HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-18
FIN A L
7:00 P.M.
May 18, 1994
Room 7, County Office Building
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda (on next sheet) .
Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation.
SP-93-41. Pagebrook Farm. Public Hearing on
impounding structures in the flood plain
Located on E sd of Rt 231 approx 0.25 mi
Cash's Corner. TM50,P34. Rivanna Dist.
in a designated growth area.)
SP-94-06. Emily H. Sanford. Public Hearing on a request for a music
school on 3.640 ac zoned RA. Located on W sd of Rt 649 approx 0.75
mi N of Rt 649/606 inters. TM32,P9J. White Hall Dist. (Property
is not located in a designated growth area.)
SP-94-07. Keswick Corporation. Public Hearing on a request to expand
club facilities to add a swimming pool, tennis courts & a clubhouse
on 149.846 ac zoned RA. Located on E sd of inters of Rt 744/731 &
on SE quadrant of Club Dr/Rt 731 inters. Existing clubhouse in NE
quadrant of Club Dr/Rt 731 inters. TM80,P8Z. Rivanna Dist.
(Property is not located in a designated growth area.)
SP-94-10. Brass, Inc. (owner); Christopher Grover (applicant). Public
Hearing on a request for a veterinary clinic on part of 6.734
acszoned RA. Located on W side of Rt 20. Portion of propert}'
proposed for use is located in NW corner of Rt 20/Rt 712/Rt 715
inters. TM121,P91 (part) . Scottsville Dist. (Property is not
located in a designated growth area.)
ZTA-94-03. Building Permit Review. Public Hearing on an ordinance to
amend and reenact Section 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay Dist.rict
in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to require that a
certificate of appropriateness be granted by the Architectural
Review Board prior to building permit approval.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn.
a request to locate six
on 315.86 ac zoned RA.
N of Rts 231/640 inters at
(Property is not located
8
9
1~)
1 )
1~)
1~)
CON S E N T
AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Personnel Policy on Emergency Staffing.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.2 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 19, April 26 and May 3,
1994.
5.3 Letter dated May 6, 1994, from D. S. Roosvelt, Resident Engineer,
Department of Transportation, to Ella Carey, Clerk, re: Route 654
signal.
5.4 Letter dated May 4, 1994, from Betsy Davis Beamer, Secretary of the
Commonwealth, Office of the Governor, re: recommendation of Mary Scott
Birdsall for appointment to the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Board.
5.5 Semi-annual summary of activities of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging
(JABA) Advisory Council, as prepared by Robert J. Walters, Jr.
5.6 Copy of Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond Program
Report and Monthly Report for the month of April, 1994.
5.7 Memorandum dated May 6, 1994, from Tex Weaver, Information Resource
Planner, re: Enhanced 911 Implementation Schedule.
5.8 Memorandum dated May 11, 1994, from Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of
Parks and Recreation, re: notice that on June 27 and June 28, 1994,
Charlottesville and Albemarle will play host to the 1994 Bike Virginia
Bicycle Tour.
, .
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
MEMORANDUM
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning &
Community Development
Ella W. Carey, Clerk g.;J-/
FROM:
DATE:
May 19, 1994
SUBJECT:
Board Actions of May 18, 1994
Following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on May 18, 1994:
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBIlC.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Personnel Policy on Emergency Staffing. ADOPTED the attached
Personnel Policy.
Agenda Item No. 5.7. Memorandum dated May 6, 1994, from Tex Weaver, Information
Resource Planner, re: Enhanced 911 Implementation Schedule.
Mr. Martin mentioned a letter he received from a gentleman who is on a party line and is not
included in the E-911, but he is required to pay the tax. He asked that staff look into whether there is
some way to include party lines on the E-911 or remove the tax.
Agenda Item No.7. SP-93-41. Pagebrook Farm. Public Hearing on a request to locate six
impounding structures in the flood plain on 315.86 ac zoned RA. Located on E sd of Rt 231 approx
0.25 mi N of Rts 231/640 inters at Cash's Corner. TM50,P34. Rivanna Dist.
*
Printed on recycled paper
.. .
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V . Wayne Cilimberg
Date: May 19, 1994
Page 2
APPROVED SP-93-41 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission:
1. Department of Engineering approval of Final Dam Design Plans and hydrologic/
hydraulic computations;
2. Water Resources Manager approval of the Water Quality Impact Assessment;
3. Department of Engineering approval of the Erosion Control Plan; and
4. Compliance with applicable federal and state permitting requirements for activities
within perennial streams.
Agenda Item No.8. SP-94-06. Emily H. Sanford. Public Hearing on a request for a music
school on 3.640 ac zoned RA. Located on W sd of Rt 649 approx 0.75 mi N of Rt 649/606 inters.
TM32,P9J. White Hall Dist.
APPROVED SP-94-06 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission:
1. Use shall not commence until the following requirements have been met:
a. Health Department approval;
b. Construction of commercial entrance with a minimum of 450 feet of sight
distance;
c. Approval of site plan;
d. Installation of required parking; and
e. Building Official approval.
Agenda Item No.9. SP-94-07. Keswick Corporation. Public Hearing on a request to expand
club facilities to add a swimming pool, tennis courts & a clubhouse on 149.846 ac zoned RA. Located
om E sd of inters of Rt 744/731 & on SE quadrant of Club Dr/Rt 731 inters. Existing clubhouse in NE
quadrant of Club Dr/Rt 731 inters. TM80,P8Z. Rivanna Dist.
APPROVED SP-94-07 subject to the following condition recommended by the Planning
Commission:
1. Compliance with SP-92-59, Keswick Acquisition Corporation, and SP-85-54, Tom J.
Curtis, Jr.;
2. The clubhouse shall not exceed 6,250 square feet, the viewing stand shall not exceed
2,000 square feet, accessory buildings shall not exceed 5,200 square feet and the pool
shall not exceed 3,500 square feet;
3. Construction of the clubhouse and open air pavilion and all necessary improvements
associated therewith, including required parking, is extended to commence not later
than five (5) years from approval of SP-94-07; and
... .
1\ emo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V . Wayne Cilimberg
I ate: May 19, 1994
F~ge 3
4. Access for Tax Map SO, Parcel 9A, shall be onto Route 731.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-94-10. Brass, Inc. (owner); Christopher Grover (applicant). Public
I earing on a request for a veterinary clinic on part of 6.734 acs zoned RA. Located on W side of Rt 20.
P~rtion of property proposed for use is located in NW corner of Rt 20/Rt 712/Rt 715 inters. TM121,
P~l(part). Scottsville Dist.
APPROVED SP-94-10 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
s'k>n and the following condition #4: "Approval of SP-94-10 applies to that part of Parcel 91 north of
B oute 712 and west of Route 20".
1. Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure;
2. Boarding of animals shall be limited to animals undergoing medical treatment;
3. Use shall not commence until the following have been obtained:
a. Health Department approval;
b. Building Official approval;
c. Provision of adequate parking; and
4. Approval of SP-94-10 applies to that part of Parcel 91 north of Route 712 and west of
Route 20.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-94-03. Building Permit Review. Public Hearing on an ordinance to
a pend and reenact Section 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the Albemarle County Zoning
C rdinance to require that a certificate of appropriateness be granted by the Architectural Review Board
p ior to building permit approval.
ADOPTED the ordinance. The adopted ordinance and Zoning Ordinance sheets will follow
u ~der separate cover.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Marshall requested that the grass on Route 20, located between Route 53 and the limits of
d e City of Charlottesville be cut. He asked if any carryover funds were available that could be used for
d is project.
Mrs. Humphris said the grass is getting very long in that new section of median on Barracks
Rpad. Previously Mr. Roosevelt had mentioned that someone from the Hessian Hills apartment
c( mplex had agreed to take care of the maintenance of that median. She asked for an update.
.- .
1\ emo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V . Wayne Cilimberg
I ate: May 19, 1994
F~ge 4
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m.
E~C:mms
c : Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
J 0 Higgins
Amelia McCulley
Bruce W oodzell
Larry Davis
File
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
Robert B. Brandenburger
Ella W. carey~U
May 24, 1994
Personnel Policy on Emergency Staffing
Attached, please find the Personnel Policy on Emergency
Staffing that the Board adopted at its meeting on May 18, 1994.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
E C/jng
FO MS\act.mem
At achment
~
County of Albemarle
Personnel Policy
EMERGENCY SITUATION STAFFING
The Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Services and Disaster
aw of 1973 requires that localities prepare and keep current an
mergency operations plan. Such a plan has been developed and
dopted by the governing bodies of Charlottesville, Albemarle
ounty and the University of Virginia. In accordance with this
lan, the Board recognizes that emergency preparedness requires
the careful planning for handling of disasters that affect
citizens. In cases of emergency situations, i.e., weather-
elated disasters or other emergencies wherein the community is
equired to provide shelter, emergency transportation, etc., it
ay be necessary for Albemarle County employees to be called upon
to provide necessary services. In such instances, the Board
e pects that employees will respond to requests for emergency
s rvices and has established procedures whereby supervisors can
m et the needs that arise.
gulation: Emergency Situation Staffing
1. In accordance with the regional Emergency Operations Plan,
various departments are charged with initial preparedness
for emergency situations that may affect employees. Each of
these departments will assure that the Plan is familiar to
key staff members and that plans have been made to respond
to emergency situations as they arise.
2. Department Heads will be apprised of likely situations
wherein their staff members may be called upon to respond to
the requirement for emergency services.
3. When an emergency situation arises that requires staff to
respond in off-duty hours, the responsible department head
will staff the situation with employees, providing as much
advance notice as possible to those who will be affected.
Whenever nonexempt employees are required to work in other
than normally scheduled times, provision for compensating
for services rendered will be made and communicated to
employees. Refusal to report to duty when it has been made
clear that the request is due to an emergency situation will
be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including
dismissal.
~
\,.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
. -,~5-:Ji~q' "r, ~);';;c:jh
..- . ..4_..,.,._._......._
AGENDA T TLE:
Personne Policy - Emergency Staffing
SUBJECT
Request
emergenc
STAFF CO
Messrs.
BACKGRO
The Cou
operati
related
would r
how to
AGENDA DATE:
June 1, 1994
ITEM ER.
L1Q.OSI1) b.l)
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
policy on
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:----1L-
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
~---
t
REVIEWED BY:
Brandenburger
ty, City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia have adopted emergency
ns plans which if implemented because of emergency situations such as weather-
disasters or other emergencies requiring shelters, emergency transportation, etc.
quire staff support. The County currently has no specific policy or regulation on
eet the need for staffing in emergency situations.
DISCUSS ON:
The pro osed policy is provided for Board consideration and would allow department heads
to call on staff during times of community emergencies to report to work during non-
working hours. It would be the responsibility of the department head to alert employees
of the ssibility to such a requirement and nonexempt employees would be compensated for
hours sent on the emergency situation. Failure to respond on the part of an employee
could s ject them to disciplinary action which could include dismissal. The proposed
policy as reviewed by the Joint Personnel Policy Committee, Department Heads and the
Employe Advisory Committee and is presented for Board consideration. Procedures and
guideli s that will meet the staffing requirements, while recognizing unique employee
circumstances, will be developed for use by department heads and employees.
RECO
Staff re ommends that the Board approve the proposed policy on Emergency Situation
Staffing.
94.061
MAV
.
.
DRAFT
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
P-xx
EMERGENCY SITUATION STAFFING
The Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Services and Disaster Law of 1973
r~quires that localities prepare and keep current an emergency operations
p~an. Such a plan has been developed and adopted by the governing bodies of
Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia. In
a~cordance with this plan, the Board recognizes that emergency preparedness
r~quires the careful planning for handling of disasters that affect citizens.
Ip cases of emergency situations, i.e. weather-related disasters or other
e~ergencies wherein the community is required to provide shelter, emergency
transportation, etc., it may be necessary for Albemarle County employees to be
c~lled upon to provide necessary services. In such instances, the Board
e~pects that employees will respond to requests for emergency services and has
e~tablished procedures whereby supervisors can meet the needs that arise.
Regulation: Emergency Situation Staffing
1. In accordance with the regional Emergency Operations Plan, various
departments are charged with initial preparedness for emergency
situations that may affect employees. Each of these departments will
assure that the Plan is familiar to key staff members and that plans
have been made to respond to emergency situations as they arise.
2 Department Heads will be apprised of likely situations wherein their
staff members may be called upon to respond to the requirement for
emergency services.
3 When an emergency situation arises that requires staff to respond in
off-duty hours, the responsible department head will staff the situation
with employees, providing as much advance notice as possible to those
who will be affected. Whenever nonexempt employees are required to work
in other than normally scheduled times, provision for compensating for
services rendered will be made and communicated to employees. Refusal
to report to duty when it has been made clear that the request is due to
an emergency situation will be grounds for disciplinary action up to and
including dismissal.
DAVID R. EHR
COMMISSIO ER
Ms.
Boar
Coun
401
Char
,~ r ){i
,::'~- ?, _ 0:-1
-~.,.; ~ .
/-- ,,' \1::-14:::.(,;- :::1..,\
L>I',+(J) ,1..1"-) .<-~ J
; "
-..._~- ~~ ~ .-
'Ie;, (' \
- i:
i'
!
MAY
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
,......,..w:
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
May 6, 1994
Route 654, Albemarle County
lla Carey, Clerk
of Supervisors
y Office Building
cIntire Road
ottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
The Board of Supervisors requested at recent meetings that the signal at the
inte section of Barracks Road and Georgetown Road be rephased to include a protected
left turn movement for traffic turning left from Barracks Road to Georgetown Road.
Plea e advise the board that this change will be made. The left turn phase will
foll w the through movement of traffic on Barracks Road and will precede the green
sign 1 for traffic approaching Barracks Road on Georgetown Road. The Traffic
Engi eer advises me this will require some modifications to the signal and will have
to wait modifications of other signals which have a higher priority. This means
ther may be some delay in implementing this change. Please advise the board of the
reso ution of this matter.
DSR/ mk
Yours truly,
7-) r~ "f\ ~-S 'C.0 <E.. ~ ,
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
cc: J. S. Hores
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
George A en
Govemo
.r
MAY
.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Governor
,._.~..,~._--.-. --,-
Betsy Davis Beamer
Secretary of the Commonwealth
r~ay 4, 1994
f,~s!rlbuted r,! Hoan1: .!j--/3-QLj
Agenda 11elr; . qj~O~!2)~')~~ Lj \.
-~----.-:,-..~-",.l:- f )
M . Ella W. Carey
C erk
A bemarle County Board of Supervisors
4 1 McIntire Road
C arlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
D ar r~s. Carey:
Thank you so much for your recent recommendation of Mary-Scott B. Birdsall
r appoinbnent to the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Board. The willingness to
rve on the part of dedicated citizens is much appreciated.
The commitment of the thousands of individuals who serve on the
C mmonwealth's boards and commissions is an integral part of making our
g vernment run smoothly and efficiently.
Please know that your candidate will receive full consideration as
pointments to this board are considered. Should you have questions or need
rther information, please feel free to contact me or a member of my
pointments staff.
Thanks again for your interest.
With best regards, I am
Sin ce re 1 y ,
B~~
BDB:sdm
P.O. Box 2454 · Richmond, Virginia 23201-2454 · (804) 786-2441 . TOD (804) 371-8599
t: )1)
c:-., . ?-.o. !
"qy D5$. U5,5)
./
>\g~n Ja
j:'(;; ..~
Iter F. Perkins, Chair
bemarle County Board of Supervisors
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, VA 22902-4596
>;i~) ~~~:t;~, , .
~-.._-_.....:.~""'---..,~..~~_,...c
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) Advisory Council
I was appointed to the Advisory Council in June 1990. Since that
t'me, I try to make brief semi-annual summaries of activities in
a effort to keep the Board of Supervisors informed of issues.
e Advisory Council is mandated by the Older Americans Act.
consists of individuals who are active as advocates for the
derly in various community organizations. The Council meets
e third Tuesday of each month, usually at the JAUNT
ministrative Building. We try to conduct Public Forums at.
ast once a year at a meal site located in each of the 6
calities which make up JABA. Additionally, most members act as
dividual advisors to JABA staff in various capacities.
jor issues in process since July 1993 include:
Mission and Goal Statements. JABA believes that all people,
gardless of age or economic status, are worthy of dignity and
spect - and that they should be recognized as having the same
nts and needs as others in the community. In fulfillment of
is belief, we have adopted as our principal mission...
To mobilize and coordinate resources as efficiently as
possible for the community-based and in-home care of older
and disabled persons at risk of losing their self-
sufficiency - and for the support and enduring well-being of
those persons' family caregivers.
T put our Mission Statement into action, JABA will endeavor..
To serve as the highly visible point of access to
information and services for persons over the age of 60,
their family caregivers, and others needing long term care
within the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (TJPD).
2 Capital Funds Campaign. The JABA Board of Directors has
a proved the fund raising feasibility study. Both the Thomas
J fferson Adult Healthcare Center (AHC) and JABA administrative
o fices are operating at capacity. The new AHC will be a family
c re center with "one stop shopping" including day care, clinic,
h me safety and other allied activities.
..J"
J fferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council Report
P ge 2
3 Transportation Committee. Local access to suitable
t ansportation continues to be a major problem for the elderly
a d persons with a disability for many reasons:
* Construction of several total living nursing homes in the
region.
* Albemarle is considered one of the top areas to retire.
* The younger population is moving to areas with better
employment opportunities leaving the elderly and
infirm to fend for themselves with limited or no
resource.
* People are living longer through better medical practice.
* The 85+ age population which has many needs will continue
to grow at 3% per year to 2020.
Commission is forming a consumer advisory committee to
udy these issues and how they affect transportation. This
mmittee will work closely with JABA to maximize resources and
duce duplication.
Public Hearings. Advisory Council hearings were conducted
intly with the Virginia Department of Aging in all 6
risdictions belonging to the TJPD. The joint hearings were
ld to listen to the concerns of the general public relating to
rrent and future needs of the elderly and their caregivers.
ditionally, the hearings allow us to personally visit with
rticipants of JABA's services and discuss issues. JABA is
mmitted to these visits and senior staff members participate.
have all received a new awareness of the problems the elderly
d persons with a disability face with poverty, health,
cessibility, and lack of transportation.
New Senior Centers. The Carver Senior Center officially
opened its doors on December 1, 1993. Additionally, both the
uisa and Greene Senior Centers have moved to new locations.
contact me if you would like additional information about
activities of JABA.
>-e~~lliJ(fJ2~ Cfv
bert J. Walters, Jr.
45 Ravens Place
arlottesville, VA 22901-7527
Gordon Walker, Executive Director
Leicester Handsfield, Chair Advisory Council
Melvin A. Breeden, Albemarle County Director of Finance
~
AT....
P.O. Box 334 ':'ro<"~ \,'
Belcamp, Maryland
410-575-7412
5 L~~qq
<.. _.,.,~
ClLr 0518.{~1~:>)
21017
.'}3C~f-j:,;/.>,j'. ,,\L SERVICES !f"i{~
May 9, 1994
....<>'"...,_.
Mr. Bob Richardson
S vran Bank, N.A.
P st Office Box 26904
Richmond, Virginia 23261
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Mr. Richardson:
closed please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
rsuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the month
April 1994.
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
410-575-7412.
_,VU~~ UNl/fYt f)l.pticfut 1,,-
eila H. Moynihan
oject Monitor
Ms. EllaW. Carey, Clerk, CMe
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Effective April 30, 1994
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Arbor Crest Apa.rt:rrents
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pur~uant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the -Deed
Res~rictions.), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Alb~marle County, Virginia (the -Authority-), and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned author ized representative of
Ric~mond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership (the -Purchaser-), hereby certifies with respect to
the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Charlottesville, Virginia (the -Project-), that as of the date
shown below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 20 .
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
.
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 46
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 30%.
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of
May 5, 1994 , ~.
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: ~..#-1AZZ;;..; ~7!P~
Authorized Representative
I I aONe PROGRAM REPORT
Monlh April y 1994
M'_
PIO~ny: ~rbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts. ) P . 051-35371
rOJeCt .:
Location: Charlottesville, VA Number 01 Unlit 66
S",bm.l1ta ~y. Loretta Wyatt May 5, 1994 Effective 4/30/94
Mat\&~r Oatl
Total Occupied 66
LOW'll INCOME Bond Occupied 20
I.
the 10110 .. ng un I" I'\IYe been drs.gn.alld as ..towel Incom." units
1 rbor Crest Dr 21 Dorothy B. Hubicsak
, 41 61.
4 j\rbor Crest Dr 22 Beverly T. Lane
2 42 62.
3 5 y\rbor Crest Dr 23 Margaret L. Mawyer 43
63.
. 9 ~rbor Crest Dr 24 Virginia Burton 44 ...
S 12 ~rbor Crest Dr 25 G. Robe'r:t Stone 4~
as.
6 14 Arbor Crest Dr 26 Evelyn Dover .e
ee.
7 15 Arbor Crest Dr 27 Jane Wood 47
67.
a 20 Arbor erest Dr 25 Evelyn Mandeville .8 61
9 24 Arbor Crest Dr 29 Gertrude Breen .9
68.
'0 30 Arbor Crest Dr 30 Mary Cox Allen ~
70. .
" 44 Arbor Crest Dr 3t Sam M. Atherton ~,
71.
'2 56 Arbor Crest Dr 31 Violet DuCharme ~2
72
'3 76 Arbor Crest Dr J3 Barbara Datz ~J 73
U 78 Arbor Crest Dr J4 Ernest M. Nease 54
74.
IS 84 Arbor Crest Dr 3~ Juanita Boliek ~~
75.
16 90 Arbor Crest Dr 36 Betty B. Elliott ~
76
I 7 92 Arbor Crest Dr :11 Dorothy H. Reese ~1
77.
18 94 Arbor Crest Dr J! Sarah E. Fischer ~.
7a.
19 102 Arbor Crest Dr :19 Anne Lee Bullard ~9
7..
20 106 Arbor erest Dr .0 Katherine T. Nowlen 60
10.
T t\C en. ~s 'rom prcvIOu' repnr' 1t-lIce'cd in Ihe abOv. hl"ng 'r.
Oelellotl. A6d l1Iona
to H 1 . 56 Arbor Crest Dr ",violet DuCharme
'2 12 2 12.
3 13 3 13.
4 '4 4. ,..
~ ,~ 5 15.
6 16 6 11
7 \1 7 17.
I ,a I 11..
I '9 t ".
10 20 10. 20.
\.
. .r' -).
r-' ~." '~(J!"FY (\1:' AI 8E-o'ARlE
., d..,....j \, fk:'l d ..2.."/ t" '",'l . ..... ,iVi ....
~.' ",..~':' l~' ~: ,~( ". - -.,,' _ - j- ",:~~.' ;'''';~r r;:j flr'! rtt7::1 r
.)"M,/., '. . '.. Ulj{.'LlS" M'..ff....,).,.,.~..~."..:..,.,.,..,.,:.A,.L..i;. j'm'
",,, . -:;1 ~;",.,~!~ i,:,",~ -t". _T) ! ,'. . . ""'''\j '. I
J. .,.. .. --,,,/. , . .f' '\ ! [
~. _lnJ"7~ I:.:'.'/j MAY 6 1994 'I'W!i I'
W -. M I!~' II '
oJ, ~ .'. ',. I
.I. l '~'''i.t: Ii.. " ".u..~",~"..I, U
'\' , '-J U ',; I l.l....
/"'<<;\l,l\1' __...J ::::::!
E::XECUTlVE OFFICE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(H04) 2965H23
'~"~'-'
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Distribution List
Tex weaver:v{nformation Resource Planner
TO:
DATE:
May 6, 1994
RE:
Enhanced 911 Implementation Schedule
As a result of a series of meetings held on April 27 and 28,
1994, with local telephone companies, the Post Office, emergency
service providers, and representatives from the City of
Charlottesville, County of Albemarle and University of Virginia
(UVA), the Enhanced 911 Implementation Schedule has been revised
to reflect necessary program element adjustments (attached).
The revised Enhanced 911 Implementation Schedule reflects strict
time-lines which must be adhered to in order to meet the
specified project completion date of January 1, 1995 as
established by the Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Emergency
Operations Center Management Board. While the time-line for
Program Element 12, TELCO Database Development, currently extends
beyond the established completion date, efforts are being made to
determine what could be done to improve the six (6) month time-
line quoted for database development.
I
Please note that provided Program Element 1 is completed by the
first week of June, the Post Office will be in a position to
perform new address notifications on August 22, 1994 (Program
Element 10) with a new address effective date of September 2,
1994 (Program Element 11).
Again, thank you for your participation in the meetings held last
week. I hope that the information which was shared proved to be
of benefit to you. Should you have any questions regarding the
attached schedule, please do not hesitate to contact me.
(
t
~- ...
..
-
0:
c
w w
u ~
:z ;:)
C C
x w '"
:z x ';1.
w u
II) .....
C II'l
:z i5;:;'
c
-
~ .... 11
c
.... .... (/)
~ :z ':;
w
:IE: .,
~ W L
~ .....
CI a-
:z :IE:
-
C
~
i
:------------------------r-------
w .
~ :
I .
-------------------------r-----j-
:z . .
c . .
~ . <<
I . <<
-------------------------.-.---.-
.. ..
.. ..
.. <<
.. .
.. .
.. .
. ...... ..
-7-----------------------.-.-----
I . .
I . .
~ : : :
Z I ... ...
, . .
I . .
-------------------------r-I-----
.... . .
g . .
. .
I . .
-------------.-----------.-.-.---
. . << <<
. . <<
: : :
. . <<
. . . <<
-~-----------~---------~-~-~-----
.. .
<< ..
.. .
<< <<
. .
. .
. .
-------------~---~---------------
. << .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . .
. . . ..
. . .. ..
<< << . <<
---------------------------------
. << .
.. . .
.. . .
.. . ..
.. <<<<<<
. ...<<
.. ... .
---~-~-----~-~-~-----------------
.<< <<<<
:: ::
.. ...
.. <<
.. ..
il<< ..
---~-~-----~---------------------
u
w
C
a-
w
II)
CI
;:)
c
.
.
..
<<
~
;:)
~
:z
;:)
~
>-
~
. .. .. .
. .. . ..
. <<
II< . ..
a- . .
c .. .
.. .
---~-~---------------------------
. <<
. .
. .
. .
. .
. ..
. <<
---~-~---------------------------
II<
~
(/) a- ';1.
0 g (I)
u w .....
~ (/) N
W 0 ~ 0 ~ N ~
.... u w ... ..... 0-
..... ~ .... 'c co .....
(I) w g' ';1. C)
a- .... 0 >- ....
(I) ... '8: III ... ..... .....
;:) 0 L ., ~ ~ N ., 0-
... 11 .... ~ ~ g
0 III ..... ...
... 11 ... :IE: 15 15 III U ... J III
... ..... ... III ... L
III ... ~ III '- ,- 2- 0 U Q. J g
... ... ... ... ... ... .- ., .,
III ~ III III III U .... ... u
c c - - u 11 III U
II) - - c ... Q ., C ...
15 15 III ClI ..... ... 0 > ..... >- ClI
(I) CI ... ... ... ... :z ., ., ... lD L
C (/) l! (/) ~ > C 1II !
.... 1II ~ CI (I) (/) c ., (/) ., >-
:z L C :IE: L .... 1II ... ., .... III
W ., ':; (I) ., ., ~ 1II Q.
:IE: > :IE: >- ~ - . . II) L 11 - -
w 15 .. .... 0: 1II ~ ! .... 0: (/) 0:
~ II< >- :z >- CI .... III
W U ... U U II) (I) c w ... C
Q. ,- 11 (I) III 11 11
~ 1II III U E (/) L L :IE: - 1II C (/)
1II :IE: 1II g 0 0 ClI 1II g 1II g
II< .. .- .. ... ... L .. 0 ..
8 L .. III - L III III III ~ .. L U III L III
! 1II C ., ! ~ g g 5i :a ~ ~ :a ~
II< III '- L W
a- ID ... a- w ~ ~ ... CI C .... W C w
N ..; .; ~ .0 ,..: cO 0- C) - N ~ ;! II'l
- - - -
---------------------------------
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
c....,__,....,..... .-~-.-.> T -, - "'-', .h, ""'n ~J r,,""I_'."'f'~(~C::
!JI"""';....c..,;-r, o~.~' ,,::'" ~
ON Q..:..t2..:.~_..
AGENDA T TLE:
SP-93-41 Pagebrook Farm
AGENDA DATE:
May 18, 1994
~:
Y4 .{Y--\ ILl .~5t
ACTION:----1L-
INFORMATION:
BACICGRO
At its
noted
applica
Sununary
Conuniss
and let
Agricul
to Planning
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
SUBJECT
New info
Conunissi
STAFF CO
Messrs.
Cilimberg, Ms. Hipski
REVIEWED BY:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
:
eeting on April 14, 1994, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors sent the above
tition back to the Planning conunission for further review of new information. The
t submitted the enclosed book entitled "Agriculture and Stream Enhancement Plan
Report for Pagebrook Farm," from McKee, Carson. Information for the Planning
on includes two additional letters (letter dated 4/5/94 from J. Robert Hume, III
er from Peter R. Taylor) and an information book by the U. S. Department of
ure entitled "Stream Habitat Improvement Handbook."
RECOMME ,mATION:
Staff h s reviewed the information (see memo dated April 14, 1994 from Yolanda Hipski).
The new information explains better the design and the intended agricultural uses. The
Departm nt of Engineering has reviewed the new information (see memo dated April 14, 1994
from Do Franco). Staff reconunends approval subject to the four conditions reconunended by
the Dep rtment of Engineering memo of April 14, 1994:
(1) partment of Engineering approval of Final Dam Design Plans and
drologic/hydraulic computations.
(2) ter Resources Manager approval of the Water Quality Impact Assessment.
(3) partment of Engineering approval of the Erosion Control Plan.
(4) C mpliance with applicable Federal and state permitting requirements for activities
w'thin perennial streams.
94.063
!" ,
~\ ~ ,; :
MAY
i'l,
, ~", "'. -
to fj.'ar1 c:'" 13-<]tj., r'r-,' ',,''1''"\/ ,- ,_
'qwl , _.,.....t__.~ ,",'~' ~-,_. "" 1],- ALBEM~RlE
Alt"" 'J f.. ~ {\511fi2 Ic}. av, . ."q\ '_._, aM
'. , u~ G, . , " , l~ .. rU:=J~
. ' ".-...-. .1'-'...(,1 F . I
f~~ t~' MAY,:2u:~:~) r
, !..::.:.-. U l!::::J U
C:..r~ECUTlVE OFFICE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Parks and Recreation Department
County Office Building
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
Telephone (804) 296.5844
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreationt11(fit
DATE: May 11, 1994
RE: Bike Virginia 1994
st a reminder that on June 27 and 28, Charlottesville and Albemarle
County will play host to the 1994 Bike Virginia Bicycle Tour. Bike Virginia
is a ive day bicycling event held each June through different sections of
the st tee It is a fun ride - not a race - for all ages and abilities.
are expecting 1,500 cyclists from more than 40 states to participate.
The b nefit to the local economy as a result of this event is estimated at
$90,000. Host communities also reap the benefits of state and national media
covera e that Bike Virginia typically draws. Bike Virginia also compensates
the ho t communities for any expenses incurred as a result of this event. A
portio of the proceeds from Bike Virginia go to support the Special
Olympi
is year's tour will leave Waynesboro and arrive at Darden Towe
Memori I Park on June 27. Towe Park will serve as the Welcome Center and
Tent C'ty for the cyclists during their stay in our community. That evening,
Downto n Charlottesville will host an event on the mall for the cyclists. On
June 2 the cyclists will take day trips around our community and then return
to To e Park. Ash Lawn will host an event for the cyclists on the second
evenin of their stay. About 1,100 of the cyclists are expected to camp at
Towe P rk, with the remainder choosing the comfort of a motel or hotel. The
Elks C ub has agreed to prepare breakfast for the cyclists.
proximately every 15 miles along the tour route the host communities
ponsible for setting up rest stops for the cyclists. On June 27 there
a rest stop at Walnut Creek Park. Some rest stops will serve as fund
opportunities for the local organizations and clubs that staff them.
Virginia Committee has been meeting since November to prepare for the
event. The Committee has representatives from VDOT, City/County and State
POlice, the Parks and Rec Departments, Downtown Charlottesville Inc., Chamber
of Co erce, the Visitor's Center, the Elks Club, and the local bicycle
clubs.
ease feel free to call me if you have any questions or would like
nal information about this event.
i
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
'1': (1
1 . .~ ( ~'l
I ,"
f~
F~
..
ay 12, 1994
agebrook Farm, Inc
/0 McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe
ttn: steve Blaine
. o. Box 1288
harlottesville, VA 22902
SP-93-41 Pagebrook Farm
Mr. Blaine:
he Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May
10, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted
request to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Please
ote that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Department of Engineering approval of Final Dam Design Plans
and hydrologic/hydraulic computations;
2. Water Resources Manager approval of the Water Quality Impact
Assessment;
3. Department of Engineering approval of the Erosion Control
Plan;
4. Compliance with applicable Federal and state permitting
requirements for activities within perennial streams.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this
petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 18,
1994. Any new or additional information regarding your
application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing
date.
Pagebrook Farm, Inc
Page 2
ay 12, 1994
If you should have any questions, regarding the above-noted
action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
,
iolanda Hipski
Planner
YH/jcw
cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
McKeee/Carson
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
(SP-94-41) Pagebrook Farm File
Yolanda A. Hipski, Planner~
May 5, 1994
Information given to Planning Commission for the May
10, 1994 hearing
ase note there are two versions of the Pagebrook Farm
emarle Count , Virginia Agriculture and Stream Enhancement
n Summar Re ort. One version is dated April 7, 1994 and the
ond is dated April 19, 1994. Per the consultant, the latter
tains two additional letters, a revised cover letter, and a
ised run of the HEC-2 water surface profile program. One
ter is addressed to Steve Driver from V. Robert Hume, III and
ed April 5, 1994. The second is from Peter R. Taylor and was
eived by the Planning Department on April 27, 1994. On May 3,
4, the Planning Department received a letter from James O.
en to Ms. Yolanda A. Hepski (sic) and is dated May 2, 1994.
J. O. Green letter is not included in the packet.
three letters have been forwarded to the Board of
ervisors. This should supplement the April 7, 1994 document.
Board and Planning Commission both received Stream Habitat
rovement Handbook by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
/blb
CC Ella Carey
JAMES O. GREEN
h......lE r>;cEIVi.""-'n
~ KlO~ ...(.p. 1:..: it.:lt~
May 2, 1994
· :/~ f.) 1994
Ms. olanda A. Hepski
Cou ty of Albemarle
Dep. of Planning and Community Development
401 clntire Rd.
Cha lottesville, Va. 22902-4596
Ref: (SP-93-41) Page brook Farm
Planning ~)(jpt
Dea Ms. Hepski.
We own and reside in the property known as Willow brook Farm whicll is on the west
side of Rt. 231, contiguous to Pagebrook Farm. Our property lies upstream from Pagebrook
on t e Mechunk Creek.
f
Tflis letter is to register our objection to the petition of Pagebrook Farm to construct six
pounding structures in Mechunk Creek on the east side of Rt. 231. My wife and I will be
f town on the meeting date of May 10. We will appreciate that you present this letter of
st to the above petition to the Planning Board in our absence.
The Board will recall that we presented a video tape of Mechunk Creek in 1Iood stage
in arch 1993 at their meeting of Tuesday, February 8, 1994. It was our purpose to
dem nstrate the volitility and unpredictability of Mecflunk Creek. As a result of annual flood
stag s our property suffers fence, pasture and driveway damage. A Mecf1unk flood occured
agai in March of this year. It is our concern that any obstruction in the Mectlunk bed would
caus the back-up of higher flood waters onto our property, possibly resulting in more severe
dam ge to us.
Mechunk Crek normally flows as a gentle country brook at a steady but limited volume.
ur six year observation that during the summer drought periods the flow virtually stops.
the tream enters a stage of no flow, stagnant algae covered pools for several mid summer
wee s. It is therefore our additional concern that any deterent to this annual reduced flow will
resu t in depriving downstream properties of whatever limited water flow they might now
enjo . The downstream enviromental impact of man's interference with nature will not be
desi able.
For these reasons we request that the Planning Commission reiterate Uleir denial of
etition in their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
JOG bcg
Respectfully sUb(ri'
WU-Y 0 iJiH'L-
James O. Green
Willow Brook Farm. P 0.287 . Keswick, VA 22947 . 804-293-2805
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
agebrook Farm, Inc
/0 McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe
TTN: Steve Blaine
. O. Box 1288
harlottesville, VA 22902
SP-93-4l Pagebrook Farm
Mr. Blaine:
e Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on April 14, 1994,
ent the above-noted petition back to the Planning Commission for their
urther review of the petition since they did not have all of the information
ow available to the Board, i.e., "Agriculture and Stream Enhancement Plan
ummary Report for Pagebrook Farm" from McKee/Carson. Therefore, this item
as been scheduled for public hearings as follows:
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, TUESDAY, HAY 10, 1994
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WEDNESDAY, HAY 18, 1994
oth of these meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #7, Second
loor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
ou will receive a copy of the staff report and tentative agenda one week
rior to the Planning Commission meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS.
If you should have any questions or concerns about this petition or schedule,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
.; eL
V "~be~{_~
D rector of PIa 'ing & ommunity
~a Carey
Development
c
McKee/Carson
PR 14 '94 03:11PM WFS INST SALES
P.2
-... . ..
All
~oard of Supervisors
~bemarle County
I
l/rn: Pagebrook Farm Stream Enhancement Plan
I
I
+s the landowner most affected by the Pagebrook Farm stream enhancement plan, I thought I
would convey my positive sentiment towards the proposed plan in an effort to facilitate your
pproval process. My farm (Eldon l<'ann t.a Broomfield Inc) lies immediaLc::ly dowllstream from
agebrook. The Mechunck creek traverses my property for approximately a mile and provides
t e primary water source tor my cattle herd. Despite my dependence un the water flow, I see
othing in the plan that worries me, In fact, I believe that the downstream dwellers will benefit
om better water quality resulting from the livestock impediments.
I
I
Iryou have any questions, please feel free to call me (804-182-3521) wurk..
!
!
I
I
Thank you
~J: /2 ~:? Infl-
A~ ..~~/7'(/~AC/
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Yolanda Hipski - Planning Department
Don Franco - Engineering Department 0(-
14 April 1994
RE:
Pagebrook Farm
he Agriculture and Stream Enhancement Plan Summary Report for the above referenced site
as been reviewed. As we understand, this document was submitted for use by the Board of
upervisors in response to the concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
e Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is the regulatory agency responsible for
nsuring minimal in-stream flow criteria are met. We recommend consultation with the
ounty Attorney for discussion of riparian rights. This Department will oversee the
evelopment and implementation of water quality and erosion control measures to ensure that
he proposed construction does not negatively impact adjacent and downstream properties.
e recognize off-stream watering of livestock as a sound practice and are of the opinion that
he additional detail presented in the study supports our original position. This Department
ecommends approval subject to:
Department of Engineering approval of Final Dam Design Plans and
hydrologic/hydraulic computations.
Water Resources Manager approval of the Water Quality Impact Assessment.
Department of Engineering approval of the Erosion Control Plan.
Compliance with applicable Federal and state permitting requirements for activities
within perennial streams.
lease contact me (x3860) at your earliest convenience if you have questions regarding these
omments or require additional information.
CF:
Jack Kelsey
Job File - SP 94-041
Reading File - sp9441_b.yah
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMO DUM
TO: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development
FROM: Yolanda A. Hipski, Planner
DATE: April 14, 1994
RE: New Information Received April 8, 1994 for (SP-93-41) Paqebrook
Farm
As re ested, I have reviewed the above.
your u
If I
I am forwarding my comments for
of additional help, please contact me.
A ricu ture
Proposes an 180 head cattle farm.
Agricultural uses to be fishery and livestock. Fishery shall be
"semi-commercial".
Current ponds are fed by runoff only (no springs). Therefore, they
become poor in quality during summer.
Applicant discusses two options - pasture pumps and feeding the
existing ponds from the new ponds. The applicant does not indicate
which option they will pursue.
The applicant states that about 0.3% of the average base flow in
the stream shall be used.
v. Wayne Cilimberg
Page 2
April 14, 1994
Desia~ of Ponds
- The previous information proposed a different dam design.
- This new design, explained on page 5 and shown on figures 45, 46,
47 and 48, appears to be smaller in scale and of less disturbance
than the originally proposed design.
- I would point out that the stream example shown in these figures
tends to have a smoother shore transition than those existing on
Mechunk Creek.
- The applicant has provided letters of support for this design from
several state agencies (Department of Environment Quality,
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries).
- On April 14, 1994, I discussed these issues with steve Driver of
McKee-Carson. There will be no widening of the stream as
previously proposed. The applicant intends to place one, possibly
two, layers of logs similar to that shown in the figures. Each log
shall range in diameter from 14 inches to 20 inches. Should a
smaller log be used, the applicant shall place two layers. Should
a larger log be used, the applicant shall place one layer.
Y~/b]b
PR 14 '94 03:29PM WFS INST SALES
P.2
oard of Supervisors
Ibemarle County
Pagebrook Farm Stream Enhancement Plan
s the lando'wner most affected by the Pagebrook Fann stream enhancement plan, I thought I
ould convey my positive sentiment towards the proposed plan in an effort to facilitate your
pproval process. My farm (Eldon Farm t.a. Broomfield Inc) lies immediately downstream from
agebrook. The Mechunck creek traverses my property for approximately a mile and provides
he primary water source for my cattle herd. Despite my dependence on the water flow, I see
othing in the plan that worries me. In fact, I believe that the downstream dwellers will benefit
'rom better water quality resulting from the livestock impediments.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me (804-782-3521) work.
Thank you
PJ:, (2 ~l ~n-
RECEIVED
..)W 'J 71Q94
. .. .. c.. ,/
Planning Dept.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
\l~
,.' ~
~c':"~":- ~:',~'~~
. f'j~
-.-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Yolanda Hipski - Planning Department
Don Franco - Engineering Department 0\-:::-
14 April 1994
Pagebrook Farm
he Agriculture and Stream Enhancement Plan Swnmary Repon for the above referenced site
as been reviewed. As we understand, this document was submitted for use by the Board of
upervisors in response to the concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
he Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is the regulatory agency responsible for
nsuring minimal in-stream flow criteria are met. We recommend consultation with the
ounty Attorney for discussion of riparian rights. This Department will oversee the
evelopment and implementation of water quality and erosion control measures to ensure that
he proposed construction does not negatively impact adjacent and downstream properties.
e recognize off-stream watering of livestock as a sound practice and are of the opinion that
he additional detail presented in the study supports our original position. This Department
ecommends approval subject to:
Department of Engineering approval of Final Dam Design Plans and
hydrologic/hydraulic computations.
Water Resources Manager approval of the Water Quality Impact Assessment.
Department of Engineering approval of the Erosion Control Plan.
Compliance with applicable Federal and state permitting requirements for activities
within perennial streams.
lease contact me (x3860) at your earliest convenience if you have questions regarding these
omments or require additional information.
CF:
Jack Kelsey
Job File - SP 94-041
Reading File - sp9441_ b. yah
DEPARThENi 0;: THE ARiW
~ I ~ L ~<~ D 1 ~-:J T Fi : C ., . C. r:;: r' " r i::" N C. iN t::: L
H'r ~..J O!~ F 0 t. f\ fhl_":~ F- i-I n i-~"; ::, 'j r-i Coo r:-~
NOf--~ C'L.:\, \./I':-\C!~j:,.\ 2351;)-lC}b
He.PLY TO
ATTENTION OF
,1
,/ic;:;tcnl Vir(jinia [\1.:''1u 1(\t ocy ::
I }'iect11Jflk. (~ree}~~)'
1..', ~_ ( ) I;
}r. St~ve Driver
I c 1< l,' E' / C a :C' .'; 0 n
'56 East Iii Street
lharlottcsville. vi lnl
')'J (i
T (:car HI. DCl VO;.' :
'1'hi.<:; is wi t1'1 re~Jard tu "j'Ulll
S t r.-tl c L t: r e ;-:; )1 ()1J [) 1- () }:)() ;~; c t () t)l__~ i .1 c1
in 1\1 Ie :a L'; I1iY il '!
e }~ -cl;::l~rl.~; ,! \,,/0.1. J ;.)(:: L
enlklnc:emE;nt, by way oL cree:< lllCi
It j.::-; .furtl-lt21- rnjl urlclc:r;~;t--(JrldiL(J
IJI'() -~-j c~c t \:v' j. t 1-1 L 1-1 e \7 i 1" ("] i )-1 i '::_;
<);[] Uk,,-: they ,'Ire
1 r'
__(J
11 ') ::('1
El'c:huL k
()nC'
icC '(1 L nCJ
rf_' ~-;:k
c'
()K I",--ll'T~l
1"- :_:; 1-_ d 1~1 c"l .i 1
.'; I
1_ ~ ( ,t i
l'}-j c~ l)ll C'!_ 'lei r; (l
f ~; :-.
;ll/;
i ,
i. I .i n n ,I J : I
t.: ri (, 11
'/()~-]
()
1--1,_'; \/ C'
fL
; :J:
("t]
,c, .
c;
,.~( ;"1 (_1
j (--, :~; r
j:
\,!lJitl"lC)Ut :~~1)C_\C1fi clC,'j\-\IJll :.' dn,:l d 1
.';Jcc i [, c__dI y what k i ncl cd: pc:: rli1i i;; "i L 1 .1.
.likclih()(Jd ()[ I)Cl-Init-_ ])[)l'C)\ld.l. f,[IJ-}
'd _tU
rndl_-:' f
1 ;l ):
l"".lC'
cerl; -L 1
I
, ,
I)j
t
, "
kirlcl ()f' ''.r.l()rk:. r
~/J ~-,t.1 c1nc1;; f
~
,.
t")r'C)V,l
.1
,.
1. \
UJ-l)~;
d c:::; ) t-
(J c' n '.-t .~ J 'j:
c1 \_~1 ;':1 ,_'~ ([ () J
} --~ i r:
c_1J.tural r'(:;~~()ur-ce;:).
III L~l-LL;:~; c: :;
i l~ :.:; CJllll (1:-;
: ~')
cred .c:
c!.
t.: 1 1 r ll,: b j "
'/ 'HI pn)[)o::;(' may qualify 1:0:' CUlp:; I:Ell' .LUfl\'/lcl
W ) r kin h (' cl cl w ate r s ( ,':; e e C' n 1 u:; c'd). vJ C'
t- 1C)r;C r)art:=; ()[ (~l .';t-re(-::jlIl \'/(-1 :. C' t-~--l() (11_-\:~l.11Id(Je
. vc :;quare mi 1 C';~ .
t- 1'-
L l_
(.,
You :;huuJd cOn\cl('1 I'll'.
o:ficc at (3D::;) 2J)-2J/jc) fen:'
j::J'rl'iit reCJ:uirement:~ for thi,;
T'I7
t) _.1.. \ \, ~_i
() [
.\'.; rJCC j_ f L C
tl ,(:1 L-)Ul'CJ
J: -1 [U rrr:.< ,~, ,'l
:_,'-L C'.~
IClC)I--C!
,.
,
l '1 (~_'
r)rc) .-; c:c: t .
t\ :',;.1 '~-_' (,
\ [) C 1 ~jv,--___
\ . J ~/v,--: i U, ~
\ hU;i(ll't. lltU:"iC,. "-'J
i, \~.).
______J.ll.l C" \,\l( ';--; 1,'_"1 j-) \/ I
<j I-~'/
c t i
'j
, ,
El cJo.';ure
C:( 1):/ Ft~r~-l.i ~~-~Ylecl (w / C';' l~::{l 1.):
D'_pu1.:Uricnt of Envi:cJjjli,Cili:dl
~ I '-", r
J f
i~ j, (: ~-i
l"jcl
RECE'V-ED
tYI-t ~ 7 1994
Planning Dept.
McGuI REWOODS
BATTLE&BooTHE
Trans tomac Plaza
Suite 1000, 11 North Fairfax Street
Alexandri , VA 22314-1437
Court Square Building
Post Office Box 1288
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1288
One James Center
901 EaSt Cl\ry Street
Ricbmond. VA 23219-4030
'--n;;-kmy and Navy Club Building
1627 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-4007
8280 G ensboro Drive
Suite, , Tysons Comer
McLean, VA 22102-0346
Phone: (804) 977-2500 (VoiceffDD)
Fax: (804) 980-2222
250 Avenue Louise, Bte. 64
1050 Brussels, Belgium
World Trade Center
Suite 9000, I 1 West Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510-1655
associated office:
P.O. Box 4930
Bahnhofstrasse 3
8022 Zurich, Switzerland
Direct Dial: 1-804-977-2588
February 23, 1994
s. Ella W. Carey, Clerk
oard of Supervisors
ounty of Albemarle
4 1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, VA 22902
e: SP-93-41; PageBrook Farm
Confirming our conversation this afternoon, we request on behalf of our client, a
d ferral of the Board of Supervisors' public hearing for this matter. The originally
s heduled hearing date was March 9. I understand that we may be scheduled for a public
h aring on April 14, which is a Thursdav night meeting. I also understand that you will
t e care of the advertising and any other appropriate notices to interested parties.
Very truly yours,
~~
/itm
U: 588\1994LTR\EC4224.swb
David P. Bo rman
Charlottes ille
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 9724060
Charles S. Martin
Rivann3
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jou tl
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Ma shall, Jr.
Scottsvile
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
February 18, 1994
P gebrook Farm, Inc.
ttn: Steve Blain
P. O. Box 1288
C arlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-93-41 - pagebrook Farm
Mr. Blaine:
This letter is to inform you of the Board of Supervisors' schedule for its
rch 9, 1994 meeting. The first item on the Board's agenda for this meeting is
public hearing to receive comments on the 1994-95 County budget. The Board is
lowing approximately two hours for this public hearing. Your petition and
tree others will be heard following that item which will not end until at least
9:00 p.m.
The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium on the Second Floor
the County Office Building. If you do not wish to be present at the beginning
the meeting, you may wait until 9:00 p.m. to appear. I hope this does not
use any inconvenience, we simply wanted to inform you of this delay should you
oose not to attend the budget hearing.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesi1:ate to
c ntact this office.
E C:mms
~Sin~Ce~relY' . ;\ !
/ /,-
~ tL IA.-/ (t(/ltt .
lk W Carey, Clerk tr
c Henry T. Crider
James R. or M. Joann Faillace
James O. Green
Vincent L. or Dorothy E. Kinney
Harry Morris, Jr., Etal.
Welford Morris, Etal.
Lamont & Doris W. Dudley
Bodo or Ulla Birgitta Kruger
Broomfield, Inc.
Maxine M. Holland
William McKinley Harris, Sr.
Wesley L. Harris, Sr.
Kenneth or Lillian M. Hawkins & Shirley A. Chapman
McKee Carson
V. Wayne Cilimberg
*
Printed on recycled paper
'.
~. ~ ....
,. .
.~
'..: I..' '..J ,. /1
....1, .. ',.1"'/ .
o
I ~ T' (,\ >< r:' (I J:i~
!,;.:II,!.C' :::;:[I...FC:"I 1 fJj....; ~::::..,';\!D "J. ': :l' I ii>J~:::;
i
"
j /:'; >< F' (': n.
.;'$' T (,\ F:' (, P.
..f (, :.x:: F' (,1:(
" (:', ;< F> (, H
, .
'-
'r ('j >< p (', n
if (:,:\ F' (:', H
;" ('j :x. F' (:":j Fe
(:','::< f'{'IH
,', ;";
, .......
'f (I >< F:' (', ;:;:
'1'~ U H.:.:.' U H. .',; U H .,~ U ,:;: C CH( (~.) UP,',:' i:i ::::. '::'.' :", ,) C)F(I .:)
.... 10660000000'7900l
'f ("! >< t< (\ F /" F (:'1 H. c:: E L.. .
.--
:, UI) F< i. ::; b'j :
(,L'L;.H.:':.::;:;;;" .
(",.1).1);'(1': ,,'f'
i::'i () :C" p, C :::~ ::::; /:} :
('j:t> :0 n. F ':::, ::::; :::
Z I!:,' CUDL '::;: ;
T (:j >< j"--'l t'; ,::. .../ 1::' (:'l H. C: E L.. :
(', :0 :D H. E:~ ~::::~:;:;'1 :
'-
('I )) I> ;:':, C :;;;; ::::; ;.:? '
;'::'1 J) J) H. E:: ~:::;:3 ~::. :
(:', D :0 H r::"::::, ~;:;, .:~; .
.'-
(, D i> H. C ::) ::::; ,,':: :
ZIe CUD[~5:
T t.,>< i"it, i::'./ F' (, RCF l
P,L' i:E:: :::;j
('j D j) P. F ::::. ~:::; ::? :
i:\ 'Ii.:' i:'~. r
i:":'j i) J.:ll< [: ~:::; ~:::, /~ .
(;1 :DU H. C ::::; ::::; ~::;: .
Z l JII' CUD [,,~: :
'-...
r (,.\ f'1 ('j I::' /i F' (:', n, C F L. :
(:'10 :0 H, I::: ~:; :::;i
('j )) }) H. r: ~::" <:"
(, D .U H. C ~:; ~:> :.':) :
(; f' i, H F:: ::::; ~::; 4 :
...~ .,". _ . " 'I I.. .
"'IL' ;".'1 t. ",:J.i'.
'.:';.' .i <.' C: C: .~> C I:::: :
1....
T t'; >< (/i (:'1 r:' ./ F' (:'j n, c:: E L
,t'l
1..:.
,':'t .00 H. L :; ~::;i
i~1 D :0 P. E ::::: ~::; ::? :
{~ :0 H. E:: ';::: ~:::; :.;::, .
(~ 0 .I.' n F :::) :::; l~ .
(\ L! :::;'
~? I f> C. C: }) 1::: ~:~; :
,~
r t~':'i .\ {':'j ('II':' ../ f' 1".:'1 F{ eEL .
('I D }) ::,~. :::: ~:.:; ~::, .-:
.... I () I:~: () <,> () 0 () () I>> (.) :.':::, U 0 () I ; 1 0 :::;' <.> t,) ::.:; 1,.'.1 I.) ,":.r ,") <:.! :'.~ )' () () r
.... J ,) :::; (J () 0 () () () () () ::~:; ~::; j:\ () j ; I () ~:~;: () () () () () () () () 4 ~.? () (-'j I ; f (":i :::;. (j <> () () (> () () .{~. ~::;"
.... I () I::.: <) () () <.) () () <> 0 3 :? E.: () I j / () '::;: () () (.) () () () () (-) ::?:; ~:.:: () () I , i (.) 1:::: (-) () () <) () () () 3 "I
I (-) ~:::: (,> () (~(':: () () () () ;,:.~ ~:::: <-) () I ; ; () (I (, () () (-) () (j () (,: /~ '-::'1 <> <'.; ; <.) '::,\ (") () () () (-) () (-) ~~;
.... '() (") (:: () () () () (-) () 0 ~:) i 0 () . .: t () (j {;', C' () () '::'1 (! (j t::' , ','" r I I I () (ll:~') () 0 (-) (~() (-) ~:::'
.... 106600000006'7001
... 106600000006~~~00J
.". 106600000006~500
-". i06600000006900l
(> ::::: () () () () 0 () () () :::..~ :::.:; (] ()
1::: ;:;:. I D F F;: I H L !'-i F< 'ff
Fl () B (J >< ~'5 f: :~.~
Gun. :0 C": (") ~:;:; V T L.. !". E \,,' (:'1
:~:.:: ::.:: .) ~l 2
() ;::; <-) (-> () () () () () (-) ::::; :::..:: E', (:.>
F:" ("l I L. i... i::-! C~ F, J ;"::, i'r) F ~:::; '"" () P iOt} ....1 C) (', (1 i\~
R H. 'j (.:.: Ci >: ::.:.' -4 :::) F
C (:1 r:: :0 D N G 'v' I 1...1... E V i'~'1
'::' ') '::.:'.<\ '::<
\......... 1.\..
<-) ::::' <.) (> (> () () () <-) <::, :.'::: :'.~ <-> <.";
GF<FFi'-I, ...Ji::'Ii"IFb U
F' 1:1 H Ci )( ::.." :::: u:'
1< F ':::; :'1 I: C: i< './ ;.\
,~
~
.~:.~ ::.:: () 4 ./
() ~~:: (.i () () () (.) () 0 0 ~.:) ~j' i:~1 (-)
KINNEY, VINCENT I... UR DURD1HY [
:::.:: (:< ;..: U? H C) 1...1< H (, ill D H J \i E
C H (/ H. I... Ci 'f '( C ~:::' \/ I L.. i... C V f.:,
;:.:::::.,) ()j
(.) ~:::. () (-> () (.) () () () (.) :,:':, .? :::'.1
(1 Cr F;: H I ~;; I H (, F( H Y ...J F<! (, LC: E:: ;:;:r (, i.;:: (if I... E:: T'r ,
F' to !,.J i.., I j,; E~ U (, N T D i~, [,,1 FL.;:: 1:1 H D : '; :::.r H P. I :::' ,;.
i:( J C H (, p, Dr ;>.j U F( HI:::;
~~561~~ (;'~!~j"..ANI) AV!~:.Nl.J!;~.
E.: (:, i...f I h D H E ('I D
~::: 1 >.~ ::.) (J
1.) ~;:' J (> () (:) (-) 0 (.) (0 ~5 B (.) ()
i,ll U ::;~ F;:. I ::;, l~ E i... F' 0 e. D, F' (: i.1 I.. :! j '.. f; (i r .,"i 0::1 Ii .
f
/
J
1.
Iw
I
~
< ""1\
\,
...,.
,
,,,.
0......-
&;
t,
~
lC
i,~
"~
51
.t. 1... C.
,...~. .
)'..! .
,0
i.....L '.::'1""
;... ;.: i j"'~
.i::, I ....1 i/.i ./. i, '
J~:;:; /+ :
':.'
t''',~/~r::: ):') ;,: ::::. :
, r~i,:;:,./F>tIF;~CLi...
Jf. ,:'{;/, ';'; :~. ::. :.;; ;:; ;:.~ :
tl"~l;;;:;(i,lii'i .
/l!:X~i:'~<I;idiCEL .
", 1':-lt'l1j ,:. I"
(,DLiFF'
\.-
: ,:,:" ':::".."
~:;:;:; :..:;;. i: ....
Z J r' , ~
.. ''', "'1 .::' ,....1::: L. :
." ,\ I..' 'I" H ',\.,..
~i;~~i",,:'~ .
ii'
r> f::: ~::; :
.\' '(',: F,:r (, C {:if L. E: 'r. 'j': ~ii::;:;f (:, L
,..;; ,..,1.. . . "t" ,Villi., ,.1. "'r 'j <::.
... . '11:'1 FUFz...' , ... " '..: " ;::. ,.,
,. :.'... ... I'" ...., "" '; (" ,.,
' ',' .:~;' i .. L T ~~ COL. ~'i.',,::- ", ..
. , \ '... 1 . .. ., l' I.
;.;.. (;;1.11' (Ie.; I Uh ".
:.'.1 ,.., ,.J ..
~.:.~ () 0 (. ~.:.
05000000~:~g~~ ~
. :i~::~;;)i;{;( J ,",4," ,
nur I :::)
.:':..' :,"';'1:'>1 F' ,.,/ F:' (:', j:{. C: F I... ;
1 !.,!
~ 1;!~ it (ii;~'i
~1;~~frilr'CEI ·
(';.l" ...., , I"~ ,.
: ~ I : I I t I l I.
I': >< rei (';'j j.'
(, C' (, 1:. :.: ,.' ~;;i,
::\:(>(~ H:::: ':: ':,:: '
:::::~:~: ;:(: i/ i.: ; 'c; ;} ':~; :
"Z T;:>
':,[ I :
..,,-; . j:';'1 n. eEL. :
'r (; i:(:':1". .
:::;:g:;:[;'!i~ .
t'lLI
\/ ,::,
:::.~ :::.~ '? ,':;. ::.:.~
. .. . , ':"Ot)
.. , l (:. (.) (~ (~ (:) 0 0 "f i . :...... '.J I... !... (',
'::.! .:;) ,.) ,~,. , ......1 (, (I U i'( \
;. 'i Ii;: 'i H. i:, ~,' ;:' ': VI',
I:; D F{ D U 1\1 b V J '... L
HIH.C;Irrtl
;:.' :~:.) '? 4:..'
O""0000?V>;.i"~;:;'j Un, 'y_, 1,
. .' "';:'t:;<\I(JI.., I . ... ....... ',7';.'j, 11...1...
I::' ,"', i'II:: .::' ~.: .. :. ,:i I::' I;..! () i..J)) .:::. '. '~:.'.. \ .::.
.... ,,", h\:I,U.I... ... 'i 'i..:: i-',J 1',iL.
f::tii::~~f,';'~~'; "~I'. ". ,...
~:.:~ ~:.~ ':;:' 0 ::...~
HUUfHE::
~:~ 'f: g ~!;;~ ~ ~~.:~' :'~~: H.:: P. r, T F D
, ....., ('lTTF",::;v .I.i...I...,..
CI--I(,/-(I... ,...,
? ~:.~ (S~.) 6
--, ,. ,. ': {:'(:'(.)\)(,':)OO ...
"'("''''.1'0" T 'q '.H. "bx
" :. ". ..,'q X'j hi" H, . , . , '. :..: " .,. ':::. '",1 )(
'..li)1 1..1--1 ., .' ! .. ...,./, ", f"IH.. ,..' '\
I ". ,... , . , ^ r' 1 )'1 I.. ", t -:::2
~<S/~I/~::,:j;i, j)J( tP1_~ --:Je-.,.
":::'1'":':"", 11" 'VH CUPn CI"q
(.r.", .'. , 10(
~: ~ ~: i i ~ I,' :1: ~ (':? ~
('j c:: 1< I (1 i... C f
(.i l,J
,'; P.
\/ ("'
::.~~ ::,:.::? () :.'::;;
:1 <-> /.\ ~::~ () <.>
(,) /;. () () .:-> <) <-> '" ' . ,
..... '.',' :'/' ':::,' I i.."'; I I... 1.,. T.., 1'.~::' :~::
H,..,I ,I, J. ......F' I:' I" I i..J t,'!
/{ H ~::; .. '1 ":1 .:;: 1':1/::. ;~~ '~I :;: 1::.1::: [:
CH('iHI...I..J ...,.
.,< I (j L [: '(
\/ [:':-,
~
~ ;"
[,
l .
f
f
r
I
t-
..
,
~"
t!i.
~,.
~
'-
~
}
i
i
i
(
I.. "R\
,
",
'-.
5!'
.~ -..-J.,.....,....,;...:......
~
'. ...~ ~.'.<\;. ""_'_',"", r,..,..,*,;,,,~. .. .
.~.
\~
/
r(
'7
(
!
:~
II
J::I1 .
~'l 114'''' 1.'. .r'li :\.:..1 'I' '-I .... .rr.. ...
,/ T !.. E C J ~::) F' L.. (i ~.)):.:.; 'Y' ..J I...) } L ;,._ :::;:
/~)
V
~/:::) ~::~ :
,CIO!":,
'Ii' '.
, ~t.; F> ,/ F' (I F< C [: i... :
I
'{)FC:::\~;'j
'7 T :',
C: Ci)) L ~:~' :
{'.. .;..
~..
I (\ ';. I':" !:" / F> ('j H. C [, L. .
j'':I:O '() r;~ 1::: ~3 ~:)"j :
(', D Xl H I:: ::: ;::; :.' :
l~'>l J '.:; l':: :'
('j J) 'C.: ;'-:: ~:
"... ,'''. '-:' .
..\,..1....' .
:"'-t", ,',
"1,::',.'.,.
(I D;) H. I:
,,,.......1::.
...',....". .
i J i' (I'IUE':::
I::: j'J 0 (I :: I) 1.1 E F< Y (! i~
FILE
2 ~."? .:? 0 :..:;~
(-) (:) (:) 0 (.) 0 0 0 () () 6 ~) 0 ()
,;1 Pi }:( F( 1 ~:;, :....1 E b L. :::: y
40:";; HI N c; ::::;n. I DC.; L
i !...iL 1...tIHUr'itl Ti\j
~':~ .'/ 3 B H
() <::. .:;) 0 () () () r) 0 0 '/ (? () <'::1
0'
,.. ~::;H
BL.\i))
HAWKINb, KENNE1H OR
~:)H 1 R i...E Y Pi C;:H (:'1 F' j') (,N
C.: c::::: ;:::~ '1
C Ci X-:{ H j~:'1 jVj) V ,''-;
':O":":::''")C'
,.......,. ,,'..'
!:.: J ~:; F' i... (:, (~ r:y ....1 kl I L.lu
Ill'
.., ... -.lit't
i... T i.' :: PI f) j"1 {~,
'1m 001' "The,
() 'j ~.. :.,{, .
~.
I"
~.. ..
r
i~'
~
t'
1-
g
~"
~.
'f'
$.
tf.:
~.
i
l
~.
~
~'
$
.~
. ~
.~D~
GG~
~Cl~)
~'J
SP- ~- '-\ \
DATE: 1212] In
I I
I' ,..... - -
County of Albemarle
~. ) Department of Zonil~
~ 401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5875' FAX (804) 972-4060
~~~~F~;O .
~f :(
( Y Amendment of SP
( ,) Deferral
( ) Extension of SP
( ) Withdrawal
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
, '"-
\"
~\,
.'"
-\
~~~ .
OWN~ (as currently listed in Real Estate)
Name Page brook Farm, Inc. Phone (804) 977 - 25()O
c/o ~ICuUlre, ,wooas, ~attle &~ooth Attn: Steve Blaine
Address P.O. Box 1288 'Charlottesville, VA 22902
; ~
APPLICANT (if different from above)
Name McKee/Carson .
256 E 1'1I!-1h .3L. Queen Charlotte Square
Address Charlottesville, Va . 22902 . .
Phone (804) 979_ 7522
.,
CONTACT PERSON/DESIGNATED AGENT (if different from above).
Name 5tel!e- ]r"~r[-tk~e.~tal;'~~~~~: ~. ~... -27_
Address '
LOCATION OF PROPERTY. East 'ofRoue 231 at Mechunk Cree~
PROPOSED USE :I<gr, Cultu, a 1 ME! 5TB UC,W!1h c; f N f: UYJ!JY( A;/ N
PLEASE PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION AND Jgf~~ICAT~ OF YOUR REQUEST ON
THE BACK OF THIS SHEET.
OFFICE USE ONLY
TAX MAP/PARCEL: ;
l~_O S 0 Q Q -"Q..,Q ...."QQ' -'.Q34QCL
2. - :.!'l-t.~(~: -:- ";',. v.:_ i"'t'~":'.:~;.~'t"',fC"\";',.~~ :'~I{';
----- -- ~".__"J;;' _._-__.._','.~
3.
----- -- -----
ZONED: !J\'" ORDINANCE SECTION:
EXISTING USE: rAR~
( ) Special Permit
( ) Proff'ers
Magisterial District
site Review __/__/__ Planner:
ACREAGE ~ ~;~~:::::t~~~
FLWD.~k&et::>."\,,.
:\6~ ~. 1'1\1 e' '-^.( .... .;",'
( ) Variance
( ) Letter of Authorization
Recommendation
Planning Commission: __/__/__ Action:
Board of Supervisors: __/__/__ Action:
, . /- / /
/// ~'//
""1",/ /,
~> .. ._1., _.._.._' ":r._ .
~;/",;y/~;/ j 5/
,'._...,~_.. ..."" ~._.. ...
f'<~.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
F ruari~ 10, 1994
ebrook Farm, Inc
N: steve Blaine
o. Box 1288
rlottesville, VA 22902
SP-93-41 Pagebrook Farm
Mr. Blaine:
Albemarle countip~anning Commission, at its meeting on
ruary 8, 1994, unanimously recommended denial of the
ve-noted request to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
',"
ase be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
1 review this petition and receive public comment at their
ting on March 9, 1994. Any new or additional information
arding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the
rd of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
ring date.
you should have any questions or comments regarding the
ve-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Hipski
cc
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
McKee/Carson
Jo Higgins
e
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
YOLANDA A. HIPSKI
FEBRUARY 8, 1994
MARCH 9, 1994
SP-'4-041 - PAGBBROOK PARM
Petition: Pagebrook Farm petitions the Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit for six impoundments in the Mechunk
Creek floodplain [30.3.5.2.1(1)] on 315.86 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Property, described
as Tax Map 50, Parcel 34, is located on the east side of Route
231 approximately 0.25 miles north of the Route 231/640
intersection at Cash's Corner (see Attachment A). (Rural Area 2).
Character of the Area: Mechunk Creek bisects the property north
to south. There are wooded areas to the west and fields to the
east. Four ponds are located on this property. At least two are
located in open fields. The majority of the stream is in wooded
areas. There are currently two dwellings. Slopes are rolling.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
.
The applicant proposes to construct six (6) low impounding
structures or weirs in Mechunk Creek to provide "a water source
to enhance the agricultural character of the farm" (see
Attachment B). The stream is approximately 1~ feet deep. The
impoundments will raise the level to 3 feet and will cascade
excess water. The channel will be widened an average of twenty
feet. The stream bed will be gently sloped.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The applicant has submitted technical information to the
Engineering Department which has recommended approval with
conditions (see Attachment C). Currently, there are two ponds on
the property. During the summer, these ponds tend to dry. The
applicant intends to maintain these impoundments as an emergency
water supply for agriculture use.
staff has reviewed this application for compliance with Section
31.2.4.1. Given its scale and additional review by the
Engineering Department, this proposal should not harm adjacent
properties. Given that the impoundments will support
agricultural uses during droughty times, staff opinion is this
proposal should not change the character to the Rural Area
district. Given additional review by the Engineering Department,
Water Resources Manager and State/Federal agencies, this proposal
should be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the
ordinance, with uses permitted by-right, and with the public
health safety and general welfare.
.
1
e
Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following
conditions:
RECOMKENDBD CONDZTZONS OF APPROVAL
1. Department of Engineering approval of dam design and stream
bank alteration plans;
2. Department of Engineering approval of hydrologic/hydraulic
study indicating no rise in the off-site 100 year flood
levels resulting from the proposed structures;
3. Department of Engineering approval of provisions for
maintenance of stream water quality and quantity (i.e, water
temperature, dissolved oxygen content, base flow during low
flow periods) ;
4. Water Resources Manager approval of Water Quality Impact
Assessment;
5. Department of Engineering approval of Erosion Control Plan;
6. Compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal
permit requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial
stream (if applicable);
.
7.
Compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
permit requirements pertaining to construction within a
flood hazard overly district.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Applicants Proposal
C - Engineering Comment
I.
2
,
e
"""'-~
... ,
604 ,'" ""'-...
o ,
[8i7J';~. \,,/ NO,'h"
... . -
~"';'~
~
\
F
.
LA'l'""-"1"
"
o
1.1
~"-4' Fork
~
Iv
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\ 1 r
RT 661
I
I
:- -------------- ------i--
EARL YSVILLE AREA
'OUR l'...ES ....." SC"~E
,.
OR
"llv
Gf:
. "
.'/"
<;
..,.,,,,,,,
c
>.
~\'l.66'l
'-'-4"~~"
~
~.,.
r:l'
~
H~t!h"(1
C"'IJIJ"
,,,' )~
~ iSo"l'
. ~
....... .,
V ~~
I
I
I
I
I
~
,'-
s
>::-l:
2~
V;
...
" =
<t-,,~
\
I
\
}
\
/
, ,
, L
\<~
. ,';
,
.. , ~
- '.'..,. --,
\ ...
I,
"__B
\
\
,
.'
,.....,,<r...
",-I
/~v~ C'
~'i> 01.1
o'O~ Iv ,.
-<. , r
\
\
\
~
\
\ \.,
'\
\
"
....sP-93-41
Pagebrook Farm
j/J
~,? -
'/
-
li~:
I
I
1'-'01 /
~ -'rJ591 ..,
~ ~o~"'"
~ ()~
, ,
[ITDJI
/
/- , ;/
t .( <J~ ~,- "
~"/<J/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
I
I
I
'"
o
38-' ~_
->..
"
-
wQO..:....
.
"<'\\ ).1 '\\ /, \
l ".\ ~.1 /
~~~ j>: ~
.', \
",/,
'..""\.J ..
-:\
.\\
,,,,
/
'"
:/~~~
.IA
.,
..
67
e
McKEE/CARSON
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC1S
PLANNERS
27 December 1993
Ms. Amelia McCauley
Zoning Administrator
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22980
RE: Pagebrook Farm, Special Permit to build impounding structures
in Flood Hazard Overlay District
Dear Amelia:
The purpose of this letter is to provide both a description and justification for
the special use permit requested for construction of six low level impounding
structures in Mechunk Creek on the Pagebrook Farm.
.
This farm contains approximately 440 acres of land located adjacent to and
south of Route 231 just east of Cash Corner in Albemarle County, Virginia. A
portion of the land is currently used as pasture for livestock and contains 4
small ponds. About one half of the site is open pasture while the other half
consists of woodlands. The prevalent soils on this site are characteristically
drought prone and, as a result, the agricultural character of this farm is
somewhat suppressed. The existing ponds have very small watersheds and
experience significant water loss during the dry summer months.
The total watershed area above the proposed impounding structures is
estimated at 2.8 square miles and contains 3 offsite ponds of various sizes
north of Route 231.
The creek itself is designated as perennial on the USGS map. However, after
review by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission the creek is believed to
be intermittent. VMCR therefore does not claim jurisdiction over this project.
.
The dams are to be designed and constructed in a way as to minimize the
impact to the creek. In general, the dams would be approximately 2 to 3 feet
high, the top of which would be below the natural creek banks. The creek
would be widened some in the immediate vicinity of each dam.to facilitate
impounding and \-vater passage.
QUEEN CHARLOfTE SQUARE
2S", EAST HIGH STREET
CHARLOfTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902
80,*-':179-7521
FAX: 80..-977-119..
e
Ms. Amelia McCauley
27 December 1993
Page 2 of 3
On August 3, 1993 we held a pre application meeting onsite with the
Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries and the Army Corps of Engineers. According to the Corps and a
preliminary evaluation of the creek by a wetlands consultant, impact to
existing wetlands is expected to be very minimal, less than one acre. Tree
species such as walnut, tulip poplar, persimmon, and maple are present along
the creek and are not indicative of hydric soils.
Based on the u.s. Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service map
number 12 of 30, the prevalent soil types located on-site include 51 Manteo
and 62 Nason. Other, less prevalent soil types include 80 Tatum, 46 lignum,
16 Chewacla and 95 Wehadkee along Mechunk Creek.
.
The Manteo soil which comprises about 40 percent of the land is characterized
by it's droughtiness and the survival of seeds and seedlings is severely
affected during the growing season. The other prevalent soil, Nason, is
moderately well suited to cultivated crops, well suited to pasture and hay
crops and has moderately high potential productivity for trees.
The Mechunk Creek approximately bisects the farm in a north/south
direction and, as a result, lends itself to the application of a water resource
impounding system. The ponds would be used as a water source to enhance
the agricultural character of the farm. The structures would be located at
points along the creek that will minimize alteration of the natural
environment and facilitate the agricultural use of the farm. The exact
location of each would be determined in the field to minimize
environmental impact, i.e. avoiding localized wetlands, minimizing
vegetative loss, etc. The concept of the impounding structure is to provide a
water source that can be integrated into and will blend with the natural
environment with as little disturbance as is possible. The near vertical creek
banks in the vicinity of each darn are to be laid back on a much gentler slope
and seeded to diminish the existing sediment loss along the creek.
.
IAlliCHMEjTBI
Page 3
e
Ms. Amelia McCauley
27 December 1993
Page 3 of 3
Impact on the 100 year flood elevation is expected to be minimal. This will be
checked and verified by modeling the creeks flow characteristics using HEC 1
and HEC 2 software for both the existing condition and after the low level
dams are in place. The results of the hydrologic model will be submitted to
the Department of Engineering for review.
If any additional information is required, please feel free to call upon us.
Shlcerely, ~ .
/(~_ L '!XZ'v<
~:~ L. Drive~t.s
9321
.
nclos ures
xc: Peter Mandt-Rauch
.
0; ti.I.~1 0111 s .
~ (~\l
.' r.
o CrY I
( ,
, -...\\ .. )
. \. .)
',. :.. 0 ~\;\
1 I
. . <,
-./" \ :i)
\ \ \\ '---'7
\ \- ,or;: -\.
/ . \", :) . )/\ 0
i ? \ ".. .
(\" j \ '.
. . \
.. "
" )'.
"'~'('
, ') \.. "
e)'
I
\
/
I
/
l
'I .
I'
t-
/;
~
\()
( ,
. )
. ,',
(),,' i
1"1' (<.
II. ....
//, \ ;,
. . -
. (
I.
I
/
.,i
j '.
/ \U; J )
I ~.
\\
i ", "-
i\ \,
,
/
/
~ .
\~ ' ___),' :\bJ\V:' \, f'-<:y /'? '.L
,,/" ' ,{ I' ( "
~ \ ,) (.~\ '. ". \~2 " . ('~~ . ( \~ ," '.~ _.../ .../i
i \ ' r>. "II,L. \ \, - , I . // ) /
/ r-. .,' ,\....' ·
J//')\{ ,~'( ,/j' \,' ,), · 0\)
I I \ I ~ ,.~ '---- \\ C I .
~. -- II'~ ii'
I (__________., \ II I .... . ' I
A,' \ \ )) )' 1/ I ; \ .' \
\ , V () II" I,' '. . '
/ ~ \\/./
(\.1')" I " \ ' \ II >>\ I \ ..iF
, I I , \ ; , I \\ '-' '. '
. .)' I r. (I .. \\ I ....;. " "
.'. , " I ) , \ .',-- I' ! ,,I ,j )
/t \' . \ " . ~ ' I (
, I I ,'\. /.
. '. , \ \ \ / 1/ I r /
( , ' ) I'
,;; / \' ,', ' , " " ,
b' i \ 0 "', , i ,; \. 0"" ' '
-li;~;, \ '" '\ "i
i. . \\ C)
i il, ,'i/'" 1\, \~':,. f
\ : 1/ , "'ll/
/I I
)/ '
, .
. ,'.'
i
, \
., · Ii
/.)
"J
I
.1
"
./
, I
j
r
\.
\.
"
C(jri(, ,
( II
,j (----))
! II
.f
','<~\:l ( I
1// : f , , ! (~" I
.~. I ~) ,I ," 1"
,I I (\
. 'I
//1' .~ I I I
;, If' .t1
'i' / 'rAc-FSIe.OOI(\) , Y
;'; l.\1
. / (, l'St:At-r.. I (--i~(?' ,. ;' I
i / ~,Pr'/f"AI,N/t4-r.5:, ~A.A-1 -. I
i.! ," ~"C-* 771"^\ /'/1 I
/. ..,-t')I't:J p~",~ 'V,StJ;S '~'cf-P I
, /: \ -_ r ()) I
.; /; /_ ~,~ ~'3/!33 /' I 1"1
// . ,/ )I/l' ((: (F'-I'-:_ 'II,
" \ \ I' (. . .- \) I, . I I
I ,,' I. '. /--', \ I
. '\ / ( \ I ' ','
,/
I \
\ \
\, \
I 1
\.
()'
I, )
~\ \
Ii
,II'
i"
, \
,I. . '\ \
,I ! !
\
/'
/ .
.' ".",
. ,
(', I
l~' )
'.... "!
I~J2 \
'I .
Ii /
'{' " I
e
.
.
1-
75'
r-
I /T
L.-__
/'RO.PO.5ED /I,
VV' E / P ________
/(
;,
,1/
I'
/
II
-~--/
- - ---\
~I
EX /::57/A./G
DO\.VA/..::57RE~/V)
E4A./K
~
~
807T0/V7 /
/
I~
75'
4L\
/ \
\
4'
EX I.5TIAlG~
80 TTO/v'} 7 I
VV'/OrH
v,4}R/E:5
//'-/5'
'p.ROPO~ED
BarrON?
'>^//DrH~
EO' W'/DER TH,&fA/ EX/.fr.
(ei> WE/R
5EC-r/OAl A-A
A./o"T 70 ..::5c.qLE
~
TOP OF
// 5TRE~/v)8,4}A./K
L
I
'4'-/-
I EX/:5TIA/L7
I
,
'v</,Lf TER
LEVEL
\]
(\
3':::
~
FLOIA/
rl
r
'--...:> TRE.L}/V)
.80 TTONj
rROF/L,E
A/O r TO ..::5C.4LE
PREL/M/N,L:)RV 5KETCH
,FOR
PAGEBROOk' FARI\/}
DA/I/J;:5
J4A1. 21, /CJ94
.PRO?O.::5ED
_5 rRE~/V}E,qA/K
(.ii> v../E /R
/Ylr
McKEE/CARSe
e
50'
/5'
A
L
4:/
5LOPE
.
/00/
.-
! I I!
/0'
I
,
I:
I I.
I !
I
R/P-R.LtP oR EX/5"//A/G
ROCK B0770M
A
==j
4: /
SLOPE
PREL/N7/A./ARY.:5KETCh
FOR
P..?1GEL3ROOK FAR/\/}
D~/V?5
J4A/, 2/, /'794
I i~ EX/::5T/'-vG ToP
r O~ B/JA./K
I!, .
PL~A/
/"=20'
/vlC
McKEE/CARSON
e
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Yolanda Hipski - Planning Department
Don Franco - Engineering Department 'O~
REceIVED
JAN 2 6 1994
Planning Dep'
l.
26 January 1994
Pagebrook Farm
e supporting documentation for Special Use Permit (SP 93-41) to create 6 low level
mpoundments on Mechunk Creek at Pagebrook Farm has been reviewed. This Department
ereby recommends approval of the above referenced petition subject to the items and
onditions listed below.
1.
Department of Engineering approval of dam design and stream bank alteration plans.
Department of Engineering approval of hydrologic/hydraulic study indicating no rise
in the offsite 100 year flood levels resulting from the proposed structures.
Department of Engineering approval of provisions for maintenance of stream water
quality and quantity (i.e., water temperature, dissolved oxygen content, base flow
during low flow periods).
Water Resources Manager approval of Water Quality Impact Assessment.
Department of Engineering approval of Erosion Control Plan.
Compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal permit requirements pertaining
to disturbance of a perennial stream.
Compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal permit requirements pertaining
to construction within a flood hazard overlay district.
e
.
.
Ms. Yolanda Hipski
26 January 1994
Page 2
Please note that Items 3/4 must incorporate specific design, construction, and performance
standards required by the Items 6/7 regulatory agencies. Contact me (x3860) at your earliest
convenience if you have questions' regarding these comments or require additional
information.
ACF:
Copy: Jack Kelsey
Dave Hirschman
Job File - SP 93-41
Reading File - sp9341_a.yah
e
2-8-94
5
(Ms. Huckle returned to the meeting.)
SP-93-41 Pagebrook Farm - Petition to locate a total of six (6) impounding
structures in floodplain on 315.86 acres [30.3.5.2.1.1] zoned RA, Rural Areas in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. Property, described as Tax Map 50, Parcel 34,
is located on the east side of Rt. 231 approximately 0.25 miles north of the Rt.
231/640 intersection at Cash's Comer. This property is not located in a
designated growth area (Rural Area II).
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval subject
to conditions.
.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if all downstream property owners had been notified (in
addition to adjacent property owners). He was concerned about downstream
owners who might possibly be dependent on this water. Ms. Hipski explained
that this gets into the area of riparian rights and that the "applicant, before
obtaining engineering approval, is going to have to demonstrate that the
downstream properties will not be negatively effected by the impoundments."
She explained that the weirs would not actually be dams because water would
actually flow over the top. Mr. Nitchmann noted that, even so, as water levels
drop, the water would not flow over the top of the weirs and the downstream
flow would be impacted. Mr. Nitchmann wanted some assurance that property
owners, for a reasonable distance downstream, had received notification.
Mr. Blue expressed concern about the fact that the Corps of Engineers and
VMRC "declared this to be an intennittent rather than a perennial stream, then
got out of any responsibility for it.~' He did not think that was the definition
that has been used "all these years." Mr. Hipski explained that VMRC would
consider this an intennittent stream if the watershed is less than 5 square miles.
This watershed is approximately 2.8 square miles. (Mr. Blue noted that the
county does not use that definition.)
Ms. Huckle asked if staff knew what the water was to be used for. Ms. Hipski
stated that the applicant is presently unsure as to the exact use.
.
Regarding notification, Mr. Cilimberg noted that the requirements of the
Ordinance have been satisfied, and "beyond that next property which Ms. Hipski
2-8-94
6
pointed to, there would not have been notification for the special use permit."
He added that the County would not be getting into a notification process which
was connected with riparian rights. He was uncertain as to whether any of the
other agencies involved in the permitting process would notify downstream
property owners.
Mr. Bowling briefly explained the meaning of riparian rights: "It is a Common
Law concept which exists in the Commonwealth of Virginia which says you as
a landowner, if you have a stream or a body of water ronning across your
property, you have the right to use that property in conjunction with other
downstream property owners, who also have the right to use that water which
may run across their property." He added that it is a common law right and
there is no formula attached which says what can be withdrawn. He stated that
usually riparian rights violations are related to diversion of a stream or "making
it go away." He was not aware of (in legal literature) instances were small farm
ponds were in violation of riparian rights.
Mr. Blue called attention to a discrepancy in the staff report, i.e. in one instance
two existing ponds are mentioned, while in another place four are mentioned.
Ms. Hipski explained that the applicant's letter refers to "four small ponds," but
she had only been able to locate two small ponds when she visited the site.
Ms. Huckle asked "what are the options if this doesn't work out on the ground
as well as it does on paper." Ms. Hipski reported that the Engineering
Department did not feel a bond would be necessary. Ms. Huckle called
attention to condition No. 3 which requires "provisions for maintenance of
stream water quality and quantity, i.e. water temperature, dissolved oxygen
content, . base flow during low flow periods." Ms. Hipski explained those items
would be part of the preliminary approval but would not be monitored by
Engineering afterwards. She noted, however, that those items would be tied in
with the Water Quality Impact Assessment under the purview of the Water
Resources Manager (condition No.4).
Mr. Blue questioned whether the Engineering Department would be able to
enforce condition No.3.
Ms. Hipski pointed: "This is a special use permit and the County does have the
ability to enforce those conditions." .
2-8-94
7
e
.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob McKee, engineer for the project. (He
was accompanied by Mr. Steve Driver.) Responses to Commission comments
and questions included the following:
-Fairly exhaustive, though preliminary, hydrologic studies have been
submitted to the County Engineering Department.
-- "We believe, and the Engineering Department concurs, that the impact
to upstream properties will be negligable."
-- "We believe, using normal and rational flow data... the impact on the
eastern side of 231 would virtually be nil."
-- "Based on our calculations, any upstream flooding on 231, west of 231,
is the result of constriction of the box culvert under 231 and not a result of
anything that might happen downstream. That's happening now and will
probably continue to happen unless something is done to that box culvert."
--"Concerning the effect on downstream properties, it is the intent of the
owner that pumping, or use, of this water will be restricted during low. flow
conditions. ... It is not the intent to use this water in an irrational manner."
-- "It is the intent to use these impoundments as a source to replenish the
four existing ponds for agricultural use" during those months of the year when
these ponds might dry up. "It is not the intent to use these ponds to water cattle
directly. It is really just to be used as a supplemental source to the existing
farm ponds."
--"If the reservoirs (in these impoundments) are full, the amount of water
flowing to downstream properties will be the same regardless of whether the
reservoir is there or not... the only exception being some loss due to
evaporation. "
-- The owner of the fann to the south (Mr. Taylor) has bee,n contacted and
he expressed no concerns.
--The impounding structures have been designed so as to minimize impact
on the floodplain. The weirs will be lower in height than the natural creek
bank. The creek, in the vicinity of each weir, will be widened by approximately
10 feet on either side, allowing the water to pass across the weir and
approximate the volume that would pass in the natural channel.
-- The box culvert is controlling the backwater on the upstream side of the
culvert. It is not being controlled by anything that is occuring downstream.
.
Mr. Blue agreed with the applicant's engineers regarding the upstream flooding.
Regarding the intended use for the impoundments (to pump water into the
existing ponds during dry seasons), Mr. Blue noted that if the water level in the
ponds is low, the water level in the creek will be low also, so water will,
2-8-94
8
"obviously," be taken out of the creek during a low water time because that is
when it will be needed. Mr. McKee explained that it would be the intent to
replenish the ponds before the drought season. Mr. Blue also expressed the
belief that during a flood, the "weirs are either going to go out or they are going
to silt up and nature is going to take over, unless the owner is prepared to go in
there after each flood and clean the silt up and re-do it" Mr. Blue concluded:
"It seems to me, just from a practical standpoint, it's probably a waste of
money. "
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. McKee explained that the four
existing ponds are used as a watering source for livestock. The ponds are not
used for irrigation purposes. Mr. McKee did not think livestock would have
access to the impoundments. He explained that the reason for the ponds is to
keep the cattle away from the creek. (Mr. Blue commented that unless the cattle
were fenced out of the creek, "it looks to me like you're building 6 watering
holes for the cattle. ")
Regarding backing water over 231, Mr. McKee explained: "Based on
calculations using a certain coefficient and runoff for the watershed area that we
were able to determine, with the existing box culvert situation, and the
impoundments as we've laid them out, using that flow, water would inundate
231 by approximately 2 feet, and in so doing raise the backwater condition by .4
of a foot." Mr. McKee explained that he felt "that's too conservative," i.e. "that
number is too high and if that number were to be reduced, that backwater might
be 1/2 inch to an inch." He concluded: "Ragardless of what the number is, the
design would be such that we would not have a backwater condition caused by
these impoundments. I. think there already is a backwater condition caused by
231 and the box culvert."
Referring to condition No.3, Mr. Dotson asked the applicant for an example of
the kinds of provisions that are planned for achievement of the three goals
(water temperature, dissolved oxygen content, base flow during low flow
periods). Mr. McKee responded: "They can all be monitored. I would hope
that we wouldn't have to monitor this after these facilities were installed. All of
those water characteristics can be measured and reported and documented to the
appropriate agencies but I would certainly hope that we wouldn't have to do
that. If the Commission and Board approve this special permit, it still requires a
permitting by the Department of Environmental Quality and that would be the
2-8-94
9
e
State agency that would make the decision as to what had to be done to ensure
compliance. "
Mr. Blue felt it would be difficult for the County or any agency to monitor
those conditions.
Mr. Nitchmann felt this was a great deal of expense for the intended purpose.
He questioned how the cattle would be kept out of the impoundments if there
was no plan to fence the cattle out of the creek. He again expressed concern
about effect on downstream properties. He did not think there would be any
overflow over the weirs during low water times if water was being pumped out.
He felt the same result could have been achieved by "just drilling a well to keep
the ponds full." He concluded: "Something tells me there is something to this
other than trying to keep some ponds filled up with water."
.
Ms. Imhoff asked what assurance there was that the first weir would be located
"no closer than 800 feet." Mr. Driver explained that the locations would need to
be more fine tuned in the field, but "as far as the first weir is concerned, we feel
that it should be a certain minimum distance from 8t. Rt. 231, so as not to
impound water that would change...." Mr. Driver expressed no opposition to an
additional condition restricting the first weir to "no closer than 800 feet."
Mr. Cilimberg explained it would the responsibility of the Zoning and
Engineering Deparbnents to inspect the location of the weirs. He was uncertain
how that inspection would take place.
Mr. Dotson asked if the Water Quality Impact Assessment (condition No.4)
would consider off-site as well as on-site impacts: "W ould it consider wetlands,
fisheries, habitats downstream, perhaps, and would it include provision for either
avoiding or mitigating any adverse impacts that the Impact Assessment
discovered?" Mr. Driver replied: "That would be the purpose of the Water
Quality Impact Assessment. David Hirschman, the water quality official, would
review that, but it would include those items that you mentioned. That is the
purpose of that. "
.
Ms. Huckle asked: "Do you have information on the base flow during low
water periods?" (Mr. Driver responded negatively.) Ms. Huckle interpreted:
"So you don't really know then yet what you would be trying to maintain during
low flow periods if you don't know what it is beforehand." Mr. McKee
2-8-94
explained that the applicant feels that field measurements are not ncccsS8ly at
this stage of the process. He added that this request is for a special pennit, and
provided it is not detrimental to adjacent properties, does not change the
character of the district and does not harm the general public health, safety and
welfare, it is an acceptable use for agricultural land. He pointed out that the
conditions suggested are "pretty thorough."
10
Public comment was invited.
Mr. James Green, "owner of the property contiguous to PagebrOOk Farm to the
west," (upstream) addressed the Commission. Responding to a question asked
earlier, he explained that Mechunk has only a trickle of water during drought
conditions. His concern was that the weirs, during flood periods, "would back
water under 231 and over (his) lowlying pasture." He presented a video
showmg Mechunk Creek during flood stage (late February 1993). (It was taken
from the front porch of his home.) He also felt downstream properties would be
adversely effected during drought periods.
s.
Mr. William Harris, owner of parcels 67 and 68, addressed the Commission. He
expressed the following concerns:
-- The proposed use for the ponds has not been made clear.
--What will happen when flow is restricted during low-flow periods?
-- What will be the impact of construction in a stream in a "notorious
flood time, particularly in a 100-year floodplain?"
--No convincing data has been presented that there will be no negative
environmental impacts.
--No data has been presented to support the construction of 6 weirs, as
opposed to 2 or 4 or 1.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to the engineer's statement that flooding on 231 is caused by
restrictions of the culvert, Mr. Dotson asked: "In deciding and calculating that
these weirs would have no effect, did you assume that that culvert would always
pass the same amount of water that it does today? In other words, if the
property owners upstream were successful in convincing the Highway
Department to replace that so that it would pass all the water through, would the
weirs then have the effect of backing the water up and not allowing it to pass
e
2-8-94
11
through?" Based on high-water marks placed on the bridge by the Highway
Department, Mr. Driver stated: "There is nothing to indicate that the road has
been topped by a 100-year storm since the culvert has been in place." He added
that it appears this culvert has been designed to handle a 100-year storm.
Mr. Blue felt a larger culvert would result in the weirs having less effect on
upstream property. Mr. Driver added: "As far as the backwater is concerned,
obviously, any effect it may have on upstream properties will be different,
depending on whether the road is topped or it isn't topped. ..."
Mr. Blue interpreted from Mr. Driver's comments: "You're saying, that he (Mr.
Dotson) is correct--if they enlarge it so there isn't any head, it could have a
negligable effect on the floodplain upstream." Mr. Driver responded: "That's
right. "
.
Ms. Vaughan asked how 6 weirs had been arrived at, i.e. how had the number
been determined? Mr. Driver explained that the number was based on the
quantity of water that will be necessary, though no "hard calculations" have yet
been performed. He added that the Department of Environmental Quality will
eventually require that the applicant substantiate the number of weirs being
requested. Thus, the number could change, based on DEQ's review. He stated
the location of the weirs shown were the result of a consideration of where they
could best be used, agriculturally.
Mr. Driver explained that the two existing ponds, because of their location, have
very little surface flow feeding them and they also have soils which do not hold
water well.
Given the vagueness of the proposed use of the ponds, it was Mr. Blue's feeling
that the proposal was more an "aesthetic thing" if they were not going to be
used for irrigation., i.e. "It'd be nice to have your ponds full during dry years,
all summer, and he is willing to spend the money to pump out of the creek to
do it."
.
Mr. Blue noted that it is usually his natural tendency to support a request for a
special permit if restrictions are placed on it to protect the public. In this case,
he stated he was in a "quandry," but he concluded he was tending to go along
with staff. He expressed opposition to the proposal because he felt it would
'''damage the stream and would not do the property owner much good." He
2-8-94
12
Mr. Jenkins stated he could not support the request because he could see no
practical purpose "other than exercise." He also felt that once DEQ gets
involved, "that will be the end of it"
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-93-41 for Pagebrook Farm be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. He explained that his opposition was
based on the feeling that there would be a detrimental effect to property owners
downstream.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle agreed with Mr. Nitchmann.
Ms. Imhoff stated part of her concern that "it might have a detrimental effect"
was based on the fact that "the agricultural use has not been defined." She, too,
felt that pumping water out would definitely have a detrimental downstream
effect.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
......
....."
Ms. Hipski presen a the staff report. Staff recommended modification
Hollymead ope space and approval of ZMA-93-18.
. !l t=-)""13~J \
: l~,. i. 1y . . ~
fj. '- .. .j(. . --'--?f5d.-
Af,enc~ ::.',11 No. q~ _:dJL2' '- -
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
...,.. ,,,' ,~,:"""~,,,,,,,,,""h''-'"'' .....,.
mily H. Sanford
120 wisteria Drive
harlottesville, VA 22901
SP-94-06 Emily H. Sanford
Ms. Sanford:
he Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April
6, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted
etition to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Please
ote that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Use shall not commence until the following requirements have
been met:
a. Health Department approval;
b. Construction of commercial entrance with a minimum of
450' of sight distance;
c. Approval of site plan;
d. Installation of required parking;
e. Building Official approval.
lease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
ill review this petition and receive public comment at their
eeting on May 18, 1994. Any new or additional information
egarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the
oard of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
earing date.
~ily Sanford
!Page 2
~pril 27, 1994
~f you should have any questions or comments regarding the
~bove-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
~incerely,
Y~?l~
~illiam D. Fritz
~enior Planner
~DF/jcw
pc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Lewis & Margaret Morris
2
.
.
S AFF PERSON:
LANNING COMMISSION:
OARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
APRIL 26, 1994
MAY 18, 1994
P-94-06 EMILY H. SANFORD
etition: To establish a music school on 3.640 acres zoned RA,
ural Areas [10.2.2(5)]. Property, described as Tax Map 32,
arcel 9J is located on the west side of Route 606 approximately
.75 miles north of the Route 649/Route 606 intersection in the
hite Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within
designated growth area (Rural Area 1).
haracter of the Area: This property has one dwelling and two
utbuildings. The property to the south and east is owned by the
harlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Other single family dwellings
re located to the north (approximately 500 feet). The property
cross Route 606 east of this site is zoned for industrial use
nd some industrial uses are currently in operation.
Pro sal: The applicant has provided the following
and justification for this request:
"MUSIC EDUCATION CENTER with three classrooms, office, five
private studios, waiting room and bathrooms. Porch area on
back enclosed and divided to result in above number of
rooms. Additional parking and widened driveway will
accommodate traffic. Back steps reconstructed.
MUSIC EDUCATION CENTER/YAMAHA MUSIC SCHOOL has rented a
poorly constructed building with dangerous traffic access
and exit for eight years. We have searched for five years
for our own building with spacious parking, grounds for
children to play and a safe entrance/exit NOT on Route 29.
Our clientele is excited about the convenient location, and
contractors see no problem with the minor reconstructions.
This property, though currently used as a single family
residence, is in area of heavy industrial use, surrounded by
the Airport, warehouses, and is in close proximity to many
businesses such as Crutchfield, etc."
he school enrollment ranges from approximately 250 to 350 with a
aximum number of students on-site at any time of 25 to 30. A
otal of approximately 10 teachers are associated with the school
ith approximately 6 on-site at any time. The hours of operation
re usually from 10:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday
ith peak usage between 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and on
aturday morning. Some classes may be held outside of these
ours.
1
.
.
: None available.
om rehensive Plan: While this site is located in the Rural
reas of the comprehensive Plan, it is adjacent to the Hollymead
ommunity boundary. Adjacent lands are recommended for public
se (Airport) and industrial service. The area directly across
oute 606 is a partially developed industrial site. The use as
roposed would not appear to have any significant negative impact
o the general area. Given the location and unique character of
his area, staff opinion is that this request is not in conflict
ith the Comprehensive Plan.
Comment:
taff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
oning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the
right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder.
Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance
may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors
that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property
As stated before the Airport and industrial land are located
adjacent to this site. The residential units to the north
should be unaffected by this use as a ridge is located
between the properties which screens this site. In
addition, virtually all traffic will arrive from the south,
therefore, no significant increase in traffic passing rural
property will occur.
that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby,
Changes to the existing structure will be largely internal.
Some additional parking area will be required. However, the
additional parking will be visible only from the Airport
property and potentially some section(s) of Route 606.
Based on the minimal development to occur on-site this
request should not change the character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this ordinance,
Staff finds no conflict between the proposed use and the
purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections
1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.
2
.
.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This use will not affect permitted uses on any adjacent
property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance,
Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
In order to achieve sight distance, the existing entrance
needs to be shifted to the north. Approval of this request
will result in an increase in traffic over that which could
be generated by-right. This portion of Route 606 is
currently listed as non-tolerable and carries 907 vehicle
trips per day based on 1990 counts. Staff is unable to
provide trip generation figures for the proposed use as no
traffic studies for comparable uses are available. (If the
available studies for private schools are used a 350 student
school would generate 483 vehicle trips per day. This
assumes attendance by all students daily with common arrival
and departure times. Not all students use this facility
daily and students are in attendance at staggered intervals.
These factors should result in a lower total trip count than
a standard private school. In addition, no peak generation
problems should be encountered.) The Health Department has
reviewed this site. While additional approvals are
required, no obstacle to approval has been identified.
Staff opinion is that with appropriate conditions, this use
will not jeopardize public health, safety or welfare.
taff review of this request has found that this request
atisfies the requirements of Section 31.2.4.1. No negative
actors have been identified. Staff notes that this parcel is
nlike other Rural Area parcels due to adjacent uses. Generally,
taff does not endorse use of RA land for Commercial activity
upportive of non-agricultural/forestal uses or geared towards
he general population as opposed to a rural population.
owever, the unusual setting of the site overcomes this factor.
taff recommends approval of this request subject to the
ollowing conditions:
COMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Use shall not commence until the following requirements have
been met:
a.
Health Department approval;
3
.
.
b. Construction of commercial entrance with a minimum of
450' of sight distance;
c. Approval of site plan;
d. Installation of required parking;
e. Building Official approval.
ACBMENTS ·
- Location Map
- Tax Map
4
c
. ,.
I
I
.
'- ---------
o
\ ATTACHMENT Ai
..
<)
JJ
\,
"'IO~ -~-
0",
"0",
"-
f
~
~
'?
\
\
.~
,,~
@E
~'b ,,"~
l?E] 1~; I Nonh G....n
>!
./' 11~ '8 @!J.
r.~~~~~' r>i1]/
~
,
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
I ATTACHMENT BI
I
-+-
.1
10
.
::ALE IN FEET
46
HALL a
DISTRICTS
SECTION 32
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
pril 8, 1994
ily H. Sanford
120 Wisteria Drive
harlottesville, VA 22901
SP-94-06 Emily H. Sanford
Ms. Sanford,
letter is to notify you that your above-referenced petition
scheduled for public hearings as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION,
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1994
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1994
oth of these meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room
7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
harlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the staff
eport and tentative agenda one week prior to the Planning
ommission meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE
f you should have any questions or concerns about this petition
r schedule, please do not hesitate to contact me.
incerely,
illiam D. Fritz
enior Planner
JMs. Ella Carey
Lewis R. and Margaret Morris
r;,\nb,ted \l1 \Jc"~ I q;.l2:6 ..~
\ Ole q/.1'O,)!. '
~9.P1"d. tern I""
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
A ril 28, 1994
P te Bradshaw
eswick Corporation
701 Country Club Drive
arlottesville, VA 22901
SP-94-07 Keswick Corportion
Mr. Bradshaw:
he Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 26, 1994,
nanimously recommmended approval of the above-noted request to the Albemarle
ounty Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the
ollowing conditions:
Compliance with SP-92-59 Keswick Acquisition Corporation and SP-85-54
Tom J. Curtis, Jr.;
The clubhouse shall not exceed 6,250 square feet, the viewing stand
shall not exceed 2,000 square feet, accessory buildings shall not exceed
5,200 square feet and the pool shall not exceed 3,500 square feet:.
lease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review
his petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 18, 1994.
ny new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted
o the Clerk of the Boardl of Supervisors at least seven days prior to )'our
cheduled hearing date.
should have any questions or comments regrding the above-noted action,
do not hesitate to contact me.
~
Hipski
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
.(.:: 'f (' rJ-
. ) . .
ri. ( )
, )
J. \
\..1 --
.
1Il
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296.5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development
DATE:
May 18, 1994
RE:
(SP-94-04) - Keswick Conditions of Approval
In order to clarify issues regarding access and timeframes for (SP-94-07)
Keswick, I propose the following conditions in addition to the two recommended
by the Planning Commission:
3. Construction of the clubhouse and open air pavilion and all necessary
improvements associated therewith, including required parking, is
extended to commence not later than five (5) years from approval of
SP-94-0'l{.
4. Access for Tax Map 80 Parcel 9A shall be onto Route 731.
YAH/blb
., 1
--
.
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
YOLANDA A. HIPSKI
APRIL 26, 1994
MAY 18, 1994
(SP-94-07) - XES.ICX CORPORATION
Petition: Keswick Corporation petitions the Board of
Supervisors to amend a special use permit for a clubhouse
(10.2.2.4) on 149.846 acres zoned RA, Rural Area. Property,
described as Tax Map 80, Parcel 8Z, is located on the east side
of the intersection of Route 744 and Route 731 and on the
southeastern quadrant of Club Drive/Route 731 (see Attachment A).
Character of the Area: A portion of the property contains
existing tennis courts, an under-used storage yard and two office
buildings. Approximately one-half of the property is wooded
with mature deciduous trees. The Keswick Inn main facilities
are located across Club Drive.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to amend SP-92-59 Keswick Acquisition
Corporation in order to expand their facilities. Condition 14 of
SP-92-59 Keswick Acquisition Corporation stated: "Development of
golf course shall be in general accordance with the Keswick
Estate Application Plan dated August 25, 1992 and revised October
26, 1992." The'sketch plan for SP-92-59 stated "Future club
expansion not approved at this time" in this area. Neither an
increase in members for the clubhouse nor additional rooms are
envisioned with this special permit (see Attachment B).
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
(SP-85-54) Tom J. curtis - On september 9, 1985, the Board of
Supervisors approved a request to allow six guest rooms in two
existing cottages and 36 guest suites in a new structure on
24.395 acres. Tax Map 80, Parcel 8 and 8Z (see Attachment C).
(SP-85-53) Tom J. Curtis - Proposal to allow a subdivision of 37
residential lots on 284 acres. .
(SP-86-04) Tom Curtis Trust -
Supervisors approved a request
into two parcels consisting of
80, Parcels 8, 8Z, and 9.
On March 19, 1986, the Board of
to subdivide the clubhouse tract
15.2 acres and 5 acres. Tax Map
(SP-86-02) - Keswick Country Club Land Trust - Proposal to
permit six great rooms from two existing cottages to be located
in the Keswick Clubhouse. To permit renovation of two existing
cottages into a tennis prO-Shop and storage building.
(SP-92-21l - Keswick Acauisition Cornoration - Request to amend
Condition #5 of SP-85-53 to allow Club Drive to be a private
rather than public road was approved by the Board of Supervisors
on June 17, 1992.
1
-
Central Sewer Svstem Review - On June 4, 1986, the Board of
Supervisors approved a request pursuant to County Code section
10-18 to establish a central sewer system to serve 43 lots and
the club and inn facilities.
Central Wall Svstem Review - On November 14, 1984, the Board of
Supervisors approved a request pursuant to County Code section
10-18 to construct two wells to establish a central well system.
A request to construct a third well was approved on the Board's
Consent Agenda on October 31, 1990. The system was designed to
serve 56 residential lots and the club and inn facilities.
.
(CPA-84-111 - Keswick Countrv Club Land Trust - Request for a
resolution of intent to study an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan to allow for the development of the POD (ZMA-84-20) was
denied by the Planning commission on October 9, 1984. The
applicant continued to pursue the rezoning request after denial
of this request. The development proposed as a part of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment review was similar to the Planned
Unit Development plan.
(ZMA-84-201 - Keswick Countrv Club Land Trust - Request to rezone
491 acres from Rural Areas to Planned Unit Development was denied
by the Board of Supervisors on June 26, 1985. The plan proposed
the development of 147 single-family detached dwelling units of
which 80 units were located in one cluster with a total acreage
of 35 acres (density of 2.8 d.u./ac) and the remaining 67
units/lots totalled 204 acres (average lot size of 3.05 acres).
The gross density of the proposal was one dwelling unit per 3.3
acres. Twenty-six of the lots were proposed to be served by a
central water system and individual septic tank systems. The
other lots were to be served by central water and central sewer
systems.
SP-92-58 Keswick Acauisition Corooration - On December 9, 1992,
the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal to allow a
subdivision of 280.2 acres into 75 lots. Tax Map 80, Parcels 8,
8F, 802, 804, 8J, 8C, 803, 8T, 8Z (part of), 21A, 27, 29, 31, 41,
41A, 43, 60, 60A, 62, 69, 70, 70A, 61, 96, 97, 100, 109A, 106,
Tax Map 94, Parcel 42A.
SP-92-57 Keswick Acauisition Corooration - On December 9, 1992,
the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal to allow two
floodplain crossings of Carroll Creek for private road
construction. Tax Map 80, Parcels 8 (part of), 8F and 109A.
SP-92-59 Keswick Acauisition Corooration - On December 9, 1992,
the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal to allow expansion
of the golf course from 18 to 27 holes. Tax Map 80, Parcels 8,
8C, 802, 803, 804, 8J, 8Z (part of), 9, 9A, 29, 31, 41, 41A, 43,
60, 60A, 61, 62, 69, 70, 70A (see Attachment D).
.
2
"
~A-93-07 Keswick COrDoration - On April 14, 1993, the Board of
Zoning Appeals approved a variance to reduce the front setback
from 25 feet as follows:
Building 1 to 21 feet;
Building 2 to 5 feet;
Building 3 to 10 feet
Two of these buildings are "office buildings 1 and 2".
COMPREHEHSIVE PLAN:
This site is not located in a designated growth area, but is
located in Rural Area II. The use, while not a rural area use
called for in the Comprehensive Plan, is pre-existing.
SUIOIARY AHD RECOKMEHDATIOH:
The previous special use permit plan identified the proposed area
as "Future club expansion - not approved at this time" (see
Attachment E). This proposal will neither increase the maximum
number of golf members nor expand the maximum number of suites or
guest rooms. The applicant proposes locating an auxiliary
clubhouse, pool and two new tennis courts in two phases. All
activities related to this permit shall be on Tax Map 80, Parcel
8Z.
.
There is an existing driveway serving the dwelling on Parcel 9A.
Parcel 9A was included as part of SP-92-59 Keswick Acquisition
Corporation for the golf course and is located southwest of this
site.. The approved plan for SP-92-59 showed Parcel 9A accessing
Club Drive through this area. The applicant now wishes to retain
the existing access.
The sketch plan was reviewed by the site Review Committee. Final
parking calculations can not be determined due to no final
determination of recreational area. staff shall not approve any
site plan that does not meet all Zoning Ordinance requirements.
The applicant proposes a public address system. Current
provision under Section 5.1.16(c) state:
"The sound from any radio, recording device, public address
system or other speaker shall be limited to forty (40)
decibels at the nearest residential property line;"
The Zoning Department is reviewing potential new noise
ordinances. The applicant shall comply with current as well as
any future noise restrictions.
.
Staff has reviewed this application for compliance with Section
31.2.4.1. The nearest affected residential property not subject
to Keswick special permits shall be buffered by Fairway #9 and
~ooded areas. Therefore, this proposal should not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent properties. Given that the
3
.
.
.
xisting vegetation along state Route 731 shall remain, the
haracter of the district should not change. Given staff review
nd approval of a site plan, this use should be in harmony with
he purposes and intent of the ordinance.
herefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following
onditions (including staff approval of site plan):
co
NO
compliance with SP-92-59 Keswick Acquisition Corporation and
SP-85-54 Tom J. curtis, Jr.;
The clubhouse shall not exceed 6,250 square feet, the
viewing stand shall not exceed 2,000 square feet, accessory
buildings shall not exceed 5,200 square feet and the pool
shall not exceed 3,500 square feet.
-Location Map
-Applicant letter and 11 x 17 reduction
-SP-85-54 Action letter
-SP-92-59 Action letter
-Sketch Plan
4
.79'
ALBEMARLE
COUNT'
.1
I
\
\.
12
\
\\ ,><"
\ If
X
>J
/
. I
.
"
....... .
SCALE IN FEET
....
,
'RIVAN~A OtSTRICT
SECTLON
'-
I
---
80'
~ ~'-"
IIl[SWICKM" "LOCH AGRICULTURAL" fORESTAL DlSTIUCTI
.
KESWICK
701 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 68 KESWICK, VIRGINIA 22947
TELEPHONE 804 979 3440 FACSIMILE 804 979 3457
March 28, 1994
RECEIVED
t\PIi 1 2 1994
Planning Dept.
Mrs. Yolanda Hipski
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
RE: SP 94-07 Pavilion II
Dear Yolanda:
.
On February 28, 1994 Keswick Corporation submitted an application to amend SP-92-
58 to allow for the reconstruction of 5 tennis courts, the construction of a swimming
pool and club house facility on the south side of Country Club Drive adjacent to the
existing Keswick Club tennis facilities (part of TMP 80-8Z). These improvements are
being planned as a supplement to the existing Keswick Club and to ultimately serve
the proposed 9 hole golf course expansion. A schematic representation of the
proposed improvements was submitted with our application. I am submitting
herewith an additional hardline schematic which addresses such issues as setbacks
and parking requirements which were discussed during the site review meeting.
.
As you know from our many discussions, the final plans for these improvements have
not yet been developed. We have submitted this application, as required by the
Zoning Administrator, to open this issue to the public forum and to obtain from the
Commission and Board a ruling concerning the appropriateness of this land use in
this district and more specifically a ruling that" such use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district.... and with the public health,
safety and general welfare." (Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance 31.2.4.1) Upon
approval by the Board of this proposal we will submit a site development plan for
further review by the site review committee. The applicant is hesitant to expend
substantial resources on final plans until the general proposed land use has been
deemed to be appropriate.
I ATTACHMENT B)
1 page 2)
.
Please keep in mind that the application drawing is a schematic and for illustrative
purposes only. The exact location of the proposed improvements are subject to
change but will obviously conform to all applicable ordinance requirements and
conditions imposed upon the applicant by the Board of Supervisors.
Notwithstanding the above I intend herein to make every effort to address, at this
stage of planning, the concerns of the site review committee and to document our
planning justification for the proposed use. We appreciate having had the opportunity
to meet with the site review committee and to be aware of their comments early in the
planning process.
Planning Justification
.
The proposed Keswick Club improvements are situated on TM 80 parcel 8Z. This
parcel has been utilized for club uses such as tennis, food service and club
entertainment since the early years of the old Keswick Country Club. During
construction of Keswick Hall and Keswick Club and up to the present time the general
area of the proposed use has been utilized for construction staging, parking and staff
offices. The area remains in a somewhat disorderly state and is certainly in need of
improvement. The approval of SP 94-07 would allow Keswick Corporation to embark
on the final planning stage of what we feel to be improvements necessary for the long
term success of Keswick Club.
.
From the early stages of marketing of Keswick Club it became apparent that more of
a family orientation for a portion of the Club would be important to realize original
membership projections. It was also realized that this must be accomplished without
compromising the existing atmosphere which so many of our members have come to
enjoy. In short, a higher level of diversification of recreational activities would
enhance the overall desirability and quality of the Club. Many families desire a first
rate recreational facility which can be enjoyed by the entire family; a place where
children can become involved in organized athletic endeavors under qualified
supervision during the summer months. As you are also aware there are tentative
future plans for a 9 hole golf course expansion in close proximity to the proposed
improvements. During the development of our Master Plan it was apparent that the
area to the south of Country Club Drive and adjacent to the existing tennis facilities
would be ideal for additional leisure facilities associated with the Club and this was
noted on our original application plan. It certainly makes sense, given the time that
has lapsed since our original application and from a long-range planning standpoint,
to obtain approvals for the ultimate land use for this area now so as to avoid any
future misunderstandings. The schedule for, and, in fact, need for some of these
facilities will of course be dependant upon market conditions. What is clear now
however is that there is an immediate need for the swimming pool and perhaps some
additional tennis. We would like to begin construction of the swimming pool as soon
as is practicable.
I ATTACHMENT B I
I Page 3 ,
.
An analysis of the land use in the area immediately adjoining the proposed use
indicates a high level of compatibility with the proposed use. The land to the west
and across SR 731 is owned and occupied by The Keswick Hunt Club and is
currently being used for the kenneling of fox hounds and club related entertainment
facilities. The area to the north and across Country Club Drive is owned and
occupied by Keswick Hall, a 48 room country inn. The area to the south is owned by
Keswick corporation and is being used as staff housing. There are three residential
lots which adjoin TMP 80-8Z but are not in the immediate vicinity, with the residences
being some 600 feet from the proposed use and well protected by a wooded buffer.
It is therefore the opinion of the applicant that the proposed use will not be at all
detrimental to the immediate neighborhood or the district and will in fact be a
significant new improvement to the community.
Response To Site Review Comments
1. This department is concerned about noise levels created by radios, public address
system related to the tennis courts. Will there by any loudspeakers, amplification, etc?
There is no loud speaker system contemplated, only a minimal PA system for paging
purposes.
.
2. Please describe, in writing, activities expected in the clubhouse. Will there be a
conference/ball room area? How large will the restaurant be? What will be the hours
be?
Plans for the club house have not been finalized. There possibly will be changing
rooms, a low key snack bar and beverage operation, a meeting room and fitness
room.
3. Section 5.2. 16 (supplemental regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance does not allow
pools, aprons, filters, etc. located 75 feet from the property line or 125 feet from 8:
residential use. There is a dwelling located on Tax Map 80, Parcel9A which appears
to encroach the 125 foot setback. As I understand, this structure is for erYIQIoyees of
Keswick Inn. Please show this building, and the distance to the pool, apron and filter
and state the use on the sketch. If needed, the Planning Commission may m~this
set setback.
Our schematic drawing shows that it is possible to meet all setback requirements.
4. Parking does not appear adequate. Provide adequate parking per Zoning
comments. You may be able to use the employee parking to the east. If so, provide a
pedestrian link.
.
..-L),~',
\ _} 'n~. '
, ,,~ ~
,< ~.~, ''\
~';~ .i.,:..,~'
\;\ \ '"",j, ~h\"~-'
\ ..,.. \ .... /,.'\... ..L.. \.J' \ "\ '"
\ ~ \, \. ' '" ',-: \. ,", ~ '
... 9/1> r-- \ \ \.~--"~ .-,"--= - ----',
+ \~.\.,..,,\\.,:,~'
/' ;-- ~ ~\ \ ["', ,), '''.
~ ' r '-,,:, ~"'~:' \ ."-
~~c.(J /' "", ~ I;" ,~... . ...
'1' 'r' ~'- ""\. ' ., \ --"-,' '~
r. \ "" '- ~<'ir,;",-" ..J; ~",,'-<>~u
J, \ \.~.,--,' -' ......J ~ \ \-- ~
'\ "'.( "........ --\....A" ~J.-
\ '{. -<,' 'J~ ' \
\ ~ ~i: - '~~\"l~ : ~' "
0.,' ,~. ~.. '" \
\ '~0' '\ ~.. A~
o \ \~~~ \~C +- \
e " "
~C ~
\ ~l\ ~':
\ H '\
.....
o
"L-
..a:
.. ..
...
o.z
20
.....
k "'" \ \ \\\\\\\
\ \ \~\\\\\\"
~ ,,~ \ \, ~a. ~\ ~ \ ~ \- L ~ /-'<,
- ~ \-~' q\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .
\0-.
;:'-J
- r-\' \ \
\ '~C/"l\\\
~ ..co" \
o + / ~ / / /~ I I
'r. I ( / j / . a. I I I~ / I \
.; / ,'1 /j~.r
/ / 0 IE: \
I~~ i / : )L\
If '. \
J I " '-, ,\ ~ "
- ' ,-s ,,'
" '- 6e ';.2t iii .e~ ,':),.. ~':l
?'I '" -<\" \
u---
- 0''"'-
(' V ..~
\" i ~
"",~ ( + a: 0
\~.,..e-l;) ,~~,
\ -
r\';c;.' ,
I I 1>' I, '
I 0. ,
I . , '--.: _' r 9C'1>
'-; " I
I
I
, . I
/ T
Oev - ---
/ /
( --- I
/ -
\ ( I
-/~ /'
\ \ /'
\ / )-
\ '-
/ / I
\ \
I ( /I '-
\ \
\ l ( I
0
..e V
\ ~: /
,0. Z
~~
\..
"
"
....
\
~\
\
\
Y'I>&/> +
\
/ /
1
/
\\
"
\
\
\ /
\
\ \
be
..a:
lew
I~ ~ ,/
: (~ :
,
\
'.
I
j / ..
/
/ /
t ~'6/~+
\
\
\
, I
\
I
/
\ '
\, ,
I
\
/'
'-
.--
e.
N'
<
11/
/'
/ { . /- ~'''..
\ ~ "~
\ ,~ / J-'
J.J.J'v-'-\Jj JJ]:J ..y.JJ~
.--v-
\
\' \
, '-~
'"
'{,--,ll
"
,,)
\.,
+
:' tl~
'\ ,
..
..
e
2:
"
"
i
III
...
"
\
)-''1,r
~
,~
~ . ,
~"t"'
'<;
---
--- -
.~
~~~~
t'\I -o~
-<<Ie. .
7-:;>f~
~"cJU1
J
.,.
6'61~
/
~:?
\-O~:
,,'+--. 6~...
'" '\-,.
'- .. v--
" ,r,--v-"
'--..... '4
\.i'
ll;
~
Io!'"
!~
~~ :c
0
~~ I- W e
Ql W ~ i
~ - ;
l:! - ~ 0:
~I en ~ en . .
,; ..
0 0 W ... :
z
- " ,;
~~ . - .... ~ 0
~ " ..
.... U .. :z:
~~I S ... u
0" :E ~ 0: II:
e
~ ~ :I C
W .. II
~~ en ..
:c w ...
~h e
:;~ 0 ~
~~~ en
~'
/
,~
,
i
./
/
j
r
/
\
\ , \
\ '
,',
..,
..,
>
~rk
"
'7
""
"\'c
~,-
~ )-
-. ~ (
" \r-)< :
\ ~
''---....'--..'\.----'
" ,Y
''>.
, \ ~
(: z
j
.c:
<:".~~
~ \ I
.....~,.
(,\_~' ,
\ '\':\ '
\ '
~ , \ ..,
{ i'"
, . , \
~', '--":-.' .t''-
". ," \
, . ;.~
\i
:r
r
/ ~
~
._ l._1
---
:-
~
~
...
.,
" -
r('
:.
....../
r
--- ./
j
\
':-.\
,(
'~
~zm
uQi!; e
O~i Z
l!l~III~a
"fll...o!!i
..cz:lIlcz:>
~~~~~
~~~~5
~e~i~
ra~~:!~
!g:.....%
~ ~ "
ie~
c.
II)
h
.
..
aU
....
~
)--~'
~) '-'y
-<'
...
o -,~"
../
x
~
~
----'),
r". t.,
, t/~~<r/
'~...)
f.I "
\
\
\
\
-tr ..;:.-
.~. 'r I
, '-.l.
f' \ \
\
\
\
\
"<'
, ",
-; \
Ii
'" \
:z' )
q.
'"
"
"
, "
\
/ ,
" \',
?' 7'\
~ "'\
~
<, ..
. \
"l "'
-)
-;
1
"'
'"
"
/ /'
/
/ /'
/'
.
~~~
00
C;
OF
DEPARTMENT of PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
804 296-5823
September 9, 1985
Mr. Tom J. Curtis, Trustee
Keswick Country Club Land Trust
P.O. Box 71
Keswick, VA 22947
RE: SP-85-54 Tom J. Curtis
Dear Mr. Curtis:
.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
September 4, 1985 unanimously approved the above-noted petition
(Mr. Lindstrom abstained from voting) to allow six guest rooms
in two existing cottages and 36 guest suites in a new structure
adjacent to clubhouse. Total acreage of site is 24.395 acres
zoned RA. Property on east side of Rt. 744 at intersection with
Rt. 731. Tax Map 80~ parcels 8 and 8Z. Rivanna District. This
application is subject to the following conditions:
1.
Expansion limited
in the clubhouse,
and establishment of
of thirty-six (36) a
existing private dwe
of six (6) existing suites
rooms in two existinq cottages,
y-six (36) additional suites: location
al suites will be no closer to
an current clubhouse:
2. Prior to Planning ommission review of the site plan the
applicant shall ontain the following:
a. Health Department approval of method of sewage disposal:
b. County Engineer review of pump tests for two wells in
southeastern portion of property in accordance with the
requirements of the Code of Albemarle County:
3.
All clubhouse facilities shall be served by a central well system
supplied by the two wells located in vicinity of the Rt. 616/I-64
interchange or such alternative well locations as may be approved
by the Board of Supervisors: usage of existing wells at clubhouse
will not exceed present usage:
.
.
SP-85-54
Page 2
4.
Bonding and/or constructi
Rt. 616 and the central we
issuance of build~~~erm~
provided that the six (6)
renovated without compli
of the connector road from Rt. 731
ystem shall be required p~or to
or the new guest rooms/suites~
ting suites in the clubhouse may
'th this condition~
to
be
5. Compliance with-tHe following conditions of approval of SP-78-76
piedmont Vineyards, Inc.:
a. Hours of operation are limited to sunrise until 11:00 p.m.
for golf pro shop, swimming pools and tennis courts and all
other outdoor recreational activity. All indoor activities
dining, special parties, etc., to end at 1:00 a.m.:
b. All buildings to be subject to Building Code and Fire Code
inspections~
.
c. No outdoor public address system including amplified
phonographs, radios, and the like and including musical
groups employing amplified instruments shall exceed 40
decibels at the nearest property line~ this condition is
subject to restrictions of condition A for outdoor uses:
d. No off premises licensed sale of alcoholic beverages to be
permitted~
6. All additions and alterations to existing structures shall be
accomplished through architectural design and construction quality
comparable to that of the main clubhouse building.
If you have any further questions, please advise.
Sincerely,
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
RSK:mkf
cc: Ms. Lettie E. Neher
.
.
.
.
~-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
anuary 22, 1993
ete Bradshaw
eswick Acquisition Corporation
01 Country Club Drive
eswick, VA 22947
SP-92-59 Keswick Acquisition Corporation (Golf Course)
Tax Map 80, Parcels 8, 8C, 802, 803, 804, 8J, 8Z (part), 9,
9A, 29, 31, 41, 41A, 43, 60, 60A, 61, 62, 69, 70 and 70A
ear Mr. Bradshaw:
he Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
anuary 13, 1993, unanimously approved the above-noted request to
llow expansion of golf course within Keswick Country Club
evelopment from 18 to 27 holes. Please note that this approval
s subject to the following conditions:
County Engineer approval of construction activity in
the floodplain of Carroll Creek in accordance with
section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the
Zoning Ordinance (compliance with SP-86-03);
Water Resource Manager approval of a water quality
impact assessment;
Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan to include a phased grading plan. The
amount of grading to occur on-site shall be limited
three (3) holes at anyone time. All grading shall be
stabilized during the winter months. Further grading
will not be permitted until constructed holes are
stabilized to the satisfaction of the County Engineer;
1
.. '
.
.
e
ete Bradshaw
age 2
anuary 22, 1993
Development of golf course shall be in general
accordance with the Keswick Estate Application Plan
dated August 25, 1992 and revised October 26, 1992.
Maintenance of a 25 foot wide wooded buffer adjacent to
residential lots not a part of the Keswick Estate.
f you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-
oted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
incerely,
()
Development
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
2
-
0)
LO
I
C\J
0)
I
0- ~
Q
(j) 2
- ~
<
Z 5
w i.
0 I- ~
- 0
(f) Z ~
2 W
4 1: "
0.. 'tl
J: <
x on
U S
LL ~ ~
Ll! ~
(j) ~
cr:
::>
0
()
u:.:
...J
0
(!j
~
~ :;:,......
~ ~l ~l
~ .c' -.<
~ ~ ~~ :~
w ~ lilt :3r
~ ~ -
~
~~
:;g
~:t~
w :I~:3
~ ~o(~ $.
~~:~:.
UJ~ln:1i
~3~~8
G;~~~~
::!<~h~
o~
, ~~
;!~
m
1"1
P~ii !
lit ~
":fl j
itJ VI
~~
~
~ ~
. t
~;; .
Vl ~!. ~
<( " .
w - .
cr: . u
~~d
g U\
cr: ~ ~ ~
0... ...........
;;! ~H
~ ~gg
---
~
~ 8
. . ~ ~
S 8 ; ,
~ ~ ~ 9 6 ~ ~
, ~ l
~ ~ 6 ~ ,
~
g << << t ~
'j ~ i i ~ ~
9 ~ <<
, I ~
I ~ 3 i ~ I
g\ i j i
I ~ ~ w ~ i .d !Ol
b ~ ; ~
0 . o r I I
- 0 I i
.\
.\, ;:'\
~ -1
:'1
/
//
'" -.
-'
t~
~ -
l;~~L: = ~
Q~Hd i~~
~:~S~~ ~~~
1!~1!~~ :(<'
,,~c~=~ ~:;!
:1~~i:~ ~~
~ :J f 't.... \,1.1"
~.!5.~f
~ t
... ~-
2
"
:leA"J
,:'! ~.". .. #l"J '-t
~}istrll:wted to tK\3Ich_... -."kll
,\f,end, Item No.Q~_~_D510~J1'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
ay 12, 1994
rass, Inc
Court Square
harlottesville, VA 22902
SP-94-l0 Brass, Inc (owner); Christopher Grove (applicant)
Sir:
e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 10, 1994,
nanimous1y recommended approval of the above-noted request to the Albemarle
ounty Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the
ollowing conditions:
Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure;
Boarding of animals shall be limited to animals undergoing medical
treatment;
Use shall not commence until the following have been obtained:
a. Health Department approval;
b. Building Official approval;
c. Provision of adequate parking.
lease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this
etition and receive public comment at their meeting on Mav 18. 1994. Any new
r additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the
1erk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
earing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Christopher Grove
A \BRASS.WP
e
.
.
AFF PERSON:
ANNING COMMISSION:
ARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MAY 10, 1994
MAY 18, 1994
S -94-10 BRASS INCORPORATED
P tition: Petition to establish a veterinary clinic on part of
5.734 acres, Zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(18)]. Property
d scribed as Tax Map 121, Parcel 91 (part) is located on the west
s'de of Route 20. The portion of the property proposed for use
i located in the northwest corner of the Route 20, Route 712,
R ute 715 intersection in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
T is site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural
A ea 4).
of the Area: This site has been used as a country
ore, antique shop and temporary post office in the past. There
a post office and a country store in close proximity. On the
uth side of Route 712 is a garage type building which appears
be vacant but has been used for non-conforming commercial
rposes in the past.
licant's Pro osal: The applicant proposes to operate a
terinary,clinic from this site. The site will also serve as a
se for off-site large animal veterinary care (a "by-right"
e). The applicant's description and justification for this use
included as Attachment C.
Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this request, for
31.2.4.1 or the Zoning Ordinance and
This site had been the location of
country store and other commercial uses for a number of years.
e non-conforming uses have been abandoned. On February 19,
86, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit for
country store on this site (SP-85-93). A site plan for a
mporary office trailer for the U.S. Postal Service was approved
the Planning Commission on May 28, 1985.
m rehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan (Open Space Plan)
tes Route 20 as an entrance corridor. No other open space
atures are identified on this site. This site is located in
e Rural Areas. This area is within an existing developed
ossroads. Generally, development in the rural areas should be
couraged to locate within areas of existing development. There
e no identified veterinary services available in Southern
bemarle. Though this is not a typical use in rural areas,
cause of its proposed location and lack of similar services in
e area, the proposal is not contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.
1
aff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
ning Ordinance.
AFF COMMENT:
e
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the
right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder.
Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance
may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors
that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property,
The area currently has commercial activities and this site
has been used commercially in the recent past. Staff is
unaware of any complaints about prior commercial activities
and is of the opinion that a veterinary service with the
proper conditions will not have any more impact than
previous commercial uses".
that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby,
Due to the historical use of the property and immediate
area, no adverse impact on the character of the district is
anticipated.
.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance
as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 and is of the opinion
that this request does not conflict with the purpose and
intent of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states "to
facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and
harmonious community." As previously stated there are no
identified veterinary services in Southern Albemarle.
Therefore, approval of this request may facilitate a more
convenient community.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
Approval of this request will not impact by-right uses.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance,
Section 5.1.11 contains additional regulations for this type
of use. Staff will address each item of Section 5.1.11
5.1.11
COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY, ANIMAL HOSPITAL
a.
Except where animals are confined in soundproofed,
air-conditioned buildings, no structure or area
occupied by animals shall be closer than five
hundred (500) feet to any agricultural or
residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal
confinements, an external solid fence not less
than six (6) feet in height shall be located
.
2
e
.
within fifty (50) feet of the animal confinement
and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or
other material approved by the zoning
administrator; (Amended 11-15-89)
Activities will be in a sound-proofed, enclosed,
confinement. No external confinements are
proposed.
b.
For soundproofed confinements, no such
structure shall be located closer than two
hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or
residential lot line. For soundproofed
confinements, noise measured at the nearest
agricultural or residential property line
shall not exceed forty (40) decibels;
(Amended 11-15-89)
Exact measurement is not possible, however
the nearest residential lot line appears to
be 100 feet. The nearest residential unit
appears to be 200 feet to the south (opposite
Routes 712 and 715). Animal confinement will
be indoors only and will be limited to
animals being boarded for medical purposes.
Based on the fact that only ill animals will
be boarded, sound impact should not be an
issue. Staff notes that in recent reviews
sound has been an issue. Monitoring of sound
levels is complex and difficult. Therefore,
staff is not recommending any additional
sound limits and is relying on supplementary
regulations to regulate the use.
c. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an
enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. Noise measured at the nearest
agricultural or residential property lines
shall not exceed forty (40) decibels;
(Amended 11-15-89)
d.
.
No outdoor confinements are proposed.
In areas where such uses may be in proximity
to other uses involving intensive activity
such as shopping centers or other urban
density locations, special attention is
required to protect the public health and
welfare. To these ends the commission and
board may require among other things:
(Amended 11-15-89)
Separate building entrance and exit to
avoid animal conflicts; (Added 11-15-89)
Area for outside exercise to be
exclusive from access by the public by
fencing or other means. (Added 11-15-89)
3
e
.
.
This is not applicable to this case due to
characteristics of the area and use of an
existing individual building.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Health Department and Building Official approval will be
required. The site currently has available area for
approximately ten or eleven (10 or II) parking spaces. A
total of ten (lO) spaces are required to support the
proposed use. No change in access is proposed. Route 712
is currently listed as non-tolerable. Staff opinion is that
a vet will not generate more traffic than has been generated
by past commercial uses for which the property has been
approved (i.e. country store, temporary post office).
Y:
A tachment D provides a general discussion of commercial/service
uses in the Rural Areas. The proposed use is a basic support use
( he large animal care is clearly supportive of agriculture).
S aff has been unable to identify any existing veterinary
s rvices on Southern Albemarle. This location at an existing
c ossroads and on a major roadway should be able to provide
s rvice to a large part of Southern Albemarle.
e to the historical use of this property, it is unlikely that
is request will have any adverse impact on adjacent properties.
ile design of the access and parking is less than desirable it
s proven functional for past uses. Staff opinion is that
rough appropriate conditions, the items of Section 5.1.11 can
addressed. Based on favorable analysis of this request under
ction 31.2.4.1, staff is able to recommend approval of this
quest subject to the following conditions:
COMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure;
2. Boarding of animals shall be limited to animals undergoing
medical treatment;
3 Use shall not commence until the following have been
obtained:
a. Health Department approval;
b. Building Official approval;
c. provision of adequate parking.
A ACHMENTS:
A -
B -
C -
D -
Location Map
Tax Map
Letter from applicant
Memo RE: Commercial uses in Rural Areas
4
,
,
\sl?-~\'-.
..,,-:-:. \ ...--/' \ : [In
- --- -- - ~- --- -- -- -~ /),:1.'111
\
\
,
'11
-\
@~'J
< ".
I ~.
ATTACHMENT AI _~~~'J'J~
. . "'l~
-:\'
\ '~\--\.'t
\l 1'/ 119 i"
,/'j!'\
, -y
:i'~, I /"
" r.. ..
~_\~'" '
'\ \
'I
, .
.1 ,to~"
/
.'
J
~
v
~~"
SP-94-10
BRASS INCORPORATED
CHRISTOPHER GROVER
...
o
(O\VNER)
(APPLICANT)
v
..."
~
i~
\
"l( /
'y"':; \~-
~~] ~'.!II [lli]71 ':" I
'l. d .
b21 .-:1
-[
JI!I
."
Y"
""
.
""
~
.:.
(
..)
v
<<.
--1(
~
c
1'1
G
~
A
NI
e
\J
c
K
':5
e
.
.
- \"
I ATTACHMENT C I
DESCRIPTION OF i:)uEST:
-)
Piedmont Veterinary Service
1620 Epse Hill Drive
Charlo tesville, Virginia 22903
Chris Grover, D.V.M.
(804) 977-0411
I plan to operate a small animal veterinary clinic in the
aforementioned vacant building. There will be no boarding
facilitYi the only animals which will stay in the hospital
overnight will be either medical or surgical patients. All
animals will be kept indoors except to be leash-walked.
The hour~
the week, 8
provided at
drop-offs (7
(until 8 PM)
of operation will be approximately 8 AM to 6 PM during
AM to 12 Noon on Saturdays and emergency services
night when necessary. Earlier hours for patient
AM) are possible as well as evening office hours
one night per week.
I have been operating a large animal ambulatory
practice in Albemarle county for four years and will
do so. There are currently no veterinary hospitals
Albemarle, the closest being in Lovingston, Fork
Charlottesville.
veterinary
continue to
in southern
Union and
I intend to modernize the interior of the building while
maintaining the historic appeal of the exterior. The building
has been used commercially for at least forty years. The
building owners also own the adjoining property. This clinic
should be an asset to the community with little or no disruption
to the character of the rural Keene area.
e
.
.
""
-~, I ATTACHMENT C II Page 21
.he proposed veterinary clinic is within the suggested uses for rural areas. The
wners of the building, who are also adjoining land owners, support this use
ecause there is no veterinary facility in the Scottsville area, the closest being Fork
nion or Charlottesville. Only small animals will be tr~ated in this building,
owever, the location will better enable the veterinarian to serve surrounding farm
wners and their livestock.
he building Q,as always housed commercial ventures which did include country
tores, temporary post office location, and its most recent use as an antique and
econd hand furniture store. This proposed tenant will offer stability to the area
hile maintaining the historic appeal of the building. These two factors grouped
ith the need of veterinary care have received the support and assurance from the
urrounding community. They welcome this proposed use and look forward to a
ell-established, responsible individual as a long-term tenant.
-""\
I
I ATTACHMENT D I
......
-
-
e
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning~
February 7, 1989
FROM:
DATE:
.
RE:
Commercial Uses In Rural Areas
This memorandum is intended to provide a general discussion of
commercial/service uses in the Rural Areas and more specifically
to introduce the staff report analysis for SP-88-89 STEVEN
SULLIVAN and SP-88-102 J. B. COFFEY.
The Rural Areas zoning district provides for three general
categories of commercial/service uses:
1. Aqriculture/Forestal uses including commercial fruit packing
plants, veter~nary services, wayside stands, and sawmills.
For special permit review, the primary focus has been
effects on adjoining properties and other environmental
concerns;
2. Tourism uses including motels and inns, restaurants, g1ft,
craft, and antique shops, and agricultural museums. Special
use permit review has focused on location and accessibility
relative to tourist routes (for larger scale uses).
3.
Basic support uses intended to provide limited basic support
to remote rural/agricultural populations including country
store, public garage, and day care. Staff reports for
support uses have historically made reference to
availability of like uses in the general area. The
remainder of this memorandum will discuss a framework for
review of support uses.
.
-
-
I ATTACHMENT D I r Page ~
-
e
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Page 2
February 7, 1989
. POLICY GUIDELINES: A problem for staff in reviewing support
uses is the lack of definitive policy guidelines. The
statement of intent of the RA, Rural Areas zone does not
contain specific language addressing support uses.
Likewise, the Comprehensive Plan contains no definitive
economic development policy to guide staff in reviews. As to
the intent of support uses in the Rural Areas, staff has
relied on recollection of discussions during formulation of
the Zoning Ordinance.
.
SERVICE TO THE AREA: Staff reports for support uses
consistently refer to availability of other like uses in the
general area. Since adoption of the 1980 Zoning ordinance,
only one case has arisen where adequacy of service in the
general area was an issue in the public hearing process.
Recently the Planning commission recommended approval of a
bank outside of a growth area with no discussion as to the
need for such a use nor availability of such uses within the
nearby growth area (Two other banks had been recently
approved within two miles of the site).
.
. ECONOMIC PROTECTIVE ZONING which seeks to preserve existing
businesses by discouraging competition is not endorsed by
staff as a legitimate purpose of zoning. At the same time,
zoning is intended to provide for lithe current and future
land and water requirements of the community for various
purposes as determined by population and economic studies
and other studies" (Section 1.5). Two concerns arise
specifically in regard to the Rural Areas zone. The first
is excessive commercialization to the extent that t.he rural
areas becomes Ja "catchall" as opposed to an area devoted to
agricultural and forestal uses. The second concern is in
terms of alternative usage of development. As an example,
most country stores are not desirable for residential usage
or other "by right" uses. Therefore, should a country store
fail as a result of competition, it may prove difficult to
resist petitions for alternate commercial uses including
rezonings to a commercial designation.
.
. STAFF APPROACH: In review of support uses, staff will
employ three criteria in commenting on adequacy of service
to an area:
1.
Similar Uses: Staff will attempt to identify Uses of a
similar character within the general area as well as to
identify services available at such locations.
e
I ATTACHMENT D II Page 31-
- -
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Page 3
February 7, 1989
2. Proximity to Growth Area: Staff will comment as to distance
to a designated village, community, or urban area as defined
by the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Traffic Counts: Traffic in the area will be used to
indicate potential customer volume.
Analysis based on the foregoing criteria is clearly arguable.
Given available review time and manpower requirements, staff will
be unable to undertake any market analysis or population analysis
(based on distance or travel time).
Incumbent upon the applicant will be:
.
· Demonstration of unserved market;
· Identification of services to be provided which are not
duplicated in the general area.
SU~RY
Since no criteria, standards, or other guidelines exist in the
Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan to direct staff in review
of support uses, recommendations and outcomes may not be as
consistent as for other reviews. While analysis outlined under
STAFF APPROACH would consistently address certain aspects of a
proposal, outcomes under such an approach could vary.
RSK/jcw
.
11) () T\Fr'~'t' }vt'l((<) t-I H \--.
- -----
V!<v 1',\ . J (7 (-I /\) F \ H , (1 r~))
b Tlt 2Rs
it trl E L-' (0 u fl\S (GNt:Y
) {;:-; (; H ~ DR:; I~ () -p I IV ('-;
t I; rT 8 rC- (~ t::7'0 T
.5 u t3J; f-J\.) /"3 J-I JJ (; r e J<.M )
-ro ~ K ~vO VAtl D/v leer'),),
M ~ ~ Kf -r F DR. 7j(
Crri<Ls ceD VE R 1) \) fv'\
or r-: Ie c- ,t1 tv j) C ~, tv: ( C
j ffi \Z 1= D7\'R~ T
/ /'J T~G' (2. ES T~ c;;j)
roR. co MM0NtTi
. ~ f() IJL~ T l/liA \' You
/,.v?~ U E.lljc~ / /0 Fri V [).~
)~<c~ e)v1!3 /) -7ZJ
(jS~ YDu/z
D r-- -riffS PRDJ E(~ '7
{}ou1vrj/4u morel TxE:-
L/je fE~t.-
(3 --0J e Fit
TI-JpCJ1 11-11..5 ?Ru ~E(J1- Luft, L
ou~ wffOh.f? C OM/V) UN/tY.
S/;vCER~/~
)+-: ClA'ii)w -F 7l~
i~ 1/11a1l:ClJ.T.vJ~) 7~oH1J F. !ffl14PgJ
.\ ":'1\ /1(:rft"1e~fp; ~~ ..t:1-olLlZ.\~)
LLL\C It, I ~~ ~~ -t~
(~Y'\ G-te-) p:?- . :Le~
(c.h~\e~ 1 ' \1\t~dl fl r~
l'R~~d\ K'''~\Jr~~~l ~~
(c ~t.i~ t 'fhe f. a. H i/ 'i:~J"/u....... e Jf-f1/
t..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
t!1t'J.':'
. I'll
C ristopher A. Grover
1620 Rose Hill Drive
C arlottesville, VA 22903
: SP-94-10 Brass Incorporated (OWner), Christopher Grover
(Applicant)
Sirs,
letter is to notify you that your above-referenced petition
scheduled for public hearings as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION,
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1994
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1994
oth of these meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room
7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
harlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the staff
eport and tentative agenda one week prior to the Planning
ommission meeting.
OU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE
EETINGS.
f you should have any questions or concerns about this petition
r schedule, please do not hesitate to contact me.
incerely,
v;dL//
illiam D. Fritz
enior Planner
DF/Z
c: Ms. Ella Carey
Brass, Inc.
Bruce Murray
11" ..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tucker & V. Wayne Cilimberg
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ;,-. {}:(/
June 9, 1994
ZT A-94-03
At its meeting on May 18, 1994, the Board adopted the attached Ordinance to amend
certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
EWC/jng
FClRMS\ACTION.MEM
Attachment
cc: Larry W. Davis
Amelia McCulley
..-
o R DIN A N C E
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of county Supervisors of Albemarle County,
V'rginia, that Section 30.6.4, AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS; MINIMUM YARD AND
S TBACK REQUIREMENTS; HEIGHT REGULATIONS; LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING; PRESERVA-
T ON OF NATURAL FEATURES, be amended and reordained in Subsection 30.6.4.1 to
r ad as follows:
3 .6.4.1
A certificate of appropriateness is required for the following:
a. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6, no building
permit shall be issued for any purpose unless and until a
certificate of appropriateness has been issued in accord
with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for improvements
subject to such building permit.
b. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6 and section
32.3.8, for any development subject to approval under sec-
tion 32.0, site development plan, no final site development
plan shall be approved by the commission or be signed pursu-
ant to section 32.4.3.6 unless and until a certificate of
appropriateness has been issued in accord with section
30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for all buildings and improvements
shown thereon.
The certificate of appropriateness shall be binding upon the
proposed development as to conditions of issuance. The
certificate shall certify that the proposed development as
may be modified by the conditions of issuance is consistent
with the design guidelines adopted by the board of supervi-
sors for the specific EC street. Signature by the zoning
administrator upon the final site development plan or build-
ing permit, as the case may be, shall be deemed to consti-
tute such certification.
In making such determination as to consistency with design
guidelines, the architectural review board may specify any
architectural feature as to appearance, such as, but not
limited to, motif and style, color, texture and materials
together with configuration, orientation and other limita-
tions as to mass, shape, height and location of buildings
and structures, location and configuration of parking areas
and landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent
such practices are authorized under the adopted design
guidelines without regard to regulations of the underlying
zoning district or regulations of section 32.0 of this
ordinance.
AND FURTHER ORDAINED that Section 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay
D'strict be amended and reordained in subsection 30.6.6, NONCONFORMITIES;
E EMPTIONS, by the addition of a sub-subsection 30.6.6.3 entitled "Exemptions"
t read as follows:
~
(Page 2)
3C .6.6.3
EXEMPTIONS
The provisions of section 30.6.4.1 notwithstanding, no certificate
of appropriateness shall be required for the following activities:
a. The following exemptions shall apply to all buildings and
structures:
1. Interior alterations to a building or structure having
no effect on exterior appearance of the building or
structure.
2. Construction of ramps and other modifications to serve
the handicapped in accord with section 4.9.
3. Repair and maintenance activities and improvements to
nonconforming uses as may be authorized by the zoning
administator pursuant to section 6.2.
4. Main and accessory residential, forestal and agricul-
tural buildings where no site development plan is
required for the work subject to the building permit.
S. General maintenance where no substantial change in
design or material is proposed.
6. Additions or modifications to a building where no
substantial change in design or material is proposed
as determined by the zoning administrator.
* * * * *
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a
t ue, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors
o Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on May 18, 1994.
~w
6lerk, Board of
~l
County ~ervisors
OJdinance No. 94-30.6(3)
, i'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
D15. ;6T13~.r~D N.bN8r:1{'~
Q,. -, - J
.~, --
AGENDA T TLE:
ZTA-94-0 Building Permit Review
AGENDA DATE:
May 18, 1994
I.TEN NUMBE~. :C
l{L\ .ct~tS. ~
SUBJECT
Public H
Section
appropri
approval
DISCUSS
The Co
constru
a publi
languag
were no
changes
necessa
a renov
Wagner'
ACTION:----1L-
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
McCulley
marle county Planning Commission provided the genesis for the above noted zoning
ndment. Members of the Commission had noticed that buildings not requiring a site
e permitted to renovate the structure without review by the Architectural Review
The renovations would often change the entire facade of the building.
ON:
ission recognized the need to provide an equitable review process for all
tion located on an entrance corridor. This item was reviewed by the Commission in
hearing at its meeting on April 19, 1994. The Commission suggested changing the
proposed in section 30.6.6.3.a Exemptions. The changes made by the Commission
policy changes to the document but rather were made to clarify the intent. other
in the Exempt section were proposed by Mr. Don Wagner. He felt that it was
y to clarify the review process and allow the Zoning Administrator to determine if
tion required Architectural Review Board review. Section 30.6.6.3.a.6 reflects Mr.
proposed language change. There was no other public comment.
RECOMME ATION: Recommend approval of ZTA-94-03 Building Permit Review.
94.062
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
M MORAN DUM
Rick Huff, Deputy County Administrator
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & communityL:J[)J~
Development
April 22, 1994
ZTA-94-03 Building Permit Review
e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April
, 1994, by a vote of 5-1, recommended approval of the
ove-noted zoning text amendment. Attached please find a staff
port which outlines this amendment.
e Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review
is amendment at their May 18 meeting.
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
TACHMENT
APR
r'-;
~:.
-"""""~"""'-~-~~~"_'~_,.""""...,,...d.'.
COUNTY OF iUBEMARLE
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MARCIA JOSEPH
APRIL 19, 1994
MAY 18, 1994
. w. Proposal to Amend the Zoning
To amend Section 30.6, EC Entrance Corridor Overlay
District, to include the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
review of building permits in the Entrance Corridor.
igin:
Albemarle county Planning Commission.
blic Purpose:
To provide an equitable application of regulations within
the Entrance Corridor, and to further the purpose of the
Entrance Corridor as stated in S 15.1-503.2 of the Code of
Virginia.
iscussion:
The negative attributes connected with this amendment
include the following:
The surprise factor - Applicants are made aware that
approval from the ARB is required for site plan
approval early in the site plan review process.
However, the applicant contemplating changes to his/her
building; changes that do not require site plan
submittal may not be aware that their building plans
may require review by the ARB prior to approval. The
applicant may not receive this information until they
actually submit building plans. This will require a
means to educate the public and county personnel. This
could be done with mailings to the developers, and
posters displayed in different offices containing
information that explains the development process.
The time factor - The applicant may not have considered
the ARB review into the construction time line for
his/her project. The additional review may delay the
project. The time required for ARB review should not
take more than two weeks of additional time. The ARB
R vision ARB Building Permit Review
A ril 19, 1994
2
.
meets twice a month, or more if necessary.
Additional staff ti.e - The ARB review will require
additional time from everyone currently reviewing
building permits. The person responsible for accepting
the submittals must be educated to inform the applicant
of all reviews required. The design planner will be
responsible for review of the project and presenting it
to the ARB. Past history indicates that an additional
four items may be added annually for ARB review if
building permits are reviewed by the ARB.
The cost factor - The applicant may be required to
submit additional information not currently required
for a building permit. This may include drawings
illustrating the elevation of the building. However,
most building plans for facade treatment require the
architect to sketch the finished project for the
client, and the contractor.
1~e positive attributes of this amendment are as follows:
Maintaining the corridor - This would allow the
corridor to be treated in its entirety. The sense of
place existing along the corridors could be better
maintained.
EstabliShing a sense of fairness - Under current
regulations, any change to a site requiring a site plan
is reviewed by the ARB. Any structural change to a
facade requires a building permit, but does not require
ARB review. It is possible to phase the improvements
to a site; this would enable the applicant to do the
facade changes in one phase and the site plan changes
in another phase once the facade treatment had been
completed.
Maintaining the intent of the Code of Virginia - The
Code states "that no building or structure, including
signs shall be erected, reconstructed, altered or
restored within any such historic district unless the
same is reviewed by the architectural review board or,
on appeal, by the governing body of such county or
municipality as being architecturally compatible with
the historic landmarks, buildings or structures
therein." The ARB is unable to review building permits
with the existing wording in Section 30.6 of the Zoning
Revision ARB Building Permit Review
April 19, 1994
3
",
Ordinance.
Maintaining the econoaic health of the co..unity - The
Entrance Corridors serve as significant tourist routes
in Albemarle County. By establishing guidelines
governing all exterior changes in the buildings and the
site, the viability of the corridor will be maintained.
Revisions to the ARB Building Permit Amendment
0.6.4.1
A certificate of appropriateness is required for the
followina:
p
ExceDt as otherwise Drovided in section 30.6.~ no
buildina Dermit shall be issued for anv ~uroose
unless and until a certificate of apDroDriateness
has been issued in accord with 30.6.7 or 30.6.8
for imDrovements subiect to such buildina Dermit.
L.
(!EX etas ot e 'se rov"ded in s ct'
sec"o 3 .3.8 V
ilia" rtt df aD-proval under section ~ ~ site development
~~~~ plan, of this erdiRaRoe, the oommissioR shall Rot
f~~" appro~e aRY no final site development plan shall
be aDDroved bv the glaRR~ COmmission or be
sianed Dursuant to section 32.4.3.6 unless and
until a certificate of appropriateness has been
issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or 30.6.8 as
the ease may se for all/improvements shown
thereon. . If IAI J /"~q~ ~
The Stieft certifica~ h 11 be b1nding upon the proposed
development as to c ndi tions of issuance. )IIElRd shall
otatc The certificate shall certify that the proposed
development as m~ybe,modified by the conditions of
issuance is co 'istent with the design guidelines
adopted by th board 0 supervisors for the specific EC
street. S' e onin administr tor u on the
final site develoDment Dlan or building Dermit. as the
case ma b hal be deemed to constitute such
certificatJ: n.
In making such determination as to consistency with
design guidelines, the architectural review board may
specify any architectural feature as to appearance,
such as'A9ut not limited to, motif and style, color,
texture~and materials together with configuration,
orientation and other limitations as to mass, shape,
height and location of buildings and structures,
R vision ARB Building Permit Review
A ril 19, 1994
4
.
location and configuration of parking areas and
landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent
such practices are authorized under the adopted design
guidelines without regard to regulations of the
underlying zoning district or regulations of section
32.0 of this ordinance.
~0.6.6.3 Exemptions
The Drovisions of section 30.6.4.1 notwithstanding. no
certificate of aD~roDriateness shall be reauired for
the followina activities:
AL The followina exemDtions shall aDDly to all
buildinas and structures:
~ Interior alterations to a building or
structure having no effect on exterior
aDpearance of the buildina or structure.
~ Construction of ramDS and other modifications
to serve the handicaDDed in accord with
section 4.9.
h
R~~ir :n~ ma~nt~~e ~c~v*ties and
i ove e ts 0 - ~n 0 i a uses as may
authorized by the zonina administrator
Dursuant to section 6.2.
be
~ Main and accessory residential. forestal. and
agricultural buildinas where no site
develoDment plan is reauired for the work
sub;ect to the buildina Dermit.
~ General maintenance where no substantial
chanae in desian or material is DrODosed.
~ Additions or modifications to a building
where no substantial change in design or
material is DrODosed as determined by the
zonina administrator.
Eiffects on:
R~vision ARB Building Permit Review
Abril 19, 1994
5
" ..
Rousing Costs - Implementation of this ordinance change will
not effect housing. Housing will be exempt from review.
Length of aevie. - The current review time is approximately
two weeks; this will be increased by another two weeks.
Administration - The design planner will be the contact
person for the public, and review items in preparation for
the ARB review. No additional staff will be required.
staff recommends support of the zoning text amendment as
~resented above. The change in text will make treatment
equitable for all properties located on the Entrance Corridor,
and will maintain the character of the Charlottesville/Albemarle
area.
~ote:
Normal maintenance of a building including repainting
is not subject to this amendment. This amendment will
only effect projects that require a building permit.
Rlvision ARB Building Permit Review
Alril 19, 1994
6
. ..
GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY
POST OFFICE Box l5l52e
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22905-052e
GENERAL OFFICE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
TELECOPIER
(804) 296-4141
(804) 296-4109
(804) 293-5197
April 14, 1994
A elia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator
County of Albemarle
4 1 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
--- '....~---...--_.~., ---
Dear Amelia:
I have reviewed the draft of the Zoning Ordinance amendment which
would make certain building permits applications subject to review
by the Architectural Review Board, and offer two suggestions for
consideration.
1) Add specific wording to Section 30.6.6.3 giving the
Zoning Administrator authority to make the determination as to
whether or not a request for a building permit in eligible for
exemption. When we discussed this a few weeks ago, you
advised that the intent was for the Zoning Administrator to
make this determination. To avoid any question, I suggest the
ordinance should specifically so state. This is important
because the Zoning Administrator would make this determination
as a part of the routine review of building permits without
adding appreciable time to the process. If, on the other
hand, the ARB had to make the determination, building permits
could be held up for weeks awaiting the next ARB meeting.
2) Add the words "or modifications" to 30.6.6.3.6 so that it
reads "Additions or modifications to a building where no
substantial change in design or material is proposed." with-
out this wording, such a simple thing as changing from a
single door to a double door in a storefront would require ARB
approval.
I see both of these suggestions as "housekeeping" items which do
n t change the thrust of the ordinance but will solve possible
problems before they come up. Please forward them to the Planning
C mmission and Board along with your recommendations.
Very truly yours,
Donald J. Wagner
c Jacquelyn Huckle
Walter Perkins
b dgprm2.arb djw/c
DEVELOPMENT . CONeTRUCTION . FINANCE . MANAGEMENT
.
David P. Bo rman
Charlotte ilIe
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte y, umphris
Jack Jou It
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Ma shall, Jr.
Scottsvi Ie
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
o TO: Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC tLJ.[/
June 3, 1994
Supplement No. 74 to the Zoning Ordinance
tached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the zoning
dinance. These changes were occasioned by the amendments adopted
May 18, 1994, requiring a certificate of appropriateness from
e Architectural Review Board prior to building permit approval
r construction in an entrance corridor.
.
C/len
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1)
Richard Huff, II (1)
Larry W. Davis (3)
Water Resources Manager (1)
V. Wayne Cilimberg (12)
Amelia McCulley (15)
Clerk (3)
.
(1)
Printed on recycled paper
.
30.6 3.2
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
a. Uses permitted by special use permit shall include all uses
permitted by special use permit in the underlying districts;
b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with
permitted uses, any portion of which would be visible from an EC
street; provided that review shall be limited to the intent of
this section. Residential, agricultural and forestal uses shall
be exempt from this provision. (Amended 9-9-92)
30.6 4
AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS; MINIMUM YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS;
HEIGHT REGULATIONS; LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING; PRESERVATION OF NATURAL
FEATURES
Area and bulk regulations, including options for bonus factors (except
where the provisions of this section require provision of improvements
or design features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted) and
rural preservation development, minimum yard, and setback requirements,
and height regulations shall be as provided by the underlying district,
except that the following provisions and limitations shall apply to any
development or portion thereof which shall be visible from a desi.gnated
EC street.
30.6.4.1
A certificate of appropriateness is required for the following:
a. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6, no building
permit shall be issued for any purpose unless and until a
certificate of appropriateness has been issued in accord with
section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for improvements subject to
such building permit.
.
b.
Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6 and section
32.3.8, for any development subject to approval under section
32.0, site development plan, no final site development plan
shall be approved by the commission or be signed pursuant to
section 32.4.3.6 unless and until a certificate of
appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or
section 30.6.8 for all buildings and improvements shown thereon.
The certificate of appropriateness shall be binding upon the
proposed development as to conditions of issuance. The
certificate shall certify that the proposed development as may
be modified by the conditions of issuance is consistent with the
design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors for the
specific EC street. Signature by the zoning administrator upon
the final site development plan or building permit, as the case
may be, shall be deemed to constitute such certification.
In making such determination as to consistency with design
guidelines, the architectural review board may specify any
architectural feature as to appearance, such as, but not limited
to, motif and style, color, texture and materials together with
configuration, orientation and other limitations as to mass,
shape, height and location of buildings and structures, location
and configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering
requirements to the extent such practices are authorized under
the adopted design guidelines without regard to regulations of
the underlying zoning district or regulations of section 32.0 of
this ordinance. (Amended 5-18-94)
.
-198.3-
(Supp. #74, 5-18-94)
30.6.6.
.0.6.6.
30.6.6.
.
30.6.7
.
Any use, activity, lot or structure subject to the provisions of the EC
overlay district which does not conform to the provisions of the EC overlay
district shall be subject to section 6.0, nonconformities, of this ordinance.
No provisions of this section shall be deemed to preclude the zoning adminis-
trator from authorizing repair and maintenance activities as set forth in
section 6.2 upon determination that the same would not be contrary to the
intent of the EC district.
EXEMPTIONS (Added 5-18-94)
The provisions of section 30.6.4.1 notwithstanding, no certificate of appro-
priateness shall be required for the following activities:
a. The following exemptions shall apply to all buildings and structures:
1. Interior alterations to a building or structure having no effect
on exterior appearance of the building or structure.
2. Construction of ramps and other modifications to serve the handi-
capped in accord with section 4.9.
3. Repair and maintenance activities and improvements to nonconform-
ing uses as may be authorized by the zoning administator pursuant
to section 6.2.
4. Main and accessory residential, forestal and agricultural build-
ings where no site development plan is required for the work
subject to the building permit.
5. General maintenance where no substantial change in design or
material is proposed.
6. Additions or modifications to a building where no substantial
change in design or material is proposed as determined by the
zoning administrator.
ADMINISTRATION
Section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC, shall be administered
by an architectural review board created and appointed by the board of
supervisors of Albemarle County pursuant to section 34A, architectural review
board, of this ordinance.
The architectural review board shall be responsible for issuance of certifi-
cates of appropriateness as required by this section. Application for a
certificate of appropriateness together with a fee as set forth in section
35.0, fees, of this ordinance shall be filed by the owner or contract purchas-
er of the subject property with the zoning administrator. Materials submitted
with the application or on subsequent request by the architectural review
board shall include all plans, maps, studies and reports which may be reason-
ably required to make the determinations called for in the particular case,
with sufficient copies for necessary referrals and records. The zoning
administrator shall forward the application together with all accompanying
materials to the architectural review board within five (5) calendar days of
the date of application.
Notice of application submittal shall be sent by first class mail to each
member of the commission and board of supervisors. No certificate of appro-
priateness shall be issued within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
mailing of such notice. The notice shall state the type of use proposed,
specific location of development, including magisterial district, appropriate
county office where the application may be reviewed and date of the architec-
tural review board meeting.
Upon receipt of an application, the architectural review board shall schedule
the same for hearing and shall cause such notice to be sent as herein above
required. The architectural review board shall confer with the applicant and
shall approve or disapprove such application
-198.7-
(Supp. #74, 5-18-94)
..-
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
o TO: Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC bLJ'[/
June 3, 1994
Supplement No. 74 to the Zoning Ordinance
.
tached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the zoning
dinance. These changes were occasioned by the amendments adopted
May 18, 1994, requiring a certificate of appropriateness from
t e Architectural Review Board prior to building permit approval
for construction in an entrance corridor.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1)
Richard Huff, II (1)
Larry W. Davis (3)
Water Resources Manager (1)
v. Wayne Cilimberg (12)
Amelia McCulley (15)
Clerk (3)
.
*
Printed on recycled paper
.
.
.
.- -
r
30.6.3.2
30.6.4
30.6.4.1
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
a. Uses permitted by special use permit shall include all uses
permitted by special use permit in the underlying districts;
b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with
permitted uses, any portion of which would be visible from an EC
street; provided that review shall be limited to the intent of
this section. Residential, agricultural and forestal uses shall
be exempt from this provision. (Amended 9-9-92)
AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS; MINIMUM YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS;
HEIGHT REGULATIONS; LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING; PRESERVATION OF NATURAL
FEATURES
Area and bulk regulations, including options for bonus factors (except
where the provisions of this section require provision of improvements
or design features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted) and
rural preservation development, minimum yard, and setback requirements,
and height regulations shall be as provided by the underlying district,
except that the following provisions and limitations shall apply to any
development or portion thereof which shall be visible from a designated
EC street.
A certificate of appropriateness is required for the following:
a. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6, no building
permit shall be issued for any purpose unless and until a
certificate of appropriateness has been issued in accord with
section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for improvements subject to
such building permit.
b.
Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6 and section
32.3.8, for any development subject to approval under section
32.0, site development plan, no final site developmen't plan
shall be approved by the commission or be signed pursuant to
section 32.4.3.6 unless and until a certificate of
appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or
section 30.6.8 for all buildings and improvements shown thereon.
The certificate of appropriateness shall be binding upon the
proposed development as to conditions of issuance. The
certificate shall certify that the proposed development as may
be modified by the conditions of issuance is consistent wi.th the
design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors for the
specific EC street. Signature by the zoning administrator upon
the final site development plan or building permit, as the case
may be, shall be deemed to constitute such certification.
In making such determination as to consistency with design
guidelines, the architectural review board may specify any
architectural feature as to appearance, such as, but not limited
to, motif and style, color, texture and materials together with
configuration, orientation and other limitations as to mass,
shape, height and location of buildings and structures, lc.cation
and configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering
requirements to the extent such practices are authorized under
the adopted design guidelines without regard to regulations of
the underlying zoning district or regulations of section 32.0 of
this ordinance. (Amended 5-18-94)
-198.3-
(Supp. #74, 5-18-94)
---.-..- ..,_... -..-......... ~-
30.6.6.
.0.6.6.
30.6.6.
.
30.6.7
.
Any use, activity, lot or structure subject to the provisions of the EC
overlay district which does not conform to the provisions of the EC overlay
district shall be subject to section 6.0, nonconformities, of this ordinance.
No provisions of this section shall be deemed to preclude the zoning adminis-
trator from authorizing repair and maintenance activities as set forth in
section 6.2 upon determination that the same would not be contrary to the
intent of the EC district.
EXEMPTIONS (Added S-18-94)
The provisions of section 30.6.4.1 notwithstanding, no certificate of appro-
priateness shall be required for the following activities:
a. The following exemptions shall apply to all buildings and structures:
1. Interior alterations to a building or structure having no effect
on exterior appearance of the building or structure.
2. Construction of ramps and other modifications to serve the handi-
capped in accord with section 4.9.
3. Repair and maintenance activities and improvements to nonconform-
ing uses as may be authorized by the zoning administator pursuant
to section 6.2.
4. Main and accessory residential, forestal and agricultural build-
ings where no site development plan is required for the work
subject to the building permit.
S. General maintenance where no substantial change in design or
material is proposed.
6. Additions or modifications to a building where no substantial
change in design or material is proposed as determined by the
zoning administrator.
ADMINISTRATION
Section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC, shall be administered
by an architectural review board created and appointed by the board of
supervisors of Albemarle County pursuant to section 34A, architectural review
board, of this ordinance.
The architectural review board shall be responsible for issuance of certifi-
cates of appropriateness as required by this section. Application for a
certificate of appropriateness together with a fee as set forth in section
3S.0, fees, of this ordinance shall be filed by the owner or contract purchas-
er of the subject property with the zoning administrator. Materials submitted
with the application or on subsequent request by the architectural review
board shall include all plans, maps, studies and reports which may be reason-
ably required to make the determinations called for in the particular case,
with sufficient copies for necessary referrals and records. The zoning
administrator shall forward the application together with all accompanying
materials to the architectural review board within five (S) calendar days of
the date of application.
Notice of application submittal shall be sent by first class mail to each
member of the commission and board of supervisors. No certificate of appro-
priateness shall be issued within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
mailing of such notice. The notice shall state the type of use proposed,
specific location of development, including magisterial district, appropriate
county office where the application may be reviewed and date of the architec-
tural review board meeting.
Upon receipt of an application, the architectural review board shall schedule
the same for hearing and shall cause such notice to be sent as herein above
required. The architectural review board shall confer with the applicant and
shall approve or disapprove such application
-198.7-
(Supp. #74, 5-18-94)
"
David p, Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
KEMO TO: Board of Supervisors
FROK:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC [LJL/
DATE: June 3, 1994
SUBJECT: Supplement No. 74 to the zoning Ordinance
Attached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the zoning
Ordinance. These changes were occasioned by the amendments adopted
on May 18, 1994, requiring a certificate of appropriateness from
the Architectural Review Board prior to building permit approval
for construction in an entrance corridor.
Po~~;~~'.routlng request pad 7664
EWC/len
Please
DREAD
o HANDLE
o APPROVE
and
o FORWARD
o RETURN
o KEEP OR DISCARD
o REVIEW WITH ME
ROUTING - REQUEST
To CJ/d O'lf,ttq!s
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1
Richard Huff, II (1)
Larry W. Davis (3)
Water Resources Manager
V. Wayne cilimberg (12)
Amelia McCulley (15)
Clerk (3)
Date
From
(1)
*
Printed on recycled paper
.
30.6.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
a. Uses permitted by special use permit shall include all uses
permitted by special use permit in the underlying districts;
b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with
permitted uses, any portion of which would be visible from an EC
street; provided that review shall be limited to the intent of
this section. Residential, agricultural and forestal uses shall
be exempt from this provision. (Amended 9-9-92)
30.6.4
AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS; MINIMUM YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS;
HEIGHT REGULATIONS; LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING; PRESERVATION OF NATURAL
FEATURES
Area and bulk regulations, including options for bonus factors (except
where the provisions of this section require provision of improvements
or design features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted) and
rural preservation development, minimum yard, and setback require-
ments, and height regulations shall be as provided by the underlying
district, except that the following provisions and limitations shall
apply to any development or portion thereof which shall be visible
from a designated EC street.
30.6.4.1 For any development subject to approval under section 32.7, site
development plan, of this ordinance, the commission shall not approve
any final site development plan unless and until a certificate of
appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or
section 30.6.8, as the case may be, for all buildings and improvements
shown thereon. Such certificate of appropriateness shall be binding
upon the proposed development as to conditions of issuance and shall
state that the proposed development as may be modified by conditions
of issuance is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the
board of supervisors for the specific EC street.
In making such determination as to consistency with design guidelines,
the architectural review board may specify any architectural feature
as to appearance, such as, but not limited to, motif and style, color,
texture and materials together with configuration, orientation and
other limitations as to mass, shape, height and location of buildings
and structures, location and configuration of parking areas and
landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent such practices
are authorized under the adopted design guidelines without regard to
regulations of the underlying zoning district or regulations of
section 32.0 of this ordinance.
-198.3-
(Supp. #68, 9-9-92)
.
30.6.6.1 Any use, activity, lot or structure subject to the
provisions of the EC overlay district which does not
conform to the provisions of the EC overlay district
shall be subject to section 6.0, nonconformities, of this
ordinance.
30.6.6.2 No provisions of this section shall be deemed to preclude
the zoning administrator from authorizing repair and
maintenance activities as set forth in section 6.2 upon
determination that the same would not be contrary to the
intent of the EC district.
30.6.7 ADMINISTRATION
Section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC,
shall be administered by an architectural review board
created and appointed by the board of supervisors of
Albemarle County pursuant to section 34A, architectural
review board, of this ordinance.
The architectural review board shall be responsible for
issuance of certificates of appropriateness as required
by this section. Application for a certificate of
appropriateness together with a fee as set forth in
section 35.0, fees, of this ordinance shall be filed by
the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property
with the zoning administrator. Materials submitted with
the application or on subsequent request by the archi-
tectural review board shall include all plans, maps,
studies and reports which may be reasonably required to
make the determinations called for in the particular
case, with sufficient copies for necessary referrals and
records. The zoning administrator shall forward the
application together with all accompanying materials to
the architectural review board within five (5) calendar
days of the date of application.
Notice of application submittal shall be sent by first
class mail to each member of the commission and board of
supervisors. No certificate of appropriateness shall be
issued within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
mailing of such notice. The notice shall state the type
of use proposed, specific location of development,
including magisterial district, appropriate county office
where the application may be reviewed and date of the
architectural review board meeting.
Upon receipt of an application, the architectural review
board shall schedule the same for hearing and shall cause
such notice to be sent as herein above required. The
architectural review board shall confer with the appli-
cant and shall approve or disapprove such application
-198.7-
(Supp. #57, 10-3-90)
~0T;:l?l~EI~/Z>
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296.5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community / ~(! .
Development UG ~
FROM:
DATE:
April 22, 1994
RE:
Resolution of Intent
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April
5, 1994, unanimously adopted the following resolution of intent
to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
"Amend Section 35.0 Fees to allow the Board of Supervisors
to waive fees in certain circumstances."
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
VWC/jcw
ccw~.,y (~r /"Sn"li'\RLE
t .:_.
r;1
III \
' ~ I
~ ~ L.
'.' Ii
; ij;l
\ , l ~
,.,.J OJ
,:...........-"
APR