The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-07-21 1) 2) 3) 4) S) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 12a) 12b) 13) FIN A L July 21, 1993 7:00 P.M., Meeting Roam 7 Second Floor, County Office Building Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). CPA-93-0S. Mill Creek Commercial. Public Hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation on approximately seven acres from Neighborhood Service to Medium Density Residential in Neighborhood 4. The area is located on the West side of Route 742 (Avon Street) between Mill Creek Dr.ive and Southern Parkway and is a part of Mill Creek PUD. scottsville Dist. ZMA-92-04. Ja-Zan Ltd. Partnership. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 6.7 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development, to R-6, Residential (proffered). (This area is currently designated Commercial within the Mill Creek PUD.) Property located on the West side of Route 742 (Avon Street) between Mill Creek Drive and Southern Parkway. TM90C,PsB&F. scottsville Dist. Discussion: Comprehensive Plan Review - Public Participa- tion and Coordination with City and University. Discussion: Schedule Work Session for Presentation of Sverdrup's Recommendation on Meadow Creek Parkway. Approval of Advanced Allocation for scottsville Fire Department. Approval of Minutes: April 1 and April 8, 1992, February 17, 1993. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Executive Session: Personnel. Certify Executive Session. Adjourn. *It is expected that the Board will hold an Executive Session under Va. Code Section 2.1-344.A.1 (personnel matters). CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: S.1 Resolution to take roads in Forest Lakes Phase I into the State Secondary System of Highways. 5.1a Set a public hearing for August 11, 1993, on a proposed ordinance to allow the creation of Rdistricts of local significance- or mini-ag/forestal districts. FOR INFORMATION: S.2 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for July 8, 1993. S.3 Letter dated July 16, 1993, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., to Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, re: 'Route 760 Improvements. S.4 Copy of Certified letter from James B. Skove, Secretary, Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, transmitting a copy of Internal Revenue Service Form 8038 which has been filed with the IRS in connection with issuance by the IDA of its $37,34S,000 Hospital Refunding Revenue Bonds (Martha Jefferson Hospital), Series 1993 (on file in Clerk's office). 5.5 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for May 20 and June 24, 1993. 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 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. umphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall MEMORANDUM Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning & Community Development OM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk E1U~ July 22, 1993 TE: BJECT: Board Actions of July 21, 1993 Following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on July 21, 1993: Agenda Item NO.4. PUBLIC. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Mr. Kevin Cox commented that the Clerk's office was doing a good j b informing the public of impending meetings, providing agenda i formation and public notices. He appreciates the fact that the Clerk's office goes beyond the legal requirements of providing i formation to the public. Mr. Truby Kegler asked the Board to do whatever it could to make nd in the County more available to low income and middle income rsons by easing the two-acre and 21-acre lot requirements. Ms. Cynthia Hash presented a statement in opposition to the "T" nnector roads for the Meadow Creek Parkway and expressed concerns out how the "T" connector would invite more criminal activity into e neighborhood. () Agenda Item No. 5,1. Resolution to take roads in Forest Lakes ase I into the State Secondary System of Highways. Deferred until gust 4 to give staff time to work on appropriate language in the solution. The Board also requested staff to find out VDoT's stification for changing the format of the resolution. (1) Printed on recycled paper IVemo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg July 22/ 1993 Iate: (Page 2) Agenda Item No. 5.1a. Set a public hearing for August 11, 1993, en a proposed ordinance to allow the creation of "districts of local significance" or mini-agricultural/forestal districts. Approved. Agenda Item No.6. CPA-93-05. Mill Creek Commercial. Public Bearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation on approximately seven acres from Neighborhood Service to Medium Density Residential in Neighborhood 4. The area is located on the West side of Route 742 (Avon Street) between Mill Creek Irive and Southern Parkway and is a part of Mill Creek PUD. Scotts- ville Dist. Amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation on approximately 6.8 acres within the Mill Creek PUD from Neighborhood Service to Medium Density Residential in Urban ~eighborhood 4. In addition, staff is to look at, during review of the Comprehensive Plan, designating a new commercial area within ~eighborhood 4 to replace that lost at Mill Creek. Agenda Item NO.7. ZMA-92-04. Ja-Zan Ltd. Partnership. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 6.7 acres from PUD, Planned Unit D~velopment, to R-6, Residential (proffered). (This area is currently d~signated Commercial within the Mill Creek PUD.) Property located on t~e West side of Route 742 (Avon Street) between Mill Creek Drive and Sputhern Parkway. TM90C,PsB&F. Scottsville Dist. Approved subject to the following agreements recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Residential and industrial areas with their attendant open space area shall be located in general accord with the Application Plan as amended by the plan for Tax Map 90C, Parcels Band F titled Mill Creek Village Homes IV dated June 14, 1993. Industrial acreage may increase by not more than two acres as a result of possible realignment of the collector road. 2. Special use permit approval is required for establishment of the day care center. In lieu of day care use, the number of proposed single family detached units lost as a result of final street design/ ordinance regulation, or other factors, excluding the desire of the developer, may be added to the number of multi- family units, and located on this site. 3. Preliminary road layout reflects recommendation of County Engi- neer and Planning staff. The residential street design shall provide for two street connections (including the potential collector road) to Avon Street in the approximate locations shown IVemo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg July 22, 1993 [ate: (Page 3) on the Application Plan. The residential street layout shall employ patterns which shall provide reasonably direct access from all residential areas to both Avon Street intersections, and shall provide at least one connection between the northeast and southwest portions of the site in addition to the potential collector road. 4. All roads, with the exception of the potential collector roadl shall be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion standards and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development to the residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads within Tax Map 90C, Parcels Band F may be private. 5. The alignment of the potential collector road shall be in general accord with the Application Plan. The collector road shall be built in accordance with an agreement approved by the County Attorney and by the Board of Supervisors which is generally in accord with the attached draft agreement dated May 7, 1986 (read by George H. Gilliam and changes as agreed to by the applicant), presented to the Board on that date. There shall be no residen- tial entrances onto the collector road, with the exception of public road connections. 6. The maximum number of dwelling units approved under this PUD is 327. Agenda Item No.8. Discussion: Comprehensive Plan Review - P~blic Participation and Coordination with City and University. Endorsed the use of both a citizen survey and community vision forum to support the Comprehensive Plan review process. The Board indicated its desire to review the information that will be included ih the survey. Agenda Item NO.9. Discussion: Schedule Work Session for P~esentation of Sverdrup's Recommendation on Meadow Creek Parkway. Spheduled a work session with the Planning Commission for August 11 as the first item on the agenda. Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Advanced Allocation for Scotts- ville Fire Department. Authorized the Chairman to execute the a~tached agreement which has been forwarded to Melvin Breeden under s~parate cover. It was the consensus of the Board that staff prepare a letter from the Chairman to the Chairman of the Buckingham County IVemo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg July 22, 1993 Iate: (Page 4) Eoard of Supervisors requesting them to pay their fair share of services provided to Buckingham by Albemarle. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Perkins said he went and looked at the Preddy Creek property and reviewed the beetle spots. He suggested the Board direct staff to take some steps towards forest management on the property. The Board agreed. Mr. Perkins requested the Board to endorse having staff speed up the public hearing process for an application from Chestnut Grove Church in Earlysville for a day care center which is to be filed in the near future. The Church is also requesting that the Board reduce the $780 filing fee to $390, which is the fee for six to nine children. The Board indicated that as long as staff could handle it the process could be speeded up, but expressed reluctance to reduce the fee. Mr. Marshall said he had a call from some people who were trying tp find the Visitors Center but could not see the sign because of grown up weeds and trees. He asked if staff could do something if it is only to go out and trim the bushes around the sign. Mr. Perkins s~ggested PVCC, Monticello and the Chamber of Commerce do some joint effort to make this area more presentable. Mr. Tucker indicated that tnis is in VDoT1s right-of-way and is their responsibility. EWC:mms Alttachment c~: Richard E. Huff, II Robert B. Brandenburger Roxanne White George R. St. John Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Bruce Woodzell File THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for the purpose of identification t~is :2/:5f day of July, 1993, by and between the COUNTY OF Af.-oBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County") and the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER F RE DEPARTMENT, INC. ("Scottsville"); WIT N E SSE T H: Background: (A) The County previously has entered into a s~rvice agreement with scottsville, dated May 27, 1992, providing fpr the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from t~e County's annual grant to scottsville, as set forth in said a~reement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and (B) As a result of said agreement, the outstanding i~debtedness now totals One Hundred Seventy-Three Thousand Five H~ndred sixteen Dollars ($173,516.00); and (C) scottsville now desires to receive from the County an a~ditional One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) to be used fpr a new tanker; and (D) scottsville also desires to enter into an agreement cpnsolidating its annual withholdings of payment by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by spottsville of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and p~otect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during t~e term of this agreement, the County shall pay to scottsville One Hpndred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), which payment shall be made f~om the fire fund, to be paid in July 1993. The sum of Thirty-Four Thousand One Hundred Ninety Dollars ($34,190.00) shall be withheld from the County's annual grant to spottsville for a period of seven (7) years, beginning with fiscal ear 1994-95, with a final payment of Thirty-Four Thousand One undred Eighty-six Dollars ($34,186.00) to be withheld in fiscal 2001-02. Thus, at the end of the eighth year, which is the of this service agreement, a total of Two Hundr~d Seventy- hree Thousand Five Hundred sixteen Dollars ($273,516.00) will have een withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all rior advancements as a result of the prior service agreement with cottsville dated May 27, 1993. If at any time during the term of this agreement, scottsville s no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services or tanker is no longer used for fire-fighting purposes, cottsville covenants that it will convey its interest in the anker to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County r its assigns will use the pumper for fire-fighting purposes. All set forth in prior agreements remain in full force and ffect. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: VIRGINIA P. Bowerman, Chairm n Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (Seal) SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC~ ~ By 11 r preS1dent (Seal) . TATE OF VIRGINIA OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ~\ \\..1 , 1993 by DAVID P. BOWERMAN, airman, Albemarle coclnty Board of Supervisors. \)cJ-.xn.l)rJ... \\\ ~ S::J \--\\ \ \D ~)n Notary Public tT1 commission expires: \\ \>-..~L\J),\, ~ \) \ Q.c\ ~ instrument was acknowledged before me this , 1993 by ~ ~trk'f'1.{W1.t) ttsville Volunteer Fire Dep~rtment, Inc. Not\1;x1f~~itJ /jPAJJcmJ M commission expires: 'fhd.,30 ) 10,<11--] ATE OF VIRGINIA UNTY OF ALBEMARLE 0: Rot-'l : -, +- h H,::, ,.:.'.~ :>ATE: .,....- l-'t:;; ""': .:'1 ;- '..';0.' '-_."J '-j("' ~, =, =,;-" t-' ::--1 i.( c'-u (- -'f" "I :-:( \:;, ,-- ...- '-,1-, !:~ ::; I" i'l: i-' e ;;t;-' ..... .- - ::!. '. " .? .? r. ~- '~Irr, C', b ~ ~...! C i- +- .::' " I ,"-, ,--~ -. e 'l +- ~fr .?y,:-, ":' ':' ,::I,:i!;' ;:;-Q.~ ;~ ;~ i'T. 1.1. :,1::" 1-::' .; " ;'-", ....1.... .~ r-"iJ '.! ;. -. I~o/~~ 7/.:lJ'l3 t"'lEl"l_Q .:;1". ... j .j..:'f).: J.. >... ::! 1.' ~~': '~;;,:n' ;", .,. ,-; , ~= t. -+ .~ h :'; +- ,- "T .- !-: I""! ,j ;. -- -~ .'~" . . ::. ,-::.;' :"f t ,.."., c:,-.i 4<"'; _ fl r.; Jd;:' \;;;. "';!.'.! i-.~ C.. .:. -.1 c ;. -~ ;:.- i- .- .:. -'J t" '- '- ,..t" ::! ~... ::: "" ;? .:{ '"7 "~,, -. \ <J ~~ '=. ! i- t-" Ct ,....,:-:'..-!.'.: _. '""I ,=" r': II ,_,"':'",:. "'0 '- +- , ,- ~- _ ':ir; C"-": '::: DATE L~~ ;)1 f I tJ9-~ q7.07;),ll~-.1 ') T\GENDA ITEM NO. AGENDA ITEM NAME fZAC s t ~JU~ ~.s~;lo h~ .DEFERRED UNTIL Ihl9 4- Form.3 7/25/86 ,-'.... . )ATE ~) /)/1/97 ? ~GENDA ITEM NO. Q1,o'7J.I (:;-, / a ) ./ ~GENDA ITEM NAME '~I If )EFERRED UNTIL 111J.?U- / a?5 h--u;kt nl-Sl-nJs, Form. 3 7/25/86 . '- l~ S'[: )\J.P( J..- . t',-'-::; '3 .' ., ... 'i ~ ~. _ _. Q'3 (.._'~) i ;;.; ';:2.,) , j. ,,' I L.i .- .-',-:..- ',q~""I" .---"""::. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5841 July 16, 1993 ~ ,\ ,1: ~d I', >; I \ \', ; ; .i;, J\~ t OfSUPERVlSORS BOARD M . Daniel S. Roosevelt R sident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation P. O. Box 2013 C arlottesville, Virginia 22902 its meeting on July 14th, the Albemarle County Board of pervisors discussed the need to make some immediate improvement Route 760 in North Garden. Specifically, the Board asked if you uld review that segment of Route 760 between Routes 710 and 712 t determine if some improvement similar to that we recently d'scussed for Rocky Hollow Road could be achieved, e.g., drainage a d curvature/alignment improvement. Route 760 Improvements ar Dan: ur assessment of this issue would be helpful to the Board and we uld hope that you could make some brief presentation concerning is matter at our August 4 day meeting. ould you have any further questions concerning this matter, ease do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive T,Jr/dbm .133 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg ..- f)~(r!J:;;€d i;: F}'.rd:_7~ (~<~3 !\q'''>'t",. Q5,9,--1.' ,[[."7.9) July 1, 1993 RTIFIED MAIL rginia Department of Economic Development o James Center 21 East Cary Street chmond, Virginia 23219 State Treasurer Department of the Treasu P.O. Box 1879 Richmond, Virginia 2321 -1879 ard of Supervisors unty of Albemarle, Virginia 1 McIntire Road arlottesville, Virginia 22902 Internal Revenue Service Form 8038 Enclosed is a true, correct and complete copy of Inter al venue Service Form 8038, which has been filed with the In ernal R venue Service in connection with the issuance by the Indu trial D velopment Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia of its $ 7,345,000 Hospital Refunding Revenue Bonds (Martha Jeffer on H spital), Series 1991. Very truly yours, I 1/ ) ary, Industrial Develop ent Aut 0 ity of Albemarle County, Virginia " Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues (Under Internal Revenue Code section 149(e)) . See separate instructions. Reporting Authority n ustrlal Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia OMS No. 1545-0720 If Amended Return, check here ~ D Room/sUite ,4 Report number 2 Issuer's employer Identification numoer C 0 James B. Murra 5 CI or town, state, and ZIP code PA19 93 - 2 6 . Daje of Issue C arlottesville Vir lnla 22902 Hospital Refunding Revenue Bonds (Martha Jefferson Hos ital Series 1993 Jul 1 1993 8 CUSIP number Type of Issue (check applicable box(es) and enter the issue price for each) 012677 AV2 Issue Price 10 xempt facility bond: Airport (sections 142(a)(1) and 142(c)) Docks and wharves (sections 142(a)(2) and 142(c)) . Mass commuting facilities (sections 142(a)(3) and 142(c)). Water furnishing facilities (sections 142(a)(4) and 142(e)) Sewage facilities (section 142(a)(5)) . Solid waste disposal facilities (section 142(a)(6)) . Qualified residential rental projects (sections 142(a)(7) and 142(d)), as follows: . Meeting 20-50 test (section 142(d)(1 )(A)) . D Meeting 40-60 test (section 142(d)(1 )(B)) . D Meeting 25-60 test (NYC only) (section 142(d)(6)) D Has an election been made for deep rent skewing (section 142(d)(4)(B))? DYes D No Facilities for the local furnishing of electric energy or gas (sections 142(a)(8) and 142(f)) Local district heating or cooling facilities (sections 142(a)(9) and 142(g)) . Qualified hazardous waste facilities (sections 142(a)(10) and 142(h)) . High-speed intercity rail facilities (sections 142(a)(11), 142(c), and 142(i)). Check box if the owner elected not to claim depreciation or any tax credit (see Instructions) ~ D Environmental enhancements of hydroelectric generating facilities (sections 142(a)(12) and 1420)).. .... . . . . . . . . Facilities allowed under a transitional rule of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (see instructions) . Facility type. _ _........ _ _ _ _ _ _......... _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _.. _ _.......... _ _. _ _....... _ _ _. _.... _ _ _.. _. _ _ _.... _ _ _ _.. 1986 Act section... _ . . ... . . _ _ . . __ . ... . .. . ... . . . __... __ __ __ _ _ _ ... . . . __ __ . __ _ . .. . _ __ _ _ _ _. . __ . ... . ... __ __ . . Qualified mortgage bond (section 143(a)) (see instructions) . If you eieci to rebate drbitrage profits to the UnIted States, check box ~ D Qualified veterans' mortgage bond (section 143(b)) . If you elect to rebate arbitrage profits to the United States, check box ~ D Qualified small issue bond (section 144(a)) (see instructions). For $10 million small issue exemption, check box ~ D Qualified student loan bond (section 144(b)) . Qualified redevelopment bond (section 144(c)) . Qualified hospital bond (section 145(c)) (attach schedule-see instructions) Qualified 501 (c)(3) bond other than a qualified hospital bond (attach schedule-see Instructions) Nongovernmental output property bond (treated as private activity bond) (section 141 (d)) . Other. Describe (see instructions) ~ Description of Bonds 11 12 (a) (b) MatUrity date Interest rate (e) Issue price (d) Stated redemption price at maturity (e) (f) Weighted average Yield maturity (g) Net Interest cost 19 20 $ 2 920 a:xJ.CD $37 345 a:xJ CD For Pa rwork Reduction Act Notice, see page 1 of the Instructions. Cat. No. 49973K Published by Tax Management Inc., a Subsidiary of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 17 9a 9b 9c 9d ge 9f 99 ..~;;,. //':/ %~.'. . . 11 12 13 14 15 36 103 577. ED 16 17 18 8038.1 Form 8038 (Rev. 3-93) IimIID Uses of Original Proceeds of Issue (including underwriters' discount) Page 2 Amount Proceeds used for accrued interest . . . . . . . Issue price of entire issue (enter amount from line 20, column (c)) . Proceeds used for bond issuance costs (including underwriters' discount) 23 Proceeds used for credit enhancement. . . . . . . 24 Proceeds allocated to reasonably required reserve or replacement fund 25 Proceeds used to refund prior issues (complete Part VI) . . . .. 26 Total (add lines 23 through 26). . . . . . . . . Nonrefundin roceeds of the issue subtract line 27 from line 22 and enter amount here) . Description of Property Financed by Nonrefunding Proceeds (Do not complete for qualified student loan bonds, qualified mortgage bonds, or qualified veterans' mortgage bonds.) 29 Type of Property Financed by Nonrefunding Proceeds: Amount a Land ~9a b Buildings and structures . 29b c Equipment with recovery period of more than 5 years 29c d Equipment with recovery period of 5 years or less 29d e Other (describe) . 2ge tan a !n ustna c assl Ication o t e projects !nance y nonre unding proceeds. SIC Code Amount of nonrefunding proceeds SIC Code Amount of nonrefundlng proceeds a $ c $ b $ d $ 30 S drd.d '1 I 'f (SIC) f h f db IimII!lI Description of Refunded Bonds (Complete this part only for refunding bonds.) 31 Enter the remaining weighted average maturity of the bonds to be refunded 32 Enter the last date on which the refunded bonds will be called . 33 Enter the date(s) the refunded bonds were issued ~ IZI!lII Miscellaneous 34 Name of governmental unit(s) approving issue (see instructions) ~~..of.AJ..booJ3rleJ~..nty'.jlA;..Board.of.SlJperyisors of ~~. .~1.. .VA~. C;i.ty. .~Ql.Qf .Cj,ty. .of -~J.ott.es_viUe.,. _ VA; _ Mlic .~-:-5!25J.93.;. dates. .Qf. .approvals 5/25/93 35 Enter the amount of the bonds designated by the issuer under section 265(b)(3)(B)(i)(III). ~ -0- 6/2/93 & 36 If ou have elected to a a enalt in lieu of rebate, check box . . . . ~ 0 6/7/93, IDI!mI Volume Cap Amount respectively ~ ?O?!1 years ~ 1O/1/2UXJ 10/4/1900 Amount of volume cap allocated to the issuer. Attach copy of state certification Amount of issue subject to the unified state volume cap. . . . Amount of issue not subject to the unified state volume cap Oi other volume limitations: a Of bonds for governmentally owned solid waste facilities, airports, docks, wharves, environmental enhancements of hydroelectric generating facilities, or high-speed intercity rail facilities. b Under a carryforward election. Attach a copy of Form 8328 to this return c Under transitional rules of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. . Enter the Act section of the applicable transitional rule. ~. . . .. . _. . .. . . . . . _.. . " . d Under the exception for current refunding (section 1313(a) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986). 40 Amount of issue of qualified 501 (c)(3) bonds: a Qualified hospital bonds . 40a b Qualified non hospital bonds. 40b c Outstandina tax-exempt nonhospital bonds 40c 41a Amount of ,;sue of qualified veterans' mortgage bonds 41a b Enter the state limit on qualified veterans' mort a e bonds 41b Under Denaltles of perJury. I declare that I have examined thiS retum. and accompanYing schedules ana statements. and to the best 01 my," and Deilel. they are true. correct. and omplete. 37 38 39 37 38 -0- -0- 39d 37,345,CXXJ.OO -0- -0- Please Sign Here ~ ~ July 1, 1993 , Date Jr. Name of above olllcer (type or pnntl Chairman Title of officer (type or pnnt) 8038.2 Published by Tax Management Inc., a Subsidiary of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 18 ~ Oistribured \0 Bo.trd: 7-r& :2~ Af,er.da It~m r.J. ':22 1)12..'_/19'2- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 ---.".. 1m ~. @ ~ Jl w ~ I~' '; l !1 r-~-~-~!t993' . II ~I : 'LJl.l~" W BOARD OF SUPERVISORS J ly 9, 1993 M'll Creek Commercial A tention: Robert J. P st Office Box 2737 C arlottesville, VA Land Trust Kroner, Trustee 22902 e Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on June 8, 1993, by a six to one vote recommended approval of the above ted request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map signation from Neighborhood Service to Medium Density sidential. Mr. Kroner: CPA-93-0S - Mill Creek Commercial P ease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors w'll receive public comment at their meeting on Wednesday, July 2 ,1993. Any new or additional information regarding your a plication must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of S pervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing d tee have any further questions regarding the above please do not hesitate to contact me. B. Benish of Community cc \..Ella Carey Roudabush & Gale ..~ I..,.. . S AFF PERSON: PING COMMISSION: B ARD OF SUPERVISORS: KEN BAKER JULY 8, 1993 JULY 21, 1993 . COMMERCIAL CKGROtJND: is is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to ange the land use designation on approximately 6.8 acres from ighborhood Service to Medium Density Residential in Urban ighborhood 4. The area is located on the west side of Route 742 von Street) between Mill Creek Drive and Southern Parkway in the ottsville Magisterial District and is a portion of the Mill Creek anned unit Development (See Attachment A). . e purpose of this request is to permit the construction of sidential units on the site. The applicant has indicated that e property appears to be unsuitable for commercial use due to the pography. There are certain areas that are steep and would quire a great deal of grading for commercial development. The plicant believes that development is more suitable for signation as medium density residential since development nsistent with this designation would have a lesser impact on the te than commercial scale development. B STORY: o May 7, 1986, the Board of supervisors approved a petition to r zone 236 acres from R-1 to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The a proved PUD consists of the commercial area in question, an i dustrial area and a maximum of 315 dwelling units. A condition o the commercial area limited it to a maximum 60,000 square feet o gross floor area and uses permitted by Section 20.4 of the A bemarle County Zoning Ordinance. . W th the update of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in July 1989, the L nd Use Plan was changed to reflect the commercial portion of the M 11 Creek PUD. The previous Comprehensive Plan (1982-2002) had t 0 areas des~gnated for commercial land use located on the east s de of Route 742. These areas were deleted and the Neighborhood S rvice land use designation was added to reflect the commercial p rtion of Mill Creek (See Attachment B). T e City, County and University have developed land use plans for 1 nds which.lie at the boundaries of or between the University and ether the City or County. These studies are referred to as "Area B' studies. Such a study, "The Blue Ridge Neighborhood 1 . u . S udy", was conducted in 1991 for an area between Avon street and t e Blue Ridge Hospital tract (The university owns the hospital s tel. This study recognized that additional commercial d velopment, in addition to that at Mill Creek, may be warranted to a equately serve residential development in the area. E XSTXNG CONDXTIONS: N ighborhood 4 is experiencing rapid growth with the development of M'll Creek (327 units planned assuming approval of ZMA-92-04), Mill C eek South (307 units planned), Lake Reynovia (198 units planned) a d the recently approved Lakeside Apartments (360 units). In a dition, there are over 800 undeveloped acres designated for r sidential development. Services e nearest commercial service areas are located in the City along on street (1.6 miles north - two (2) general markets) and on nticello Avenue near the 1-64/Route 20 interchange. Community rvices such as grocery stores and general retail are available d wntown and at Willoughby Square on Fifth Street. Time travel and d'stance to these areas are increased due to the lack of an est/west connector in the southern Urban Neighborhoods. e area in question is currently served by State Route 742 (Avon reet). This roadway is classified as a minor arterial and is nsidered tolerable by the Virginia Department of Transportation. a commercial use is developed on this site, access would likely provided off Mill Creek Drive to serve the residents of Mill eek and directly off Avon Street. Access to the Southern Parkway difficult and costly due to existing topography. Mill Creek ive was approved by VDOT with a waiver and is designed for m ximum vehicle trips per day (vtpd) of 2600. If the commercial s'te is developed to its maximum potential (60,000 square feet), t e site is projected to generate 5,499 vtpd (generation rates c nform to the Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of T affic Engineers, 5th Edition p. 1231 - 91.6S vtpd/1000 sf). In a 1991 traffic study conducted by Applied Technology & Engineering, i was estimated that with two entrances serving the commercial s'te (Avon street and Mill Creek Drive), 67.5% of the traffic v lume would utilize the Avon street exit and 37.5% of the traffic v lume would utilize the Mill Creek Drive entrance. This would r sult in an additional 2,130 vtpd onto Mill Creek Drive. '. 2 . . , eview of APplied Technology & Engineering'S traffic. s,:udY alsO ndicated that if the site in question wa~ ~xclud~d. ~,ll creek rive would exPerience 1.:1.47 vtpd. The add,t,Onal "lIpa~t o~ up to 2,062 vtpd as a resu1t of co~ercia1 deve10pment o~ th's s,te may adverse1Y impact ~i11 creek Drive as currentlY deS,gned. If the site is deve10ped as a medium density residentia1 area. ,it wi11 generate fewer vtpd onto ~i11 creek Drive than a co~erc'al development. A. residential development would be exPected ,to generate between 158-398 vtpd. depending on ~e numbe~ of un,ts developed (generation rateS conform to the Tr'P Generat,on Manual prepared bY the Institute of Traffic Engineers. 5th Edition p. 382 _ 5.86 vtpd/dwelling). This would result in between 59-:1.49 additional vtpd onto Mill Creek Drive (assuming 37.5% of the traffic would utilize Mill creek Drive and 67.5% would utilize Avon street). The comprehensive Plan reco~ends the interConnection of Route 20. Avon street Extended, and Fifth street. If constructed. theSe roadways will improve traffic circulation in NeighborhOods 4 and 5 (see Attachlllent C). in partiCular providing more convenient east/west connection. lrovironment An area of steep slopes (25% or greater) exists on the northern portion of the property along the Southern parkWay. soils on this property consist of MYersville very stony silt Loam. orange silt Loam and catoctin Very stony silt Loam. The ~yersville soil is well-drained and bedrock is generallY at a depth of more than five (5) feet; The orange soil is poorlY to moderatelY drained and bedrock ~s at a depth of fifty-five (55) inches. The catoctin is well-dra,ned and shallow to bedrock (20 to 40 inches) (see Attachment D) . ~hi~ a,rea, is within the Albemarle county service Authority's )unsd,ct,onal area for water and sewer. A 20. water line is located approximatelY 25' from this area. A 8" sewer line is proposed to terminate at the site. police Water and sewer ~e co~unity Facilities Plan reco~ends a response time of ten m'n~tesor leSS ,to all emergency callS throughout the county, pol,ce res~onse t,mes to this area generallY exceed the reco~ended response t~me. '. . 3 --- , . F re and Rescue T~e community Facilities Plan recommends an average response time t p fire emergency calls of five minutes or less and an average r~sponse time to rescue emergency calls of four minutes or less. T ~e city and County have a contract whereby the City agrees to p ovide 24 hour fire protection to the County. T~e Ridge street Fire Company would be the primary responder to a f re call originating from the area under study. The C ~arlottesville Albemarle Rescue Squad would respond to rescue e pergency calls. Due to close proximity of the Ridge street s ation, recommended fire response times are achieved. Response fpr rescue emergency calls slightly exceeds the recommended four m~nute response time. Srohools C ~ildren residing in this development will attend either Cale, W~lton or W.A.H.S. It is expected that new residential development i~ this area would generate the following- number of school aged c~ildren: Number of Number of . Grades Potential Multiplier Children Units K-6 27-68 .443 12-30 7-9 27-68 .166 4-11 10-12 27-68 .126 3-9 B~low is the effective capacity, the maximum capacity and current ertrollments of schools serving the area. Effective Maximum Current School capacity Capacity Enrollment ~ale Elementary 495 594 424 ~alton Middle 675 810 546 ~chool ~estern Albemarle 1,170 1,404 1,030 ~igh School A", this time, all schools currently have adequate capacity to apsorb potential school aged children as a result of a residential d~velopment at this site. As residential development . 4 . . . ntinues to increase in the Southern Urban Area, enrollment gures are more likely to exceed effective capacities of the hools serving the area. rks and Recreation rks and Recreation facilities are provided through a hierarchy of cilities and are classified by their function provided. The assification includes: (1) Community; (2) District; and (3) unty. Standards for each park type are establ ished in the mmunity Facilities Plan. This includes recommendations for site ze, typical facilities, capacity and service areas. Presently, mmunity and District park level services are provided through the hools. This results in the non-duplication of many recreational cilities and is a cost saving to the County. rk service to this area is adequate. community Park service is ovided by Cale Elementary School. District level park services e provided by Burley Middle School and Piedmont Virginia mmunity College (PVCC). County Park level service is provided by vanna Park. ice lic Library services are provided to this area by the Jefferson- dison Regional Library. In addition , the libraries at UVA and CC are available to the general public. The closest library to is area is the Downtown Central Library. The Community cilities Plan recommends a branch library be located in a manner serve the southern Urban area of the County. aff opinion is that topography on the site makes the opportunity fully develop this parcel for commercial use cost prohibitive. jor grading would need to take place to achieve acceptable slopes r parking areas and travel ways. Also, the vehicle trips per day to Mill Creek Drive are limited due to its present design and cess onto the Southern Parkway would be difficult and costly to hieve due to existing topography. Therefore, staff believes that e site is more suitable for residential development. Adequate mmunity facilities and infrastructure are in place to support ditional residential units. The proposed medium density use is nsistent with immediate surrounding uses (west and south). wever, staff feels that while the Mill Creek site is not a prime cation for commercial development, it is very important to ovide adequate commercial services within the Neighborhood 4 5 . a . a ea. The Comprehensive Plan states the following concerning d velopment in the Urban Area (p.157): Comprised of geographically defined neighborhoods that: a. contain well defined residential and residential service areas; and, b. Are supported by..... neighborhood commercial areas; and neighborhood professional, business and public service uses~ th the development of Mill Creek, Mill Creek South, Lake Reynovia d the likely development of Lakeside, the area is a well defined sidential area. However, if the Comprehensive Plan is amended and e Neighborhood Service designation is removed from the Mill Creek te, the area will be lacking in potential land areas for sential neighborhood commercial services. Therefore, if the Plan amended and the Neighborhood Service designation is removed from e Mill Creek site, staff believes that other areas within ighborhood 4 should be designated for commercial use eighborhood or community Service). COMMENDATION: aff recommends amending the Comprehensive Plan to change the land e designation on approximately 6.8 acres within the Mill Creek P D from Neighborhood Service to Medium Density Residential. Also, a new commercial area should be designated within Neighborhood 4 to r place that lost at Mill Creek. Areas to be considered for the r placement of the Neighborhood Service designation should be 1 cated in an area fronting ort Route 742 (Avon Street), preferably c ntralized to the existing and planned residential development a ong Avon Street. Preliminary analysis by staff has indicated t at there are potential areas located on the east side of Avon S reet that are more suitable for commercial development than the M 11 Creek site. It is recommended that possible areas for future N ighborhood Service designation be undertaken as part of the u coming review of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff opinion is that t e availability of commercial area in Neighborhood 4 is essential t provide adequate support services to residential areas c nsistent with Comprehensive Plan standards and to reduce traffic i pact in neighborhoods (county and city streets). 6 c H A R s '\. ...-...... \. .'\ , \ \ \ " ( ., ", FOUR \~ ~~~ ~~\ \ ~ c H A R T T s IATTACHMENT cl '-\ " v ~ " ",>'" "" '>"..II~t....<"'> .. .~ > ~ "" ~ ~ ~ ( v > .. '"-,, ".., I. T '" ... ., 0 0 ,p04 '" <. 4. ., ., > " 4_": '",: .. ~ " ,," '> " ,. ~. :.:.:.:. ..... '" ~ *':::0,,0 &. 7 .. ~ ~ c. "" '--'^" '- . >& '" 4 > .~.. t-l: .. ~~.. '" ., .. "f"), ..c,',} .. ,... '" dt- <'" './i... "< .. (4 ~ <", '" 10. ~ \.. '" 04 ...," 7 ( ;:;,,:;"'.;./:':\7':' ><' ., ",>"< < ,., ... (' It. .Jr. ~ .. " ,. c. ,. '" ' " Proposed Route 20/ > .. <' 4" >" ~ > < ( 'r ., ., 1 ..: ~ L >" "'"" ,. > V,.., Avon Street Connector .. ~ "" ~.,'. , ~ . ~ '-".,-"7., - ~" .. > .. '" .. - &. .. <'. -, ", "'...., 4 " ' 'to <" .., - .- ,....,~...~:,. "'." ~"....,<.. ,"'", ,CL"' ~ po .' .. ~ >.. " 40 .. " > " If > .. If ~ to A ~ ., A '" ~ " " " ",I '" .Jr. < > ~ ..., 1->""" <,"'''''.... "'... ~ <' .., ., <' '7 ~L '" > ~ '" .. ,. ~,. 'lit.. ., >,. 'It c-'" II "',... '" "'.., > .. ..,,), L ~ < If > '4 ~ .. "" "'"7,. ""7 ,.,,<,.;" :..,,,,,,7<,,,1 .., ., '" ,.. ...... '" ^ "... < "7 V < ... 'I"') '" ",j"",,." \I,. > '" ,,&. "',..1 ......,. ... .. j" ..." ^~ ~' '('" '" . <( > "/.,.. ,.>1"'...., It. ,," ')'" V 'C'.. .."'<"....... > 1.".(' ^" > "II "''' II .,~" "'''' ........<.., <... "<.?"to> <( "".....'<. T oJ. .. ... -, ... v . v , A .., > > " "< ., v .., ':. to ., '('" ,.. .," '"' II > ',.<A >~., ,.....^ ,.<,,10..,'" t' .., "<j,, '7 V.. .., ...,1'7..'7 .. \ \ \ " ATTACHMENT D . ~ ARtt.W~ t, \'-7' '-.. '...~... '. I I , . " '// '''~ !~: ~... -;"" 1/11 " ( I I I I t' I I I ,1111 ~ : / I I \' I \1, J ILAGE ~ ;\\\, , \ I, o MES II ;?, I I , II I I II I I I I I E 2 _ CATOC IN VERY STONY SILT LOAM (130) R"','"",,',,,) ORANGE SILT LOAM (638) r ILLE VERY STONY SILT LOAM ~ CRITICAL SLOPES. (25'llt OR GREATER) t>'strj~uted kl ~ld; J - 10 -:t:> ~~"nri. Itl>"'! ~~=' .~--,_D}_fJ ( ~:1_3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596 (804) 296-5823 .1 rnm(CmDW~Jr'< II: ,. <":'. -...... J ~ E~j IL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Jul 9, 1993 Mil Creek Commercial Land Trust ATT Robert J. Kroner, Trustee P.O Box 2737 Cha lottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA-93-04 Ja-Zan Limited Partnership Dea Sir, The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on Thu sday, July 8, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of the abo e-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note tha this approval is subject to the fOllowing conditions which are identical to those of ZMA-85-29 except as noted: 1. Residential, and industrial, ~nd oommeroi~l areas with their attendant open space area shall be located in general accord with the Application Plan as amended by the plan for Tax Map 90C, Parcels Band F titled Mill Creek Village Homes IV dated June 14, 1993. Industrial acreage may increase by not more than two (2) acres as a result of possible realignment of the collector road. 2. Uoeo permitted in the oOffiffieroi~l ~re~ oh~ll be ~o provided in Eeotion 20.4 Commeroi~l/Eervioe uoeo. The ~pplio~nt oh~ll de~elop ~ b~l~nced mill of uoeo intended to provide loo~l oervioe to the run ~nd the neighborhood in ~ener~l. Shopping oenter p~rking ot~nd~rdo m~y be employed. 3. Special use permit approval is' required for establishment of the day care center. In lieu of day care use, the number of proposed single family detached units lost as a result of final street design, ordinance regulation, or other factors, excluding the desire of the developer, may be added to the number of mUlti-family units, and located on this site. Robl~rt J. Kroner, Trustee JuliT 9, 1993 Pagl~ 2 4. Preliminary road layout reflects recommendation of County Engineer and Planning staff. The residential street design shall provide for two street connections (including the potential collector road) to Avon Street in the approximate locations shown on the Application Plan. The residential street layout shall employ patterns which shall provide reasonably direct access from all residential areas to both Avon Street intersections and, shall provide at least one connection between the northeast and southwest portions of the site, in addition to the potential collector road. 5. All roads, with the exception of the potential collector road shall be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development to the residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads within Tax Map 90C, Parcels B and F may be private. 6. The alignment of the potential collector road shall be in general accord with the Application Plan. The collector road shall be built in accordance with an agreement approved by the County Attorney and by the Board of Supervisors which is generally in accord with the attached draft agreement dated May 7, 1986 (read by George H. Gilliam and changes as agreed to by the applicant), presented to the Board on that date. There shall be no residential entrances onto the collector road, with the exception of public road connections. ~ The aommerai~l de~elopffient limited to 60,000 oqu~re feet grooo floor ~rea. 7. The maximum number of dwelling units approved under this PUD is ~ 327 dwelling units. Ple~se be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors wil review this petition and receive public comment at their mee ing on Wednesday, July 21, 1993. Any new or additional infprmation regarding your application must be submitted to the Cle k of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to you scheduled hearing date. Robert J. Kroner, Trustee JullT 9, 1993 Page 3 If ~ou should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sin~erely, /7 ~ //.- /J-;// /// f/.:.~ v 1/ y,.-. Wil iam D. Fritz Sen or Planner WDF I/mem cc: George H. Gilliam Elbert Morris , .. \ .-1 _ . . . S~AFF PERSON: P~ING COMMISSION: BPARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ JULY 8, 1993 JULY 21, 1993 (~MA-92-04) JA-ZAN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP P~tition: The Ja-Zan Limited Partnership petitions the Board of Supervisors tb amend the Mill Creek PUD to permit residential development (maximum of 36 d~elling units) on a 6.8 acre area currently permitting commercial uses. This s~te is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay D~strict. Property, described as Tax Map 90C, Parcels Band F, is located on the west side of Rt, 742 (Avon Street Extended) between Mill Creek Drive and S~uthern Parkway in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is lbcated in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 4) and is recommended for N~ighborhood Service. Cnaracter of the Area: This site is heavily wooded, predominately with e~ergreen trees. The adjacent site to the south is currently developed with tne single-family attached units of Village Homes I, The property to the west i~ undeveloped, but the Village Homes II site plan has been approved for that s'te. The properties to the north consist of the Mill Creek Business Park ipcluding the existing Shenandoah's Pride and Bartlett Tree facilities, Of the single-family detached lots in the Mill Creek PUD, 215 of the 219 p~rmitted lots have been built upon, The single family attached units c~nsists of 40 lots in Phase I (built) and 26 in Phase II (unbuilt). APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: A detailed site plan is under review (see Attachment CD. The dwelling units proposed would be consistent with Village Homes s'ngle-family attached units located just to the south. All lots will be r~stricted to access the new internal roads with a single connection to Mill C eek Drive to serve the site, This request would increase the total number o~ dwelling units in the Mill Creek PUD from 315 to 327. (The entire Mill C eek development has used only 291 of the 315 dwellings approved with the PPD: 291 lots platted/approved plus 36 proposed units - 327.) Single-family detached Village Homes I - Single-family attached Village Homes II - Single-family attached 215 units 40 units 36 units TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 291 UNITS St~A>>Y AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff oplnlon is this request for residential d~velopment is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan assuming approval of CPA-93-05, and therefore, recommends approval of ZMA-92-04. plANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: On May 7, 1986 the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a petition to r~zone 236 acres from R-1, Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development (ZMA- 8b-29) consisting of commercial and industrial areas and a maximum of 315 d~elling units. The conditions on the commercial area limited it to 60,000 s uare feet gross floor area and, "Uses permitted in the commercial area shall 1 , . . . . b~ as provided in Section 20,4 Commercial/Service uses, The applicant shall d~velop a balanced mix of uses intended to provide local service to the PUD a~d the neighborhood in general, Shopping center parking standards may be e pployed." A preliminary site plan for commercial development of this property, the Shops a Mill Creek, was submitted for review in December, 1990 and subsequently d~ferred in January, 1991 due to unresolved traffic generation issues o casioned by the proposed 50,000 square foot shopping center which was to be s~rved by 246 parking spaces. CbMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Please review the staff report for CPA-93-05 for Cbmprehensive Plan comments for this site, 1I4'PACT ANALYSIS: A the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning staff reviews r~zoning requests for their fiscal impact on public and transportation f~ci1ities, This analysis is limited to those rezonings that have some effect o~ facilities that are identified in our Capital Improvements Program (CIP) or S x Year Road Plan and have a cost associated with them. T~e analysis is based on the fair share determination of a particular development's impact to affected facilities. It must be pointed out that this' a~a1ysis is cursory, due to the lack of information on revenues and the amount a tributab1e to this development, The cost outlined by staff only indicates tne proportionate share of construction costs from the additional development g~nerated by the rezoning over by-right development, This development results ill 12 more units than could be achieved "by-right", This increase is based on t~e additional units proposed in excess of the original 315 units permitted in M 11 Creek, T~e following are those facilities which will be affected by the rezoning request and have a cost associated with them. A Schools S hools affected by this proposal which have a cost as identified in the CIP a e: ~alton Middle School ~estern Albemarle High School $331,500 $761,000 B sed on the additional students as estimated by multipliers currently used by t~e County, 4 additional elementary school students, 3 additional middle s hoo1 students, and 2 additional high school students are anticipated, Costs a tributab1e to this development based on the proportion of students is $ ,087.00 or $57.97 per dwelling unit. B Library TI is proposal is in the service area of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (Droject cost - $97,500). Based on the proportionate impact to library c pacity, the proportionate share cost of this project is $131.62 or $3.66 per d e11ing unit~ 2 , , C Recreational Facilities . R~creation facilities affected by this proposal which have a cost identified i(1 the CIP are: ~estern Albemarle Tennis Court Resurfacing Rivanna Park Improvements ~alton Tennis Court Resurfacing $25,000 $143,144 $12,400 B~sed on the additional population generated by this request, the proportional s~are cost of this project is $452,33 or $12.56 per dwelling unit. .......... ..i .......................... .... ........ ...... --' iii> ............ ...... .......... '..11" .....i... .....i )dd PROPORTIONAT COST PER DU PROJECTS TOTAL COST $ E SHARE $ $ (36 DU's) ~a1ton Middle School 331,500.00 1,326,00 36,83 ~estern Albemarle High School 761,000.00 761. 00 21. 14 ~efferson-Madison Regional 97,500,00 131. 62 3,66 Library Parks 180,544.00 452,33 12.56 . rrOTALS 1,370,544,00 2,670.95 74,19 C nsideration of the fiscal impact of the development needs to be balanced apainst considerations of the County's growth management policy and other C unty policies, Excessive development exactions could have the effect of d scouraging utilization of the holding capacity of area, and thus, lead to a celerated development in the Rural Areas, S'nmARY AND RF.COMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request under the. a sumption that CPA-93-05 has been approved, Staff has reviewed the submitted p an and can identify no physical factors that prevent development of this s te. Staff has compared the current proposal to the previous proposal for ccmmercia1 development, The current proposal results in less grading on-site a d substantially fewer vehicle trips on Mill Creek Drive (211 for the p oposed residential development opposed to 1,776 for the previously submitted p an for commercial development), TIe submitted plan provides for setbacks, landscaping, lot sizes and lot ccnfiguration which is similar to the existing Village Homes I which is aejacent and Village Homes III which is located in Mill Creek South, The dEsign for this site is also similar to that for Village Homes II which is aejacent but undeveloped, . 3 . . . . . S aff op1n1on is that the proposed development is consistent with the adjacent rlsidential development. The setbacks and landscaping provided sufficient b\ffers from the adjacent roadways and industrial development, Assuming a proval of CPA-93-0S, staff supports this request and recommends approval of ~~-92-04 subject to the acceptance of the revised agreements which are i entical to the original agreements for the Mill Creek PUD except as noted. TI e amendments to the previous agreements delete reference to commercial d velopment, include the plan of development for the area currently under r view and modify the total number of units permitted in the Mill Creek D velopment. During the review of subdivision plats and site plans for this d velopment staff will insure that all applicable provision of the Subdivision a d Zoning Ordinances are met, Architectural Review Board approval will be r quired. P onosed Aoreements which are identical to those of ZMA-85-29 except as noted: 1 Residential, and industrial, aaa eemmereial areas with their attendant open space area shall be located in general accord with the Application Plan as amended by the plan for Tax Map 90C. Parcels Band F titled Mill Creek Villa~e Homes IV dated June 14. 1993, Industrial acreage may increase by not more than two (2) acres as a result of possible realignment of the collector road, 2 Yses per-mittea ia tae eemmereial area saall Be as previaea ia Seetiea 29,~ CemmereialjSer\9iee ~ses. Tfte appliesat saall ae~elep a Balaaeea mil[ ef ases iateaaea te preYiee leeal serviee te tae PUD aaa tae aeigaeerReea ia general. Saeppiag eeater parltiag standards may Be e~leyee. 3 Special use permit approval is required for establishment of the day care center, In lieu of day care use, the number of proposed single family detached units lost as a result of final street design, ordinance regulation, or other factors, excluding the desire of the developer, may be added to the number of multi-family units, and located on this site, 4 Preliminary road layout reflects recommendation of County Engineer and Planning staff, The residential street design shall provide for two street connections (including the potential collector road) to Avon Street in the approximate locations shown on the Application Plan. The residential street layout shall employ patterns which shall provide reasonably direct access from all residential areas to both Avon Street intersections and, shall provide at least one connection between the northeast and southwest portions of the site, in addition to the potential collector road. S All roads, with the exception of the potential collector road shall be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development to the residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads within Tax Map 90C, Parcels Band F may be private, 6 The alignment of the potential collector road shall be in general accord with the Application Plan. The collector road shall be built in accordance with an agreement approved by the County Attorney and by the Board of Supervisors whichis generally in accord with the attached draft agreement dated May 7, 1986 (read by George H. Gilliam and changes as 4 . '. . .- . . agreed to by the applicant), presented to the Board on that date. There shall be no residential entrances onto the collector road, with the exception of public road connections. +- TAe eammereial QeYele~meRt limited te aQ,OOO s~uare feet gress fleer ~ 7 The maximum number of dwelling units approved under this PUD is ~ 327 dwelling units, AI'TACHMENTS' A - Tax Map B - Location Map C - Development Plan 5 I ATTACHMENT A I / - MILL eRE K "CAc..rl H"crt." ...,..,., D....II .....,. ...... I ..,t.. I 11."1"".." I_I 0.1. '.4 r...... D.I. .44 ....... lu'.U II (L.40 ..........., 0.1. ... ..,.01' D....?4 '" ).. ..,.. IU(L- ............ 'S,U Do.o 100S ,.. 117 ...... N (L- I" .......2..' 0.1. 1041....412 aCA ~. '.IT... SCOTTSVI LLE DISTRICT SECTION 90C ,{'" I ATTACHMENT 81 -,- 'Ul\l' (J,' . ,.,.1 k/.: l",,'~-------:,r'-I /.:~-: "'B /" '_' : J' ,\, I, . ~~; I " ,{ \ I'" ,--;;1' : 1.. ,'- '" _. ....". I ~~ I ./\~79! j\ I -.." ................J...,~..._..._ ..... ,': ... ... ... ...... ~;...., .... - ... l' - ... ... - ... ... ... \_ ~""""ll I I l , ,. ..... I _ J..,1Io.. _ .- --- c,. ';' "'t. I ~, /f"'! .... , r&iOl ...r)~...~~\ ). ... ..@1J 1"<"" \ @..!J " , . ~ _\~~j ,. ;,~ ~l' \ \ f / -,' .- { ~T'}... ; [!I]] ... .- - ~ .J... / /' I ~ '\ ( "", l .... [~~:~J'\' '..'. \... '\ I .) I ;' , , , / ..... ~ ~ " ~ v . I :;', "- 't..~~"'" c c.. " (.-" ~ -, EI' \ ' \~ , \ '... J 11' , J rH~"J ' \ ^ , , , ". ; , ..^ 'T / ,.~ ;:"'.- @Jj' '?" ~ ~ " \ --.-l~ I - -,- Tll TWU ~I~ .. III -{ 1 I ..... , , ~ z < ~ < ~ ~ \ .-'J -- .n '" . 0 < C n :II. 0 ::~~ ~ :; C ~... '" :: ~~; .'Z ;~:~ ~ ~;Eg :;; <;g :It to ~~:J )10 _ l::t x:D en ! ". r.n . ! ~ 0 a Z ,n Z f' !:!? z -1 < m r 1J r r- :t> :t> G) Z m " :r 0 o JJ s: s: m - (IJ r:: - n ~ JJ . m m ^ _// '...~-:...:- \ ---- ..... \ "~?.; \ 0,.:. \ '", -/1 - u ~- ! ~ J .'...., c.i :: : <' ". ~. ::.::: UJ UJ ex: - () > -l C/) -l W ~ :E ex: 0 o J: L.L. W Z '" <t <! -l -.J Cl. -.J UJ > I- en III : 0: u z"' o !:? ~ << ~ ;~o~ <' 0'" <c U c::....O~ .a a:: en a: > UJ 8~gw -J .... 2: -' j <{ 00( % w- " zo(~~ O..l~"" :i ~:~:: en ~ a: 2 0 ~ o~:~ <( ::w~z O > U ..0: ::> " o III a: ,\:. I II'~~-l. . <'J~<?-'f-,,~ - -" - -:~/ I ~ ' . - - /7 . <(,,<?- " -. ~~ '..1 ,~O~'.,. '" --;/ ( I "'- '" . '0 . ....0 '" 0 ~~";. '... ". \ \ \ \ /"~ /' , " " '"' '" '" '" z ::> -. .;; .... < o o '"' II :- '" .J < U III N u ~.1~.' \ , i \ . l t , I I I '\. .'.... ' .'- ~,~ / 4 .' .....................y 'I' ~ ::;r~:~:;::':,~ ~ A ~ s-''''o .......... N/ "-'. -......... .-.......... ~_/ ~)'}I"1 "'......c:?,oo ,....../..........:,- -...;... ' . '-z..:: '-, . ". '........., '..... '....... '....... ......, / '-'-..... ........ 0: ~ 0: III III ~ c: "' "' >- "' ~ "' c: '" ;<. " " z c: a: a: e "' ;:, .. < '" ~ ~ 10 I I . ~ I Cl [ )- Z I ~ 1 I \ , i <. ... hi ~~fIi H.J.Jrilmnl~I.. JdJ.L.:L__J::. __ .--- ~ . t)!S;:~18UTr:O rr) 80A,PD .M:?i.\r.GRS -2.: " C\"'3 (y~ - I ( (' - j'; -,,~._......,: County of Albemarle ill 993 @rnDW~ ill EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y AGENDA Compreh Plan Partici ation and City/Un'versity. Review Coordination Public with AGENDA DATE: July 21, 1993 C-t.2 {.-)7 ~/! . 1../--'2., (L J ~) ......,-' t..... '-.~ T ACTION:~ INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes (1) ---- STAFF C Messrs. REVIEWED BY: Brandenburger 1 Cilimberg ROUND: quent to previous Board discussion regarding the upcoming review of the Comp ehensive Plan, staff has identified two items for consideration by the Board. Firstl the use of a random sample public survey that would be the initial basis for publ' c participation in this review process and, second, a joint City/County/University "co unity visioning" process as a kick-off to our respective plan reviews. DISC SSION: The a tached memorandum discusses both items in detail and are being presented at this time as decisions are necessary if these are to be completed in the Fall of 1993. Briefly; · Services for developing 1 conducting and analyzing a public survey are available from the U.Va. Center for Survey Research and could be completed this fall whether designed solely for the County or as part of a joint survey. Costs to the County are estimated to be under $201000. Funding is available from carry-over in the development department budgets. If the Center for Survey Research is to be engaged in this process for completion in October 1 the preliminary work needs to commence as soon as possible. · PACC-TECH recently discussed the coordination of respective Comprehensive Plan/Master Plan reviews by the City/County/University. During this discussion, the opportunity to identify community issues through a "community vision" forum was thought to be both timely and appropriate. This concept, as outlined in_the attachment, has been forwarded to PACC for their consideration. Both ~he City and County Planning Commissions have endorsed the proposal. The County Executive is in discussion with a consulting firm regarding the possibility of facilitating such a forum and their fees. ENDATION: e the use of both a citizen survey and community vision forum to support the hensive Plan review process. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 iill m ~~y ~ W .-'~.."'I..; j3 I._~_ ---J BOARD OF SUPEHVISORS j j MORANDUM Albemarle County Board of Supervisors d Albemarle County Planning Commission v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Plann1ng & Community #/J~ Development 'f./" Bob Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive~(f)-- a follow-up to the Joint Planning Commission/Board of pervisors meeting in May, Wayne met with David Bowerman, Phil imm and Bob Tucker to discuss initial steps in undertaking the xt review of the Comprehensive Plan. It was the consensus of at meeting that we should pursue active dissemination of pubic formation about the upcoming review this summer and investigate nducting a scientific, random sample public survey in September llowed by a public forum for general input on the Comprehensive P an. In the interim, we have also been in conversation with the C'ty and University about their plan reviews. As you may be a are, the three party planning agreement of the three j risdictions calls for coordinated review of our plans. The r sults of these discussions have lead to several f'ndings/proposals you may want to take action on. July 6, 1993 Comprehensive Plan Review - Public Participation/ Coordination with the City and University S aff has met with Mr. Tom Guterbock at the Center for Survey R search (CSR) at the University of Virginia to discuss survey t'me frame and cost. He recommends a random sample telephone s rvey with a sample size of 500-800 households. Surveying i cludes question development, list of telephone numbers to be s rveyed, testing of survey for question validity/clarity and t'me requirements, conducting the survey over several evenings a d survey tabulation. CSR is doing a similar survey for Prince W'lliam County at a cost of around $20,000. The cost for Board of Supervisors emarle would be less due to availability of telephone lists location. Should such a survey be conducted, staff believes istance from an organization such as CSR will be necessary ause of the expertise, resources available for developing, ducting and tabulating the survey, and the independent status such an organization. If CSR is to assist, survey development ld need to begin immediately with surveying in September and ulation by early October. CSR will be involved with the eral election surveying in October and would want to complete ounty survey by then. cussion with the City and University have revealed a strong ire for a "community visioning" process as a kick-off to our spective plan reviews. (See Attachment A). The PACC Tech ittee endorsed this concept at its June meeting and is ommending its approval by PACC. is possible to integrate the surveying and visioning processes wi hin a reasonable time frame as a lead-in to plan review. Mr. Gr'mm has addressed the benefits of such in the attached memo. (S e Attachment B). This could happen under the following sc nario: 1. Conduct County survey in September with a section of "Community Vision" questions. The same questions would be part of a City survey now planned for early Fall. "Community Vision" questions would be jointly developed by the City, County and University. 2. Tabulate and publicize results in October. 3. Hold "Community Vision" forum in November. 4. Move into individual plan reviews in December. h the knowledge that such a scenario will involve both a itical and financial commitment, and that timing of a decision critical, we are providing this to you for your information possible endorsement. /jcw ACHMENTS cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. ATI'ACHMENT A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ..[...AC'"".I~~'" C'~'!.\ E'''''" 1 To .. E ,",' [';~" ,.' . "',: ., 'i\ If ", !i:1 :~ - 5'0:~ '1imIM- y, IlI'\Ill .$ ~UN [~ 2 1993 l.'J~.nr~'l;nn Dp!F\'i" r- ~c:JL' ~~ ~~ :~j '-d'~~'.~;] MEMORANDUM From: Jules Levine, Chairman, PACCTECH d t ' L'>&- Robert B. Bran enburger, Ass. County Executlv~ I To: RE: Comprehensive Plan/Master Plan Review Process Date: June 18, 1993 During our last PACC TECH meeting we briefly discussed the mutual interest in each others upcoming review of their Comprehensive Plans and/or Master Plan and looked for issues where coordination and participation is necessary and appropriate. Based on that discussion a separate meeting of City, University and County representatives was held on June 17th to further discuss the review processes and to make recommendations to PACC TECH. Participants in the meeting were Sue Lewis, Gary O'Connell, Satyendra Huja, Tom Leback, Phil Grimm, Wayne Cilimberg and myself. The objectives of the meeting were; to continue to identify coordination issues; brief each other on the planning process currently under discussion for the City, County, University; identify the level of community participation and the extent this will/should involve a focus on Vision. While we all agreed the need for using a common community profile, a common index, and common terminology, the focus of the discussion was the opportunity for the City/County/University to initiate our separate review processes on the foundation of a "One Community" vision developed through a joint community visioning process. Many issues were identified if this were to be undertaken, not the least of which is the support and concurrence of PACC and the respective political bodies to undertake this approach. As the City and County are already in the preliminary planning stages for their respective reviews it is necessary to determine if a total community vision process will be a keystone for this effort. It will affect the timing and implementation schedule for each of us. .. - ~he following is a proposed outline for consideration by PACC ~ECH that supports a "One Community" visioning process: o July-October '93 City/County/University develop and implement a joint survey of the community that will be used with other comm~nity profile data for a Community Vision Forum. o November '93 Community Vision Forum. o January '94 - February '95 Respective plan reviews. o March '95 Adoption of the three plans by the respective political bodies. If a community Vision Forum is to be a keystone for the review processes a working committee of 2 to 3 members from the City, ~ounty and University is proposed. The task of this committee is to coordinate the development of the community profile data and to coordinate the joint vision forum. In order to move forward with this proposal the group recommends the following: o Discussion and recommendation (as appropriate) by PACC TECH at their June 30, 1993 meeting; o City and county Planning commissions and the University's ~aster Plan Council consider the PACC TECH recommendations prior to the August 26th meeting of the PACC; o PACC consider the recommendations (and endorse if they so choose) at their August 26th meeting; o Political bodies support/endorse the PACC proposal. ~s the development of a joint survey can be a critical element for a joint vision forum, and realizing the complexities of ~eveloping such a survey, if PACC TECH endorses this concept the respective staffs should begin collaboration on such a survey instrument pending PACC and political body endorsement. I request that you put this on the PACC TECH agenda for our ~une 30th meeting and will ensure distribution to all members prior to the meeting. If you have any questions please give me a ball at 296-5841. .... . ~ Distribution: Bill Middleton Harry Porter Sue Lewis Satyendra Huja Phil Grimm Jo Higgins Gary O'Connell Jules Levine Ken smith Gib Aiken Jtyiy Mueller \l'l8.yne Cilimberg Tom Leback Nancy O'Brien c:\wp\pacctech ATI'ACHMENT B RECEIVED ~EMORANDUM JUN 2 5 l'J~j Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning Phil Grimm ~ Planning Ds~ t. .June 25, 1993 ::UB.JECT: ~1y thoughts on "Community" and the survey, The PACC is functioning as intended and is providing 'ndicators that lead me to believe the city, county, and university are entering an era of unparalleled cooperation, I telieve this is borne out of a desire to improve the efficiency (f our institutions and to make them more responsive to the needs of our citizens. The indicators I am aware of include: 1) a proposed residential college and community recreation facility perhaps tied to the city's economic development strategy and carefully integrated with the surrounding neighborhood; 2) a task force under the guidance of the University Master Plan is considering future student housing directions which hopefully, will include examination of the impact on city, and to a lesser extent, county housing stock; 3) suggestions that the three police departments enter into discussions with the goal of improving police coverage and communication. The city and county Planning Commissions have established a s~hedule of joint meetings to discuss issues of mutual concern. I think I speak for the members of both commissions in saying tlat our best future will be achieved within a spirit of c operation and open lines of communication between the two j risdictions and the University. The recent gathering at PVCC at the fferson Regional Economic Development cellent examples of the visioning process veloment. invitation of The Partnership created focusing on regional With this as background, I feel comfortable in providing sJrong endorsement for a city/county/university survey iltegrating a future vision element as a "kickoff" for the c mprehensive plan reviews, A full expression of citizen a pirations and concerns is necessary as a basis for planning. I b lieve that as planners we have a responsibility to use a v riety of methods to solicit citizen participation. A survey m y very well bring out opinions from people who either will not o cannot attend and speak at public meetings. W yne Cilimberg p ge 2 June 25, 1993 As the survey will cover a city with numerous neighborhoods aid a county covering 740 square miles, it would seem likely that m ny separate and distinct visions will be expressed. I look at tie survey as a tool to get people talking to one another. o ening the lines of communication throughout the community may b~ the most significant contribution we, as planners, can bring the planning process. We are living in an uncertain economic time in the judgment many people. Creation of a safer harbor would seem to me to b~ a lofty goal. I would love to see a community dialogue which ultimately envisions a future where all citizens of our area, " lave choices, opportunities to improve their quality of life; d~velopment which is balanced with preservation of what is good a out the area; a community in which families can live and p'osper and pursue dreams," to paraphrase from the REV UP c)nference summary, May 8, 1993, .c.r:.':'l't!~..,n.r Or.:' :'~'Lr.," TJ;:r,\:~~.\ ~l'lE ,"1'.1 D F~ f.\NDI.JJYl ''\. I . I" I...., " t.. ~' ~1.l!:curYt: CffJCIi To; V. Wayne Cilimberg~ Director of Planning & Community DE:fvp-l ClpJiJr?j"d:: ; ,__~E{C<b E<~-'i-lndc-:>l'd:,u~-'gf'::>~~~ .A:.;~,i st .:ll'Jt: C:OUl'Jt: y E){f?I,':'ut i VF.,:' }'::'~~Of!!; l...t. F. 3ohl''Jsc.j"J fJ _ ~ Date; July 12~ 1993 Re; Comprehensive Plan Revip-w F:E.f := VWC & BB Memorandum~ dtd July 6 During the last Joint Board/Commission meeting 1 identified~ elf:::' thEf fiy'r:.t f:n-.:io~-.ity il'J t:his effo~~t~ L1) a "~-.evie~\l F. E:'VF-'j]_.- lli:?lt.1 c.n" cd" oUl'~ e){pr?~~i I:?I''JCP-S wj th the ClIY'I"ent: GQ!EP.C~t~~~2i~~ 21~!2~ and (2) a c(:.mplet:E? dE?linr?i-ltiol') e.f planl'.dng "philc<f:E.-.' e.phy" to guide any ).~evisiC:<l'Js e.~-. add:itions. This 1 suppc.~~teC"J as a required fjrst stl:?p~ to be accomplished before consid- eration of any specific changes. .As I recall~ Ed Bain basic- ally concurred with this when he stated that this could take a maJority of the time required for an effective review. ThE? V'f:-i'cc.mfJJl::?I'"J/.:latic.r'Js (yf a "cc'fJJJJJuj"dty visic.n" i-ll'H:l a "pllblic s;.u)~.v'e:'t'" ai-'f? compat i td e theSE? i r.:lE:'c:'tf:,'~ and thus:. 1 f i i~ml y f::.uppe'I"'.I:: 'I::hf.:>m. Based an the information provided by the referenced memoran- dum~ howE?ver~ I have the following comments. .Admjtting my limited knowledge of the experience of the Center for Survey Research with surveys on this specific subJect~ they are respectfully submjtted. (1) The formulation of the questions is critjcal. As identified by Tom Blue~ answers can be dictated by the ques- tion. .As Babs Huckle stated~ surveys may only result in "I..~i ::;.h ],:i Est:,;" A' (2) The more conscientious the participant~ the more i::uIJbi!]uc<u,:;;. d quest:ie-.n becc.1fjes. Vel"y fel.-,l "yeE. C<l'~ )''Jo'' 01" "tl'.'UE:? of false" answers are unique. Questions may best use the fov'f.lJ elf' thE:!' c'l c:'t!:::.s i Ci-l]. schc<c.l "tholl gJTI:: q Uf."::>!:-:.-:.t i C'I''J'' . (3) It must be assumed that the particjpant has little or no knowledge~ nor has ever given any particular thought to~ the operations of government. Without being a]erted~ the request for an opinion will not have been anticipated. This may adversely impact the answers. (I..) Because fxF 1::h!? ,:ibovF':>~ (i-l) quef=-t~ i or-,s. shou.1 d be !':~ub'-- stantive and explanatory Cone-liners should be avojded)~ (b) al "!::E:?)"r-,at i Vf?~::, .1 dE?nt.1 'f:i ecj~ i-ll",d (c::') impiu.:'t s~ i ncl udi ng fE.C.ci a:i ~ environmental~ commercial and tax~ identified. Comments~ as 1',Ef}} <.E:. pi'~f?fpj'-.Eq'Jce!:;;. l:<etw12pr-' c<ptiC<I'-'~='~ shc'l.l1rJ bF.:" sc"<1ic.1tf'.:"d. (5) Telephone contacts may not be surriciently effec- tive with subjects as comprehensive as those anticipated. ThE,~,~t:' c.ommE:')"st.E.;.~ al] 0-'-' f:<al'.'t:, :lEh;,c.1 me to conc.luc:!f'::' t:hat t:hE' cost and schedule identiFied in the referenced memorandum are unrealistic. The preparation and completion of a survey as identifed abovE, could well take six months or more. The Commission has requested that it: be given the opportun- ity to review questions prior to the survey. I suggest that "l.-'f.~.v'.iE:'W~;:." of m';,ittel'-.r:s as c.'omp]E'.:'.){ as th.i!:::. c,l""E' u~.\.lj=iJly :iner'fec--. t i \IE:'. D:i sCU~:;:.E.i C<l',!.;; Cii.H', get: lOE.t i )rs t:hF.i.' woc.d!::.,. ThE'.:' ql.le~;t: i Cl"!i:- should be prepared, with the participation of the Board, Commission, StaFF and CSR. Attachment (A) is a list of subjects which should included For speciFic attention by the survey. Individual expertise to efFectively respond to this survey resides in the cc@munity at all social and economic levels. The challenge is to obtain their meaningrul contributions. In order to best achiEVE this, a rormal and extensiVE? promo- tional eFrort should be considered. This promotion would be prior to the survey. It would use all available means (media, personal presentations to commun:i t.y o)'.'gal'Ji 2r.'1t i c.n=., d.i ~=.cu~.s:.i on"". wi thi)''s thE.' "gc<vel"l''sJ'Jel"t'' courses in the schools, etc). It should identify Cl) the G\;::!E~C~bgi::!2il::~_21~i::!, l'\lh at i t .i!.;; ,"md I",h a t: :i t. dOE:'!.".:., U:::) th i !-:i- p:,.-.oJE:'ct CSUl'.'vPy)., (3) how the:? SU),~VE'y l'~eplies w.il:t be uSe'e), (4) that the replies will be influent.ial, and possibly (5) the questions to be used. The objectives of this promotion are (1) education, (2) encouragement of presurvey community and individual discussions of the issues, and (3) minimum surpriSES by the participants during thE:' survey. Every E'-Ffo~.'t: !:::.hould bE' t:a~:en to .idc-2nti.F:l" COJf.lments f')'-.om fE.pec.ia:l interest groups., and aviod fiJppant and no-thought replies. The potential impacts Frc@ this survey are enormous. Its quality must not: be subverted to schedule or arbitary budget considerations. Its quality will be directly dependent on its promotion., qUE?stions and conduct. Any lesser effort, rrom that described above, may result in incomplete replies which may lead to erronEOUS interpret.ations. ~,)j th fUl'...thel'~ consi de~-.,:it ion, E'VE'l"'s ",i s.:i )-: mont:h schedul e ma:l" be tc e,c< opt:.i r.'J:i s t :i c. f-JTTnC.HMENT cc= Planning Commission ATTACHMENT A, WFJ Memo, dtd July 12 D.::itf.'?; ,July 12, 1'3'33 Re; Comprehensive Plan Review - Survey Subjects The following speciric subjects rrom the ~e~e~g~g~~iyg_El~~ are recommended for consideration to be addressed by the E.-u:r'vey; (1) Statement of general Purpose and Intent (2') .Hou!;E.:i ng (3) Public and Human Services (4) Natural Environment (a) Agricultural and Forestal Resources (b) Water Resources (c) Natural, Scenic, and Historic Resources (5) Developed Environment (a) Growth Management (b) Faci1.it:.iE:'5 (c) Land Use Plan (d) Growth Area Proriles (e) Interstate Interchange Development (f) Rural Development (6) Implementing the Plan (a) Fiscal Resources (b) Zoning Ordinance (c) Subdivision Ordinance (d) Use Value Assessment (e) Agricultural and Forestal Districts (f) Open Space Techniques !' Edward H. ain, Jr. Samuel Miler COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40 1 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R Marshall, Jr Scotlsville David P. 80 erman Charlot1es HIe Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Joue Walter F. Perkins Wh'le Hail MEMORANDUM Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W, Carey, Clerk E:1P C- July 26, 1993 Advanced Allocation for Scottsville Fire Department At its meeting on July 21, 1993, the Board of Supervisors uthorized the Chairman to execute the attached service agreement ith Scottsville Fire Department advancing $100,000 to purchase a anker truck. ttachment Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White (1) Printed on recycled paper {(~, , , . 'l-. '.~d ria. d' 1)1'7.21_ ~3 (~stfl...UtoC to 004r . w~_._ ..."- I\~~:;dl It...,,! N.J, 23))12/- l1Qy: THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for the purpose of identification is <'2/ :sf day of July, 1993, by and between the COUNTY OF BEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County") and the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER RE DEPARTMENT, INC. ("Scottsville"); WIT N E SSE T H: Background: (A) The County previously has entered into a agreement with scottsville, dated May 27, 1992, providing the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from County's annual grant to scottsville, as set forth in said reement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and (B) As a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebtedness now totals One Hundred Seventy-Three Thousand Five undred sixteen Dollars ($173,516.00); and (C) scottsville now desires to receive from the County an dditional One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) to be used a new tanker; and (D) scottsville also desires to enter into an agreement onsolidating its annual withholdings of payment by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by cottsville of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and rotect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during he term of this agreement, the County shall pay to scottsville One undred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), which payment shall be made the fire fund, to be paid in July 1993. The sum of Thirty-Four Thousand One Hundred Ninety Dollars ($34,190.00) shall be withheld from the County's annual grant to cottsville for a period of seven (7) years, beginning with fiscal ." ear 1994-95, with a final payment of Thirty-Four Thousand One undred Eighty-six Dollars ($34,186.00) to be withheld in fiscal 2001-02. Thus, at the end of the eighth year, which is the of this service agreement, a total of Two Hundr~d Seventy- hree Thousand Five Hundred sixteen Dollars ($273,516.00) will have een withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all rior advancements as a result of the prior service agreement with cottsville dated May 27, 1993. If at any time during the term of this agreement, scottsville is no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services or e tanker is no longer used for fire-fighting purposes, covenants that it will convey its interest in the nker to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County its assigns will use the pumper for fire-fighting purposes. All set forth in prior agreements remain in full force and WITNESS the following signatures and seals: VIRGINIA P. Bowerman, Chairm n Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (Seal) SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INcoll ~ By y~ 11 r ,/ Pre dent (Seal) ~ TATE OF VIRGINIA OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ~\h-, , 1993 by DAVID P. BOWERMAN, hairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. \)~\y~o._ \\\ ~ ~:J \\~\ \r\:: ~5n Notary Public l / commission expires: \\,^-~'L~'t D\) \Q,q.lj TATE OF VIRGINIA OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foreg 'ng instrument was acknowledged before me this /5 day of , 1993 by ~ C\~/)I1~) resident of the Sc ttsville Volunteer Fire Dep~rtment, Inc. NotC::)({!~llitJ &JAAW commission expires: 'fhd ~O) It? q '1 Ryland C. Walls. (804) 589-8570 Colum ia District Jerome J. Booker. (804)842-331 I Fork U. ion District Thomas Payne. (804) 296-5243 Palmyr District Donald Weaver. (804) 286-2687 Cunnin ham District Leonard Gardner. (804) 589-3074 Rivann Di~trict FLUVANNA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 299 PALMYRA, VIRGINIA 22963 .. Charles W Burgess. Jr. County Administrator (804)589-3138. (804)286-2890 FAX (804 589-4976 ill ~,~ ~ou~ ~ 00 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 8, 1993 The Honorable David P. Bowerman Chairman, Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville 1 VA 22902 Re: Scottsvi11e Rescue Squad Funding Dear Mr. Bowerman: Please be advised that during the September 7, 1993 meeting of the Board of Supervisors the Board members reviewed the request for additional funding to the Scottsville Rescue Squad and decided not to increase the appropriation. When the Board prepared the Budget in the spring for the current fiscal year, $4,000 was allotted for the Scottsville Rescue Squad. Please note that this represents an increase of $1,000 over the prior years funding. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, m~ Lv. ~ Charles W. Burgess, Jr. C~unty Administrator CWB/gr C (! ,( , .Z- C!.-L. wl~ck &d-u + ! ( County of Albemarle ACTION: ---1L- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGE TITLE: Service Agreement with scottsville Volu eer Fire Department, Inc. AGENDA DATE: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: Pumphrey ATTACHMENTS: -X- REVIEWED BY' ,cJ(j1 ROUND: al years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the olunteer fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded o million dollarsl provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed fighting equipment and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted their annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund onitored and approved by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association ) . SSION: sville Volunteer Fire Department has requested, through JCFRA1 an advance of 000 from the revolving fund to purchase a new tanker truck. Repayment of the will be over an eight year period beginning FY 94/95. approved this request. authorizing the Chairman to execute the service agreement. { THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for the purpose of id~ntification this ).7 day of md- VIRGINIA , 1992, by and be ween the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, (the "County"), and thE SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. ("Scottsville"); WIT N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, the County previously has entered into a se!vice agreement with Scottsville, dated October 8, 1987, prcviding for the withholding of certain sums each year by the Coulnty from the County's annual grant to Scottsville, as set for~h in said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exh~bit A; and WHEREAS, as a result of said agreement, the outstanding ind ebtedness now totals Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000.00); WHEREAS, Scottsville now desires to receive from the COul ty One Hundred Sixty-two Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-five Dol ars ($162,435.00) to be used for the purchase of a new pump truck; and WHEREAS, Scottsville now desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholding of payments by the k::ounty; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the oper~tion by Scottsville of a volunteer fire company which will fighl- fires and protect property and human life from loss or dama~e by fire and the purchase of a new pump truck during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Scottsville One HundJed Sixty-two Thousand Four Hundred ThirtY-five Dollars ($16L,435.00), which payment shall be made from the 1992-93 fire und to be paid in July, 1992. The sum of $20,000.00 shall be ithheld from the County's annual grant to scottsville for the 2/93 fiscal year. Thereafter, the sum of Twenty-eight Thousand ine Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($28,919.00) per year shall be ithheld each year from the County's annual grant to scottsville or a period of seven (7) years, beginning with fiscal year 993-94 and extending through July, 2000. Thus, at the end of he eighth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a otal of Two Hundred Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-five ollars ($222,435.00) will have been withheld. This withholding onsolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result f the prior service agreement with scottsville, dated October , 1987. If at any time during the term of this agreement, cottsville is no longer in the business of providing fire- ighting services, or the pump truck is no longer used for fire- ighting purposes, scottsville covenants and agrees that it will its interest in the pump truck to the County at no cost County so long as the County or its assigns will use the roperty for fire-fighting purposes. All covenants set forth in agreements remain in full force and effect. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: By . (Seal) xecutive SCOTTr~ILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. By /~10^C-- .)1" j,fo-l,\.~I~ (Seal) , ,..President TATE OF VIRGINIA OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The for~going j , .. I' day of 'II '[..'/ xecutive of Albemarle instrument was acknowledged , 1992, by ROBERT W. County, V~rginia. '-'/{ 1.'/;-" \ : , 1..JA.. ,'"t./ LVi_\...A'1 Not~;y ~U~li~! commission expires: Jii1~1 -:!..LjJ :f;!.J before me this TUCKER, County TATE OF VIRGINIA OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ;l. 7 The for,:g.ping instrument was ac~owle')(ec;l before me day of #/~ ' 1992 by CSie,e,)e U JDi-,/U'6cA.- resident of Scott ille Volunteer Fire Company Inc. ./~~~) Notary Public this y commission expires: ~ ~~~Jl99:S Ul , ,.. '.', J . j '-/,11._,_7-'3 ._!C ;)~,.'I:::U f;J C-<".iiCf:' ;'\v , " .~-, ,"",. - ~~ ".....,;",,;.. .... II""." !I>~"! 7.., qjt!1ZJlif37 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 Charlottesvil e Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. umphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall MEMORANDUM Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC 2~J C/ July 16, 1993 Reading List for July 21, 1993 (#15b) , ~i. 1, 1992 pages 34 end - Mr. Marshall \- ~. 8, 1992 - All Mr. Bain Go.. ., 17, 1993 - All - Mr. Marshall I V IC)--' (1) Printed on recycled paper Distributed t.o Board . .-..___ _.--"^ '\F~11lj. Hem rot.) j::2:Q~.zjLttJ- MOTION: Mr. Bain SECOND: Mr. Perkins MEETING DATE: July 21, 1993 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provi- sions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344,1 requires a certification by the Supervisors that such executive conformity with Virginia law; of the Code of Virginia Albemarle County Board of meeting was conducted in NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, VOTE: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Marshall and Perkins. NAYS: None. [For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the requirements of the Act should be described.] ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.