HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-17 (2)
FIN A L
7 : 00 P. M...
March 17, 1993
Room #7, County Office Building
1) Call to Order.
2) Pledge of Allegiance.
3) Moment of Silence.
4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
5) Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
6) ZMA-92-13. George & William Clark (deferred from March 10, 1993).
7) ZMA-92-12 & SP-92-66. Worrell Land & Cattle Company. Public Hearing on
a request to establish application plan for 241 acs zoned PD-MC & CO,
bounded by Richmond Rd (Rt 250E) on N, 1-64 on S & W, aqd State
Farm Blvd on W. Special permit would allow residential use & support-
ing commercial uses in portion zoned CO. Part of the proposal is to
rezone 1.7 acs from CO to PD-MC. Application Plan proposes 977,550
sf of office development, 145,000 sf of retail development, 296 resi-
dential units & 85 ac of open space, to be served by private roads.
Site located in a growth area (N3) is recommended for regional service
in the Comprehensive Plan. TM78 ,P20B, 20C, 20K, 20M, 31,32, 71&71A.
Rivanna Dist.
8) Set public hearing to amend Section 12-34, Inoperable Vehicles, of the
Albemarle County Code.
9) Discussion: Draft Recommendations for 1993-94 Spring Preallocation Hear-
ing for the Six-Year Improvement Program for the Interstate, Primary
and Urban Systems (deferred from March 10, 1993).
10) Discussion: An Ordinance regarding grass/weed control.
11) Appropriations:
a. 1992-93 Gypsy Moth Grant.
b. Computer Equipment Grant.
c. Metropolitan Planning Organization Program.
d. Occupant Protection Grant.
e. Crozet Crossing Project and AHIP.
f. Safety Conference.
12) Approval of Minutes: November 18, 1992.
13) Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
14) Adjourn to March 22, 1993, at 1:00 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Statements of Expenses for the month of February, 1993, for the Depart-
ment of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and
Clerk, Circuit Court.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.2 Letter dated March 4, 1993, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Depart-
ment of Transportation, providing notice that Commonwealth Drive Connec-
tor was accepted into the State Secondary System of Highways effective
February 24, 1993. .
5.3 Memorandum dated March 11, 1993, from Tex Weaver, Information Resource
Planner, re: Enhanced 911 Project Status.
5.4 Superintendent's Memorandum No.3, dated February 26, 1993, from Joseph
A. Spagnolo, Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction and Edward W.
Carr, Deputy Superintendent for Administration, re: Aid to Localities,
1992-94 Biennium.
5.5 Memorandum dated March 10, 1993, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive, re: U. S. Route 29 Corridor Study.
5.6 Planning Commission minutes for February 23, 1993.
Jl
Edward H. Bin, Jr.
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scottsville
David P. Bow rman
Charlottesvi Ie
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director/Planning & Community
Development
FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~J~
DATE: March 18, 1993
BJECT: Board Actions of March 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
Following is a list of actions taken by the Board at its
eting on March 17, 1993 (night meeting):
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda
the PUBLIC.
Mr. Clarence E. McKamey was present and spoke in reference
hunting regulations and ordinances for Albemarle County. He
quested that the Board help the hunters of Albemarle County by
anging or making laws or ordinances that a hunter will be able
understand.
The Board requested that the County Attorney report on the
sues Mr. McKamey brought up tonight as far as sections of the
w as to what a loaded firearm means and the question of right-
-way. Staff to communicate with Mr. McKamey as to when the
ard will discuss this matter. The Board also requested that
. McKamey receive copies of Mr. st. John's response to the
ard.
Agenda Item No.6. ZMA-92-13. George & William Clark
( eferred from March 10, 1993).
DEFERRED to April 14, 1993, at the applicant's request.
blic Hearing will be reopened at that time.
*
Printed on recycled paper
Ii
.
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
March 18, 1993
2
Date:
Page:
Agenda Item No.7. ZMA-92-12 & SP-92-66. Worrell Land &
Cattle Company. Public Hearing on a request to establish appli-
cation plan for 241 acs zoned PD-MC & CO, bounded by Richmond Rd
(Rt 250E) on N, I-64 on S & W, and state Farm Blvd on W. Special
permit would allow residential use & supporting commercial uses
in portion zoned CO. Part of the proposal is to rezone 1.7 acs
from CO to PD-MC. Application Plan proposes 977,550 sf of office
development, 145,000 sf of retail development, 296 residential
units & 85 ac of open space, to be served by private roads. site
located in a growth area (N3) is recommended for regional service
in the Comprehensive Plan. TM78,P20B,20C,20K,20M,31,32,71&71A.
Rivanna Dist.
APPROVED ZMA-92-12 with the following agreements as recom-
mended by the Planning commission:
1. Establishment of the Land Use Plan dated November
11, 1992, and revised January 20, 1993, as the ap-
proved application plan for the Planned Develop-
ment-Mixed Commercial and Commercial Office zoned
property.
2. The supporting commercial uses shall be in accor-
dance with those uses permitted by-right in the
C-1 zone as modified by Section 9.4.3 of the Zon-
ing Ordinance.
3. The residential uses are not required to be devel-
oped on a pro-rata basis with the office develop-
ment in accordance with Section 9.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. provision of private roads within the development
designed to meet mountainous terrain standards.
5. The Worrell Land and Cattle Company agrees to pay
for the necessary right turn and taper lanes at
the development's entrances along Route 250 East.
The right turn lanes shall be constructed as each
entrance is established. The developer also
agrees to provide an additional left turn lane and
traffic signal on Route 250 East at the primary
and secondary entrance to the site. These im-
provements shall be constructed upon demand of the
Virginia Department of Transportation in accor-
dance with their letter dated February 8, 1993, or
earlier at the developer's option, provided the
primary or secondary entrance meets the signaliza-
!
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
v. Wayne Cilimberg
March 18, 1993
3
I ate:
Page:
tion warrants as given in the latest edition of
the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
6. The applicant will utilized detailed design guide-
lines consistent with the outline included as
Appendix I of the Peter Jefferson Place Applica-
tion Plan book.
7. Except those sites shown as Parcels A-2, B-1 and
B-2 on the Land Use Map (Tax Map 78, Parcels 20K,
71 and 71A), all future site plans shall be re-
viewed by the Albemarle County Architectural Re-
view Board if it is determined the site will be
visible from Interstate 64 or Route 250 East.
8. Setbacks shall be as follows:
a. Commercial and Office Uses:
Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any
structures, except signs, shall be erected closer
than thirty (30) feet to any public street right-
of-way. No off-street parking or loading space
shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any
public street right-of-way.
Adjacent to internal private streets: The set-
backs for buildings and parking may be reduced to
ten (10) feet provided adequate sight distance is
maintained and minimum landscaping requirements
are met.
b. Residential Uses:
Minimum yards: Front twenty-five (25) feet, side
fifteen (15) feet, rear twenty (20) feet. Minimum
side yards shall be reduced to not less than ten
(10) feet in accordance with Section 4.11.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Setbacks for the townhouses
adjacent to the park may be reduced to five feet
surrounding the loop road.
9. Administrative approval of all future site plans
and subdivision plats. In the spirit of Section
8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Director of
Planning and Community Development shall be autho-
rized discretion over reasonable variations from
the approved zoning application plan.
I
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne cilimberg
March 18, 1993
4
Date:
Page:
10. Future requests for parking decks or a helistop
will require additional Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors reviews.
APPROVED SP-92-66 as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Agenda Item No.8. Set public hearing to amend Section 12-
34, Inoperable Vehicles, of the Albemarle County Code.
Set public hearing for April 7, 1993, at 10:30 a.m.
Agenda Item No.9. Discussion: Draft Recommendations for
1~93-94 Spring Preallocation hearing for the Six-Year Improvement
Program for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems.
The Board requested this item be discussed on March 22,
1~93. The Board also requested Mr. Cilimberg put a listing of
v~rious other CATS projects, like Hydraulic/Route 250 Bypass
Interchange, request special bridge funding for Meadow Creek
P~rkway and mention parallel roads to relieve the Route 29N
traffic congestion. This information is to be in the form of a
s~aff report to be attached to the Board's statement and given to
tpe Commonwealth Transportation Board. The staff report should
a~so include a disclaimer regarding the map (on file) which has
tpe bypass as a required NHS facility.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: An Ordinance regarding
g ass/weed control.
Discussion, no action.
Agenda Item No. 11a. Appropriation: 1992-93 Gypsy Moth
G ant.
APPROVED appropriation. Form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 11b. Appropriation: Computer Equipment
G ant.
APPROVED appropriation. Form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
I
...] .
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
March 18, 1993
5
D~te:
P~ge:
Agenda Item No. 11c. Appropriation: Metropolitan Planning
O~ganization Program.
APPROVED appropriation. Form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 11d. Appropriation: Occupant Protection
Glrant.
APPROVED appropriation. Form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 11e. Appropriation: Crozet crossing
Plroject and AHIP.
APPROVED appropriation. Form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 11f. Appropriation: Safety Conference.
APPROVED appropriation. Form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda
f~om the Board. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to March 22, 1993, at 1:00 P.M.
The Board adjourned to March 22, 1993, at 1:00 P.M. The
m~eting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
EWC/jnh
cc: Robert B. Brandenburger
Jo Higgins
Richard E. Huff, II
Amelia G. McCulley
George R. st. John
Bruce Woodzell
File
..
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance
FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ,f1.A.l/
DATE: March 18, 1993
SUBJECT: Board Actions of March 17, 1993
At the Board of Supervisors meeting on March 17, 1993, the
Board took the following action:
Agenda Item No. 11a. Appropriation: 1992-93 Gypsy Moth Grant.
APPROVED the attached appropriation of $181,615.00. (Form
#920052)
Agenda Item No. 11b. Appropriation: Computer Equipment Grant.
APPROVED the attached appropriation of $1,925.00. (Form #920055)
Agenda Item No. 11c. Appropriation: Metropolitan Planning
Organization Program. APPROVED the attached appropriation of
$74,012.00. (Form #920053)
Agenda Item No 11d. Appropriation: Occupant Protection Grant.
APPROVED the attached appropriation of $1,340.00. (Form #920056)
Agenda Item No. 11e. Appropriation: Crozet crossing Project and
AHIP. APPROVED the attached reappropriation of $872,152.93.
(Form #920054)
Agenda Item No. 11f. Appropriation: Safety Conference. AP-
PROVED the attached appropriation of $1,764.84. (Form #920057)
EWC/jnh
Attachments
cc: Robert J. Walters, Jr.
Steven G. Meeks
Dave Shaw
Roxanne White
*
Printed on recycled paper
Distnbuted to Board:.....: . .
------~.,~
Agend, Item N<J.
-------...._..,~,~.;,
State Compensation Board
Month of Ie htuqry , Ntj}
ST A TEMENT OF EXPENSES
Clerk, Circuit Court
(
t-; ---
N te: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
w ich the state Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
a e not the total office expenses of these departments.
();stribute'.~ ~;.r:; ~';~,:.~,:'::< I ._,",.:4'_"~
Agend~ iU:r' ',), __._. n___'_.'
cou~,r~y Ot=- il =a,1AFt-_
r=01 r ~_~I r;:.) r;-3 r '\ j] r;=J . m
111\r-----~--- - -.-\ ill
I (r\ t.\\R 10 993 j! 'W
11\\\ / I,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGlNiW~'L~[;;';: -\ I---~-:J :.')
q(\f~l~D Of Sli' E.RIJ is::~i.;~)
RAY D. ETHTEL
COMMI SIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND. 23219
March 4, 1993
Secondary System
Addition
Albemarle County
ard of Supervisors
unty of Albemarle
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, VA 22901
As requested in your resolution dated November 4, 1992, the following
a dition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
e fective February 24, 1993.
LENGTH
C MMONWEALTH DRIVE CONNECTOR
R ute 1315 (Commonwealth Drive) - From 0.46 mile Northeast Route
7 3 to Route 866 0.15 Mi
Sincerely,
R?:16. ~~
Ray >J. Pethtel
Commissioner
te
_.) l f .
,) I! ':"'-'--
'-
,) i
i,~, , ,"'j ,r,
r / ({ // /) ",:J
)
l /}
"')'/'/
I " (.. r' <.
/ IL'~
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
D:stitb:'_'l ::; S.:;.:;;d: ___'_______
Agenda .:teffl r;Q. I~'
--"---- ~--~-'-...._---
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
:.
rn
MEMORANDUM
BOARD~IIIS0RSt,
,,'
TO:
FROM:
Albemarle ~nty Board of Supervisors
Tex Weaver, Information Resource Planner
DATE:
March 11, 1993
RE:
Enhanced 911 Project status
In December, 1992, GTEGIS, our Enhanced 911 Building Locator
System consultant, notified the County that they would be
unable to meet the necessary deadlines to proceed with the
Building Locator and Enhanced 911 implementation schedule
revised 9/16/92. This schedule had an effective date for
new addresses of February 28, 1993; Enhanced 911 equipment
installation by September 1, 1993; and an operational date
of December 1, 1993. This notification came as a result of
a contractual dispute between GTEGIS and ETG, their mapping
subcontractor.
GTEGIS has recently replaced ETG as their mapping
subcontractor. Network Design Engineers (NDE) will now
complete our project. At this time, NDE is performing a
field survey within the County to ascertain the integrity of
field work and mapping products previuosly produced by ETG.
Staff is expecting to receive a report of the field survey
findings within the next two (2) weeks. This report will
also include a proposed Building Locator and Enhanced 911
implementation schedule to complete our project.
Staff will review the proposed implementation schedule with
our consultants, the United States Postal Service, CENTEL
Telephone, C&P Telephone, etc. This review is anticipated
to be completed by mid-to-late April, at which time we will
apprise the Board of the new implementation schedule.
Should you have any questions or require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: Robert B. Brandenburger
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Wayne S. Campagna
Distributed to Board: ~.J.. f.' (i.'.:'
Agenda Hem tio. ((:3-; ~~(I~i~(.._(JILBj:~'~AHlt
lL.) , 1t~"'\ ..~,'
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA '......-0. "'.i l "':J 0.~.. 2JJil.E. ~' ~I \
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION . 0 mtW \
P. O. BOX 2120 1\\ MAR. 1 r~J:..I.
RICHMOND, VA 23216-2120 :.1(\ . i
SW~D}(JlMSUPH8VISf)~S
February 26, 1993
Division Superintendents
Joseph A. spagnolo, Jr.
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Edward W. Carr
Deputy Superintendent for Administration
Aid to Localities Appropriations, 1992-94 Biennium
As required by Section 22.1-93 of the Code of Virqinia,
are hereby submitting "estimates to be used for budgetary
rposes relative to the Basic school Aid Formula" for school years
92-93 and 1993-94. Aid to locality estimates are based on the
1 92-94 budget adopted by the General Assembly, which is subject to
f.nal approval by the Governor.
Attached to this memorandum are the following:
A. Information regarding selected aid to locality
accounts which were affected by final actions of
the General Assembly (Attachment A) . All
comparisons are made based on the Governor's Budget
as introduced (reference Informational Supts. Memo.
No. 265, dated December 21, 1992) rather than the
budgets adopted by the House of Delegates and
Senate earlier in February.
B. Language excerpts from the 1992-94 Appropriations
Act which (1) require a study of programs provided
for "at-risk" four-year-olds; (2) address SOQ
funding for small schools which consolidate; (3)
state the intent of the Assembly that duty-free
lunch periods be provided for teachers; (4) create
a Teacher Salary Incentive Fund; and (5) require a
study of adult literacy services <Attachment B).
C. Information regarding the allocation methods used
by the Department in estimating entitlements for
non-SOQ accounts (Attachment C).
D. An individualized printout which projects payments
to each locality from state funds (Attachment D).
The dollar estimates provided on the attachments, where
applicable, are based on the Department of Education's projection
of March 31 average daily membership (ADM) for each locality.
While we have confidence in our projection of total ApM for the
state, experience has shown that the projections for individual
localities are subject to change. When localities believe that
they have more accurate projections of their March 31 ADM (adjusted
or unadjusted), they are encouraged to substitute their estimates
for those provided in this document.
. The following general
projections also should be noted:
1) In addition to ADM estimates, these projections are
based on current estimates of program participation
rates, fiscal year sales tax, and other input
variables to the respective formulae. These
projections are thus subject to a degree of change
as these variables change.
remarks
concerning
these
2) These estimates include only state funds (General
Fund, Literary Fund contributions to Teacher
Retirement and Social Security, and Driver
Education contribution to Basic Aid). Federal
funds have been excluded from the LEA by LEA
analyses, as data are not available to develop such
estimates at this time.
3) The estimates provided for the Vocational Education
categorical accounts include each locality's share
of any allocations for a regional vocational
technical center. Each locality's share has been
determined based upon the percentages of
participation provided to the Department.
Again, please recognize that these projections are
estimates. There is no guarantee that the allocations will be
received exactly as projected.
Questions may be directed to Mrs. Kathryn S. Kitchen,
Division Chief of Administrative Support Services at (804) 225-2025
or to Mrs. June F. Eanes, Associate Budget Director at (804) 225-
2060.
JAS,Jr./EWC/kk
Attachments
cc: Chairperson of Governing Body or Mayor
AUTHORITY: section 22.1-93, Code of Virainia and the 1992-94
Appropriations Act, as approved by the General
Assembly on February 27, 1993.
Attachment A
Page 1
Information Reaardina Selected Aid to Localitv Accounts
1 SOO RELATED CHANGES
A. The estimate of the one-cent state sales and use tax has
been reduced in 1992-93 by $3.2 million and by $3.7
million in 1993-94 due to a technical adjustment. A
further decrease of $1.0 million in 1993-94 has been made
due to a downward revision in the total sales tax
receipts estimates. Therefore, new projections of $472.1
million in 1992-93 and $499.7 million in 1993-94 have
been used in the computation of Basic Aid and Enrollment
Loss.
An additional $1,813,227 in Basic Aid and $2,531 in
Enrollment Loss has been included in 1992-93 and
$2,663,187 in Basic Aid and $3,754 in Enrollment Loss in
19~3-94 due to these sales tax revisions.
B. The inflation factors used in the SOQ methodology for the
1993-94 year only have been updated to reflect the fourth
quarter of 1992 rather than the third quarter of 1992
which was included in the Governor's Budget as
introduced. In addition, some technical adjustments to
the inflation methodology have been made. This results
in lower Basic Aid per pupil amounts and decreases the
state's share of Basic Aid by $6,029,228 in 1993-94.
C. A revision has been made in the method used by the VRS to
determine the rates for group life insurance. This
revision indicates that group life insurance is currently
over funded. Therefore, the overpayment in previous
years will be applied to make the contributions in 1993-
94. The state will make only the roll-over payment due
localities from 1992-93 in early July, 1993. Neither the
employer nor employee will be required to make
contributions for group life insurance during the fiscal
year. Contributions will be resumed in July, 1994 at a
rate established by the VRS.
Attachment A
Page 2
D. An additional $25,176,797 has been included in 1993-94 to
provide the state's share of a 3% increase in salaries
for all instructional personnel effective December 1,
1993 (1.75% on an annualized basis) and a 2% increase in
salaries for non-instructional personnel effective
December 1, 1993 (1.17% on an annualized basis). In
addition, language has been included to place these funds
in a Teacher Salary Incentive account. As stated in the
language, the intent of the General Assembly is that the
average classroom teacher salary be improved throughout
the Commonwealth by an amount equal to a 3 percent
increase effective December 1, 1993. The funds in the
Incentive account will be paid to localities when the
division superintendent certifies that "sufficient local
funds have been appropriated to match this Teacher Salary
Incentive Payment, based on the composite index of local
ability-to-pay, in addition to meeting the division's
required local expenditure for the Standards of
Qual i ty . . . " . A copy of the language adopted by the
General Assembly is contained in Attachment B.
E. An additional $534,062 has been included in 1993-94
representing the state's share of the costs associated
wi th reducing the class size for EMR students. The
maximum caseloads will be as follows:
with Aide
without Aide
Primary
Elementary
Middle School
Secondary
10
12
13
15
8
8
8
8
OTHER CHANGES
A. Concerned with the increasing number of violent crimes
occurring on school property, the Committee recommended
$1,200,000 in 1993-94 to fund four alternative education
pilot programs. Such programs shall be for the purpose
of educating certain expelled students and, as
appropriate, students who have received suspensions from
public schools and students returned to the public
schools from learning centers. These programs will be
designed to ensure that students return to the
"mainstream" within their local school division. A copy
of the language adopted by the General Assembly is
contained in Attachment B.
I
I
Attachment A
Page 3
B. An additional $1,500,000 was included in 1993-94 to
continue state support for the implementation of the 6
pilot school/community health centers begun in 1992-93,
and to expand the program to include an additional 6
pilot sites.
C. Funding in the amount of $369,350 has been included in
1993-94 in the Central Office budget to provide for a
second annual administration of the Literacy Passport
Test. This administration will be made available to all
8th graders and ungraded students who have not previously
passed the Literacy Passport Test. In addition, transfer
students from grades 7 to 9 who have not previously
passed the test will also be eligible for this
administration.
D. Funding in the amount of $105,850 has been included in
1993-94 to continue state suppo~t for the Principal
Assessment Centers currently 1n operation. The
Department, in consultation with the Deans of the Schools
of Education currently housing these Centers, will be
required to conduct an evaluation of the mission and
activities of the Centers. A copy of the language
adopted by the General Assembly is contained in
Attachment B.
E. Funding in the amount of $407,931 has been included in
1993-94 to provide the state's share of 200 students to
attend the new Southside Governor's School for Global
Economics and Technology.
In addition, language was included which states, "the
Board of Education shall not take any action in the
second year that would increase the state's share of the
costs associated with the Governor's Schools."
F. An amendment was approved which provides for the
replacement of the cash reserve balance in the Unclaimed
Property Trust Fund with a line of credit, thus freeing
up the cash balance for transfer to the Literary Fund.
This action, combined with the increased collection of
fines occurring as a result of automation of General,
Circuit, and Combined Courts is projected to increase
revenues to the Literary Fund in 1993-94. The amendment
includes language which gives the Board of Education and
the Virginia Public School Authority the authority to use
these revenues to provide Literary Fund loans or an
interest rate subsidy program, as long as total revenue
collections in the Literary Fund exceed the projections
assumed in the Appropriations Act.
Attachment A
Page 4
G. An additional $200,000 was included in 1993-94 in support
of the Southwest Virginia Education Consortium.
H. Funding in the amount of $25,869 was included in 1993-94
to provide a 3% increase for current project Discovery
programs, as well as an additional $120,000 to allow
current programs to expand and include divisions
currently unserved, including Amherst, Appomattox,
Bedford, Bland, Campbell, Fairfax, Lynchburg, Smyth,
Williamsburg/James City and Wythe.
Attachment B
Page 1
LANGUAGE AMENDMENTS
em 126: "The Board of Education, the Department of Education,
d the Virginia Council on Child Day Care and Early Childhood
ograms shall conduct a study of the programs currently provided
r "at-risk" four-year-olds in Virginia. The study shall include
inventory of the programs provided, the funding provided in
pport of such programs, agencies responsible for the
inistration of such programs, and the number and location of
'ildren being served. In addition, the report shall address the
llowing issues:
1) The number of children who would benefit from a quality
eschool program who are not currently being served;
Areas of the Commonwealth having high concentrations of children
o are not currently being served;
, Recommendations for the provision of services to children not
rrently being served; and
4; Funding recommendations for the provision of quality preschool
'ograms for all "at-risk" four-year-olds in the Commonwealth,
cluding recommended strategies for maximizing the use of
isting, and new, federal funding programs.
e results of this study shall be provided to the Chairmen of the
,nate Finance and House Appropriations Committees no later than
vember 1, 1993."
I em 133: "The Department of Education, in consultation with the
Dans of the Schools of Education at George Mason Uni versi ty ,
V.rginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Old Dominion
U iversity, Virginia Commonwealth University and Virginia state
U iversity shall conduct an evaluation of the mission and
a tivities of the Principal Assessment Centers. The Department
s all report the results of this evaluation to the Chairmen of the
S nate Finance and House Appropriations Committees no later than
N ,vember 1, 1993."
;em 135: "In the event that any school division consolidates two
more small schools, the division shall continue to receive
'andards of Quality funding and provide for the required local
penditure for a period of five years as if the schools had not
:en consolidated. Small schools are defined as any elementary,
ddle, or high school with enrollment below 200, 300 and 400
udents, respectively."
Attachment B
Page 2
Item 135: "The intent of the General Assembly is that each
classroom teacher be provided an unencumbered duty free lunch
period of at least thirty minutes each day.
Item 135: "The intent of the General Assembly is that the average
classroom teacher salary be improved throughout the Commonwealth by
an amount equal to a 3 percent increase effective December 1, 1993.
Further, it is the intent of the General Assembly that the average
classroom teacher salary continue to be the measure for comparison
of Virginia with other states at the national level.
Sufficient funds are included in this Act to finance, on a
statewide basis, the state share of a 3 percent salary increase,
effective December 1, 1993, for the positions required by the
Standards of Quality for each school division.
Each local governing body shall appropriate and each local school
board and division superintendent shall provide increased local
funds to meet the required local share for a salary increase equal
to a 3 percent increase, effective December 1, 1993, for the
positions required by the Standards of Quality. Each division
superintendent shall certify that sufficient local funds have been
appropriated to match this Teacher Salary Incentive Payment, based
on the composite index of local ability-to-pay, in addition to
meeting the division's required local expenditure for the Standards
of Quality as defined in Item 135.A.5, or the Department of
Education shall withhold the Teacher Salary Incentive Payment from
the Basic Aid payments to that school division.
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction shall provide a
report on the actions taken by local school divisions to comply
with this requirement to the Chairmen of the House Appropriations
and Senate Finance Committees by December 1, 1993."
Item 135: "An additional state payment of $1,200,000 in the second
year shall be disbursed for four regional alternative education
pilot programs. Such programs shall be for the purpose of
educating certain expelled students and, as appropriate, students
who have received suspensions from public schools and students
returned to the community from the Department of Youth and Family
Services. The four pilots shall be selected by the Department of
Education using a request for proposal system.
Each regional program shall have a small student/staff ratio. Such
staff shall include, but not be limited to education, mental
health, health, and law enforcement professionals, who will
collaborate to provide for the academic, psychological and social
needs of the students. Each pilot program shall be designed to
ensure that students make the transition back into the "mainstream"
within their local school division."
Attachment B
Page 3
I
I ... 137: "The Department of Education in conjunction with the
S 9retary of Education shall study the current services and local
f hding formula for adult literacy services. The study should
i elude specific findings and recommendations relating to adults
f J:' whom English is a second language. The Department shall report
t ~ results of this study to the Chairmen of the House
A propriations and Senate Finance Committees no later than November
1, : 1993."
I
Attachment C
Page 1
Allocation Methods for Non-SO Accounts
h of the funding contained in the "categorical" accounts is
ed upon prior year data, i.e. expenditures made by local school
isions in the preceding fiscal year. Therefore, any projections
e by the Department of Education for an upcoming year are
ject t:o wide variation based upon program participation rates
other local variables. In order to provide as much information
possible, we have attempted to estimate payments as follows:
edial Summer School
2-93 entitlements were provided to you via.Supts. Memo. No.205
format.ional), dated September 25, 1992. Projected entitlements
1993-94 were level-funded from the 1992-93 amounts as the
tewide appropriation is the same. Please remember, however,
t any major changes in local programs from 1992-93 to 1993-94
1 cause a variation in the entitlements.
2-93 entitlements are based on the actual amounts received this
Projected entitlements for 1993-94 were level-funded from
1992-93 amounts as the statewide appropriation is the same.
ational Education Cate orical
2-93 entitlements were provided to you via Supts. Memo. No. 241
formational), dated November 6, 1992. Projected entitlements
1993-94 were level-funded from the 1992-93 amounts. These
jections include the locality's share of any allocations for a
ional vocational technical center. Please remember, however,
t any major changes in local programs from 1992-93 to 1993-94
ld cause major variations in these projections. Entitlements
based upon a percentage of local expenditures for (1) extended
tracts, (2) principals and assistant principals of both regional
ational technical centers and vocational centers operated by a
gle locality, (3) vocational adult instructor salaries to
lude full-time, part-time and supplements. In addition, each
ality will receive an equipment entitlement based upon the
er of students participating in vocational courses, with a
imum of $1,000.
Attachment C
Page 2
SDecial Education Cateqorical
Homebound The 1992-93 entitlements were based on actual
expenditures for homebound instruction during the 1991-92 school
year. Proposed allocations for 1993-94 have been estimated based
on the statewide increase in the appropriation from 1992-93 to
1993-94. However, any major changes in the level of homebound
instruction provided from one year to the next can affect the
proposed allocations.
Hospitals, Clinics, Detention Homes - For those localities which,
under contract with the Department, provide educational programs in
the state-operated programs, allocations represent an estimate of
the contractual services. The Department will provide additional
information to those localities within the next several weeks for
the 1993-94 year.
Private and Regional Tuition - The 1992-93 entitlement represents
the first payment made during this fiscal year (reimbursement for
second semester of the 1991-92 school year) plus an estimate of the
first semester payment from the 1992-93 school year which will be
made during the next 6 weeks. Proposed allocations for 1993-94 for
regional tuition has been level funded from the estimated 1992-93
amounts. Proposed allocations for 1993-94 for private tuition
represent an estimate of the second semester payment from the 1992-
93 school year which will be made in early 1993-94. It is
important to remember that no further payments will be coming from
the state directly to local school divisions for private tuition
after that time due to the consolidation of programs under the
Comprehensive Services Act.
Localities can better estimate state reimbursement for these two
accounts by calculating on a child by child basis the tuition rate
charged times the state share of the appropriate composite index.
Private tuition is reimbursed using the SOQ index, while regional
tuition is reimbursed using the composite index computed at a state
nominal share of 60%.
Interagency Assistance Fund (Pool) The 1992-93 revised
entitlement was calculated based on the state reimbursement
provided to each locality during the 1991-92 year. No allocations
for 1993-94 have been included as no further payments will be
coming from the state directly to local school divisions for the
Interagency Assistance Fund during 1993-94 due to the consolidation
of programs under the Comprehensive Services Act.
Inservice - The 1992-93 revised entitlement reflects the actual
grant awards made on a regional basis during this year. The
proposed allocation for 1993-94 has been level funded from these
amounts.
Attachment C
Page 3
ult Education
e 1992-93 entitlements are based on actual awards made to date.
is amount has been level funded into 1993-94 as the statewide
propriation is the same. However, any major changes in adult
ograms could alter this allocation in 1993-94.
T e 1992-93 allocations are based on the payments made to school
d'visions this year and provided to you via Supts. Memo. No. 41,
d ted February 29, 1993. Proposed allocations for 1993-94 have
b en level funded from these amounts as the statewide appropriation
i the same. Changes in the number of foster care children being
e ucated in the public schools can cause a major difference in
t ese proposed allocations. Localities can better estimate this
a count by multiplying the daily cost of operation times the number
o days education was provided to children in foster care. The
s atewide appropriation is level funded over the next biennium.
hool Food Pa ents
e 1992-93 entitlement represents the actual award transmitted to
u via Supts. Memo. No. 240 (Informational), dated November 6,
92. This funding represents a state match to the federal funds
ceived by the state. Payments are made based on a flat rate for
ch lunch served meeting the National School Lunch requirements.
e proposed allocations for 1993-94 are level funded from the
rrent year. - Any major changes in the number of qualifying
nches served will have an effect on this allocation.
outs
1992-93 entitlement represents the actual awards made during
is year. These entitlements have been continued in an identical
for 1993-94 as the statewide appropriation remains the same.
lected localities will have entitlements/allocations listed in
is section based on individual programs being offered and funded
b the state. Any questions regarding these programs should be
d'rected to the Budget Office.
~
-J
I
101
Ul
Ul
C
-J
C
Ill:
101
Z
101
~
101
ZUl
~Q
Z
~;:)
....
- Q 101
101 ~
~C
~lh
Q
c
~
101
~
~
~
N
~
-
00 >4 ~o. ~g~ '" ~~~lSlo "'''''0 Cl
>4 0# N Cl"" - i;;t; -
~ 11'\.. "'.. "" N . -- ~
"'l -0 . .
I 00 N N sa~ !
~ - -
t:
-
..
-J
i
~~ ~ E~~~~ ~ 00"" 1Sl" ~ "'''''IS ,
'" - ~ ~~.. ..
N N "" . - - -
. . "'l 10 .
o 0 N ~ sa~"" '"
~ - - Ul ..
. II'l
~ i .,;
-
-
~
~
z
~ Ul 101 -J
101 ~ Ul 101 .... Ill:
Q i ~ ~ -J .... . ~ Ill: Ill: g!
101 :I 2 c z - Ul Ul ~ ~
~ Q ! -J C S z Ul Ul
Ul 101 .... C -J C Z Ill: - Z Z -J ~
;:) ~ 101 .... -J Q C 101 101 - -
.., Ul ~ C .... ~ 101 - Cl ~ Z Q i
Q ;:) - ~ c ~ .... W z u ~ 101
C .., ~ ~ Ul ~ ... 101 C ~ Ul Ul Ill: 101
! Q iii i:; a. 101 1 101 101 ~ Ul -J ~ Ul -J a.
c Ul Ill: ~ ~ Ul ~ Ul ~ 5 ~
:E ~ Ill: 101
~ 101 101
U a. Ill:
Ul
Q!'
>4 w
~lS:C
""~15
&Ill:-J
-a.-J
c
IO""NNIO"""""'~""o.O
~gN~gJe~:;;~~~
0' -0' N. "'.,.... ">4" N' "~"....
"'Oo.-""No.O ""
ClQN-O-N",f'.
". .
.- >4
.-
~
0.
N
!CION
O#~~
~~'"
g
""
...
N
o
.
o
N
'" "'-
~~~
" . .
""0#'"
0#0#0#
go
""
o
.-
Np'O
~~
. .
N Cl
-:;
ON"'NO
~;;;I!
0." "," ~
N""
-
0000
~
~
N
N
en NO""""N~&'-"'IO"'O ~~i8
! ~ '" "'- ~o;~gO~~NO 00 00 ~
~ Q ~1I'l"" ~
101 Ie ~~~'--o~$~i8 NON "'. - .. .. - >4",,1! N
~ ~ ~ .... .... ~. 0#. -0. 0.. &' _. ",. ~. ~. ~. -0. ,,.. :.' '^ 0." 10- .," ..... 0." ~.. "," N. .0
c ""
IS :g II) ""-"" N"" '" .. .. -- "" N 0#
-o--N~'ltO ~ "". .. - -
- f -J O.
-J .- .. ~
C .- N
1&1
-J
Ill:
1
101
III I
-J S ....
c ... en
~ i ~ -J
~ !~ en 8
U . Ul
~ ~8~ Ill: Ul ~ ~ 101 C Z
101 ~ - ~ - U ... ., -J ....
N . ~ Ul Ul ., ~ :; 1&1 . Q .... Ul
8 ~ ~ lS 101 ! ... :; ~ .., C -J
Z Q Ul. Ill: Q ~ ~ U i l! - U Ul -J
101 101 . ~ -J '" ! Ul ~ Z 101 Z - - c
U I Q 101 -J -J ~ .... ~~ a. - u !! ~
z -J Q 1&1 ~ 101 ~ U -J Q C 101 C ;: - :E 0
Q C 110I Q Z 110I ... ~ Ul Z Z -J C 110I ~ ~ ~ c Z Ill: Z ~
~ ! 110I -J ~ Ul C S ~ c C -J ~ - ~ Ill: Ill: ~... Ul 110I C ~ Ill:
C Ill: -J C -J ~ W Z ~ ~ -J I a. 110I 110I ~ ~ - ~~
110I - C Q 110I -J -J Ul 101 0 c lS - ~ ~ Ul Ill: Si c i
Ul U Z ~ 101 Q Ill: ~~ Ul -J ~ ~ Q ~ Ill: 1&1 Z Z ~ 101 Ill: ~
;: - u c .... ~ ~ - 101 ~ 0 Ill: Z W c .... Z a. Ill: -J ~ 101 Ul
Ul C ~ 1&1 ... ~ ~~ -J ~ Ill: -, -J ~ 101 i~ Z
C 1&1 a. i:; 101 101 C 101 Z ~ 101 Ul a. UIll: ~
Q . ~ Ul Ill: Ill: Ul ~ 101 C 1101 Ill: 1&1 Ul UlQ 0
I'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Distributed to Board: _~.~~
,I ~. ~
Ag d I' .. .'.'
en ,~ .(em 110. -'-'-_-"'_~___
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of supervisors ~ -.J
r--
FROM: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. , County Executive '/
DATE: March 10, 1993
RE: u. s. 29 corridor study
Attached is a letter from Senators Ed Robb, Kevin Miller, and Edd
Houck and Delegates Peter Way, Mitch Van Yahres, Butch Davies and
Jerry Wood regarding a $1.5 million grant that VDOT has obtained to
study a portion of u.s. 29 North from the South Fork of the Rivanna
River in Albemarle County northward to State Route 605 near the
town of Warrenton. This group of legislators has requested that a
local committee be created to participate in an evaluation process
regarding this corridor study. They have suggested that the
commi ttee be made up of at least one person from our Planning
staff, a citizen who is directly impacted by decisions to be made
within this study area corridor and someone from the
business/industrial community.
This committee would select a representative to serve on the Route
29 Corridor, Rail and Airport Task Forces and report back to the
committee for discussion and input. It appears to me that, in
addition to the committee representation proposed by the
legislators, at least one Board of Supervisors member and Planning
commissioner should be a part of the committee.
I would appreciate your thoughts or suggestions regarding this
matter within the next two (2) weeks.
RWT,Jr/dbm
93.041
Attachment
cc: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
m~ WI f~ Ii
Ow .;- ! n:
" Ii Ii ;
J ~ ,: ,! (
;'.1:). '., ~ :;:i~
, :""'! ':.:: . . Iiaa(I ~ : L' ::
;" ~
~ '
1
~ ':?)ARD OF SUPER\'::?t~';:~':::'
{
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
February 26, 1993
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
401 Mcintire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Tucker:
The Virginia Department of Transportation has obtained a $1.5
million grant to study a portion of the U.S. Route 29 corridor.
In a meeting during the General Assembly session with Ray Pethtel,
the Commissioner of Transportation; Claude Garver and Dick Lockwood of
VDOT; Connie Kincheloe, member of the Commonwealth Transportation
Board representing our area; and the legislators who represent the area
under consideration, we had a good exchange of ideas.
In order for the study to be effective, it is essential that local
governments have significant input.
Ray Pethtel agreed to develop the proposal prior to our returning
from the legislative session. The boundaries which were discussed would
be State Route 605 just north of the town of Warrenton, on the north, to
the bridge over the Rivanna River in Albemarle County, on the south. The
intent is to study this portion of the 29 corridor and the potential of
creating a limited access highway. The east-west boundaries were not
specifically described. There was a general agreement that these would
vary based on the impact the crossroad intersections such as Route 17, 28,
3, and 33 would have on Route 29. It was also agreed that intersections
such as 231 in Madison County had to be evaluated carefully. C "
. . ') ~ --, ",
Page 2
The forum which we hosted on the Route 29 corridor at Graves'
Lodge during the summer clearly indicated the need to address this issue.
There was a clear commitment to involve local government and citizens in
this process.
The initial step will be to provide an opportunity for the public to
comment on the scope of the work prepared by the Virginia Department of
Transportation. A public meeting to obtain this input will be scheduled in
the near future after the close of the legislative session.
We . would appreciate your creating a local committee to participate
in this evaluation process. The committee needs to contain at least one
person from your planning staff, a citizen who is directly impacted by the
decisions to be made on Route 29, and someone from the business or
industrial community I such as a representative of the Chamber of
Commerce.
In addition to looking at Route 29, the committee will also be asked
to look at the rail system in the area which parallels Route 29. This is an
essential ingredient for economic development for our region. Many of the
industries that are located in the 29 Corridor have actually located off of
the railroad. It will also be evaluated for transportation purposes.
The third area of interest will be the use of airports. The regional
commercial facility is in Albemarle County. Orange, Culpeper, and
Fauquier Counties all have airports which are part of our regional
transportation network.
A representative selected by the local committee which you form
will be asked to serve on the Route 29 Corridor Task Force, the Rail Task
Force, and the Airport Task Force. Each of these study groups will have
the opportunity to provide a regional focus. It will allow them to directly
communicate with the Virginia Department of Transportation and their
consultant in preparation of their report.
Page 3
This process has been designed to insure that those of us who are in
the Route 29 Corridor have an opportunity to focus on a comprehensive
transportation network and to insure that local input is included in the
study being conducted by VDOT. We hope that you will cooperate in this
effort. The appointment of a local study committee insures that your
input will be a part of the VDOT study. The study committee will have a
representative on each of the Regional Task Forces to insure local input.
Please forward the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of
those who are to serve on the local study committees to the attention of
Ms. Raven Yates at 122 W. Cameron Street, Culpeper, VA 22701 or to Ms.
Major Connelly at 100 Court Square, Suite 8, Charlottesville, VA 22902.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely yours, I
~--~/"'~/j /
L~ ~ 'p-V!;/-I"~~
utch Davies Edd Houck
/ ..' /,/f~/<--,./?__~ ~<~/~;i;~//:-- <iv-\~,(\().
.c ///c/// M;r ~P?- / -'~'--
tt: (.. L/ ,~~ -
Mitch Van Yahres ' . J(~vin Miller
(iltWa~J
Peter Way ,
/JJ{V
---'-
,,/- - <'
2!:A.v'l-c<& (~
Ed Robb
DATE MMCJl \1, lqCt3
~GENDA ITEM NO. Q'3. OSlO. \ 35
AGENDA ITEM NAME ZMR -qZ.13 ~$ Geor90 f', WI1ThCt~f)
DEFERRED UNTIL Aprd 1+1 ICR3
Form.3
7/25/86
. .
FF PERSON:
NING COMMISSION:
D OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
FEBRUARY 9, 1993
MARCH 10, 1993
Proposal to rezone approximately 102.89 acres from RA,
al Areas to VR, Village Residential and to obtain a special use
it for a stream crossing in the floodplain of the South Branch
the Hardware River [30.3]. Property, described as Tax Map 87,
cels 57C and 66-76 inclusive and Tax Map 99, Parcels 109-116
lusive, is located in the southeastern corner of the
ersection of Red Hill School Road and North Garden Lane (Routes
and 712) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site
located in a designated growth area (Village of North Garden)
is recommended for Village Residential (1 dwelling unit per
e) .
racter of the Area: The Red Hill School is located east of this
The roads fronting the property are unpaved. The property
ntage with the public roads is floodplain. The property is
racterized by a long rolling ridge falling off sharply to the
th Fork of the Hardware River. Some of the slopes to the river
ear to be in excess of 25%'. The property is currently used for
ture and most of the site is open. Numerous houses and the
ool are visible from the ridge on this property.
licant's Pro osal: The applicant seeks a rezoning to VR with
ffers and the issuance of a special use permit to allow a stream
ssing in the floodplain. All engineering data and subdivision
ts would be submitted after approval of the rezoning and special
permit. Staff has received no information regarding the nature
scale of the proposed development. A letter from the
licant's consultant is included as Attachment C (Proffers are
luded as Attachment H). Approval of VR zoning would allow for
dwelling units. (This assumes use.of _the maximum theoretical
elopment potential. It is unlikely this level of development
ld be achieved due to the significant floodplain area.)
RY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed these requests for
sistency with the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and
tion 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance (special use permit) and
ommends denial of ZMA-92-13 and SP-93-02.
and Zonin
ch 29, 1973 - Plat creating Parcel 57C was approved.
1
- SP-77-38, a request for a custom slaughterhouse,
1980 - Plat creating lots under review recorded.
rehensive Plan: This site is located within the Village of
th Garden and is designated Village Residential (maximum 1
lling unit per acre). The Comprehensive Plan contains two
ents directly relating to this application "Hard surface and
en Route 712 and 760" (page 189) and "Verification of suitable
er supply shall be required for development proposals due to the
ertainty of available groundwater and studies indicating
ficulty in providing central utilities" (page 189).
oundwater issues will be discussed in later portions of this
ort). The Comprehensive Plan states as a goal "Direct growth
o designated growth areas." (page 156).
Open Space Plan indicates the South Branch of the North Fork of
Hardware River as a major stream valley with associated
odplain and critical slopes. Some sensitive soils (prone to
fl oding and shallow depth to rock) are present on site. The
ma.ority of the site is suitable for development. The upland soils
ar good quality for septic fields. This site is not within a
re ervoir watershed.
general, it is favorable that the application is in a growth
a and that an existing substandard subdivision could be
raded. The new subdivision should provide protection for
sitive areas in the form of open space. The water quantity
stion needs to be resolved as well as access.
F COMMENT:
is unable to provide specific comments regarding the nature
the proposed development as no conceptual plan of development
ha been submitted. Staff has requested information (Attachment D)
wh.ch the applicant has responded to (Attachment E). Staff has
id ntified the following issues to be addressed:
1. Suitability of Public Roads Serving This site
2. Adequacy of Groundwater
3. Impact on Floodplain (SP-92-03)
4. General Character of Development
5. Development Impact to Public Facilities
Su'tabilit of Public Roads Servin This site
h of the roads which serve this site are unpaved and
tolerable. Both roads are in the six Year Road Plan for paving.
Route 712 project estimated advertisement date is July, 1995.
Route 760 project estimated advertisement date is July, 1996.
ease note these dates are under review). No entrance location
been marked by the applicant. However, access is most likely
2
on North Garden Lane due to the slopes near Red Hill School Road.
No proffers exist to limit the location or number of entrances. A
pr ffer has been submitted stating "The main entrance to the
pr perty will be located in the area of current lots 6 and/or 7 as
th y front on state Route 712" (The plat of the property is
in luded as Attachment I). Staff notes that the plat recorded in
19 0 indicates access over an access easement on adjacent property.
Th s access easement runs to North Garden Lane, south of this
pr perty. The Board of Supervisors has received one letter
re arding the need for improvement to these roads (Attachment F).
Le ters specifically addressing this application have also been
re eived (Attachment G).
ff has discussed methods of limiting development until such time
the roads are improved. However, no proffer has been submitted.
1 theoretical development of this site could result in 740
icles trips per day. (Full theoretical development of this site
lizing the existing RA zoning could result in 390 vehicle trips
day) .
ff opinion is that the request, which could substantially
rease the traffic volumes on unpaved nontolerable roads, is
onsistent with the intent of the ordinance, particularly
tions 1.4.1, 1.4.2, and 1.4.6.
of Groundwater
Comprehensive Plan states on p. 189 "Verification of suitable
er supply shall be required for development proposals due to the
ertainty of available groundwater and studies indicating
ficulty in providing central utilities." Staff has requested
t the applicant submit information to address the issue of water
ilability. The applicant has stated that availability of
undwater should be determined after approval of the rezoning
est. A proffer has been submitted regarding testing. The
ineering Department and the Water Resources Manager have
ented on the submitted proffers (Attachment J). The applicant
stated that a central water system may be used. Staff has
lude a resolution recently endorsed by the Board of Supervisors
m the Albemarle County Service Authority which discourages the
of central groundwater systems (Attachment K).
ff has identified one request in the North Garden area since
ption of the current Comprehensive Plan for which a groundwater
dy was required (SP-90-46 Albemarle Concrete). The study was a
dition of approval. It should be noted that the use was not
hin the Village of North Garden and made use of recycled water.
request which was not pursued was ZMA-90-10 Acorn Hill. This
a request to rezone from RA to VR. The method used to address
er availability was a surface reservoir. This proposal was not
sued. Other requests in North Garden were either by-right
elopments or did not involve intensification of use and
refore no studies were required. Developments requiring public
3
he prior to approval were SP-91-17 Mooreland Baptist Church.
Th s was a minor building renovation and South Fork Farms Rural
Pr servation Development which used existing development rights.
ff opinion is that the use proposed would be inconsistent with
Comprehensive Plan as it relates to verification of groundwater
plies. A development of this scale, 74 lots, could have an
act on area groundwater.
on
SP-92-03
requested engineering data regarding the request for a
odplain crossing. No engineering information has been provided.
roffer stating the approximate stream location has been
mitted. The applicant has stated that information regarding the
ssing will be submitted after approval of the special use
it. staff is unable to provide a review of this request and
ommends denial.
eral Character of Develo ment
As previously stated, no plan of development has been submitted.
Th site has a large floodplain area and critical slopes adjacent
to the South Fork of the Hardware River and an intermittent stream.
Th se areas should be included as open space or in lots which have
bu lding sites located so as to minimize negative impacts. staff
ca not comment on the adequacy of any potential entrance. However,
an access point will require substantial grading to overcome the
st eam valley slopes. Staff notes that residential rezoning
re ests reviewed since 1980 have been accompanied by proffers for
de elopment design, scope and scale, most of which included
pr ffered plans. Staff is unable to state that areas sensitive to
de elopment will not be disturbed.
act to Public Facilities
request of the Board of Supervisors, the planning staff will
iew rezoning requests for their fiscal impact on public and
nsportation facilities. This analysis is limited to those
onings that have some effect on the facilities that are
ntified in our CIP or six year road plan and have a cost
ociated with them.
analysis will be based on a fair share determination of a
ticular development's impact to affected facilities. It must be
nted out that this analysis is cursory, due to lack of
ormation on revenues and the amount attributable to this
elopment. The cost outlined by staff only indicates the
portionate share of construction costs of the additional
elopment generated by the rezoning over by-right development.
4
Fa~ility Improvements and Impacts: The following are those
fa~ilities which will be affected by the rezoning request:
A. Schools
Schools affected by this proposal are Red Hill Elementary (38
additional students which is 18 more than by-right), Walton
Middle School (18 additional students which is 8 more than by-
right), Western Albemarle High School (22 additional students
which is 11 more than by-right).
Projects in the CIP are:
Walton Middle School - Heating System
Western Albemarle High School Pressbox
Western Albemarle High School Master Clock
Replacement
Western Albemarle High School Football
Bleachers
Western Albemarle High School Roof
Replacement
$284,000
27,000
22,000
56,000
550,000
Costs attributable to this development based on the
proportionate share of students is $9,303 or $125.71/dwelling
unit.
B. Parks and Recreation
The following projects are identified in the CIP:
Walton Tennis Court Resurfacing
Western Albemarle Tennis Court Resurfacing
Walnut Creek Park Improvements
$ 12,000
18,000
165,000
Based on service areas and capacities of the facilities and
additional residents located in the service area the costs
attributable to this development is $579.60 or $7.83/dwelling
unit.
C. Library
This proposal is considered to be in the service area of the
Main Library.
The projects scheduled in the CIP are:
Painting (Main Level)
Painting (Lower Level)
$ 10,000
9,000
Based on proportionate impact to the Library capacity the
proportionate share of this project is $87.14 or
$1.18/dwelling unit.
5
D. Transportation
Two projects are currently listed in the six Year Road Plan.
They are:
North Garden Lane (Route 712)
Red Hill School Road (Route 760)
$450,000
300,000
Information
development
this time.
determined.
concerning road capacity and traffic impact of
to the overall roadway network is not available at
Therefore, the overall cost impact cannot be
S of Fiscal 1m act
Total Proposed Cost/OU
Cost Share (74 OU's)
Wa ton Middle School Heating System 284,000 3,408.00 46.05
We tern Albemarle High School Pressbox 27,000 243.00 3.28
We tern Albemarle High School Master Clock
eplacement 22,000 198.00 2.68
We tern Albemarle High School Football Bleachers 56,000 504.00 6.81
We tern Albemarle High School Roof Replacement 550,000 4,950.00 66.89
Walton Tennis Court Resurfacing 12,000 110.40 1.49
We tern Albemarle High School Tennis Court
esurfacing 18,000 165.60 2.24
Wal t Creek Park Improvement 165,000 303.60 4.10
Li rary Painting 19,000 87.40 1.18
1,153,000 9,970.00 134.72
cause of the very general nature of this analysis, staff is not
commending any action based on these estimates. They are presented
r the Commission's and Board's information concerning the fair share
termination of a particular development's impact on facilities based
the cost of proposed improvements and without regard to revenue
urces and proportionate share of revenues generated by the
velopment.
nsideration of the fiscal impact of the development needs to be
lanced against consideration of the County's growth management policy
d other County policies. Excessive development exactions could have
e effect of discouraging utilization of the holding capacity of area,
d thus, lead to accelerated development in the Rural Areas.
identified the following factors favorable to this request:
1. This site is located within the Village of North Garden.
2. This proposal may upgrade an existing substandard subdivision.
3. The roads fronting this site are in the six Year Plan for paving.
6
S~aff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this request:
1 No plan of development has been provided to indicate design scale
or scope of the proposal.
2 Roads fronting this site are currently non-tolerable.
3 Verification of adequate groundwater is not provided.
4 Impact to sensitive environmental areas is unknown.
5 The number and location of entrances is unknown.
6 The impact on the floodplain by the stream crossing is unknown.
B~sed on the above factors, staff is unable to support ZMA-92-13 or SP-
9~-03 and recommends denial of both requests. Should the Board of
S~pervisors choose to approve SP-93-02, staff recommends the following
cpnditions:
R~COMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 Department of Engineering approval of hydraulic analysis of the
stream crossing to ensure compliance with Section 30.3; .
2 Department of Engineering approval of grading plans and
calculations;
3 Water Resource Management Official approval of Water Resource
Impact Assessment.
P ease note that no proffers have been submitted for ZMA-92-13.
T~erefore, approval of ZMA-92-13 would have no limitations.
- --------------
A'PTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Letter From Applicant's Consultant
D - Staff Request For Information
E - Applicant's Response To Request For Information
F - Letter To Board of Supervisors Regarding Rts. 760 and 712
G - Letters Addressing This Application
H - Applicant's Proffers
I - Plat Of Property
J - Department Of Engineering & Water Resources Manager Comments On The
Applicant's Proffers
K - Resolution From The Albemarle County Service Authority And Endorsed
By The Board Of Supervisors
7
,~
i'
'" il
..
\. .\1Vo!(",HL\ I "' - - ".
- -; r-,'7' ...-'''' -
J~
.... -~..
~
,~~" ",'
"\ .
. -" .. .. --.--
.\.1'"
-{-~./ '. (\
(- L .. J
/~ ,~;.IHJ9, \-" ':
_ _ _ _ ~." _ _ _ _ _ ~L _~. . ~ ~ _--..
\h" I J
MOUNT AIN
I ATTACHMENT A I
l\.60-.rl
60(.....<:>
[",,:'1-
c.
,
...+'
~
~
o
\
.'
,
i
.
\,
t
~~k
\,
\
,
-l
,; -'.
I
,
'"
"
Co
\
(
<.,
~.
"-....
..-
"
"
!'
..
'1-
.'
~"
~.-;l
\
:,,'
~
,I
, 1Zill' ,
..
..
...
..
,,,,
\
..
@]',
..
...
...
't,.
<;:
[ill)S
\fffiT
rml ~~M[g
~ f'"
,..
; "-4, I
-~
[ ,...
I .rhLr
I
y
(I
I ATTACHMENT B I
/
Y
j
86
J
--
\
~
\fS \ .. ~7
\ r--- '__j
\~-t-iy'v.~ r
"'.-/
zr1A-92-13 'lliam_
George & w~
Clark ...
~( )
'j 61 /
,J /'
/{ ,
'+ /-
=k ,~
- 60~2 ,...-
100
-/
IATTACHMENT cl
GLOECKNER & OSBORNE, INC.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS
710 EAST HIGH STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA 22902
TELEPHONE: (804) 971.1591
FAX NO: (804) 293-7612
January 26, 1993
,c. f:;~ :'_. [j0)f ~~ Ii))
l' 'I ') 7 'IQ9:'
d x,, '- "J
r. william D. Fritz, Senior Planner
ounty of Albemarle
epartment of Planning & Community Development
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
f:.f ~ ,~.:'i :.~-; r": : r-i /",:
d !._,.: ,J JI.,,:';:j
nG~.).1,
~~.,..,. t..,J' :'-.' Ln
J
ZMA-92-13 and SP-93-02 Clark Property (Southern Hills)
North Garden, Virginia
ear Mr. Fritz,
r. Clark has asked that I participate in representing his
ezoning and special permit requests at the Planning Commission
nd Board of Supervisors meetings. Unfortunately, I will be
nable to attend the Planning commission Meeting because of
revious commitments. However, I was asked to write to you and
xpress my professional opinions. Please forward these comments
o the Planning Commission.
irst I will address the rezoning application. I find the
pplication in order. The property lies in the North Garden
illage Area and having visited the land find that it will make a
ine residential community. The land slopes nicely with only a
ew small areas that exceed 25%. Route 712, although presently
ravel, is for the most part straight with good sight distances
'n several places. Route 712 is very flat with gentle slopes all
long the frontage. There are an infinite number of subdivision
lans that could be drawn, however, this is not necessary until
he rezoning is approved. It is extremely expensive to optimize
subdivision plan without a rezoning. Our firm will design and
ayout state standard roads when the time comes.
he special permit for the stream crossing will provide the
roper desired access. Large State standard box culverts to pass
100 year storm will be the first choice. A small bridge to
tate standards would be the second choice solution. The land
eing well drained shows no wetland characteristics. We will
otify all appropriate agencies of the stream crossing upon the
pproval of the special permit. Route 712 in front of the
roperty will be the primary access with a secondary entrance
nto paved Route 712 to the south over an existing easement to be
sed for emergency purposes only.
I
,ATTACHMENT CI\page 21
~r. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
canuary 26,1993
Page 2
, t this point I see no reason why the Village Residential zoning
end the stream crossing special permit should not be approved.
f you have any questions of me, please contact me prior to
~ebruary 4, 1993. I will be out of the country for a while after
hat date.
SincerelY/ II ~ i
'~v~~Q
~
Kurt M. Gloeckner, President
GLOECKNER & OSBORNE, INC.
llJ1G: tpm
( c: George Clark
Leroy Yancey
I ATTACHMENT of
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
J nuary 4, 1993
ward L. Eichman, Jr.
o Browne, Eichman, Dalgliesh, Gilpin and Paxton
6 Fifth Street, N.E.
o. Box 2555
arlottesville, VA 22902
ar Mr. Eichman,
have had an opportunity to briefly review your rezoning request
North Garden. I have also spoken with Rich Tarbell who has
scussed this item with you. Staff has identified several major
eas of concern which I believe must be addressed prior to
view by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
development of this size, approximately 102 acres and
rmitting an approximate gross density of 74 dwellings, needs
reful planning in order to determine the feasibility and
propriateness of the project. This site has significant
straints due to floodplain area. The floodplain area will in
rge part determine the location and character of development.
e location of any access road(s) will likely require avoidance
the floodplain. For the above-stated reasons issues of
cess, building areas, setbacks and buffers should be determined
this time. The existing subdivisions is substandard and its
configuration must be addressed. A sketch plat or plan or
velopment would help to address all the above concerns. You
y want to consider developing this site using a Planned
sidential Development approach.
you are aware, this site is located in the Village of North
rden. The Comprehensive Plan contains many recommendations
garding development in North Garden including "Verification of
itable water supply shall be required for development proposals
e to the uncertainty of available groundwater and studies
dicating difficulty in providing central utilities" (page 189).
ch verification will be necessary for appropriate staff review.
. \TTACHMENT D II Page 21
M . Edward L. Eichman, Jr.
J nuary 4, 1993
P ge 2
th of the roads which border this site are listed as
ntolerable and the Comprehensive Plan shows both are to be
proved. The existing nature of the road system emphasizes the
ed for addressing the location of the entrance(s) to this site.
thods to limit the impact of these roads to that level
rrently permitted by-right should be considered. These methods
uld allow that at such time as the road(s) are improved the
11 level of development could be undertaken.
aff will prepare and forward to you a fiscal impact analysis
dicating the financial impact that this development would have
the County's Capital Improvements Program. The Board of
pervisors has requested this information for all residential
zoning requests.
ease be aware that the above items represent a preliminary
view only, additional concerns may be identified with
ditional review. Please respond, in writing, to the concerns
ised in this letter by January 15, 1993. Should you have any
estions, please feel free to contact me.
~~~
lliam D. Fritz
nior Planner
George and William Clark
i
I ATTACHMENT E I
BROWNE, EICHMAN, DALGLIESH, GILPIN & PAXTON, P.C.
ARCHITECTS
HENRY J BROWNE, A I A
EDWARD L. mCIIMAN,JR" AlA
JOHN D. PALGLIESII, JR" AlA
W, DOVGIL-AS GILPIN, JR., AlA
ROBERT ,PAXTON, AlA
HARGARET W. DcHALLIE, ASSOC. AlA
Associate
January 14, 1993
MEGAN H. LOYD
Business AJminielrator'
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
RECE\VED
JAN , 5 \995
Planning Dept.
Re: ZMA-92-13 and SP-93-02
Clark Property, North Garden, Virginia
Dear Mr. Fritz:
This is in response to your letter of January 4, 1993, related to the referenced
applications for George and William Clark's properties, and your subsequent letter to Mr.
Clark, dated January 12, 1993.
The Owners' interest is to develop a new subdivision plan which improves on that
Iwhich now exists. Our interest is to create a new residential development which respects
~nd retains the natural characteristics of the site and takes advantage of countryside views
rom its higher elevations. We also hope to create a visually cohesive result by establishing
larchitectural guidelines and controlling the design of site amenities such as an entrance
lelement, landscaping, fencing, signage, lighting and other development features.
However, the Owners' will incur considerable expense in the preparation of
Idevelopment information which complies with current requirements and addresses
conditions such as groundwater and public roads as referenced in both of your letters.
lBecause both the zoning and one streamjfloodarea road crossing will affect the
!configuration of a Development Plan, it is more cost efficient to establish those two criteria
Ibefore proceeding with the plan. This is the basis for the Owners' decision to first focus on
he rezoning and special permit issues.
The second paragraph of your January Fourth letter indicates a need for careful
planning to determine the feasibility and appropriateness of the project, and to address
access, building areas, setbacks, buffers and other issues. We and the Owners agree with
hose concerns and intend to respond to all County requirements as part of a second phase
plan approval process. For example, we intend to drill one or more domestic water wells
o establish specific groundwater availability for our development plan.
P.O. BOX 555, 206 fifth street, n.c., CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902-2555
TELEPHONE 804-977-1480 FAX 804-296-8720
,; ATTACHMENT E llpage 21
BROWNE, EICHMAN, DALGLIESH, GILPIN & PAXTON, P.C.
r. William D. Fritz (cont'd)
age two
4 January 1993
If the property were not in the North Garden growth area, the Owners would not
ikely consider a zoning change. Rather, the request is in response to the county's interest
s established by the Comprehensive Plan. We, therefore, feel that is a sufficient basis for
pproval of the request at this time.
Very truly yours,
BROWNE, EICHMAN, DALGLIESH, GILPIN & PAXTON, P.c.
By
-----
Edward L. Eichman, Jr., AI
LE:gwp
c: George and William Clark
t
!liSlribuled t<J Iloard: Q!j -{f1 :9J lfD'
"<<end. Item f<J. 2iQ.itQ~ n
-
!'
m ~ u,._:'
IPR -; ':
Ad endum to ZMA-92-13 Geor e and William Clark ~
I BOARft8CSUPERV'SC;
st ff has met with the applicant in an effort td fu~~~aadress
th issues identified in the original staff report. The items
id ntified by staff initially were as follows:
1. No plan of development has been provided to indicate design,
scale or scope of the proposal.
2. Roads fronting this site are currently non-tolerable.
3. Verification of adequate groundwater is not provided.
4. Impact to sensitive environmental areas is unknown.
5. The number and location of entrances is unknown.
6. The impact on the floodplain by the stream crossing is
unknown.
st ff will address each of these items individually with the
ex eption of item 6, which was covered by the Board's approval of
th special use permit for a stream crossing on March 17, 1993.
No plan of development has been ?rovided to indicate desiqn,
scale or scope of the proposal.
A conceptual development plan and proffers (attached) have
been submitted. These proffers limit maximum development to
52 lots and proffer the conceptual site plan. Staff has
reviewed the plan showing the 52 lots, each with an intended
minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet.
From review of the plan, several lots may have limited
building sites due either to floodplain or critical slopes.
The submitted plan indicates a natural area (open space)
incorporating the majority of the floodplain present on-site
and an access area which could be used for trails and
utilities around the perimeter of the property. Lots 1
through 8 as shown on the plan include floodplain area
within their boundaries. The plan notes that these lots
will include protective easement for the floodplain portion
of the lots. Ideally, staff would prefer that all of the
floodplain area be included in open space and that
encroachment of lots into the floodplain not occur. This is
to assure maintenance of the floodplain under one ownership
versus multiple owners. (The lots encroach into the
floodplain in order to achieve a minimum 60,000 square foot
lot size.) Lots 1-8 maybe restricted due to: limited
buildings sites due to floodplain, some building sites in
areas with slopes that appear to be near or exceed 20%
(Section 4.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance discourages
drainfields on slopes of greater than 20%), and multiple
entrances onto the existing state road. Due to the limited
,
T ,
building sites, development may have to occur near the road
which could complicate improvements to the adjacent Routes
760 and 712 if widening/straightening is necessary.
The Open Space Plan indicates the South Branch of the North
Fork of the Hardware River as a major stream valley with
associated floodplain and critical slopes. As stated
previously, a large amount of the floodplain is included in
the natural area (open space) and that portion which is
included in lots is to be protected by easement. Areas of
critical slopes in the stream valley are limited and cannot
be used as building sites.
The submitted plan includes some double frontage lots.
Landscaping is shown, which is intended to address the
double frontage issue.
Should the Board accept the conceptual development plan and
proffers, the applicant has been advised that the actual
number of lots and their configuration within the outer
boundaries of development established in the plan will be
based on final subdivision approval with application of all
appropriate regulations. Rezoning approval does not imply
approval of adequate building sites, drainfields, etc., or
support for any variances, modifications, or waivers that
might be necessitated by the plan.
Roads frontinq this site are currently non-tolerable.
The applicant has proffered to limit development to that
level which could be achieved utilizing the existing
theoretical development potential until January 1, 1997.
Both adjacent roadways are scheduled for paving. The
advertisement date for Route 712 is June, 1996 and for Route
760 is June, 1997. Staff notes that these are ad dates only
and do not represent completion dates. Additional lots may
be under development before road improvements are completed.
Verification of adequate qroundwater is not provided.'
A proffer has been submitted calling for a study to verify
adequate groundwater. The study would require review and
approval by the Engineering Department. Up to 39 units may
be constructed prior to approval of the study. It is
preferable that all such studies be completed and reviewed
prior to approval of the rezoning. However, the Engineering
Department has commented that the proffer as proposed is
sufficient to allow review of such a study. Staff is
concerned that the proffer allows platting of all 52 lots
before the study is begun. If the study were not approved,
13 lots would then exist without opportunity for building
f l
permits. To avoid this possibility, it would be preferable
to have the 52 lots approved on a preliminary plat, but no
more than 39 lots platted until the groundwater study is
approved. The applicant has verbally indicated a
willingness to amend the proffer to reflect such a change
and proposes to amend the proffer in writing on Monday,
April l2, 1993.
· Impact to sensitive environmental areas in unknown.
This item has been addressed on the plan and previously
discussed.
The number and location of entrances is unknown.
One (1) entrance off of Route 760 and four (4) entrances off
of Route 712 (the internal access road and three (3)
driveways for lots not accessing the internal road) are
proposed. Staff visited the site with the Virginia
Department of Transportation to determine if adequate sight
distance exists for these entrances. The access road as
shown on the plan will require minor relocation (10 to 20
feet) to the south in order to obtain adequate sight
distance. Staff believes this relocation can be easily
addressed during plat review. Lot 1 has a location where an
adequate entrance can be established. The remaining lots
which front Route 712 and do not access the internal road
have a variety of locations where entrances may be
established. Staff has consistently recommended that all
lots in a subdivision access internal roads to avoid strip
development of existing roads and the resulting multiple
access points. In recent years, subdivisions have almost
exclusively been accessed by internal roads where
achievable. (Access to internal roads only is a design
standard for Rural Preservation Developments). This plan
does reduce the number of entrance points over what would be
theoretically allowed for the current lot configuration.
SlJMMARY
T~e applicant has submitted the conceptual devel6pment plan and
plroffers in an attempt to address issues identified by staff. In
g~neral, the plan is superior to the current lot configuration or
f~rther subdivision that would result from that configuration.
D~velopment of lots under the proffered plan would be subject to
t~e subdivision approval process and issues of adequate building
sites, drainfields, etc., will need to be verified then. While
it is desirable that the floodplain be entirely within open
space, the minimum lot size allowance of 60,000 square feet
precludes that possibility for 52 lots. Timing of the
development of more than the 39 lots theoretically available to
the applicant now has been generally tied to approval of an
adequate groundwater study and improvements to Routes 712 and
760. The rezoning as now presented is generally consistent with
t
the Comprehensi~e Plan's intention for North Garden to function
as a Village. However, two physical development concerns arise
frbm the plan and proffers. One is the actual platting of all 52
10 s before the groundwater study is undertaken. Staff is always
co~cerned with the possibility that lots may be created that
ca~not be developed, which leaves an unknowing future purchaser
of such lot(s) with property having no development potential. It
w041d be desirable to allow platting of only 39 lots until a
groundwater study is approved, at which time the remaining lots
c041d be platted in a second phase. The applicant has verbally
infticated a willingness to make such a change in the proffer to
ad~ress this concern. A second concern is the multiple entrances
on Route 712. The Board and staff have strived for a number of
ye~rs to have all subdivision access from internal roads for
sa ety and traffic circulation reasons. It would be desirable to
ha~e lots 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 internally accessed. The applicant
be ieves this is not workable to achieve 52 lots because of the
likely disturbance of the floodplain to provide private road
ac~ess to the internal road from those lots. The Board should
take these concerns into consideration in making its decision.
-1(:eC-e-L~~~ 711'3-
Joe Garofalo, Indian Lane,
1 W~.......
Supervisors . fJtvJr \
North Garden J'Li r'
Albemarle County Board of
Clark rezonlng petition
April 13, 1993
have recently seen the development plan and proffers submitted
Mr. Clark. I would like to make a few comments regarding this
velopment.
of the houses in the plan are located in the
along Route 712. At the last meeting I showed you a
of what the area is like in a moderate rain. There
w re a few small areas not under water, but these are not large
e ough to accomodate a house, a well, and a septic field.
2. These same houses would have to be built right up to the road
i order not be flooded. What will happen to these houses when
t e road is widened? This needs to be considered now, and not
en the road is about to be widened.
3. Seven of these houses are located downslope from three septic
f'elds in Indian Hill, and one appears to be downslope from a
s ptic field located just off Route 760. It is my understanding
t at building new houses downslope from existing septic fields is
bad idea. These houses are also downslope from run-off from
dian Hill.
4. The proffers are still inconsistent with the Comprehensive
an. The Plan calls for "verification of a suitable water
pply" before approval. This petition requests approval before a
ter study can determine suitability. Starting to build before
ch verification is established is backwards.
5. The Albemarle Planning Commission, and 165 North Garden
r sidents see this particular site as inappropriate for rezoning.
T e group of North Gardeners who signed the petition asking you
t reject the rezoning request include teachers from the Red Hill
S hool and Walton School, local small business owners, farmers
a d farm workers, U.Va. professors, Albemarle County employees,
a d many retired folks. Most of these petitioners have lived in
t e area for a long period of time, and I am sure that you
r cognize many of their names. Please do not ignore your Planning
C mmissioners and the local residents.
-----)
At ~,it\:.ej
i l
;I-i'l?
I
I
To: Albemarle County Supervisors
From: John Mesinger
Re: Revised plat for Clark Rezoning proposal
Date: 4/14/93
I have lived half of my life in virginia, the last 29
years in Charlottesville/Albemarle. I was educated as a
hard rock geologist and one of my sons followed the
profession. He has been a planner for two counties, worked
for Dames & Moore in DC evaluating proposals to construct
on or near flood plains and environmentally sensitive
areas. He has made me aware of how often developers across
the country attempt to gain permission to build in flood
plains and other environmentally sensitive areas. It is
his opinion that this rezoning proposal would not be
allowed in the state where he works as a groundwater
consultant. I agree that it should not happen here.
I believe the initial mistake was in designating a new
area as North Garden with a major highway as a mainstreet
[sort of a mini Charlottesville],with well known problems of
water supply and sewage disposal in this area. What could
be a nice development of 19 homes for the area, is now
proposed to become 52.
I had a problem viewing 52 homes on the land until I saw
the new plat designating 9 to be on the flood plain along
Rts 712 & 760. Now I forsee other mistakes being planned.
Consider lots 7, 8 & 9-~or examples. [During the recent
heavy rain I watched the sheets of water rush accross 712
down the embankment onto Clark property]. To obtain a 20
foot drop from the road to the river bank one would have
to start the measurement at the road edge. Do you know
how much the road will be widened to meet state
requirements? Do you know from whom the additional land
will be taken? DO you know how far from the new right of
way the houses can be built? How much land will remain for
a house, well and septic system? will the homes be little
arcs? Do you really want to authorize entries along 712
in addition to the major one You agreed to previously?
I wonder what bank would approve a mortgage on houses that
could end up being constructed here. I agree with my 200
or so neighbors who petitioned this rezoning to be
rejected. I say to you that enough is enough. What can be
built by right without rezoning may be too much. Don't
allow it to become worse.
.'t
L~ t
(-j -I ;
,.. ..l"
{-' ,; r~',' t. \: f ~,
t ;''"t; :i : \~ f ~ :_'L\
;"j"., .
f:l
VI,_I
, ,,4
,
:'1>)'
; /( .e .
I~) [l)t-"r c;
.q /5--9,~
-"
TO: The supervisors~~emarle County
FROM: John Mesinge' ~-4~"\
RE: Clark Rezoning roposal
DATE: 3/11/93
I do not feel that the disposal of waste water and its connection to the
wells being dug were adequately explored in the meeting of 3/10.
Last fall semester, while supervising a Teaching Associate at" Cale, I
observed third graders being taught the basics of the water cycle. Among
other matters they were shown that it is wise to take pure water from a
strata that is up-slope from where you dump your septic water. Of course
the illustrations showed' wells dug through an impervious layer into an
aquifer whose catchment area is off somewhere else; often higher. [When
the gentleman claimed a flow of 50 gal/min for his artesian well in Red
Hill, that would have to be the case for it to be artesian in the technical
sense of the word; truly a curious phenomenon in the'Lovingston Gneiss.]
From Geological Bulletin 386, Dec 1980, Groundwater Sources in Albemarle
County, and Bulletin 77, Geologic Map of Albemarle County, we learn th~t
there is no flowing underground aquifer of any size in the PreCambrian
Lovingston Gneiss. Groundwater sinks down through the Saprolite soil into
the cracks and fissures of the rock; which is then drilled and withdrawn.
The sources are varied from .poor to fair. Heavy pumpage from a few wells
can lower the levels of others. There is an injection of a coarse granite
pegmatite, probably Devonian era which underlies Indian Hill. It is about 1
1/8 x 3/4 mile elipse, one edge of which appears to be approximately under
the Hardware' River under Clark land. The fracture area near two different
formations should produce the most water.' Three of the' wells that I
watched Mr. Moore drill are close to the eastern edge of the river and
should have reached the fracture zone; thus be good water producers. Two
are about 50 yds from the river; the other near 100 yds in a bit of a draw
[ravine]. These are below any possible septic field that might be useable
for construction of houses above the flood plain.
Mr. Yancy has correctly said to the Planning Commission and to you that a
[sizeable] portion. of the water used by \ houses goes back into the ground.
There are no barriers identified to keep this waste water out of the
aquifer - other than distance. But gravity works against distance in this
case. The wate'r in the septic fields and the river [because of its proximity
to 'the three wells] could flow through the saprolite layer and into any
cracks and fissures in the Lovingston Gneiss; thus' dow
are the aquifers in this area.
~ \ .
Even before humans get into the act, for decades cows ih, .OIOtlllthe
river here and upriver , the Clarks' floodplain, and the hillsidlic:: ~nm/Q
QARD OF SUPER' "
,..
Of course the wells must be tested for coliform and metals. However,
later, as water is drawn down by use, will the septic water be drawn
further down to replace it? [We have no data on rate of replenishment of
the aquifer, especially in dry years]. In geologic time, Mother Nature
cleans up after species' excesses. Within our brief lives she cannot undo
what humans are capable of doing. It appears to me that a dense population
requiring a central well, with all of the negatives attendant to that option
over the years, may also require a central septic treatment plant, with
whatever attendant problems that will accompany that option.
There are many unknowns here, much hard data to be gathered, and
probabilities to be well considered before our County Supervisors allow
this project to proceed at all.
In addition, I would have you consider that the issue is not simply zoning
by regulations as some would have you believe. Zoning can either be the fig
leaf or the shield to be used to guard against unwise development. The
proposal in the Comprehensive Plan to form Citizens Committees to help
plan local growth has not occured in North Garden. Indeed, our area seems
to be last on the list of villages for that and other actions to be taken.
Having watched the Emmet street traffic and mall sprall grow steadily
worse in Charlottesville since 1964, unchecked, nay driven by economic
interests, it is disheartening to hear a Supervisor claim that we should
rely on economics to govern growth in North Garden. The gerrymandered
new North Garden plan was drawn with Rt 29 going through it. We all may
be dead before it happens, but with a 100 year perspective that legacy to
develop a mini Charlottesville seems downright foolish when it is clearly
preventable. If a village of North Garden is needed, I suspect it should be
guided to grow out from North Garden proper where it was on the map when
we looked to move south.
When or if the Clarks can show real plans for a quality project of modest
size we will have a basis for consideration and something to which hard
data and projections can be applied. To buy the threat that, if he is not
allowed to squeeze the maximum profit from the land, he will build dreck,
should be rejected out of hand.
Does Mr. Yancey have the experience base to competently construct a
project of 74 homes, which we have variously heard will be low cost,
mixed cost, or double wide trailers~ Mr. Yancy does not live near the
project ; nor do the Clarks. Most of the signatories of the petition against
his project who live in North Garden will have to live with the results,
good or bad as they may be for a very long time.
',)t.,,>1 f(J /'d{{il ;3 /t~_ ~i)J
3/15/93
TO: The Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors
I invite and encourage each of you, before making a decision in regard to
the rezoning of the Clark property from rural area [RA] to VR [village ,
village residential [VR] to drive the roads involved, see the proposed site,
the location of the last three wells dug, and view the flood plain that must
be crossed to build upon the higher ground.
I would then ask you to talk with some of the many concerned area
residents who signed the petition [many of whom cannot or are afraid to
come to the meetings in Charlottesville] after expressing their specific,
long term concerns about any increased development on this parcel of land,
which would have lasting impact on the residents and the surrounding area.
Without back-up water supply in the area, existing homes might become
uninhabitable were their wells to be impared by the amount of water this
project claims to be able to draw from the Lovingston Gneiss.
I have listed the names of several people who would be pleased to hear
from you and answer any questions you may have relevant to the impact
upon local residents who will be effected by unknown, unplanned, and
irreversable consequences if you were to approve the rezoning of this
property to permit such a large increase over what is already more homes
than an RA designation would allow if initiated today.
I ask that you responsibly deny the request of this rezoning proposal for
the sake of all of the people represented by the petition placed in your
hands on 3/10/93.
Thank you,
~;r~~::~~i:er 295-8313
Other residents in close proximity to the Clarks' property.
1. Ann N. Smith 295-0619
~. Thomas Carter 979-1484
m~ @ U lH I~
iU:J .15. I~J
Iii I
~ I 1 ~
i ' !
!:':OARD OF SUPERV"~"'P;:"
i" ' 1 . ...J \~,'-. ~ '"J j
~. Joseph Garafolo 295-3059
/ ~j
j7- f:JtJiJA d-. ;'l~/;j
I
Jef Kahn
Rt.l box 562f
North Garden.V.A. 22959
CC:'UNTY OF ALBEMARLt
.--., r:::"\ I2 ~n . r-'
i'r-.ol j r-,...; l \! ' i-")
, ' I._-LL--, - . II
L'( MAR 5 1993 Ii,'
-' j 'U
I 1'1- ","--' I I
,; L.:'-:J ~ L:::, m] L0
C,tlFID Of SUPERV:SCY?S
3/3/93
Dear Ron,
I am writing to you as a North Garden resident with
concerns regarding the comprehensive plan review for
our area.
I want to express my concern that you're department
address some of the issues involved in designating North
Garden as a high density area again.
I am not opposed to the plan as such,l just believe that
some issues were left unresolved such as water and sewage
problems, and the eventual "look" of the area.
I think that a blanket designation such as this does not
concider that some parcels are less appropiate than others
for higher density subdivisions.
Thoughtful placement of small developments with regard
to environmental issues may enhance our area but I believe
unplanned high density growth on both sides of RT.29 will
greatly detract from our rural setting.
Thank you for spending the time to read my concerns.
~
Sincerly,
. /./ .-//'
!/,/c
-:/ ./'
t'
/. /
/7//
--..--.
RECEIVED
MAR 4 1993
Planning Dept.
,
---..
':;/ I-::>-t
'-, ~ k..- fL3
GEORGE & WILLIAM CLARK
Southern Hills
North Garden, Virginia 22959
Phone (804) 295-6692
RECEIVED
April 12, 1993
APR 1 2 1993
Re: ZMA-92-13
George and William Clark
In m ~~tr~Pt.
\ APR12t~
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
,
Dear Mr. Fritz:
OARD OF SUPERVIS
I would like to make the following proffers, conditional
upon rezoning request ZMA-92-13 being approved. These
proffers are substituted for prior proffers made by letters
of February 17, March 3, 1993, Draft Copy March 16, March
26, and April 7, 1993.
1. The subject property will not be divided into more
than 52 building lots with approximately 15 acres of the
property left in its natural state as common area. There
will be no more than 39 applications for building permits
prior to January 1, 1997.
2. Adequate ground water study will begin immediately
after completion and approval of a preliminary subdivision
plat, soil scientist study and survey. There will be no
more than 39 lots platted until the report concluding that
there is adequate ground water to serve the additional
lots, without adversely affecting ground water supplies in
the surrounding area, has been approved by the Engineering
Department. Confirmation will be made by a qualified firm.
This firm will consult and cooperate with the county
engineer as to the proper test, procedures, and review
criteria required for confirmation.
3. The main entrance to the subject property will be
constructed as shown on the conceptual site plan for
Southern Hills, Architect Browne, Eichman, Dalgliesh,
Gilpin, and Paxton, dated April 8, 1993. The entrance will
be in accordance with and approved by Virginia Department of
Transportation. Lot #1 will have entrance on Route 760.
Lot #2 will have entrance on Route 712. Lot #'s 3 & 4 will
share a joint entrance on Route 712. Lot #'s 5 & 6 will use
internal entrance on Southern Hills Road. Lot #'s 7 & 8
will share a joint entrance on Route 712. The stream
crossing as shown on the same conceptual site plan and
approved by SP-93-02 shall be designed in accordance with
County, State and Federal standards and regulations. Plans
and calculations shall be submitted to the County
Engineering Department for review and approval prior to
,,~
,
'",
construction.
4. Any development will be in general accord with the
same conceptual site plan that has been submitted for the
staff's review and comment and dated April 8, 1993. The
number of lots and the outer boundaries of the development
will remain approximately the same so as to preserve the
size and location of the natural area. In the event the
number of lots are dropped below 52, Owner reserves the
right to redesign within the boundaries of the developed
area.
5. Underground gasoline and heating oil tanks will not
be permitted.
v.ery trUly.y~OUrs,
/1
;l /f~ /
/-" IJ '7/'
/\~~
George W. Clark
GWCjdlk
'If" ~ ,.
B~j
ClNVL ~ 1b t"- ~ ~C-<f ~~ 'ttvJ- ~ LML shax ~ 1iu:A
wtrl ~ ~ ~ cS ~ (~o~. jt- ((NLe,VIYLS 1iu-
vwJ- o~ 1k ~ ~ex~ ~ ~q~
at ~ ~ ~ ~ t2ut ~ ~dutl w\r\Qf~
~ ~ ~;U~ ~ (lA PTb p~, ~ cah.o
. ~i2<) Q( ~~ CG LOW \b ~cl ~ ~~,~
cv.vL ltwctl . ~ of- ~ (tdwc, pa;Jt~ ~ uv
& ) ~ G'/e( ~ ~ Of fx: tirnw (L.
we.ek /Jb ~ (lrk 0 ~ w\tl fiJ)UxuL ~ ~
M. ~ k ~ tkvr 01-.1&0 G ~o.M--~
.~ 0--~au:L~~. WVc-W~W6~~
~ )L~. (j( DY\00 e../Y\_ctcf-tffiLA) ttuA )'wact) 6-t.~ o~
Js . ~~~JW~OM ~.~l~
UvvJ . ~ ~eJLM be.~ J d~ ~ wJuJOl
(JNL 0Lol-tl.. ~ G.- .31.L&tJ- ~ Uv k\R<,-- ~
~ . UN (l i dukA<, iff ~. ~L ~ ~ h.t\HN
Ul% ~ (\.Ou.J.t\ 9 ~~ .l1~. ~ iU. An here, ~ h>>.1L
(}tv f'Wd 0{ ~ (')~ CJ.~ ~.
\::LI(q~:s
'- ,\ ' .
" r \.. L +'"
QttvteWoMetL, L~> i "/-:c/
Y) '., /} ()^,,/ 'i/ ;2, I''':'.r (i}'"
a :J (X)I\ (~'"' '.'- 'J
~~lle) ~A
Jdflo3
"
~
o~ m~
P'," . .: I': \I n r: c. 'l ~ c' , ,; ~\ > 'L ,;
\.,....~..) , }; \) I f './; I', ,l.i \.._ ,J' \ L-
p:, .' ~.,.:) ,..-" ", .. -:-..:.: fD
1\': \ Ii
lL HAp'~ f"- ,\qc;'( ;' ;,
I ,., 1'110\,' l~J ,J,.' :',
I ii' .." : \
! I ' , ..,' ! i I
J ~: :',__,) .._" . '.:,::J
[) ~:'F ,'~t\.jF--~. '11 ;~Cl-~S
I
, .
.' ~ at~~ .~~~cLol'L~lie~
fu" ~~ ~~ ~-k, ~ofYfud ~~g. &b
~ b~~ lM.tluitL~ VI'lkcU iiMb &.1M~. ~
~ ~ YWNQ,!i kutL) ~ WM ~~, ~ 1fu- rhtf ~
V\; fu reo ~ /L( h +L- AW 0JvL
~ . wclM l0fu. d.Ltq, A~ 'fh~&^-(lJ-
tfw ~. ~ fu ~Ld J ~o ~, 9 ~ VVltVl of"
~ ~~0<S ~ ~ 6l.tY ~&- lUe
\J& [A, O\ivv ~ rNCJl d.~~ 10 w {9~ · r
. ~ ~ ~~'~~I6u-tkOA ChJG
.'~~~~~~r~
~. of Wl Lu'ku luX, ~ !lH:Jlh1~ u~ tYu iUL aJwG
Wli 1t<<~ Qa~ ()jcL ik~ Uv\~ Lu~ fu ~~
G~Wex- ~ -t{1i.s in~~. WQ; OJLL ~~ ll~
~. wJ., ~Jtu) 1& r3~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o\)ac~ w~ b ~ ~ lJ · cfrAdW~ aeurlr
~ r~' :f~t"&r ~.
-\ .
~~
-,
GEORGE & WILLIAM CLARK
Southern Hills
North Garden, Virginia 22959
Phone (804) 295-6692
RE,CEIVED
April 7, 1993
;.;,) 1'\
7 l~~")
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
\~Jj !:'- "l~~l: '~:g !~fAn';'
c I,.U c ,II ~ _~t 'JB" I..
Re: ZMA-92-13
George and William Clark
Dear Mr. Fritz:
I would like to make the following proffers, conditional
upon rezoning request ZMA-92-13 being approved. These
proffers are substituted for prior proffers made by letters
of February 17, March 3, 1993, Draft Copy March 16, and
March 26, 1993.
1. The subject property will not be divided into more
than 52 building lots with approximately 15 acres of the
property left in its natural state as common area. There
will be no more than 39 applications for building permits
prior to January I, 1997.
2. Adequate ground water study will begin immediately
after completion and approval of subdivision plat, soil
scientist study and survey. There will be no more than 39
applications for building permits until the report
concluding that there is adequate ground water to serve the
additional dwelling units, without adversely affecting
ground water supplies in the surrounding area, has been
approved by the Engineering Department. Confirmation will
be made by a qualified firm. This firm will consult and
cooperate with the county engineer as to the proper test,
procedures, and review criteria required for confirmation.
3. The main entrance to the subject property will be
constructed as shown on the conceptual site plan for
Southern Hills, Architect Browne, Eichman, Dalgliesh,
Gilpin, and Paxton, dated April 8, 1993. The entrance will
be in accordance with and approved by Virginia Department of
Transportation. Lot #1 will have entrance on Route 760.
Lot #2 will have entrance on Route 712. Lot #'s 3 & 4 will
share a joint entrance on Route 712. Lot #'s 5 & 6 will use
internal entrance on Southern Hills Road. Lot #'s 7 & 8
will share a joint entrance on Route 712. The stream
crossing as shown on the same conceptual site plan and
approved by SP-93-02 shall be designed in accordance with
County, State and Federal standards and regulations. Plans
and calculations shall be submitted to the County
Engineering Department for review and approval prior to
construction.
4. Any development will be in general accord with the
same conceptual site plan that has been submitted for the
staff's review and comment. The number of lots and the
outer boundaries of the development will remain
approximately the same so as to preserve the size and
location of the natural area. In the event the number of
lots are dropped below 52, Owner reserves the right to
redesign within the boundaries of the developed area.
5. Underground gasoline and heating oil tanks will not
be permitted.
Very truly yours;
~/
,-':
~! // /
!v/E//i~f(
Clark
/J~L t-"
George W.
GWC/dlk
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
.<
~. ~l~.';)
"" : p'
r'IIK;I~\"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
William Fritz - Senior Planner
David Hirschm.an - Water Resources Manager, J~M. Kelsey, PE - Civil
Engineer II DJtt V
March 30, 1993 \-'
ZMA 92-13 Draft Proffers
~ e have reviewed the draft proffers submitted by George and William Clark on March 26,
11193. We have had several meetings with Mr. Clark and his agents to clarify and give
g idance on the parameters of a hydrogeologic study to verify adequate groundwater
Sl pplies, as addressed in proffer #2, Our main concern is that a proper study is undertaken
aT d reviewed by our Department to provide evidence that Village Residential densities can be
Sl stained by groundwater supplies without adversely affecting existing water supplies.
P offer #2 adequately addresses this concern.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
~ r r r,:;) G:J Q \1..flP ~
II __l.:":':" -- -. .
U' ,. q,d ,e,o- I
t ( M"" k - ",3 \. I
1\ \ ~-t, '~---'1- . ~
L\ L-::J U JIb
BOARD OF SUPERVrSOqS
March 23, 1993
George W. & William M. Clark
Rt. 2, Box 75
North Garden, VA 22959
RE: ZMA.92-l3 George and William Clark
Tax Map 87, Parcels 57C and 66-76 inclusive and Tax Map 99,
Parcels 109-116 inclusive
Dear Sirs:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on March 17, 1993,
deferred, at your request, the above-noted petition to its meeting on April
14, 1993.
should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action,
do not hesitate to contact me.
/ CL') " ' (;_~l~_ C
. Wayne ilimberg. -
irector of Plannin' & mmunity Development
Ella Carey
i ""...;-
" _/1~'
~-iJ_ .l
,j QJOX C
"" I r)~
6-0'(::)
COUNTY OF AL3EMJ~R[.L
r,~~' r -;:-.:: r::J P r n r ,"-:::1
i I ; i jJ----,.--'--- C '-.1. <..;., : ,!
I! I. \ "
i'~(\ MMi [) 1993 ;"
; 11. \, ~'-_. ./ .
, I: I :.-_-TG--T--n--'-'
U U L.::::J __) ~.:: U J [.'. ___'~-j
tt1f),~D :@6X'Sl3e~tv: ,j
Covesville. VA 22931
arch 4. 1993
1 bemarle County Board of ~) upervisors
E: ZMA-92-13 and SP-93-02 George and William Clark
Tax Map 87. Parcels 576 and 66-76 Inclusive and Tax Map 99.
Parcels 109-116 inclusive
support the recommendations of the Albemarle County Planning
ommission in recommending denial of ZMA-93-13 George & William
lark and SP-93-02 George & William Clark.
am particularly concerned with the impact which a development
f this size could have on area groundwater. I share the other
oncerns of the planning commission staff.
~. incerely.
-e~~ ~
eter Mehring ~
l ed Hill School Parent
, ~..
>,0(:
I -..r.
::/ /'{,d'~i '.
,.
i I \--
.....;/. .-'
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
MEMO
To:
FROt\.
DATE:
RE:
J. W. Brent, Executive Director
W. L. Rossie, Chief Engineer
December 28, 1988
North Garden
Attached lS the most probable cost estimate for
water system. Ground water research indicates that well
development lS limited to small yield and spotty type
wells. The development needs and the comDlexity of
treatmen~ needed could affect greatly the cost figures.
The affect on ground water level and surface outcrops
could present other problems with greater risk.
The surface water development was considered but
agaln limited water and large impoundment, land, and
treatment plant cost. The use of a surface source
would also affect the residual of stream flow available
for waste treatment discharges, thus increase waste-
water treatment costs. A lQ30 flow is required for
surface source. This may limit other uses of stream.
The State may require release of flow from dams as in
other areas to maintain aquatic life in stream during
low water periods.
The increased population with corresponding water
needs does not look optimistic for well development due
to expected low ground water yields and reliability.
One could expect problems similar to those encountered
In the Lovingston area where wells decreased In flow
with use. To encourage development under such condi-
tions would not appear to be in the best interest of
the County. One could spend money and drill In Phase
I and establish this as a fact. The type of ground
formation in the area has been known in other areas to
contain iron and manganese. The problems with the many
expected low yield wells are many and the cost of well
testing and possible treatment are other factors to
consider.
Jr/'~ -
.~;
A cost estimate alternate appears to warrant serious
~onsideration. This provides trade off benefits with de-
elopments perhaps participating in extension. These, de-
bending on time element, may shorten length of line necessary.
r~he extension provides the County with positive control and
brovides water to an existing school for fire protection.
r~he main advantage is that utilities would provide County
cbility to develop more to their desires.
Attached is a cost estimate for sewerage. The popula-
ion increase, resulting in higher flows, and updated stream
tandards require as much water as possible for discharge.
~ocations, high on the drainage area without combined stream
lows from large drainage area, vary more in flow (7QlO).
rhhe attached Water Control Board letter suggests more informa-
ion on stream flow which may result in a lesser degree of
reatment. Our estimation of treatment is based on best in-
ormation available and expected requirements. The veri fica-
ion is not expected to decrease costs.
W. L. Rossie
~ LR: dmg
i ttachment
I ATTACHMENT F I
Route 2, Box 118A
North Garden, Virginia 22959
January 12, 1993
COUNTYOFALBEMARlt
~e~;~1~901~
U L :-:; V::~I L\~ Ll~ lUJ
GOARD CH :~;Uj)tRVISO~S
Da id Bowerman
41 Berwick Court
Ch rlottesville, VA 22901
De r Mr. Bowerman:
We write to ask for your assistance in getting State Route 760 and
Ro te 712 in North Garden improved. The road is currently dirt and
gr vel. We feel it is most dangerous in its current condition.
Ou own driving experience tells us the two roads are likely to
be ome the site of a terrible tragedy if the roads are not
im roved. Since we feel the danger is great, we ask that you give
th s your immediate attention.
Without being to lengthy, please let us list a few reasons for
our concern:
School Buses travel this route daily during the school year
and are at risk because of the narrowness and curves on both
roads.
Tractor Trailers. The Augusta Lumber Company located in North
Garden on the paved portion of Route 712, quite often tractor
trailers, will shortcut through the dirt portion of 712, both
loaded and unloaded from the Augusta Lumber Company. There is
a bad curve on the dirt portion of 712 where it would not be
possible to pass safely. We are all lucky and grateful that
we have not yet met one of the trucks in this most dangerous
CUrve. It is just a matter of time before this will happen.
Accidents. We both have been run off the road on different
occasions on Route 712 and 760. There also have been
accidents in the past that police were called to the scene and
neither driver was charged by the police due to the roadway.
poke with Mr. David Benish with the Albemarle County Planning
artment, he explained that the Board of Supervisors had decided
purchase right of ways for Route 610 and Route 682, we realize
t both of these roads may be dangerous and in need of
rovement, but we feel that Route 760 and 712 are also very
gerous and we add that Route 760 and 712 are in the
prehensive plan as growth areas and Route 610 and Route 682 are
This really concerned us that the Board of Supervisors may
think Route 760 and 712 are dangerous roads, we hope this is
the case. Please refer to Albemarle County Resolution Policy
cerning unpaved roads.
ety is our primary concern, we ask that you do anything
essary to improve Route 712 that runs from U. S. 29 to Route 692
760 that runs from Route 712 to 710 immediately. We implore
not to wait until a tragedy occurs on this road before giving
your urgent attention.
I ATTACHMENT F II Page ~ I.
We look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank
ybu for your concern and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
!!!I-&L::~.~~L~~
VjUJjdjs
cp: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
I ATTACHMENT G I
Mr. William D. Fritz
Senior Planner, Albemarle County
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
0; (::,1"1 If'i' i q f J r;l li::\ r,\~'
:~ ~ c..-..1 ~ ~ ~I ~ : ~ ~'J ~:.,-) ........ f.V' '.. ','
Dear Mr. Fritz,
Thank you for your notice of January 22 regarding the
request to rezone a parcel of land ZMA-92-13 & SP-93-02. My
first reaction is to raise three impact concerns;
underground water, above ground water and road use.
1. In the first instance I am concerned about the source of
water for 102 acres of land to be used as building sites of
one acre per house, or even half that density for that
matter, and the possible impact upon existing wells of
neighboring land owners. I question whether you could now
demonstrate via known dip and strike of permiable &
impermiable rock that there would be no impact.
After many years of looking at land near Free Union and
Crozet, last year we began to look in the North Garden area.
We learned from many sources that water supplies were very
uneven. This was confirmed by a planner in your office who
advised that for a village the size of Crozet, the water
demand would require a larger source than was known to be
available: a new reservoir or a pipe from a river. Since we
were told of water flows ranging from 2 CFM to 15 CFM we
bought our land (56Al on the map you sent) conditional on
obtaining a flow of 5 CFM from a pre drilled well. This year
has been very wet. We have lived through several consecutive
years of drought which emptied one reservoir and lowered two
others. Wells in this region went dry. Therefor, any
concentrated draw on the underground water in the area is a
source of concern.
I would expect as a minimum that the proposed developers
would be required to write a legally enforceable agreement
to hold harmless the well water supplies of all of the
neighbors as a result of their actions; that the county
would agree to enforce such and that they be required to
post a bond to guaranty that action would be taken if
needed.
2. The above ground water concern involves the possibility
that construction on a flood plain is contemplated and a
bridge accross the Hardware river is intended.
It should
flood plain
be obvious that construction of
would be counter to every
houses in the
one s interests.
I ATTACHMENT Gllpage 21
Construction of a bridge for heavy traffic use of such a
large development would require considerable elevation and
protection of it and the road approaches to either side
without harm to the river bed.
I trust that the type of crossing tried at Bentivar by
Charles Hurt years ago would be disapproved by the
responsible county planners as was his effort. From my
perspective a fairly expensive operation would be required
even if the roadway is not required to be constructed to
current county standards foruse by school buses, etc.
3. The impact on Rts 711,712 and the Red Hill school road
should be obvious. All are narrow dirt roads; each with an
extremely narrow blind curve. Rt 712 is well used with a
minority driving in a reckless manner. If one adds only 1
&1/2 cars per house on the average, a large increase in
traffic will occur and a portion of these are likely to
drive unwisely. The current traffic flow goes in both
directions, but more head toward 164 in the AM and back in
the PM. If the development is approved an increase in use of
Rt 711 is probable in addition to Taylors Gap, Red Hill
School and Rt 712. Rt 711 is even less adequate for use by
more than the current local residents. It appears to me that
the proposal puts a demand on the county to upgrade roads
that may not be in the county plan for such changes and
costs in the immediate future. Because the part of 71~ near
the proposed entry is just above the flood plain on its East
side, widening the road would take most land from the
Breckenridge property. I would hate to see the old, valuable
trees on our border cut down.
In sum, my impression of this proposal is that it is too
large in size by far and has too many negatives now for the
future preservation of the assets of this area. It should be
rejected.
Sincerely,
...
/'
John F. Mesinger
1465 Indian Lane
North Garden, VA 22959
295-8313
". .'IATTACHMENT G IIPage 31
January 27, 1994,\\) 2 Ci 'iULl'
~, ,-' _.,' I / /.)
Dear Mr. Fritz and Planning Commission Members,
Pi;-3'-ll'llnO [);:"'")':'
.::J - "-'N' L
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed zoning
change in the Red Hill School area applied for by George and William
Clark. We purchased our house at Red Hill in June of 1992 after
living in town for a long time and have enjoyed the rural setting we
ow reside in. While the zoning change would lend itself to a
lramatic increase in noise, light, and traffic and dramatically
lecrease our privacy and peaceful lifestyle. There are other concerns
that are more community in nature that I find worrisome,
n the interest of brevity I will simply list those concerns here and
iNiH be on hand on February 9th and on March 10th with other
~embers of my community to present my concerns in person at the
public hearings.
. How will additional homes being built affect the underground
water reserves and the well strength to the houses already
pstablish ed?
2. How will the septic system work , what safety measures will be
aken to protect the Hardware river and its tributaries?
3. Does the quarry at Red Hill tax the available ground water supply?
4. What will the impact on the school system be?
5. If the roads are already regarded as non-tolerable what
measures will be taken to straighten, reroute, pave and maintain
them. will it be necessary to condemn land that land owners do not
wish to voluntarily release for road expansion, what will the cost be?
6. Is there a detailed plan for crossing the river. Has any hydrological
study been done to measure the possible impacL in regard to erosion,
pollution from run off, and flooding?
7. What assurances do I have as a property owner that the houses
that the Clarks intend to build will be compatible with the neighbor
hood without some kind of plan with adequate time to review?
I ATTACHMENT G IIPage 41
8. Are the police and fire response times good enough now I and if so
how will the addition of all these homes burden those departments?
9. How will electrical and telephone service be supplied?
10 Will there be any consideration given to the increased levels of
light and noise.
Too many times people who are opposed to issues like these
present themselves in an inflexible light and i do not want to appear
that way, Being a business man myself I realize that Mr. Clark
would like to build something there that he can make some money
on and although I am not in the development business I hope that
there can be some rethinking and some specific planning done before
the county would grant any zoning change that would have such a
powerful impact on an area and its citizenry.
Respe~tful~ '
0~O~
David Simpson
'.-.. "', .
- ATI'ACHMENT G PAGE 5
--
REC~
~
I.IS 1 7 1993
P~3nn~ng Dept.
P. O. Box 122
North Garden, VA 22959-0122
February 16, 1993
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
Cou ty of Albemarle
Dep rtment of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire' Road
Cha lottesville, VA 22902-4596
RE: ZMA-92-13 and SP-93-02
Mr. Fritz:
I have lived in North Garden for 36 years at my husband's home place where
he as born. His family has owned the property since the early 1900's, property
whi h is directly adjacent to the property owned by Mr. Clark which is now under
con ideration for rezoning for multiple (in excess of 60) units. I have always
bee proud of the area and have frequently told associates that the drive south
on oute 29 was worth taking in the fall to see the scenic view and the fall
fol 'age. I would hate to see the public deprived of the view looking across the
pro erty in question, which can be seen from Route 29, and seeing row upon row
of ouses instead of, at the most, a well planned development which follows the
lim'ts spelled out in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.3.3
entitled "Rural Preservation Development".
Of even more immediate concern to me is the prospect of innumerable wells
an septic systems which would affect the quality of life of myself and my
neighbors who have built houses and developed their properties to be an asset to
th small community of North Garden. I think the Albemarle County Department of
Pl nning and Community Development should re-evaluate the zoning designation of
th small "community" of North Garden as "village designate" in light of the
co cern of the previous board members in stipulating that there were
po sibilities of problems providing sufficient water under that designation.
Another concern is the non-to 1 erab 1 e roads wh i ch front the property in
qu stion. When I leave home to go to work in Charlottesville each morning, I
wi 11 not take the road front i ng that property, even though it wi 11 cut off
ap roximately 1 1/2 miles from my daily trip to work, one way, because it is so
da gerous. It is even more so when the roads are wet and you have to move over
to allow another vehicle to pass because of the danger of sliding into a ditch
or off the road and down an embankment
- A'I'I'ACffi'~ r, PN:E 6
~
.,
Mr Fritz
February 16, 1993
Pa'e 2
In closing, I wish to state that I support your recommendation to the
Pl nning Commission that it deny said appl ication. I was at the hearing on
Fe ruary 9th and was completely at a loss to understand the basis for the outcome
of that hearing.
Thank you for taking your time to read my letter.
Sincerely,
&VfI1 71 ' ~~
Ann N. Smith
fJJws. :r. 'Benrenat
P.O. 'Bo?(85
!Af9rtfi (jardettJ 0/.9l 22959.0085
- A'ITACH1'1F:NT c; PN:F 7
.~ -- - -- ..
rES 1 7 1993
804-977-7666 Ut3rJ~!1fl~ ~pt.
February 15, 1993
r. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
ounty of Albemarle
epartment of Planning & Community Development
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville, VA 22902-4596
ZMA-92-13 and SP-93-02
Clark Property, North Garden, Virginia
ear Mr. Fritz:
When I was a little boy my grandmother told me many stories about my
bemarle County heritage. One such story was about an adventure she had as a
ix-year-old child (in 1903).
My great-great-grandfather, Thomas Garth Michie, was at that
time a member of the Albemarle COWlty School Board and in that
fWlction it was occasionally necessary for him to review the Red Hill
School register. He and his family were living near Miller School
and his typical trip to and from Red Hill School, by horse and buggy,
took around two hours. On one such trip his wife suggested that he
take his granddaughter, Lillie Lee, with him. She knew that such a
trip might be prolonged if he were to fall asleep on the way, whereby
the horse would pull to the side of the road, stop and feed. There
would be little likelihood of that happening if Grandfather had to
tend to a six-year-old child.
My grandmother, Lillie Lee, explainecl that the trip down the Old
Plank Road was quite an adventure for her. She remembered how,
after her grandfather had gotten the register he took her to the top of
the school where they were able to look out of a window at the
beautiful surrounding hills and mountains.
As Grandmother engaged her elder years these childhood
memories became more vivid and she found herself able to recall the
view of a nearby farmhouse with planted fields, and a glimpse here
and there of the Hardware River glistening through the trees.
In 1985 I found myself fortunate enough to acquire property adjacent to Red
ill School and built a home where I now reside with my wife, Maria. Today,
azing from the many windows of our home, my eyes give me more than the
.
- ATI'ACHf'1Er\F.1:' G PAf:;E 8
~
~
Mr. 'Wif[iiJln 'D. :Fritz
:FwTlU1l'y 1~ 1!J93
Page 2
natural beauty they behold. When I see the trees and the mountains and the
farmhouse with its planted fields and the Hardware River making its endless
run, I can feel my great-great-grandfather's presence. Silently I thank him and
ater generations for what they left us to watch over.
As we Americans approach the next millennium we recognize the need to
espect and protect the environment so we, too, can leave something of value to
enerations that follow. In that sense we are all stewards of the land, even of our
eighbor's land. Yet most of us also respect the rights that property owners
hould have to exert control over their properties, within limits (such as those
'mits outlined under Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.3.3
ntitled "Rural Preservation Development").
As I understand it, the above-captioned applications are premised on a
ossible future housing development which currently lacks:
· tangible plans regarding construction sites and entrances,
· adequate public roadways wherever entrances might be located,
· evidence as to the possible/probable environmental impact of this
"conceptual" development and,
· evidence that such a development would not be a threat to existing water
supplies.
Therefore, at this juncture, I support your recommendation to the Planning
ommission that it deny said application and am curious as to what would
otivate them to even consider approval under these circumstances. In
ddition, I would appreciate any assistance that you can offer to point me in the
ight direction toward influencing the Commission to reconsider whether North
arden is really suitable for village residential development due to the difficulty
that the residents, including myself, have had in locating adequate water
supplies.
Thank you for taking some of your valuable time to read this letter.
Yours truly,
dift!~
FB/mlb
opy: Edward H. Bain, Jr., Esq.
ent via certified mail: Fritz-P133642536.Bain - P 133 642539.
.
- A'ITACHMENT G PAGE 9
~
.,
Eleanor . May
PROFESSOR 'MERITA OF I3USINESS ADMINISTRATION
REC';EIVED
. William D. Fritz
unty of Albemarle
anning Department
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
February 16, 1993
P!3nn~ng Dep"i.
FEB 1 7 \993
Bill,
I had, hoped that after you finally successfully accomplishing
e solution to the need for a special use permit for the Adventure
und property, it would not be necessary for me to interfere and
ke a position w'i th the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission
another issue for some time. But now, however, the issue is in
home neighborhood--North Garden.
I am very concerned about the possibility of approval of the
ark-Yancey development. My primary concern is, of course, too
ch development in this rural neighborhood, one of the few places
the country which is truly integrated--black and whitej upper-,
ddle-, and lower incomesj professional, blue collar, and retiredj
d large, medium, and small landholders. These characteristics
e what make North. Garden unique and very attractive to me and
hers. I hope nothing happens to alter this unusual attribute
cause it cannot be restored if it is ever lost.
But a more specific concern is the situation here in the area
ncerning the limited supply of ground water in the neighborhood.
en I bought my house, almost 20 'years ago, I was too naive to ask
e right questions. But I quickly learned that my land would not
pplyenough water to meet my needs. I had a new well drilled and
en another (the existing old well's production was insufficient
r me), but found that neither supplied any water. I was told by
geologist who I sought for assistance on this problem, that the
ck here is Lovingston Gneiss, a type which does not hold water.
us there was no way to drill a satisfactory well. (I now have
o pumps, one pumping from the old well to one of the new "wells".
e newer hole in the ground serves as a reservoir from which the
ter is pumped into my house. But I still have to very careful
out my water consumption, especially in a period with limited
in. )
And I am not the only one with this problem. Ronald Woodson,
next door neighbor had the same kind of experience when he build
h's housej others in North Garden have similar stories to tell.
A so, when I was on the Board of Ameribanc Savings and Loan, we
Mayfield · North Garden, Virginia 22959 · (804) 295-7624
- ATI'ACfMENT G PAGE 10
..
.,
ooked very carefully at mortgage applications from this area (as
~ell as some other ares of the County) because occasionally there
~as no evidence of sufficient water to serve the residence. We had
to turn down some mortgage applications for this reason.
When the Master Plan recommended that the area for North
Carde~ be expanded to allow for growth in the County, I expressed
ny concern about how the water and sewerage needs would be met. I
"as assured that the Master Plan had taken these issues into
consideration, but that the Plan probably would involve both
central water and sewer.
But now this Clark-Yancey application has come in wi th no
evidence of a determination of water availability. And if they do
find that they have water--on each of the proposed lots (the
~roblem is very spottY)--I then am concerned about what happens to
the water supply of the people that now have to depend on the
limited supply of ground water in the North Garden area. I assume
wle would have no recourse if this development leaves us wi th
insufficient water for our needs. But it could make our residences
unlivable.
I apologize for the length of this letter. But I wanted to be
sure that you and the Planning Commission were aware of the
pptential problems to the present landowners in the area of thi~
pir-oposal.
Sincerely,
~~/J
.
I
- A'ITACHHENT G PArili 11
.. - ~.~~ ,,"-,........OJ .. """"......;1'
..,
FEB 1 7 1993
TO: Albemarle cou~p{pnning Board..
FROM: John Mesinger '~~AXA~ ~
RE: Clark Rezoning eartrrg. ~ '--
DATE: 2/12/93
P!8nn~ng Dept
The process of the petitioners' rezoning request appeared to
be an exercise in "smoke and mirrors" . While petitioners
had done all required of them to present their case, they
had done nothing substantial to allow the commission to make
an informed decision, ie offering an pig in a poke."
The first presentation by the retained architect began with
an offering of enlarged copies of an ill-conceived and
constructed plat dating back to a month or so before the
county zoning plan went into effect in 1980. Everyone could
see that it had major problemG as a plan for development.
However, that plat is irrelevant to the issue at hand: what
was not supplied for the planner's study and your
information was a comparable plat for what they really
intended to do. I certainly hope a licenced architect could
come up with better ideas, but right now they are locked in
his head, if they have progressed to that stage.
In the absence of an informational response to the
request for such data on critical issues, how
commission vote in favor of the change? For one
from the comprehensive plan:
VF.RIPTC:A'T'TON OF SUITABLE WATER SUPPLY SHAUl BE REQUIRED
FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS DUE TO THE UNCERTAINTY OF
AVAILABLE GROUNDWATER AND STUDIES INDICATING DIFFICULTY IN
PROVIDING CENTRAL UTILITIES pg 189
planner's
could the
example,
How do you expect to verify [establish the truth or reality]
of sufficient groundwater in that location for 74 houses
(the maximum number given as available under the proposed
new zoning]? Mr. Clark has not provided anything meeting
that criterion and Mr. Yancey said in public they would not
spend the money to prove a well or wells for the project.
We can see surface spring water on the hillsides from where
we live. There may be difficulty in treating water- born
wastes from so many homes which might be no problem for, say
20. If Mr. Yancey plans to enter off the existing roads in
their present condition instead of waiting until they are
widened in a few years along with the paving that is now
proposed for them, he should meet a standard to allow access
by very heavy trucks [fire,etc] without harm to the flood
plain. Other than saying he will do something appropriate,
he has given you no data upon which to make a judgement.some
of his 'projected 19 entrances are on blind curves.
I
I
I
- ATI'ACHMENT r; PAGE 12
~
.,
2
Certainly the use right of way easement he filed on a farm
lane which opens onto 712 near a blind curve from the south
in the 1980 plat is inadequate for the project~d size of the
traffic flow of even 20 homes.
MOST OF THE VILLAGE IS DESIGNATED FOR VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL.
NORTH GARDEN IS FELT TO HOLD GREAT POTENTIAL FOR LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.. ...pg 189
Given all of the problems we feel low density in this case
should be rural 5 acres.
The later discussion centering around the petitioners'
intent to build by right if zoning change was denied seems
to me to be a separate issue to be dealt with in the usual
ways. He still needs access roads that will satisfy county
regulations. If he wants 19 entrances he can file the forms
and leave his check for $16,000+ at the county office. He
still will have to find satisfactory water flow [whatever
that miy be]. His idea of a deep well and cistern [not septic
tank] for storage might be easier to do for 20 or so houses.
If his acts drain the wells of neighbors because of his
well's depth and draw, neighbors will seek satisfaction in
the courts.
The idea of building duplexes seemed to shock the board. Any
architect worth his salt could produce plans for attractive,
marketable doubles such as those at Highlands At The Mechums
River development. Do you mistrust Mr. yancey and expect him
to build shoddy houses? I hope we do not have that to fear
also.
In sum, my concern is the absence of any hard data to deal
favorably with the defects of the site. I certainly
recommend a rejection on that basis. Frankly, if nineteen
homes are eventually built on the property, it will
measurably reduce the density of the problems enumerated. I
am curious as to how the potential construction financers
regard this problematic territory. Have they more hard data
than has been shared with the board?
On behalf of myself and the other owners of Indian
development, I respectfully request a denial of the
petitions for rezoning and thank you for your attention.
Hill
two
- ATI'ACHHENT ~ PAGE 13
JANICE ANN FAULCONER
February 17, 1993
I\jfr. William Fritz
I- ~bemarle County Planning Commission
4p 1 McIntire Road
C harlottesville, VA 22902
RECEIVED
fEB 1 7 1993
S PRIECT: NORTH GARDEN DEVELOPMENT
Planning Dept.
I ~ear Mr. Fritz
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed rezoning of the 102 acre parcel
o fvned by George and William Clark. I am a property owner on the corner of Routes 710 and
7 0, as well as on Rt. 760. While I am not opposed to some growth in the area, I feel that the
reRuest made by Mr. Clark and Mr. Yancey goes way beyond that. Most of the current residents
In the area have moved here for several reasons including the quietness, peacefulness, and beauty
of the area. A development of this proposed size would really change those aspects of the
m 'ghborhood.
My first and biggest concern is the water situation in this particular area. I am living on a
10 where the previous owner had two or three dry wells. I currently have a good supply of
w ter, and would like to make sure that this continues. A large development right around the
corner would certainly have a big impact on the ground water and could possibly cause problems
fo the rest of us. What effect will this type of development have on the south fork of the
He rdware River? What type of septic will be put in, where will it flow, and how will it affect the
rh er?
I also have major problems with what a development of this size would do to the traffic
flew. The roads to the area are in horrible shape as it is and having 100+ more cars traveling the
na row winding gravel roads is outrageous. My understanding is that the roads are not scheduled
to be improved until some time in 1996 or 1997. What will happen in the meantime as a
de velopment is being constructed? Living on the corner by Red Hill School, I see the traffic in
thl morning arid in the afternoon with the school buses, faculty, and parents coming and going. I
do not particularly want to see this much traffic all day.
In closing, I feel that the owners and developers are not being totally honest with their
ne.jghbors, by not supplying us with the information we want, and by not really caring about our
co lcerns. We would appreciate your consideration on the views of the neighborhood, and make
the developers answer the questions before making a decision.
Sincerely,
~xo 'J ~~CVl'-lA~
J~C~~~CONER
- A'ITACHI'1ENT G PN;E 14
..
..,
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
County Of Albemarle
Department of PLanning and Community Development
40 1 McIntire Road
Charlottesville. Va. 22902-4596
RECEIVED
fEB 1 7 1993
P' .
l3nn!ng Dept.
Re: ZMA-92-l3 and SP-93-02
Clark Property, North Garden
Dear Mr. Fritz,
Being from a rural area is certainly one of the influences in my
life that has contributed to an appreciation of open space and the
preservation of a balance in land usage. It is doubtful that anyone
fully understands the contribution that beautiful, views coupled with
opportunity to explore outdoor interests makes in the life of
residents. Based on the representation at the February 9th zoning
meeting, it is safe to say that many are residents of North Garden
through a process of selection that is significantly influenced by the
surrounding beauty and rural atmosphere.
The purchase of our home in June of 1992 completed a year
and a half long persuit to locate desirable property in a rural area
that was less than 30 minutes from our work in Charlottesville. I am
certain that you and the Planning Commission are aware of how
difficult it is to locate property in the Albemarle area that is not in a
sub-divsion and provides a rural atmosphere. We did our home-
work and discovered that parts of North Garden are in designated
growth areas. Our concerns about future large scale development
were mitigated by several factors, most notably, the com mon
knowledge that our area has a history of inadequate water supply.
I would like to commend the Planning Staff and you in
particular for the outstanding presentation of research con.cerning
the rezoning in the Staff Report. However, I am disappointed in the
manner in which the meeting was conducted. As you may recall
after a periOd of time, Mr. Grimm closed the floor to pUblic
statements. Motions were made and seconded to vote on the
application for rezoning. The mood of the Planning Com mission did
not seem to be going in Mr. Yancey's favor.
1
- A'ITACHHENT G PAGE 15
..
..
After the floor was closed and im mediately after the motions were
made Mr. Yancey spoke on at least two separate occasions and was
responded to by the Planning Commission. This quick, out-of-
procedure response from Mr. Yancey was to say to the Planning
Commission that he did not understand that proffers for water were
"required" before rezoning could be considered. Two letters from Mr.
Fritz, sited below and enclosed. explained the requirement prior to
the meeting on February 9th.
A letter dated January 12, 1993 from you to Mr. George Clark.
(third paragraph). states "While this office cannot anticipate actions
of the Planning Commission and Board, it should be noted that every
residential rezoning which has been approved since adoption of the
current Comprehensive Plan has been accompanied by (conceptual)
development plans or proffers or both." This letter was copied to
Edward Eichman Jr.. Mr. Clark's architect.
Another letter dated January 4. 1993 to Mr. Eichman Jr. from
you states (third paragraph) "The Comprehensive Plan contains many
recommendations regarding development in North Garden including
"Verification of suitable water supply shall be required for
development proposals due to the uncertainty of available ground
water and studies indicating difficulty in providing central utilities"
(page 189). Such verification will be necessary for appropriate staff
review." Several representatives from the North Garden area had
copies of the letters sited above however. since they respected the
"closed to public comment" request by the Planning Commission,
none of the residents spoke about the letters' content. Perhaps the
Planning Commision members did not remember the content of these
letters at the time? For whatever reason, and I suspect no malice
intended, they did not referr to the letters either.
I respect the the rights that property owners should have ,to
determine responsible land use. However, the six areas of concern
sited by the Planning Staff and the entry in the Comprehensive Plan
regarding water supply in this area are very serious. As Mrs. Huckel
pointed out in the discussions that evening. If the water supply
were adversely affected due to this development (and others) the
sub-division, the local residents and Red Hill School are so far
removed from public water supplies that it would be cost prohibitive
for the county to rescue this area.
I
- A'ITACHMENT G PAGE 16
..
..
It is my understanding that rezoning would render the Planning
Commission powerless to control the development of this property
and place the water concern in the hands or the Health Department.
Therefor I am recommending that the rezoning application be
denied. In addition, I am in favor of deleting the North Garden area
from the designated growth distinction in the Comprehensive Plan.
Your guidance in regard to this issue is appreciated.
Thank -You for your time and consideration of this letter.
Sincerely,
IJ~
Pat Simpson
PPS/pps
Copy: Edward H. Bain, Jr., Esq.
Ms. Ellen Anderson
Enclosures:Letter dated January 4, 1993
Letter dated January 12. 1993
I
February 16,1993
Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner
County of Albermarle
Department of Planning & Community
401 ~clntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
ATI'ACHMENT G PAGE 17
WI .,
Development fEB 1 7 1993
Dl"'nning D I.
I ~~. .. ep~.
Dear Mr. Fritz,
Having attended the February 9 1993 meeting of the Albermarle
Coun~y Planning Commission, we would like to comment on applications
ZMA-92-13 and SP-93-02 which relate to a development proposal in the
comm~nity of North Garden by George and William Clark.
We are strongly opposed to these requests as the applicants have
fail~d to provide pertinent information on the following pOints of
conc~rn:
- availability of adequate groundwater for the proposed
development (the Comprehensive Plan states clearly on
p. 189 that "verification of suitable water supply
shall be required for development proposals" in the
Village of North Garden, and the applicants have not
provided any such verification);
- impact on neigboring residents' already-scarce water
supplies (difficulties in finding and maintaining
adequate flow in the area are well-known and
documented) ;
- scale and design of the proposed development (how many
dwelling units? where will they be located? how will
critical slopes and floodplain be protected?)
- location and number of suitable entrances;
- impact on the floodplain due to stream crossing(s)
required for access;
- the effect of greatly increased traffic on poor
secondary roads (these roads are unusually hazardous
and not scheduled for improvement for several years.)
In short, we are opposed to ZMA-92-13 and SP-93-02 for all the
reacons detailed in the Planning Department's report which recommends
den'al of both applications. Indeed we are at a loss to understand
how these requests came to be deferred when clearly none of the
Plarning Department's concerns (in attachment D of the staff report),
par1icularly "verification of suitable water supply", had been
addJessed by the applicants prior to the February 9 meeting of the
PlaI ning Commission.
~ ATI'ACHMENT G PAGE 18
~
-2
.,
In voicing our opposition to the abovementioned applications, we
do not wish to deny the landowners their right to utilize this
propErty in a profitable manner, but only within the existing zoning.
We wculd be inclined to view favorably a responsible development
propcsal which would meet the criteria cited by the Planning
Depa tment and which would respect and preserve the natural integrity
of tIe land. For example, a Rural Preservation Development approach
usin~ a cluster design could very possibly satisfy the needs of the
owne and the developer, while allaying the concerns of both
comm nity members and the Planning Department. Such an approach would
not equire rezoning and would preserve a significant amount of this
propErty as open space (and possibly for continued agricultural use)
for ~enerations to follow.
Thank you for your continued and careful consideration of this
mattE r.
Yours sincerely,
~
7(j;~ JJJ. Bil/nJ
Thomas P. Carter & Ruth W. Rollins
Rt.2 Box 88
North Garden, VA 22959
- ATI'AC1f.\1ErIT' G PAGE 19
..
.,
DAVE SIMPSON
ROlITE 1 BOX 656-L
NORTH GARDEN, VA 22959
February 16, 1993
RECEIVED
fEB , 7 \993
Plann~ng Dept
William Fritz, Senier Planner
401 McIntire Rood
O1arlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA092-13 and SP-93-02
Oark Prq1erty, North Garden, Virginia
Dear Mr Fritz,
I am writing you to e<press the worry and disappdntment that I took
heme fran the Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 9, 1993.
Part r:i my disappdntment I suppose is fran a dassic over confidenre that
the people elected andl cr suhiequently appointed to public dfkes would be
reascnatie, ratiooal and fair to the dtizenry they are appdnted to serve. I think
that I am like many Americans who fer the last decade have sat quietly en the
perimeter d the pditica1 arena with a nagging and highly caltagious disinterest.
With the nevv administratien in Washingten, and the changing pditical
ccmplexioo d the 90's that citer us slogans like" we're dang things fer people
whowcrk hard and play by the rules", I began tofee1 the fevers d apathy rise
from my head and lights ct ncpe go 00. Thew lights were ncx turned ctf OOt
they were certainly dimmed as I thooght over the events that toci< place at that
meeting.
I thought that the planning staff crought out in their repat a number ct
valid issues, any ene of them, in my mind woold be cause for denial at this
stage. I never felt that everyene en the planning arnmissioo understood the full
impact that giving approval to this rezening applicatien beia-e the water studies
were dene, and the cxher five issues the planners panted out were addressed,
was like giving Mr. Yancey a tiank check. Once the zening is approved the
comty has no chace but to let him build his houses, denying the wisdan ct the
planning staff and sidestepping the passage from the County Plan (page 189) II
Verificatioo r:i suitable water supply shall bereqlJ.i.I:W fer development
prcposals due to the uncertainty ct available groond water and studies
indicating difficulty in prooding rentral utilities." I feel1ike the planning
canmiSsion would be shrugging its respcosibility if this zening crdinance were
passed 00 to another agency to regulate.
. .
- ATrACJIT'.'1EN'T' G :OA(;E 2!1
..
..,
I thought that meeting on Feb. 9th was C01ducted in a way that was net
fair to all involved. After Mr. Grtmm had dosed the putiie part d the heating,
everyooe sat quietly, respecting parliamentary pra:edure and the instructioo a
the chairman Everyooe except Mr. Yancey. Ray O1arles calld see that thing
were not going well fer A L Yancey in the planning ocmmissioos discussioo
when he jumped to his feet shamlessly disrupting due process. The people in the
audience watched in disbeli~ as he was allCM'ed to take charge ci the flCM' d the
meeting
I am aware that there could be language introouced by the applicant in the
way d prafers that cx::uld circumvent the issues, allcming him to make premises
to do things that he will do 0000 rezooing is approved I urge you to maintain
sane hand in the prcxnise keeping process and net approve this rezooing until
all the issues have been fully addressed.
letter.
Thank you fer your ronsideratioo and fO" taking the time to read my
respectfUllY.\) _
G)~~
Dave Simpsoo.
cc Edward H. Bain, Jr
Ellen Anderson
- ATI'ACHMFm G PAGE 21
~
..
Pr. & Mrs. David N. Reynolds
24 Overlook Drive
~harlottesville, Virginia 22903
RECEIVED
fEB 1 7 1993
Ol:':'~r"n;nf'l Dept.
t-- ~ .......... L. a... 1i:::1 '. t.
February 17, 1993
Dear Mr. Fritz,
I have been advised that if you receive my letter prior
o 5 p.m. on Wednesday that it will be received by the Planning
I ommission prior to their consideration of the rezoning and
pecial use permits for the Clarke property. I am concerned
hat the granting of the rezoning would set a precedent since
t is the first time an application has been made in the North
arden Village Residential area.
'11 summarize my concerns:
1) water
2) physical features of the site
3) access problems
Prior to moving to North Garden eight years ago, we enjoyed
iving in Washington State. My husband was employed as a
Ihysician at a naval base. One of the doctors being reassigned
lad a ho~se for sale in a nicely wooded, hilly area so we
, ent to see it. We went back several times, and determined that
\e would make an offer to buy the house. It was then that the
(wners revealed that this fairly large neighborhood was experiencing
c water problem. It seems the neighborhood's central well
(Dperated by the developer was experiencing difficulties and did
ot always provide sufficient water to meet the daily needs of
he residents. The developer was not inclined to help them
bbtain more water, nor was the nearest utility, so they were
orced to hire an attorney. Needless to S0Y (and thanks to the
l10nesty of the owner) we did not buy the house. I do not believe
hat the neighborhood's water problem was ever resolved during
he two years that I lived there, and that house remained unsold
nd vacant.
In that same neighborhood lived another Navy doctor who was
~ot as honest as the one previoUSly referred to. He left the
~ilitary to go into private practice, arranging a mortgage and
purchasing a house in a town several hundred miles away. When he
noved he simply defaulted on the loan on the house having the
~ater problem, leaving the bank (actually, the taxpayers since this
~as insured by the Veteran's Administration) hOlding the bag
In this case the bag was empty.)
I had a friend living nearby in a different neighborhood.
~ike many of us she was fortunate enough to possess a washing machine,
~owever, she could not use it because her lot had inadequate
~rainage and her system backed up if overtaxed. She carted her 6
nember family'S dirty clothes to the laundramat several times a
lreek.
- ATI'ACr11'1ENT G PA('~ 22
..
...
I was surprised to learn of the proposed development of
the Clark property in North Garden. Although the property
~ad been offered for sale as long as I have lived here, which
is eight years, no one had purchased it. I walked the land
~yself,but I could not afford to purchase it. The physical
features of the property are intriguing. There are some
critical slopes, as well as a large floodplain leading down
to a large tributary of the Hardware River, which is subject
flooding. One would have to cross the river and the floodplain
to gain public access to this property. It is interesting
to me that the existing plat was ever put to record, since
the only access was an easement over a neighboring farm lane
which comes out onto a bli.1d spot onto hardsurface 712. I'm
~o engineer, but the sight distance in the easterly direction
~ust be about 15 feet, and there have been several instances
I~here cows crossing the road from one field to another have
~een hi t by cars, even when a f armworJ<:er ,vas present. I
~elieve my neighbors inte;id to close off this easement when
Mr. Clark gains access from gravel 712, so that this may not
be able to be used as an emergency exit for a large development
~s Mr. GloecJ<:ner suggested to you in his letter dated January.
I can only surmize that the high initial price tag and
pvercoming the physical challenges to development are the
~eason no one has yet attempted it! If I were a developer,
I know I would probably ask the question, "How many lots do
I need to sell to recoup my development costs and make a profit?"?
Instead, shouldn't someone asJ<: the question, "!-low many lots
can this land support?"?
While the comprehensive plan (Which I assume could con-
ceivably be changed since it is subject to review this
summer) now shows village residential use around North Garden,
it is unclear to me how they planned to acomplish this density
without central utilities, since I am aware that a number of
persons living nearby have had problems finding water.
Lovingston residents have also had grave problems and I
believe the same rock formation may underlie North Carden.
I am concerned that evenif water is found on the Clark
property now, future residents of that development could find'
themselves without adequate water supplies. Could they bring
suit against the county to pay for the creation of central
utilities, since the water issue was addressed in the comprehensive
plan? And where would the water come from? The James River?
A newly created reservior? How much will this cost the taxpayers?
Many people will agree that development is desirable in that
it provides jobs. But isn't that rather short-sighted?
If this parcel is to be developed, I hope it can be done
as it is currently platted.-
Thank you for your time,
p, 1 fI/lrs- ),";'c( 77 Jl;f4
- ATTACHMENT G PAGE 23
...
~
FEB 1 D 1993
I'") ,
~JepL
4135 Indian Lane
North Garden VA 22959
February 16, 1993
Mr. W lliam D. Fritz, Senior Planner
Depar ment of Planning and Community Development
Albern rle County
401 M Intire Road
Charl ttesville, VA 22903
Dear
acros
from
futur
Since
heard
was p
troub
impac
was s
but 0
prese
water
an ap
will
possi
Commi
about
chara
prese
condu
subst
devel
conce
chara
untol
floor
on th
flood
Route
I see
will
-92-13 and SP-93-02
live in Indian Hill, a new development in North Garden just
Route 712 from the 102 acres under consideration for rezoning
to VR. I, like many of my neighbors, am concerned about the
of our water supply if such a rezoning is ever approved.
moving to North Garden two and one-half years ago, I have
numerous stories about residents having trouble with water. I
esent at the February 9th Planning Commission meeting, and was
ed by the lack of consideration given by the Commission to the
such a rezoning could have on existinq water supplies. Much
id about finding adequate water for the proposed development,
ly Mrs. Huckle consistently spoke out about the dangers this
ts to current homeowners. I have since been told that if our
supply is lost because of any development which results from
roved rezoning, Albemarle County and the Planning Commission
ot take any responsibility and hence will abandon us. Is it
le that we can all lose out because of a decision made by the
sion?
esides being concerned for our water supply, I am concerned
the impact such a rezoning could have on the environment and
ter of the North Garden community. The petitioners did not
t a development plan, they did not conduct, or even offer to
t, any water impact study, and they even threatened to build a
ndard development. Such an irresponsible approach to
pment clearly indicates that the pretitioners are not at all
ned with preserving the North Garden environment and
ter. Hence, a rezoning of the land could open the door to
disasters.
s I am writing this letter, I am looking out from the second
of our house. I can see several large pools of water sitting
floodplain. I am also holding four pictures of this same
lain after it flooded over in 1969. I see the bridge over
712 destroyed, I see huge trees ripped out of the ground, and
big rocks washed up from the river. I hope the Commissioners
ake the time to study this area before they vote on SP-93-02.
am grateful to you and your staff for pointing out all of the
- ATTACHMENT G PAGE 24
..
--
probl~ms associated with ZMA-92-13 and SP-93-02. Obviously I support
your ~ecommendation to the Commission that both be denied.
Furth~rmore, I recommend to the Commission that, in light of all of
these problems, they reconsider the VR designation for this area
when ~hey reassess the Comprehensive Plan.
~hank you for all of your consideration regarding this matter.
~. ncere'tr'
~ ),--ft!c, L'b /ri/~/
oe G'arofa~
- I'\$.J
. ~~ \\ ) ~ ~ .j ~ t!~: ~'i ~ ~
~-~ ~~ ~~ ~~~' ~. ;~ . Ii ~~'I. ~
· ~.~ ~ ~&~~ 5 ~~ ~~~~ ~'~
I' . ~~~ ~t~~ ~~,~ ~~~1\; ~'1~~s~
, ~~. ~,-) ~ ,~' ~. ~. :~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ '~ . ~ <,., , ~ ~ ~~ ' ~
l!")
N
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~'~ ~
~ ~~':F1 ~ ~~ ~ ~.~.
i1 o,,~~, ~ '\'~ ~~ "'~~~ J, ~:1~ ~
?e ~ -.s; ~.~ \3~ ~~ ~ ~ . "" ~ ~
~ '-J \"
~
I ,
, ) "-
~
~. ~
~
1~" ' ~ ~: )11 \J ~~
~ '," ~ . ~ ~,i)?1 "~~'~ d ~
~ 5 ~ ~ ~'" ~~ ~ ~,~~ ~ 2\. ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ )'" '-t "- ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ t ~~ .~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~ '\:; ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~\~ ~ '~ '" _ ~ L~
~ ~~) i ~ ~ J ) ~i~ ~~
,~'-:~~ ~ ~ ss ~' .t~~~ ~~ ~
~ ~i~~~,,~ ~~~ N~~1<~~~
~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ,~~ ~ ~ i~ .~~
~ ~. { <. ~ ' ~ ~. ~ ~~" ~ ~
~~. ~~ l ~ 1 ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ '~i~"S~'
~ -~ -~~ ~,~ ~ ~ . c~ ~ ~
~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~~]Vi ~~ ~ ~ ~
c
W ~.l
:>
-
w
o
w
a:
" .
- ATl'ACHMENT r; PAGE 26
~
-
IIW
~
..~~
: ~~'~ s ~
; ~.~~)~~
. '~f
. ~;~~~
. '0~~~
~~~~
. .-:..~~..... .. ..
.
- AT!'ACHJl1ENT r; PAr;E 27
..
~
r=.~~.i~~
".... . ,:.,
~j:_'l. H:--:~.
" - :I (_) ,-.',)- \ .",-,
~.tt) r.. ';f;oJ
Ro te 2, Box 71
No th Garden, Virginia 22959
Fe ruary 22, 1993
P~~~ri~"i_:;::J DE;j,JL
Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner
De artment of Planning & Community Development
Co nty of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Ch rlottesville~ Virginia 22901
Re: Clark, Clark & Yancey Rezoning
102 Acres, ZMA9213
Dear Mr. Fritz:
As a member of the North Garden community and land owner
wit in the North Garden growth area, I would like to express
se eral thoughts regarding the rezoning request noted above:
· I support the Comprehensive Plan. I believe that
concentrating the future growth as much as possible
into village centers is a reasonable and desirable
means to preserve rural land, concentrate services, and
provide for our new residents.
· I also believe that Messrs. Clark, Clark and Yancey
deserve a fair opportunity to develop the land in a way
which provides a reasonable financial return for them.
· I also believe, however, that the current residents of
the area, together with the Planning staff, Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors, deserve to know
wl1at kind of impacts can be expected from any such
rezoning. The only way to evaluate these impacts on
the neighborhood is through a specific and binding
plan. Vague proffers do not address the important and
legitimate concerns of the community. The simple fact
that the land is designated for 1 DUjacre density in
the Comprehensive Plan alone is certainly not enough to
justify rezoning.
· The existing subdivision of this property into 5+ acre
lots is unfortunate for all. For the developer, it
would certainly be difficult to sell such odd-shaped
lots in such an unfortunate arrangement. For the
community, this aggregation of gerrymandered parcels
- A'ITACHf'1ENT S PN':rE 28
-.-
~
Mr. Bill Fritz
Fe ruary 22, 1993
Pa e 2
would add nothing to the neighborhood, but would put
additional stress on services and seriously degrade one
of the most attractive parts of our community, the
Hardware Valley.
· Any special use permit to cross the Hardware River
should be rejected unless it is accompanied by a
thorough hydrologic study of the Hardware River
drainage, its floodplain and the impact of such a
crossing on the land adjacent to the stream, both
upstream and downstream. A specific and binding
culvert or bridge design should be a part of any
approval.
· Because both the request for rezoning and the request
for a Special Use Permit lack the specific information
necessary to evaluate either, I believe both must be
denied. I also think, however, that the applicants
should be encouraged to develop a plan which can be
discussed with the neighborhood, the staff, and
eventually the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors. Such an approach will allow for the
development of a plan which is good for both the
developers and the community.
Finally, having read the file of this petition for rezoning
t week, I would like to commend you and the rest of the
nning staff for a clear and sound review of the application
erials.
truly yours,
,4
D:stiibuted to [bafd:~,-~
\ " . i.' _ ~-, .-'~..~ ~. .; r .... .>1:' ~
Agendl! :1'!(!! ,i')' _-L_.....;.;:....;._..l._~ I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
February 24, 1993
An rew Dracopoli
Wor ell Investments Inc.
P. . Box 5386
Ch rlottesville, VA 22905
ZMA-92-l2 and SP-92-66 Worrell Land and Cattle Company
Mr. Dracopoli:
Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 23, 1993,
imously recommended approval of the above-noted requests to the Albemarle
Co ty Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the
, following agreements:
1. Establishment of the Land Use Plan dated November 11, 1992 and
revised January 20, 1993 as the approved application plan for the
Planned Development-Mixed Commercial and Commercial Office zoned
property.
2. The supporting commercial uses shall be in accordance with those
uses permitted by-right in the C-l zone as modified by Section 9.4.3
of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The residential uses are not required to be developed on a pro-rata
basis with the office development in accordance with Section 9.4 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Provision of private roads within the development designed to meet
mountainous terrain standards. I
5. The Worrell Land and Cattle Company agrees to pay for the necessary
right turn and taper lanes at the development's entrances, along
Route 250 East. The right turn lanes shall be constructed as each
entrance is established. The developer also agrees to provide an
additional left turn lane and traffic signal on Route 250 East at
the primary and secondary entrance to the site. These improvements
shall be constructed upon demand of the Virginia Department of
ATIdrew Dracopoli
Pa~e 2
Fe~ruary 24, 1993
Transportation in accordance with their letter dated February 8, 1993, or
earlier at the developer's option provided the primary or secondary
entrance meets the signalization warrants as given in the latest edition
of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
6. The applicant will utilize detailed design guidelines consistent
with the outline included as Appendix I of the Peter Jefferson Place
Application Plan book.
7. Except those sites shown as Parcels A-2, B-1, and B-2 on the Land
Use Map (Tax Map 78 Parcels 20K, 71, and 7lA), all future site plans
shall be reviewed by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
if it is determined the site will be visible from Interstate 64 or
Route 250 East.
8. Setbacks shall be as follows:
~ Commercial and Office Uses:
Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any
structures, except signs, shall be erected closer than
thirty (30) feet to any public street right-of-way. No
off-street parking or loading space shall be located
closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right-of-
way.
Adjacent to internal private streets: The setbacks for
buildings and parking may be reduced to ten (10) feet
provided adequate sight distance is maintained and
minimum landscaping requirements are met.
~ Residential Uses:
Minimum yards: Front twenty-five (25) feet, side fifteen (15) feet,
rear twenty (20) feet. Minimum side yards shall be reduced to not
less than ten (10) feet in accordance with Section 4.11.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Setbacks for the townhouses adjacent to the park
may be reduced to five feet surrounding the loop road.
9. Administrative approval of all future site plans and subdivision
plats. In the spirit of Section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance,
the Director of Planning and Community Development shall be
authorized discretion over reasonable variations from the approved
zoning application plan.
10. Future requests for parking decks or a helistop will require
additional Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors reviews.
.
rew Dracopo1i
e 3
ruary 24, 1993
ase be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this
ition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 17. 1993. Any new
additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the
rk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
ring date.
should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action,
do not hesitate to contact me.
Ri hard E. Tarbell
Se ior Planner
RE /jcw
cc Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Robert Hofricter
Angela Tucker
Jay Sch10thauer
Pete Gorham
Marcia Joseph
) .
"C
" .
S"AFF PERSON:
P~NING COMMISSION:
B)ARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RICHARD E. TARBELL
FEBRUARY 23, 1993
MARCH 17, 1993
ZM-92-12 - WORRELL LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY
~P-92-66 - WORRELL LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY
Petition: Worrell Land and Cattle Company petitions the Board of Supervisors
tp approve an application plan for 241 acres zoned PD-MC, Planned
Development-Mixed Commercial and CO, Commercial Office and to approve a
special use permit to allow residential use [Section 23.2.2(9)] and supporting
cpmmercia1 uses [Section 23.2.2.(11)] in the portion of the property zoned CO,
Cpmmercia10ffice. Included in this petition is a request to rezone 1.7 acres
f om CO, Commercial Office to PD-MC, Planned Development-Mixed Commercial.
P operty, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 20B, 20C, 20K, 20M, 31, 32, 71 and
7 A is bounded by Richmond Road (Route 250 East) to the north, Interstate 64
tp the south and east and State Farm Boulevard to the west. This site is
lpcated in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: The site is predominately open pasture with a rolling
terrain. In addition to the existing farm complex the site features office
b~i1dings utilized by the Worrell Investment Company and the Thomas Jefferson
Center for First Amendment Rights.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The application plan generally proposes 977,550 square
feet of office development, 145,000 square feet of retail (regional service)
d~ve1opment, 296 residential units, and 85 acres of open space to be served by
p ivate roads. The applicant's proposal is outlined in detail in the book
t t1ed "Peter Jefferson Place Application Plan December, 1992" included as
A tachment I.
A summary of the land use follows:
DEVELOPMENT PARCELS
OPEN SPACE
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
ACREAGE
144.9
84.9
11.7
PERCENTAGE
60%
35%
5%
T~e open space includes sufficient area to accommodate the future greenway
p oject along the Rivanna River. The applicant has expressed a willingness to
cpoperate with the County in the development of this project.
S~Y AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Most of the uses proposed are by-right within
t~e existing zoning districts. Staff opinion is:
1. The proposed development and application plan are consistent
with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and Open
Space Plan.
1
2. The establishment of this application plan will allow for
orderly development of this large-scale, long-term project
while comprehensively protecting the most environmentally
sensitive areas of the property.
3. The provision of supporting commercial uses would not
only be a convenience to employers but would also
reduce off-site traffic consistent with traffic
reduction efforts.
4. The residential units would allow for a complete mixed
use planned development providing potential for on-
site housing for employees while also reducing off-
site traffic.
5. The provision of private roads allows for a more
environmentally and aesthetically sensitive design for
this project.
S~aff recommends approval of ZMA-92-12 and SP-92-66 subject to the agreements
set out in Section VI of this staff report.
P~ING AND ZONING HISTORY: The Planned Development-Mixed Commercial and
Cbmmercia1 Office zoning boundaries were established by the County with the
1980 original zoning designation (see Attachment C for map). A plan for
development has never previously been submitted for this 241 acre property.
CbMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is located in a designated area and
recommended for Office/Regional Service land uses in Urban Neighborhood 3.
A~CHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: The Architectural Review Board reviewed this
p oposal on January 19, 1993. The Architectural Review Board recommended
abprova1 of the application plan with the applicant's proposed design
g~ide1ines and private road request (see Attachment D).
S~AFF COMMENT:
As noted earlier, the zoning on this property is the original designation by
the County. This petition is a request for the Board of Supervisors to, in
accordance with Section 8.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, approve an overall
application plan and, in the spirit of Section 8.5.6.3, the Director of
Panning and Community Development should be authorized discretion over
r~asonable variations from the zoning application plan in application of the
p an to site development. In the case of a Planned Development district
e tablished as the original zoning designation of a property, Section 8.5.6.5
r~quires all transportation analysis plans and other maps, studies and reports
tb be approved under Section 8.5.5 prior to review of site plans and
subdivision plats. The applicant has provided a complete and thorough
s4bmittal of these items.
2
T is section of the staff report will be presented in six sections:
I. Rezoning of 1.7 Acres to Planned Development-Mixed
Commercial
II. Review Under Section 8.0 Planned Districts
III. Uses by Special Use Permit
IV. Private Roads
V. Summary
VI. Agreements
I. Rezoning of 1.7 Acres to Planned Development-Mixed Commercial
I c1uded in this petition is a request to rezone a 1.7 acre portion of Parcels
C-1 and C-2 on the Land Use Plan (see shaded area on Attachment G) from
C mmercia1 Office to Planned Development-Mixed Commercial. The proposed
m'xed-use core (hotel/conference center) on these parcels is allowed by
s ecia1 permit in the existing Commercial Office zoning or allowed by-right in
t e Planned Development-Mixed Commercial district. Most of these two parcels
a d nearly all of the buildings and parking for the mixed-use core are located
w'thin the Planned Development-Mixed Commercial zoning. For clarity, staff
r commended the applicant rezone the 1.7 acres from Commercial Office to
Panned Development-Mixed Commercial to permit this use by-right and allow the
ning boundary to match the proposed road alignment. Staff opinion is this
a minor "housekeeping" matter to simplify reference to the property's
ning boundaries and, therefore, staff recommends approval of the 1.7 acre
zoning.
Review Under Section 8.0 Planned Districts
though the Planned Development-Mixed Commercial and Commercial Office zoning
a ready exists on this property, staff has reviewed this proposal for
nsistency with Section 8.0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS - GENERALLY.
ction 8.5.3 requires an applicant "to meet with the planning staff and other
a1ified officials to review the Application Plan and original proposal prior
t submittal" in order to "assist in bringing the application" into conformity
w'th various planning and zoning regulations and policies. This process,
f rma1ly and informally, has involved multiple meetings to discuss the project
th the Planning Department and other members of the Site Review Committee
nce 1988. The applicant has endeavored to address all issues raised by this
partment as well as adjusting plans to accommodate regulatory measures
a opted during this time period.
3
A~ this time, under Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, this petition is
forwarded to the Planning Commission which "shall proceed to prepare its
r~commendations to the Board of Supervisors," and "specifically,
r~commendations of the Commission shall include findings as to:
a. The suitability of the tract for the general type of
Planned Development district proposed in the terms of:
relations to the comprehensive plan; physical
characteristics of the land; and its relation to
surrounding area;
b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities
and services;
c. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and
suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts,
deed restrictions, sureties, dedications,
contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or
the need for such instruments or for amendments in
those proposed; and
d. Specific modification in Planned Development or
general regulations as applied to the particular case,
based on determination that such modifications are
necessary or justified by demonstration that the
public purpose of Planned Development or general
regulations as applied would be satisfied to at least
an equivalent degree by such modifications.
B~sed on such findings, the commission shall recommend approval of the Planned
D~velopment amendments as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated
IIjodifications, or disapproval."
S~aff will address each item of Section 8.5.4 individually.
a. The suitability of the tract for the general type of Planned
Development district proposed in terms of: relations to the
comprehensive plan: physical characteristics of the land: and its
relation to surroundin~ area:
Tpis property is recommended for Office/Regional Service in the Comprehensive
P~an. Adjacent uses include Office/Regional Service to the west and southwest
(~tate Farm Offices) and Low, Medium and High Density Residential uses on the
nprth side of Route 250E (Westminster Canterbury, Glenorchy). The property is
bpunded by Interstate 64 to the south and east, The proposed plan of
d~ve1opment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation
apd with the designations and existing land uses on properties adjacent to
tpis site.
4
T e proposed development is sensitive to the physical characteristics of the
p operty's rolling terrain, The open space of this development has been
d signed to include the areas of:
. Wetlands
. Floodplain
. Resource Protection Areas
. Critical Slopes.
b. Relation to major roads. utilities. public facilities and service:
accordance with Section 25A.6 of the Zoning Ordinance the applicant has
epared a traffic study. The Virginia Department of Transportation has
termined that in addition to the planned Route 250 East improvements, this
velopment will occasion the need for right turn lanes at each entrance and
additional left turn lane and traffic signal at both the primary and
s condary entrance. As per the proposed agreements with the applicant, the
right turn lanes will be provided upon establishment of each entrance on Route
250 East. The left turn lanes and signals will be provided upon demand of the
Virginia Department of Transportation in accordance with their letter of
ebruary 8, 1993 (see Attachment E).
is site is located at the intersection of Route 250 East and Interstate 64.
e plans for the Route 250 East widening project currently under construction
ovide for left turn lanes and crossovers for the secondary entrance (located
a ross from G1enorchy Drive), the primary entrance (located 800 feet west of
e secondary entrance), and an entrance to Parcel IA-5" (located across from
stminster Canterbury). The proposed road system connects to State Farm
ulevard at two existing crossovers located 600 feet and 1700 feet south of
ute 250 East and at the intersection of State Farm Boulevard and South
ntops Boulevard.
T e development will be served by public water and sewer. A 16" water line is
being installed along the property frontage during the Route 250 East project.
15" sewer line exists on-site.
t the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning staff reviews
r zoning requests for their fiscal impact on public facilities. This analysis
i limited to those rezonings that have some effect on facilities that are
i entified in the CIP and have a cost associated with them. The total cost of
t e effected facilities is $3,951,144 with this development's proportionate
s are being approximately $349,336 or $1,180 per dwelling unit. The complete
a alysis is included as Attachment F.
cause of the very general nature of this analysis, staff is not recommending
y action based on these estimates. They are presented for the Commission's
d Board's information concerning the fair share determination of a
rticular development's impact on facilities based on cost of proposed
provements and without regard to revenue sources and proportionate share of
venues generated by the development.
5
nsideration of the fiscal impact of the development needs to be balanced
a ainst considerations of the County's growth management policy and other
C unty policies. Excessive development exactions could have the effect of
iscouraging utilization of the holding capacity of Urban Area, and thus, lead
t accelerated development in the Rural Areas.
c. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any
~roposed agreements. contracts. deed restrictions. sureties.
dedications. contributions. ~uarantees. or other instruments. or
the need for such instruments or for amendments in those proposed:
illll!
is property is under single ownership,
Specific modifications in Planned Development or general
regulations as applied to the particular case. based on
determination that such modifications are necessary or justified
by demonstration that the public purposes of Planned Development
or general regulations as applied would be satisfied to at least
an equivalent degree by such modifications. .
T e applicant has requested that the residential development, proposed as a
s condary use, not be limited on a pro-rata basis with the primary use of
office development. Section 9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance states:
"Secondary uses are intended to be complementary of and
subordinate to primary uses. To this end, secondary uses shall be
established on a pro-rata basis for phased development to the
floor area of primary uses unless otherwise specifically permitted
by the Board of Supervisors in a particular case."
e applicant has requested a modification of this regulation stating:
"We obviously cannot now determine the relative pace of
development of residential and office uses but clearly the major
character of the development will always be an office park. In
order however to maintain flexibility to meet market demands, we
do not wish to be restricted in the relative pace of development
of residential and office uses."
aff opinion is the main intent of this regulation was to control the most
tensive (i.e. commercial) uses within an office development and that strict
a plication of this regulation to the proposed residential development does
t serve an identifiable public purpose. In accordance with Section 9.4.1,
e area for the residential use shall not exceed 20% of the total site area.
e land use plan proposes 20.9 acres of residential use (8.6%) with an
a ternate area of 23.1 acres (18.2% total potential residential area).
shall recommend a
roval conditioned
the Planned
ulated
6
Uses bv Special Use Permit
e applicant has requested two categories of uses by special use permit
Commercial Office zoning districts:
. Section 23.2.2.(11) Supporting Commercial Uses:
Available to Parcels Band E and alternately to
Parcels D and F also. The uses permitted as
supporting commercial uses would include uses
permitted by-right under the C-1 zone as modified by
Section 9.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. In accordance
with Section 9.4.2.6 the total floor area devoted to
supporting commercial uses shall not exceed 5% of the
total floor area devoted to the primary use.
. Section 23.2.2.(9) Residential Uses Permitted in
Section 18.0: Available to Parcels D and F and
alternately to Parcel E also.
aff opinion is these uses are consistent with the intent of service areas
a d with the secondary uses listed in the non-residential land use guidelines
r the office/regional service area designation. The provision of supporting
mmercial uses would not only be a convenience to employees but would also
duce off-site traffic consistent with traffic reduction efforts. The
sidential units would allow for a complete mixed use planned development
oviding potential for on-site housing for employees while also reducing
of-site traffic.
should also be noted that special use permits normally have an expiration
te of eighteen months if construction has not commenced. However, because
e uses proposed by special permit are a part of the application plan, staff
terpretation is there would be no expiration on this approval and the
ecial permit uses would be governed by the application plan and proposed
a reements.
Private Roads
a part of the application plan the applicant is requesting the use of
ivate roads throughout the development stating:
"The proposed plan is based on the use of private roads within the
entire property. The property has steep slopes and major changes
in elevation so that building roads to meet the rolling terrain
standards would require considerable cuts and fills. These would
destroy the beauty of the site and do considerable environmental
damage. Although the mountainous terrain category allows for
steeper grades for roads, the main benefit from the use of this
standard comes from the reduced radii allowed for horizontal
curvature. This allows much better fitting of the road alignment
to the topography and significantly reduces the amounts of cuts
and fills. The use of private roads is a critical element of the
plan as the Virginia Department of Transportation has indicated
7
that in this case it will not accept into the public system roads
designed to mountainous terrain standards. The use of private roads
will also allow more flexibility in the design of the roads and a more
creative use of landscaping along them."
In addition, the applicant has provided a detailed justification, included as
pendix II of the Application Plan book (see Attachment I), which indicates a
71% reduction in earth moving by utilizing private road standards rather than
ublic road standards. The Engineering Department has stated their support
or the private road request (see memo also included in Appendix II of
ttachment I).
It should be noted that Section 18-36(d)(4) of the Subdivision Ordinance
states:
"Except where required by the commission to serve a specific
public purpose, such private road shall not be designed to serve
through traffic nor to intersect the state highway system in more
than one location."
Staff's interpretation is this requirement does not apply to the proposed
layout because no private road directly connects two state roads and,
erefore, would not effectively serve through traffic. In addition, this is
ot an exclusively residential development.
Staff concurs with the applicant's justification and, therefore, recommends
proval of the private road request.
Summary
Staff opinion is the proposed development and application plan are consistent
ith the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan
and Use Map designation. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-92-12 as the
establishment of the proposed application plan will allow for orderly
evelopment of this large-scale, long-term project while comprehensively
p otecting the most environmentally sensitive area of the property through the
esignation of open space and the utilization of private roads. Staff also
r commends approval of SP-92-66 for the supporting commercial uses and
r sidential areas which are consistent with the non-residential land use
idelines of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
ile the Commercial Office and Planned Development-Mixed Commercial zoning
ready exists for this property, staff has reviewed this petition in
cordance with Section 8.0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - GENERALLY. In that respect,
s aff has worked with the applicant to propose a set of agreements as
s ecified by Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The agreements are
mpiled from the applicant's proposal as well as recommendations by the staff
allow for administrative reviews of future site plans. No conditions of
a proval are recommended for the special use permit requests. The applicant
s agreed to the following:
Aszreements
8
. .
1. Establishment of the Land Use Plan dated November ll, 1992 and
revised January 20, 1993 as the approved application plan for the
Planned Development-Mixed Commercial and Commercial Office zoned
property.
2. The supporting commercial uses shall be in accordance with those
uses permitted by-right in the C-l zone as modified by Section
9.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The residential uses are not required to be developed on a
pro-rata basis with the office development in accordance with
Section 9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Provision of private roads within the development designed to meet
mountainous terrain standards.
5. The Worrell Land and Cattle Company agrees to pay for the
necessary right turn and taper lanes at the development's entrances
along Route 250 East. The right turn lanes shall be constructed as each
entrance is established. The developer also agrees to provide an
additional left turn lane and traffic signal on Route 250 East at the
primary and secondary entrance to the site. These improvements shall be
constructed upon demand of the Virginia Department of Transportation in
accordance with their letter dated February 8, 1993, or earlier at the
developer's option provided the primary or secondary entrance meets the
signalization warrants as given in the latest edition of the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
6. The applicant will utilize detailed design guidelines consistent
with the outline included as Appendix I of the Peter Jefferson
Place Application Plan book.
7. Except those sites shown as Parcels A-2, B-I, and B-2 on the Land
Use Map (Tax Map 78 Parcels 20K, 71, and 71A), all future site
plans shall be reviewed by the Albemarle County Architectural
Review Board if it is determined the site will be visible from
Interstate 64 or Route 250 East.
8. Setbacks shall be as follows:
~ Commercial and Office Uses:
Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any
structures, except signs, shall be erected closer than
thirty (30) feet to any public street right-of-way.
No off-street parking or loading space shall be
located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street
right-of-way.
Adjacent to internal private streets: The setbacks
for buildings and parking may be reduced to ten (10)
feet provided adequate sight distance is maintained
and minimum landscaping requirements are met.
9
~ Residential Uses:
Minimum yards: Front twenty-five (25) feet, side
fifteen (15) feet, Rear twenty (20) feet, Minimum
side yards shall be reduced to not less than ten (10)
feet in accordance with Section 4.11.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Setbacks for the townhouses adjacent to
the park may be reduced to five feet surrounding the
loop road.
( Administrative approval of all future site plans and subdivision
plats. In the spirit of Section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance,
the Director of Planning and Community Development shall be
authorized discretion over reasonable variations from the approved
zoning application plan.
10. Future requests for parking decks or a helistop will require
additional Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors reviews.
PTTACHMENTS:
P - Tax Map
E - Location Map
( - Zoning Map
I - Architectural Review Board Action Letter
E - Virginia Department of Transportation Comments
F - Fiscal Impact Study
( - Land Use Plan
B - Illustrative Plan
I - Application Book
10
I ATTACHMENT A I
i..._
'"
"
..............-.-.1'
MONTICELLO
~
"
22 ,;
~ /./
~ .~-\
"-n _............../"" \
,..... /""'.,,----
........./ ~.'
--- '/)'4' -\- \---.// '.-fr /1
~ .J . \ AT."....-/. " I
n~~I';';:::::--"'" '--\- y ~ .
.C-/ :x 2G \ .~. ".
"\. m )
. .--..... /
.~
92
SCOTTSVILLE AND
RIVANNA "DISTRICTS
seAL.[ IN f[[T
SECTION 78
0-9
...q,1,l
o~
\,
"
.,,~
~..
00
,~
"
jillJ
;;f818]
...
,.;:.
>
......
"
\
I
i<'
~
~
,
'~/
.,)
-BYY.:L
I
L.
--
- """
"'--
22
~
~
I ATTACHMENT 0 I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
January 21, 1993
Andrew Dracopoli
P.O. Box 5386
Charlottesville, V A 22905
Re:
ARB-P(SDP)-93-01 Peter Jefferson Place
Tax Map 78 Parcels 20B, 20C, 20M, 31, and 32.
Dear Mr. Dracopoli:
The above noted item was reviewed by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board at its
meeting on January 19, 1993. The Board (5:0) ruled to recommend approval to the Board of
Supervisors of the application plan as presented with the following suggestions:
1. The grading plan approval (site preparation) is based on the plan shown to the
ARB labeled Phase I Grading (dated Nov. 30, 1992), any additional grading will
require review and approval by the ARB.
2. Approval of the design guidelines (Appendix II Attachment A) as proposed by the
applicant, supplemented by existing Interim Design Guidelines. The applicant's
design guidelines (including the photograph indicating the Design Character) are
compatible and consistent with the existing County Interim Guidelines,
3, Prior to final approval, the site plans for any proposed development must be
reviewed and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB.
4. Support of the applicant's request to build the roads to mountainous standards,
thereby lessening the impact on the environment by reducing the grading
necessary .
If you have questions please call me.
Sincerely,
~~
Marcia Joseph
Design Planner
" I ATTACHMENT E I
RECEIVED
FEB 0 8 1993
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
pi . 0
~"':'~nn' nrj 0 1.-
."_~." l.l'~ . ......p".
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 671
CULPEPER, 22701
8 February 1993
THOMAS F, FARLEY
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
hard E. Tarbell
t. of Planning & Community Development
McIntire Road
rlottesville, Virginia 22901
Peter Jefferson Place
Route 250
Albemarle County
Mr. Tarbell:
I have reviewed the traffic impact study and its revisions
ng with the application plan. In addition, these have been
iewed by Transportation Planning Division in Richmond. I offer
following comments regarding this proposed development:
1. In their revisions to the traffic study, the
developer's consultant did not adequately address my
concerns regarding trip allocation by entrance. I still
believe that a significant portion of trips bound for or
heading from Area 8 will use the secondary entrance.
Because of this, the entrance should be configured as
shown in Figure lOa (January 27, 1993 Revision), whether
or not Parcels H and I are switched.
2. The concept of delaying the installation of traffic
signals and dual left turn lanes was brought up in the
January 27, 1993 Revision to the traffic study. From an
operational standpoint, this would be the preferred
approach. On the other hand, the Department does not
have the manpower to regularly study the entrances to
determine when a traffic signal and additional left turn
lane would be installed at each. Instead, it is more
practical to set a level of development that will trigger
the required improvements. I recommend that a signal and
additional turn lane be added to an entrance when the
expected trips per day for that entrance exceed 2500.
The trip generation would be as specified in ITE, and the
distribution would be as follows: for the Primary
Entrance- 1/2 of the traffic from areas C-2, E, F, I and
all traffic from areas A-1, A-5, B-3, C-l, D; for the
se~ondary Entrance- 1/2 from areas C-2, E, F, I, plus
all from areas C-3, G,H~ Using this approach, the need
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
I ATTACHMENT EI
I Page 21
for a signal would become apparent during the approval
process for specific site plans. The number 2500 was
chosen because it should give an hourly volume that would
meet at least the Peak Hour Volume Warrant for
signalization in the MUTCD.
Attached for your information and
ments from Transportation Planning
mitted traffic study and its addenda.
records
Division
are the final
regarding the
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this proposed
elopment and its attendant traffic impact study, please call me
(703) 829-7555.
ely,
ichter
n Engineer
cc R. C. Lockwood
A. G. Tucker
f/I J
~t W.
Transporta
I ATTACHMENT F I
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
This analysis is based on a fair share determination of a particular
development's impact to affected facilities. It must be pointed out that this
analysis is cursory. due to the lack of information on revenues and the amount
attributable to this development. The cost outlined by staff only indicates the
proportionate share of construction costs from the additional development
generated by the rezoning ovel' by-ri(jht development. This development proposes
by special use permit 296 mOl'e units than could be achieved bY'Light (in this
case with CommeLcial Office zonin/:,. no units are achievable by-right).
The following are those facilities which will be affected by the rezoning request
and have a cost associated with them.
A. Schools
Schools affected by this proposal which have a cost as identified in the CIP are:
BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL
$1.264,000
$2,300.000
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL
Based on the additional students as estimated by multipliers currently used by
the County. 198 additional elementary school students. 114 additional middle
school students and 82 additional high school students arc anticipated. Costs
attributable to this development based on the proportion or students is $344,200
or $1164.86 per dwelling unit.
B. Lihrilries
This proposal is considered to be in the service area of Ille Jefferson/Madison
Regional Library. Based on the proportionate impact to 1 Unary capacity, the
proportionate share cost of tllis project is $509 or $1.72 per dwelling unit.
C. Recreational Facilities
RecreaLlonal Facilities affected by this proposal which h.lve a cost identified
in the ell' are:
RIVANNA RESERVOIR BOAT L\UNCH
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS LIGHTING
RIVANNA PARK IMPROVEMENTS
$150.000
$75.000
$143.1114
Based on the additional population generated by this request. the proportional
share cost of this project is $19,424 or $65.62 per dwelling unit.
. .
I ATTACHMENT F I
I Page 21
.... .... / i
SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT
PROJECTS TOTAL COST PROPORTIONATE COST/DU
$ SHARE ( 296 DU' S)
$ $
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL 2,300,000.00 92,000.00 310.81
BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,264,000.00 252,800.00 854.05
RIVANNA RESOURCE 150,000.00 7.50 0.03
BOAT LAUNCH
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL 75,000.00 4,020.00 13.58
TENNIS LIGHTING
RIVANNA PARK 143,144.00 0.14 -
IMPROVEMENTS
JEFFERSON MADISON 19,000.00 509.00 1.72
REGIONAL LIBRARY
TOTALS $3,951,144.00 $349,336.64 $1,180.19
l
,
C)
....
z
w
1:
J:
U
~ H ~ I H~
~ :i -1
I :: ~
f J~ e
,,"
I ~~:i HI! H~~ J:i:i :i
l!~U
' ::.2 ~~ "
~ ~~ ~~;; """
~
11 Hi ~ 5 ]
HI HJ !
1 H H Il~h
~ tU uu uu t t
. 1 :l:! ~ -.,q... ~:!:!:2 ~ - ~
..l...~
: ] -
1 ~J :;~J "~~l (.
...
J) J!! . J~ J~
n Jl jl
1
i ;~ ~i ! ~!
...
'"
;; ~J;~ ~
i In 1 I 1
1
H'i:i:i:i
..~"~~3
!i:X5:!
...
u
z
-<
'"
...
z
...
...
'"
:5
o
...
'"
t t tU u t t t 1 I
~ .
a 3 a~~ .a ~ h II Ij~~H
l ~l 0 - l UBB
.... Uu%
>-
...
~z
",:>
-<::E
::E::E
~8
...
'"
:5
\.l
Z
;:
~
"
...
...
'"
-<
-'
o
o
z
-<
...
"
...
Q
...
'"
o
...
o
'"
..
Q
o
o
'"
'"
......
"'u
"'z
-<-<
:>",
0:>
0'"
-<z
...-
:Z:::E
-''''
u-<-<
zz...
-0...
"'-...
~u-<
><......
.....'"
::E
...
/ ...
"'"
,..
'"
0,..
~-<
o~
"':Z:
0...
"'-<
.....
~ ~
\..J z
tj ~
~~
~ "-l"
C ~
~ ~
~ "-l
t8:l
~~
~~
~~
~ ~
~2
~
~
~
~
(J'l
~
"0
~
>-<
~
~
~
!
o
'"
~
!!
~
~
~
:J
;~
>-
c: ~
~
0.. .
E
o
u
-
c:
QJ
E ~
'"
QJ ..
> cc: ~
C .g g G"\
- ....
~ ~~ ]
t .s~ e
o ~~ ~
3: g~ ~
... m
><
~
... c --<
.. ... ~
8 V>
2
... 0 Q)
V> ..
:l ... -E
s
tl ~
~ S .C\S
... .b
~
~ ... ~
...
,..z ;;;
...
..:l ...
H ~
f8 0
...
..
0
u
...
><
:s
U
Z
;:
'"
8
...
u
~
c
Z
o
...
8
o
...
o
..
...
~
...
~
<
u
Z
o
;:
<
c
Z
:l
~
...
~
...
V>
~
l'i
i
o
ljj
~
Z
~
~
'"
~
...
!;:I
:s
8
V>
o
..
o
..
..
..
j
~
~
c .
8
:r
.....
OU
~~
i2...
"'Z
z...
~
. J
o
...
u
oJ z
~ :i
ov>:l
G~ Z
......-
..~~
U:l<
~C1'"
1;;0'"
-::'j <
/;1:1:1;;
....... .
....'/
~
....
V>
>-
V>
>-
~
J:
~
C
~
~
I;
p 1
llit f
JI' l
1.H
11ft It"
JJJl J
I"l' ,
llh H
>-
C
Ill.
c..
E
o .
U.
i:
llJ
E u
_ c
OIl -
llJ --
> ~ c
.5 .g g ~
= eJ --
~ .!!'- -
~ ~~ i
-'~ 1
8'
M
,
;..
DATE ^ACtrch f71 t qq3
AGENDA ITEM NO. q5. ()O i 7. 140
AGENDA ITEM NAME Jrr7pe.-rn-h vt- IicrlleliS - (!C)(J!e .4rnern ({c(il
DEFERRED UNTIL \.~'c ,DubuC. Y~ea/urr:l ~.,iJlL (~');)J'l 1, /996
Form.3
7/25/86
DATE .March rl /qq3
AGENDA ITEM NO.C. DIC(~U.=D'6(); Dr()PL hffornrn-lyjaizon:s tDr
i;1q. 3 :~14 \')pn!lq y('C{tJ iDea.... tL Oi...1. l'/ed. I' UJCL. .fb. . r tnt...,
'0i\L - yuw .J-H ip'tc{.{jj Ej tl pngrit/)l -fl)i -~X'-d;rU.i~lP-lE.. )
AGENDA ITEM NAME /4.3.0310,/4./ PruH;lllj tLllt1... u,bCLllStj5ru1l5
DEFERRED UNTIL fVlorOl 22, ICA3
Form.3
7/25/86
( .
c.
. "-:].((:2
./0 ~(/)&. J~''''.
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA
Grass/
Ordinance
AGENDA DATE:
March 3, 1993
ITEM HUMBER:
Q8. 08~3. 'jf ;
ACTION:--X-
INFORMATION:
is
provided
to
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
Ms. McCulley
REVIEWED BY:
GROUND:
marle County does not have an ordinance to control the height of grass or weeds.
ic inquiry has requested such an ordinance within residential subdivisions.
inia Code 15.1-11(2) provides enabling legislation. This agenda item is provided
Board consideration on whether to pursue such an ordinance.
SSION:
ic Request - Staff has received a specific request to enact an ordinance regulating
gra s/weed height to 15 inches in residential areas. The Zoning administrator
ind'cates there have been similar verbal requests in the past but inquires have been
abo t 6 in the past year. The primary issue is tall grass on vacant parcels or
uno cupied residences in small subdivisions.
Leg'slation - state code allows the County to require the owner of vacant developed
(i. . unoccupied house on a lot) or undeveloped property to cut grass, weeds or other
for ign growth on such property and at such times as the governing body may prescribe.
Suc an ordinance can apply only to platted subdivisions, or any other area zoned
res'dential, business, commercial or industrial. Residential areas for the County
wou d be from R-1 to R-15. The locality can seek compliance or take corrective action
at ounty expense and place a tax lien on the property.
In a dition, the County Subdivision ordinance defines "subdivision" as parcels or units
suc that anyone of such lots, parcels or units is less than five acres in area; or
anyone of such lots, parcels or units fronting less than 250 feet on a road which is
par of the State Highway or Secondary System.
Sta f Review - Such an ordinance is in effect in other localities; for example, the
cit . es of Charlottesville and Manassas and York County. Their missions include
protection of aesthetics (i.e. property values and community vision) and/or health
(i. . prevent breeding and harboring places for insects, rodents, etc.). Their
enf rcement focuses on residential areas and/or thoroughfares as well as commercial and
agricultural.
Enfo cement is usually by the Zoning or Police Departments. Complaints in 1992 were
430 for Charlottesville and 125 for York. Staffing in these localities requires one
full time person in the summer and part-time the rest of the year. These complaints
are as much as 30% of the total complaints received by those localities. Maximum
heig t ranges from 8 to 18 inches. Investigation and prosecution often involves
abse tee owners and requires considerable time for compliance.
"
AGEHbA TITLE: Grass/Weed Cutting Ordinance
Marc~ 3, 1993
Page 2
The I~ajority of our complaints are in residential subdivisions. It would be essential
to d stinguish rural type subdivisions from residential subdivisions as rural areas are
perm tted and encouraged for agricultural use in Albemarle County. There are also
resi~entially zoned areas within our Growth areas that are under land use.
Summary: The small number of complaints does not justify an ordinance for regulation
of g~ass/weed height in the County. Should the Board choose to adopt a grass/weed
ordi~ance two general recommendations are offered for consideration: (1) The ordinance
appllr only to commercially or industrially zoned properties in the entrance corridors,
and also R-1 to R-15 residential subdivisions. (2) In the case of residential
subd visions, the procedure should be the same as for our leash and leaf burning
ordi~ances where the ordinance is applicable only to those subdivisions that formally
peti ion the Board with at least 50% of the property owners as signatories to the
peti ion. If the Board chooses to proceed, staff will prepare a more detailed
reco~endation to include staffing impacts for final consideration.
RECO
None
ATION:
provided for information and discussion.
93.0 5
.~'
fJ\)'j ;) lS9l
<' .
< " ,~
~ ~~
EXLCL; i ,/;.. OCr18E
1995 Pheasant Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22901
November 6, 1992
r. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
ounty Executive
ounty of Albemarle
01 Mcintire Road
harlottesville, VA 22902-4596
I mentioned to you a concern that I have that affects some of our
r sidents living in subdivisions of our county. We need to enact an ordinance
t at requires a property owner in a subdivision of Albemarle County to not allow
t e grass in their lawn to be higher than 15 inches in height. The City of
harlottesville has an ordinance and it is 18 inches. They have informed me
t at they believe the height should be lower.
This is a health hazard (mosquitoes, snakes, rodents, etc.). Also, not
ery pleasant to look at if you are living in an area with small lots.
I am willing to do whatever you suggest to help get this ordinance passed.
you need anymore information, please let me know.
Cordially,
7J: r:e) ,
Walter A. Pace, Jr.
AP/cfw
_.-
~ 1 [) lY l~
("Olll-: ()J-" VII{(;INJ.\
~ I:) 1 - I 1
~ 15.1.9.1:2: Repealed by Acts 197;'). c SI[)
~ 15.1-9.2: Repealed by Acts 1973, c. '2H7
~ 15.1-10. Expenditures for promoting resources and advantages of
county, city or town. - Any county, city or town may, in its discretion,
expend not exceeding two per centum of the locally derived revenues of the
county, city or town for the purpose of promotll1g the resources and
advantages of the county, city or town, Such purpose shall include, without
limiting the generality thereof, watershed projects and expenditures in
connection therewith for which the county, city or town may make expendi-
tures without regard to the limitation hereinabove provided. (Code 1950,
!is 15-11 to 15.13; 1952, c. 117; 1956, c, 25; 1960, cc. 168, 176; 1962, c. 623.)
Editor's note. - This section combines the
purposes of!i!i 15-11, 15-12 and 15-13. Section
15-12 was amended by Acts 1962, c" 580, and,
as so amended, has been codified by the Code
CommiSSion as !i 15" 1-10.1. As to the effect
upon this section of the 1962 act amending
!i 15-12, see !i!i 15"1-5"1 to 151-5.3
~ 15,1-10.1. Appropriations for advertising resources, etc., by coun-
ties. - The board of supervisors of any county may appropriate out of the
general levy, except the school fund, in their discretion, a sum not exceeding
two per centum of their annual revenues, from all sources, in advertising and
giving publicity to the resources and advantages of their county, and in
securing and promoting economic development of such county. For the
purposes set out in this section the county governing body may make such
appropriation, not exceeding the two per centum limitation hereinabove
imposed, to chambers of commerce or similar organizations within such
county, or to employ suitable persons to secure and promote economic
development of the county. (Code 1950, ~ 15-12; 1962, c. 580; 1981, c. 77.)
The number of this section was assigned Cross references. - See Editor's note un-
by the Virginia Code Commission, the original der!i 15,1-10,
number having been 15-12.
~ 15.1-11. County, city or town may provide for removal of trash,
garbage, etc., weeds and other foreign growth; covers on water wells;
penalty in certain counties. - Any county, city or town may, by ordinance,
provide:
(1) That the owners of property therein shall, at such time or times as the
governing body may prescribe, remove therefrom any and all trash, garbage,
refuse, litter and other substances which might endanger the health or safety
of other residents of such county, city or town; or may, whenever the
governing body deems it necessary, after reasonable notice, have such trash,
garbage, refuse, litter and other like substances which might endanger the
health of other residents of the county, city or town, removed by its own
agents or employees, in which event the cost or expenses thereof shall be
chargeable to and paid by the owners of such property and may be collected by
the county, city or town as taxes and levies are collected;
(2) That the owners of vacant developed or undeveloped property therein
shall cut the grass, weeds and other foreign growth on such property or any
part thereof at such time or times as the governing body shall prescribe; or
may, whenever the governing body deems it necessary, after reasonable
notice, have such grass, weeds or other foreign growth cut by its agents or
employees, in which event, the cost and expenses thereof shall be chargeable
to and paid by the owner of such property and may be collected by the county,
16
~ L-) III
, and advantages of
laY, in its discretion,
rived revenues of the
r the resources and
~hall include, without
and expenditures in
n may make expendi-
provided. (Code 1950,
68, 176; 1962, c. 623.)
l5.1-10.1. As to the effect
of the 1962 act amending
>1-51 to 15.1-5"3"
,urces, etc" by coun-
appropriate out of ~he
n a sum not exceedmg
'~es in advertising and
f their county, and in
such county, For the
~ body may ma~e such
: imitation herem above
mizations within such
md promote economic
;2, c, 580; 1981, c. 77.)
ces. - See Editor's note un-
for removal of trash,
:overs on water wells;
~own may, by ordinance,
.lch time or times as the
{ and all trash, garbage,
t'lger the health or safety
or may, whenever the
notice, have such trash,
lich might endanger the
vn, removed by its own
lCpenses thereof shall be
{ and may be collected by
:ollected;
veloped property therein
on such property or any
, body shall prescribe; or
~essary, after reasonable
lwth cut by its agents or
lereof shall be chargeable
Ie collected by the county,
,~
~J
~
.- ..---
((1\ ~T1L:-;. ("11'11'::-; Y\II I(I\\~:-;
~ 1:>1-] 102
~ 1:)1-1101
city or town as taxes and l(,vll's are collpclt'tL No such ordinance adopted by
any county shall have any force and efTect w,Lllln the corporate limits of any
town" No such ordinance adopted by any county having a density of
population of less than 500 per square mile shall have any force or effect
except within t.he boundaries of platted subdivisions or any ot.her areas zoned
for resident.ial, business, commercial or Industrial use; and
(3) That. every charge authorized by t.his section with which the owner of
any such property shall have been assessed and which remains unpaid shall
constitute a lien against such property.
(4) That Caroline County by ordinance may provide t.hat owners of property
keep covers on water wells and may aft.er reasonable notice cover uncovered
water wells by its own agent.s or employees, in which event the cost or expense
thereof shall be chargeable to and paid by t.he owners of such property and
may be collected by the county as taxes and levies are collected.
The governing body of any county adjoining a city whose population is in
excess of 200,000 may provide that the violation of an ordinance adopted to
enforce the provisions of this section shall be a Class 4 misdemeanor. (Code
1950, * 15-14; 1962, cc, 400, 623; 1964, c. 31; 1968, c. 423; 1974, c. 655; 1978,
c. 533; 1983, cc, 192, 390,)
Cross references. - As to punishment for
Class 4 misdemeanors, see ~ 18.2-11.
~ 15,1-11.01. Authority to cut growth on grass or lawn area in certain
county. - A. The governing body of any county having adopted the county
executive form of government, which county borders a county that has
adopted the urban county executive form of government, by ordinance, may
require that the owner of occupied residential real property therein cut the
grass or lawn area of less than one-half acre on such property or any part
thereof at such time or times as the governing body shall prescribe when
growth on such grass or lawn area exceeds twelve inches in height; or may
whenever the governing body deems it necessary, after reasonable notice,
have such grass or lawn area cut by its agents or employees, in which event,
the cost and expenses thereof shall be chargeable to and paid by the owner of
such property and may be collected by the county as taxes and levies are
collected. No such ordinance adopted by the county shall have any force and
effect within the corporate limits of any town. Violation of such ordinance
may be punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $100.
B. No such ordinance shall be applicable to land zoned for or in active
farming operation. (1988, c. 625.)
~ 15,1-11.02. Solid waste management facility siting approval. - A.
Any county, city or town may enact an ordinance regulating the siting of solid
waste management facilities within its boundaries. The ordinance shall
prescribe the criteria, form of application, and procedure, which shall include
a public hearing, for siting approval. In establishing the criteria, the county,
city or town shall consider the potential effect of the siting of a solid waste
management facility on the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the
locality. Any person desiring to site a solid waste management facility within
the boundaries of any county, city or town which has adopted an ordinance
pursuant to this section shall file its application with the governing body of
the locality. Within 120 days of the receipt of an application which complies
with the provisions of the ordinance, the governing body shall grant or deny
siting approval. Failure to act within 120 days shall constitute a granting of
siting approval.
17
cr::~ TY cr:
, . t."') '1 1(':)'1
'"
~
L.,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Finance
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Telephone (804) 296-5855
Distributed to Bward: ..:...:..;7. iZ
t""" \; ,
, :.,
"'"
.;:,- --)
MEMORANDUM
.
.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Execu':ive
g?
F
Robert J. Walters, Jr., Deputy Direetor of Finance
TE:
February 26, 1993
.
.
Appropriation of Gypsy Moth 1992/93 Grant
tached is an appropriation request for the :.992/93 Gypsy Moth
ogram.
tion 3 was approved with the 1992/93 County of Albemarle
dget. This is a voluntary landowner participation program
oviding education, technical assistance and monitoring with the
nancial assistance of the landowners who will share 25% of the
ppression costs. Total cost of the program is $181,615 with
,500 from the City, $$80,415 from federal and state sources,
d $75,000 from landowners. The cost to the County is $20,700.
tachment
py: steven G. Meeks
rn ~?-.~ ~ rn
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920052
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW X
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
GYPSY MOTH
SE OF APPROPRIATION:
/93 OPERATING BUDGET.
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
1123 34010110000 SALARIES-REGULAR $56,185.00
1123 34010130000 PART-TIME WAGES 3,000.00
1123 34010160900 SALARY RESERVE--BONUS 2,810.00
1123 34010210000 FICA 4,745.00
1123 34010221000 VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYS. 5,340.00
1123 34010231000 HEALTH INSURANCE 2,820.00
1123 34010232000 DENTAL INSURANCE 150.00
1123 34010241000 VRS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 340.00
1123 34010242000 GROUP LIFE/PART-TIME 145.00
1123 34010270000 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 550.00
1123 34010332100 MAINT. CONTRACT-EQUIP. 50.00
1123 34010360000 ADVERTISING 0.00
1123 34010390000 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 94,550.00
1123 34010520100 POSTAL SERVICES 2,000.00
1123 34010520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 0.00
1123 34010550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE 3,000.00
1123 34010550110 TRAVEL-POOL CAR EXPENSES 1,000.00
1123 34010550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION 660.00
1123 34010580100 DUES & MEMBERSHIPS 140.00
1123 34010600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,130.00
1123 34010601400 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES 2,000.00
1123 34010601700 COPY SUPPLIES 500.00
1123 34010800100 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 200.00
1123 34010800710 DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE 300.00
TOTAL $181,615.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
16000160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE $5,500.00
16000160526 PRIVATE PROPERTY SPRAYING 75000
33000330001 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL 80415
51000512004 GRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 20,700.00
TOTAL $181,615.00
*******************************************************************
COST CENTER:
FINANCE DEPT.
SIGNATURE
DATE
OF FINANCE
~ 1f'&~~
lLan!: ({ cc~a
...? - ,..% 6 -?-I
?-If-Cl3
OF SUPERVISORS
/
...
Di$tribu~:;rJ to ':lJJiC;: ...:.;.__~::;,_~
~J2{~~2LJ~i~
C'~" '.1 ~'"'T'( (W
\...;' j,.,,' 1 " ." ~
. U,:"") ~ iCO')
-
; 4 ...........
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Finance
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Telephone (804) 296-5855
.-'
L,',"-.. -' , ,
MEMORANDUM
T :
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Robert J. Walters, Jr., Deputy Director of Finance ~
February 26, 1993
F
D
Appropriation for Computer Equipment Grant
:
is an appropriation request for the purchase of a
rsonal computer to track law enforcement efforts and seat belt
mpliance.
e computer cost $1,925. The purchase is funded by the Virginia
partment of Motor Vehicles with Federal pass thru monies in the
ount of $1,500 and the County Police Department in the amount
$425.
C py: Dave Shaw, Police Department
S~OSII\Y:wna JIO OH\fOa
00 ~ .-Zlltl 00
/
4
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC~L YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920055
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW x
ADVE~TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND
PURPbSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DMV ~RANT FOR ADP EQUIPMENT.
~XPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
****~*******************************************************************
1153P31130800700 DMV-ADP EQUIPMENT $1,925.00
PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT
$1,925.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
****~*******************************************************************
2153033000330303 DMV GRANT-FEDERAL $1,500.00
2153051000512004 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 425.00
TOTAL
TOTAL
$1,925.00
****~*******************************************************************
REQU~STING COST CENTER:
APPRbvALS:
POLICE
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARb OF SUPERVISORS
~~/P ~.,.,.L...
eH{)~ IV (i(L/-VJ
/-.:a~ -:73
5 -/p- 7!~
"
,
\'J-...
CI~-- /
1 1
"'"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Finance
401 Mcintire Road Oi- . 1 _.
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 .::;tnbu:ed to Bo"rd: (. ~:~Z ( f2?
Telephone (804) 296-5855 Agend, it~'!l (/;~~-::-;--;::":)
~~~~,.-!...:..:::".~I-~.~:
MEMORANDUM
.
.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Finance ~
Robert J. Walters, Jr., Deputy Director of
February 26, 1993
.
.
Appropriation - Metropolitan Planning Organization
Program
tached is an appropriation request for the Metropolitan
anning Organization Program.
e 1992/93 Unified Planning Work Program was approved March 26,
92. It was prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
mmission for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan
anning Organization, and was funded by the Federal Highway
ministration, the Federal Mass Transportation Administration,
e Virginia Department of Transportation, the City of
arlottesville, the County of Albemarle, and the Thomas
fferson Planning District.
e program includes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation
udy, the Long Range Transit Development Plan, the South City
trance Corridor study, the Census Transportation Planning
ckage, the TSM Planning Analysis, PUblic-Private Participation
anning, and the Traffic Reduction strategy Committee.
tachment
Cilimberg
~, .2.._ ~ ill
I
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FISC L YEAR
..
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
92/93
NUMBER
920053
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW X
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
MPO GRANT
SE OF APPROPRIATION:
/93 OPERATING BUDGET.
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
81301110000 SALARIES-REGULAR $3,500.00
81301601700 COPY SUPPLIES 250.00
81302110000 SALARIES-REGULAR 10,000.00
81303310000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 23,000.00
81304310000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,943.00
81305110000 SALARIES-REGULAR 1,800.00
81305601700 COPY SUPPLIES 200.00
81306110000 SALARIES-REGULAR 8,500.00
81306550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE 319.00
81306601700 COPY SUPPLIES 500.00
TOTAL
$74,012.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
24000240500 GRANT REVENUE-STATE $7,401.00
33000330001 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL 59210
51000512004 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 7401
TOTAL
$74,012.00
*******************************************************************
STING COST CENTER:
FINANCE DEPT.
SIGNATURE
DATE
TOR OF FINANCE
~~ ..&A!i:-(J'~
(;L~ -7 f
I ..1 " ,,+ ..
V . J t1. "L., ,It i A-C)
.eo? - ,;Z ~ -)P3
3-./Y~ 13
OF SUPERVISORS
l~ ~.' ~, "~"-'1
Distr;buwd'to Bo;m1: .(-), l:-.",{ /';~
Agend, ltemNo .f;~4(:#r:; 17. i~/--i "-"
. ....._....1:. .(", i..r..C"
Li'. ~"" i
~. i ; >.-, ~:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Finance
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Telephone (804) 296-5855
MEMORANDUM
.
.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Robert J. Walters, Jr., Deputy Director of Finance J\~'
February 26, 1993
.
.
Appropriation for Occupant Protection Grant
tached is an appropriation request for the purchase of Vince
d Larry costumes.
e costumes cost $1,340. The purchase was funded in the
tirety by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles with
deral pass thru monies.
e costumes are used to conduct an on-going education and
areness campaign aimed at a variety of audiences including
hools, day care centers, businesses, civic organizations, etc.,
addition to regular enforcement initiatives.
C py: Dave Shaw, Police Department
m .2-~~ rn
1 " l,
t~O~RD OF SUPER\m3'~RS
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC/\L YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920056
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW x
ADVE~TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND
PURPbSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DMV ~RANT FOR OCCUPANT PROTECTION STUDY.
~XPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
****~*******************************************************************
1153031140800410 DMV-COSTUME PACKAGE $1,340.00
PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT
TOTAL
$1,340.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
****~*******************************************************************
2153P33000330303 DMV GRANT-FEDERAL $1,340.00
TOTAL
$1,340.00
****~*******************************************************************
REQU~STING COST CENTER:
APPRbvALS:
POLICE
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARb OF SUPERVISORS
~~Ak._~_
'(eLa tU (iL( e "3
,2'-2~-73
3~/f-/j
. .., 11 i 01')':!
.,;,
~>. . ; ~.," ...
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Finance
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Telephone (804) 296-5855
D;str'h .t,..f t B d' ... h ! ;:'
, . I l. (.. 0 oar: __~~ '
Agenda !t-tf'H ;\iO. ~~:_ .~
MEMORANDUM
F
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Robert J. Walters, Jr., Deputy Director of Finance ~
February 26, 1993
T :
D
R :
Re-Appropriation CDBG Grants
Crozet Crossing & Housing Rehabilitation
tached is a re-appropriation request for the Crozet Crossing
fordable Housing Project and the Albemarle Housing
habilitation Program.
e Crozet Crossing grant was awarded for $300,000 with a
00,000 local match. The Board of Supervisors appropriated and
ansferred $40,000 during the 1990/91 fiscal year and $560,000
ring the 1991/92 fiscal year. Expenditures prior to July 1,
92 totalled $108,538 leaving the balance of $491,462 to be re-
propriated. The Crozet Crossing project is expected to be
mpleted in February 1993.
e Albemarle Housing Rehabilitation Program was awarded October
, 1991 for $500,000 with a $317,820 local match. The Board of
pervisors appropriated and transferred $747,294 during the
91/92 fiscal year with the balance of $70,626 included in the
68,502 1992/93 contribution. Grant expenditures prior to July
1992 totalled $119,309 leaving the balance of $380,691 to be
-appropriated. Local match funds are transferred separately to
e Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. The Albemarle Housing
habilitation Program is scheduled to be completed in October
93.
tachment
Cilimberg
I~~ ~~~~l~
IL~ ""' .
i i j
1'\RD OF SUPERVISC)PS
r
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920054
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
AHIP
SE OF APPROPRIATION:
/93 BUDGET FOR HOUSING REHABILITAION AND CROZET CROSSINGS GRANTS.
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
81027563110 AHIP/CDBG HOUSING REHAB. $380,690.93
81027563120 AHIP/CDBG CROZET CROSSINGS 491,462.00
TOTAL
$872,152.93
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
33000330081 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL-HOUSING REHAB. $380,690.93
33000330082 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL-CROZET CROSSING 281,462.00
51000510100 APP. FROM FUND BALANCE 210,000.00
TOTAL
$872,152.93
*******************************************************************
STING COST CENTER:
FINANCE DEPT.
SIGNATURE
DATE
OF FINANCE
~~~.~~~
If 1L. j II /I.
., / . (' (. ., "
..C__'" "', "':'1
/ .
, ,/J
",?-.z~ -:9..7
'=)~ //-7'3
OF SUPERVISORS
l. . ,
;ca:~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Finance
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Telephone (804) 296-5855
Oistrio!lt."d to 8r'lr.J., .::: ~_? (/.-~
l- .-"" ,.......:!j. --:.._. _' _. "";; '~.
l." rl I' 'J ".'"'"7. "-, i
~enua tern PO "';:"-:.. .~!/ /<-//~
"-_.- ..-,-.'..
MEMORANDUM
T :
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Robert J. Walters, Jr., Deputy Director of Finance ~
February 26, 1993
F
:
Appropriation of Safety Conference
tached is an appropriation request for the Safety Conference
nducted at the Omni. The Conference was funded in its entirety
the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, Central Telephone
mpany of Virginia (Centel), and the Virginia Electric and Power
mpany.
e conference was an attempt to create a partnership between the
blic and private sector in an effort to share research ideas
d safety initiatives on improving driver safety programs, as
11 as education and informing the public.
py: Dave Shaw, Police Department
m~~ &-1_0 Wi ~~I
L~... ,..2 ~m i
-, . I
,~:!!.:!iD Of SUPERVi'>..
....
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC~L YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920057
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW x
ADVE~TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND
PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT
PURPPSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DMV ~RANT FOR SAFETY CONFERENCE.
~XPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
****~*******************************************************************
1153p31141550405 DMV-SAFETY CONFERENCE $1,764.85
TOTAL
$1,764.85
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
****1 *******************************************************************
2153118110181130 PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS $264.84
2153124000240303 DMV GRANT-SAFETY CONFERENCE 1,500.00
TOTAL
$1,764.84
****,*******************************************************************
REQUlSTING COST CENTER:
APPRCVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARI OF SUPERVISORS
POLICE
SIGNATURE
~~~~
~Lf t:{. (J {' a_A-I ?\
d
DATE
c2 - 2.t& -7"3
]--1(/73-
l' - (. /_~
"'::li'" .
-"'" .' " ,"/
O:s'ri;"p"c':i ;r, t"I'I'lfd' ,_j" L~,<L_
. lIL._~_.;"J l.. ". .,_ . '''''_''
. '
.-......rl,.. ';"),_.. :',~ I /<.",:'. /
"G'C....:...... 1..\...li. . 10. .........-:;_
.:' '
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R" Marshall. JL
Scottsville
Charles S" Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F" Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
F
Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC EJ0~
(""0' I J !\I~\{ (' F A or r · 1'. .....,'
J . ,. I', I ..:. L c. \"/"'In<_t.
1"'"-0- , 1 "';':~ ,n\:l \,7-J nIl J1,..:::-lm'l
.: 1,,),''''"'('''" . ".,..!,I. '."",,",..,. .1 i1. .
I! rl(-\ ~A~ 11 1993 ) ; II i
I \ hL----T _. '
J ~~ ,~..." "OJ:.. ::.~~.: i. _.;4r !:
T
March 12, 1993
~~()}\ j~: 0 c; ~
)"J
S Reading List for March 17, 1993
N vember 18, 1992 - All - Mr. Bowerman '~e {iLL
I ~
I ,.LtlOX\ . /-\P(?I{\Jf cL
*Please note that staff reports are copied in these minutes
because the minutes were done prior to the Board decision to
no longer include the reports.
*
Printed on recycled paper