool program. The proposed
com unity center would be available for all residents of the Southwood Mobile Home Park.
Staff believes that Southwood Mobile Home Park is not already adequately served by
another facility and this use is appropriate in this part of the urban area.
and ith the public health, safety and general welfare.
The ublic health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special
use p rmit process which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the
locati n requested.
The applicant submitted a critical slopes waiver request which has been reviewed by staff and is
reco mended for approval. Staff believes the 675 square foot area, as shown on the plan, for
distur ance of the critical slopes is insignificant. Staff does not see any issues with its disturbance
and r commends approval of this waiver request. (See Attachment G)
as identified the following factors favorable to this application:
T is proposal will provide a much needed comprehensive youth development service for more
y uth who live in the Southwood community.
2. T e proposal will provide a community center/meeting place for the entire Southwood
c mmunity.
3. T e renovations to the building and facilities will enhance the site.
as not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
Reco mended Action:
Staff ecommends approval of SP 2007-62, Southwood Community Center Expansion with the
follow ng conditions of approval:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the concept plan dated February 26, 2008.
2. The parking study is based on a maximum of 80 children. There shall be no more than 80
children served at this location of the Boys and Girls Club.
5
Southwood Community Center Expansion
PC Public Hearing 4/8/08
Staff also recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Tax Map
Attachment B - Vicinity Map
Attachment C - Proposed Plan dated February 28, 2008
Attachment 0 - Electronic Mail from Gary Whelan, ACSA, dated March 24, 2008
Attachment E - Letter from Joel DeNunzio, dated February 1, 2008
Attachment F - Electronic Mail from Joel DeNunzio, VDOT, dated March 31, 2008
Attachment G - Letter from Clark Gathright, dated December 21, 2007
6
Southwood Community Center Expansion
PC Public Hearing 4/8/08
.
.
.
/"-v/ Roads ~ Water Body
c=J Driveways c=J Parcels
c=J Buildings Parcel of Interest
-<
.....
=
Q,l
e
.c
C.l
C!J
.....
.....
-< {p
~ ~( ~l 17:\~"1-/--(
-. ~r- ~ \~s~~9P,i262\
~5_j~S.~)5:" H ~. ~~I.~_(r,4-~).:",/~-' E .
l~lJ ~~~!.~O~. t~~mi~mU~ty"'erter. ~",~anslon
1-N'Vc~1{).: ':;/\_'f:u'l: ~ r4, ~
f~~~.~ ~~ (~ ~
~~: >-~ J?Yv,(\.. ~~~. \~
rlZ '1)( VV\ \.. t:+t:::tld\ I if I
IJJ 5\.. (/, ", N"-i J\J( ,
~y ~r.J,\,/ ~ N if - '\.
F_jJJ.w~-/ /'- r\ >< 2~r _'~
./ ~~
.
~~V .J:lV t ~j T7l
~ ~~ Iff/'0'
~;T' ~~ ~~ '~
.... ~~.<:;";. ~
~~ -:.~
~
~~
U ~~7/ 't~~~
~ ~~ 'I"
DtV \,
) /
/
;
I
J~~
'lIIIlo.oa \ .... / ~
;::"Y::J/ )( ~ .
"-----,
-i
~
~~ ~~
~
?j< ~~.
~ ~>
RJ{~~I~
~ b-~' -1..1 c-:::. ;'
,
5A ! I
~..l:~
~ ..P"-f~\
It
i-"--,JfTl
.'t
Li
~
fI'"
..II-'
!
o-l
"
€i~ of
€tiarlottesville
- lj~
"-,{
~~, I
'" .
/--0:
/,
V
i~
(
:::-- 4
~ IJ~ .'
~ ;., ~~ ~/
~~X ~
.jk::7' \
~
, ~
~
.,
/
, /
I
~
..,(
rt
\~.
~A'-
R,
o
l-
~~i
~
~(20
,
, ,
~
v t'-'
c
:o~ .
/ \~
' .
\
"'" '\
~
....
I:
~
S
.c:
~
~
~ 1
,
/~
/'J Roads c=J Parcels
1- Streams _ Parcel of Interest
~ Water Body
Fe
1,000 roo "" 4Y
~
o
a.
-----
-OtDE'
Q,) 0,..... Q.
q).c_....""
N~<x ci.~
1>,_ .OJ)
or;( (; 5~ .
o~ c_ 0..
'" u"
"- > .
Q.:I: 0 Q.oJ)
~ltlu ~
t-""""tf)
-..ell) .
~t-,....~
-0
o
c..
cD
c:i
~z
O~::s
o lL
OUJUJ
>~t:
>Ov>
II--1
~ ill < ~
O ~ ~ ~
V)O);~
~ 0 ~
~
...
c
CI.i
E
-=
~
~
....
....
~
~
"0
~
.....
Un
I')~~ci.
l'~ ~
00>.
ch "8~
"':1:-'0<)
a. ~ en ci.
~ 0"
t-OON
1..",
g
w
,
(T).
1fl(T)
'(T)
01.
-lD
IfllD
10
Z
~
u..
I')
LO
I
\0
,.....
CL
~
t--
/
,
,
1
~
LO
/ '\ "
.../ '
I ~ ~ I
I ....., I .c.... / 0,
/ '0 ...,
/ ",...../i::> ,
I 0 ~ I
/ ",' ~ /
/ ,-
4' fo/CTj /
/Y.( 6',::
4' 1)[;' 0<0'
o~
~
"0
~
.....
"0 _
o ...,
o I
O::UIO
Ll)~~n
1.5Q)ri.
0-5-g0-
'" ~-' .
a......J_S?
~,,~f"1
....05 .
_I.. Q.
~ N
"" '"
o
0<)
II:!
o
<V ,
..... ,
~ /,v-/
, 0- / rV
," .....
/'0
co>.9 /'"
-( r 8,
'" SO
o 0 ~
i' Ii}J~ '(j
'0 its '.> /..j- 01010 .
1'\1 I <-Os; ~oo (j
,:)i}(o ....0 ,,& 10 S;6>,
. Jo' Io~~ /0'.0(. , B.
'i's ....~Q o'l1yo;.O
i}1r)0 O....,i' /~
(y i}lo So
IS
..
..
B
t
...
.;
'.J
....--
o
'0
-.
(T)1fl
C\J1fl
10
l/l
. LLJ. ..
. . (I). ,......
I'''iI'oC\Jo
LeI.O- .... .
. .(T). Ifl
lDOO(T)QJ
00.... CTl....
....~lD II
U H C'\JY"1 U
octCI:<lz...J
III
c:i
~
~ ex:
c
U c
.... ('
= '{
~
s ('
..c a:
~
~ u
.... u
....
<
[ ~
~
~
o
:c
iC:
"
""
'"
""
'"
'"
""
""
""
"-
t-:
tr)
8
~
---
"
'"
~
~'"
f3 '\
::> ::::::;
~
I~
t<) 8 .~
~ i==: "-
C'\j ~(J) "-
T-- 0/) 8 ",.
W
L:J
.::J
\
x w
\~
\
)
s
\
s \
\
c
S C1
f'I
g
\
1
J: \
~
\
nNdJ 1/8
s
\
N'Vl
\
z
~
o
<.0
.q-
- 1----
SP20G 00062 Southwood Community Center Expansion
Page 1 of2
.
Cia dette Grant
Fro: Gary Whelan [gwhelan@serviceauthority.org]
Monday, March 24, 2008 11 :39 AM
To: Claudette Grant
Subj ct: RE: SP200700062 Southwood Community Center Expansion (TMP 90A 1-1 D)
From: ary Whelan [mailto:gwhelan@serviceauthority.org]
Sent: onday, March 24, 2008 11:23 AM
To: Cia dette Grant
Subje : RE: SP200700062 Southwood Community Center Expansion (TMP 90Al-lD)
SA has no further comment on the Southwood Community Center Expansion.
From: ary Whelan [mailto:gwhelan@serviceauthority.org]
Sent: riday, February 08, 2008 8:49 AM
To: 'CI udette Grant'
Subje : RE: SP200700062 Southwood Community Center Expansion (TMP 90Al-lD)
.
The inf astructure for Southwood is private. The Southwood master meter is at the intersection of Oak Hill Drive
and Hi kory Street. The old sewage treatment plant was abandoned and the Sounthwood waste water was
metere and directed to the Biscuit Run sewer. There is no capacity issue for the Community Center project.
laudette Grant [mailto:cgrant@albemarle.org]
Sent: hursday, February 07, 2008 2:0S PM
To: Ga Whelan
Subje : RE: SP200700062 Southwood Community Center Expansion (TMP 90Al-lD)
Hi Gary,
Relatin to this project, are there any issues with capacity?
Also in our comments you noted the site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations, waterline
locations, sewer line locations, easements, water line size, sewer line size, expected wastewater flows, and
expect d water demands. Will there be any dificulty in providing these?
Thanks
.
Claude e Grant
Senior lanner
County of Albemarle
Depart ent of Community Development
401 Mc ntire Road
Charlo esville, VA 22902-4596
Attachment D
10
SP200'700062 Southwood Community Center Expansion
Page 20f2
(434) 296-5832, Ext. 3250
Fax: (434) 972-4126
From: Gary Whelan [mailto:gwhelan@serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:59 AM
To: Claudette Grant
Subject: SP200700062 Southwood Community Center Expansion
Claudette,
Here are the Service Authority's comments for Southwood Community Center Expansion.
-Gary <<...>>
G. M. Whelan
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(434) 977-4511
Fax: (434) 979-0698
Attachment D J)
3/24/2008
.
.
.
D vid S. Ekern, P.E.
OMMISSIONER
CC)MM()NWEAJLlrH (If VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
VirginiaDOT.org
ebruary 1 st, 2007
r. Bill Fritz
ept. of Planning & Community Development
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville, V A 22902
Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals
ear Mr. Fritz:
elow are VDOT's comments for the February 2008 Rezoning and Special Use Permit
pplications:
P-2007 -00059 ohn Cann Boat Dock Tamara Ambler
· No comments
P-2007-00060 Watkins 250 Rezonin Rebecca Ra sdale
· I did not receive a plan for this application. I did previously provide comments on the
entrance to this site and my comments have not changed.
P-2007 -00061 Western Albemalre Hi h School Rowin Club Dock Tamara Ambler
· No comments
P-2007 -00062 Southwood Communit Center Ex ansion Claudette Grant
· A ROW dedication along the southern part of the property on Route 631 could
accommodate a future safety improvement to route 631.
P-2007-00063 5th Street Develo ment Tamara Ambler
· No comments on the fill in the floodplain.
· The proposed proffered improvements, mostly the signal, are a concern because of the
limited distance to the I-64 interchange.
P-2007 -00064 Cam Watermarks oan McDowell
· This change does not appear to change traffic patterns or increase the use.
Attachment E JV
SP-2007-00065 Herrin2 Propertv/ Verizon Tier III PWSF (Meean Yanielos)
. The applicant should address any sight distance issues at the connection to a state road.
Please contact the Charlottesville Residency office for a sight distance evaluation.
ZMA-2007-00025 Wavertree Hall. LLC (Scott Clark)
· No comments.
If you have any questions, please let me know
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
Attachment E
/3
I
I I
Claudet1~ Grant
From:
.~t:
Subject:
Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [JoeI.Denunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov]
Monday, March 31, 2008 11 :07 AM
Claudette Grant
RE: Planning Application Review for SP200700062Southwood Community Center Expansion .
Claudett~,
I have npt comments on this application.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeN~nzio, P.E.
Staff Ens-ineer
434-293-0011 Ext. 120
joel.den~nzio@vdot.virginia.gov
-----Oris-inal Message-----
From: Cl~udette Grant [mailto:cgrant@albemarle.org]
Sent: Tu~sday, March 25, 2008 10:30 AM
To: Glen~ Brooks; Bill Fritz; Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: Planning Application Review for SP200700062Southwood Community Center Expansion.
This is ~ reminder to
Please r~view the following application:
Applicat'on Number = SP200700062
Due Date = 03/21/2008
.Thank yo\..l
audettl=
.
1
Attachment F J t/
daggett 1- grigg architects
December 21, 2007
Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning & Community Development
Department of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Habitat for Humanity- Southwood Plan
Request for Waiver - Grading in Critical slopes
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
We are requesting a waiver to allow slopes exceeding 25% in grade to be within the legal
building site per Chapter 18, Section 4.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. As evident from the site
plan, there is a small area with critical slopes within the project limits. The total area of critical
slopes is approximately 675 sq. ft. or 0.01 acres. It is apparent that the area of critical slopes
was created when soils were excavated as a borrow pit.
We believe the concerns of critical slopes are adequately addressed with this site plan in the
following manner:
. The project area is not within a drinking water supply watershed or in a flood plain.
. There are no septic drainfields in the vicinity of the critical slopes.
. Soil erosion will be minimal since the impacted area is limited in size. New
landscaping will provide additional protection of the existing steep slopes.
. Large-scale movement of slopes is not likely given the limited size.
. The proposed improvements will reduce the amount of on-site impervious area. The
runoff eventually flows to open ditches along Hickory St., thus siltation is not a
concern.
.. Aesthetic resources will be enhanced by the proposed grading to make it consistent
with the adjacent slopes and the reduction in impervious area will enhance
conservation of existing natural resources.
In summary, we believe the proposed grading in the minimal area of critical slopes as
shown on the site plan will not violate the intent of Section 4.2 and we request a waiver
from its requirements.
We appreciate your attention to this request.
100 10TH STREET NE, SUITE 200
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22902
T d:~4.971.8848
F 434.2963040
www.daggettgrigg.com
Attachment G
.-/
J~
.
.
.
dac gett gri99 architects
Respectfully submitted,
ILl..'.........",.,.'.
., . . " /'
, ~ ~..~. .
Clark Gathright
Copies: File, Jeff Mitchell, Overton McGehee
100 1 iTH STREET NE, SUITE 200
CHAR OTTESVILLE, VA 22902
-: 434 971. 8848
F 434 296.:1040
www.aggettgrjgg.com
Attachment G
/u.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Name: SP 2007-063 5th Street
ment Fill in the Floodplain
g Commission Public Hearing:
April 8, 2008
Owner : Morris Creek Yacht Club, Inc.
TMP: 6-55A and 76M1 -1
n: Approximately 1100 feet north of 1-64
on the ast side of 5th Street, north and east of
the Hol day Inn. The property is bounded to the
north b Moore's Creek and to the east by Biscuit
Run. ( ttachment A)
Existin Zoning and By-right uses:
HC - H ghway Commercial - commercial and
service uses; and residential use by special use
permit 15 units/ acre); LI - Light Industrial -
industri I, office, and limited commercial uses (no
residen ial use); AlA - Airport Impact Area -
Overla to minimize adverse impacts to both the
airport nd the surrounding land; EC - Entrance
Corrid r Overlay District - overlay to protect
properti s of historic, architectural or cultural
signific nce from visual impacts of development
along r utes of tourist access; all uses permitted
by right in the underlying districts; and FH - Flood
Hazard Overlay District - agricultural,
recreati nal, and utility location uses which will
not pos a danger to life or property in the event
of a flo d.
1. The e have been no significant changes in
circ mstance since SP 1999-059 was
app oved by the Board of Supervisors in
200 .
2. The applicant has shown that fill in the
floo plain is possible without raising the flood
elev tion or having an impact on neighboring
pro erties.
Staff: Judith C. Wiegand
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
May 14, 2008
Applicant: 64 and Fifth, LLC, represented by
Katurah S. Roell
Proposal: The applicant proposes to place fill in
the floodplain in order to construct a convenience
store with gas pumps, a sit-down restaurant, and
associated surface parking. (Attachment B)
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Factors Unfavorable:
The following factor is unfavorable to this request:
1. The County Engineer does not support this
request based on concerns regarding good practice
and policy, proximity of floodwaters to occupants,
integrity of fill slopes in the long term, and the
precedent it sets.
Staff and the Planning Commission did not
recommend approval of the original rezoning and
special use permit for this project due, in part, to
concerns regarding impacts to the floodplain.
However, the Board, after additional information,
review, and consideration of these factors,
approved both the rezoning with proffers, including
a proffered plan that establishes use of the
property, and the special use permit for fill in the
floodplain.
Executive Summary: SP 2007-063 5th Street Development, April 8, 2008
2
RECOMMENDATION: There have been no changes in the development proposal for this property since
the original rezoning and special use permit were approved by the Board. Although since that approval
FEMA has issued new floodplain maps, they have not materially changed the floodplain boundary as it
existed at that time. Therefore, staff finds no change in circumstance since the Board's prior approval of
this special use permit that would change the basis for that decision and, therefore, recommends approval
of SP 2007-063 for Fill in the Floodplain with the following conditions of approval:
1. The fill in the floodplain shall be shown on a site development plan and shall be in general accord
with the "Conceptual Site Plan," dated January 8,2002, and most recently revised on March 10,
2008, except as may be modified in order to meet the requirements of the County's Water
Protection Ordinance, as determined by the County Engineer.
2. The County Engineer's approval of an erosion and sediment control plan.
3. The County Engineer's receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating
activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. The applicant must obtain a map revision, a letter of
map revision, or a letter of amendment as required from the Federal Emergency Management
(FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all correspondence.
4. The County Engineer's approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for
encroachments into the stream buffer.
5. The County Engineer's approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the
floodplain. Computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 [verification of
limits of floodway and floodway fringe] and 30.3.3 [general requirements for flood hazard
overlay districts] of the Zoning Ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed
flood lain boundaries and elevations.
.
TAFF PERSON:
LANNING COMMISSION DATE:
OARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
MICHAEL BARNES
MAY 22, 2001
JUNE 20, 2001
MA 99-13 YOUNG AMERICA
P 99-59 FILL IN THE FLOODPLAIN
.
Iicant's Pro osal:
he applicant, Morris Creek Yacht Club, Inc., through its agent, Robert T. Smith, is seeking to
zone a portion ofTMP 76Ml-l (the portion west of Biscuit Run, which is currently zoned
ight Industrial (LI)) and an abandoned, unzoned right-of-way (the old Fifth Street Extended
adway (Old Rt. 631)) to Highway Coinmercial (HC). The applicant also owns TMP 76-55A
hich would be combined with the other properties for future development (see Tax Map-
ttachment A).
oncurrent with the rezoning, the applicant also requests permission to fill the floodplain at the
onfluence of Biscuit Run and Moores Creek. Ifpermitted, the fill would be on TMP 76Ml-l,
MP 76-55A, and the abandoned right-of-way (See hatched area on Attachment B).
oth the rezoning and the fill in the floodplain would allow for uses roughly defined as a "sit-
own restaurant" and a "convenience store" (See Concept Plan - Attachment C).
etition for Rezonin and S ecial Use Permit:
he applicant requests a zoning map amendment of approximately 3.50 acres to allow for HC
ighway Commercial) uses. The properties are located on approximately 9.099 acres zoned Ll
ight Industrial) and an unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way. The property is described
s portions of Tax Map 76MI-Parcell and is located on the east side of Fifth Street Extended
j st north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This property is located in the Scottsville
agisterial District and is designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in Neighborhood
as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
he Special Use Permit is for approval of approximately 4.00 acres for grading in the floodplain
fBiscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. The properties, TMP 76Ml-l, TMP 76-
5A, and the abandoned right-of-way, comprise approximately 12.897 acres and are zoned Ll
( ight Industrial),HC (Highway Commercial), and no zoning, respectively.
haracter of the Area:
he site is located on Fifth Street Extended at the County/ City border. It is also the confluence
fBiscuit Run and Moores Creek. The majority TMP 76-55A is in the floodplain. All ofTMP
6MI-l is in the floodplain, except the part that is across Biscuit Run, which contains critical
lopes.
terstate 64 and the Holiday Inn form the southern boundary of the site. The Christian Aid
uilding (the former Virginia Power office) is across Fifth Street. The Waffle House is across
oores Creek in the City. Finally, the undeveloped land owned by Brass, Inc., which is zoned
ight Industrial (Ll) is to the west of the property. The 1-64 interchange is approximately 600
et from the proposed entrance for this site.
.
Attachment C
~\1
Zonino and Subdivision Historv:
There is no rezoning history related to this site. The property was subdivided sometime prior to
1968 according to Subdivision File 878. The Holiday Inn South was constructed on the adjacent
parcel TMP 76-55C under Site Plan File 173.
Bv-ric;lht Use of the Property:
TMP 76-55A is zoned He. Its by-right uses are limited to the area outside ofthe floodplain.
Actual acreage outside of the floodplain is unknown.
TMP 76M1-1 is zoned LI. Actual acreage outside of the floodplain is also unknown. Its by-
right uses also limited on the eastern portion of the property due to the presence of critical slopes.
Staff has been working with the applicant to assess the development potential of the property but
has been unable to complete its assessment due to the need for additional information.
Applicant's Justification for the Reouest:
The applicant's request to rezone and fill the floodplain is based on their desire to lease or sell a
developable site to an unspecified user(s). While a conceptual plan for a restaurant and
convenience store was submitted for review by the Site Review Committee, the plan was not
proffered nor is it under review as a preliminary site plan. In short, this is a speculative venture.
In order to define the potential of the site to a potential client, the applicant must be able to
define the maximum footprint available. To achieve this maximum footprint, the applicant needs
to know the maximum area of floodway fringe that the County will permit to be filled.
The applicant argues that the Dewberry and Davis studies have defined the maximum area for
the fill. Using these studies as their basis, they feel that the County should approve their request
to fill. Furthermore, they maintain that the engineering and planning costs necessary to define
other potential development impacts (e.g. traffic, environmental, visual, etc.) are only justifiable
after they have been granted a rezoning and special use permit for fill and have a potential tenant
or buyer for the property (see Concept Plan - Attachment C).
Recommendation:
Due to the lack of specific information available for this review, staff cannot recommend
approval of the Special Use Permit or the rezoning at this time.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as both Regional Service and Industrial Service.
Current zoning aligns with the Comprehensive Plan designations. TMP 76-55 is Highway
Commercial, and TMP 76M1-1 is Light Industrial. A change in zoning for TMP 76M1-1 would
be inconsistent with the Plan's designation ofIndustrial Service; however, because ofthe
peculiarities of the properties, staff believes rezoning a portion of the property as a part of a
complete, well-developed proposal should be considered.
The reason staff believes a rezoning may be appropriate based on the following logic. Staff
recognizes that Biscuit Run forms a natural dividing line. It bisects TMP 76M1-1leaving the
western side (the portion proposed to be rezoned) too small to have a significant industrial
purpose. Bridging Biscuit Run to connect both sides ofTMP 76M1-1 would be costly. As a
result, the western portion ofTMP 76M1-1 seems to logically fit with TMP 76-55 and its.
Highway Commercial uses. In staff s opinion, the eastern portion should remain Light Industrial
Attachment C I~
I
I I
would in ir~proving the property.
Mr. Thom, s asked how the applicant would get someone to purchase the land unless it is out of the floodplain, which
requires a ZMA and an SP.
.
Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Thomas that this property can be developed. He said he would hate to deny this application, as
there is 1- ear waiting periOd after denial by the board. He would like for the applicant to request and indefinite deferral to
work on bl yers.
Mr. Smith stated that part of this is zoned industrial, he asked if there was any industrial use shown.
Mr. Rieley said that Mr. Smith needed to come with a proposal showing more specificity.
Mr. Thome s said he thought that the County engineering department could make it work.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that there were three potential courses of action, approval, denial, or accept the applicant's request
for a defer al.
Mr. Smith aid he would rather not defer.
Ms. Hoppe moved for denial of ZMA-99-13.
Mr. Finley i~ reluctant to vote for it, but the project could be approved with adequate information.
Ms. Hoppe said that this plan is not adequate.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 3-1 with Mr. Thomas voting no.
Ms. Hoppe moved for denial of SP-99-59.
.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 3-1 with Mr. Thomas voting no.
With no fur her business the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
Recorded end transcribed by Lynda Myers, Recording Secretary
.
It{;
ALBEMAIu,E COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES SUBMITTED JUNE 5, 2001
15
Attachment C ft.
'. Smith said that they would probably only get about 3 acres of usable ground because of the required slopes.
Mr. Thomas verified that the building next to Moores Creek is in the incorrect area on the drawing.
Mr. Smith said that could be moved back.
There being no further comment, Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would like to see as much of the property rezoned as possible. It is not close to residential
areas so it will not infringe on the communities.
Mr. Finley asked if the engineers have concluded that they can meet county engineering requirements.
Mr. Smith replied yes. They have met several times. They have agreed that what is approved by FEMA is doable. There
are a lot of procedures that we have to go through once the rezoning is approved.
Mr. Finley pointed out that they would be within the 100' stream buffers.
Mr. Smith verified that they can get within 50' of the stream with mitigation. That mitigation has not been verified.
Mr. Rieley stated his concern about the number of unanswered questions. The primary issue of the floodplain seems to be
addressed, but there are others that have not been addressed. Rezoning is a major threshold for us. We need to know
what it is before we rezone. This property is in an entrance corridor and in a highly visible location. He would like to see a
plan that deals with mitigation, and includes a concrete proposal for layout of property. It would be inconsistent with what
we have done with other properties to rezone without seeing a concrete plan.
.. Hopper agreed. She asked staff about the floodplain fill in that it seemed that the ordinance requirements were met.
Mr. Barnes said it sounds like the ordinance speaks to several different requirements. There are other issues including
the fill shelf cover.
Mr. Rieley pointed out the issues of the stormwater detention and the water quality.
Mr. Barnes added that the mitigation plan tremendously on the proposal. He is not sure if there is room for mitigation on
site.
Ms. Hopper said it sounds like the two applications are necessarily interlinked, and it is hard to grant one without the other.
Mr. Thomas asked if the special use permit could be approved without the rezoning.
Mr. Finley said that the engineers need to reach agreement on the four points on page eight.
Mr. Smith stated that their engineers said there were no problems with the third and fourth items, the fifth item had to do
with the building being shown in the incorrect area.
Mr. Finley said that if the engineers are agreeing that you can meet the requirements, it seems like you could come back
with specific users.
Mr. Smith said that it is a very difficult situation to market in the state that it is currently in. He said that until we know the
layout, there are things that cannot be addressed, such as mitigation.
Mr. Rieley said that Mr. Smith expressed his concerns exactly, in that without further specificity, they can't tell how these
-;ues will work out.
Ms. Hopper responded to concerns about fairness to property owner, they have purchased land in floodplain, the value
/
()
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES SUBMITTED JUNE 5, 2001
14
Attachment C ~
p( vY1''w~
(, I~ 101
ZMA-99-13 Youn America Si n #98 - Request for a zoning map amendment of approximately 3.50 acres to allow for
HC, Highw y Commer~ial uses., The properties are locat~d on approximately.9.099 acres zoned L1, Light Industrial and.
unzoned, a andoned highway nght-of-way. The property IS descnbed as portions of Tax Map 76M1-Parce11 and is
located on he east side of Fifth Street Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This property is located in
~he-S~ottsv Ile-Magistertal-Ctstrtcrandis-cle-signatediorlndastriararrd-RegionarService-usesin-Netghborhood-5as
identified in the Comprehensive Plan. (Michael Barnes)
AND
SP-99-59 un America Si n #95 - Request for Special Use Permit approval of approximately 4.00 acres for fill of the
floodplain 0 Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. Property is located on approximately 12.897 acres zoned L1,
Light Indust ial and HC, Highway Commercial. It is described as portions of Tax Map 76M1-Parce11 and Tax Map 76-
Parcel55A nd is located on the east side of 5th Street Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This
property is I cated in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in
Neighborho d 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. (Michael Barnes)
Mr. Barnes resented the staff report.
Mr. Finley a ked about the statement that the BMP can't be in the f1oodway. Is this for quality? Is there concern about
runoff going into the f1oodway.
Mr. Barnes he concem is the quality not quantity.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was any comparison to the floodplain fill at the North Garden firehouse.
Mr. Barnes aid that any site would have to treat its impervious cover. The fuel tanks are not an issue as the site would be
above the fI odplain. The site would not come under floodplain regulations once the site is graded above the floodplain.
Mr. Rieley p inted out that the North Garden fire department had extremely specific plans.
Mr. Finley s id that the County does allow fill in the floodplain if you meet the design conditions.
.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was a preliminary site plan.
Mr. Barnes aid that the plan supplied in the packets is what staff has received thus far. The applicant applied a site plan
with no topo raphy.
Mr. Rieleya ked the applicant to address the commission.
Mr. Bob Smi h, representing the applicant, has been working for 3 Y2 years on this project with the staff. Staff had asked
us to put the two applications together. The owners engaged Dewberry & Davis to conduct a study on Moores Creek and
were able to get 1 Y2 acres out of the floodplain, which was approved by FEMA. We hired Roudabush & Gale did a study
and came u with 3 Y2 acres, the owners bought an additional 8 acres that is currently zoned L1. VDOT abandoned a
small strip of road that went off of 5th Street Extended and dead-ended. VDOT deeded this over to the owners. The
owners curr ntly control the full 3 Y2 acres. We went back to Dewberry & Davis with the plan from Roudabush and got it
approved by FEMA. FEMA allows you to increase the flow by a foot, but Albemarle County says zero. The study said it
was about a uarter of an inch, there is no raise on other people's property. We have had a traffic analysis and a wetland
delineation r port done. A conceptual site plan has been provided. Potential users want to know that it is zoned for the
use before t ey will consider the property. Following approval, a firm site plan showing stormwater detention, and VDOT
requirement will be shown, will be provided. We will have to meet with the ARB. We don't know the cost at this time.
The County urrently collects $639 in taxes on property that cannot be used.
sked if the property across Fifth Street is this filled in.
lied yes. He said that the applicant is anxious to move forward.
erified that there would 3 ~ acres outside the floodplain when the filling is done?
.
14
E COUNTY PLA.NNING COMlvlISSION
TES SUBMITTED JUNE 5, 2001
13
Attachment C ~
May 24, 2001
Robert 1. Smith
POBox 7120
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE: ZMA-99-13 Young America and SP-99-59 Young America
Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 1
Dear Mr. Smith:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22, 2001, by a vote of 3-1,
recommended denial of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is
scheduled to review the above-noted petitions at its June 20th meeting.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~~
Michael Barnes
Planner
MB/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey
f3
Attachment C ~
O-OL-{"
ZO-6Z-t
ZO-lO-t
BO 90-l0 031'0'0 SlN]V'lriOJ 'A1NJ N3:)
SlN3r'H'IQ:) :)NINN\fld N]:)
SlN]r-l~OJ 100A'9NINOZ"NN'O'ld''[)N]
31VO
SlN3MOJ
SNOISI^]~
o
n
v
o
N
V
o
;;:
~Nn NI'O'ldOOQ1.:l .
]NIl A.'O'MOOOlj .
>IN\fsjQ d5':l
^___A__^--___^
~]jjn8 "V3~lS ,00 ~
3NIl AVMOOO1.!...!.
llV'l1l OOQlj ~v3)., 0 l d ~d.. ~
~~
~~
[I
/ I ~
(I~~~ I
~;;g
o...ffi:
t
~
Wz
_ _ ---1~
3NIl NlVldOOOlj. tr: ~
R~
"'):]VQNnQ8A.l~O~d1'"6
o
n
v
o
v
o
;;:
LUo:)'wna4::lruQ@owf :I!OW-]
r91 L -Zv6 (OVe;) XOj - L9 L l-Zv6 (OV<;) 4d
096l2: VA 'oJOqsaulloM - 6u!PI!nS8Jf?'9-1
SJi3,W!6U3 6UlllnSUO)
sareposs'v' PUE J!EN)V\1 U40r
AS 'ON
o
o
v
o
m
n
o
"
n
lN3ri]SIf] )"'O'MN3]~9
I
II
II
-II
II
II
II
C~'"
II~
","
II:~
II
II
~
fll"
~~~ II
~~:
: -./.
)
/
o
o
o
m
n
o 0
"
n n
o
~
o
N
o +
::1 ~
"
J;
o
~
n
o
o
J;
o
m
+
~
o
"
+
~
o
~
+
~
o
~
+
~
o
~
+
~
o
v
+
~
o
n
+
~
o
+
~
"
J.
o
o
+
~
o
m
+
o
"
~
o
~
o
~
~
~
+
v
-~
~
o
~
o
~
"
+
v
o
o
~
o
m
+
o
"
+
n
o
~
+
n
o
+
n
o
~
+
-. _^____A-_ 0
+
n
o
n
+
n
o
+
n
"
+
n
o
o
- +
n
o
m
+
N
o
"
;;
R Z
+0
o f-
':' U
w
~ (/)
o Z
~ ~
o
n
+ f-
a :=J
+ U
N U1
o
+m
o
o
+
o
m
+
o
"
+
o
~
+
o
~
+
o
~
+
o
+
o
n
+
o
N
+
o
+
o
o
+
o
+
o
o
"
+
o
o
-~
+
o
-~
o
+
o
o
+
o
o
n
+
o
o
+
o
"
+
o
o
~
n
o
~ 0
~ ~
o
n
v
N
-
3NIl AVM0001J .
>lNVS .:10 dOL
--^-----^---^--
t13.:1.:1na V'l'O'3l::ilS ,001
3NnmMOOOB.
llt"'l 000
l::iY A 00 L 03S0dO~d..
---^--A-
l::i3JJn8 V'lY3~lS ,00 I
~~?~~ ~~~---
l::i].:Un8 r-lV]l::ilS ,00 L
~NI1 NI'O'ld0001J .
IN]r-l3AYd jO
]:10] a3S0dO~d
o
n
v
1N]r-l]Ng'd 133lJ1S
H1t; ~NUSIX] JO 3~a3
WO:)' 6u~.Jaau!6ua.J!Du:)LU' M.MM
~
o
v
~ II~
II
_iL
II
II
l>:1'"
I 0E'
Om
I;~
I ~:
II"~
II
II
~j"
~5~ II
~~i II
II
-II
II
~
n
"
+
-^-N
o
o
+
o
I 6
r-"=- "=_J'= ~
I ~
L
o
"
n
o
n
o
~
n
o
J1:b
o
N
+
~
"
+
~
o
o
+
o
m
-J;
o
"
+
~
o
~
+
~
~
+
~
o
~
+
o
+
~
g
+
~
o
N
+
~
"
+
~
o
o
+
~
o
m
+
v
o
"
+
v
o
~
v
o
~
+
o
~
+
.
o
.
+
o
n
+
o
+
"
o
o
+
.
o
+
n
o
"
+
o
~
+
n
o
~
+
n
o
~
+
n
o
+
n
o
n
+
n
o
N
+
n
"
:;
o
o
+
n
o
m
+
N
o
"
+
N
o
+
o
~
+
o
~
+
N
o
v
+
N
o
n
+
N
o
+
o
m
+
o
"
+
o
+
o
~
+
~
o
+
o
n
+
o
N
+
"
~
o
o
+
o
m
+
o
o
"
+
o
o
.
6
o
n
+
o
o
N
+
o
"
+
~ ;
o
;;
~ II ~
__ - 11-
>4N\f8 JO d01;
~III
II~!
Ill;
~NIl ".11' oooo~
"JNltNoo'V!liIi 'I j
~:~ ti,,, I'
~~g .. I
~~u..
o
o
.
-A--A-
0.J
Z
o
f-
U
W
(j)
Z
:=J
Q::
f-
:=J
U
U1
m
~t
~"O
~~tIl
~~g
o...ffi:
V'INI8~1^ 'A.lNnOJ 31~V'V1I381V'
Jll 'H.l.::lI.::l ONV' 179
1N3l1\Jd013^30 133~lS H1S
S311=lO~d 311S
'-'
~
n
o
+
-~
--^-~ ~
o
v
J;
'"
~~
~~
8,
~"
o~
"-~
~o
o
n
11r'l1l OOOlj .;
V3 roo L 0350dO.d.. ~
R ~ ~ ~
+
o
n
~ .t
~ ~
o
+
~
- 0
o
J;
o
m
+
~
o
"
+
~
o
~
+
~
o
+
~
o
m
+
v
o
"
+
v
o
~
+
.
"
~
~
o
~
+
o
v
+
o
n
+
v
o
N
~
;:'
~
o
o
~
o
m
.\
o
"
;!;
~
o
~
:;
o
~
+
n
o
.
+
n
o
n
+
n
o
+
n
"
+
n
o
o
+
o
m
+
o
"
+
N
Z
o
f-
U
W
(j)
;os:::
W
W
Q::
U
(j)
W
Q::
o
o
:2'
o
~
+
N
o
~
+
o
~
+
o
v
+
o
n
+
o
N
+
"
;;
o
o
+
o
m
+
o
"
+
o
~
+
o
~
+
o
~
+
o
+
o
n
+
o
+
o
+
o
o
+
o
m
+
'-'
o
"
6
o
~
+
o
o
~
+
o
o
~
+
o
o
+
o
0_
N~
.;
~Lfl'S
Cirn~
"c.w
~ou....-:..
~~~~
3:;3;
~~~Q
oa.UI-
o~~~
tr:zw~
"" -
coOoo
u 0
w mo
S~~c::
~~\!)~
~~g~
8:~6
.....IOcr.O
~~lI5~
~~~~
3~~g
LLO:::::::!:N
*
--
W.
~w
,,~
u"
:~
,,~
~"
~~
ii:e5
0>
I
o
n
o
;;
~ II~
~"'~
-II Q~
II !i
~II
II ~~
-If - - -
J!"
gJ11
o 0
;~~ II
: :;t.
o
N
o
o
v
- >iNVSJO dOT -
3Nl1 ~ao01Y-;
~3.;Un8 r-lY ~lS ,QOl
~N!YidaO~
)
I
~ONnoo ^Jlr3dO~d
o
n
v
o
;;
o
o
.
o
N
v
-:::-
w
~
~
0:: ("f) ~
iij I
w ~() ~
~ ~
~
.....
=
~
8
.=
~
~
=
<
'-'
~
>-
m
z
~
w '"
Z .1- w:::E
~!:~ ~g
8~~~5~g
~6~2~~N
G~g8~C;l/l'
~ci:r;$lr~~
;~5~~n:
8~~g~~~
~ zo;nOQ.lI...
lj[5.........0<O
:L..~~-~@~
~~~~8~~
'5w~~2~o
:i~~~~g
ww20>-a:::L..
~~8w~~~
8~rC~8~~
g~:~~~~
:gog(k:~~
~gg~~~[t
a:lL..NW..Jl-oc(
*
*
o
~
n
o
"
+
o v
~
~ ~
o
~
n
o
~
+
o
~
+
o
v
+
o
n
+
-0
+
v
"
+
v
o
o
~
o
+
n
~
o
+
n
o
~
+
n
o
~
+
n
o
+
n
o
n
:;
o
N
+
n
"
.\
o
o
.\
o
m
;; 0.J
o
m
+
N
Z
R 0
+f-
U
:b w
;; (j)
o
~ ~
W
~ W
;; Q::
g U
;; (j)
~ W
;; Q::
o
~ 0
:2'
o
o
+
N
o
m
+
o
"
+
o
~
+
o
~
+
o
~
+
o
v
+
o
n
+
o
N
+
o
+
o
o
+
o
m
-6
o
~
o
~
+
o
o
~
6
o
~
+
o
o
v
+
o
-0
n
+
o
~
o
N
-+
o
"
+
g ~ 0
n n 0
~
o
~
n
. \'f
j~ \
'..r~" ." /
'.. ::!~ / <c.
">( ~\, " ,,''\.. )t:'~ / / <I. Oc.
I .....:...: 0/;.
~"" ';'" /:/ ....
~\ " "J(.. <6r
, ,~~ / ~\. 06r '<j' :2' ~
, _~;'-" / . " <(W'ill~
If _ _";";;;"; .... ~~"'" ;;;.~ ~::J!'
;Y I -'>,/ "-"-, ~"'~ ~~~~
(,:\ I \ / / '''''' ~ "'::::,.., " ~"'J'N ,
~~ 11,',\ \ \ / ~,,,,. .~........ ........ ~ ~
3 \1,',\\ :\ / / ~O (-.....~ ,.........""""' ....<t, " ~ 15
k '. I l /\ .. o~ ' ,,-- ,..... .... "
1'.lJ<1 "\ \ __~~ :50\ ". ""Ii. ~. ,........ "-
\.1' "'o;v ~ ......" <1"0'......... .....
I . . "'-. n i' Slll~. ~
.-11:' \ j 'i O~ <~. .....::::;........
~~'O't/ (I l:1 ~~ oJ, ~,~,~.....~~..... ~~. /1
I '. ~OJ o~ '. ~o \.....~'" Ii.
~'f,fc(,)/ {.'j .', _!-o~o, o~ o! ~, ,~~ ,.... .
~r i i II - ' ~ ,,~ ~.~.\ "
;- .If ! ~ ) I o.~ ot \ ;"~.. . ~..... \)>..'<(~...
/ / i /. ~ I . /~.. "':...,.... "" ... .
/ lo1; I P /1 "I , ~ ", '<I-
/ 0 II' f.... I i8 ~~ ~ ". .~~'-......~".j~\ "
/ :>~w /. /., ,:' sO\ .~. ~'..... JJ . \~"
" _ . . ... ~o I "'''::>,,''' '" \>.
~/ ,0' I',. ,) 1_ ., . to. y ',-. ","', ....' '-
· \<P [if! Ii), !~ 7;-01 - -,,1_ _ q Ibold, roo] ?~ l:~ - .:~ ':<;-,
'%>~\C'6>C', P'll I ~OJ / ...... __ Po~ 6~ ;! t '~.".
.,> \ \, .It I' .' II / ~ ~~ ... ~ '0" ;3 0 .! i . OiO! q ,
'q, , I io ' I I o~ . t' O~ ~ 6 ~ ! ~ N
".~) .'~ ;1 jl', I ~...~ (j '00 0 - I
" ", \ '?,V .' I ~ "_ - -1 0 I
'1;0"" , 4\ I \.~'1t11 I 10', ~~~ ~s 0 0""'" 0 O! ,/;.
"" ' \ J l!f/. I ~ , !' ~~ Q., 0 03 ... ! ;;;
\ '\ '.. \f;\~j '\.1 , r,~ ~~woz Lv (.....r..~..., Nrov _~i ~i:~r'f.~J!~
/',. \ I r~ H ;;~", ,. ~~8 ~. '11dl1 Ot I'~'Q-;:r
. ' ,\. .1 '.1."\'..".' E ~o!" , .ll"'" . J e',' 'oj !la.' ~.. ~.
~ \ .11\ o! .. ~~ !.~ i r ;}',<:, ,., 10 ~; o~ 0; it/ ill I :
I.. <' \ '::.,' iO~ Wl~ ~, 'lf" ~ · ,0,/
" 1 ','.. '",< .' . l'i ~ " ' .>0 ' t I"
~ ::i~~ '-"\ \', .~:;: '01 ." o~ /0 · o~ . f ! I
~~~ I / '" \. ~ ~:c Of ~ ;, 'lf .' . ~ ",0 r.v;:,' ~I
II i 'r", ' LD i, 0 g q~ V"o N
Z , I \. \c& .--- I 0 'o~o so 'g] 49, 90- ..' 6lf !O O~
"i \ 0.\'" <(::9:r:. ~ &>'. . (1"101) O.t - ~O
> .,. 1_ ...../ .9j"t>s-r .i.j.t...9' --Gl9('-- ~.
'\. ~wwo~ "'0 ~. . ~ -::-n <
"OJ:>Uw ,. / \ '0..\ 'W,O\' '/ " ~ 3 0 ~0~
" _ Q.W " ,';:- - 1.'If" ~i-.!,gS.., I9r
, / I \ /":i>o\ o::u<( :2','OZ \, <b~ ' t[ :/Yf,'or;-;- t.~ "r
,""" "..' ,);., "5' " f;:' ~"i'-:<"o .....~
. ,Q.I-N ~ " .~l- I~','I ". ,~ ! ~,~ ~ ~
,'\ v> \'1> 6>C' <, IJf"j:::< '1< ~ ~ 0~'06r', r.,.
\ i \ \ \}~\'~~; ~.., ~ )\ /~>61 - ~;j. ,r $'~> :z ---- tfd~' . ~ b~6
1\ ,\ ~~ · .'\"'.1-\~" ~~}1/.,. /. 1"'\ '" / ../~1~..~..~$~ ~,,, +' " {: '~(S:>>..;~ ,~~~t 'J'T
, :;;>;;: . ",' (\ . ", .'.'11'1' ~ ;, 0 \ ' · p: . ,)'~, ~
\"'" \ 8~ \ ' ,ji.~/ '\i > '\,vk> Y ~ :~ "" ,~"" ~ 80"6'>".>>.'<: ~
_\ \\ \,iliZ./ / . ij,,!~G :: i;:t w. ' . ~." ~ ~~~
. , , ,// ,." ..*' ,~ ....':G.~' :-. N .... "'!" 'V
w . I \ '\;::" ,'l" Q" "'?,. - ' " ,0 ,", ~ .
III Z ' 16..~\l-," '. )\" i........-*-' .t)!.... 01..,; ""'-r--oq ~ o08~&
"00 \ ... r Os, . '\ 'of>' /" "'... ,~o" N , . . -
CDgi= tl \0 . ~~ ",.ij <v":,~ a. 'v ~ 3~ ,", J. :<?:-.
:::l,,,,~ c \ . .~~~ "'.s. " o'lt, . ,r ,,'0 ~ ,:> / ... V ........
::: :: \ J!~~ 'd"! ~~' '" G ,," ...- -.....
. '\ 'Sf i-l!l> ~ ,3 <~1.'O{:J~~ Y ,'" ' ..,'
I ". ~ \~~~."O...O;;"j1 j {~.. ,/,", <,,'0 .:
(/' '.\ .-' ,y"" \)
, /' \Y '. ", .~. ", ~
, ~". ' _~ . ,'v
. / ~ ~ '. . ~
t' 1- ~ \' \)
1.(1 \\ '"' ,1: \, ",\, :ii! '
. ," t:'",oz~~ '(;sJ!~
z '\" UiOJ:n ,,)
~ ~~g;1I
o ~ ~~~~
~ c9~ 3j:t-~
~ ~gC:~
.,X WO::OJw
o-o~ r
za-la-I>
eo-eo-lO 031'9'0 SiN3rH~OJ 'A1NJ N]J Z
~NINOZ 1f/ S~38rlnN dVil aov
SlN]~~O:l ),8 'ON
SNOISI^]/;j
\fINIE)t:lIA 'AINnOJ 31t:l\fV\l381\f
J11 'HI.:!I.:! ON\f 179
IN3V'Jd013^30 133tflS H19
SNOIIION08 8NI1SIX3
WO:l"Wna4:lnJQ@Ow( :1!OV'j-:3
(,9~I-Z'\76 (avc;) xOJ 19l1 Zv6 (ot-f,;) 4d
0962Z 'VA 'oJOqsau,(oM - 6U!PI!ns '8'V'S'1 LUo:)"6uuaau!6uaJ~ou:)w'MMM
SJaaU!5U3 5ulllnsuo:) ~
sa:repossv PUE J!ENJVII U40r l!J..J\.J
]lVO
~
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
.~\
~ )
.~
o
iri
/
/
/
/
/
/
""'.
/
/
...
/
/
S'E,b
LLW
0-"
0::
>-<(
>-2
Zw
::>m
0-"
u<(
.
z
",3
:>0.
'.)!
~
).
0,.
/
/
~
<9.
/
/
09,
a:
:>
...
<<.
/
/
0<.
<"
/
/
0..
<r.
'"
Or,
w
-"
..J
LL>
o~
>-
>->-
>-0
G..J
0::
<(
I
U
~
~<P.
<".
\,
~,
I*~ ~~
~~ ~g
\.>..0 ~
~
Z0J
WZ'<j'
zO!,
<(u
~
~Q.
N_lf1~ -U
<(gs;;:;:r:
~wl-[XJ.
Wl-O::~O
U W
0::0 . .z
<(--,I-OJO
Q.0220N
o
N
o
,
o ~
=
.....
=
QJ
e
.s:
J;,j
eo=
.....
.....
<
o
~,,~ :
g Jij I Vl
i : ! i ~ ~ :0 5
'<j'
to
W
I-
<(
I-
lf1
0::
W
I-
Z
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
tl
g
W
.U1
~i
lies
~~
~~
<:w
OJ
'3S
~~
OW
U~
z
2.
~
'0
.
z
<(3
:>0.
wo
~o
~
.... {.....
'......."
~
ci,
<0
1
W.
U1 Z
0(00
lDQj::
~~~
~ d
'<j'
to
l
'.. . ,J ,:1.'
...
I f/" ~
.
I :
z
I '5
g;
o
I ~
~
I
/
W
I-
<(
I-
lf1
0::
W
I-
Z
..
......
w1<
u",o(
z"",
<("'0:
0: OJ
"'~w
U10~
Z
-O'll,j
C><O~
ON"
o C>
~~
~WW
z>
~~6
.W
e~t
U1ZW
0('" .
OJOO
(J
w m
ZW<O
~~~
~~ID
SWO
g~~
00:'"
~Oo:
~~W
~~
~~~
g~a..~
..J<(<O
.......O::~N
*
- z.....-::::80
~<(a:e5gt--l
~~~~~~~
~~~~.ri5~
~~~~~~g
~~8~~~~
(/)c2lJ)~8;3<{
f5 r--wf-::::E::i
~~:~23<t~
~c20~~98
g~~t:Jg~t;
OZN U~
c;:- -la:jt;~2:
w8~o~~c(c.i
OJ~go:~t:J~~5
........:=.ocr::OI--...J
*
*
.J
~$#
l)"'t~
~o
/
G
0-01-(
]1>0
80-aO-20 031\l'O SlN3ru'lOJ ',UN:) N3:> l
SlN]MO~ AS .ON
~
'VINI8~1^ 'AINn08 31~'VVIl381'V
811 'Hl:ll:l ON'V 179
lN3V\1d013^30 133~lS H19
llV\l~3d 3Sn lVI83dS
~
SNOISI^]~
wo;:.'wna4:lnJq@owf :1!Or-l~3
f9lL-ZP6 (av~) xO..:l - L9L~-Zv6 (OvC;)4d
08Sl:Z 'VA 'OJoqsauAoM - 6U!PW18 '8~'8'1
SJaaU!fiU3 fiU!1Insuo)
sarepossv pUt? J!t?NJV\J U40r
UJD::l'6u!Ja.w!6uaJ!DUjW" MM""
'"
w
~ I
I '"
0:
o
-
=
~
e
..c
~
eo:
-
-
<
~
~
/
/
'\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
I-
Z
W
2
o
Z
wI-
2-
<{2
Il:
o...W
<{o...
2W
01fl
~:Jn(J)
Z~.-L[)
03 I I
NU(J)(J)
, .Iir (J) (J)
wlfl<{
6_'>120...
Z"<JNIfl
--
/
/
/
/
/
/
~
"-
~
~
/
/
/
/
"-
:>
~
/
/
/
/
~
/
/
""
/
/
o
'"
/
/
"" ' /
\ /
"" \ /"-..
, /
~'\ // ~
~'....... / )
- ~ ....... / ''''-.
~0t---~ ~ ~ /... I
\~e '~,~, ... '~ I
\ 3 ~ / 1\,,, ~ ,z ...
I \ // . ~ ~Q ~. I
\ \ \ \ //~. ,,', ":::.,~1v0:.(~, ./.'. '.~~ . ~~...~ I
.0 .. , 'S'/" ~ .~-1U ~'!I I
I /~5' ,~" ", ..<{ ~~
I) /,\ " " "...~ ~18n ow ~ I
, I :5 ~, ~zn ...... I
/1/ I ~: '~2:2~, -......:
/ / .. J I I : ~~ ' ~" I
%) I" I ~~ ~ '~~~, i
&)1 / z '"" ~, I
{[JI / I , ~..
~I /1. H ~ :--.. . ,
I~I/ 1/ 11 /~ C _ "~;:~~
I I / ....... .............. ....'...J~ ~
" )/1 II ................................... I',.:::
),>/// I I ....... .............. .............. i ~
I/"</>f, /1 ~.............. ....... I ~
/ 1 If"" I I 6....... .............. I ~
\1 It/...,' "I~ ~~.............. .............. I ~
I \ It", I . I "" :-8~ -........j
"{ Ir-~--' "" ~8~ i
I \~ I ~~u "" ,,~ i
o \ I ko: " " I
\ Wo "
I ~6n " I
\/ ~N~ '^- I
\ I "'- I
\, \/ /1 ~'" !
\\:/ / ~L ,J" "
\ WU7
\ // ~~i'
\ / -1~~
\" / !:f1 . -u
ffiwcnI
ffil-n
wa:<Xl,.
I- ~O
W
OW .z
-,I-ffio
O~N
.~
\
~
o
W
...J
...J
LL>
olJ
f-
;r-f-
f-O
-...J
Uoo
<(
I
U
W
f-
<(Ul
OOf-
0-
0..:::>
00:::;
o
u
/'
// r
/
/
I
r I
~~I
ZZ
ww:
w:>
,"w
f;~
/
<\
\ j
\ '
\/
\
00
wO:C
>
000
wO:C
Ul::)
m
f-I
<(u
~~
w...J
00
g...J
000
m
00
t;;~
-00
CJe
~.
'<'~,
\y
~
'<'0>
t.
..,
'J
0-01-( gQ-gO-lQ 0]1VO S1N]rH"lQ:) '..uN:) N]J
0-6Z-.- SlN3~~OJ S1NtNNV'ld N]J
O-lO-'- S1N)"riO) 100A'nNINQl"NN'Vld"nN)
31va 51N3""0:) A8 ON
SNOISI^31:/
Wo;)'u.ma4:>nJq@owf :1!oV'l-]
(9LL-Zv6 (ovr;) XOj - 191L-l1l6 (01)<;) LId
096Z'l 'riA 'OJoqsaW<OM - 6u1PI!ns '8~'81
SJaiW!5u3 5U!1lnsuoJ
salt?poss'v' pUt? J!t?NJV\I U40r
~
\fINI9~1^ 'AINno::> 31~\fl^J381\f
::>11 'HI::!I::! ON\f v9
1N3Wd013^3a133~1SH19
N'v'ld 311S 1'v'n1d38N08
~
"'"
j
,,-5
o~
)->-
>-0
uc2
'"
I
U
,\~
['
~~
a.:>
er:O
o
u
1/
/'
~ / ~~r
w* ~~ ~z
~8~/ If)9, Vlg
g~ ~g: ~~
~.?/ /::' ~ ~V1 ,'i
\
.'-.
\~
\
'-. "z /
\. ~ ~w/
, 6'0>. 3~
\C0g
:"f
....
1-""
'0
~
'G.
\
,
~c9.
<",
\.
(
W.
'" Z
~8g
"0,,
~~~
('
:~ ([
~ .
g *~
~ :3
:'i
o
~
-
/ ~~
W~
>0
oer
era.
a.
:>z
-0
<,io
~w
"'"
~~
::1
"
C
~
<( ~o
!"~51~~
:~5u)
il1i2z ~~j~:
~:i~~~
ll:~~~~
~~~~~
=>'<t<(~
t:O~I<(
cr::cnUCI
o
",0
wO
r-N
"
ull5
ON
:>'"
0"'>-
er"er
u..D~
ZZZ
W""
'" ~
~~8
~I~~~
QI-I/Iz
~~~~
Or-O
Q(/'I:=>w
o5(Ot:
I-wCl::V'I
'"
'"
"
er"
WI
Zo
erz
Ow
0"
r->-
"'r-
"z
w=>
S8
~~
zer
o!
8~
I"
'" 0
~86
"a.",
r-:>n
"'''
Wtrill
~-,z
~;iQ
~~~
IW~
OIw
z
w~'"
"0_
!~~~~
zwwww
z~~~~
<(<(<(<(
U. 0.. 0..0..
o
I
z
~
w
r-
'"
5 ~
'"
~ ~
r-o",
Oo:I:~
I....J ,,,-,,
.2.-..-
~~)".l.-
<f'l.....=...=..
I I:::i: ~
~~~~
0..0..0.0.
~~~~
>-'"
er=>
"r-
o=>
z~
co
OZ
,,0
~6'
'"
0"
z"
"0
NW
"i;;
...:;;
"0
~"
Ww
0"
er
&~
:=!~
oz
z=>
,
::c"
-::1
r-~~k
"a.,,-
""
""
xx
~~;5:
.-NP"1v
<(<(<<(<(
WO:)' DUUS;iU!DuaJ!ou:Jw' MMM
"
'"
"" .~
'~\,
. "
'" '.....~
~ .\
C2.-
0 '"
,
~ N w
0 0 w
, I
;:; I '"
0
z ~ in ! () .
r-
0 z ~
w 1;
~ .; ~
~
----
~
"
~
UJ
-'
<l:
U
</l
o
l-
I-
o
Z
-
....
c:i
E
....
'U
~
.....
.....
~
.
z
<(:5 ~['I>
1 :2:a... 0'.. / OPt-
\ ~. 1~ ~i SC",/ \'
\ ~~::,8 / \
" ,,\~\)~ !>'Z >. ;;i;~ I
-'" / a::",W ,Z \
........ " /S6" ~ [fr-a::"'2 \
~<'.{:6(' "" .~ )
~, / '"
- - ~'':;'';~'i:s~Ov:;~~<? _ ~( ... ""-- .: I
\ ~ /' />y~<i!~~~ '" . '.- ~ ~ """~) II : :
\ B:?/ . ....t';'~.), '......"-.., ~'...., [" l " 7~/;j I ~
\ / ~ / ...............~ "'/)11./.1/):;.......,............. I ti
'/t-'~f;F ~; ~:/ \\ r ....................... '& ................. ..;::-........... ....... I ~
, ./ 1 ....................... ~<... ........ Z
( ,,, ~ ...... ~ ",'" ...... ,
, . g.~t r---, O~-' ~, '~"", ~
'), 01. -i;;ifia~ -" ct, ~......~ ~ ........' I I
~ :. hi . "'. .~" f;. ........., ~ ~'!
/ I ~~/ ()~ . o! \ Ji r.:..' A ~ , -_ I
. / -'~,,~f' ~... -! ~~f (~/ ~",' "",. "........ I
! 7 "'~:?'" ~ - o~. ",0, y.. , ~ '. 'h, 'i
o..{f)wt:;:j 0<( * 0 ~ lJ.. "''''' " . ~
! i2~~;: ~~ *! ,Z i o~ / ......."~:::.._ .' '<~, ........
! / J =>6!~ ~ "" I ~~ / <~~,.~~....: ""::,,_
\ ~ I:;jV ~r ) ~~8 0>- ~ ll~ ~ ..... ~............ ."
(. ,Iii); ....., ;::;;'~;f"... .~g'S'~. ~~ . j. ~G' b 8 ;;'("0... .~. '........
14\ " "#> ......... ::J6 I , - O:~ . . ..""....... I '" ... . . ...
~ ~ ;17 J;~...''X. . erOJ ! 1 - . """.. "''''.
)', fr ~~~",-~ .,.,... ;. / '~\h~;oj~ ~'" ........'t-- ~
-- -' ~ --~,~ ~~O~ On::u. Q:i .......Ii ~
'S' ". __... . f!)~' -, - ~ ::J 0" .......
,ge" '-~. .....~,... .n . :: , . "''' r- I ""
......~ hoffi" 6~ ;{, O~ 9! '.......
... ~ ~~ < ~.~. "q * OJ ~ /;
. .-" 0 o~ ~ . 0' ? ~ .
.~, ~ ,:-...~,O ::0, ~ _ <(~
I'io' ":~:;,-... -... _ ~ _~ '~g
.' " ~ ./ ~
.'......~-... r.: ~.
"'~~ 0
':e
g
W
.'"
-ji
'0 I!~
'" ~S
era
~d
"
.~ '5:1
~~
o~
Oz
2-
"
'-
...... ..........
".
"
. ... .
"~',
... .
. ...
.
.
>-
"
~
o
~
)
w.
'" Z
~8~
~
. . ...
.'.....,
",
.0t .
.
w' II
w 0
*' f- 0
<{ ~I
:J f-
V1 --J1
D::
~~I- W
f-
~~~ z
8-' I
o
o
u
::1
k
...'
"-
:>
\
\
'I"
-t\
\\
'\
~
<""
",
~ r-
~ Z
WW
~ er ~~
'" 0 r-z
" ~ "'w
er -:>
0 '" ~:
~ '"
a ~5
'" :'5 0"-
'" :;: ~~
0
er
0 :>
0 ::1 "w
r- '" ::Jr-
'<i <Ili2 Z
~ 0 :I
a. w"
0 a "'0 Ole, a.
'" S' ~i- ::::'" w
~ er 0~~ ji" '"
W I", "'-x
"- N0 -;::'.)(0 ~~ W
~ ::1 "'~ 'Cne.=....__.___ er
"er '"
a. 0 ~~ "-"U1(fl~~ Zw
w it O~ ~t)tj.x .x 0r- 2
\ 0 '" =>u ~:.o:~~ "':I
~ ~z ;E
0-
z C' <;~ B,VJIJlVlt/l Z ji
~"' ~9~~~
0 "i N '(0'; ~
0 a. - i; ~ (/15=i(fl~
~ w w
r- ~oci ~~ 1.Or--t5~ '"
.:.;iii w~
-- oer" ""-
~~ UiiIiS'-' "'u "'er g~e,:
rrrr w" er"
1-,,-,,01- u,,- ita.
l;!~ Z wz it'" -~P"11.D
00 wWll:w r ~~~~
0"' ~~ :>'" " "'N ,,:I o:Cl.....,j
wow:!: N
on ~:~~ ~- "~::J ~~~g
\ .nal r-::J",
er:> ~~ 0w
,;.~ er z~Q;: II~I-
erle Q;:3~~
~10'" >w ~o8 0808
0 3~~ "'''' w'" W(/'lW(/)
cozz w zz o..g:o Q;oQ::o
006 " > z gg ::Jo. :=>0.:=>0..
z-- w a~~ 55 00 0000
:I co co ~~ r-wer ~g:~g:
"'''' U0w OJ" era.
olj
z
~
o
I
'"
'"
CO
:0
'3
~t:J
COw
<{l~
1:5'"
.....:5~
OLf)iJj
Zoljr-
o Z
i=wWw
g~~~
~~~6~
iE~oe:;z
t~~~~
~:~i~
~~~~d
o
~
is
>-
~~
er
~"
o
'i:'~
iCl:=>
ii'er
r-er
~~
r-"
"'CO
Z
OW
:JQ
"''''
COw
0.'"
>->-
ZZ
""
r-
w
er
'"
.~~
o
~er
0>
6~'
coz
0::J
wO
~~
Zer
-"
er"
"w
w"
z</
r-.
Wv
l;!'"
~~~~
zr-
o~
u
~
w
er
~
w
l~
~~
o~
lIl~~
a..99
ll:55
0.""
~ ~
o ~
I "
Or->
~~~
"'~~
W(/)5
~r~
ut:::
1'\1>003
i~~~
"_0
;"~
_w
r-o
-0
zo
~
':;
~;i
c=
_er
X"
"-
1"t;2
~~
-is
w
~:J
er5
r-'"
",r-
00
"0
"'"
~.:>"
"'00
<(e:f:
r-. .
00
"'''1'''
-
.;
wJr
0",,,
z"CO
"",er
er OJ
CO~w
~OlL.
-OlW
O"'r-
ON"
O~O
~~~
6a:~
'~gb
,,::J ..
"00
wO",
~~8
~~\C
:lwo
~~g
8a::::;)
~Oer
~~w
~~
~~~
g~9ig
L...O:::::::!;N
*
-
z IDe ~g
o g84d::l2
~~:o~~g.n
~g~O:::_~N.~
g~~~~=:
~z'-og:~
3~~~.:i~~
~<ia:f5~d
~~~~~ag
wu..zt' _::i::i
~~~~~~g
~ ow~~g
~~~~8~:
0::: f'o.WI-~~
~~:~C3~~
3:~o~~~S
8~~bg5~
..J~N ;')-wo..
~8d~~~9ili
~~i8~~~s
*
*
er
0",
~w'"
oo..~8
g~~~
u..~9i"1'
~~~~
Q)tj~~
5::~
0::J0
~~~~
Q)OND
~~~~
~ "u
w"-w
~;!~-b
~~~ci
2u..u~
",wN
~~~:
~~~8
Il::-,-,.-
o..W<l:Ul
*
*
*
w
"
W
....J O~
~ ~ 2
~~~ 00
~~~~~~
W<l:Z~'<T
;!w<o..t~
LLQ)zgu..O
OjgLLO-'
~3:~~g~
cn::J~:g~
g~~B~~
~;!~~~5
~5S88O-.
~~8~:~
U::::!>zrO:::
~~~~:5
~~:~~~
~~Qg,51l::
zc;i~v:ge
<:ZClw~ .
cr3~;!~~
Oll: LLWLL
S~~~~:
LLWwZr
~~~~;~
i~~~~~;
~~:i~~58
Il::~~~:lfl~r;-
;~~~~~8~
.....Ol-.....I-::!:r--
~
ji
~
~
;;:
o
Z
"
iE
J
c
I
,
f
f
s
J ~
J f!
II OJ
il
.~ eo
~ON
.cCl)~~
~W~::;:
_to G)CJi
(f)U,gN
(;:a ~~
t~~
'"
<1z
~
t
~
~
~
. I i
~ i ~ j
III Iffll)
I 0 I I I 1111I D
ID
,...
.
..
..
Attachment A ~
Executive Summary: SP 2007-063 5th Street Development, April 8, 2008
7
H. A copy of the final, signed proffers, dated May 7,2002.
I. A copy of the County Engineer's comments, last revised March 31, 2008.
.
.
.
I
I I
SP-2007-00063 5th Street Development (Sian # 27)
PROPOSED: special use permit for fill in the floodplain, no residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC Highway Commercial - commercial and service
uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre); LI - Light Industrial - industrial,
office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use); AlA Airport Impact Area - Overlay to
minimize adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land; and FH Flood Hazard -
Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding
SECTION: 30.3.05.2.2 (3), which allows filling of land in the f100dway
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Regional Service - regional-scale retail,
wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre); Community
Service - community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core
communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre); Parks and
Greenways - parks, greenways, playgrounds, pedestrian and bicycle paths in Development Area
5.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: approximately 1100 feet north of 1-64 on the east side of 5th Street, north and east of
the Holiday Inn.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76-55A, 76M1-1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Judy Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand presented a Power-point presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff
Report) This purpose of this special use permit is for fill in the floodplain. It is related to a zoning
map amendment and an earlier special use permit. Both requests were approved in 2002. The
request is back before the Commission this evening because the prior special use permit has
expired.
The application for the first zoning text amendment and special use permit was made in 1999. At
that time the 1980 Flood Insurance Rate Maps were in effect. Shortly after that the applicant
obtained a letter of map revision from the Federal Emergency Management Association. It
indicates that FEMA is prepared to adjust the floodplain boundaries to accommodate
development should the county approve. In 2000 the County Engineer signed off on the letter of
map revision. In 2001 the application went back and forth between the applicant and staff several
times while it was discussed. In 2001 staff and Planning Commission recommended denial of
both the zoning map amendment and special use permit.
Staff recommends approval of the request with the conditions recommended in the staff report
primarily due to lack of sufficient information at that time. When the application went to the Board
both applications were referred back to the Commission. In 2002 after resubmission and
continued review and discussion the staff and the Commission recommended approval of the
applicant's resubmission and the Board approved both the zoning map amendment and the first
special use permit. In 2004 the special use permit expired. In 2005 FEMA issued a whole new
set of flood insurance rate maps. Normally when a new flood insurance rate maps are issued it
supersedes all existing letters of map revision and several other things. Realizing that FEMA
then turned around and sent out a letter to the county a whole series of letters of map revision
that had been technically revalidated. However, the list did not include the one for this property.
In 2007 the applicant came in and requested this new special use permit.
The reason that special use permits have the 24-month expiration is to allow any subsequent
change in circumstance to be considered and also any ordinance changes should any extension
or reapproval be requested. Staff has looked into this and determined that there have been no
significant changes in circumstance or ordinance changes since the special use permit for fill in
the floodplain was approved in 2002. The special use permit is for fill in the floodplain so that the
applicant can sell or develop the property as a convenience store with gas pumps, a sit down
restaurant and associated parking.
Factors favorable:
1 . There are no significant changes in circumstance since the 1999 special use permit was
approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2002.
2. The applicant has shown that fill in the floodplain is possible without raising the flood
elevation or having an impact on neighboring properties.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The county engineer does not support this request based on his concerns regarding good
practice and policy, proximity of flood waters to occupants, integrity of fill slopes in the
long term and the precedent this kind of fill in the floodplain set. His comments are
attached to the staff report.
Staff and the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the original rezoning and
special use permit back in 2001 due in part to the impacts to the floodplain. However, the Board
after additional information review and consideration of these factors approved both the rezoning
with proffers, including the proffered plan that establishes use of the property, and the special use
permit for fill in the floodplain. Since there have been no changes in the development proposal
for this property since the original special use permit and rezoning were approved by the Board,
although they have changed the FEMA floodplain map, they have not materially changed the
floodplain boundary as it existed at that time. Therefore, staff finds no change in circumstance
since the Board's prior approval of this special use permit that would change the basis of that
decision and therefore recommends approval of the special use permit with the conditions listed
in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Edgerton said that staff said that FEMA came back and revalidated other parcels, but not this
one. He asked if staff has been able to follow up on why FEMA did not revalidate this one.
Ms. Wiegand replied that staff has not received that information. Staffs understanding is that the
applicant was going to look into that issue. The applicant has to address that issue as part of one
of the conditions that the existing permit is still valid or get a new one.
Mr. Edgerton said that as proposed tonight all of the buildings are being proposed in the
floodplain. They are being asked to approve the fill in the floodplain from the hotel all the way
out. He asked if that was the fill that they were being asked to authorize.
Ms. Wiegand replied that was correct.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it was essentially the same floodplain as existed back when the original
approval occurred and the same fill that was requested.
Mr. Edgerton said that the significant difference is that they had a reinterpretation by FEMA,
which has not occurred for whatever reason.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they had a letter of map revision that was not reapproved or revalidated
for the same fill in the floodplain area basically. That is a condition.
Mr. Loach noted that staff in their unfavorable factors said that the current county engineer does
not support this request based on good practices and policies yet was recommending approval of
this with conditions two and three requiring county engineer approval. He asked if that was
paradoxical.
.
.
.
Ms. Wiegand noted that the county engineer was not able to attend this evening due to illness.
Basically, he does not think it is appropriate to do this, but if the Planning Commission and Board
decide he would be the one to approve those conditions to make sure the plan complied with
county and FEMA regulations.
Mr. Cilimberg said that one of the things Mr. Brooks raised was that he would not be in support of
this in any situation where they have this level of fill. They have a rezoning and proffered plan
that established the zoning of the project with a special use permit approval and they need to look
at what is changed since then. The only change is the lack of the lamar, which would be a
condition of the approval if granted by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning
Commission.
Katurah Roel, with Dominion Development Resources, represented the owner and applicant. In
addressing the lomar a new letter was issued on July 5 of this year. It was after the map revision
was issued by FEMA. That will be implemented into it. The reason it was not carried forward
was that the fill was not put into place during that period. The owner was in the process of getting
site plan approval and ran into some trouble with the ARB over a building design. The site plan
fell through and this ended up expiring over the time frame. They are asking to have it renewed
again. The blue lines that show the f100dway on the current 2005 map are slightly off. They had
drawn on this app 383 elevation. In the new 2005 new f100dway maps it lists the elevation as
383, which is 10' below the Holiday Inn parking lot. Additionally to that it does not cross the road.
The road is 2' higher than that. It does not back up against that. Once this new letter is put into
effect increase and the fill is put into effect it increased the water of the f100dway 2". The 2005
map actually lowered the 1980 flood elevation from 384 to 383. So it decreased a foot. They are
bringing it back up 2". That in conjunction with the zoning in the previous approval they see it has
no negative impact on the floodplain volume or the upstream at all. They have met with Dan
Mahon and continue to work with the greenway access. He presented a power-point
presentation of the site showing the existing conditions. They feel the conditions of the site would
be improved with their proposal and would not be negative to the floodplain conditions.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the
matter before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Joseph said she could understand why the Commission denied this in the first place. It is
really hard to think that the floodplain should be filled in at that extent. Therefore, she could not
support the request.
Mr. Edgerton said that he took issue with one statement made by staff that there have been no
significant changes. Since there is a new board it may be significant, but he could not speak as
to how they will respond. He felt uncomfortable when the county engineer says it is a bad idea
and staff says ignore it and approve it. He wished that the county engineer were present to
explain it. He would trust that the Commission would be allowed to use the county engineer's
recommendation that it is not good practice to fill in the floodplain for purposes of adding
development capacity. Most significantly it sets a precedent to fill in the floodplain where it is not
strictly needed for access of utilities or reasonable use of a parcel.
Mr. Strucko noted that the most compelling document is the last page of the staff report.
Therefore, he agreed with Mr. Edgerton.
Ms. Monteith noted that from a natural perspective in terms of how the natural process works that
floodplains have a role and if filled to raise them up enough for development they certainly can't
play that role.
Mr. Porterfield said that her concern having walked through this area was that it is an awful mess
and how could they make it productive.
Ms. Joseph noted that it would depend on how one defines productive because there were a lot
of animals that feel that it is a great place to live.
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, for denial of SP-2007-00063 5th Street
DevelopmenCbased on the county engineer's recommendation that the use is not in harmony
with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 4:2. (Ms. Joseph, Mr. Edgerton, Mr. Strucko and Mr.
Loach voted aye.) (Ms. Porterfield and Mr. Morris voted nay.) (Mr. Cannon was absent.)
Mr. Morris stated that SP-2007-00063, 5th Street Development would go before the Board of
Supervisors on May 14 with the recommendation for denial.
.
.
.
~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Ph ne 434 296-5832
Fax 434 972-4012
Ap il 25, 2008
Ka urah S. Roell
1 7 South Pantops Drive
Ch rlottesville, Va 22911
SP200700063 Slh Street Development
Tax Map Parcel 76-SSA and Tax Map Parcel 76Ml-1
On April 8,2008, the Albemarle County Planning Commission by a vote of 4:2 approved a motion to
rec mmend denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. This recommendation of denial
wa based on the county's engineer's recommendation that the use is not in harmony with the purpose and
int nt of the ordinance.
PIe se be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
pu lic comment at their meeting on May 14,2008. It is the Board of Supervisor's preference that a public
he ing not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the
Co nty and are available for public review. Therefore any new or additional information regarding your
ap lication, including final proffers if applicable, must be submitted to our office at least twenty-three (23)
da s prior to your scheduled hearing date, which is April 21, 2008.
Ify u should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
co act me at (434) 296-5832.
td!JHJ C uJ U!f1l4LrL
ud'th Wiegand, AICP
Se ior Planner
PIa ning Division
JWSM
Cc: 64 and Fifth, LLC
109 Robinson Woods
Charlottesville, Va 22903
Morris Creek Yacht Club LLC C/O The Olympia Companies
280 Fore St
Portland Me 04101
.
.
.
re resents a significant improvement because the project, which still remains largely a speculative
ve ture, will be developed in keeping with the Commission's and the Board's intent. Please note that
si ce the parcels' development remains speculative, the ultimate user may wish to shift buildings,
pa king, etc. The intent of the proffers and the remainder of this report that are to list the items which staff
be ieves are an important part of an eventual site plan. Those items not specifically listed may be altered
at the site plan stage if found to be generally in accord with the proffered plan. Therefore, the
C mmission is encourage adding any items that may have been overlooked by staff. Finally, the
ap licant has also proffered a specific list of uses for the site (Attachment B). These uses are in keeping
wi h the uses identified in the Comprehensive Plan's Interstate Interchange Development Policy.
G enway Trails:
Th applicant has proffered a plan (Attachment A) that provides for a greenway easement along both
si es of Moores Creek and along the eastern side of Biscuit Run. These areas are identified in the
C mprehensive Plan as potential areas for greenway trails and the development of trails in this area is of
hi h importance. The dedication of these easements as well as the $500.00 dollar contribution towards
re air of the bridges which will serve as stream crossings for the greenway are seen as positive attributes
of the project by staff. Finally, the applicant is proffering to provide additional vegetation screening
be ween the project's proposed buildings and the greenway trails to mask the development from the
tra Is. The vegetation shown on the proffered plan is for illustrative purposes and may be shifted at the
sit plan stage to meet the intent of screening the development from the greenway trail.
R duction of Stream Buffer Impacts:
Th applicant has reduced the impacts to the 100-foot stream buffer by reducing the area of fill slightly
an pulling all grading and construction activities (except for the greenway trails) outside the waterward
50 feet of the buffer. The encroachment of the project into the 100-foot stream buffer along Moores
Cr ek will be offset by a mitigation plan approved by the County's Engineering Department.
Mi igation of Traffic Impacts:
Th applicant remains uncertain who the eventual users will be on this property. A traffic study based on
th impacts shown on the concept plan might not address the actual traffic impacts arising from the
ev ntual users of this. Therefore, Proffer 7 (Attachment B) lays out the conditions whereby the applicant
wil perform a traffic study to the satisfaction of the County and VDOT. Then, the mitigating
im rovements, shown as necessary by the study, will be required on the site plan. The applicant is also
wo king with the Holiday Inn to better manage traffic around the interface of these properties and 51h
St et through the modification of the Holiday Inn's current two-way entrance to an "in-only" entrance.
Th s modification will minimize traffic turning conflicts adjacent to 51h Street.
St rmwater Management:
Th applicant has provided a conceptual plan for managing stormwater on the site. The Engineering
De artment has reviewed the applicant's proposal and believes that a viable solution can be produced at
th site plan review stage. The precise location of the stormwater best management practices will be
de ermined at the site plan stage.
Th Engineering Department has also reviewed the impacts to the floodplain. The impacts to the
flo dplain have been deemed to be within acceptable limits by both the County Engineering Department
an the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Mi 'gation of Impacts to the Entrance Corridor:
Th most recently submitted concept plan meets many of the concerns raised by the initial Architectural
Re iew Board (ARB) review and the later reviews b~ the ARB staff. The applicant has proffered to bring
the convenience store up to the setback line from 51 Street. Additionally, the store will provided a fac;:ade
on 51h Street and align the store parallel to 51h Street. The applicant is also proffering to place the fuel
Attachment E
. g Commission - May 7, 2002
MITTED TO COMMISSION - MAY 21
~
canopy and pumps behind the store. The exact location of the pumps and canopy may be altered slightly
at the site plan stage, but the applicant will keep the majority of the canopy's visual impacts obscured
from 5th Street by placing it behind the building. Furthermore, the concept plan also shows a landscape
area adjacent to 5th Street. Finally, the applicant has proffered to underground the utilities on the site.
Most of these proffered items could only be recommendations of the ARB. By incorporating these items
into the proffered concept plan, the ARB will have more control when it reviews the project at the site plan
stage.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were questions for staff.
Mr. Thomas stated that he had heard a lot of concerns from the property owners west of Fifth Street on
the other side about the floodwater back up. As the water comes under Fifth Street is it still able to
spread out without pushing it back under the Fifth Street Bridge.
Mr. Barnes stated that Glenn Brooks of the Engineering Department would be able to address the
floodplain issues.
Mr. Brooks stated that in short, yes. Fill is approved by FEMA and their criterion is that it raises the
floodplain elevation by no more than one foot. He noted that from the County's perspective they had
gone over and above that because they had a study which was conducted for the Moore's Creek
Watershed done back in 1996. That accounted for future land development zoning and came up with
actually higher elevation in the floodplain than FEMA had. We asked the applicant to use that, which they
did. Staff feels that will cancel that effect.
Mr. Edgerton asked where the 1 OO-year floodplain was located on the plan.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that the red dashed line was the new 100-year floodplain. The old floodplain is
shown up by the existing parking lot.
Mr. Barnes stated that on the diagram that came out of the study, essentially the floodplain is shown in
the blue and yellow. What you do is divide the floodplain into the area that during a flood the water would
move through and that would be the flood way. Then the blue part is the floodplain fringe. That is the
holding area more than an area of constant flow, The determination was that they could fill the area in
blue and take out that volume. It was more of a storage reservoir area than an area that restricts flow.
Therefore, it does not cause a net increase in flow in the floodplain elevation in the 100-year flood.
Mr. Edgerton ascertained that the entire proposed development site is in the floodplain.
Mr. Edgerton stated that if they approve this, then they would be approving a special use permit to
actually build in the existing floodplain. They were redefining the floodplain.
Mr. Brooks stated that they would be altering the floodplain.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were other questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public
hearing and asked that the applicant come forward.
Bob Smith, commercial real estate broker, stated that he represented the property owner in handling this
problem and then to market the property. Other persons present were Mike Collins, representative out of
Portland, Maine; Dale Ludwig, who represents the Erin Company and owns the Holiday Inn South and the
Days Inn; and David Collins, of John McNair Associates, who have worked with Newbury and Davis who
were the engineers two years ago that got FEMA to approve the change in the flood way. There has
been a lot of work been done in the early stages. He noted that they have done everything possible to
address the concerns and the questions raised by all of the County staff. They have been a little vague in
their presentation because they have not been able to market this property. There isn't the kind of user
that they anticipate having on that property that are going to come in and spend a lot of time to work out a
Attachment E
1#
-:!Ji
Planning Commission - May 7, 2002
SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION - MAY 21
.
si e plan if they don't think there is a possibility that they can use it. They have all backed off and said
th t when we get the property so that it is usable, then they will sit down and talk about this. He thanked
th staff for their assistance with this matter, and noted that they would be happy to answer any
q estions.
M . Loewenstein stated that there was one person listed on the sign up sheet to speak. He asked Tom
B asley to come forward to speak.
T m Beasley stated that he owned the property on the west side of Fifth Street in the City of
C arlottesville. He noted that he was not speaking against the project, but was just concerned about the
fl odway and floodplain. If you check with the City, in 1984 - 1986 he spent a lot of money with the
C rps of Engineers. He hoped that someone has thoroughly researched the flood way through here.
T e City of Charlottesville has a lot of information on this and is very concerned about the flood way. He
h ped that the County was as well. He pointed out that a lady drowned in this area many years ago.
T at area has been under water three times since he owned the property,
M . Hopper asked when did the applicant purchased the property.
M . Beasley stated that he purchased the property in 1978. He noted that he was concerned about the
fl odplain and the flood way to protect his property. He pointed out that the whole hollow on the Virginia
P wer property has been under water.
M . Hopper asked what was the applicant's involvement was with the Corps of Engineers.
M . Beasley stated that an extensive amount of work was done on his side of Moore's Creek to widen the
fl od way in order to decrease the floodplain. As previously stated, the flood way is only a reservoir. The
fl odplain is where the water travels.
. M . Thomas asked when he had to widen the flood way, was he filling in and building a new building on
in ill.
M . Beasley stated that he had to widen the flood way so that the water would not carry into the 1 DO-year
fl odplain.
M . Hopper asked why he had to do that.
M . Beasley stated to meet the Corps of Engineers' standards. He noted that it cost lots of dollars.
T erefore, he was concerned if they did not widen it that everybody upstream would suffer. David
C lIins, with John McNair and Associates in Waynesboro, Virginia, stated that he had been working with
M . Smith and Mr. Ludwig since September on this project. They worked with Newbury and Davis who
di a flood study. They did a combined study for the City and County for these two creek basins. A lot of
th t is statistics, but it is the best that they have to represent flood elevations. What we did with this study
wi h Dewberry and Davis was to show that adding this fill to where these two creeks come together would
n t increase the flood elevation more than a couple hundreds of a foot. The flood way is what is carrying
th t water and we are staying out of that flood way. Those studies have been approved by FEMA. They
h ve been accepted by the County. The fill that we are placing in the floodplain will not increase the
el vation of the flood. He understood the concerns about the west side of Fifth Street, but thought that
th impact of the flooding on the west side of Fifth Street was due more to the bridge and the road being
a onstriction there. He noted that he did not know what the Corps of Engineers was trying to work with
M . Beasley on. He guessed that they were trying to make the alignment work out better for the opening
of the Fifth Street Bridge. Down stream from Fifth Street Bridge the fill is not an impact to raise the flood
el vations. This is based on the studies that Dewberry and Davis did that FEMA and the County has
a cepted.
.
M . Thomas asked if he was actually saying that there is no restriction on the lower side of the bridge
Ie ting the water out. .
PI nning Commission - May 7, 2002
S MITTED TO COMMISSION - MAY 21
Attachment E
~
'?J1
Mr. Collins stated that was correct.
Mr. Finley stated that Mr. Brooks mentioned that using the runoff from the data that you have received
from the City and County, that your calculations show the floodplain to be a bit higher than the FEMA line.
Mr. Collins stated that what Mr. Brooks was getting at is that this is a FEMA floodplain and it is a FEMA
floodplain issue. In this particular case, the FEMA flood study was done and is approved. A different
study was done on the fill. The City and the County, along with Dewberry and Davis, feel that there have
been changes brought about due to development. What Mr. Brooks was getting at was that the study that
the City did might say that the 100-year flood elevation would be here and FEMA's flood elevation 100-
year study would say it is in a different location. The study that we did about this particular fill says that
regardless of whether we use this study or the other one, putting that fill in that site will not raise those
elevations. He stated that it was statistically insignificant.
Mr. Edgerton asked by taking these studies into consideration if there is an appropriate response to the
gentleman's comment that this property has been under water three times in the last twenty years. He
noted that his personal observation was that the 100-year floodplain was really misnamed because we
are getting a lot more torrential storms. Is there any accounting for that in any of these studies?
Mr. Collins stated the study that the City and the County have done attributes that to the impact of the
new development in these basins. He did not think that is taken into account by the FEMA floodplain
study.
Mr. Edgerton asked if any of the impervious surfaces were taken into account by either of the floodplain
studies. He asked if they considered that dirt or asphalt was going to be filled in the surface shown in
blue on the plan because that would make a significant difference in the amount of water that would run
off this property.
Mr. Collins agreed that would make a difference, but that when they get to the site plan stage there will be
soil/water retention structures put into place that will take care of the run off.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the actual study addressed that. It seemed to only address how much the
floodplain can be reconfigured without creating an impact.
Mr. Collins stated that it did not. If all you were looking at was this one site, it is pretty insignificant relative
to the entire basin. He noted that it was one more piece, but the water from this site will actually be gone
before the floodwaters from the entire basin get to the property.
Ms. Hopper asked if the FEMA study assumes that the surface is all dirt.
Mr. Collins stated no, because when the FEMA flood study was put together, he thought that the Corps of
Engineers would have determined the run off from different sites. They would have considered the run off
from roofs, pavements, fields, or whatever. The study that Dewberry and Davis did for the City and the
County combined did take into account increased development over the last twenty years. Mr. Brooks
might be able to address that better. In that study, because of the increase in run off that the entire basin
indicates, they have asked us to raise our site a little higher so that a flood would have no impact.
Mr. Thomas asked if this site would affect anything up stream or cause any back flow.
Mr. Collins stated no, that the back up west of Fifth Street is really due more to the Fifth Street bridge.
Once you get below the bridge, there is a cleaner sweep.
Mr. Thomas stated that the bridge was just too small to handle the water.
Mr. Finley stated that since the run off of your site is so insignificant, you probably wouldn't be required to
Planning Commission - May 7, 2002
SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION - MAY 21
Attachment E
~
.1:7
.
h ve a detention area.
M . Collins stated that would depend on what the County Engineer will accept. Due to the proximity to the
cr eks, the detention area will not be required, but water quality will be, He noted that the water quality
is ues would inadvertently address some of that. We will use structures that water will go in to and soak
in to the soil, filter and then run out at a slower pace. There will be storm water quality issues that we will
n ed to address. This has not been designed at this point. We have been trying to leave space to
a count for it.
M ,Hopper asked if the change in the property would affect other sites.
M . Collins stated that according to our study it should not. We would not be raising the elevation of the
w ter surface at all.
M . Loewenstein closed the public hearing.
D Ie Ludwig stated that he has been associated with the property for 15 years. The last time it flooded
w s late November 1987. It flooded on the west side of the bridge on Fifth Street. The reason it flooded
w s that all of the debris washed down on the west side and got caught in the bridge that backed to the
Vi ginia Power site. Our property did not affect that. He noted that he has not seen it flood since 1987.
All of the other issues will be addressed in the site plan. He noted that they were just looking for approval
fo the fill area.
M . Edgerton stated that in addition to the flood issues that they had talked about, another concern is the
m rked 1 DO-year stream buffer that runs along Moore's creek. He pointed out that is being violated by
thi plan along the north side. There is a lot of grading in that area that will not leave the 30-foot buffer.
H noted that about a third of the buffer along that stream would be lost.
. M , Hopper asked Mr. Barnes to update them on this.
M . Barnes stated that actually the red line on this plan shows 50 feet from the top of the bank.
M . Hopper asked if that would be 50 feet on each side.
M . Barnes stated that the original plan did not show all of the 100-year floodplain, which was one of the
pr blems. They showed a SO-foot buffer off the creek and the impact. They did not have a mitigation
pi n, On the plan submitted for tonight, they are filling down into the floodplain up to the fifty-foot line.
Th yare leaving enough room to get equipment in there. Mr. Edgerton is correct that they are
en roaching on that part which is allowed under the Water Protection Ordinance if they have a mitigation
pi n, which has been accepted by the Engineering Department. He stated that it was about 40 feet into
th 100-foot buffer.
Mr. Loewenstein asked for other comments. He noted that they would take two separate actions. The
fir t action would be for the ZMA.
Mr Finley made a motion for approval of ZMA 99-13 with the proffers as submitted.
Mr Thomas seconded the motion.
.
M . Hopper noted that she shared Mr, Edgerton's concern about encroaching on that buffer. She felt that
he questions about the floodplain were well addressed. The reason she was going to vote for approval
of his application is because it does meet the goal of infill, higher density and doing what they have been
tal ing about. It is a difficult parcel to achieve infill because of the floodplain issues. For that reason, she
w going to vote for approval.
. g Commission-May?, 2002
MITTED TO COMMISSION - MAY 21
Attachment E ~
(Jp 1;; cr
The motion was approved (4: 1) (Edgerton - No) (Craddock - Absent, Rieley - Absent)
Mr. Loewenstein asked for a motion concerning SP-99-059.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SP-99-059 for Young America.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion.
The motion was approved (4: 1). (Edgerton - No) (Craddock - Absent, Rieley - Absent)
Work Session
ZMA-02-01 Fontaine Avenue Condominiums (Sian #64.65) - Request for a work session with the
Planning Commission to discuss the proposed rezoning of 12.606 acres from Highway Commercial (H-C)
to Residential (R-15) to allow 124 two-bedroom units in five buildings. The property, described as Tax
Map 76 Parcels 12A and 12G are located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of
Fontaine Avenue [Route 702] approximately .25 miles west of the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and
Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood
6. .
Mr. Craddock arrived at 7:01 p.m.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that this was not a public hearing and that the matter will not be open for
public comment tonight. Public comment will be entertained at future meetings.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) She noted that
the purpose of this work session is to discuss the big picture issues. The applicant is seeking
direction from the Commission as to the proposed rezoning and its associated density uses on
off-site improvements and layout. The Comprehension Plan shows this area as Neighborhood
Service, which includes neighborhood, scaled commercial specialty shops, professional and office
uses, retail, wholesale and businesses within a community. It also includes urban density residential
uses as a secondary use. At the end of the report staff has outlined several questions that needs to be
answered at this work session. Is non-mixed use development appropriate at this location given the
Comprehension Plan designation? Is a residential development appropriate at this location given the
Neighborhood Service designation? Is the parking appropriately relegated? Is pedestrian access shown
appropriately? From talking to the applicant today, it appears that a solid surface for pedestrian access
can be achieved. We also talked with the applicant and VDOT about the separate crossing over Morey
Creek to provide a separate crossing for walkers. Staff is working with VDOT to flush out some more
options. Are the interconnections appropriate? Should provisions be made for mass transit? Since the
staff report was written, staff has researched the options for mass transit at the site. UTS has declined to
extend service to the site because they do not go to apartment complexes unless there is a critical mass.
For CTS to extend service to this area, it would cost the County between $65,000 and $75,000 to add
another bus. Staff is now concentrating its efforts on bike lanes to try to get bike lanes to connect to the
ones at Fontaine Research Park. Do the perspective drawings adequately address the human scale
principal? Does the site plan appropriately respect the terrain? The topography is shown on the plan
behind Ms. Hopper. Staff notes that there will be some need for retaining walls. With those questions in
mind, Ms. Echols finished her staff report and asked if there were any questions. Glenn Brooks was
present to represent the Engineering Department to answer any questions about the floodplain or storm
water.
Mr.Loewenstein ascertained that the applicant was present and that the Commissioners could address
questions to the applicant.
Mr. Finley stated that staff mentioned that provisions needed to be made for mass transit. He asked what
Attachment E
~
40
Planning Commission - May 7, 2002
SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION - MAY 21
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 -- Young
America/ orris Creek Yacht Club
SUBJEC IPROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant requests a
zoning m p amendment of approximately 3.50 acres to allow
for HC (H ghway Commercial) uses. The properties are
located 0 approximately 9.099 acres zoned LI (Light
Industrial) and an unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way.
The prop rty is described as portions of Tax Map 76M1-
Parcel 1 nd is located on the east side of Fifth Street
Extended 'ust north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This
property ilocated in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is
designate for Industrial and Regional Service uses in
Neighbor ood 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Spec'al Use Permit is for approval of approximately 4.00
acres for rading in the floodplain of Biscuit Run at its
confluenc with Moores Creek. The properties, TMP 76M1-1,
TMP 76-5 A, and the abandoned right-of-way, comprise
approxim tely 12.897 acres and are zoned LI (Light
Industrial) HC (Highway Commercial), and no zoning,
respectiv Iy.
AGENDA DATE:
May 7, 2002
ITEM NUMBERS:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: No
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
.
8 CKGROUND:
o May 22,2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the
re oning and special use permit requests for this project. The Commission
re ommended denial of the requests to the Board of Supervisors based on the
ap licant's inability to commit to or provide detail to the following broad concerns:
.., The lack of a mitigation plan for impact to the stream buffer;
.., The lack of a sufficient traffic study;
.., Undemonstrated ability to mitigate impacts to the Entrance Corridor;
.., Greenway trails shown in this area in the Comprehensive Plan were not
provided for; and,
.., The inability to provide a proffered plan of development.
At ts June 20, 2001 public hearing, the Board of Supervisors agreed with the Planning
Co mission and recommended that the applicant work with staff and the Commission
to rovide information on the following 10 items before it would reconsider the request:
1. Provision of a 1 OO-foot easement for the greenway trails
2. Provision of improvements to the greenway trails.
3. Mitigation of aesthetic impacts to the creek and greenway trail.
4. Restriction of all buildings (and land disturbance) outside of the waterward
50-feet of the stream buffer.
5. Allay staff's and VDOT's concerns related to traffic (by possibly revising the
traffic study).
6. Place all new the utilities underground.
t.-{f
Attachment E
$
actual traffic impacts arising from the eventual users of this. Therefore, Proffer 7
(Attachment B) lays out the conditions whereby the applicant will perform a traffic study
to the satisfaction of the County and VDOT. Then, the mitigating improvements, shown
as necessary by the study, will be required on the site plan. The applicant is also
working with the Holiday Inn to better manage traffic around the interface of these
properties and 5th Street through the modification of the Holiday Inn's current two-way
entrance to an "in-only" entrance. This modification will minimize traffic turning conflicts
adjacent to 5th Street.
Stormwater ManaQement
The applicant has provided a conceptual plan for managing stormwater on the site.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's proposal and believes that a
viable solution can produced at the site plan review stage. The precise location of the
stormwater best management practices will be determined at the site plan stage.
The Engineering Department has also reviewed the impacts to the floodplain. The
impacts to the floodplain have been deemed to be within acceptable limits by both the
County Engineering Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
MitiQation of Impacts to the Entrance Corridor
The most recently submitted concept plan meets many of the concerns raised by the
initial Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and the later reviews by the ARB staff.
The applicant has proffered to bring the convenience store up to the setback line from
5th Street. Additionally, the store will provided a fa<;:ade onto 5th Street and align the
store parallel to 5th Street. The applicant is also proffering to place the fuel canopy and
pumps behind the store. The exact location of the pumps and canopy may be altered
slightly at the site plan stage, but the applicant will keep the majority of the canopy's
visual impacts obscured from 5th Street by placing it behind the building. Furthermore,
the concept plan also shows a landscape area adjacent to 5th Street. Finally, the
applicant has proffered to underground the utilities on the site. Most of these proffered
items could only be recommendations of the ARB. By incorporating these items into
the proffered concept plan, the ARB will have more control when it reviews the project
at the site plan stage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 99-13 with the attached proffers and SP 99-59.
L-fl-
Attachment E
?jJ
-<
Z.
:...J
-
~
:!:
:..;
<
----,.
~,~-~
S!N3tlI'WOJ 1OQA. '!)NINCl NNYld '!:IN]
SlNJnnOJ
NJ:l Z
I
AS .ON
-
~
SNOISI^3~
:or.
.-*
.
W
::J
...G\
Ow
cl:
-9
u~
u
g
o~
0.2
0:::1
o
u
\'
\'
\
I
II
"
I~
:t~
~3
~o.
t:"!li!
z"'5!
5~"l
U ,
~Il\z
!fi5g
a~!(
lDt; i:i
~:Hj
( (
\\
\\
lz \
.. 3*
l)l)
I /
.....
Zo:
~~
~@
0:0.
0.
::IIZ
-0
Uo
ijJw
~~
I!! d
a g~
~ is ~~~
!'i~i: ii~
I~' ~~~N ... ~~
. ~ ~m! ~j!
~ uu! to:..
~ ~
u U
~; ~~ ~
~~ ~~ ~
;l8uou5 ~
" li!~1(!f'l1'" w
o:~ d~2~% lD
~Q ~t;i~ig e
8~ us I Z I I
...c ~il:uil3!::;
~z ~~~ao~
a:g z~...~...w
~ l.!.~!i~~
~i ~~~~~!
"i~~~1
~~ ~:::el::~::-
~ejo' cbJtiaHIIJ
-, ::te., ,...,...~~~,...
_ :n_;;t~ 0 0
=-~ WIi;' ~~iIl~iIl~
,.'\' !!!~~ I I I
~ii ~u:ta~ ~~~ 3 ;
z'- !,!!,! ~o. l;1 oJ
33 ~~~ ~i ~ : i
wO:J'wn'~:JnJqODW! :1!On- 3
(911-Z.6 (o.~) 'OJ - 1911-Zt6 (0);) .4d
oa6lZ V^ 'OJoqsaU,(OM - 6U~PI!nB '9~'9"
\fINI~n:ll^ '3111^S3ilOT1:1\fH)
')NI 'Snl) IH)\f A. )EI3~D SI}:j}:jOW
IN3Wd013^30 .L33M.LS H.LS
NVld 311S lVn1d3)NO)
WO)' U!Jaau! UaJlOU::!W' ...
SlaaU!OU3 OU!llnsuo:)
sareposS\f PUE J!ENJ!^J U40f
fWfJ
I, '"
'4, ~
. .
...........
'<I~ .-
~IW~-'
dI ~ ..
l'!!l~gn8
~::;~r:z
~IOO:IOO
@.,f' N
~
oj
o
..,
it
~
...
o
N
'"
N
2 <>
! ~ z
~ I is l:f
;;
~ ~ iD
i ~ ~
-*-
"
<(\
'T
~$
....
=
<lol
e
:.. -5
Cl$
t
-<
~
g .
i f ~
..a..
<t:UJ
~--'
~~
-f-
Zti
uz
>
o
N
o
..
W
. '"
-~
, W
X
~o
~.., E-1
z-
~~
e~
~':1
Uz
2
~
o
'!!~..._~...
l1*
~W
Oz
8::1
;;!
~,.\.~.)
''-\,'< ,--.._-/
z*
~~ (
~.
1
I
)
*
*
- fl~
~"..t:
G..t;!
@8'"
Q..?
<y"
"
+'<:>
'"
\~
~ ~
\" '\'
\) Ie
lQ ..:
:2
...:
<:.i/
;.lo .
,o' I
", '-. ,~~
I
...
U.
~~~!
::I,,-u9
~o~...
-owu
g~ .~
o lDl::.
.............~cj~o:
~~se
e~g~
~~~~
BIIlG:
\oJ 0: ,.
~~lil:
z~~- ,
3wZ,.;Sl
o.m...J....O
8;/~ffiN
~~~~~
....... l:W-
i~~~~
o :I ..0
~~8~~
*
..
'"
W
...
:>
o
0:
W
~
0:
~
l
.
~
!f
i 0:
" ~
~ ~
:a "
5 t
t g
g ~
~ ~
~ tl
... ~
~ '"
'"
_:-'Co
~~~
~~g--
- Ln~io
tle....><..
~o.~~e
ill"''''",
....,.......lj~
...o..oo(~
--:: lliill"'tl
~~ ...,,~~
il ,.':;lJ;lli
..0.0. ~I~~ ~
!~~ ~<~ ~
Gw U~~o r-
Ill" ~:te'" !
~U nn I
tl
z
::I
i
~~
go.
:II:!
0'"
~~
~~
....
:~
Wo
n
...
! 8
'" ~
..i5 '"
:i ~
...~ b
h ~ ~
1:.3 ~:!l
~~ _2 ~ 51
t;;~!~ u N
~! ~g i~ 1~8~ Ii
U 1:.8 15 ,,~:J ~
~~ ~ ~:t~
a~~ ';1 f ~E5 ..
~~; I:~ ~ I~~ i
~
0.
:>
!it;
~~
w
...51!!
0"....
g.z
~~~l:!
~;2il!!
)(w~ .,..
U...:!6.
~i6.li5
~wt::~
;~~d
-'
W Ii
~a:iti ~~
~~o~ ~...J
BiS~~~8
~5"'~~~N
_U~8.1d-'"
~~;;;"'1;~~
!!!.~o:h .~
~~~~@:~
":t~i~ii:'"
~ z~o~...
- i;!3... 0 0
w~i!~~g
~hffi~!~
~l=!i~NgO
:~i~..;~g
WI.&.IJlO~~""
i!8~~~:i
Sl:>:e!e::ll~
~~:~ag@
oOu z~
~8o~~G~
iillt:::ll::.91!!..
*
*
'"
z
~
i
i
'<t
CD
;/w.--
I-
<:(
l-
V)
0::
w
I-
Z
O~...
~!~
~a:!i
W::II'"
t59ffi
l:l~i
o:w
0.....
~o~
0:~2
eo:
g~~
tiiia
o 0:
8:ll0.
...",'"
"'-j!;
COt;"!
Z~cn;J
a! ..,
UZ8~
'j~NZ
!5 .0
~t::IIl~
li{~~~
:;(m-H,'"
*
*
*
~
::II ~ ~
iss uio
i~~>'!~~
w~o!~!
'!W~8"'''
'Lt.. mZ_Jl....~
O:fgLt..O...l
~!i~~8~
Q:i~u....~
o~~zLt..w
"'w"'~~i!i
8~\ltLt..~Q::
...:: W
~l:i..fi80.
~~~e-z'
u=~~~~
il:!j!;~:5
"'i .Oli!
l~z~~1D
vtl-~ogD:
z!d~~Ldf2
~z w;> .
it~j~~:i
o~Lt.......w~
8:>002~
itsffi%~.
wD:WWj;;c
.i!ii~~~~
i;s~"'ool5
ef~~i5~
~cgu!!!tl,
V\2- D:.n
:lZ't~!!!8'i'
c:~......'!::II"
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT B
Original Proffer: 4/3/02
Amended Proffer 4/29/02
(Amendment # ~
PROFFER FORM
Da e: 5/7/02
#: 99-59
T Map and Parcel Number(s): 76M-I A4 and A3
2.20 Acres to be rezoned from LI to HC (0.43 acres unzoned former VDOT right-of-way)
P suant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
vo tarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are
pr ffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
co ditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. The development of the site will be in general accord with the plan entitled "Conceptual Site Plan", prepared by
John McNair and Associates, dated January 8, 2002 and revised on
2. The Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, truck stops,
convenience stores and gift, craft or antique shops.
3. Vehicle access from 5th street to development on the properties subject to ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 shall be
provided by a single entrance to be shared with the existing Holiday Inn. The fmal site plan for development of the
subject properties shall cause the existing entrance to the Holiday Inn shall be modified to be used as an "in only"
entrance as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and the modified entrance shall meet Virginia Department of
Transportation,standards for one-way commercial entrances. Additionally, the final site plan shall provide the
Holiday Inn with an additional entrance for two-way traffic flow. This additional entrance shall be at a minimum
safe distance from the "in only" entrance as detennined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department.
4. All proposed buildings shall be sited so that the fronts of the buildings are oriented to face 5th Street as generally
shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.
5. All fuel islands shall be located behind a building as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.
6. All existing and new utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The placement of these underground
utilities shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties
7. As part of preliminary site plan submitted for any development on the rezoned property, the owner shall conduct a
Traffic Study which reflects the traffic impacts of all the proposed uses and the existing Holiday Inn (Tax Map 76
Parcel SSC). All improvements identified by the traffic study shall be subject to VDOT and County Engineering
approval and provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. These improvements, if required by the
traffic study, may include, but shall not be limited to, a traffic signal at the entrance from Sth Str-eet; an extension of
the turn lane in the northbound lane of Sth Street coming from Interstate 64, and an extension of the existing turn
lane from Sth Street southbound to the entrance of the proposed development.
8. The Owners shall grant an easement to the County for the "Greenway Easement" as shown on the accompanying
Conceptual Site Plan provided that the County holds the owner hannless as provided in Virginia Code 929.1-509(E).
This easement shall be granted within 90 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors of ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59.
In conjunction with the Greenway, the Owner{s) shall:
A. In addition to the screening requirements of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board and section 32
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner shall provide a vegetated buffer for the purposes of
screening the development from the proposed greenway trail shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. This
yL{
Attachment E
t/f
ATTACT-IMENT B
"
vegetated buffer shall be provided in a manner consistent with section 32.7.9.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance and the landscaping shall be shown on the fmal site plan and installed as part of any final site plan
for development of the rezoned properties.
B. Steps and a vehicle travelway from the proposed parking area to the edge of the proposed Greenway easement
shall be constructed in the'approximate locations shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. These improvements
shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties and
maintained by the owner.
C. A contribution offive hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be made to the County to upgrade the existing bridge that
formerly served the Old Lynchburg Road that lies in the proposed Greenway easement. This contribution shall
be made prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Signatures of All Owners
Printed Names of All Owners
Date
OR
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
4)
~
.
.
.
(..
~!?ia
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 40]2
ert T. Smith
P Box 7120
Ch rlottesville, VA 22906
ZMA-1999-013 Young America and SP-1999-059 Young America
Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 1
Th Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on June 5, 2002, unanimously
de erred the above-noted requests until signed proffers are received. Once the proffers are
re eived, this will be placed on the Board's consent agenda for approval
If Y u should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not
he itate to contact me.
Cc Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
T ex Weaver
Steve Allshouse
Matt Grimes, VDOT
4lR
Attachment F ~
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
Are ular meetin of the Board of Su rvisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 5,
2002, a 9:00 a.m" Room 241, County Office Building, Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David p, Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis
S. Rooker and Ms, Sally H, Thomas,
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S, Martin.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W, Davis,
Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, County Planner, V, Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No.1, The meeting was ailed to order at 9:05 a,m" by the Chairman, Ms, Thomas,
Agenda Item No, 2. Pledge of Allegian e.
Agenda Item NO.3. Moment of Silence
Agenda Item No, 4. Other Matters Not Li ted on the Agenda,
Mr. John Martin said he would like to spea about the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority's (Rivanna)
water supply recommendations which have been t e subject of public hearings and been well received, He
suggests that consistent with the philosophy contai d in the Natural Resources Section of the County's
Comprehensive Plan, at some point Rivanna's reco mendations be reviewed for compliance with the Plan.
Rivanna's recommendations contain statements 0 public policy with respect to the importance of the
watershed. Those kinds of policy determinations ar within the province of the governing body, and not
completely in the province of Rivanna, He thinks th re should be a record showing that the Board of
Supervisors agrees with those policy statements, ith respect to the current Comprehensive planning of
the Rural Areas section, he thinks there is a discon ect between Rivanna and that element. Rivanna's
recommendation contains a statement saying: "W should have no higher priority than protection of our
watersheds," He agrees with that, but the draft of t e Rural Areas chapter does not give sufficient
importance to protection of the watershed which h feels is of pre-eminent importance, He thinks it would
be worthwhile if Rivanna had some input into the d afting of that chapter.
Agenda Item No, 5. Presentation of Certi cate of Appreciation was skipped temporarily since the
recipient was not present at this time.
Agenda Item NO.6. Consent Agenda. tion to approve Item Nos. 6.1 through 6.7, and to accept
the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as i ormation (Note: Discussion concerning individual items
will be shown at the end of the staffs report on e ch item), was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Perkins, and carried by the following recorded vo e:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Item 6.1, Approval of Minutes: Octo 3, 2001; January 16, February 6, February 20, March 6
and March 20, 2002,
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of M rch 20, 2002, and found the minutes to be in order.
Mr, Rooker had read the minutes of F ruary 20,2002 (Pages 21 through 23) and found them to
be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of ebruary 6, 2002. Pages 27 (beginning with Item #12) to the
end, and found them to be in order.
Mr, Perkins had read the minutes of arch 6, 2002, Pages 1 through 16 (ending with Item No. 10),
and found them to be in order.
Neither Ms. Thomas nor Mr. Bower an had read the minutes which had been assigned to them,
By the recorded vote set out abo e, the minutes which had been read were approved.
Item 6.2, Extension of Street Light greement with American Electric Power (AEP) , formerly
Appalachian Electric Power Company.
It was noted in the staffs report tha American Electric Power (AEP) , formerly Appalachian Electric
Power Company, provides power for 87 str et lights located in Southern Albemarle between from Keene
and Scottsville. The 1990 Agreement betw en the County and AEP has expired, AEP has offered to
extend the terms of this agreement on a m th-to-month basis. The County pays AEP approximately
$5600 per year to power street lights in Sou hem Albemarle. Staff has enjoyed a good working relationship
with AEP and is satisfied with the service pr ided by this company. It recommends that the Board
L/l
'+D fXUJ e- if /
Attachment F tI(b
.
.
.
,
I
I
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Barry Marshall said he is a member of the church, but he arrived late. He said everyone here is
in agreement that the Highway Department should do something about the intersection, whether St. David's
Church goes there or not. He hopes the Board will nc hold the church hostage in its effort to get
something done, He said they will not be building a c urch for several years, He asked that the Board not
turn down their request for a special permit at this tim ,
Mr. Bowerman said he has concluded that tt e addition of the church is not going to be a significant
detriment to the existing situation. As the church gro IS, he thinks they will have activities there beyond
Sundays. The major activity on Sunday is generally t a time when people are still in their homes. He is not
familiar with Barracks Road at 10:00 a,m. on Sunda\ but it can't be as bad as it is at 5:00 p,m. on
weekdays. Therefore, he moved to approve SP-20C -057, subject to the seven conditions recommended
by the Planning Staff.
Mr. Rooker said there were several concern expressed about people parking along Colthurst
Drive. He asked if there can be a condition imposed 0 prevent parking along Colthurst Drive by church
members, He lhinks the 32 parking spaces for a ch rch that will hold 125 people, appears to be small for
the size of the congregation,
Mr. Bowerman said parking is based on the umber of square feet in the church.
Ms. Thomas said the church wanted more p rking spaces, but it is the Board's desire to limit the
amount of impervious paving in a watershed area th led the Planning Staff and Commission to reduce the
number of parking spaces. She thinks parking can a ways be kept back from an intersection. Mr. Davis
said it is a VDOT road, so they would restrict parking on it. He does not know how the road would be
signed.
Ms. Thomas said she does not know how pc king could be restricted entirely on Colthurst because
people in the subdivision have parties, so sometimes there would be that type of parking.
The motion was seconded by Mr, Dorrier v 0 said he thinks the Board might recommend that the
road go in the Six-Year plan in the near future,
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board shoulc also request that VDOT lower the speed limit at that
intersection, Mr. Tucker suggested that after the Bard votes on this request, that it take a separate action
requesting that VDOT do a speed analysis. Mr. CiI'tnberg said VDOT has already said they will conduct the
study.
Roll was called at this time, and the motio carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Ms, Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier a d Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The conditions of approval are se out in full below.)
1) The church shall be limited to one s ucture with a maximum one hundred twenty
five (125) seat sanctuary;
2) Commercial setback standards, as ~et forth in !l21.7.2 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintai ed adjacent to residential or RA zoning districts;
3) There shall be no day care center r private school on site without approval of a
separate special use permit, or am ndment to this permit;
4) There shall be no cemetery on the site without approval of an amendment to this
permit;
5) Construction of the 125-seat sanct ary shall commence on or before the expiration
date of a signed final site plan bas d on preliminary site plan SDP-01-117 (as
shown on the plan dated April 19, 002, and prepared by Rivanna Engineering &
Surveying, PLC). If SDP-01-117 E pires or is withdrawn without the signing of a final
site plan, this permit shall expire fi e (5) years from the date of approval of this
permit;
6) Health Department approval of w II and septic systems; and.
7) The applicant shall reserve for pL blic dedication to public use, upon demand of the
County, a ten (10) foot strip of rig t-of way along the frontage of the property
adjacent to Barracks Road for,fLi ~ turn lane and taper improvements to the
Barracks Road-Colthurst Drive~ ,efsection.
e Agenda Item No, 17, ZMA-1999-13. Young America (Sign # 70). Public hearing on a request to
r zone approx 3,50 acs to allow for HC uses. Loc on approx 9.099 acs znd LI & an unzoned, abandoned
highway right-of-way. Portions of TM 76M1, PI1 loc on E sd of Fifth St Ex! just N of its intersec w/l-64,
(Property designated for Industrial & Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 in the Comprehensive Plan.)
Scottsville Dis!. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27,
2002.)
L.{CC
Attachment F ~
June 5. 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Agenda Item No. 18, SP-1999-059. Young America (Sign #fJ7). Public hearing on request for
approval of approx 4.00 acs for fill of the flood plain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek,
Loc on approx 12.897 acs znd LI & HC. Portions ofTM 76M1. P 1 & TM 76. P 55A. Loc on E sd of Fifth
St Extd just N of its intersec w/l-64. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily
Progress on May 20 and May 27. 2002.)
Mr, Cilimberg said the applicant requests a Zoning Map Amendment of approximately 3,5 acres to
allow Highway Commercial uses on properties located on about 9.099 acres zoned Light Industrial and an
unzoned. abandoned highway right-of-way. The property is located on the east side of Fifth Street
Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. The special use permit is for approval of
approximately 4.0 acres for grading the flood plain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek, The
properties and the abandoned right-of-way comprise approximately 12.897 acres and are zoned Light
Industrial, Highway Commercial. and no zoning.
Mr, Cilimberg said that on May 22, 2001. the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
reviewed these requests, The Commission recommended denial based on the applicant's inability to
commit to or provide detail to several broad concerns, At its meeting on June 20. 2001, the Board agreed
with the Commission and recommended that the applicant work with staff and the Commission to provide
information on 10 items before it would reconsider the request. The applicant has worked on those 10
areas of concern and has submitted a plan to address those issues.
Mr. Cilimberg said a proffered plan of development has been submitted. Some aspects of the plan
remain speculative in that the ultimate user has not been identified. and there rnay be a desire to shift the
location of some parking. The intent of the proffers is to list the items which staff feels will be important to
the eventual site plan, although items which are not specifically listed may be altered if found to be
generally in accord with the proffered plan,
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a proffered list of specific uses of the site. Those are in keeping with
uses identified in the Comprehensive Plan's Interstatellnterchange Development Policy. Regarding
Greenway Trails. the applicant proffered provision for a greenway easement along both sides of Moores
Creek and along the eastern side of Biscuit Run. The dedication of these easements, as well as a $500.00
contribution toward repair of the bridges which will serve as stream crossings for the greenway. are seen as
positive aspects of this proposal. The applicant has proffered additional vegetative screening between the
project's proposed buildings and the greenway trails to mask the development from the trails.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has reduced the impacts to the one hundred foot stream buffer by
reducing the area of fill slightly and pulling all grading and construction activities outside the waterway 50
feet of the buffer. In other words, it is to maintain a sufficient area of buffer even though it would be reduced
from the one hundred foot stream buffer that is normally in place. He said the encroachment of the project
in the one hundred foot stream buffer along Moores Creek will be offset by a mitigation plan approved by
the County's Engineering Department. He said the applicant remains uncertain as to who the eventual
users of the property will be. As to mitigation of traffic impacts. Proffer No.7 lays out the conditions
whereby the applicant will perform a traffic study to the satisfaction of the County and VDOT. The
mitigating improvements shown as necessary by the study will be required on the site plan.
Mr, Cilimberg said as to stormwater management, the applicant has provided a conceptual plan for
managing stormwater on the site, The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's proposal and
believes a viable solution can be produced at the site plan review stage, The impacts to the flood plain
have been deemed to be within acceptable limits by both the County Engineering Department and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Mr. Cilimberg said the most recently submitted concept plan meets many of the concerns raised by
the initial Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and later reviews by ARB staff. The applicant has
proffered to bring the convenience store up to the setback line from Fifth Street. He also proffered to place
the fuel canopy and pumps behind the store. Most of these proffered items could only be
recommendations of the ARB, By incorporating these items into the proffered concept plan, the ARB will
have more control when it reviews the project at the site plan stage.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of both ZMA-99-13 with proffers, and SP-99-59,
He said the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4:1, recommended approval of both. The one dissenting
vote was caused by concern about the flood plain. He said the proffers associated with this request have
been signed. but the signatures have not yet been verified as valid so the proffers can be accepted by the
County, The Board can go ahead with the public hearing, and if the Board wishes to approve the request it
would need to be based on condition that the signatures be verified.
Mr. Rooker asked about Proffer No.7 concerning the traffic study and the possibility of a traffic
light. He asked if the applicant would be required to build those improvements before getting a certificate of
occupancy, Mr. Cilimberg said that is the intent. They would be required to construct because this is a
rezoning and they are proffering to do the things set out in No.7. Mr. Davis said the proffer says these
things would have to be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy,
Mr. Dorrier asked what bridge will be improved, Mr. Bob Smith, representing the applicant, said it is
an old bridge that crosses Old Lynchburg Road just a short distance off of Fifth Street.
40
Attachment F If;
.
.
.
I
I
I
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Rooker asked about the entrance and exits of the property, Mr. Cilimberg said the entrance is
into and out of the Holiday Inn South parking lot. Mr. Rooker said he was trying to distinguish this case from
the last one. Mr. Davis said this is a rezoning request, and they have proffered the improvements.
Mr, Dorrier asked about the greenway easement. He asked if that land is being proffered to the
County, Mr. Smith said "yes."
At this time, Ms, Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Bob Smith said he represents the applicant. Present with him are Mr. Dale Ludwick, Manager
of the Holiday Inn South, the people who own the property, and Mr. Dave Collins of John McNair Engineers,
He said the applicants started working on this project in 1997. They submitted the rezoning application and
the fill application in September, 1999, They did a wetlands report in 1999, a FEMA report in 2000, and got
VDOT's approval in 1999 after getting a piece of property from VDOT which it had vacated, The applicants
have worked with the ARB. the County's Engineering Department and other County staff in order to get this
project moving, They worked with Parks and Recreation on the Greenway part of this project. It seems to
be a very important piece of property for the greenway project since it will link up Biscuit Run and Moores
Creek. He said the Holiday Inn people granted them permission to use their property just last Saturday, He
then showed to the Board a picture of the people in the community who came to that ceremony (copy on
file in the Clerk's Office.)
Mr. Smith said he did a fiscal impact study on this property about a year ago. He determined that
the current taxes are about $1400 a year, If the property is developed as requested, he calculates that the
taxes would amount to $267,000. He gave this information to the County's Fiscal Impact Planner, and the
figure was corrected to be about $279,000, He then offered to answer questions,
Mr. Rooker asked him about Proffer No, 2 which restricts uses on the property, He asked if it can
be envisioned that the property might become a truck stop. Mr. Smith said "no", the property is not big
enough to accommodate that type of use, Mr. Rooker asked if there would be a problem eliminating that
as a potential use. Mr. Smith said he did not think so, Mr. Rooker said the property is very close to streams
and having it as a truck stop would lead to the potential for polluting the streams. Mr. Smith said "truck
stop" was added at the recommendation of County staff. They do not anticipate that being one of the uses,
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Smith would have a problem with taking that language out. Mr. Smith said "no,"
Mr, Dorrier said it is recommended in the proffers that certain greenway areas be given to the
County. Mr. Smith said it would be through an easement to the County. but the applicants will retain
ownership of the property,
Ms. Thomas asked if it is an easement for use of the property as a pathway. Mr. Smith said "yes."
They have also agreed in the proffers to build a set of steps down to the greenway and a vehicular
travelway. In the future, if there were need to get equipment into that area, there would be access. They
have agreed to leave the other side of Biscuit Run in its natural state, undisturbed, Mr. Davis said that is in
Proffer No, 8 where they proffer a vegetated buffer of the development from thegreenway in addition to the
other regular landscaping requirements.
Mr. Rooker asked if providing access to the greenway by easement is something commonly done,
rather than granting a fee in the property, Mr. Davis said it has been done both ways, He said some
owners prefer to dedicate the property because it eliminates any liability issues they may have. The State
Code somewhat protects owners from liability in these types of issues, It has been done both ways,
Mr. Rooker asked if the County Attorney's Office has a standard agreement form they use for this
purpose, Mr. Davis said they have a standard type of agreement which basically provides that the property
will remain in a natural state and it gives the County the right to have access through it for purposes of the
greenway system.
Mr. Dorrier asked about an area shown on the plat, and asked if it were being proffered to the
County. Mr. Smith said "no," It will be undisturbed, Ms. Thomas said that property is part of Proffer No. 8A
which says there will be a vegetated buffer. They will own the property, but are proffering to keep it
vegetated as a buffer. Mr. Smith said originally they were going to grant the greenway easement on the
other side of Biscuit Run, but the greenway people wanted it on the opposite side, so it was reversed
(please see copy of Conceptual Site Plan on file), Mr. Steve Barnes, Planning staff, said the buffer that is
referred to in Proffer No. 8A is along the 3:1 fill slope, That is where the plantings would go. Mr. Cilimberg
said Mr. Dorrier was pointing to the mitigation plan area, not the easement. Mr. Davis said that will also be
an undisturbed vegetated area.
At this time, Ms, Thomas asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. With no one from the
public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms, Thomas said she was trying to picture how this area will be used. There is a hotel being built at
the present time on the other side of Fifth Street, and then there is this hotel. Sometimes, people staying in
hotels become pedestrians and she asked if there is any easy way to get to the shopping areas which are
actually inside the City's limits, There are no sidewalks on this part of Fifth Street, and there is no other way
proposed for walking. The Greenway goes along the waterways and not across them. Mr. Barnes said the
$500 would be used to repair the one bridge that would allow one to cross Moores Creek. It is a pedestrian
means of getting to the area Ms. Thomas has mentioned. Mr. Barnes said a challenge faced in developing
6P
Attachment F ~
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
an eastlwest movement for the greenway system in this area is getting across Fifth Street, but that is an
issue which is bigger than this project itself,
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this project is in keeping with the area, and he will move approval. Mr.
Davis said staff does not have proffers on which it has been able to verify signatures, He would request that
the Board defer these petitions until the next meeting, He suggested that the public hearing on Agenda
Item No. 18 be held before deferring.
At this time, Ms, Thomas opened the public hearing on SP-1999-059, since she had not mentioned
that item when the other public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier then moved for deferral of ZMA-1999-13 and SP-1999-059 until the proffers are in
hand and the signatures thereon have been verified by the County Attorney. The petitions will then be
included on the next available agenda.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman, He said on the site plan where the 3:1 slope and the
fill is shown, there is a notation saying "proposed boundary for rezoning." He asked if that means on-site
the zoning is Highway Commercial and off-site the zoning is still Light Industrial. Ms, Thomas said that was
her assumption. Mr. Bowerman said it is almost all in the greenway. Mr. Barnes said the part of their parcel
which is not under consideration is a wedge which (on the plan) continues off to the right, and is adjacent to
several allied parcels which are off to the right. Mr. Cilimberg said the natural dividing line ended up being
the stream.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms, Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None,
ABSENT: Mr. Martin,
. Fill and waste. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend See
3.1, efinitions, & Sec 5.1,28, Borrow, fill, or waste areas, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code, add definitions related to borrow, fill or waste activities, to amend the types of materials that may
be place . a fill & waste area from soil & rock to soil & inert materials such as rubble, concrete, bricks,
broken bric & blocks & to amend the regulations applicable to borrow, fill or waste areas & activities
including, but t limited to, reducing from 10,000 cubic yards to 10,000 square feet the threshold at which
the activity is sub) t to an approved plan, requiring ongoing maintenance of the activity area & delineating
prohibited locations, ours of operation, duration limitations & surety and reclamation requirements, (Notice
of this public hearing w given in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27, 2002.)
Mr. Barnes said thi as a request from a citizen to expand the list of materials that would be
deemed acceptable in fill and aste operations. This list would be expanded to include soil, rock, asphalt,
block, brick and concrete. Asph was of concern to the Planning Commission and they did not
recommend adding road pavemen sphalt as acceptable fill and waste materials, Beyond what the
applicant requested, staff looked at items. One was the environmental effects of expansion of the list,
and the second was aesthetic impacts, e environmental impact was dealt with by extending stream
buffer protection as found in Chapter 17 0 e County Code. Basically, it would disallow fill in areas
protected by the Water Protection Ordinance, nd there could be no fill in flood plains. There was
discussion of using fill materials as part of strea bank stabilization, That is an item staff decided not to
study because they feel it was not related to the or 'nal request. There is another zoning text amendment
request pending which would deal with that question,
Mr. Barnes said as to aesthetics, staff put a Iimita on the amount of time that a site can be used
as a fill or waste area. and also defined what the ultimate ap arance of the site should be.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing,
Mr. Jeff Werner was present to speak for the Piedmont Envir mental Council (he handed in quite
a lengthy statement which is on file in the Clerk's Office), He said that phalt is a petrochemical product,
and such products are not inert, Also, asphalt is a recyclable material. hopes that no decision by the
County would ever encourage dumping in lieu of recycling, He said PEC a s if it is in the best interest of
the community to allow asphalt to be dumped on the countryside. He said so e rather shaky arguments
have been put forward which advocate rural dumping over recycling or proper . posal. If that logic were
adhered to, it might not be long before inert fiberglass insulation, non-biodegrada e asphalt roof shingles,
and other environmentally stable items such as old tires and used appliances might e legally dumped.
Mr. Wayne Russell distributed photos of an illegal dump on the property adjoini
opposes this amendment. He submitted a petition containing 100 names requesting that mp materials
remain at the dump. They cannot follow the logic that any low spot in Albemarle County sh Id be subject
to this type of dumping which includes conduits, etc, In addition, there are reactive materials s h as steel,
which have a laceration, puncture hazard, It is not only bio-hazards, or petroleum, or even asbe os. He
understands this amendment, if one obtains a permit, would allow this to take place county-wide. e asked
who would be liable if the County legalized what is illegal now, He said all of these things can be sc ped
up with a front-end loader. He has over 30 years in the construction business, an
this sine opper. e sal w en an old building is torn down, it has
51
Attachment F t:Ii1
.
.
.
..~~Oy~Btt] ".......
, m ~
t~. ,.'
'~~a .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
Jul 11,2002
Ro ert T. Smith
P Box 7120
Ch rlottesville, VA 22906
RE: ZMA-1999-013 Young America and SP-1999-059 Young America
Tax Map 76M 1, Parcel 1
De r Mr. Smith:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on July 3, 2002, took the following
acti ns:
.
MA-1999-013 Young America - Approved subject to proffers dated 5/7/02 and signed by
evin P. Mahaney, President for Morris Creek Yacht Club (copy attached).
.
P-1999-059 Young America - Approved as submit!ed.
have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
rely,
>
Cc:
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Matt Grimes
-J2-.
6~
Attachment G ~
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meetino of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Countv, Virginia, was held on July 3,
2002, at 9:00 a,m" Room 241, County Office Building, Mcintire Road. Charlottesville, Virginia,
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr, Lindsay G. Dorner, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr.
Dennis S. Rooker,
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin and Ms. Sally H. Thomas,
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W, Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W,
Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V, Wayne Cilimberg,
Agenda Item No, 1. The meeting was ca ed to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Vice-Chairman, Mr.
Dorrier.
Agenda Item NO.2. Pledge of Allegianc
Agenda Item NO.3. Moment of Silence,
Mr, Dorrier invited everyone to attend th Fourth of July Parade in the town of Scottsville and also
mentioned the naturalization ceremony at Montie 110 on July Fourth,
Agenda Item NO.4, From the Public: M tters Not Listed on the Agenda,
Ms, Lois Rochester, representing the Le ue of Women Voters, said the League urges the Board
not to withdraw the emergency water resolution a this time. They fear that an official lifting of the
emergency would send a message to the public t at all is well. In fact, the on-going drought is serious
and destined to get worse, Heavy summer rains at replenish the reservoirs only give the illusion that
water is plentiful. In actuality, most such rainfall ickly drains away, The staffs recommendation to
develop an easy-to-understand measure that pro ides the public the status and appropriate actions for
various drought conditions is commendable and ould be implemented, However, it will take time to
develop, to get approval from all the players, and 0 educate the public. In the interim, it seems prudent
to maintain the emergency status quo so that con ervation measures can be declared and enforced in a
timely fashion, if and when needed.
The Board agreed to pull Consent Agend Item 7.7 and to talk about it later in the meeting
Agenda Item NO.5. Resolution of Apprec ation to H. Carter Myers, III.
Mr, Dorrier read the Resolution of Apprec' tion into the record:
"On behalf of the citizens, local governme t staff and the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, I would like to recogniz H. Carter Myers, III, for his outstanding
efforts in serving on the Commonwealth T ansportation Board from February, 1994 until
June, 2002, a truly significant and impress ve accomplishment.
"We are most grateful for the time, energy and dedication he has committed to serving
the transportation needs of this region. W particularly appreciate his responsiveness
to local transportation needs as expresse by the Board of Supervisors and by
individual citizens of the community, and f r his support of funding for primary road
improvements in the county, We also rec gnize the important support he has given to
major transportation projects such as the idening of Route 29 North and the Meadow
Creek Parkway which have and will enha ce area mobility and traffic safety,"
On a personal note, Mr. Dorrier thanked r. Myers for what he has done for the southern part of
the County, particularly the two ISTEA grants for t e town of Scottsville,
Mr. Myers said he is very honored to rece ve this recognition from Albemarle County. He and the
Board have worked well together over the years, xcept for one issue. As to the Meadow Creek
Parkway, he believes the City is comfortable now ith the plans for their section, and he has asked VDOT
to keep a sense of urgency in this project. He sai the possibility of Meadow Creek continuing on the
section north of Rio Road is still there for the futu ,He said it has been a joy to work with the people
from Scottsville, and also from Monticello, Out 0 that. two ISTEA projects meet national significance and
he thinks that both will ultimately receive national recognition.
Mr. Myers said he thinks it will be import nt to somehow find an eastern connector lhat is
acceptable to the community that will help to con ect the east and north. With business and residential
development on both sides of the River, he sees that as the most critical long-term traffic need of the
community. He said the Charlottesville-Albema e MPO is working on it. The County might work with the
new Commonwealth Transportation Board mem er to try and get funding for a study. Also, he would like
to say that the area could not have a better app 'ntee for the CTB than Butch Davies, He has worked
closely with Mr. Davies who has followed transp rtation issues over the years, and Mr. Myers thinks he
will be very responsive. The one thing there mi t be disagreement about is the Western Route 29
Bypass, His main concern is that the process n t be restarted. It is possible the whole thing might have
to start over if the Fourth Circuit Court and Judg Moon rule in such a way, but he thinks it would be a 63
long-term disruption for this community.
Attachment G ~
.
.
.
I
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
I
I
\
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Myers sees an el d to the State budget crisis. Mr. Myers said he thinks
the State budget crisis is a little overblown. The rivatization at VDOT has been successful. No one
thought there would be a bridge over 1-95 to conn ct 1-295 to the east and Chippenham Parkway south,
He said that road was done with private funding. ~opefully, bond issues will pass in Northern Virginia
and Tidewater to relieve a big burden on the Con monwealth, Quite frankly, he thinks that at some point
in time there will be a need to look at a user fee f r the gas tax, He is not opposed to tolls. He grew up in
Petersburg, and paid tolls for 40 years to drive to Richmond and Chesterfield County. Those tolls paid for
half of their roads.
Mr. Myers said the new Transportation Commissioner is very capable. There is now a
professional running VDOT and that will be gOO(. They need to rebuild their human infrastructure,
Overall, he thinks there will be real improvement at VDOT, and the funding situation will be cured. He
said all have to work together to find solutions f( traffic, As much as he thinks transit is good, it is difficult
to get people to ride buses. He would also like see a better job done for the trails system. He said the
Rivanna Trails group has a lot of energy, but m re could be done, He said it has been a please to serve
the County, and he is a resource for the future,
Agenda Item No, 6, Resolution in Rec gnition of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission's (TJPDC) 30th Anniversary,
Mr. Dorrier read the following resoluti n into the record:
"On behalf of the citizens. Local Gov rnment staff and the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, I would like to co gratulate the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission on the occasion of its It rtieth year of service to our community, The
T JPDC has been a valuable regiona partner in wide-ranging planning efforts to better
our community's quality of life. It ha been a leader in coordinating area-wide
transportation planning efforts focu ng on creating effective road networks as well as
alternative transportation options. I has continued to monitor regional demographic
trends and 10 raise critical issues re ating to population growth and development
patterns to a high level of communi attention and dialogue. It has also devoted time
and energy to housing, juvenile jus ice, workforce and employment, cultural tourism and
other pressing regional issues, It s brought these topics to the pUblic's attention via
community forums and interactive 'neetings designed to enhance awareness and
promote informed citizen participa ion in public policy decision-making."
Mr. Dorrier presented the resoluti n to Mr, Harrison Rue, the new Executive Director of the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Comr ission.
Mr. Rue said he has only been a esident of the area for about six months. This award really
goes to everyone who has volunteered ti e to the Commission for the last 30 years. Their goal is to earn
another plaque 30 years from now,
Agenda Item NO.7, Consent A lenda, Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Items 7.1 throug 7.6 and 7.8 through 7.11, to pull Item 7.7 for discussion and to
accept the remaining items on the Cons nt Agenda as information. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr, Donier, Mr. ::'erkins and Mr, Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms, Thomas.
Item 7,1, Approval of Minutes: February 6, March 18(A), May 1 and May 15, 2002.
Mr. Rooker had read the minut s of March 18, 2002 (Afternoon) and found them to be
acceptable,
No other minutes had been re d.
By the recorded vote set ou above, the minutes of March 18, 2002 (A) were approved as
presented.
Item 7.2.
,rr
ZMA-1999-13, Young America (Sign #70), Proffers.
Item 7,3, SP-1999-059. Young America (Sign #f37). Both petitions had been deferred from the
Board's meeting on June 5, 2002,
It was noted in the staff's report that at the Board's meeting on June 5, 2002, a public hearing
was held on the Young America/Morris Creek Yacht Club application (Petition #'s ZMA-99-13 and SP-
99-59). While the applicant provided a set of proffers, the person signing the proffers was not legally
enabled to do so. A legally signed set of prOffers has now been received. Additionally, the applicant
struck the language in Proffer No, 2 which would have allowed "truck stops" as a by-right use on the site.
:54
Attachment G !J5
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
per the Board's directive. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-1999-13 with the proffers submitted and
approval of SP-1999-59 as presented.
As recommended by staff, ZMA-1999-13 was approved subject to the following proffers,
and SP.1999-59 was approved as presented.
Original Proffer: 4/3/02
Amended Proffer: 6/6/02
(Amendment ~
PROFFER FORM
Date: 517102
ZMA #: 99-59
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 76M(1)-1 and 76-55A
2,20 Acres to be rezoned from LI to HC (0.43 acres unzoned former VDOT rieht-of-wav)
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need
for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
request.
1, The development of the site will be in general accord with the plan entitled
"Conceptual Site Plan", prepared by John McNair and Associates, dated January
8,2002 and revised on April 2, 2002.
2, The Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants,
service stations. convenience stores and gift, craft or antique shops.
3. Vehicular access from 5th street to development on the properties subject to ZMA-
99-13 and SP-99-59 shall be provided by a single entrance to be shared with the
existing Holiday Inn, The final site plan for development of the subject properties
shall cause the existing entrance to the Holiday Inn to be modified to be used as
an "in only" entrance as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and the modified
entrance shall meet Virginia Department of Transportation standards for one-way
commercial entrances, Additionally, the final site plan shall provide the Holiday
Inn with an additional entrance for two-way traffic flow. This additional entrance
shall be at a minimum safe distance from the "in only" entrance as determined by
the Albemarle County Engineering Department.
4. All proposed buildings shall be sited so that the fronts of the buildings are oriented
to face 5th Street as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.
5, All fuel islands shall be located behind a building as generally shown on the
Conceptual Site Plan,
6. All existing and new utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The
placement of these underground utilities shall be shown and constructed as part of
any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties,
7, As part of preliminary site plan submitted for any development on the rezoned
property, the owner shall conduct a Traffic Study which reflects the traffic impacts
of all the proposed uses and the existing Holiday Inn (Tax Map 76, Parcel 55C),
All improvements identified by the traffic study shall be subject to VDOT and
County Engineering approval and provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. These improvements, if required by the traffic study, may include, but
shall not be limited to, a traffic signal at the entrance from 5th Street; an extension
of the turn lane in the northbound lane of 5th Street coming from Interstate 64, and
an extension of the existing turn lane from 5th Street southbound to the entrance
of the proposed development.
8. The Owners shall grant an easement to the County for the "Greenway Easement"
as shown on the accompanying Conceptual Site Plan provided that the County
holds the owner harmless as provided in Virginia Code !l29.1-509(E). This
easement shall be granted within 90 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors
of ZMA-99-13 and SP-99-59,
In conjunction with the Greenway, the Owner(s) shall:
A. In addition to the screening requirements of the Albemarle County
Architectural Review Board and section 32 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, the owner shall provide a vegetated buffer for the purposes of
screening the development from the proposed greenway trail shown on the
Conceptual Site Plan. This vegetated buffer shall be provided in a manner
55'
Attachment G ~
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
.
consistent with section 32.7.9.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
and the landscaping shall be shown on the final site plan and installed as part
of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties.
B,
Steps and a vehicle travelway from the proposed parking area to the edge of
the proposed Greenway Easement shall be constructed in the approximate
locations shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. These improvements shall tie
shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the
rezoned properties and maintained by the owner,
C. A contribution of five hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be made to the County
to upgrade the existing bridge that formerly served the Old Lynchburg Road
that lies in the proposed Greenway easement. This contribution shall be
made prior to Final Site Plan approval.
(Signed)
Kevin P. Mahaney, Pres. Kevin P. Mahaney, Pres.
for Morris Creek Yacht Club for Morris Creek Yacht Club 6-13-02
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
Item 7.4, Resolution to amend the Albemarle County Personnel Policy pertaining to military
leaves of absence for County employees,
It was noted in the stafrs report that legislation passed by the 2002 General Assembly and
approved by the Governor amended state law (Virginia Code s44-93) pertaining to military leave for state
and local government employees. State law provides that such employees are entitled to a maximum of
15 paid days of military leave for training purposes or active duty per Federal fiscal year. Once this
15-day period is exhausted, an employee typically begins to receive military pay and is placed on unpaid
leave status by the locality. Under this legislation, local governments have the enabling authority to pay
the difference between an employee's regular pay and the military pay received. The proposed changes
to County personnel policy implement this enabling authority and would bring current policy in line with
state law. Specifically, the proposed policy provides that, for any employee who is engaged in active
federally funded military duty as a result of being drafted or involuntarily called to duty, the County will
make up the difference in pay between the employee's regular pay and the military pay received during
the period of active military service, for up to six months, At the expiration of the six-month period, the
employee may apply for a three-month extension of the pay differential.
.
The policy revisions also provide that employees will accrue leave and seniority in accordance
with current County leave policies, Finally, the policy provides that, during the period of active duty
military service, an employee's health insurance coverage may continue with no change in coverage from
what the employee has during regular employment. Extended health care coverage may continue for the
lesser of 18 months (under COBRA) or the day after the date on which the person fails to apply for or
return to a position of employment with the County as required by Federal law, At the employee's
request, the policy provides that the County shall pay the employer portion of the applicable health care
premium during this period, with the employee continuing to pay the cost of dependent coverage,
Many localities are adopting similar changes in light of the Federal military call-up that has
occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States and subsequent military operations
overseas. Currently, at least one County employee is serving on an active duty basis overseas and
would be affected by this policy change. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and revised policy.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the revised policy which follows:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy has been adopted by the
Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, changes to state law authorize the Board of Supervisors to provide
enhanced benefits to County Employees called into military service,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends Section P-83, Military Leave, of the County
of Albemarle Personnel Policy, as follows:
Section P-83. Military Leave
Upon presentation of a copy of final orders or other equivalent notice, an employee who
is a member of an officially-recognized reserve or national guard unit shall be entitled to
15 work days of military leave for training purposes or active duty per Federal fiscal year
and shall be paid regular pay.
.
An employee who is drafted, volunteers for full-time military service or is called to active
duty in the uniformed services shall be placed on military leave without pay when military
leave is exhausted. However, for any employee who is engaged in active federally-
funded military duty as a result of being drafted or involuntarily called to duty, the County,
51P
Attachment G ~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 1 of 1
~~.IOV~~
--
t~\\~e.-\ - ~~
vv-e-\:-c.. c;"" -- '+-I L \r ' <..
~ ~ E ~ \ c..~ Sv--~A
~~ \'vL ~ ~ts
Executive Summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
IAGENDA TITLE: IIAGENDA DATE: IIITEM NUMBER: I
ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 -- Young America/ IJUIY 3, 2002 II I
Morris Creek Yacht Club
ISU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: I CONSENT AGENDA IINFORMA TION: I
ACTION: X
The applicant requests a zoning map amendment ot
approximately 3.50 acres to allow tor HC (Highway Commercial)
uses. The properties are located on approximately 9.099 acres
zoned LI (Light Industrial) and an unzoned, abandoned highway
right-at-way. The property is described as portions ot Tax Map
76M 1-Parcel 1 and is localed on the east side ot Fifth Street
Extended jusl north ot its intersection with Interstate 64. This
property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is
designated tor Industrial and Regional Service uses in
Neighborhood 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Special Use Permit is tor approval ot approximately 4.00
acres tor grading in the tloodplainot Biscuit Run at its confluence
with Moores Creek. The properties, TMP 76M1-1, TMP 76-55A,
and the abandoned right-at-way, comprise approximately 12.897
acres and are zoned LI (Light Industrial), HC (Highway
Commercial), and no zoning, respectively.
ISTAFF CONTACT(S): IIA TT ACHMENTS: IIREVIEWED BY: MDB I
IMr. Barnes, Mr. Cilimberg IIResolution II I
View Recommendation
DISCUSSION:
Atthe June 5, 2002 meeting, the Board held a public hearing on the Young America/ Morris Creek Yacht Club
application (ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59). While the applicant had provided a set of proffers, the person signing the
proffers was not legally enabled to sign the proffers. Attached is legally signed set of proffers. Additionally, the
applicant has struck the language in proffer number 2, which would have allowed "truck stops" as a by-right use
on the site, per the Board's directive.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 1999-13 with the attached proffers and SP-1999-59 as presented.
View Proffers
Return to Consent Agenda
61
Attachment G ~
htto:/ /www.a1bemar1e.org/bos/agenda/20020703Noungamericaexecsummary.htm
7/1/2002
.
.
.
Proffi rs
4/3/02
6/6/02
Page 1 of2
Original Proffer:
Amended Proffer
(Amendment # 31
PROFFER FORM
Date: S/7I02
ZMA 99-S9
Tax M p and Parcel Number(s): 76M(1)-1 and 76-SSA
2.20 Acres to be rezoned from LI to HC (0.43 acres unzoned former VDOT right-of-way)
Pursua t to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
volunta ily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are
proffer d as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (I) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditi ns; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. Th development of the site will be in general accord with the plan entitled "Conceptual Site Plan", prepared by John
M Nair and Associates, dated January 8, 2002 and revised on April 2, 2002.
2. 111 Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, convenience stores and
gif:, craft or antique shops.
3. Ve ic1ar access from Sth street to development on the properties subject to ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-S9 shall be provided
by single entrance to be shared with the existing Holiday Inn. The fmal site plan for development of the subject
pr perties shall cause the existing entrance to the Holiday Inn to be modified to be used as an "in only" entrance as
sh wn on the Conceptual Site Plan and the modified entrance shall meet Virginia Department of Transportation
sta dards for one-way commercial entrances. Additionally, the fmal site plan shall provide the Holiday Inn with an
ad itional entrance for two-way traffic flow. This additional entrance shall be at a minimum safe distance from the "in
on "entrance as determined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department.
4. Al proposed buildings shall be sited so that the fronts of the buildings are oriented to face Sth Street as generally shown
on e Conceptual Site Plan.
5. Al fuel islands shall be located behind a building as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.
6. Al existing and new utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The placement of these underground
uti ities shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties
7. As part of preliminary site plan submitted for any development on the rezoned property, the owner shall conduct a
Tr ffic Study which reflects the traffic impacts of all the proposed uses and the existing Holiday Inn (Tax Map 76 Parcel
SS ), All improvements identified by the traffic study shall be subject to VDOT and County Engineering approval and
pro ided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. These improvements, if required by the traffic study, may
inc ude, but shall not be limited to, a traffic signal at the entrance from Sth Street; an extension of the turn lane in the
no hbound lane of Sth Street coming from Interstate 64, and an extension of the existing turn lane from Sth Street
so thbound to the entrance of the proposed development.
8. Th Owners shall grant an easement to the County for the "Greenway Easement" as shown on the accompanying
Co ceptual Site Plan provided that the County holds the owner harmless as provided in Virginia Code 929,I-S09(E).
Th's easement shall be granted within 90 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors of ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59.
In on junction with the Greenway, the Owner(s) shall:
A In addition to the screening requirements of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board and section 32 of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner shall provide a vegetated buffer for the purposes of screening
- the development from the proposed greenway trail shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. This vegetated buffer shall
htto://
6<6
.a1bemar 1e.org/bos/ agenda/200207 03N oungamericanproffers .htm
Attachment G !fA
Proffers
Page 2 of2
be provided in a manner consistent with section 32.7.9.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and the landscaping
shall be shown on the [mal site plan and installed as part of any [mal site plan for development of the rezoned
properties.
B. Steps and a vehicle travelway from the proposed parking area to the edge of the proposed Greenway Easement shall
be constructed in the approximate locations shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. These improvements shall be
shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties and maintained by the
owner.
C. A contribution of five hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be made to the County to upgrade the existing bridge that
formerly served the Old Lynchburg Road that lies in the proposed Greenway easement. This contribution shall be
made prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Signatures of All Owners
Printed Names of All Owners
Date
OR
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
Return to Executive Summary
61
Attachment G ~
httlJ:I /www.a1bemarle.org/bos/agenda/20020703/Youngamericanproffers.htm
., J..f~VV~
.
.
.
-,
Original Proffer: 4/3/02
Amended Proffer 6/6/02
(Amendment # J)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 5/7/02
#: 99-59
~ax ap and Parcel Number(s): 76M(I)-1 and 76-55A
2.20 Acres to be rezoned from LI to HC (0.43 acres unzoned former VDOT right-of-way)
Purs nt to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
volu tarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are
proffi red as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
condo 'ons; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. he development of the site will be in general accord with the plan entitled "Conceptual Site Plan", prepared by
J hn McNair and Associates, dated January 8,2002 and revised on April 2, 2002.
2. he Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, convenience stores
d gift, craft or antique shops.
3. ehic1ar access from 5th street to development on the properties subject to ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 shall be
rovided by a single entrance to be shared with the existing Holiday Inn. The final site plan for development of the
s bject properties shall cause the existing entrance to the Holiday Inn to be modified to be used as an "in only"
e trance as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and the modified entrance shall meet Virginia Department of
ransportation standards for one-way commercial entrances. Additionally, the [mal site plan shall provide the
oliday Inn with an additional entrance for two-way traffic flow. This additional entrance shall be at a minimum
s fe distance from the "in only" entrance as detennined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department.
4. 11 proposed buildings shall be sited so that the fronts of the buildings are oriented to face 5th Street as generally
s own on the Conceptual Site Plan.
5.
6.
I fuel islands shall be located behind a building as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.
11 existing and new utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The placement of these underground
u "lities shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties
s part of preliminary site plan submitted for any development on the rezoned property, the owner shall conduct a
raffic Study which reflects the traffic impacts of all the proposed uses and the existing Holiday Inn (Tax Map 76
P rcel 55C). All improvements ldentified by the traffic study shall be subject to VDOT and County Engineering
a proval and provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. These improvements, if required by the
affic study, may include, but shall not be limited to, a traffic signal at the entrance from 5th Street; an extension of
e turn lane in the northbound lane of 5th Street coming from Interstate 64, and an extension of the existing turn
I ne from 5th Street southbound to the entrance of the proposed development.
e Owners shall grant an easement to the County for the "Greenway Easement" as shown on the accompanying
onceptual Site Plan provided that the County holds the owner harmless as provided in Virginia Code 929.1-509(E).
's easement shall be granted within 90 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors of ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59.
conjunction with the Greenway, the Owner(s) shall:
In addition to the screening requirements of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board and section 32
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner shall provide a vegetated buffer for the purposes of
screening the development from the proposed greenway trail shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. Tills
7.
8.
liD
Attachment H
~
-',
vegetated buffer shall be provided in a manner consistent with section 32.7.9.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance and the landscaping shall be shown on the [mal site plan and installed as part of any [mal site plan
for development of the rezoned properties.
B. Steps and a vehicle travelway from the proposed parking area to the edge of the proposed Greenway Easement
shall be constructed in the approximate locations shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. These improvements
shall be shown and constructed as part of any [mal site plan for development of the rezoned properties and
maintained by the owner.
C. A contribution of five hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be made to the County to upgrade the existing bridge that
formerly served the Old Lynchburg Road that lies in the proposed Greenway easement. This contribution shall
be made prior to Final Site Plan approval.
<~ 16-_ /4:v,"t;Ofrh\a."~;?IU;
{~~ I 'i ~"fO.J ,z'";!l1~"t~~(fCrvi
6.-li-oz
Date/, / .:>
D>-fJ-O?
OR
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
/.pI
Attachment H
#'
.
.
.
De
Memorandum
Judy Wiegand
Tamara Ambler
Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
28 Jan 2007
Rev.l: 25 Mar 2008
Rev.2: 31 Mar 2008
5th Street Development (formerly Morris Creek Yacht Club, Inc. SP199900059,
ZMA 1999000 13)
onsistent with the recommendation made two months ago for the Hartman Property proposal in Pantops
( P200700057), I am recommending that his special use permit application be denied. The reasoning is
e sentially the same, and it is outlined below.
I is not good practice or policy to allow extensive fill in the floodplain for purposes of adding
d velopment capacity. Fill to this extent may have unforeseen impacts. In addition to those considerations
g ven in immediate engineering studies, there are other considerations. Future occupants will be alarmed
a the proximity of floodwaters, and flood levels historically increase. Fill slopes may be structurally
a fected in the long term. Most significantly, this sets a precedent to fill in floodplains where it is not
s ictly needed for access, utilities, or the reasonable use of a parcel. By reasonable use, I mean it might
b possible to allow fill for one building or a small site plan, but it is not necessary to fill the entire
fl odplain, or close to it.
I ealize this has been approved previously under different administration and a difference commission and
bard. I recognize that this commission and board may wish to approve it again for those reasons.
owever, I feel I must try to remain consistent in my recommendations since becoming the County
E gineer last year.
~z
Attachment I
~
.
.
.
as the applicant has proposed. This would enable it to be incorporated into the Brass, Inc parcel
which is also zoned Light Industrial. Please note that this analysis of the possible rezoning
outcomes does not take into account the floodplain issue. If the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors determine that filling the floodplain is not proper, then there is no real reason to
change the zoning at this time.
The Comprehensive Plan's Interstate Interchange Development Policy directly addresses Fifth
Street north of the interchange. This property is directly affected by this policy. The Policy
recommends either large-scale, regional uses or highway service business, which primarily rely
on the interstate traveler. The rezoning proposal seems to fall into the latter category. The
Policy also recommends that highway-oriented business be clustered with common access point.
On the surface, the proposal's use of the Holiday Inn's existing entrance seems to meet this
recommendation also. However, the applicant has not responded to VDOT's and staffs
concerns related to traffic, internal circulation and off-site improvements that this proposal might
necessitate. Final1y, the Policy recommends that "[The] maintenance of functional and aesthetic
integrity should be emphasized in the review of application for development. Such review
should occur in the early stages of the development process (i.e. rezoning petition, special use
permit application, etc) and should address such matters as: control of access,. . ., landscaping and
buffering, setback, lighting, building mass and height and orientation in regard to aesthetic
concerns." The applicant has not sufficiently addressed these matters.
Finally, staffhas analyzed this proposal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive
Plan. For informational purposes, and at the request of the Board of Supervisors, staff makes
note of the relationship of development proposals with the 12 principles of the Neighborhood
Model that were endorsed at the Board of Supervisors meeting on May 3,2000. These principles
are identified below and highlighted within this section for context within the Land Use Plan.
The 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model are as follows:
. Pedestrian Orientation
. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
. Parks and Open Space
. Neighborhood Centers
. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
. Relegated Parking
. Mixture of Uses
. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
. Redevelopment Rather than Abandonment
. Site Planning that Respects Terrain
. Clear Edges
Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20
- 22 of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Section) ,
1. Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks
and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain).
The proposal does not respect the potential for greenways in the area, as proposed in .the
Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment E). As conceptually proposed, the convenience store
and a portion of the fill are within their proposed 50-foot greenway buffer. Development of
;q
Attachment C 16'
the site would make the construction of a pathway through this section difficult. Finally, the
development has not proposed any improvements to the section of the greenway within their
site. Please note that the County usually attempts to gamer a 100-foot easement for its
greenways.
Secondly, the plan, as proposed, violates Section 17-321 ofthe Water Protection Ordinance.
This section allows for limited disturbance within the landward 50 feet ofthe 100-foot stream
buffer. This plan proposes placing a building and fill within the waterward 50 feet. Even if
the submitted plan could be modified to remove the disturbance outside the waterward 50
feet, the applicant has not proposed a mitigation 'plan for the disturbance in the landward 50
feet, as required by Section 17-322 of the Water Protection Ordinance.
2. Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions.
There are no residential subdivisions in close proximity.
3. Limit access points to minimize the impact of development on major roads.
The applicant needs address the potential impacts to Fifth Street through completion of a
traffic study.
4. A 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 facilities. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets
and Transportation Networks)
The site contains two important sections of the proposed greenway trail. The first runs along
Moores Creek. The second runs along Biscuit Run south and connects with the Foxcroft and
Mill Creek Subdivisions. The development has proposed no improvements to these sections
of the greenway on their site. Improvements could have been provided in the form of a Class
A trail or rehabilitating the bridge which crosses Biscuit Run at the confluence (see
Attachment E).
5. Provide for ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations through the
reservation of adequate right-ol-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner
consistent with planned transportation improvements, including auto, bus, bicycle, and
pedestrian modes (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation
Networks).
Since the site is so close to the 1-64 interchange and contains both steep slopes and
floodplain, street interconnections to parcels either across Moores Creek or Biscuit Run are
not recommended for this site.
6. Underground utilities should be provided in new developments.
The question of underground utilities was not discussed. However, they could be provided
easily on this site.
7. Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided.
The proposed site design does not minimize the impervious cover. An inefficient layout of
parking creates large expanses of asphalt. The applicant did not proposed a means for
treating water quality. From the layout, it can be inferred that the intent was to use the
remainder of the floodplain for water quality Best Management Practices. Sections of the
Water Protection Ordinance limit the use of Best Management Practices in the floodplain.
2b
Attachment C );to
.
.
.
, I
8. Building orientation should be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located
exclusively in front of buildings. (Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Relegated
Parking)
The proposed plan places the fuel canopies directly adjacent to Fifth Street Extended. The
buildings are placed at the back ofthe site and as far away from the road as possible. It is
also difficult to assess the visual impacts that this development could have when seen from
the 1-64 Bridge over Biscuit Run. The applicant did not address the impact concerns to the
Entrance Corridor raised by the Design Planner. Therefore, the plan has not yet been
submitted to the Architectural Review Board for comment.
9. Where site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used.
The applicant did not provide information on lighting; however, any proposed lighting will
need to meet the County's Lighting Ordinance requirements.
10. Historic buildings should be adaptively reused. (Redevelopment rather than
Abandonment)
There are no buildings on the site. Only an old bridge crossing Biscuit Run.
Specific standards for commercial development in the Land Use Plan also apply to this site.
These standards are as follows:
1. Commercial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Villages, Communities
and the Urban Area. Only limited supporting commercial uses appropriate to the Rural
Areas should be included in the Rural Areas zoning provisions. (Clear Edges)
This rezoning is proposed for Neighborhood 5 which is part of the Urban Area
2. Highway-oriented commercial development should be located in clusters with common
access points. Highway-oriented commercial development not located in such clusters
should utilize service roads or shared access with adjoining sites to minimize the number of
intersections on higher volume roads. To encourage this approach, areas designated for
commercial development should not be less than three acres and should be of reasonable
topography to allow unified access.
The proposed rezoning is for a "clustered" development that is served by a single point of
access. Questions of how the traffic generated by uses at this location remain unanswered.
3. Rezoning to a commercial designation for sites of three acres or more should be
accomplished under a planned approach accompanied by traffic analysis.
A traffic analysis has been performed. Staff and VDOT have raised concerns with this
analysis. To date, those concerns have not been resolved.
4. Commercial uses adjacent to residential areas should be effectively buffered and screened in
accordance with zoning regulations. Generally, commercial office uses should be employed
as transitional areas between residential development and heavier commercial or industrial
areas. Any uses (including commercial office uses) allowed adjacent to residential areas
should be compatible in operational aspects, and any potentially objectionable aspects
should be adequately addressed at rezoning.
There are no residential areas in the immediate vicinity. The area is characterized by office
and commercial uses.
5. Mixed commercial and residential areas as well as mixed uses within buildings should be
encouraged as land and energy-efficient developments, along with infillof existing
'2-\
Attachment C t1l
commercial areas. (Mixture of Uses and Centers)
The project does not propose a mixed-use component. Due to the proximity to the interstate
and the size of the site relative to the floodway, the possibilities for mixed-use are limited.
6. Commercial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to
support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone,
natural gas systems, and community facilities should be considered in review of a
commercial rezoning request.
Utilities are adequate to support this proposal.
ST AFF COMMENT:
Analysis of the Rezonina
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zoninl! district
The purpose and intent of the He Zoning District is to permit development of highway
related commercial uses. The proposal meets the intent of both HC zoning and the Interstate
Interchange Policy
Public need and iustification for the chanl!e
The public need for the rezoning is not immediately obvious. There are already several gas
stations and restaurants in the area. However, an argument might be made that this rezoning
serves to make better use of the land in the Development Areas.
AnticiDated impact on public facilities and services
Water and Sewer - Water and sewer service is available to the property.
Roads - The traffic impact of this site are not yet understood. The applicant has been
requested to provide additional information for staff analysis.
Stormwater manai:ement - Stormwater management plans were not submitted as part
of this proposal. It remains a question ifthe conceptual plan can provide stormwater
treatment without utilizing the floodway.
Anticipated imDact on natural. cultural. and historic resources
No impact is expected on cultural and historic resources. With regard to impacts on natural
areas, the impacts to the stream buffers have not been addressed. At present, no impact is
anticipated to the critical slopes on the eastern side of Biscuit Run.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surroundin~ Droperties
Adding the amount of fill proposed by the applicant would greatly affect the appearance of
this site and diminish the aesthetic value that the creeks would provide for a greenway trail.
Secondly, the plan, as proposed, could negatively impact the Entrance Corridor roads.
Analysis of Special Use Permit
The amount offloodp1ain1 on this site makes it difficult to develop. When a property is in the
1 The one hundred-vear floodplain is the entire area subject to a one hundred-year flood. In Albemarle, all areas
subject to inundation by waters of the one hundred-year flood as defmed on the FEMA flood insurance maps
determine the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
~Z---
Attachment C ~
.
.
.
, I
one hundred-year floodplain, the construction of buildings is prohibited. However, under a
special use permit, fill can be placed in the part of the floodplain named the floodway fringe2.
The fill enables the building to be raised above the floodplain and thus escape the building
prohibition. The ability to perform this fill is based on an engineering study that determines the
limits of floodplain, the limit of the floodway3 and the one hundred-year flood elevation. This
study also needs to define the impacts to upstream and downstream properties.
Floodplain studies, performed by Dewberry and Davis, delineated portions of the two properties
which are either outside the floodplain, in the floodway fringe, or in floodway (Please see the
Engineering Comments below for a full discussion of the Dewberry and Davis Study). A small
portion ofTMP 76-55A adjacent to Fifth Street is outside of the floodplain. The remainder is in
the floodway fringe. A portion ofTMP 76M1-1 on the west side of Biscuit Run is in the
floodway fringe. The rest is in the floodway. The portion ofTMP 76Ml-1 to the east of Biscuit
Run is out of the floodplain.
Under this determination made by Dewberry and Davis, which the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) has accepted, the applicant could fill the part of the floodway
fringe which has hatch marks (see Attachment B), if approved by Albemarle County. The
Dewberry and Davis study asserts that the fill in this area will not increase the 1 DO-year flood
elevation. If the flood elevation is not increased, the rule set forth County zoning regulations,
then the, County may permit the fill by approving the Special Use Permit, provided that all
remaining portions of Section 30.3.6.1 and 31.2.4.1 are met.
Enaineerina Department Analysis (Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (Flood
Hazard Overlay District)):
Engineering has reviewed the conceptual plan, hydraulic models, cross-sections and
documentation submitted, by the applicant, in support of the request for filling in the
floodplain of the Moores Creek and Biscuit Run. Their comments are as follows:
Floodplain Analysis
1. The floodplain analysis demonstrates that the area of the proposed fill is an area of
"ineffective flow". This is primarily due to the its location between the two intersecting
streams and the effects of the flow constriction caused by the Interstate 64 and the Fifth
Street bridge abutments. As a result the analysis was able to demonstrate that the
proposed fill in the floodplain had insignificant onsite impact (0.02 ft. increase) to the
100 year storm water surface elevation and no impact to upstream or downstream
properties.
Conceptual Plan
2. The label on the bold line, shown following the bottom of the proposed slope, needs to be
corrected. This represents the "F100dway Line as taken from the Dewberry & Davis
Study" .
2 The floodwav frine:e is defmed as those portions ofland within the Flood Hazard Overlay District subject to
inundation by the one hundred-year flood, but lying outside the floodway.
3 The floodwav is defmed as that portion of the Flood Hazard Overlay District that is required to carry and discharge
the waters of the one hundred year flood without increasing the water surface elevation at any point more than one
(1) foot above existing conditions.
1--?
Attachment C ~
3. The 1 DO-foot stream buffers must be shown and labeled along Moores Creek and Biscuit
Run in accordance with Section 17-317 ofthe Code.
4. The portion of the proposed fill adjacent to Moores Creek encroaches, and in some areas
eliminates, the stream buffer. Encroachment within the landward 50 feet of the buffer
may be authorized pursuant to Section 17-321, provided a mitigation plan is submitted in
accordance with Section 17-322. The plan must be revised to keep the land disturbing
activity within the landward 50 feet of the stream buffer and a mitigation concept is
proposed.
5. This development will be required to provide onsite stormwater management and
conceptual facilities will need to be provided on the concept plan. Please note that
stormwater management facilities will not be allowed within the limits of the floodway.
Conclusion
Before the Engineering Department can finalize their recommendation regarding the
approval/denial of this application and generate conditions of approval for consideration,
comments #3,4 and 5 will need to be addressed and information submitted to the
Engineering Department.
Analysis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance:
The Board of SUDervisors herebv reserves unto itself the ri~ht to issue all sDecial use Dermits
Dermitted hereunder. SDecial use Dermits for uses as provided in this ordinance mav be issued
UDon a findin~ bv the Board of SUDervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent DroDerty.
As a result of the Dewberry and Davis study, the Engineering Department has determined that
filling the defined portion of the floodplain will not have an adverse impact to adjacent
properties. However, outstanding questions related to stormwater management, greenway trails,
and visual impacts remain as unresolved potential impacts to surrounding properties and! or the
community.
that the character of the district will not be chan~ed therebv.
Adding the amount of fill proposed by the applicant would greatly affect the appearance of this
site and diminish the aesthetic value that the creeks would provide for a greenway trail.
Secondly, the plan, as proposed, could negatively impact the Entrance Corridor roads.
and that such use will be in harmonv with the DurDose and intent of this ordinance.
With the many outstanding concerns raised by staff remaining to be answered, it is difficult to
assess ifuse of the site can fit harmoniously into the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and
Neighborhood.
with the uses Dermitted bv ri~ht in the district.
The adjoining use is a hotel. If designed properly, the site could mesh well with the adjoining
use and any other uses that would be permitted in this district.
with additional refJUlations Drovided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
Again, the applicant has not defined the use. Therefore, it is difficult to judge potential conflicts
Attachment C
~~
~
.
.
.
ith Section 5.0.
nd with the ublic health sa e and eneral wel are.
he Engineering Department has determined that filling the defined portion of the floodplain
ill not have an adverse impact to adjacent properties. Still, the undefined nature of the project
akes any determination of impacts to this criterion difficult.
UMMARY:
he applicant has chosen to bring the Rezoning and Special Use Permit request in front of the
lanning Commission without answering many of the questions that staff has raised (see letter
om the applicant's agent, Attachment D). The applicant's responses to this point have been
ainly aimed at answering Engineering's concerns related to the fill.
taff, however, still believes that other impacts are of equal importance as the engineering
oncerns related, to fill. The applicant has failed to show how they will mitigate the traffic
i pact from the site, mitigate disturbance within the 100-foot stream buffer, mitigate stormwater
noff, mitigate the visual impact to the Entrance Corridor road, meet the Comprehensive Plan's
terstate Interchange Development Policy, etc. Finally, the Engineering Staff still has several
answered questions about the fill in the floodplain.
taff is somewhat sympathetic to the circular argument within which the applicant finds
ems elves (i.e. the applicant cannot find a tenant or buyer until they have determined the
ount of permitted fill and they cannot demonstrate mitigation of the development and fill until
ey have found a tenant or buyer). However, this is a circular argument created by the applicant
d not the County. lfthe applicant would bring a complete proposal to the County, the County
ould then evaluate all impacts to the site and surrounding properties. Until staffhas a clear
nderstanding of the potential impacts, staff cannot recommend approval.
taffhas pointed out these issues to the applicant, but the applicant desires a determination from
e Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on whether fill in the floodplain at this
ocation will be permitted. The applicant has put aside staff s request for more information
elated to the future intent of the site until they have received this determination from the
ommission and the Board.
taffhas identified the following factors that are favorable to this request:
. The applicant has shown that fill in the floodplain is possible without raising the flood
elevation.
taffhas identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
The lack of information and definition of the project makes it difficult to assess if filling the
floodplain is a worthy activity.
The lack of information and definition ofthe project makes it difficult to assess the project's
impact on a wide variety of other issues (e.g. visual, traffic, environmental, and greenway
impacts, etc.)
ECOMMENDED ACTION
taff cannot recommend approval at this time because the applicant has failed to define .solutions
o a wide range of potential impacts. Permitting the fill to occur before these impacts can be
ssessed could lead to irreparable impacts to the floodplain. Staff believes that the applicant
z5
Attachment C 1J.
should more fully develop their proposal before the Commission and the Board consider the
applicant's request to rezone TMP 76Ml-l and provide a Special Use Permit for fill on TMP
76Ml-l and TMP 76-55A.
Attachments:
A- Tax Map
B - Fill Proposal
C - Application Plan
D - Applicant Letter to Staff
E - Comprehensive Plan's Greenway Recommendations for the Area
p
Attachment C ~
.
.
.
F
,;.;;- .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
July 10, 2001
Robert 1. Smith
POBox 7120
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE: ZMA-1999-13 Young America; TM 76M1, Parcel 1 and TM 76, Parcel 55A & 55C
SP-1999-59 Young America; TM 76M1, Parcel 1 and TM 76, Parcel55A & 55C
Dear Mr. Smith:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on June 20, 2001, referred the above-noted
petitions back to the Planning Commission to address questions raised by the Board, Please note those
questions in the attached copy of the draft minutes of the Board's discussion and action. Also, please
coordinate with Michael Barnes of my staff in the further review and re-scheduling of these petitions,
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me,
Sincerely,
\/WC/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley
Michael Barnes
~1
Attachment D '#J
505 f{~
/5Y'- ICY-' '\
~l U-\. f. I
~ /2..A,
Agenda Item NO.9. ZMA-1999-13. Young America (Sign #98). PUBLIC HEARING on a request
for a Zoning Map Amendment of approx 3.50 acs to allow for HC uses. Znd LI & HC.
TM76M1 ,P1 ;TM76,P55A &TM76,P55C. Lac on approx 9.099 acs on E side of 5th St Ext just N of intersec
w/l-64. Scottsville Dist. (Property designated for Industrial & Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 in
the Comp Plan.) Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the LJciiry Progress on
June 4 and June 11,2001.)
June 20, 2001 (RegUlar Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
DRAFT
(The next two items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-1999-59. Young America (Sign #95). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to
approve approx 4.0 acs of approx 12.987 acs for grading in floodplain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with
Moores Creek. Znd LI & HC. Portions of TM76M1 ,P1 ;TM76, P55A&TM76,P55C. Loc on E side of 5th St
Ext just N of its intersec w/I-64. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on June 4 and June 11,2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's reports. He noted that the request is to rezone an area west
of Biscuit Run currently zoned LI and also an abandoned unzoned right-of-way for the Old Fifth Street
both to HC. Concurrent with the rezoning the applicant is requesting to fill in the floodplain at the
confluence of Biscuit Run and Moores Creek. The request to rezone and fill the floodplain is based on the
desire of the applicant to lease or sell a developable site to an unspecified user or users. Staff has a
conceptual plan for a restaurant or convenience store submitted for review. The plan has not been
proffered and is not under review as a preliminary site plan. In order to define the potential of the site to a
potential client, the applicant feels he must be able to define the maximum footprint available. To achieve
the maximum footprint the applicant needs to know the maximum area of f100dway fringe that the County
will permit to be filled.
This is an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan for both Regional Service and Industrial
Service. Current zoning aligns with the Comprehensive Plan designations. This change in zoning would
be inconsistent with the Plan's designation of industrial service. However, because of the peculiarities of
the properties, staff believes rezoning a portion of the property as a part of a complete well-developed
proposal should be considered. This area also falls under the Comprehensive Plan's Interstate
Interchange Development Policy which recommends either large-scale, regional uses or highway service
businesses primarily relying on the interstate traveler. This rezoning proposal falls into the highway
service business category. Policy also recommends that highway-oriented businesses be clustered with a
common access point. The proposal's use of Holiday Inn's existing entrance seems to meet this
recommendation. However, the applicant has not responded to VDOT and staff concerns related to
traffic, internal circulation and off-site improvements that this proposal might necessitate. The Policy also
recommends that the maintenance of functional and aesthetic integrity should be emphasized in the
review of applications for development. Staff does not believe the applicant has sufficiently addressed
those matters at this time.
Mr. Cilimberg said when this request was before the Planning Commission, there were several
issues raised during the discussion. Staff has provided an Executive Summary which notes some of the
activities and information received since the Planning Commission's meeting. A fiscal impact analysis
performed by both the applicant and staff shows a revenue benefit to the County, if the project were to be
approved and built. While positive revenue generation was seen as a mitigating issue by some of the
Commissioners, it appears that the Commission's recommendation for denial was based on outstanding
design issues, unresolved environmental impacts and traffic concerns raised in the staff report. The
applicant's revised Concept Plan has not been submitted to the County as either a proffered plan or a site
plan, thus it has not gone through the County's site review process and its merits have not been
evaluated. The plan does show an on-site detention basin and reduction of the fill that is outside of the
waterward 50 feet of the 1 00 foot stream protection buffer. The plan and proposal still have several
outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Some of the issues are: lack of a mitigation plan for impact
of to the stream buffer; lack of a sufficient traffic study; undemonstrated ability to mitigate impacts to the
Entrance Corridor; and greenway trails shown in this area in the Comprehensive Plan have been ignored.
.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Engineering Department has identified two items that have not been
provided on the Concept Plan-- the 100-foot stream buffer and a mitigation plan. The Engineering -z, <t
Attachment D lIr.
June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
DRAFT
.
Department has recommended, after reviewing the latest information, six conditions for consideration
should the Board decide to take action on the SUP. Those conditions are set out on Attachment C, as
part of the staff's report. The Planning staff is recommending a seventh condition that would delay any of
the fill activity occurring until a final site plan is approved.
Staff has identified a favorable factor to the request being the applicant showing that fill in the
floodplain is possible without raising the flood elevation. Unfavorable factors include the lack of
information and definition of the project which makes it difficult to assess if filling the floodplain is a worthy
activity; and the lack of information and definition of the project makes it difficult to assess the project's
impact on a wide variety of other issues (e.g. visual, traffic, environmental and greenway impacts).
Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not recommend approval of this request because the applicant has not
provided or defined solutions to a wide-range of potential impacts. Staff believes the applicant should
more fully develop the proposal before the Commission and Board considers the request to-rezone and
approve the SUP for fill. The Planning Commission agreed, and at its meeting on May 22, 2001,
recommended denial. Before denying the request, the Commission recommended the applicant defer the
request to allow additional information to be developed and provided. Instead the applicant requested the
Planning Commission to take action.
Mr. Dorrier said it is apparent that there are many unanswered questions about this application.
He asked who is pushing it to the Board for a resolution. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant requested that
the request be acted on by the Commission and move forward to the Board.
With no further questions of staff at this time, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Thomas asked
the applicant to address the Board.
.
Mr. Bob Smith said he is a commercial real estate broker representing the applicant. Mr. Smith
introduced Mr. Dale Ludwig who also represents the owners and is available to answer questions. He also
introduced Mr. Jim Pagleesy, of Dewberry & Davis, who have done the floodplain study for the applicant.
Mr. Smith stated that back in 1997 the owners approached him and asked his help in marketing this
property. In discussing the matter with County staff, he was told that the one-acre parcel was zoned HC
and was located in the floodplain. He was told that there was nothing that could be done until the parcel
was removed from the floodplain. The applicant then retained Dewberry & Davis to research the matter.
The applicant received approval from FEMA to remove one acre from the floodplain. The applicant then
approached VDOT about what was necessary. VDOT's requirements were costly so the applicant
reconsidered the matter. The applicant was told that they would have to get a wetlands study before they
could proceed. That study was cleared, approved and accepted by the County staff. The applicant then
asked Raudabush & Gale to determine what might be removed from the floodplain. Raudabush and Gail
estimated three and one-half acres. The applicant took this information to Dewberry & Davis who then
conducted another study. The first study was done on Moores Creek and the second was done on Biscuit
Run and Moores Creek. FEMA gave its approval on July S, 2000.
.
Mr. Smith said in order for the applicant to be able to develop the land, he needed to purchase
some old abandoned property in the back of Old Lynchburg Road. VDOT did vacate that section of the
state road. The applicant has been working on this plan for five years and has received a lot of support
from County staff. If the Board were to approve the rezoning and special permit requests, the applicant is
aware that before he can improve on the property, a site plan must be approved. He is also aware that
the applicant would need to get approval from the ARB, submit a mitigation plan to be able to get within 50
feet of the stream, prepare a stormwater detention study and submit a runoff control plan. Many of these
programs are very expensive to do. Mr. Smith said if the applicant does not know for sure that he can use
the property, it does not make much sense to go forward. The applicant has not been able to convince
potential buyers to configure their layout on the property. The project will take a lot of work. There will be
two users. There will be cross easements for parking and travel. It will be very intense. Mr. Smith stated
that he designed the Rio Hill project several years ago. That was a much bigger project, but required one-
half the work of this project. The applicant needs the Board's support and understanding. The economic
impact to the County is significant and should be considered.
Mr. Dorrier asked why a proffered plan had not been submitted. Mr. Smith responded that no z.. 't
Attachment D ~
June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
DRAFT
potential user is going to consider the property without a guarantee or a deed to the property that they can
use. Currently there is no way the land can be used. It cannot be built upon and the zoning is part
industrial, part HC and part unzoned. Mr. Dorrier asked if the applicant wants the entire property zoned
HC. Mr. Smith replied, "yes". As part of the conceptual plan, the applicant chose what was thought to be
the highest generating type users. The applicant had a traffic study done on those two users. That
information was submitted to the County. The applicant has proffered an easement to the greenway along
both Moores Creek and Biscuit Run. Ms. Thomas commented that the Board does not have a proffer in
writing. Mr. Smith responded that it was part of the zoning application. Mr. Davis replied that the County
has not received a legally signed proffer.
Mr. Dorrier asked if a zoning amendment is usually considered along with a proffered plan. Mr.
Cilimberg replied "yes", in almost every case. Mr. Dorrier asked if the matter before the Board is unusual.
Mr. Cilimberg said the more unusual aspect is the limited size and the amount of floodplain. It is not
unusual in terms of a parcel of land needing a different zoning for marketing purposes. He cannot think of
a rezoning request in recent years that the Board has considered without proffers that address design and
uses. Mr. Smith then read from the application "if this property is rezoned from LI to HC the owners will
grant 20 foot easements to be added to the proposed greenbelt trail system as shown in red on the
conceptual plan accompanying this zoning request." Since then staff has asked that it be increased to 50
feet and the applicant agreed.
Mr. Davis stated that having that language on the application plan is not the required process to
make a proffer. It has to be in a document signed by the owners. Mr. Smith said that the applicant has
committed to do it and will.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dorrier said that this property lies in a problematic area because there are three different
zonings. Mr. Cilimberg said the roadway was not zoned but by default it becomes R1. Mr. Davis said
"no", it is just not zoned. Mr. Cilimberg said the larger part of the property is zoning L1. The HC exists on
the front. Mr. Smith then pointed out on a map the different zonings. Mr. Dorrier clarified that what the
Board is considering is not a down zoning or an up-zoning but a lateral zoning. Mr. Cilimberg said that
he's not sure what LI to HC would be considered. Mr. Dorrier asked if the problem with the site is the
floodplain and the slope thereof. Mr. Cilimberg said the floodplain is the very restrictive aspect of the site
physically. Mr. Dorrier said he does not feel that the Board has enough information. In his opinion, the
Board needs more information about the floodplain and the potential use of the site. It bothers him that
the Planning Commission has denied the proposal.
Ms. Humphris stated that she tried to make a list of the things that staff and the Planning
Commission said they needed. She does not believe it is known exactly what is in the request about the
greenway. She thought it very interesting the statement in the letter from FEMA about providing the
delineation of the f100dway as separate from the floodplain. It states that "the f100dway is provided to your
community as a tool to regulate floodplain development, therefore, the f100dway modifications described in
this letter and map revision, while acceptable to FEMA must also be acceptable to your community and
adopted by appropriate community action as specified in their regulations". This proposal is for
development in a large f100dway area which requires an enormous amount of fill. It would be unusual for
this Board to approve a rezoning and a SUP without considerably more information about what is going to
happen on that piece of land.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff has a list of things that are necessary. The Board has four items plus
the conditions recommended by Engineering should the Board approve the request. Mr. Tucker said he
suggested to Mr. Cilimberg that perhaps the applicant could proffer those items in greater detail so that the
Board receives them at the time the site plan is submitted. As he understands it, the applicant feels he is
in a "catch-22". The applicant cannot sell the property because no one wants to contract with him unless
it is rezoned. Therefore, the applicant cannot define what needs to be on the property in order to provide
the requested information. Perhaps if there were a proffer the applicant would do it.
Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would provide the mitigation plan for the impact on the stream
buffer prior to the proffer or would he proffer to provide the plan as part of the site plan. Mr. Tucker 30
Attachment D ~
June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
DRAFT
.
suggested the latter; the applicant would proffer to provide the plan at the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said he
believed that particular item was included among the Engineering Department's six conditions for the SUP
and for the floodplain intrusion or fill in the floodplain. He believes the third issue, the undemonstrated
ability to mitigate impacts to the Entrance Corridor, begins getting into overall site design that then says
the applicant needs to present a proffered plan. That has been a real difficulty for the applicant. What the
applicant has provided is simply a concept at this time. The applicant cannot say that concept is what will
be on the site. Certainly that would be along the lines of what has been discussed during the staff review
period.
Mr. Martin asked if, in order to get the zoning, the applicant needs to show how he will mitigate the
impacts to the Entrance Corridor, or can the applicant proffer at this time that he will present at site plan
stage a plan to mitigate impacts. Mr. Cilimberg said the former. The latter could happen on any by-right
development. What the ARB is limited to is what is put before them in terms of whatever those uses are.
Whereas in a zoning case you can look at uses, locations and relationships to not only the Entrance
Corridor but any other adjacent properties, if the applicant will proffer those things through a plan.
Mr. Dorrier said that it seems like HC will cause more runoff which will cause more problems with
the flood area. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it depends on the extent and type of development and the
amount of impervious cover. Typically when you are dealing with a SUP for fill in the floodplain you are
doing it based on a site plan. You know the particular area of disturbance.
.
Mr. Davis said there appear to be two issues. One issue is the rezoning, whether or not that is
appropriate. Staff has laid out that analysis. Perhaps with the proffer that addresses the zoning issues
the Board could go forward with the zoning decision. The more problematic application is the SUP
because the Planning staff typically wants to see a site plan to determine how much of the floodplain
should be filled based on a specific development plan. What Mr. Smith has indicated is that he does not
have that yet. That is his dilemma. He feels he needs the SUP in order to market the property.
Previously that has not been the case when applications are made. Typically the Board sees a SUP
application for the floodplain with a specific development plan. That is the frustration Mr. Davis feels staff
has had in reviewing the application.
Mr. Thomas said she is very sympathetic to this plight. Mr. Martin said this is not the first time the
Board has seen such a situation. Ms. Thomas said there is no way the Board can put conditions on a
rezoning. Those have to be proffers. The conditions possibly could deal with all of the issues in the SUP.
She feels even that will have to be deferred because that was not what staff thought the Board was going
to do when they prepared the staff report. Therefore, she would not be confident that all conditions
necessary to do that rather strange move of having a SUP before there is a plan are concluded in what is
before the Board. The Board has a rezoning request without proffers and a SUP that may not contain all
of the conditions necessary.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this application is denied, whether the applicant could make another
application in the future. Mr. Davis responded that the Zoning Ordinance precludes substantially the same
zoning request from being re-filed for one year. So, if it were denied, it would prevent the applicant from
filing the same application for that time period. He believes that staff's recommendation would be to defer
the matter.
Mr. Dorrier then moved to refer ZMA-1999-13 and SP-1999-59 back to the Planning Commission
for additional work with staff and applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Mr. Bowerman said that he does not want to create the expectation of a certain type of
development by a rezoning that then becomes more legislative, after the fact ,when the Board does not
know the intensity to which the property can be used without all the information. The Board does not want
to get in a box itself based upon a rezoning without necessary proffers.
.
Ms. Humphris said the staff planner commented that he was not sure there was room for
mitigation on site. If the Board does not know what is planned, it does not know what is possible. The
Board is in a difficult situation. 31
Attachment D ~
June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
DRAFT
Mr. Perkins asked what are the current by-right uses. Mr. Cilimberg said there is approximately
one acre HC which allows all by-right uses as well as an application for a SUP. The two to three acres
that are LI by-right has not been marketable for them. Mr. Davis noted that there are a wide range of uses
allowed in LI by-right. Ms. Thomas stated that even with those uses the applicant will need a SUP to use
the floodplain. Mr. Tucker stated that whether it was zoned all HC, or as it is, the applicant still has to go
through the SUP process for the floodplain. Ms. Thomas said even if the Board approved SUP, the
applicant still would not have the zoning he feels is also necessary for marketing. Mr. Tucker said the
SUP would probably be similar in requirement whether it remains as it currently is or if it was all HC. Mr.
Cilimberg said he believes the applicant attempted to show two uses that would be high traffic generators
logical in that area and provide for the most likely maximum extent of development. With respect to the
floodplain fill, the applicant has presented a worse case scenario. Theoretically the applicant could come
in with a plan of lesser development which would not require as much fill.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Smith if the zoning amendment with proffers would help. Mr. Smith said that
to get a site plan approved all of the things the Board is discussing must be addressed. Mr. Martin asked
if the applicant were to receive the zoning with the proffer that was offered would that help with marketing
the project. Mr. Smith said it would. Ms. Thomas asked if this is the case, even though the applicant only
had the rezoning, he would not know if he could use the floodplain. Mr. Smith answered," no". Ms.
Thomas then asked if having the SUP, to show that the land could be used, would help market the
property. Mr. Smith stated that County staff, on several levels, has recommended that the applicant
request the rezoning and SUP simultaneously. Mr. Smith referring to a map of the property showed the
Board what FEMA had approved being removed from the floodplain. By doing this, the applicant would
only raise the level of the floodplain 2/100s of an inch. Nothing will be raised offsite on any other property.
Mr. Smith said that if it were not for the County's requirement regarding the level of the floodplain, this
matter would have been settled a long time ago. With this condition, however, the applicant has had to be
very careful.
Ms. Humphris asked what would be different should the matter be referred back to the Planning
Commission. Ms. Thomas said that was up to the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg said he heard the Board say
that, in its action, it expects the applicant to be offering proffers to address issues that have been identified
by staff and the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas added that staff would be reworking recommended
conditions. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that staff would work on the final conditions necessary for fill in the
floodplain for the SUP. He understood the Board to say that included among the proffers, the Board would
want to have an application plan or conceptual plan of development so that it has an idea of how that
development relates to the overall use of the property. He said that staff is going to be trying to guide the
applicant back to the Planning Commission with something that is more substantive.
l~~~I~:,~~~~~plfe i, ~e'" ,ff~d~J8~?~~t:~~~~~~~he
ttbefpullealri'watervl , sf ei:e~Vva~ no mitigation p1ani'for
distur p, -x~94~~!~";~:,1',, -9,~s~tr~~m,PBfter' 4} Staff and VDoT exprlessed raised
~~ , ' ,__ t~?!~"'~""~:t~:~,'"w,,,:.crJrnj.>r9v.I":~~":;; ," '. 2,~~~J;~9~~~tions of the
greel)'<<~X??,;;~Jili.~t~!il~~li,U~~~',$~$,lte\wnict'l',was~c1earty:exp ~it~(H ' '. .:Q~~"~t~!t.,cttq~,b~,
don~.i;;6,),t.Jhaerground utilities were not mentioned. Staff indicated In Its report that tliere'wouldo~"';''''';'~
.' ,J~~~rgr;oun~,.utiljti!3~'.;!;:JiI1i~:dQ~~'t:lo.t'mjlJimi?:eitl1eilT!pel):Jou~ cover; 7) Although there are now two
\t,j~{:~;':;pr.6j:fos-als~T~ri1~;'~1i~i~'i~~~j1(fpr8jios~f'tor .tfeating',wafe;rfqUa.ii;:~);'1J~e"9lJi!c,ling,. 9rientation was not to
,t..;; ."t8~i1"~S~~~~~~~i:~!t:~,3!3,q~~;tJ:r~~i$;:"95 jt;ti'ij~i!~L:Ci;lQ()PY:iSitq~,'gIR~~!J9J~~, ~treet '~~iCh, is'a probl~m, in the
"',"~"'Entrarice COrridor; and 1 0) The large amount of fill woulddlmlmsfi'the;aesthEltlcvalueofthe creek:and the
gree~W2JJitr:ijil,*,:;:<~~;i,:;trltJmP,bri~~~i.d..tbQsejC!r:;e:.sqme,of ttI.!3things that pulled out ancffeels should be dealt
within 'th'e':pVC,ffefsfO'fHte'applicationlg' n'ofWClr1hgoiiigO'o80k:':,T{ {~-) '. ' '
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
32--
Attachment D ~
.
.
May 15, 2002
Robert T. Smith
POBox 7120
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE: ZMA-1999-013 Young America and SP-1999-059 Young America
Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 1
Dear Mr. Smith:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 2002,by a vote of 4-1,
recommended approval of ZMA-1999-013 Young America, subject to the attached proffers and
SP-1999-059 Young America as presented.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on June 5, 2002. Please note that review of public hearing items begins
at 1 :30. 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.
~ ,:---S?~~ ~
/// rt-jl~
/ Mietfael Barnes
Planner
.
MB/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
33
Attachment E
~
sIt /01:-
'kM(~
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-99-13 Youna America (Sian # 70)-
Requests a zoning map amendment of approximately 3.S0 acres to allow for HC (Highway Commercial)
uses. The properties are located on approximately 9.099 acres zoned Ll (Light Industrial) and an
unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way. The property is described as portions of Tax Map 76M1-
Parcel 1 and is located on the East Side of Fifth Street Extended just north of its intersection with
Interstate 64. This property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is designated for Industrial
and Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
AND
SP.99-059 Youna America (Sian #67) - Request for Special Use Permit approval of approximately 4.00
acres for fill of the floodplain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. Property is located on
approximately 12.897 acres zoned Ll (Light Industrial) and HC (Highway Commercial). It is described as
portions of Tax Map 76M1-Parcel 1 and Tax Map 76-Parcel 5SA and is located on the east side of 5th
Street Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This property is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District and is designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 as
identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Barnes presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) He stated that this was
a follow up executive summary from the May 22nd meeting last year on this issue at which time the
Commission recommended denial. The Board of Supervisors took the following action:
At its June 20, 2001 public he'aring, the Board of Supervisors agreed with the Planning Commission and
recommended that the applicant work with staff and the Commission to provide information on the
following 10 items before it would reconsider the request:
1 . Provision of a 1 OO-foot easement for the greenway trails
2. Provision of improvements to the greenway trails.
3. Mitigation of aesthetic impacts to the creek and greenway trail.
4. Restriction of all buildings (and land disturbance) outside of the waterward SO-feet of the stream
buffer.
S. Allay staff's and VDOT's concerns related to traffic (by possibly revising the traffic study).
6. Place all new the utilities underground.
7. Minimize impervious cover.
8. Provide a plan for managing stormwater quality.
9. Provide a building orientation towards the street.
10. Locate the fuel canopy so that the impacts to the Entrance Corridor are minimized.
Mr. Barnes pointed out that the applicant has dealt with most of these issues. He pointed out that the
new plan has been proffered and provides most of the information requested. The applicant as noted in
the excerpt of the staff report as follows has dealt the issues:
In the discussion below, staff has analyzed how the applicant has addressed the Board's concerns.
Attachment A is the current proffered plan of development. Attachment B contains the applicant's
proffers.
DISCUSSION:
A Proffered Plan of Development:
The proffered plan and its level of detail are one of the biggest improvements over the previous concept
plan shown to the Board and the Commission (Attachment A). Staff believes that the proffered plan
Planning Commission - May 7, 2002
SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION - MAY 21
Attachment E
~
:9
>
~
o
...
U)
.-
J:
...
(.)
Q)
.--.
o
~
c..
..
.
en
~
a:
LL
o
CO
(j)
-r-
(L
C/)
"0
C
CU
<(
~
N
~
o
'+-
"0
(])
>
(])
()
(])
~
c
o
-+--'
CU-+--'
()()
.- (])
Q..~
Q..(])
<(c
. .
(j)(])
(j)~
(j)(])
-r-5:
.
(])
...c
CU en -+--'
c C (]) (])
(]) 0 > -+--'
"0 .en 0 cu
en ~ "0
"0"- "0 Q..
a5~ a5fd- ~
<(EoE"O ~
~E()E~ "0
woooo c
LL () -+--' () a:l
E~~~.~ ~
ec()c6 0
'+- .0 15 .0 "en en "0
a: ~...c ~. en -5 CIS
~ "E:g "E E 6 ~
.....J E en E ::} E
CU OCi5()O~~LL
en () '+- - C\J 5:
c O)~ O)en ~ (])
. - c c:""" (]) C
CU .-"0 .- C ~
-+--' C ~ C cu cu en
..0 c cu C () (])
o cu 0 CU:.= "0 ~ rv--
-+--' - co - Q.. (]) V.l u....
@ (L . ~ (L Q.. .~ .en ~
()~(L~CU ><<(0
:.= '+- C/) '+- '+- (]) ~.....J
Q.. co ~ co 0 (L w"::::::::: -+--'
~U5<( U5 ~ (/) LL 25
O~~Ne~LO':=
OONOQ..ooC/)
OO,+-OQ..OOE
C\J C\J 0 C\J CU C\J C\J L{)
. .
.
. .
"0
(])
::}
en
en
(])
~
(])
..0
5:
a:
~
(LO
C/).....J
5: cu
(]) -+--'
C cu
...c
en -+--'
-+--'"0
~ (])
::} '+-
0- -+--'
(]) 0
~ c
-+--' -+--'
C C
CU CU
() ()
-- --
- -
Q.. Q..
Q.. Q..
<(<(
f'....CO
o 0
o 0
C\JC\J
. .
..
.
t,...r:r....~
i il'l'" '
I!!l'>
,~~
u::-
(~t
~/' 1',0\
o' \',
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
"
"'
~
~ ~~
t<:
-,f;
" ,;,~
~
~
C"
~~,
'"
--
--
--
--
/' ';:'
i: '
l;..-"
~ ~~; ~
t~"./
-f
B,~~
. .
-0 ·
c.. m !: C)~
en 0 .- ~ .-
.... . - ....
III =:]>~
EoQ)Q) ;omQ)
_ _ .s::: .s::: a.
..v ~ .J:: cu .... ~ 0
~ .Ci);' -= .i 0 a.
.c Q) JJ ~ Q) ~ C)
C) g"C · 3::iS.2 !:
.(j) m Q) N 0.- ~ .;::
.... > 0 .J:: tn :> 0
OtnOO tntnQ)JJ
~Ec..~C\I o-~
tn c.. Q) C,
~ :] c...~ cu tn -0 .-
Q) 0 cu ;; .J:: .- 0 Q)
.8 .: UJ Jo... - !: 0 !:
o cu 0 ~.- - ~
~ .= 3:.~ ~ ~ -; 0
m UJ 0) ~ = .g..s::: 13
.J:: Q) Lt) Q) c.. 0 .... cu
Q) C) 9 c.. c.. 0 C) c..
~~O):] cu-~E
Q) cu en 'I- .-
.J:: .J:: ~ 'I- ~ Q) .~ .-
l-o""OI-.J::cu~
.... ~ cu
cu
-
.c
co
J..
o
>
co
U.
en
J..
o
~
(.)
co
u.
.
.
C\I
,...
.
.
.
~
?-
m
E
E
::J
en
.
C'O Q) C'O
0) C C ~ -0
C ~ O...c Q)
+-' Q.
C Q) Q) -- +-' U)
+-'0::J...c"'O'+-...c
ON"'O+-,"'OO+-,+-,Q)
CQ)+-'oC'OC:>C'O-E
"'O~()+-'~o>...c
-- Q) U) Q) -- 0) +-' "'0
"'0 C'O -O~ ~ ~ co C C C _
C ~ C'O ~ ~ C'O
C -- ~ C'O Q) C \V C
o _Q) Q. Q. ~ "'0 0 Q. ~-co
U) ~ U) E E -- N ~ ~ r\
U) 0 -- C'O U) Q) ~ - ~
-E Q) -E -~ 0 6 ~ ~ ~ -g
...c~c((}()Q)Q)oo
E+-'O - - 1'1' ...c ::!:::= ~ -
o '+-0 '+- "'0 \J..I "'0 +-' <5 Q. '+-
O +-' ~ ...c C ...c ~ 1'1' Q)
- E C'O +-' C'O +-' Q. \J..I ...c
~ C'O.. 0) ~~ 0 ~ ...c +-'
C~J > ~ Q) Q) ~..o \V +-' C
O \J..I ~ > S ~'+-
-c ~ Q. U) Q) "'0 cJ 0
C Q. Q) C ~ -S; Q) -- Q) '+-
C'O Q. U) ~ 0> Q) > "'0 U) ~
- C'O ::J Q) ~ 0 ::J ::J 0
0.... -0 C'O g I c~ 0.. u C/) -
Q) ~ -- 0 c 0 ~-~ Q) +-'E
...c 0 0 -- ~ ...c
+-' E Q) C'O +-' ~ U) U) ~
-g E ~.8Q.E ~ Ci>~ ~
C'O 0 ~ "'0 ~ 0 '+- C'O
o"'Ot00t30+-,Q)
~Q)cC'OocC'O~u)U)
C'O ~ C'O Q.; '+- Q. Q) ::J
+-'
Cf)
"-
o
'+-
C\J
00
o
Q.
o
"-
Q.
---~
.
-+-oJ
C
CD
E .
Q.C\J
o >
- 0
CD "-
> Q.
CD Q.
"'0 C\J
CD "'0
..c "-
-+-oJ C\J
C 0
.- OJ
00_
CD C\J
O)c
C .-
0)
C\J .-
..c "-
() 0
o CD
cE
c CD
CD ()
CD c
...c 00
CD ~
>-+-oJ
C\J "-
..c~
CD 0
"- "-
CD Q.
..c 00
~ .-
..c
. -+-oJ
'0
~
.....
!~
~O
(J
,........
:~
~~
t:a
I:
I:
:~
Gf)
.
-+-oJ
C\J
..c
-+-oJ
-+-oJ
O-+-oJ
C C\J
CD "'0
> CD
C\Jen
..c 'x
~CD
CD-+-oJ
..c .-
-+-oJ 00
-+-oJ C\J
:J ~
...c "-
~ C\J
00"'0
Q.C
C\J :J
Eo.
c ...c C\J
.- c >
C\J .- 0
Q.C\J,,-
"'0 Q. Q.
o "'0 Q.
o 0 C\J
;::0"'0
S '+- "-
CD CD ~
cEOJ
~~C\J
:JO)C
00 C '0)
00 C\J '-
.- "-
00 ..c 0
C\J () CD
..c ~..c
= -+-oJ
<(C\J,+-
~"-o
W2CD
LL C\J E
. E.~
00
"- .-
o 00
.;:: C\J
Q. ...c
00 CD
~ ..c
"'O-+-oJ
"-
C\J CD
o 0)
OJ c
CD C\J
..c..c
-+-oJ ()
CD "'0
() :J
C 0
'00 S
CD-+-oJ
() C\J
c..c
C\J::
-+-oJ . _
00 E
E "-
:J CD
() Q.
"-
.- CD
() 00
C :J
CD C\J
0) .-
C ()
C\J CD
r- Q.
-oOOc
o .00 0
..c .-
C -+-oJ . 00
00 '+- ()
"'00 CD
C-"'O
.- C\J
'+->-+-oJ
'+- 0 C\J
~,,-..c
~ Q.-+-oJ
(j),.....,,,-
. CitE
!~:
~o
..-
.....
~:a
'0
!:
41)
4:
111_
ill-
--
II_
~O
4:.)
4:1.)
[t
.
.
lo.-
(])
>
(])
$:
o
I>.
of-'
C
C ::J
.- 0
CUo
0...
"D (])
O..c
o of-'
LL 6 $:
(]) "D >.
~ (]) C
C Cf) 0
cu E
..0 lo.-
LLcu~
lo.- C
-2 (]) C
C")"Do
<..o"Dc
o (])
~"DCf)
o C (])
o (]) Cf)
N E ::J
D... E (])
(f)8~
_(])of-'
Olo.-CU"D"D
..c-c
cu Cf) of-' ::J 0
>~coo
o o..c 0)
lo.-Cof-'(f)c
o...ocu
0... -- "D $:
cu Cf) C (])
"D _ Cf) (]) 0 0
(]) E E @ 0
-gEEc~
(])00"D..c
E o(]) 0 0 of-'Cf)
EO) lo.-
(])"D
o _C Cf) ..c C
o C lo.- of-' (])
(])C(])-E
lo.- cu (]) 0
Cf)D...cof-'E
cu -- C 0
..c (]) 0) (]) 0
Cof-'(])
~ ~ w _C lo.-
cu
of-'
(f)
"D
C
cu
(])
Cf)~
o cu
0... of-'
lo.- Cf)
::J ~
0...D...
(])(f)
..c Cf)
of-' _ _
..c..c
of-' of-'
(])
>
o
lo.-
0...
0...
cu
o
of-'
(])
Cf) cu
o >
o 0
..c lo.-
00...
0...
"Dcu
lo.-
cu-
o 0
a:l Cf)
(]) C
..c 0
of-' of-'
~ (])
cu N C ~ of-'
..c 0 .- (]) .8 - >.
Cf)O"D ~ c(f) 0 ~
"DN(])cu cu"D(])lo.-(])
~ - C 0... (]) 0)
C co D C ..c ~ ..A"
cu___o"'P -CUI-(])-..
c~E6 gCUCf)CUC
cu w C lo.- (]) (])
o...~(])C o(])Cf)oE
of-' cu ..0 _ 0 0 "D lo.- (])
a3J~t5 ctf5cO)~
E~E2 (])..c~~~a3
0... of-' 0 E :== (]) cu "D
o~~n: D$:~~~6
(]) ~ of-' lo.- (]) (]) $: lo.- >. 0...
> ~ 0... (]) Cf) 0 ~ 0... 0 Cf)
(]) C (]) of-' C \,oJ '"
"DCUOCU "DCUCWC(])
> C -- cu E (]) t:
(]) D... x > cu 0... Cf) _ 0) 0
; (]) (])_ Cf) C E "D 0 Q) 0
cu of-' gs ~ _0 0 @ Q) E cu
(f)oc Cf)O of-'W
C """"'l o_:i=of-' C
OcuNo lo.-O(])(])
C::J -0 (])_$:,"~O
of-' 0 lo.- C 0 ~v (]) .io....
$: o...(]) .,...... (]) (]) cu 0 0) ~"D (])
O (]) lo.- C C (]) (])
o..c..c C - 0...-"';:::::; 0 C
..c C 0 of-' __ 0 0 -- LL
Cf) 0 ~- 0)-0 (])_Cf) (]) 0)
(]) 0 ~v 0 C cu - > C
..0:: ~~W6-o..~~~W
cu 1? 6 a3 ~ Q. -(]) gs 0... E ~
..cof-' ECo...o cuoc
Cf)..c"D ::Jcu~;E.t:::J
C --== ~ ~ 00 _ Cf) Cf) of-' '" "D 00
"cu $: '-::J -~ lo.- 0 ~v (])
> rr (]) (]) (]) cu C lo.- (])
.Q-"E ~ (]) ..c (]) (]) 0). cu ::J ..c
\,oJ 0 lo.- of-' C C C +-' rr of-'
o >. >. -- -- "- ..0 (]) >.
o 00 :i= (]) ..0 0) 0) of-' 0 lo.- Q..
c..c ccCU 0
~cu(]):::"DWW::Jen~o
..ccuO(])(])>.>.O)::Jof-'~
lo.- (]) (]) C of-' of-' (]) E C \,oJ
of-' (]) lo.- -- C C lo.- C
C C en E E ::J ::J Cf) of-' E(]) cu
(])oolo.-OO(])C ~
- 0) E :: * 0 0 -0 ~ -g ~
(])c"D(])"D(])(])a3o...(])w
..c (]) C "E Cf) ..c ..c 0) 0... E LL
I-..ocuocul-I-cucucu-..-
.,......
N C")
~
.
-0
~
+-'
c::
o
(J
~
c::
o
.-
+-'
cu
-0
c::
Q)
E
E
o
o
Q)
a:
.
0> CUO>
coo+-' C "- C
C 00 0 (]) ._
C cu ::::J .~ C C
+-' -Ecu(])o"'O
::::J E Q. 00 . 0 ~ N (])
Ocu "'Oc~ (])oo
C(]) co"-(V)..c:o
~ "- cu .- (]) ~ +-' Q.
\,v +-' +-' > '-'oJ 0
- 00 00 cu L-.....I . '+-
Q. +-' 00"-
c(]) 6::::J~(V)r---IQ.
o E .~ Q. C\J "'0 ~ "'0
+-' 0 cu E M C .0 C
cu +-' +-' 0 . cu "- en
0> C ::::J 0 0 +-'
.~ .- Q. (V) CD. 00 0>
E ~ E C 00 0> "'0 --=
C 0 .- C C ~ 00 .
cu (]) 0 cu 0 .~ cu .- 00
'+-E '+-Q..~'+-~xC
o 0 "'0 0 ~ (]) (]) 0
--5 -O(])cu>(])~
CUcu ~O(f)soE>
>0 0'+-..c:"'O"'O:::::-(])
e ~ "- (])+-' 0 ~ > (])
\oJ Q...c: .- 0 \,v 0
B: C Q. +-' S ~ N ..c: "'0
cu(]) CUO(])"'O~ooc
000 oo+-'Oc t)cu
~ "- '+- ~ "- 00 C cu "'0 ~ 00
(]) (]) (]) cu 0......1 (])
00 (]) 0> == ~ 0 E .~
(]) (]) C C Q.cu~ cu
.C ~ ._ cu E s "- 00 "'0
0> 00 O>..c: 0 "'0 0 C C
Ccu cOoo,+-cu::::J
W (]) W 0> (]) 0 00 a... 0
~E ~c+-'~c...o
+-' +-' .~ cu '+- (]) (])
C C C C ~ 0 E 0 .C
::::J 0 ::::J (]) 00 00 C cu
o.~ .0Ec:t=~cuQ.
o cu "- 0 0 E .- C ~
0> (]) ::::J E ::::J . - \oJ
(]) .~ ~ (]) 0 == rr "'0 0
..c: E ::::J ..c: 0 (]) '+- (]) 0"- 0
J- ..oJ-"'O"'Oo,,- '+-
.
""'"
.
L{)
. .
c::
o
.-
...,
CO
E
J...
o
'+-
c::
-
-
co
c::
o
.-
...,
.-
-c
-c
<(
.
~
U)
Q)
::] Q;
~-e
-- ::]
-
- r\ 0
Q) c:
U) __
::] c:
U) CO
-- -
.J:Q.
+-'
~ Q)
o~
't- U)
-eQ)
Q).J:
~+-'
--
::].J:
c-_~
~ 3:
Q)-e
.aQ)
- >
- -
-- 0
3: U)
c: ~
.!3!Q)
Q..a
Q) 0
-~ +-'
U)
<(
"0
(])
+-'
U
::J
!o.....
+-'
CfJ
C
o 0
+-' U
C"'(])
ctS.Q
CfJ 0
CfJ+-,
(]) CfJ
U (])
(]) CfJ
C ::J
C
o
--
+-'
U
(])
+-'
o
!o.....
a..
!o.....
(])
+-'
'+-ctSO)ctS
'+-::JC$
o +-' --
+-' U ~ (])
C ctS !o..... ...c
::J (]) ctS +-'
o ...c Q. ...c
E +-'...c +-'
(])+-'
ctS+-,s
ctS
(]) "0 ~
-~ 0 2
~ E -en
!o..... E (])
Q.o...c
(])u+-'
...cuc
r- ctS 0
~
s
(])
u (])
C U
ctS C
== ctS
Q.c
E --
oE
00
.
C\J
(]) r. CfJ
...c (])
+-' !o.....
'+- 0
o 0
c~
(])a>
E C
...c 0
u-
ctS ctS
o !o.....
!o..... (])
u:t::
C ::J
(]).Q
(]) E
:SctS
!o..... (])
o~
'+- CfJ
C+-'
o 0
-~ 0
ctS~
0)0
+-' 0
E~
+-' (])
c...c
(])+-'
-- 0 ~
u+-,(])
:t:: C (])
::J !o.....
(f),+-O
.
(V)
en
c
o
--
.....
.-
c
.-
'P-
(1)
C
.
.
0)
~
+0-1
>.
...c
c ""0
o 0)
+0-1
+0-1 CO
CO ""0
> C
0) ::J
0) C
.- ""0
""0 0) 0
o c 0
o '+-
0) ~
...cco
o 0)
+0-1 >.
,
0)0
...cO
.~ T'""""
0. CO
0)>.
~...c
II ::J""O
00 0)
t:""O+o-I
o C ~
;: CO 0)
CO ~ c
> c 0)
JE CO 0)
W II ~
"t:2
o .- CO
.,2~s
LL c.""O
(1) " 0
en 0 0
co.,2'+-
aJLL
'+-
~
CO
0)
>.
I
o
o
T'""""
0)
~
+0-1
0)
c
00
""0 .-
0) C ~
~CO+o-lO
+0-1 >. ::J 0
'+-~O,+-+o-I
O~~ CO
CCO+o-lO)~
0()s5~
+0-1 0 In
~ +0-1 ""0.... C '-V
O""OOCO~
o.O)o~>
+0-1 > +0-1 0 .
co~'+-O)~""O
~O)~~o.O)
+0-1 00 "V 0 ""0 ()
""O~~Ec::J
c 'cco'E
coJ5goc~
(D+o-IT'""""+o-IOo.
~~O)~~o
~E~O)>c
CO +0-1-0)0)
~+o-I,+-O)-~
() CO 0 0) 0) CO
EE 00 ()""Ooo
COCCD~OOO)
0) . - +0-1 ~ +0-1
~ CO CO ::J '+- ,. '\
+0-1-::>00 "'-J
00 0.> 0) 0
O)""OO)~OO(D
~0~2co>
+0-1 0+0-1 co...c
lI'+-O)So)~
~CO)""O~O
coO)~g;~
~~-5'+->CO
" .~ 00 0) 0 N
o ""0 .- ~ ...c CO
Oco""O+o-ICO~
-
LL
00
0)
+0-1
CO
E 0)
cE
.-
CO'+-
- 0
0.00
""0+0-1
o .-
o E
'+-
0) ~
~2
+0-1 ::J
o 0
C 0)
oE
.-
t""O
o c
0. CO
+0-1 >.
CO CO
E S
II'E
(1) 0
C)~
.= 0)
:I..~
LL+o-I
~c
CO 0)
~ 0)
,,~
o 0)
o ...c '+-
-
LL
.
C
CO
-
0.
""0
o
o
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEND TITLE:
SP-200 -00063 5th Street Development
AGENDA DATE:
May 14, 2008
SUBJE T/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
Request for special use permit to allow fill
in the fl odplain in order to construct a
conveni nce store with gas pumps, a sit-
down re taurant, and associated surface
parking.
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL EVIEW:
NO
BACKG OUND:
On April 8, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the request by 5th Street Development for a
Special se Permit to allow fill in the floodplain. The Planning Commission recommended denial by a
.ote of 4 - 2 (Mr. Morris was absent), based on the County Engineer's position that placement of the
III was n t in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
DISCUS ION:
Since th Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has been notified by the Federal Emergency
Manage ent Agency (FEMA) that the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be reissued. The applicant
has requ sted that staff forward the attached e-mail message to the Board in advance of the Board's
Public Haring. Lori Wade, who sent the e-mail, works for the company that is under contract to
FEMA to prepare the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Her message indicates that the LOMR will
be reiss ed. (Attachment I) While this new material provides a more current status, it does not
address he Commission's reason for recommending denial.
RECOM ENDA TION:
The Planning Commission recommends denial of this Special Use Permit.
.
From: Katurah Roell [kroell@ddrva.com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 12:41 PM
To: Judith wiegand; Wayne Cilimberg
Subject: FW: 00-03-0101P
ATTACHMENT I
Judy and Wayne, here is a copy of the latest transmittal for the update LOMR It will be reissued within 30
days. Please provide this information for the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Thanks
From: Lori Wade [mailto:LoriWade@mapmodteam.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:48 PM
To: penright@ddrva.com; kroell@ddrva.com
Cc: Sarah Bowen; Lee Brancheau; Lee Brancheau; Jon Janowicz (FEMA)
SubJect: 00-03-0101P
Dear Mr. Enright and Mr. Roell,
We received the LOMR backup for case 00-03-101 P. Our review of the backup date revealed that the topographic
work map used for the LOMR contains shows a delineation based on one foot contours, where the revised
DFIRMs completed in 2005 used five foot contours, Since no detailed restudy was completed for this flooding source
in 2005, and the BFEs are the same (aside from the datum conversion) there does not appear to be a reason why the
5 foot contours were used for mapping in this area.
I recommend that we work toward reissuing a LOMR for this area based on the 2000 LOMR's topographic work map. I
will get the necessary paperwork and data together and will contact the appropriate community officials for their
signature on the proposed revision.
If you have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at 609-734-7938 or Sarah Bowen at
215-430-5517.
Thank you,
Lori Wade
Executiv Summary SP 2007-063 sth Street Development, April 8,2008
3
PETITION
_ROJE T: SP 2007-063, 5th Street Development
ROPO ED: special use permit for fill in the floodplain, no residential units proposed.
ONING CA TEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC Highway Commercial - commercial and serviqe uses; and
residenti I use by specia! use. permit (15 uni~s/ acre); LI - Light Industrial - in~u~tr~al, office, a$nlimited
cammer ial uses (no residentIal use); AlA Airport Impact Area - Overlay to minimize adverse I pacts to both
the airpo and the surrounding land; and FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and pr tection from
flooding i
SECTIO : 30.3.05.2.2 (3), which allows filling of land in the floodway i
COMPR HENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Regional Service - regional-scale retail, w~olesale,
business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre); Community servic~ - community-
scale ret il wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or emp oyment
services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre); Parks and Greenways - parks, greenways, play rounds,
pedestri n and bicycle paths in Development Area 5. i
ENTRA CE CORRIDOR: Yes X No_ !
LOCA TI N: approximately 1100 feet north of 1-64 on the east side of 5th Street, north and ea~t of the Holiday
Inn, .
TAX MA IPARCEL: 76-55A, 76M1-1
MAGIST RIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
i
I
G AND ZONING HISTORY i
001 The Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 - 1, recommended denial of ~MA 1999-013
and SP 1999-059 to the Board of Supervisors. A copy of the staff report~ which gives the
most in-depth analysis of SP 1999-059, the minutes of the meeting, andl the Action
Letter are included in Attachment C. :
.une 20, 001
June 5, 2 02
July 3, 20 2
The Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to refer ZMA 1999-013 an' SP 1999-059
back to the Planning Commission to address questions raised by the Bard. A copy of
the minutes of the Board's meeting and the Action Letter are included in Attachment D.
The Planning Commission by a vote of 4-1 recommended approval of Z A 1999-013,
subject to the attached proffers, and recommended approval of SP 199 -059, as
presented. A copy of the Executive Summary, minutes, and Action Lett r are included in
Attachment E. i
i
The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on ZMA 1999-013 and $p 1999-059. At
the time of the hearing, the proffers had not been signed by the appropdate person and
a change was necessary in the language of one of the proffers, so action was deferred.
A copy of the minutes and Action letter are included in Attachment F.
The Board approved ZMA 1999-013, with a proffered plan and other pr~i ers dated
5/7/2002, and approved SP 1999-059 to allow fill in the floodplain. A co y of the
Executive Summary, minutes, and Action Letter, including the proffers, re included in
Attachment G. !
BACKGROUND
When ZM 1999-013 and SP 1999-059 were presented to the Planning Commission in May 2 01, the staff
report co tained a pertinent analysis of the Special Use Permit for Fill in the Floodplain. This s aff report, as
well as th minutes for both the Planning Commission meeting on May 7, 2002 and the Board f Supervisors
meeting on June 20, 2002, are included here to provide a chronology of the discussion that ultimately led to
.pproval f both the ZMA and the original SP. This ZMA requires a Special Use Permit for Fill n the Floodplain
order f r the proffered plan to be implemented.
Executive Summary: SP 2007-063 sth Street Development, April 8, 2008
4
Since ZMA 1999-013 and SP 1999-059 were approved by the Board in July 2002, the applicant has not
submitted a site plan for approval or done any work on the site. Section 31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance
specifies that if the use, structure, or activity for which a special use permit is issued is not commenced within
twenty-four (24) months after the permit is issued, the permit shall be deemed abandoned or expire. In July
2004 the Special Use Permit expired.
The applicant has almost completed the process of granting the greenway easement, in fulfillment of ZMA
Proffer # 8. All of the other proffers "kick in" at the time of site plan approval.
When the first application for fill in the floodplain was made (SP 1999-059), the 1980 Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRMs) were in effect. The FIRM showed virtually the entire proposed site in the floodplain. The
applicant obtained from FEMA a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), dated July 5, 2000. Jack Kelsey, County
Engineer at that time, signed off on the LOMR on March 31, 2000. A LOMR indicates that FEMA will revise
floodplain boundaries to incorporate areas that will be filled. The effect of the letter is to remove a property
and/or structure from the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) shown on the FIRM.
Then, on February 5, 2005, FEMA issued new FIRMs, which automatically supersede any existing LOMRs.
Recognizing that there were a number of LOMRs that were no longer in effect because of the new FIRMs,
FEMA issued a letter revalidating a list of LOMRS. However, the LOMR for this project, 5th Street
Development, was not included. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition be placed on the new SP that,
prior to site plan approval, the owner obtain a new LOMR from FEMA.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the 24-month provision for special use permit approvals in the ordinance is to allow any
subsequent changes in circumstance to be considered and ordinance changes to be applied should an
extension or reapproval of the special use permit be requested. The following analyzes the new special use
permit according to the criteria in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
Analvsis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zonina 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
properly.
As a result of the Dewberry and Davis study prepared in support of the special use permit approved in
2002, the Engineering Department determined at that time that filling the portion of the floodplain as
proposed in this project will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. The current County
Engineer, Glenn Brooks, has expressed opposition to the fill in the floodplain as proposed for several
reasons, including unforeseen impacts. (Attachment I) However the action of the Board to approve the
rezoning in 2002 established uses and a proffered plan that cannot be achieved without approval of this
special use permit. Approval of the special use permit will allow uses and the proffered plan approved
under the prior rezoning to be developed on this site that can complement the adjacent hotel and
provide services to travelers on the nearby interstate highway.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Adding the amount of fill proposed by the applicant would greatly affect the appearance of this site and
the character of the floodplain, but it is not expected to change the character of the commercial nature
of this area since the proposed development is consistent with existing development of the area.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
4
Executive Summary: SP 2007-063 sth Street Development, April 8, 2008
s
.
T ere are several zoning districts on this site: Highway Commercial, Light Industrial, Flood Hazard
verlay, Entrance Corridor, and Airport Impact Area. The relationship of the SP to each district is
d scussed below:
T e intent of the Highway Commercial (HC) District is to permit development of commercial
e tablishments primarily oriented to highway locations rather than central business concentrations. The
S will permit development of the site with commercial, highway-oriented establishments.
T e Light Industrial District covers the portion of TMP 76M1-1 that is east of Biscuit Run and,
t erefore, is not subject to this SP.
T e intent of the Flood Hazard Overlay District is "for the purpose of providing safety and protection
fr m flooding. More specifically, these provisions are intended to restrict the unwise use, development
a d occupancy of lands subject to inundation which may result in: danger to life and property; public
c sts for flood control measures and/or rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and
si tation; pollution of water resources; and general degradation of the natural and man-made
e vironment." The district is also intended to help the County qualify for the National Flood Insurance
P ogram. If approved, the SP will allow sufficent fill in the floodplain to remove this site from the
fl odplain. It will, therefore, be out of the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
T e intent of the Airport Impact Area Overlay District is to recognize airport-related hazards which
m y endanger lives and property and/or create obstructions which might reduce the utility of the airport.
T e SP will have no impact on this district.
.
T e intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is to protect the county's natural, scenic and
hi toric, architectural and cultural resources. The applicant is expected to obtain the Architectural
R view Board's recommendations prior to site plan approval.
ses permitted by right in the district,
T e applicant has proffered several uses in the Proffers, dated May 7, 2002, including the restaurant
a d convenience store shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. (Attachment G) The proposed uses
e abled by the prior re-zoning are permitted within the property's applicable zoning districts and will
serve both travelers through and residents of the area.
with add tional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
T ere are no supplemental regulations governing restaurants and/or convenience stores in Section 5.0.
and with he public health, safety and general welfare.
The Engineering Department ultimately determined prior to approval of the ZMA and SP in 2002 that
filling in the defined portion of the floodplain would not have an adverse impact on public health, safety
an general welfare. The current County Engineer has expressed opposition to the fill in the floodplain
as proposed for several reasons, including proximity of floodwaters to occupants and the integrity of fill
sl pes in the long term. (Attachment I)
SUMMAR
Staff has i entified the fOlloWing factors that are favorable to this request:
1. There have been no significant changes in circumstance since SP 1999-059 was approved in 2002.
.. The a plicant has shown that fill in the floodplain is possible without raising the flood elevation or having an
impac on neighboring properties.
Executive Summary: SP 2007-063 sth Street Development, April 8, 2008
6
--
The following factor is unfavorable to this request:
1. The current County Engineer does not support this request based on concerns regarding good practice
and policy, proximity of floodwaters to occupants, integrity of fill slopes in the long term and the precedent it
sets. Staff and the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the original rezoning and special use
permit for this project due, in part, to concerns regarding impacts to the floodplain. However, the Board, after
additional information, review and consideration of these factors approved both the re-zoning with proffers,
including a proffered plan, that establishes use of the property and the special use permit for fill in the
floodplain.
RECOMMENDATION
There have been no changes in the development proposal for this property since the original rezoning and
special use permit were approved by the Board. Although since that approval FEMA has issued new floodplain
maps, they have not materially changed the floodplain boundary as it existed at that time. Therefore, staff finds
no change in circumstance since the Board's prior approval of this special use permit that would change the
basis for that decision and, therefore, recommends approval of SP 2007-063 for Fill in the Floodplain with the
following conditions of a r ~
e ill in the floodplain shall be shown on a site development plan and shall be in general accord with
the "Conceptual Site Plan," dated January 8,2002, and most recently revised on March 10, 2008,
except as may be modified in order to meet the requirements of the County's Water Protection
Ordinance, as determined by the County Engineer.
2. The County Engineer's approval of an erosion and sediment control plan.
3. The County Engineer's receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating
activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. The applicant must obtain a map revision, a letter of
map revision, or a letter of amendment as required from the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA)
and copy the County Engineer on all correspondence.
4. The County Engineer's approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for encroachments
into the stream buffer.
5. The County Engineer's approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain.
Computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 [verification of limits of floodway
and floodway fringe] and 30.3.3 [general requirements for flood hazard overlay districts] of the Zoning
Ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed floodplain boundaries and elevations.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Staff notes that a site plan will be required for this use and that issues in need of resolution for the site plan
include:
1. The precise amount of fill necessary to accommodate the actual uses to be constructed on the site and
the necessary parking.
2. Compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance
3. Sufficient mitigation, as determined by the County Engineer and Water Resources Manager, for the
encroachment of the fill into the 100-foot stream buffer along Moore's Creek.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Location Map
B. Conceptual Site Plan, dated January 8, 2002, and most recently revised on March 10, 2008.
C. A Copy of the Staff Report, minutes, and Action Letter from the Planning Commission meeting on May 22,
2001.
D. A copy of the minutes and Action Letter from the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 20, 2001.
E. A copy of the Executive Summary, minutes, and Action letter from the Planning Commission meeting on
May 7,2002.
F. A copy of the minutes and Action Letter from the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 5, 2002.
G. A copy of the Executive Summary, minutes, and Action Letter from the Board of Supervisors meeting on
July 3, 2002.
6