Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-11 , FIN A L August 11, 1993 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7 Second Floor, 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) Joint Meeting with Planning Commission to receive presentation from Sverdrup Corporation on the Meadow Creek Parkway. 7) Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend County Code to eliminate commercial, industrial and planned residential development districts from land use taxation. 8) Public Hearing to adopt an Ordinance to allow the creation of "districts of local significance" or mini-agricultural/forestal districts. 9) Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend the County Code to eliminate Section 11-21 requiring subcontractors to display a County business license. 10) SP-93-03. Stuart Birckhead. Public Hearing to establish visible outdoor storage and display of modular buildings within the EC,Overlay Dist [30.6.3.2(b)], 0.4752 ac znd PD-SC. Property located within the Pantops Shopping Center between First Virginia Bank and Taco Bell. TM78,P17D(2). Rivanna Dist. (Property is located in designated growth area.) 11) SP-93-17. Mt. Ararat Lodge. Public Hearing to construct masonic lodge [10.2.2(2)] on 2.11 acs znd RA. Property located on SE side of inter- sect of Rt 715 & Rt 714. TM121,P32A. Scottsville Dist. (Property is not located in a designated growth area.) 12) SP-93-19. John Alford. Public Hearing to construct a foot bridge in the flood plain of the Moorman's River [30.3.5.2.1(2), 30.3.5.2.2(1), 30.5.5. 2d(6)]. Property located on S side of Rt 614 approx 400 ft W of Rt 674. TM26,P12. White Hall Dist. (Property is not located in designated growth area.) 12a) Appropriation: CIP Transfer for Murray High School and Media Center (#930013). 12b) Appointments. 13) Approval of Minutes: May 6, 1992 and April 14, 1993. 14) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. 15) Adjourn. CON S E N T AGENDA FOR INFORMATION: 5.1 Copy of Planning Commission minute~ for July 20, 1993. 5.2 1993 Second Quarter Building Report prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development. 5.3 Copy of minutes of Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for June 28, 1993. 5.4 Quarterly Environmental Report for the Thomas Jefferson Health District from April, 1993 to June, 1993. 5.5 Quarterly Report of Services and Expenditures for JAUNT from October, 1992 to June, 1993. , . Edward H. Ba' , Jr. Samuel Mille David P. Bow rman Charlottesvill Charlotte Y. H mphris Jack Jouett 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 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 ~ DATE: August 12, 1993 BJECT: Board Actions of August 11, 1993 (Night Meeting) Following is a list of actions taken by the Board at its eting on August 11, 1993 (night meeting) : Agenda Item No.1. Called to Order at 7:02 P.M. Agenda Item No.4. om the PUBLIC. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda Mr. Bill Haynie, Management Development Vice-President of e Charlottesville/Albemarle Jaycees, presented a letter of anks and a Certificate of Appreciation to the Board for adopt- g a Resolution of Support for the July 4th event at McIntire rk. Agenda Item No.5. Consent Agenda. ACCEPTED all items for information. Agenda Item No.6. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission receive presentation from Sverdrup Corporation on the Meadow eek Parkway. NO Action. Referred to the Planning Commission for review. e Planning Commission is to decide whether it wants to have a rk session or go directly into a public hearing. Mr. Martin ked the Planning Commission to consider the fact that this * Printed on recycled paper . To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg July 9, 1993 2 roject evolved around local interests and was not to alleviate traffic congestion on Route 29 North. He also asked that the lanning Commission consider that most of the people who would eceive this local benefit are opposed to the proposal, and asked the Planning Commission to consider taking the T-Connectors and possibly even more out of this proposal. Agenda Item No.7. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend County Code to eliminate commercial, industrial and planned residential development districts from land use taxation. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation of the Code of Albemarle to eliminate c mmercial, industrial and planned residential development districts for land use taxation. Agenda Item No.8. Public Hearing to adopt an Ordinance to allow the creation of "districts of local significance" or mini- a ricultural/forestal districts. DEFERRED to September 15, 1993 without public hearing, since advertisement was not adequate. Agenda Item NO.9. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend e County Code to eliminate Section 11-21 requiring subcontrac- rs to display a County business license. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter , Licenses of the Code of Albemarle to eliminate that portion Section 11-21 which required subcontractors to display a unty business license. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-93-03. Stuart Birckhead. Public aring to establish visible outdoor storage and display of m dular buildings within the EC Overlay Dist [30.6.3.2(b)], 0.4752 ac znd PD-SC. Property located within the Pantops Shop- p'ng Center between First Virginia Bank and Taco Bell. TM78,P17- D(2). Rivanna Dist. APPROVED subject to five conditions as set out in full low: 1. No items shall be located so as to interfere with sight distance of Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive) ; 2. There shall be no occupying of any shed or any on-site sales; . To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg July 9, 1993 3 [ate: Iage: 3. Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D(2) shall not be manned by an employee nor shall an office area be estab- lished; 4. The business owner shall, at all times, have any approved home occupation permit for shed sales from the County. This approval shall not include the storage and/or display of these structures at the home; 5. Administrative approval of a site plan waiver to include Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-93-17. Mt. Ararat Lodge. Public Eearing to construct masonic lodge [10.2.2(2)] on 2.11 acs znd R~. Property located on SE side of inter-sect of Rt 715 & Rt 714. TM121,P32A. Scottsville Dist. (Property is not located in a designated growth area.) APPROVED subject to five conditions as set out in full b~low: 1. Administrative approval of site plan to include landscape plan; 2. The building shall be limited in SIze to 2,200 square feet; 3. Maximum attendance at meetings shall not exceed those limits as established by the Health Depart- ment; 4. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, ac- tivities or structure outlined in the staff report shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors; 5. Compliance with Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordi- nance. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-93-19. John Alford. Public Hearing tp construct a foot bridge in the flood plain of the Moorman's R~ver [30.3.5.2.1(2), 30.3.5.2.2(1), 30.5.5. 2d(6)]. Property lbcated on S side of Rt 614 approx 400 ft W of Rt 674. TM26,P12. Wpite Hall Dist. (Property is not located in designated growth av-ea. ) APPROVED subject to four conditions as set out in full bplow: . To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg July 9, 1993 4 Iate: Iage: 1. Department of Engineering approval of bridge de- sign to ensure that no portion of the span is within the flood plain elevation; 2. County Engineer approval of bridge modification consistent with Section 62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia, if necessary; 3. County Engineer approval of bridge and construc- tion activity in flood plain in accordance with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; 4. Compliance with all local, state and federal per- mit requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream. Agenda Item No. 12a. Appropriation: CIP Transfer for ~~rray High School and Media Center (#930013). DEFERRED to August 18, 1993 to allow staff time to find out tne School Board's procedure and gather information as to what tne School Board looked at and what other projects and priorities arre pending. Agenda Item No. 12b. Appointments. APPOINTED Mr. Larry W. Davis as Deputy County Attorney e~fective January 3, 1994, with the understanding that Mr. Davis w~ll become the County Attorney in March of 1994 upon the retire- ment of Mr. George St. John. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda flv-om the BOARD. Mr. Tucker said he has had correspondence with VDoT regard- ing issues on the Alternative 10 western alignment. VDoT will be m~king a presentation to this Board on October 6, 1993, under T~ansportation Matters. Mr. Perkins said he would like to point out the letter r~ceived from Al Francis about looking at the new high school. Hb hopes that the members of that Board will look at this with an oben mind. He thinks the one possible choice would be year-round s~hools. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Tucker to set a time for the new high s~hool committee to meet. . To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg July 9, 1993 5 [ate: Fage: Mr. Bain said he had received the interim legislative bulle- tin from TJPDC. He brought the following items to the Board's attention: . State Legislative committees meeting around the state during the summer which include the growth commission and some concerns they are talking about have to do with growth areas and what roles the Planning District Commissions will have. We need to look at this in the fall as recommendations are sent forth to legislature. . Transportation Trust Fund, looking at creating new transpor- tation districts with some additional taxes on fuels to supply that. . Business Professional and Occupations License Tax. There is a study directing them to look at this. There are numerous alternatives being considered, one of which is to get rid of that tax. This is major tax for Albemarle County because it is the third or fourth largest tax source. If this is being considered seriously for elimination, it needs to be fo:- lowed this fall. Also talking of amending it and changing the categories. . Long-term care committee. Mrs. Humphris said long-term care is mentioned and the f.ealth and Human Services Committee of VACo which she serves on ras been dealing with this issue and has been represented at the State Committee meetings. This will be discussed at the Local Government Officials Conference which begins this Sunday in Charlottesville. She will report back to the Board on this Issue. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. 8:42 p.m. Elwc: jng Attachments (2) cc: Robert B. Brandenburger Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Bruce Woodzell Amelia G. McCulley Jo Higgins George R. St. John File .. ~)ishiuuted to Board: _.:.., -......... ;;'gel'1(j-~ Item Nv. _________~ 1993 SECOND QUARTE BUILDING REPOR 419~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 INDEX I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A - B) II. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C - D) IlL Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart E) ~ Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F - H) Key to Types of Housing Used in this Report SF Single Family (Includes Modular) SFA Single Family Attached SF/fH Single Family Townhouse DUP Duplex MF Multi-Family Residence MHC MobileHomes in County m L -2- During the second quarter of 1993, 189 permits were issued for 200 dwelling units. In addition, 6 permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500 for a total of $15,000. 1. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DYELLING UNITS BY MONTH Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month YEAR 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 JAN 46 37 38 22 93 56 64 183 49 FEB 29 43 35 40 172 68 31 72 56 MAR 94 37 62 9l. 61 92 57 64 58 APR 48 78 70 71 49 82 62 72 76 MAY 121 73 73 83 89 75 44 62 45 JUN 60 92 56 83 220 85 54 48 79 JUL 57 159 80 30 67 42 58 62 0 AUG 86 32 46 49 74 87 58 126 0 SEP 35 49 45 46 72 90 55 48 0 OCT 40 52 60 52 56 48 39 43 0 NOV 45 50 49 60 301 37 42 49 0 DEC 53 35 40 46 55 42 50 37 0 TOTAL 714 737 654 673 1309 804 614 866 363 Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month 190 160 17Q 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 60 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o " I'- I'- I'- " " " " " I'- I'- I'- /1'- /" T" 7 " /1'- /~ /~ " / "- I' "- / _/ " /~ V " /~ " /f:: Vi' ~ ~ V / / "- i' V /~ /~ Vi' " / V /1'- "- ~ V "- i' V /1'- ~ V I'- " VI'-, JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC fZZI 1991 lS.:SI 1 992 IZZJ 1993 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development .... .. -3- ECOND QUARTER 1993 1. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC D.U. D.U. bHARLOTTESVILLE 3 0 6 0 12 0 21 11% ACK JOUETT 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 5% lUVANNA 59 0 4 0 0 0 63 32% SAMUEL MILLER 18 0 0 0 0 0 18 9% SCOTTSVILLE 37 9 0 0 0 3 49 25% mITE HALL 30 7 0 0 0 3 40 20% TOTAL 156 16 10 0 12 6 200 100% Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL UNITS COMP PLAN AREA SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC URBAN RURAL ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 4 0 10 0 0 0 14 ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 o . 0 O. 0 0 0 0 ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 14 9 0 0 0 0 23 ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 mRBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ROZET COMMUNITY 15 7 0 0 0 0 22 ~OLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 SCOTTSVILLE COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~YSVILLE VILlAGE 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ~ORTH GARDEN VILlAGE 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PINEY MOUNTAIN VILlAGE 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ~IVANNA VILlAGE 23 0 0 0 0 0 23 GROWTH AREA SUBTOTAL 84 16 10 0 12 0 122 ~URAL AREA 1 16 0 0 0 0 2 18 !JURAL AREA 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 ~URAL AREA 3 26 0 0 0 0 1 27 I1URAL AREA 4 17 0 0 0 0 3 20 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 72 0 0 0 0 6 78 TOTAL 156 16 10 0 12 6 200 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development -4- SECOND QUA~TER 1993 III . COKP~ISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Char~ E. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAIL NEW *NEW NON - RES . NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. TOTAL No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ _. - - CHVILLE 10 1,271,000 21 240,628 3 46,000 27 966,008 61 2,523,636 JOUETT 9 2,009,695 20 407,104 0 0 1 300 30 2,417,099 RIVANNA 63 7,675,826 72 2,095,621 1 250,000 14 979,800 150 11,001,247 S. MILLER 18 2,845,900 53 1,191,511 3 339,700 6 55,500 80 4,432,611 SCOTTSVIUIE 49 3,800,272 35 285,876 3 830,000 10 557,800 97 5,473,948 WHITE HAll 40 3,492,613 48 1,016,216 0 0 4 1,493,435 92 6,002,264 -- TOTAL 189 21,095,306 249 5,236,956 10 1,465,700 62 4,052,843 510 31,850,805 * Addition~l value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential A1teratipn category. IV. CERTIIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY Chart F. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type . SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL PERCENT DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC D.U. TOTAL D.U. Agnor-Hurt 3 0 10 0 0 0 13 5.70% Broad4s WoodjHen1ey 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.88% Broad~s Wood/Jouett 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 2.63% Brown~vil1e 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1. 75% Croze~ 12 10 0 0 0 1 23 10.09% Greer 0 0 3 0 82 0 85 37.28% Ho11YJnead 12 3 9 0 0 0 24 10.53% Meriw~ther Lewis 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.32!B" Murrar,r 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1. 75% Red HIi11jW'a1ton 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.32% Ca1e/~urley 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 10.53% Ca1e/~a1ton 6 5 0 0 0 0 11 4.82% Scottlsville 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1. 75% Stone Robinson/Burley 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 4.39% Stone RobinsonjW'a1ton 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 1. 75% Stony Point 7 0 0 0 0 0 ,7 3.07% Woodb"'ook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Yancel1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.44% TOTAL 80 19 22 0 106 1 228 100.00% Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development - - ~ -s- SE COND QUARTER 1993 TV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (continued) Chart G. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC TOTAL C" ---TTESVILLE 3 0 7 0 0 0 10 JA ~K JOUETT 1 0 0 0 82 0 83 RI ~ANNA 30 3 15 0 24 O. 72 SA ~EL MILLER 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 SC PTTSVILLE 14 6 0 0 0 0 20 Wll ITE HALL 22 10 0 0 0 1 33 TOTAL 80 19 22 0 106 1 228 Chart H. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL UNITS COMP PLAN AREA SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC URBAN RURAL ~ ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 3 0 10 0 0 0 13 ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 11 ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~AN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 82 0 82 CB bZET COMMUNITY 12 10 0 0 0 0 22 HO l.LYMEAD COMMUNITY 11 0 9 0 0 0 20 SC bTTSVILLE COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EA ~YSVILLE VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PI NEY MTN. VILLAGE 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 NO ~TH GARDEN VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RI ~ANNA VILLAGE 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 GROWTH AREA SUBTOTAL 39 19 22 0 106 0 186 RU jw. AREA 1 12 0 0 0 0 1 13 RU ~ AREA 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 RU ~ AREA 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 RU RAL AREA 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 41 0 0 0 0 1 0 42 TOTAL 80 19 22 0 106 1 228 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development J" , " ^ JJ16 tD Cd. <6--ll ,3COUNTY OF AlSEMAHid. ....""'.... ...x.:..D.'. ......... c'/I;;2, (f~;iI. h ..:.! .) RN"'<"';,"'< . ..,/ . - ,-,-,--<1."'''("'''--'('1."' , ,4:," }~~. ':\~ '. ~J " ~.' jl';'J~ f' ~. . '"'t';', I J ,,-t-J~~~:,t-:,:t "f:i.'.:,.~~;;"'..nY. ~~ ~~",/ -' COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA ExECUTIVE OFFIO'I In Coop ration with the State De artment of Health Office of Environmental Health Phone ( 04) 972-6259 FAX (04) 972-4310 Thomas Jefferson Health District 1138 Rose Hill Drive P. O. Box 7546 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE FLUVANNA COUNTY (PALMYRA) GREENE COUNTY (STANARDSVILLE) LOUISA COUNTY (LOUISA) N COUNTY (LeVINGSTON) August 2, 1993 89A1fO cp SUPeRVISORS M . Robert W. Tucker, Jr. C unty Executive C unty of Albemarle 4 1 McIntire Road C arlottesville, VA 22907-4596 D ar Mr. Tucker: Enclosed you will find a copy of the quarterly report of E vironmental Health activities for the April to June 93 quarter. T is report includes information about the increase or decrease in t e number of sewage and well permit applications and permits i sued. If you need any of this information explained or desire a y additional information please contact me at 972-6259. I hope this information will be useful and better explain the f nction and service we provide to the County of Albemarle. sincerely, {)~~/rfJ 6.14~- Donald B. Hackler Environmental Health Manager cc: Bob Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive At achment / " Thomas Jefferson Health District Environmental Report April to June 93 ALBEMARLE CHARLOTTESVILLE FLUVANNA GREENE LOUISA NELSON TOTALS SEWAGE & W TER PROGRAM Appl icatio s Received Well On y Permits 60 0 7 10 6 20 103 Sewage nly Permits 59 0 25 53 27 29 193 Combin Permi ts 74 0 28 30 100 36 268 Total 193 0 60 93 133 85 564 Percent of District Total 34 0 11 16 24 15 % increase from last qtr. 51 3 21 0 37 23 Permi ts Is Well Onl Permits 40 0 4 6 10 12 72 Sewage ly Permits 49 0 13 48 30 20 160 Combine Permi ts 74 0 8 42 105 36 265 Total 163 0 25 96 145 68 497 Percent istrict Total 33 0 5 19 29 14 last qtr. 92 (46) 109 44 127 57 Permits Den ied Well Onl Permits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sewage 0 ly Permits 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 Combined Permits 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 121 0 43 41 127 34 366 34 0 30 5 71 5 145 Subcliv. Lot Approved 50 0 8 10 27 96 Complaints 25 0 9 10 2 47 Misc. Site isits 105 19 4 32 90 251 FOOD ROGRAM Food Servic Inspections 80 110 10 11 31 6 248 Complaints 11 16 2 0 Z 0 31 Misc. Site isits 56 59 2 3 12 22 154 GENERA PROGRAMS Complaints 12 9 4 0 27 Rabies - An lmal Bites 31 18 6 2 19 n Migrant Lab r Insp. 7 0 0 0 0 12 19 TES Inspect ions 19 27 3 0 8 2 59 j).~ ~t 1f) e,c~ 3, II .- 33 IA\ AunT K (f?, '.~'\ I e / L~.. Ii", ) I . (It ,!, ., - /I~) JAUNT, NC. 104 Ke stone Place Charla esville, VA 22902 BOARD OF SUPERVlSQRS ob Tucker bemarle County Executive bemarle County Office Building 4 1 McIntire Road harlottesville, VA 22901-4596 August 6th, 1993 As part of our effort to keep local governments abreast of the services provided in each I cality, the JAUNT Board has directed that a quarterly report of services and expenditures be s nt to each local government that supports JAUNT. Attached you will find a report covering the fi st three quarters of JAUNT's fiscal year. Please direct copies to the Board of Supervisors if you 11 el it is appropriate. We would welcome comments and questions on these reports. Yours truly, onna Shaunesey Assistant Director "cOUtHY Of FLb~.r\'1l\F;~,~ / . 'il ~ ;~ ;, ,AUG 1 0 1993 U , t"f<:UijV~'. OfFIOi Phone: ( 04) 296-3184, (800) 36JAUNT · Operations: (804) 296-6174 (Voice & TDD) . Fax: (804) 296-4269 ALBEMJf\RLE COUNTY Service Provided 10-1-92 to 6-30-93 1st Q PUBLIC TRIPS Urbah area trips for disabled 4,399 Rura area (primarily elderly and disabled) Scott~ville route 3,001 608 To ~I Public Trips 8,008 AGENCfr' TRIPS 6,210 TOTAL PUBLIC & AGENCY TRIPS 14,218 Percent of budgeted funds expended For E dministrative and ridesharing services: 73% 2nd Q 4,720 2,714 771 8,205 4,734 12,939 For c perating costs of public transportation services: 60% Local fu ~ds are expected to be sufficient for the year at this time. 3rd Q YTD Total 5,354 3,120 881 9,355 5,137 14,492 14,473 8,835 2,260 25,568 16,081 41,649 ~- 1t1a?~ ~/~~ ~ M adow Creek Parkway Study ; POSITION PAPER MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY 1 August, 1993 Prepared By: Sverdrup Corporation Falls Church, Virginia M adow Creek Parkway Study Meadow Creek Parkway is a proposed four lane controlled access highway necting U.S. Route 29 and State Route 631 (Rio Road). A connection from Rio d south to the City of Charlottesville is a separate project and is not included in thi study. The improvements recommended for further study are shown in Exhibit E-1. " r primary purpose of the Meadow Creek Parkway will be to serve local commuting, sh pping and recreational traffic. The Parkway will also serve through traffic, alt ough the Parkway is not being proposed as a bypass of Route 29. . Th Meadow Creek Parkway Mainline will run from Route 29 north of the South Fork Ri anna River to Rio Road. The study team evaluated a wide range of alternatives, including the 'no build' alternative, for the mainline and recommended a combination of egments shown in Exhibit E-1. These segments were presented to the public and th Board of Supervisors on October 15, 1992. Th Meadow Creek Parkway Study also includes a connection from the Meadow Cr ek Mainline to the residential areas of Forest Lakes and Hollymead. This co nection, referred to as the Timberwood Connector, is included in the County's Co prehensive Plan. The study team evaluated a wide range of alternatives, including th 'no build' alternative, and is recommending alternative T-1. Alternative T-1 has si ilar traffic service to alternative T-3, with fewer environmental impacts and costs. AI ernative T-1 provides better residential traffic service than alternative T-4, and has far less environmental impacts and costs than alternative T-4. The Timberwood Connector alternative locations are shown in Exhibit E-1. Th need for a Timberwood Connector has been questioned, particularly by residents in he Forest Lakes and Hollymead Residential areas. The residents object to the po ential for external traffic to travel through their neighborhoods enroute to the M ad ow Creek Parkway. If U.S. Route 29 between the South Fork and Rt 649 (A rport Road) is projected to have insufficient capacity, then this traffic pattern may oc ur. With the planned improvements and projected growth, Route 29 is not ex ected to be over capacity by the year 2015. At this time it is too early in the st dy process to discontinue the study of a Timberwood Connector for traffic impacts w ich are not expected to occur. A onnection to the Meadow Creek Parkway west of Route 29 was also studied. This co nection, referred to as the Western Alternative, was proposed and studied not only to improve access to the Meadow Creek Parkway, but also as a possible substitute fo the Timberwood Connector. Two alternatives were studied, a single roadway M~adow Creek Parkway Study pa allel to Route 29 (W1), and the parallel roadway with a east-west connector (W2). The study team determined that although the Western Alternatives have merits on thE ir own, they are not substitutes for a Timberwood Connector. Alternative W-2 is rec ommended because it provides better access to Route 29 and the Meadow Creek Pa kway with only slightly greater costs and impacts. , , " ~ N , s i " . , ',;' ..( . I -- .,~ .J 'J:-~ <.,,\S :EJCII RECOMMENDED 15 OCT 92 RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED ON EXISTING ROW - JI H' <.v.~.-:-/' <(o~: ': / II '. 1/ --- - .. ......~. MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY STUDY ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA I i ~ I! a ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES '/a I 'I: , SCNE. ORIGINAL StZ E IN 'NCHES Exhibit E-1 M adow Creek Parkway Study Table of Contents Ex cutive Summary Int oduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 1 , ~ I. Meadow Creek Parkway Mainline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I. 1 Alternative B 1 vs/ B2 . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 Alternative G1 vs/ G2 vs/ G4 .......................... 3 1.3 Alternative Y1 vs/ Y3 ............................... 4 1.4 Engineering Cost Estimate-Summary of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . .. 5 II. Timberwood Connector/Western Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11.1 Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11.2 Public Response ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11.3 Traffic Impacts and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11.4 Residential Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 11.5 Natural Environment ............................... 13 II. 6 Historic/Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 II. 7 Man Made Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 11.8 Cost and Engineering Complexity ...................... 16 11.9 Conclusions/Recommendations........................ 17 eadowcreek Parkway Study /' .\. . I I I I '_/ ..( I ,J ~ N I r ,. J' ,,-,'-t ".' 0:'" . ~ ~-'t- " .' "1j" '-?> ., .", ,6:-, ':.....::! / .:..(~r "',../ " 1', : I I: ".~/ '};-+- ~G II .. " <v.~'~/ ~~:~/ II II ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY STUDY ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 'I. : SCNL, r-axxr I I .',Q1G11l1tl. SUE IN INCHES I Exhibit 1 " Ml~adow Creek Parkway Study Rel'-ommendations: We feel that the lower construction cost and the scenic route of 82 combined with a lesser impact on Northfield outweigh the advantage of running parallel to the railroad, therefore,we recommend alternative 82. 1.2 Alternative G 1 vsl G 2 vsl G4 , . Fal-ts: G 1 shortest length. Similar bridging lengths across the Railroad. G1 impacts least residences within 1/4 mile. G2 takes a residence. G4 traverses 8entivar Residences' back yard. G1 crosses slightly more floodplain. G4 steeper slope construction. COhclusions: These three Alternatives have similar impacts. Alternative G4 stays east of the railroad and as a result impacts the Bentivar neighborhood more than G 1 or G2. G1 and G2 are essentially the same corridor. The evaluation of G1 vs. G2 comes down to shorter length of G1 vs. the higher ground of G2. The ridge that G2 uses would result in an easier to construct and more scenic Parkway, however, the Parkway would be more obtrusive. Use of the ridge for the Parkway would also preclude any other use of the ridge. Recommendation: The differences between G 1 and G2 are marginal at best. We believe G 1 would be a shorter and less obtrusive facility with better access to the river if desired. 3 MtJadow Creek Parkway Study 1.3 Alternative Y1 vsl Y3 Fa ts: Similar lengths. Y3 more stream crossings. Y1 impacts least residences within 1/4 mile. Y1 crosses floodplain boundary. . Similar steep slope construction. Y3 within 1 /4 mil~ from Forest Lakes South (Under Development) Conclusions: The length of the floodplain crossed by Y1 is very small and is not a significant factor. Alternative Y3 crosses an additional stream and impacts substantially more residents of the Ridgewood Mobile Home Park. The costs of the two alternatives and the type of terrain they cross are similar. Re ~ommendation We recommend Alternative Y1 to minimize the impact to current residents in Ridgewood mobile home park and future residents of Forest Lakes South. 4 adow Creek Parkway Study OW CREEK PARKWAY MAINLINE En i eerin Cost Estimate - Summa of Alternatives (NOTE DOLLAR AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) Const/Eng/ Interchange/ Row/Utility Intersection/ Total Alternative Construction Cost M.O.T. eO$t Cost Length (Mi.) Cost/Mile ($1000s) ($10005) ($10005) ($10005) $46,000 $3,600 $49,600 2.3 $20,000 $40,100 $3,600 $43,700 2.3 $17,400 $14,700 $0 $'14,700 1.1 $13,400 $15,800 $0 $15,800 1.3 $12,200 $16,700 $0 $16,700 1.4 $11,900 $11,000 $3,100 $14,100 0.7 $15,700 $11,000 $3,100 $14,100 0.7 $15,700 $5,700 $1,000 $6,700 0.5 $11,400 $18,700 $2,000 $20,700 1.3 $14,400 Const/Eng/ Interchange/ Row/Utility Intersection/ Total Total Cost M.O.T. Cost Cost Length Cost/Mi $40,100 $3,600 $43,700 2.3 $14,700 $0 $14,700 1.1 $11,000 $3,100 $14,100 0.7 TO AL $65,800 6,700 72,500 4.1 17,700 5 ME adow Creek Parkway Study II. Timberwood Connector and Western Alternatives 11.1 Alternatives Considered Th ee Timberwood Connector Alternatives and two Meadow Creek Parkway Extended altl rnatives are being considered for more detailed study. The alternative locations are shown in Exhibit 1. Alternative T1 begins at the .sq.uthern end of Hollymead as a continuation of Powell erE ek Drive. This alternative would include connecting Hollymead and Forest Lakes wi1h a roadway over the Dam separating the two neighborhoods. The alternative ends wi1 h an interchange or intersection on the Meadow Creek Parkway. . Alternative T3 begins in the vicinity of the Dam and runs generally eastward away from Hollymead and Forest Lakes. Details of the connection with the roads leading to he Dam have not been decided. The alternative could, if desired, have separate ace ess to Hollymead and Forest Lakes without opening the roadway across the Dam. This alternative also ends with an interchange on the Meadow Creek Parkway. Alternative T4 begins on Route 649, Proffit Road. This alternative runs just east of Fo est Lakes. The Meadow Creek Parkway Extended Alternatives run in the largely undeveloped area jus west of Route 29. Alternative W1 runs parallel to Route 29 from Airport Road to thE Meadow Creek Parkway Interchange on Route 29. Alternative W2 is alternative W with an additional east-west leg from Route 606 to Route 29. As extensions to the Meadow Creek Parkway, both alternatives would be controlled access, four-lane roc dways. 6 M4~adow Creek Parkway Study II.~ Public Response Th~ public commented on the proposed Timberwood Connector at the June 24, 1992 Pu plic Information Meeting, at meetings with local area residential neighborhood as: ociations, and at the presentation to the County Board of Supervisors on October 15 1992. At each meeting the public was encouraged to provide comments. Ex ,ibit 2A shows the aeneral responses given at the Public Information Meeting; that is, those responses that could be grouped according to support or opposition to the StL dy as a whole. Of all tl;1e, responses received, most people (156 out of 203) ex pressed their opposition to the Timberwood Connector while only 2 supported the Co",nector. T ~tal Comments Received: Generally Positive About Meadow Creek Parkway G~nerally Negative About Meadow Creek Parkway G~nerally Positive About Timberwood Connector G~nerally Negative About Timberwood Connector 203 6 7 2 156 Exhibit 2A - General Responses to June 1992 Public Meeting Ex ~ibit 2B shows a greater breakdown in the responses according to each Tir~berwood Connector option. (Note: Not all responses given were specifically dir~cted toward an option, T1, T3 or T4. Therefore, the number of specific responses wil not necessarily equal the number of general responses.) Exhibit 2B shows that thE greatest opposition was directed towards T3 and T1. 7 M~adow Creek Parkway Study Timberwood Connector Option In Favor Opposed T1 0 8 T3 5 20 T4 16 2 Exhibit 28 - SpecifiC}' Responses Toward Timberwood Connector at the June 1992 Public Meeting II.: Traffic Impacts and Benefits Ea ~h alternative changes the traffic volumes on Route 29 and the traffic patterns in thE Hollymead/Forest Lakes subdivisions. This section analyzes the impact of these ch ~nges, and how well each alternative supports the purpose of the Meadow Creek Pa kway. 1II.~.1 Residential Neighborhood Access to Meadow Creek AI ernatives T1 and T3 were placed to provide residential access to the Meadow Cr ~ek Parkway. Current Hollymead/Forest Lakes residents as well as future Forest La I'es South residents would be able to access Charlottesville and locations south wi hout traveling on Route 29. The bike trail planned for the Meadow Creek Parkway we uld also be accessible by these residents directly. As shown in Exhibit 3A, T1/3 we uld allow approximately 900 current housing units and 800 to 1,200 future units dir~ct access to the Meadow Creek Parkway. T4 W1 and W2 provide direct access to Meadow Creek Parkway for much smaller neighborhoods and fewer residential units than T1 and T3. T4 is convenient for residents along Rt 649 and the northern end of Forest Lakes. W1 and W2 provide dir~ct access for neighborhoods and development west of Route 29, and as such we uld complement the T alternatives by serving different areas. Alt~rnatives W1 and W2 do not provide direct access to the Meadow Creek Parkway for most of the residents of Hollymead and Forest Lakes. As a replacement for the Tir(lberwood connector, the western alternatives do eliminate the potential for external 8 . . IJI. eadow Creek Parkway Study tr ~ffic through Hollymead/Forest Lakes. However, they provide access to the Meadow C eek Parkway through a roundabout route. For example, Hollymead/Forest Lakes reiSidents in the vicinity of Hollymead Elementary School would travel 5 miles to reach th~ intersection of the Meadow Creek Parkway and Rt 643 via Route 29, whereas fr )m the same area, the residents would travel 6 miles via W2 but only one mile via T . As a result, W1/2 is not a suitable replacement for the Timberwood Connector. A ~ shown in Exhibit 3A, T1/3 will provide direct access to the Meadow Creek Pc rkway for the most residential units and neighborhoods. ~ r Alternative Neighborhoods with Direct Access Estimated Number of Units T1 & T3 T4 Hollymead Forest Lakes Forest Lakes South (Proposed) Jefferson Village Meadowfield Northwoods 400 500 800-1 200 W1 & W2 Deerwood Templeton Acres Mobile Home Park (Planned) 60 15 55 85 20 302 Exhibit 3A - Neighborhood Access III 3.2 Reduction of Traffic on Route 29 AI~ernative T4 provides the best improvement to future traffic on Route 29. As St own in Exhibit 38, Route 29 traffic in the vicinity of the South Fork will be the sr~allest with alternative T4. Alternative T1 /3 is the next best alternative for traffic re~uction. Alternatives W1 /W2 attract other traffic to the Route 29 corridor, and as a esult is the least beneficial build alternative for reduction of Route 29 traffic. AI ernative T1 /3 and provides a benefit to traffic conditions to Route 29 north of the in ersection of the Meadow Creek Parkway and Route 29. As shown in Exhibit 38 (Rpute 29 @ Hollymead), T1/3 decrease the traffic along this portion of Route 29 by 5,~00 vehicles as compared with MCP only. This traffic benefit is due to traffic in 9 ,. MfJadow Creek Parkway Study Fo est Lakes and Hollymead using T1 /3, rather than Route 29, to access the Meadow Cr~ek Parkway. Alternative Route 29 @ Route 29 South Fork @ Hollymead No Build 49,900 47,200 MCP Only 44,600 49,900 T1/T3 43,300 44,400 T4 39,800 37,000 W1 & W2 46,200 36,100 EXHIBIT 3B - Projected ADT Traffic on Route 29 for year 2015. 11I.~.3 Change in Traffic Patterns in Hollymead/Forest Lakes Ea~h of the alternatives will change local traffic patterns, and will result in more ef icient traffic patterns. However, traffic in the vicinity of the termini can be expected to increase. Residents of Hollymead and Forest Lakes have expressed concern about increases in trc ffic due to change in traffic patterns. Alternatives T1/3 will result in increased trc ffic in front of the Hollymead Elementary and the planned Middle School. Traffic wi I also increase along Timberwood Parkway in Forest Lakes. In both cases increases wi I come from the immediate or adjacent residential areas, will be on roads intended to serve as residential connectors, and will not result in high speed traffic. 111.3.4 Potential of Through Traffic Entering Residential Developments Ea~h of the alternatives have the potential to attract external through traffic. The impact of the T4 and W1 /2 alternatives would be most critical to Rt 649 Proffit Road, wl~ich as a result may need improvements. These improvements would be appropriate fo Proffit Road, as it is currently a rural arterial serving through traffic. However, tn: ffic entering Hollymead or Forest Lakes to use T1/3 would be very undesirable. 10 .' M'rJadow Creek Parkway Study It s unlikely that through traffic would choose to enter Hollymead or Forest Lakes sir ce Route 29 provides a shorter, faster roadway for traffic going to the Meadow Cr~ek Parkway. If Route 29 were to be congested in the area just north of the Ri' anna River, then a "short cut" route through the residential areas would exist. With th ~ planned improvements and projected growth, Route 29 is not expected to be over capacity by the year 2015. 11I.3.5 Conclusions: Traffic Service and Impact ~ ,. A tfimberwood Connector and Meadow Creek Parkway Extended both support the purpose of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Of these alternatives, T1 or T3 provides dilect access to the most neighborhoods and residents. . The best alternative for improving traffic on Route 29 is alternative T 4. This is a result of T4 providing the most direct bypass of Route 29 for traffic with destinations do~ntown, on the east side of Charlottesville, and on Interstate Route 64. All of the alternatives will result in a change in local travel patterns. This is generally a ~ ositive traffic impact since the changes result in more efficient travel patterns. Of gr eater concern is the potential of through traffic entering Hollymead or Forest Lakes. AI hough this is not likely, it is a potential impact which cannot be ignored. 11 M~adow Creek Parkway Study II. ~ Residential Impacts Re sidential impacts are the noise and visual impacts to area residences, as well as the ac~ual taking of residences. Residences within 1/4 mile of the planned alternative w~re assumed to have a noise and/or visual impact and were consequently inventoried as part of this analysis. Al seen in Exhibit 4, Alternative T4 has the largest residential impact. Not only will th s alternative result in the actual displacement of an estimated nine residences, but it s within 1/4 mile of an esti,mated 204 homes. Eight of the nine residences are 104 ated in the North section of Forest Lakes and have only been recently constructed. N( ne of the other alternatives are expected to require displacement of homes. di placed. AI ernatives W1 and W2 are located on the less developed west side of Route 29 and consequently will have the fewest homes within 1/4 mile. Much of T1 may be inl orporated into existing residential collectors, will have lower speeds than W1 or WR, and will be on roadways which already have noise impacts. Inventory Items: Unit: Alignment: Tl T3 T4 W1 W2 Existing neighborhoods traversed EA 0 0 1 0 0 Planned naighborhoods traversed EA 1 1 1 0 0 Residences taken EA 0 0 9 0 0 Residences within 1/4 mile EA 60 63 204 18 58 EXHIBIT 4 - Residential Impacts 12 M~adow Creek Parkway Study II. Ii Natural Environment Nc ne of the alternatives affect sensitive natural areas, although each alternative pa~ses through largely wooded, undeveloped areas. A summary of the Natural En~ironmental impacts is shown below in Exhibit 5. AI ernatives T3 and T4 run adjacent to Powell Creek for much of their length. Both cnDSS Powell Creek twice. Powell Creek will be subject to sedimentation during the construction process from either alternative. Powell Creek will also receive runoff frc m the highway once either plternative is operational. Inventory Items: Unit: Alignment: . T1 T3 T4 W1 W2 Streams crossed EA 0 3 4 3 5 Area of Floodplain ACRE 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Farmland ACRE 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.1 Area of Wetlands ACRE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hazardous Waste Sites EA 0 0 0 0 0 Woodlands ACRE 11.7 22.4 37.9 31.0 36.5 Acres in Erodible Soils ACRE 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 EXHIBIT 5 - Natural Environment 13 .. M'r;Jadow Creek Parkway Study IUS Historic and Archaeological Resources Hi toric and Archaeological Resources refers to Archaeological sites, potential pn~historic archaeological sites and historic (National Register or eligible) sites. Th~re are no Historic or Archaeological sites taken by any of the proposed alignments. He wever, there are several located within 1/4 mile of the project areas. Relative to thl~ T3 and T4 options, there are 2 sites located in the Proffit area, while the remaining sit~s are located around Meadowfield. All of the sites affected by the W1 and W2 op ions are located in and ar.oL,lnd the Rivanna area. Po ential Prehistoric Archaeological sites refers to river and stream areas where prl~historic artifacts may be located. Option T3 passes through 1 acre of these types of sites while Option T4 passes througn 0.3 acres. Inventory Items: Unit: Alignment: T1 T3 T4 W1 W2 Archaeological Sites Taken EA 0 0 0 0 0 Archaeological Sites within 1/4 mile EA 1 5 6 6 6 Potential Prehistoric Archaeological Sites ACRE 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Historic (National Register or eligible) Sites Taken EA 0 0 0 0 0 Historic Sites within 1/4 mile EA 0 0 2 1 1 EXHIBIT 6 - Historic and Archaeological Resources 14 M'fJadow Creek Parkway Study 11.11 Man Made Environment Mi~n Made Environment refers to cemeteries, schools, nursing homes, churches, rel reation facilities and public use facilities. None of the alternatives have significant impacts to the Man Made Environment. Exhibit 7 shows a summary of these impacts. AI ernative T4, at its termination on Route 649 is between the Laurel Hill Baptist Ct urch and the Maple Grove Church. Both are on Route 649 and both churches will be within 800 feet of T4. Route 649 can expect increases in traffic as a result of T4, pa ticularly in front of Laure~ liill Baptist. AI ernative T1 connects with Powell Creek Drive, which passes in front of Hollymead EIE mentary School and the planned Middle School. Traffic which passes in front of th ~ school can be expected to increase, primarily from Forest Lakes Residents trc veling to or from T1 . AI ernative T3 can also expect to increase traffic on Powell Creek Drive, however this wi I be as a result of traffic from Hollymead and the planned Forest Lakes South. Inventory Items: Unit: Alignment: T1 T3 T4 W1 W2 Cemeteries taken EA 0 0 0 0 0 Cemeteries within 1/4 mile EA 0 1 2 1 1 Public recreation facilities within 1/4 mile EA 0 0 0 0 0 Churches within 1/4 mile EA 0 0 3 0 1 Schools within 1/4 mile EA 1 0 1 0 0 School property taken ACRE 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EXHIBIT 7 - Other Manmade Environment 15 M~adow Creek Parkway Study II. ~ Cost and Engineering Complexity A preliminary cost estimate was conducted using per mile quantity estimates and square foot structure estimates. The results are shown in Exhibit 8. AI ernative T4 is the most expensive Timberwood Connector alternative. Alternative T~ is the least expensive. Alternative T1 has the potential to be incorporated into the de velopment of Forest lakes South. Tt e most complex design req4.irement is at the junction of T3, Hollymead Drive and THnberwood Parkway. The details of this junction have not been decided; however if 1r3 is to have separate access to both Hollymead and Timberwood Parkway, a cc mplex design would be required. Spurs to these roadways would meet in the area jUl>>t south of the dam, creating an intersection which would most likely be built on a st ucture. Approximate Alternative length (FT) Cost T1 2,700 $ 5,700,000 T3 7,000 18,750,000 T4 1 2,400 27,000,000 W1 13,300 25,900,000 W2 18,300 33,600,000 EXHIBIT 8 - Cost Comparison By Alternative 16 ..! Timberwood Connector Supports Meadow Creek Parkway. The purpose of the berwood Connector, as established in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, is to provide re idential areas access to the Meadow Creek' Parkway. A Timberwood Connector pr vides a direct and easy connection to the Meadow Creek Parkway from Hollymead, F rest Lakes and Forest Lakes South. With the T1 and T3 alternative, the 900 current re idences in Hollymead/Forest Lakes will have direct access to the Meadow Creek P rkway without using Route 29. In addition, the T1 alternative provides direct ac ess to Meadow Creek for up to 1,200 planned future residences at Forest Lakes S uth. · Timberwood and Western Alternative Conclusions and Recommendations adow Creek Parkway Study 2. Timberwood Connector Alternative T1 has the Smallest Impacts and Costs. The T1 alternative will cost less, have fewer environmental and residential impacts than ei her T3 or T4, and will provide similar service. T1 is only .5 miles long as compared wi h 1.3 miles for T3 and 2.3 miles for T4. T1 is estimated to cost $5.7 million as compared with $18.8 million for T3 and $27.0 million for T4. Both T3 and T4 run al ng and across Powell Creek. T4 will impact both the north end of Forest Lakes and M adowfield and is estimated to take nine residences. hould be noted that both T1 and T3 have the potential to be used by external ffic to travel from Route 29 to the Parkway. This potential traffic impact has been a ource of concern to the Hollymead/Forest Lakes residences, and the residential as ociations have been against T1 and T3 primarily for this reason. It does not appear lik ly that travel through the Hollymead/Forest Lakes subdivisions will be an attractive ro te for external through traffic. 3. The Western alternatives are not substitutes for the Timberwood Connector. W1 and W2 were considered as possible replacements for the Timberwood Connectors. A a replacement for the Timberwood connector the western alternatives eliminate the p tential for external traffic to travel through Hollymead/Forest Lakes. However, they pr vide access for Hollymead and Forest Lakes to the Meadow Creek Parkway through a ircuitous route. As a result W1 /2 is not a suitable replacement for the Timberwood C nnector. The Western Alternatives have merits on their own. The W1 and W2 alternatives provide another North-South alternative and provide for planned residential and ustrial development. As such, W1 and W2 are sound alternatives on their own rits, but are not replacements for a Timberwood Connector. 17 1 . . /fI. eadow Creek Parkway Study RE commendations W~ recommend that Timberwood Connector Alternative T1 be selected and that al ernatives T3 and T4 be dropped from further study. We also recommend that the W~ alternative be chosen for further study of a Western Alignment. AI ernative T1 is recommended because it provides comparable traffic service to T3, ar d better residential traffic service than T4. Alternative T1 provides this better service with less cost and impacts than T3 or T 4. , . AI ernative W1 and W2 are very similar; W2 is an extension of W1. Alternative W2 provides better access to the Meadow Creek Parkway with only slightly greater costs; as such W2 is recommended for further study. Tt e purpose of the Timberwood Connector is to support the residential areas north of th~ Meadow Creek Parkway. At this time residents of the areas that would be served b'r the Connector have shown opposition to Alternatives T1 and T3, primarily because of the potential for through traffic to travel in their residential areas. Although this pc tential impact should be taken seriously, it is too early in the study process to di continue study of a Timberwood Connector for traffic impacts which are not expected to occur. 18 , ... f vhrnt.wt.ed to 3o,).rd: _'E.::..tY:.):.,?3 ~ndl Item Nil. 2~{€;1l_..Ltlc~1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296.5823 ill .4 /993 rn BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ~ Wade, Transportation Planner'1'9 Juandiego August 3, 1993 Meadow Creek Parkway lease find attached a draft position paper on the Meadow Creek arkway. Only minor changes are expected to occur on the final osition paper which will be distributed at the August 11 joint ork session with the Planning Commission. A copy of the draft osition paper will be available in the Planning Department. have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I ,. . No eadow Creek Parkway Study DRAFT POSITION PAPER MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY 1 August, 1993 Prepared By: Sverdrup Corporation Falls Church, Virginia . eadow Creek Parkway Study T e Meadow Creek Parkway is a proposed four lane controlled access highway c nnecting U.S. Route 29 and State Route 631 (Rio Road). A connection from Rio R ad south to the City of Charlottesville is a separate project and is not included in th s study. The improvements recommended for further study are shown in Exhibit E- . T e primary purpose of the Meadow Creek Parkway will be to serve local commuting, sh pping and recreational traffic. The Parkway will also serve through traffic, al hough the Parkway is not being proposed as a bypass of Route 29. The Meadow Creek Parkway Mainline will run from Route 29 north of the South Fork Ri anna River to Rio Road. The study team evaluated a wide range of alternatives, in luding the 'no build' alternative, for the mainline and recommended a combination of egments shown in Exhibit E-1. These segments were presented to the public and th Board of Supervisors on October 15, 1992. Th Meadow Creek Parkway Study also includes a connection from the Meadow Cr ek Mainline to the residential areas of Forest Lakes and Hollymead. This co nection, referred to as the Timberwood Connector, is included in the County's Comprehensive Plan. The study team evaluated a wide range of alternatives, including th 'no build' alternative, and is recommending alternative T-1. Alternative T-1 has si ilar traffic service to alternative T-3, with fewer environmental impacts and costs. AI ernative T-1 provides better residential traffic service than alternative T-4, and has far less environmental impacts and costs than alternative T-4. The Timberwood Co nector alternative locations are shown in Exhibit E-1 . Th need for a Timberwood Connector has been questioned, particularly by residents in he Forest Lakes and Hollymead Residential areas. The residents object to the po ential for external traffic to travel through their neighborhoods enroute to the Me dow Creek Parkway. If U.S. Route 29 between the South Fork and Rt 649 (Ai port Road) is projected to have insufficient capacity, then this traffic pattern may oc ur. With the planned improvements and projected growth, Route 29 is not ex ected to be over capacity by the year 2015. At this time it is too early in the stu y process to discontinue the study of a Timberwood Connector for traffic impacts wh ch are not expected to occur. A c nnection to the Meadow Creek Parkway west of Route 29 was also studied. This co nection, referred to as the Western Alternative, was proposed and studied not only to i prove access to the Meadow Creek Parkway, but also as a possible substitute for the Timberwood Connector. Two alternatives were studied, a single roadway I <J III. eadow Creek Parkway Study pc rallel to Route 29 (W1), and the parallel roadway with a east-west connector (W2). Tt e study team determined that although the Western Alternatives have merits on their own, they are not substitutes for a Timberwood Connector. Alternative W-2 is recommended because it provides better access to Route 29 and the Meadow Creek Pc rkway with only slightly greater costs and impacts. .. ! ( ".;' ..( / AIRPORT ( \ /, CENTER lJ ~~ I N I 8 / f ~. .J II J )t f\ g;.+- {j -s:> -'Z- .,- .' 4~ "-0 ""v~ ;&. .. '<f /-~,. "':. /~ "~....f 1', : I I: ",--:/ - (( .. II ::ICII:a RECOMMENDED 15 OCT 92 RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED ON EXISTING ROW ~~.-:/"'/ '(-~.':/ II --- - .- 1/ MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY STUDY ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 111 : SCAI.E: I -'R/GfNAL Sllc IN INCHcS Exhibit E-1 I .... M~adow Creek Parkway Study Table of Contents Ex~cutive Summary In1 roduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 I. Meadow Creek Parkway Mainline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I. 1 Alternative B 1 vs/ B2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 Alternative G1 vs/ G2 vs/ G4 .......................... 3 1.3 Alternative Y1 vs/ Y3 ............................... 4 1.4 Engineering Cost Estimate-Summary of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 5 II. .Timberwood Connector!Western Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 11.1 Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 11.2 Public Response ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11.3 Traffic Impacts and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11.4 Residential Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 11.5 Natural Environment ............................... 13 11.6 Historic/Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 II. 7 Man Made Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 11.8 Cost and Engineering Complexity ...................... 16 11.9 Conclusions/Recommendations........................ 17 ~ adow Creek Parkway Study Th Meadow Creek Parkway is a proposed controlled access highway with the pu pose of serving local neighborhoods and commuters. As an alternative to Route 29, it will provide area residents a scenic and less congested route for travel to and fr m Charlottesville. The Meadow Creek Parkway is not a new proposal; the C arlottesville Area Transportation Plan and the Albermarle County Comprehensive PI n have both shown the Meadow Creek Parkway since before 1982. A connection fr m Rio Road south to the City of Charlottesville is a separate project and is not in luded in this study. AI hough the purpose of the Parkway is not to serve through traffic, it will provide a m re direct route for through traffic heading to the east side of Charlottesville or Ro te 64. The Parkway will also reduce traffic on Route 29 - another added benefit, bu not the main purpose of the Parkway. In ddition to the Meadow Creek Parkway, two additional alignments, the Timberwood Co m~ctor and the Western Alternatives, have been proposed to improve access for loc I residential neighborhoods. The Timberwood Connector was shown in the 1989 Co nty Comprehensive Plan and the Western Alternatives were proposed as part of th Study. The Timberwood Connector would intersect the Mainline just east of U.S. Ro te 29 and travel north, serving the communities of Hollymead and Forest Lakes. Th connector would allow residents to access the Parkway without using Rte. 29. Th Western Alternatives have been proposed to provide the same type of access to munities on the western side of Rte. 29. The alignments would begin near the ort and travel south toward the Parkway/Route 29 interchange. 1 . eadow Creek Parkway Study I. Meadow Creek Parkway Mainline T e position paper for the Meadow Creek Parkway Mainline was submitted to the C unty of Albemarle Department of Engineering on September 30, 1992. The report id ntifies benefits, costs and impacts of Mainline alternatives. The conclusions and re ommendations were presented to the Board of Supervisors on October 15, 1992. T e Meadow Creek Parkway Mainline was split into three sections for analysis p rposes. The three sections were labeled B (Blue), G (Green) and Y (Yellow) and two or three alternatives were developed for each colored section. The location of the al ernatives may be found in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 B shows the estimated cost of each al rnative. The remainder of this section summarizes the analysis performed for each se tion. AI ernatives B2, G 1, and Y1 are the recommended alignments for the Meadow Creek Pa kway Mainline. This portion of the parkway could be constructed at a cost of $ 5.8 million (excluding interchanges at each end). The diamond interchange concept at .0.Road could be constructed for approximately $3.5 million and the full cloverleaf int rchange concept at Route 29 could be constructed for approximately $4.5 million. 1.1 Alternative 81 vs 82 Fa ts: Similar lengths. B1 bridge over Rivanna River longer. B1 local & stream Bridges longer. B1 impacts more residences within 1/4 mile. B1 crosses more floodplain and possibly wetlands. B1 crosses highly erodible soils. B2 steeper slope construction. B1 uses existing transportation corridor. Co clusions: Alternative B 1 has the advantage of following the existing corridor of the railroad; however, this alternative has more bridging to be constructed to cross the lowland terrain and the Rivanna River. In contrast, Alternative B2 does not impact the Northfields residents and takes advantage of the higher terrain to make a Rivanna River crossing. In addition, B2 would provide a more scenic Parkway than B 1 . 2 .. eadowcreek Parkway Study ~ N I \.. f ,1.... I I , ( ,,/ ..( I '- -' , .J -P-t- .- . ~ '0 . ., ", , ~ .:.....:!/~(:F . '\-1 \'. : I ,: /,/ ~~ ~(j l'r' II /,,,,:' fv~-:-'; 0-~:':/ II 'I AUGNMENT ALTERNATIVES MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY STUDY ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA .'\ 'I, [ SOU, r.2OOlT I qlGlNAI.. SUE IN '",<:HES Exhibit 1 I . Meadow Creek Parkway Study RE commendations: We feel that the lower construction cost and the scenic route of 82 combined with a lesser impact on Northfield outweigh the advantage of running parallel to the railroad, therefore, we recommend alternative 82. I.~ Alternative G 1 vsl G2 vsl G4 Facts: - - - - - . - - G1 shortest length. Similar bridging lengths across the Railroad. G1 impacts least residences within 1/4 mile. G2 takes a residence. G4 traverses 8entivar Residences' back yard. G1 crosses slightly more floodplain. G4 steeper slope construction. Conclusions~ These three Alternatives have similar impacts. Alternative G4 stays east of the railroad and as a result impacts the 8entivar neighborhood more than G 1 or G2. G1 and G2 are essentially the same corridor. The evaluation of G1 vs. G2 comes down to shorter length of G1 vs. the higher ground of G2. The ridge that G2 uses would result in an easier to construct and more scenic Parkway, however, the Parkway would be more obtrusive. Use of the ridge for the Parkway would also preclude any other use of the ridge. Re ommendation: The differences between G 1 and G2 are marginal at best. We believe G 1 would be a shorter and less obtrusive facility with better access to the river if desired. 3 1 Meadow Creek Parkway Study I.~ Alternative Y1 vsl Y3 Facts: Similar lengths. Y3 more stream crossings. Y1 impacts least residences within 114 mile. Y1 crosses floodplain boundary. Similar steep slope construction. Y3 within 1/4 mile from Forest Lakes South (Under Development) en nclusions: The length of the floodplain crossed by Y1 is very small and is not a significant factor. Alternative Y3 crosses an additional stream and impacts substantially more residents of the Ridgewood Mobile Home Park. The costs of the two alternatives and the type of terrain they cross are similar. Recommendation We recommend Alternative Y1 to minimize the impact to current residents in Ridgewood mobile home park and future residents of Forest Lakes South. 4 l I , "" . M raadow Creek Parkway Study MEA POW CREEK PARKWAY MAINLINE Enai heerina Cost Estimate - Summarv of Alternatives (NOTE DOLLAR AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) Const/Eng/ Interchange/ Row/Utility Intersection/ Total Altemative Construction Alterr !ative Cost M.O.T. Cost Cost Length (Mi.) Cost/Mile ($10oos) ($1oo0s) ($1000s) ($1oo0s) B $46,000 $3,600 $49,600 2.3 $20,000 Bb $40,100 $3,600 $43,700 2.3 $17,400 G $14,700 $0 $14,700 1.1 $13,400 G' $15,800 $0 $15,800 1.3 $12,200 G~ $16,700 $0 $16,700 1.4 $11,900 y $11,000 $3,100 $14,100 0.7 $15,700 y . $11,000 $3,100 $14,100 0.7 $15,700 T . $5,700 $1,000 $6,700 0.5 $11 ,400 T $18,700 $2,000 $20,700 1.3 $14,400 Const/Eng/ Interchange/ Row/Utility Intersection/ Total Total Alterr !ative Cost M.O.T. Cost Cost Length Cost/Mi BP $40,100 $3,600 $43,700 2.3 G $14,700 $0 $14,700 1.1 Y $11,000 $3,100 $14,100 0.7 TOl lAL $65,800 $6,700 $72,500 4.1 $17,700 5 eadow Creek Parkway Study II. Timberwood Connector and Western Alternatives II. Alternatives Considered Tree Timberwood Connector Alternatives and two Meadow Creek Parkway Extended al ernatives are being considered for more detailed study. The alternative locations ar shown in Exhibit 1. AI arnative T1 begins at the southern end of Hollymead as a continuation of Powell Cr ek Drive. This alternative would include connecting Hollymead and Forest lakes wi h a roadway over the Dam separating the two neighborhoods. The alternative ends wi h an interchange or intersection on the Meadow Creek Parkway. AI ernative T3 begins in the vicinity of the Dam and runs generally eastward away fr m Hollymead and Forest Lakes. Details of the connection with the roads leading to the Dam have not been decided. The alternative could, if desired, have separate ac eS6 to Hollymead and Forest Lakes without opening the roadway across the Dam. T is alternative also ends with an interchange on the Meadow Creek Parkway. AI ernative T4 begins on Route 649, Proffit Road. This alternative runs just east of Foest lakes. Th Meadow Creek Parkway Extended Alternatives run in the largely undeveloped area ju t west of Route 29. Alternative W1 runs parallel to Route 29 from Airport Road to th Meadow Creek Parkway Interchange on Route 29. Alternative W2 is alternative W with an additional east-west leg from Route 606 to Route 29. As extensions to th Meadow Creek Parkway, both alternatives would be controlled access, four-lane ro dways. 6 I ~ Meadow Creek Parkway Study II. ~ Public Response The public commented on the proposed Timberwood Connector at the June 24, 1992 Public Information Meeting, at meetings with local area residential neighborhood associations, and at the presentation to the County Board of Supervisors on October 15, 1992. At each meeting the public was encouraged to provide comments. Exhibit 2A shows the aeneral responses given at the Public Information Meeting; that is, those responses that could be grouped according to support or opposition to the stl dy as a whole. Of all the responses received, most people (156 out of 203) ex :>ressed their opposition to the Timberwood Connector while only 2 supported the Connector. Total Comments Received: Gemerally Positive About Meadow Creek Parkway . Generally Negative About Meadow Creek Parkway Generally Positive About Timberwood Connector G ~nerally Negative About Timberwood Connector 203 6 7 2 156 Exhibit 2A - General Responses to June 1992 Public Meeting Ext ibit 2B shows a greater breakdown in the responses according to each Tin berwood Connector option. (Note: Not all responses given were specifically din cted toward an option, T1, T3 or T4. Therefore, the number of specific responses wil not necessarily equal the number of general responses.) Exhibit 2B shows that the greatest opposition was directed towards T3 and T1. 7 ~ Ji eadow Creek Parkway Study Timberwood Connector Option In Favor Opposed T1 0 8 T3 5 20 T4 16 2 Exhibit 2B - Specific Responses Toward Timberwood Connector at the June 1992 Public Meeting II. Traffic Impacts and Benefits Each alternative changes the traffic volumes on Route 29 and the traffic patterns in th Hollymead/Forest Lakes subdivisions. This section analyzes the impact of these ch nges, and how well each alternative supports the purpose of the Meadow Creek Pa kway. 111.3.1 Residential Neighborhood Access to Meadow Creek AI ernatives T1 and T3 were placed to provide residential access to the Meadow Cr ek Parkway. Current Hollymead/Forest Lakes residents as well as future Forest La es South residents would be able to access Charlottesville and locations south wi hout traveling on Route 29. The bike trail planned for the Meadow Creek Parkway w uld also be accessible by these residents directly. As shown in Exhibit 3A, T1/3 w uld allow approximately 900 current housing units and 800 to 1,200 future units dir ct access to the Meadow Creek Parkway. T4 W1 and W2 provide direct access to Meadow Creek Parkway for much smaller neighborhoods and fewer residential units than T1 and T3. T4 is convenient for re idents along Rt 649 and the northern end of Forest Lakes. W1 and W2 provide dir ct access for neighborhoods and development west of Route 29, and as such w uld complement the T alternatives by serving different areas. Alt rnatives W1 and W2 do not provide direct access to the Meadow Creek Parkway for most of the residents of Hollymead and Forest Lakes. As a replacement for the Ti berwood connector, the western alternatives do eliminate the potential for external 8 ~ adow Creek Parkway Study tr ffic through Hollymead/Forest Lakes. However, they provide access to the Meadow Cr ek Parkway through a roundabout route. For example, Hollymead/Forest Lakes re idents in the vicinity of Hollymead Elementary School would travel 5 miles to reach th intersection of the Meadow Creek Parkway and Rt 643 via Route 29, whereas fr m the same area, the residents would travel 6 miles via W2 but only one mile via T1. As a result, W1/2 is not a suitable replacement for the Timberwood Connector. As shown in Exhibit 3A, T1/3 will provide direct access to the Meadow Creek Pa kway for the most residential units and neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with Estimated Alternative Direct Access Number of Units T1 & T3 Hollymead 400 Forest Lakes 500 Forest Lakes South 800-1 200 (Proposed) T4 Jefferson Village 60 Meadowfield 15 Northwoods 55 W1 & W2 Deerwood 85 Templeton Acres 20 Mobile Home Park (Planned) 302 Exhibit 3A - Neighborhood Access III. .2 Reduction of Traffic on Route 29 Alt rnative T4 provides the best improvement to future traffic on Route 29. As Sh wn in Exhibit 38, Route 29 traffic in the vicinity of the South Fork will be the sm lIest with alternative T 4. Alternative T1/3 is the next best alternative for traffic red ction. Alternatives WlIW2 attract other traffic to the Route 29 corridor, and as a r suit is the least beneficial build alternative for reduction of Route 29 traffic. Alt rnative T1/3 and provides a benefit to traffic conditions to Route 29 north of the intersection of the Meadow Creek Parkway and Route 29. As shown in Exhibit 38 (Ro te 29 @ Hollymead), T1/3 decrease the traffic along this portion of Route 29 by 5,5 0 vehicles as compared with MCP only. This traffic benefit is due to traffic in 9 I Meadow Creek Parkway Study Fe rest Lakes and Hollymead using T1 /3, rather than Route 29, to access the Meadow C, eek Parkway. Alternative Route 29 @ Route 29 South Fork @ Hollymead No Build 49,900 47,200 MCP Only 44,600 49,900 T1/T3 43,300 44,400 T4 39,800 37,000 W1 & W2 46,200 36,100 EXHIBIT 3B - Projected ADT Traffic on Route 29 for year 2015. 1I1.~.3 Change in Traffic Patterns in Hollymead/Forest Lakes Ea ~h of the alternatives will change local traffic patterns, and will result in more eff cient traffic patterns. However, traffic in the vicinity of the termini can be ex bected to increase. Re ~idents of Hollymead and Forest Lakes have expressed concern about increases in traFfic due to change in traffic patterns. Alternatives T1/3 will result in increased tra fic in front of the Hollymead Elementary and the planned Middle School. Traffic wil also increase along Timberwood Parkway in Forest Lakes. In both cases increases wil come from the immediate or adjacent residential areas, will be on roads intended to ~erve as residential connectors, and will not result in high speed traffic. 11I.,~.4 Potential of Through Traffic Entering Residential Developments Eac h of the alternatives have the potential to attract external through traffic. The im~ act of the T4 and W1 /2 alternatives would be most critical to Rt 649 Proffit Road, wh ch as a result may need improvements. These improvements would be appropriate for Proffit Road, as it is currently a rural arterial serving through traffic. However, tra fic entering Hollymead or Forest Lakes to use T1/3 would be very undesirable. 10 ~ It i unlikely that through traffic would choose to enter Hollymead or Forest Lakes since Route 29 provides a shorter, faster roadway for traffic going to the Meadow Cr ek Parkway. If Route 29 were to be congested in the area just north of the Ri anna River, then a "short cut" route through the residential areas would exist. With th planned improvements and projected growth, Route 29 is not expected to be over ca acity by the year 2015. III. .5 Conclusions: Traffic Service and Impact A imberwood Connector and Meadow Creek Parkway Extended both support the pu pose of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Of these alternatives, T1 or T3 provides dir ct access to the most neighborhoods and residents. best alternative for improving traffic on Route 29 is alternative T4. This is a result 4 providing the most direct bypass of Route 29 for traffic with destinations ntown, on the east side of Charlottesville, and on Interstate Route 64. All of the alternatives will result in a change in local travel patterns. This is generally a p sitive traffic impact since the changes result in more efficient travel patterns. Of gre ter concern is the potential of through traffic entering Hollymead or Forest Lakes. Alt ough this is not likely, it is a potential impact which cannot be ignored. l 11 1 M'9adow Creek Parkway Study IIA Residential Impacts Residential impacts are the noise and visual impacts to area residences, as well as the ac ual taking of residences. Residences within 1/4 mile of the planned alternative WE re assumed to have a noise and/or visual impact and were consequently inventoried as part of this analysis. As seen in Exhibit 4, Alternative T4 has the largest residential impact. Not only will this alternative result in the actual displacement of an estimated nine residences, but it i~ within 1/4 mile of an estimated 204 homes. Eight of the nine residences are located in the North section of Forest Lakes and have only been recently constructed. Nohe of the other alternatives are expected to require displacement of homes. disblaced. Altarnatives W1 and W2 are located on the less developed west side of Route 29 and consequently will have the fewest homes within 1/4 mile. Much of T1 may be incbrporated into existing residential collectors, will have lower speeds than W1 or W~, and will be on roadways which already have noise impacts. Inventory Items: Unit: Alignment: T1 T3 T4 W1 W2 xisting neighborhoods traversed EA 0 0 1 0 0 lanned neighborhoods traversed EA 1 1 1 0 0 esidences taken EA 0 0 9 0 0 esidences within 1/4 mile EA 60 63 204 18 58 EXHIBIT 4 - Residential Impacts 12 L l ~ adow Creek Parkway Study Natural Environment N ne of the alternatives affect sensitive natural areas, although each alternative pa ses through largely wooded, undeveloped areas. A summary of the Natural En iron mental impacts is shown below in Exhibit 5. AI ernatives T3 and T4 run adjacent to Powell Creek for much of their length. Both cr ss Powell Creek twice. Powell Creek will be subject to sedimentation during the co struction process from either alternative. Powell Creek will also receive runoff fr m the highway once either alternative is operational. Inventory Items: Unit: Alignment: Tl T3 T4 Wl W2 treams crossed EA 0 3 4 3 5 rea of Floodplain ACRE 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 armland ACRE 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.1 rea of Wetlands ACRE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 azardous Waste Sites EA 0 0 0 0 0 oodlands ACRE 11.7 22.4 37.9 31.0 36.5 cres in Erodible Soils ACRE 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 EXHIBIT 5 - Natural Environment 13 l -' eadow Creek Parkway Study Historic and Archaeological Resources Hi toric and Archaeological Resources refers to Archaeological sites, potential pr historic archaeological sites and historic (National Register or eligible) sites. T ere are no Historic or Archaeological sites taken by any of the proposed alignments. H wever, there are several located within 1/4 mile of the project areas. Relative to th T3 and T4 options, there are 2 sites located in the Proffit area, while the remaining sit s are located around Meadowfield. All of the sites affected by the W1 and W2 o tions are located in and around the Rivanna area. Po ential Prehistoric Archaeological sites refers to river and stream areas where pr historic artifacts may be located. Option T3 passes through 1 acre of these types of sites while Option T4 passes through 0.3 acres. Inventory Items: Unit: Alignment: T1 T3 T4 W1 W2 Archaeological Sites Taken EA 0 0 0 0 0 Archaeological Sites within 1/4 mile EA 1 5 6 6 6 Potential Prehistoric Archaeological Sites ACRE 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Historic (National Register or eligible) Sites Taken EA 0 0 0 0 0 Historic Sites within 1/4 mile EA 0 0 2 1 1 EXHIBIT 6 - Historic and Archaeological Resources 14 I . - . /11. eadow Creek Parkway Study 11.17 Man Made Environment M~n Made Environment refers to cemeteries, schools, nursing homes, churches, recreation facilities and public use facilities. None of the alternatives have significant il1ipacts to the Man Made Environment. Exhibit 7 shows a summary of these impacts. AI ernative T4, at its termination on Route 649 is between the Laurel Hill Baptist Ct urch and the Maple Grove Church. Both are on Route 649 and both churches will be within 800 feet of T4. Route 649 can expect increases in traffic as a result of T4, particularly in front of Laurel Hill Baptist. AI ernative T1 connects with Powell Creek Drive, which passes in front of Hollymead Ell mentary School and the planned Middle School. Traffic which passes in front of th ~ school can be expected to increase, primarily from Forest Lakes Residents trc veling to or from T1 . AI ernative T3 can also expect to increase traffic on Powell Creek Drive, however this wi I be as a result of traffic from Hollymead and the planned Forest Lakes South. nventory Items: Unit: Alignment: T1 T3 T4 W1 W2 ~emeteries taken EA 0 0 0 0 0 r-emeteries within 1/4 mile EA 0 1 2 1 1 Public recreation facilities within 1/4 mile EA 0 0 0 0 0 Churches within 1/4 mile EA 0 0 3 0 1 !)chools within 1/4 mile EA 1 0 1 0 0 ~chool property taken ACRE 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EXHIBIT 7 - Other Manmade Environment 15 . -- _tI A preliminary cost estimate was conducted using per mile quantity estimates and sq are foot structure estimates. The results are shown in Exhibit 8. Cost and Engineering Complexity eadow Creek Parkway Study AI ernative T4 is the most expensive Timberwood Connector alternative. Alternative T1 is the least expensive. Alternative T1 has the potential to be incorporated into the de elopment of Forest Lakes South. most complex design requirement is at the junction of T3, Hollymead Drive and berwood Parkway. The details of this junction have not been decided; however 3 is to have separate access to both Hollymead and Timberwood Parkway, a co plex design would be required. Spurs to these roadways would meet in the area jus south of the dam, creating an intersection which would most likely be built on a str cture. Approximate Alternative Length (FT) Cost T1 2,700 $ 5,700,000 T3 7,000 18,750,000 T4 12,400 27,000,000 W1 13,300 25,900,000 W2 18,300 33,600,000 EXHIBIT 8 - Cost Comparison By Alternative 16 . ... '. Meadow Creek Parkway Study 11.9 Timberwood and Western Alternative Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions 1. Timberwood Connector Supports Meadow Creek Parkway. The purpose of the Timberwood Connector, as established in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, is to provide residential areas access to the Meadow Creek Parkway. A Timberwood Connector provides a direct and easy connection to the Meadow Creek Parkway from Hollymead, Forest Lakes and Forest Lakes South. With the T1 and T3 alternative, the 900 current residences in Hollymead/Forest Lakes will have direct access to the Meadow Creek Parkway without using Route 29. In addition, the T1 alternative provides direct access to Meadow Creek for up to 1,200 planned future residences at Forest Lakes South. 2. Timberwood Connector Alternative T1 has the Smallest Impacts and Costs. The T1 alternative will cost less, have fewer environmental and residential impacts than eith.er. T3 or T4, and will provide similar service. T1 is only .5 miles long as compared with 1.3 miles for T3 and 2.3 miles for T4. T1 is estimated to cost $5.7 million as compared with $18.8 million for T3 and $27.0 million for T4. Both T3 and T4 run along and across Powell Creek. T4 will impact both the north end of Forest Lakes and Meadowfield and is estimated to take nine residences. It should be noted that both T1 and T3 have the potential to be used by external traffic to travel from Route 29 to the Parkway. This potential traffic impact has been a source of concern to the Hollymead/Forest Lakes residences, and the residential associations have been against T1 and T3 primarily for this reason. It does not appear likely that travel through the Hollymead/Forest Lakes subdivisions will be an attractive route for external through traffic. 3. The Western alternatives are not substitutes for the Timberwood Connector. W1 and W2 were considered as possible replacements for the Timberwood Connectors. As a replacement for the Timberwood connector the western alternatives eliminate the potential for external traffic to travel through Hollymead/Forest Lakes. However, they provide access for Hollymead and Forest Lakes to the Meadow Creek Parkway through a circuitous route. As a result W1 /2 is not a suitable replacement for the Timberwood Connector. 4. The Western Alternatives have merits on their own. The W1 and W2 alternatives do provide another North-South alternative and provide for planned residential and industrial development. As such, W1 and W2 are sound alternatives on their own merits, but are not replacements for a Timberwood Connector. 17 . --- .. Meadow Creek Parkway Study Recommendations We recommend that Timberwood Connector Alternative T1 be selected and that alternatives T3 and T4 be dropped from further study. We also recommend that the W2 alternative be chosen for further study of a Western Alignment. Alternative T1 is recommended because it provides comparable traffic service to T3, and better residential traffic service than T4. Alternative T1 provides this better service with less cost and impacts than T3 or T4. Alternative W1 and W2 are very similar; W2 is an extension of W1. Alternative W2 provides better access to the Meadow Creek Parkway with only slightly greater costs; as such W2 is recommended for further study. The purpose of the Timberwood Connector is to support the residential areas north of the Meadow Creek Parkway. At this time residents of the areas that would be served by the Connector have shown opposition to Alternatives T1 and T3, primarily because of the-potential for through traffic to travel in their residential areas. Although this potential impact should be taken seriously, it is too early in the study process to discontinue study of a Timberwood Connector for traffic impacts which are not expected to occur. 18 . l ~ N. fladow Creek Parkway Study I 4ea~/ ~~~~ POSITION PAPER MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY 1 August, 1 993 Prepared By: Sverdrup Corporation Falls Church, Virginia , " . adow Creek Parkway Study Meadow Creek Parkway is a proposed four lane controlled access highway necting U.S. Route 29 and State Route 631 (Rio Road). A connection from Rio d south to the City of Charlottesville is a separate project and is not included in thi study. The improvements recommended for further study are shown in Exhibit E- . CUTIVE SUMMARY Th primary purpose of the Meadow Creek Parkway will be to serve local commuting, sh pping and recreational traffic. The Parkway will also serve through traffic, alt ough the Parkway is not being proposed as a bypass of Route 29. Th Meadow Creek Parkway Mainline will run from Route 29 north of the South Fork Ri nna River to Rio Road. The study team evaluated a wide range of alternatives, in I ding the 'no build' alternative, for the mainline and recommended a combination of egments shown in Exhibit E-1. These segments were presented to the public and th Board of Supervisors on October 15, 1992. Meadow Creek Parkway Study also includes a connection from the Meadow k Mainline to the residential areas of Forest Lakes and Hollymead. This ection, referred to as the Timberwood Connector, is included in the County's prehensive Plan. The study team evaluated a wide range of alternatives, including 'no build' alternative, and is recommending alternative T-1. Alternative T-1 has si lar traffic: service to alternative T-3, with fewer environmental impacts and costs. Alt rnative T-1 provides better residential traffic service than alternative T-4, and has far ess environmental impacts and costs than alternative T-4. The Timberwood Co nector alternative locations are shown in Exhibit E-1 . Th need for a Timberwood Connector has been questioned, particularly by residents in e Forest Lakes and Hollymead Residential areas. The residents object to the pot ntial for external traffic to travel through their neighborhoods enroute to the dow Creek Parkway. If U.S. Route 29 between the South Fork and Rt 649 ort Road) is projected to have insufficient capacity, then this traffic pattern may r. With the planned improvements and projected growth, Route 29 is not cted to be over capacity by the year 2015. At this time it is too early in the stu y process to discontinue the study of a Timberwood Connector for traffic impacts whi h are not expected to occur. A c nnection to the Meadow Creek Parkway west of Route 29 was also studied. This con ection, referred to as the Western Alternative, was proposed and studied not only to i prove access to the Meadow Creek Parkway, but also as a possible substitute for he Timbmwood Connector. Two alternatives were studied, a single roadway I I M adow Creek Parkway Study pa Flllel to Route 29 (W1), and the parallel roadway with a east-west connector (W2). Th study team determined that although the Western Alternatives have merits on thl r own, they are not substitutes for a Timberwood Connector. Alternative W-2 is rec pmmended because it provides better access to Route 29 and the Meadow Creek Pa l<way with only slightly greater costs and impacts. ( , i / ,;' ..( - / I AIRPORT I 1\-::# CENTER l-1 ~\ ~i , I / '---- /' ( .t.- -"'..J .J ) ~ )t f\ ~t- ~\j /~ '" 'P ;rr-. ':. "1 :- '0'- '....",.J ~ r. : } / : // - :I2:a RECOMMENDED 15 OCT 92 RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED ON EXISTING ROW (( /I ~~,~,/'/ 9:-~'.'/ 1/ MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY STUDY ALBEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA 1/ ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 'I, I : SCAlE: I )RIGINN... SIZE IN INCHES Exhibit E-1 /ifd~~ ~/j?3 f ., = Mec~dDw Creek Parkway Study PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNIN.G COMMISSION MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY STUDY AUGUST 11, 1 993 ALBEMARLE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING I ;=' Me;fidow Creek Parkway Study RECOMMENDATIONS: WE RECOMMEND THA T: o MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY MAINLINE ALTERNATIVE 82 + G1 + Y1 o TIMBERWOOD CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVE T 1 o WESTERN ALTERNATIVE W2 BE ACCEPTED FOR FURTHER STUDY ~ , ~ Me'adow Creek Parkway Study MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY MAINLINE SUMMARY r ~ BLUE SEGMENTS: B2 BETTER RIVER AND RR CROSSING GREEN SEGMENTS: G 1 MARGINALL Y BETTER YELLOW SEGMENTS: Yl BETTER RT 29 CONNECTION I ~ Meadow Creek Parkway Study TIMBERWOOD CONNECTOR ISSUES: o TRAFFIC BENEFIT r ~ o SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT o TRAFFIC IMPACTS I ;=' Me~~dow Creek Parkway Study TIMBERWOOD CONNECTOR ISSUES TRAFFIC BENEFIT SUMMARY o T1/T3 PROVIDES ACCESS TO 2,000 + RESIDENCES T4 PROVIDES ACCESS TO 130 RESIDENCES o T1/3 REDUCES TRAFFIC ON RT 29N BY: 13% AT SOUTH FORK 6% AT HOll YMEAD T4 REDUCES TRAFFIC ON RT 29 N BY: 20% AT SOUTH FORK 12% AT HalL YMEAD I ~ ME. adow Creek Parkway Study TIMBERWOOD CONNECTOR ISSUES SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT SUMMARY r , RESIDENCES COST WITH"IN 1 /4 LENGTH T1 $5.7m 60 .5 mile T3 $18.8m 64 1 .3 mile T4 $27.0m 204 2.4 mile * T3 AND T4 CROSS POWELL CREEK * PART OF T1 MAY BE WITHIN FOREST LAKES SOUTH I . = Meadow Creek Parkway Study TIMBERWOOD CONNECTOR ISSUES TRAFFIC IMPACT. SUMMARY , , o T1/3 CHANGE LOCAL TRAFFIC PATTERNS o T1/3 PROVIDE POTENTIAL FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC TO ENTER HOll YMEAD/FOREST LAKES o T4 REQUIRES UPGRADE OF 64/; r ~ Mi:,adow Creek Parkway Study TIMBERWOOD CONNECTOR ISSUES TRAFFIC IMPACT SUMMARY RECOMMENDA:TION BASIS: IF ROUTE 29 TRAFFIC IS NOT CONGESTED, TRAFFIC Will NOT "SHORT CUT" THROUGH HOll YMEAD/FOREST lAKES TRAVEL TIME THROUGH HOll YMEAD FOREST lAKES: 6.0 MIN TRAVEL TIME ON RT 29 - MEADOW CREEK: 3.5 MIN I =' MefJdow Creek Parkway Study WESTERN ALTERNATIVES BENEFIT IMPACT SUMMARY o WESTERN ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT SUBSTITUTES FOR TIMBERWOOD CONNECTOR o TRAFFIC BENEFIT: 24% REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC ON RT 29 AT HOll YMEAD ACCESS TO Mep FOR RESIDENCES AND BUSINESSES ON WEST >- g .... eI) >- 'l::( co~ "- ~ .5 ex: E''l::( .- C1- ~"' ~ ~LIJ c:LIJ :::J ex: 00 o CD ~ ~O E~ .gLIJ ;;C~ en z o - I-- (.) W J o a: a.. (.) - LL LL <( a: I-- o ,.. o C\I a: <( w > W N 0 0 en en 0 0 <C en LO N I I I I I ~ ~ m ,.- q- r--.. M N 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 I- eX) 0 (0 I eX) I I ~ ~ ~ ~ en r--.. (0 (0 M M or- or- olS t! 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 or- N LO (0 M I . (0 ..... :: ~ ~ ~ ~ I- (0 or- or- LO eX) q- M or- or- M 0 0 0 0 t::: 0 0 0 0 M q- N LO I I I ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ t- ?- M q- en LO C q- q- <C 0 0 0 0 0 W ~ t! 0 0 0 0 0 > I- ..... 0 or- M I N I M :: ~ ~ ~ ~ - N r--.. (0 M LO t- <C q- N or- or- or- Z N a: :: 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 olS C'! or- M . I I en !3 ..... ~ ~ ~ :: (0 (0 ,.- eX) <C q- M or- or- 0 0 0 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 :: N 0 LO I I r--.. I ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (0 en r--.. LO M or- Q. > 0 0 0 ....I 0 0 0 0 Z (0 en 0 . I I I :: ~ ~ ~ 0 q- en eX) q- q- C 0 0 0 ....I 0 0 - en N I I I I . Z :J ~ ~ a::1 en r--.. q- q- ~ '"C ~ 0 C'\S U. Q) z E J... 0 J: Q) ... ~ > Q. - ~ - t- - a: Q. U o ~ 0 <C en Q) J: .s:: C'\S U :IE () ... :IE 0 @) .~ @) ~ c: Q. @) 0 c: @) Q. ..oJ en a: en en C'\S u () N > :IE N C'\S N @)a: M :IE 3: Q) c: Q) t- @) ... c: ... Q. ~ ~ @) ~ ~ C'\S ~ o .~ U ~ 0 0 q- or- or- :IE or- 3: 3: a: a: a: u. t- t- ~ ~ '::to '0" Irj ~ ~ 00 r--: Irj ~ ~ Irj t".l " Irj ~ ~ ~ 00" lr) ~ ~ Irj r--: Irj ~ ~ t'--- 0\" Irj ~ ~ '0 t".l " Irj ~ ~ 0\ 0\" "1- Q. U :IE o?S en N ... a: Q) c: :J .s:: (J ... C'\S :IE ~, , County of Albemarle EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ,Ii:'; .'>;,;?- ;> ,~:'1 " L^" ..~...._"".,-,..-......... <::5.. AGENDA Land Us ITLE: Taxation AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1993 ITEM NUMBER: ''i-, . ,,'7 -"F (7-'1 /: 7,/ '-1 ...." ,/, ~ I -".. t,. ./ {.. r' ' ' I SUBJECT)PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Amendment to Ordinance to exclude certain propert 'es; require payment of roll-back tax at ime of rezoning; update interest rates t maximum allowable. ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF C Messrs. Breeden REVIEWED BY: BACK ROUND: This amendment is submitted based on a change in State Legislation requested by Albe arle County and approved by the General Assembly effective for July 1, 1993. SSION: amendment will exclude properties in a planned development, industrial or rcial zoning district established prior to 1981 from taxation based on land use. amendment will affect an estimated 22 landowners with 1834 acres from land use ion effective for tax year 1994. These properties are currently receiving a tax ral of approximately $93,000. This amendment will also subject properties rezoned to a more intensive use at the owne 's request to the roll-back tax immediately, instead of being delayed until the actu I change of use. Inte est rates on the deferred tax and for late payment are also being adjusted to be cons'stent with the rate applicable to delinquent taxes. approval of amendments effective immediately. RECO Staf 93.0 0 Ju'_ -. 2 f993 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '. r~ ,t~it.uttd tc' ?-.14id :l "'\ ___",--,,_--4...~--":'" !i.ge~.j" llfom ~. An Ordinance To Amend and Reenact Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation of the Code of Albemarle BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VIII, known as "Special Assessments For Agricul- tural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate", of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: ARTICLE VIII. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL, HORTICULTURAL, FOREST OR OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE* Sec. 8-31. Definitions. For the purposes of this article, the following special classifications of real estate are established and defined: Real estate devoted to agricultural use. Real estate when devoted to the bona fide production for sale of plants and animals useful to man under uniform standards prescribed by the commissioner of agriculture and consumer services or when devoted to and meeting the requirements and qualifications for payments or compensation pursuant to a soil conservation program under an agreement with an agency of the federal government. Real estate devoted to forest use. Land, including the standing timber and trees thereon, devoted to tree growth in such quantity and so spaced and maintained as to constitute a forest area under standards prescribed by the state department of forestry pursuant to the authority set out in Section 58.1-3240 of the Code of Virginia. Real estate devoted to horticultural use. Real estate devoted to the bona fide production for sale of fruits of all kinds, including grapes, nuts and berries, vegeta- bles, and nursery and floral products under uniform standards prescribed by the state commissioner of agriculture and consumer services; or real estate devoted to and meeting the requirements and qualifications for payments or other compensation pursuant to a soil conservation program under an agreement with an agency of the federal government. Real estate devoted to open space use. Real estate when so used as to be provided or preserved for park or recreational purposes, conservation of land or other natural resources, floodways, historic or scenic purposes, or assisting in the shaping of the character, direction and timing of community development, under uniform standards pre- scribed by the department of conservation and historic resources pursuant to the authority set out in section 58.1-3240, Code of Virginia, and this article. (8-23-73; 4-13-88) Sec. 8-32. Certain provisions of state law applicable. The provisions of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia applicable to local levies and real estate assessment and taxation shall be applicable to assessments and taxation hereunder mutatis mutandis including, without limitation, provisions relating to tax liens and the correction of erroneous assessments, and for such purposes the roll-back taxes shall be considered to be deferred real estate taxes. (8-23-73) State law reference-Real property tax generally, Code of Va., SS 58.1-3200- 58.1.3389. For state law as to real property tax generally, see Code of Va., SS 58.1-3200 to 58.1-3389. Sec. 8-33. Applications for assessment-By property owner. (a) The owner of any real estate meeting the criteria set forth in sections 8-31 and 8-35(b) herein and the standards adopted by the commissioner of agriculture and consumer services, the department of forestry or the department of conservation and historic resources, and this article, must submit an application for taxation on the basis of a use assessment to the local assessing officer by November first preceding the tax year for which taxation is sought or within 30 days of the mailinq of notices of a qeneral reassessment. An individual who is an owner of an undivided interest in a parcel may apply on behalf of himself and the other owners of such parcel upon submitting an affidavit that such other owners are minors or cannot be located. 1 *State law reference-Authority to adopt provisions, Code of Va., S 58.1-3231. (b) A reapplication shall be submitted by December thirty-first preceding the tax year for which taxation is sought whenever the use or acreage of such land previously approved changes. Failure to submit a reapplication by December thirty-first shall disqualify the entire parcel for taxation under this article. Applications shall be submitted on forms prepared by the state tax commissioner and supplied to the county for use of the applicants. A separate application shall be filed for each parcel listed on the land book. (8-23-73; 8-13-75; 4-21-76; 4-13-88) Sec. 8-34. Same-Processing; continuation of assessment, etc.; fees. (a) The county assessing officer shall prepare and transmit to the clerk of the circuit court of the county a list of all applications filed and approved hereunder, and the clerk shall index the names in a book entitled "Land Use Tax Assessment Book" and file such application in the clerk's office. The board of supervisors shall compensate the clerk at the rate of one dollar ($1.00) per application filed and indexed, notwithstanding any limitation provided in Code of Virginia, Section 14.1-143.2 or any other section of the Code of Virginia. (b) The application fee due under this article shall be figured at fifteen cents (0.15) per acre on total acreage with the minimum charge of fifteen dollars ($15.00) per individual application and shall be paid to the director of finance of the county. However, where a landowner is required to file a new application under this article because the use or acreage of such land previously approved has changed, the application fee for each reapplication shall be fifteen dollars ($15.00). (c) The tax for the next succeeding tax year for property qualifying under this article shall be based on the use value recorded in the Land Use Tax Assessment Book. (d) Continuation of valuation, assessment and taxation under this article shall depend on the continuance of the real estate in the use for which classification is granted, continued payment of taxes as referred to in Section 58.1-3235 of the Code of Virginia and compliance with the other requirements of this article and Article 4 of Chapter 32 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia, and not upon continuance of the same owner of title to the land. (8-23-73; 12-20-73; 7-17-75; 7-2-86; 4-13-88) Sec. 8-35. Determinations to be made by local officers before assessment. Promptly upon receipt of any application and prior to the assessment of any parcel of real estate under this article, the local assessing officer or the director of finance shall determine whether the subject property meets the criteria for taxation hereunder: (1) Determine that the real estate meets the criteria set forth in section 8-31 above and the standards prescribed thereunder to qualify for one of the classifications set forth therein, and he may request an opinion from the director of the department of conservation and historic resources, the state forester or the commissioner of agriculture and consumer services; and (2) Determine further that real estate devoted to agricultural or horticultural use consists of a minimum of five (5) acres, forest use consists of a minimum of twenty (20) acres, and open space use consists of a minimum of twenty (20) acres. (3) Determine further that the real estate is not in a planned development, or an industrial or commercial zoninq district established prior to Januarv 1, 1981, as referred to in Section 58.1-3237.1 of the Code of Virqinia. (8-23-73; 4-13-88; Ord. of 11-28-90) Sec. 8-36. Valuation of real estate. (a) In valuing real estate for purposes of taxation, the director of finance or the duly appointed assessing officer shall consider only those indicia of value which such real estate has for agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space use, and a real estate taxes for jurisdiction shall be extended, upon the value so determined. In addition to use of his personal knowledge, judgement and experience as to the value of 2 real estate in agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space use, he shall, in arriving at the value of such land, consider available evidence of agricultural, horticul- tural, forest or open space capability, and the recommendations of value of such real estate as made by the state land evaluation advisory committee. In such determination, the local assisting officer or the director of finance, in addition to the standards supplied by the state land evaluation advisory committee, the standards for forest areas prescribed by the director of the department of conservation and historic resources and the commissioner of agriculture and consumer services, and the uniform standards pre- scribed by the state forester, may request an opinion of the director of the department of conservation and historic resources as to land which qualifies for forest use or an opinion from the state forester as to land which qualifies as open space use. (b) In determining the total area of real estate actively devoted to agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space use, there shall be included the area of all real estate under barns, sheds, silos, cribs, greenhouses, public recreation facilities and like structures, lakes, dams, ponds, streams, irrigation ditches and like facilities; but real estate under, and such additional real estate as may be actually used in connecting with, the farm house or home or any other structure not related to such special use shall be excluded in determining such total area. (c) All structures which are located on real estate in agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space use and the farm house and home or any other structure not related to such special use and the real estate on which the farm house or home or such other structure is located, together with the additional real estate used in connection there- with, shall be valued, assessed and taxed by the same standards, methods and procedures as other taxable structures and other real estate in the locality. (d) In addition, such real estate in agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space use shall be evaluated on the basis of fair market value as applied to other real estate in the taxing jurisdiction, and land book records shall be maintained to show both the use value and the fair market value of such real estate. (S-23-73; 4-13-88) s.c. 8-37. Changes in use of a......d r.al ..tat.; roll-back taxes. (a) When real estate qualifies for assessment and taxation on the basis of use under this article, and the use by which it qualified changes to a nonqualifying use, it shall be subject to additional taxes, hereinafter referred to as roll-back taxes, in an amount equal to the amount, if any, by which the taxes paid or payable on the basis of the valuation, assessment and taxation under this article were exceeded by the taxes that would have been paid or payable on the basis of the valuation, assessment or taxation of other real estate in the taxing locality in the year of the change afta ift easa sf tac fi~e (5) years immeaiately preeeaift~ tac year of tac eaaft~e, plus simple interest on such roll-back taxes at the rate of ~ ten per centum per annum. Such additional taxes shall only be assessed against that portion of such real estate which no longer qualifies for assessment and taxation on the basis of use. If, in the tax year in which the change of use occurs, the real estate was not valued, assessed and taxed under this article, the real estate or portion thereof shall be subject to roll-back taxes for each of the five years immediately preceding in which the real estate was valued, assessed and taxed under this article. (b) In determining roll-back taxes chargeable on real estate which has changed in use, the director of finance shall extend the real estate tax rates for the current and next preceding five years, or such lesser number of years as the property may have been taxed on its use value, upon the difference between the value determined under section 8- 36 (d) and the use value determined under section 8-36 (a) for each such year. (c) Liability to the roll-back taxes shall attach when a change in use occurs, but not when a change in ownership of the title takes place if the new owner continues the real estate in the use for which it is classified under the conditions prescribed in this article and article 4 of chapter 32 of title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. The O\lner of any real estatc reEoned as pro~ided in subsection (d) of this section, or liable for roll back taKes, saall, within sixty days following each change in use or zoning, report such ehange to the sounty aesessing officer on sacR forme as may be presoribed. TRe county aooessiftg officer sRall forthwitH determine and aooeoe tHe roll baclt tan, ~hicH shall be aooessed agaiftst aftd paid by the o.;ner of the property at the time the change in use which no loftger qualifies occurs and ohall be paid to the treasurer ,;ithin thirty days of the aoseesmcnt. (d) ~ Liabilitv to the roll-back taxes shall attach at any time the zoning of 3 property taxed under the provisions of this article is changed to a more intensive use at the request of the owner or his agent, such property shall not be eligible for assessment and taxation under this article for the years such more intensive use is effective, and for three years thereafter if rezoned to agricultural zoning. Ho~:cvcr, it ch~ll Rot be oubjcct te roll back taxec until a change in uoo occurs. tlhen a change in uoe eccura, ouch e~ner shall be oubject to roll back taxeD ae provided in ouboection (a) of this ocction for thODC yc~rc thc property '.:~o ta][cd in accordancc ,...ith itc uce. (e) If real estate annexed by the city and granted use value assessment and taxation becomes subject to roll-back taxes, and such real estate likewise has been granted use value assessment and taxation by the county prior to annexation, the city shall collect roll-back taxes and interest for the maximum period allowed under this section and shall return to the county a share of such taxes and interest proportionate to the amount of such period, if any, for which the real estate was situated in the county. (8-23-73; 4-13-88) Lfl The owner of any real estate rezoned as provided in subsection tdl of this section, or liable for roll-back taxes, shall, within sixty days followinq such chanqe in use or zoninq, report such chanqe to the county assessinq officer on such forms as may be prescribed. The county assessinq officer shall forthwith determine and assess the roll- back tax as provided in subsection tal, which shall be assessed aqainst and paid by the owner of the property at the time of the rezoninq or the chanqe in use which no lonqer qualifies occurs and shall be paid to the director of finance within thirty days of the assessment. Sec. 8-38. Separation of part of assessed real estate; contiguous real estate located in more than one locality. (a) Separation or split-off of lots, pieces or parcels of land from the real estate which is being valued, assessed and taxed under this article, either by conveyance or other action of the owner of such real estate, shall subject the real estate so separated to liability for the roll-back taxes applicable thereto, but shall not impair the right of each subdivided parcel of such real estate to qualify for such valuation, assessment and taxation in any and all future years, provided it meets the minimum acreage requirements and such other conditions of this article and article 4 of chapter 32 of title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia as may be applicable. Such separation or split-off of lots shall not impair the right of the remaining real estate to continuance of such valuation, assessment and taxation without liability for roll-back taxes, provided it meets the minimum acreage requirements and other applicable conditions of this article and article 4 of chapter 32 of title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. No subdivision of property which results in parcels which meet the minimum acreage requirements of this article, and article 4 of chapter 32 of title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia, and which the owner attests is for one or more of the purposes set forth in section 8-31, shall be subject to the provisions of this subsection. (b) Where contiguous real estate in agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space use in one ownership is located in more than one taxing locality, compliance with the minimum acreage or gross sales requirements shall be determined on the basis of the total area of such real estate and not the area which is located in the particular taxing locality. (8-23-73; 4-13-88) Sec. 8-39. Taxing of real estate assessed by right of eminent domain. The taxing of real estate which is being valued, assessed and taxed under this article by right of eminent domain shall not subject the real estate so taken to the roll- back taxes herein imposed. (8-23-73) Sec. 8-40. Violations; penalties; assessment. (a) The owner of any real estate liable for roll-back taxes shall, within sixty days following a change in use or zoninq, report to the director of finance in writing, the date of any change in the use of such property to a non-qualifying use., or rezoninq to a more intensive use. (b) The director of finance shall, after receiving notice of the change in use, either from the owner or from any other source, compute and assess the current owner for 4 '.: . the 'amolnt of roll-back taxes due, plus simple interest of ten per centum per annum from the date of the original deferment of the tax to the date of assessment. (c) Any person failing to report properly any change in use of property for which an appl'cation for use value taxation had been filed shall be liable for all such taxes, in such amount and at such times as if he had complied herewith and assessments had been properl made, and such owner shall be liable for a penalty equal to ten per centum of the amount c f the roll-back tax, which penalty shall be collected as a part of the tax. (c) Payment of the roll-back tax plus interest and any penalty thereon shall be due within 1hirty days of the date of assessment. An additional penalty equal to ten per centum c f the amount of the roll-back tax due shall be assessed for failure to pay within such th'rty day period, plus simple interest at the rate of ~ ten per centum per annum until tIe date of payment. (e) Any person making a material misstatement of fact in any application filed pursuan1 hereto shall be liable for taxes, in such amounts and at such times as if such propert' has been assessed on the basis of fair market value as applied to other real estate 'n the county, together with interest and penalties thereon, and if such material misstatement was made with the intent to defraud the county, he shall be further assessed with an additional penalty of one hundred per centum of such unpaid taxes. (8-23-7 ; 10-12-77; 10-9-85; 4-13-88) State law reference--Authority of county to adopt this section, Code of Va., SS 58.1 3237, 58.1-3238. 5 '\ ) CL Ll~jL (,j I l i (.' ( I , -) DATE '( I - ) J , I ( ,.,' ) ( 1 / I L I , I ( AGENDA ITEM NO. I ;-) t.. ,- ) (~ ',I ( U , ~ , ( 'i ( I , Li / ) ! '- ( L ( L I 1. " I (I ) U~ ( ( I I .~ .' , l AGENDA ITEM NAME ( / ( I j C I l l / , eCI I I )i')),) I / .' I C 1:-'1:, I \ I. I I ,- I , ( ( I ()C( , ) }, ( \{ / (i' . I-I i II "'__",,) f~/ \ ( 'f I . /( t ( (' ii,', .cO". , (Id~ I DEFERRED UNTIL ")i~ :;: :-~',\'., ~.,j ( i ) I , , <~}I \ , Form. 3 7/25/86 .--..... r I. David P. Bowerman Charlottesville COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Scottsville Edward H. Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: James L. Camblos, III Melvin Breeden Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMc-~l()~ FROM: DATE: August 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Board Actions of August 11, 1993 At its meeting on August 11, 1993, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following two ordinances (copies attached) : 1) An Ordinance to amend County Code to eliminate commercial, industrial and planned residential development districts from land use taxation; and 2) An Ordinance to amend the County Code to eliminate Section 11-21 requiring subcontractors to display a County business license. EWC/jng Attachments (2) * Printed on recycled paper . o R DIN A NeE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 11, LICENSES, IN SECTION 11-21 OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, In General, section 11-21, of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted, as follows: Sec. 11-21. Exhibition of contractor's, etc., license prerequisite to obtaining permit, county contract or subcontract. Every contractor, electrical contractor, plumber and steamfitter, building wrecker, developer or speculative builder who proposes to do work in the county for which a permit must be obtained or pursuant to a contract let by a department, bureau or office of the county shall, upon making application for such permit or upon the award of such contract, exhibit to the proper county official the county license authorizing him to engage in the business for the year in which the permit is applied for, or in which such contract is awarded, and shall furnish to that official a list of his subcontractors and the amounts of such subcontracts. If any of such subcontracts have not been closed or awarded at the time of applying for such permit or award of such contract, he shall furnish such list in writing immediately upon awarding the subcontract or contracts. * * * * * I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, at a regular meeting hel~ on August 11, 1993. ~lLa (~~ Clerk, supervisors, CMC County of Albemarle 'e'-l.l-~ J ; "~".. ...._,.L...,__~_~.--J._,.~,.,,~;:~-_. ~..,.,......,-, AGENDA TITLE: Contractors License EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1993 ITEM NUMBE : (.# .? /j'-I,rt'1 J.7M. "'. / ..,. {". / /?r 7 / ACTION:----1L- INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution of Intent to advertise a public hearing to eliminate Section 11-21 of the County Code requiring subcontractors to display a county business license CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Section 11-21 of the County Code provides that a contractor must require all subcontractors to exhibit their county license prior to performing any work. This requirement has been in the Code since its original enactment in 1967. DISCUSSION: The County has recently been confronted by an attorney questioning the County's authority to impose such a requirement. Research by the Finance Office and County Attorney's Office have not revealed any state enabling legislation. The County has no way of verifying that contractors are complying with this requirement and there is no record of anyone ever being prosecuted for failing to do so. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that County Code Section 11-21 be amended to remove this requirement per the attached resolution with a public hearing to consider the amendment to be held on August 11, 1993. 93.070 /~.~ ( @. ~...u_ r :UO JUN < , J BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OOrt~~~'Wlf:1ID JUN 2 1993 GEORGE R. ST.JOHN COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 Telephone 296-7138 May 28, 1993 DEP"t. Uf t--INANGI:: JAMES M. BOWLING, IV DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY Melvin A. Breeden Director of Finance 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: Section 11-21 Albemarle County Code Dear Melvin: I have reviewed your proposed amendment to the above Code section and find it to be in proper order. I suspect that Mr. Benson will challenge our right to require the contractor to furnish a list of his subcontractors. However, I agree with you that we can get this information through interrogatories if we so desire. Therefore, I believe we can require this information at the time of application. I will forward a letter on to Mr. Benson. Very t~..61 Y (l- . ./'/ yours, Ja~~,~~. Bowling, IV De~' County Attorney JMBjtlh r"st;;tHJ~cd u) ~.c~rd: ._......1 -.n.. .__ An Ordinance To Amend and Reenact Chapter 11, Licenses of the Code of Albemarle \ee~~J l~r!fYl .~-'.~.._.. ~.______.___~___"__ BB IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, In General, of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted in Section 11-21, as follows: Sec. 11-21. Exhibition of contractor's, etc., licenses prerequisite to obtaining permit, county contract or subcontract. Every contractor, electrical contractor, plumber and steamfitter, building wrecker, developer or speculative builder who proposes to do work in the county for which a permit must be obtained or pursuant to a contract let by a department, bureau or office of the county shall, upon making application for such permit or upon the award of such contract, exhibit to the proper county official the county license authorizing him to engage in the business for the year in which the permit is applied for, or in which such contract is awarded, and shall furnish that official al list of his subcontractors and the amount of such subcontracts. If any of such subcontracts have not been closed or awarded at the time of applying for such permit or award of such contract, he shall furnish such list in writing immediately upon awarding the subcontract or contracts, aRa hc ahall not allou the 'Worle ander any SUBcontract to proceea uRtil tho OUBCOfttraotor ahall ha.le cxhiai tea te him his county licenoe te ao ouch Buaiftooo ift tho oounty for thc ourrcnt: year. ,. ... COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin Breeden Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~G August 17, 1994 Amended Ordinance Please find attached, a copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 11, 1993. This ordinance has been amended because some language was inadvertently omitted when the original ordinance was prepared. If you have any questions, please contact me. EWC/jng C:\..\FORMS\AMENDORD.MEM cc: James Camblos, III Larry Davis Bruce W oodzell Roxanne White I' .\ A MEN D E D o R DIN A N C E AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE IN CERTAIN SECTIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VIII, known as "Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate", of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted in certain sections as follows: ARTICLE VIII. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL, HORTICULTURAL, FOREST OR OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE* * * * * * Sec. 8-33. Applications for assessment-By property owner. (a) The owner of any real estate meeting the criteria set forth in sections 8-31 and 8-35(b) herein and the standards adopted by the commissioner of agriculture and consumer services, the department of forestry or the department of conservation and historic resources, and this article, must submit an application for taxation on the basis of a use assessment to the local assessing officer by November first preceding the tax year for which taxation is sought or within thirty (30) days of the mailing of notices of a general reassessment. An individual who is an owner of an undivided interest in a parcel may apply on behalf of himself and the other owners of such parcel upon submitting an affidavit that such other owners are minors or cannot be located. (b) Same. * * * * * Sec. 8-35. Deter.minations to be made by local officers before assessment. Paragraph same. (1) Same. (2) Same. (3) Determine further that the real estate is not in a planned development, or an industrial or commercial zoning district established prior to January 1, 1981, as referred to in Section 58.1-3237.1 of the Code of Virginia. * * * * * Sec. 8-37. Changes in use of assessed real estate; roll-back taxes. (a) When real estate qualifies for assessment and taxation on the basis of use under this article, and the use by which it qualified changes to a nonqualifying use, it shall be subject to additional taxes, hereinafter referred to as roll-back taxes, in an amount equal to the amount, if any, by which the taxes paid or payable on the basis of the valuation, assessment and taxation under this article were exceeded by the taxes that would have been paid or payable on the basis of the valuation, assessment or taxation of other real estate in the taxing locality in the year of the change, plus simple interest on such roll-back taxes at the rate of ten (10) per centum per annum. Such additional taxes shall only be assessed against that portion of such real estate which no longer qualifies for assessment and taxation on the basis of use. If, in the tax year in which the change of use occurs, the real estate was not valued, assessed and taxed under this article, the Page 1 real estate or portion thereof shall be subject to roll-back taxes for such of the five year immediately preceding in which the real estate was valued, assessed and taxed under this article. (b) Same. (c) Liability to the roll-back taxes shall attach when a change in use occurs, but not when a change in ownership of the title takes place if the new owner continues the real estate in the use for which it is classified under the conditions prescribed in this article and article 4 of chapter 32 of title 58.1 of the Code of virginia. (d) Liability to the roll-back taxes shall attached at any time the zoning of property taxed under the provisions of this article is changes to a more intensive use at the request of the owner or his agent, such property shall not be eligible for assessment and taxation under this article for the years such more intensive use is effective, and for three years thereafter if rezoned to agricultural zoning. (e) Same. (f) The owner of any real estate rezoned as provided in subsection (d) of this section, or liable for roll-back taxes, shall, within sixty (60) days following such change in use or zoning, report such change to the county assessing officer on such forms as may be prescribed. The county assessing officer shall forthwith determine and assess the roll-back tax as provided in subsection (a), which shall be assessed against and paid by the owner of the property at the time of the rezoning or the change in use which no longer qualified occurs and shall be paid to the director of finance within thirty (30) days of the assessment. * * * * * Sec. 8-40. Violations; penalties; assessment. (a) sixty (60) finance in qualifying The owner of any real estate liable for roll-back taxes shall, within days following a change in use or zoning, report to the director of writing, the date of any change in the use of such property to a non- use, or rezoning to a more intensive use. (b) Same. (c) Same. (d) Payment of the roll-back tax plus interest and any penalty thereon shall be due within thirty (30) days of the date of assessment. An additional penalty equal to ten (10) per centum of the amount of the roll-back tax due shall be assessed for failure to pay within such thirty (30) day period, plus simple interest at the rate of ten (10) per centum per annum until the date of payment. (e) Same. * * * * * I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on August 11, 1993. " fA; C!(L~tL of County ors, CMC Page 2 \.... COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM ljo: I ~ROM: I 9ATE: ~E: I --l I I ~ Please find attached, a copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors on A gust 11, 1993. This ordinance has been amended because some language was inadvertently o itted when the original ordinance was prepared. If you have any questions, please contact me. I E\}'C/jng c:\..rORMS\AMENDORD.MEM I cc:1 Melvin Breeden J)J,\G Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~ August 17, 1994 Amended Ordinance James Camblos, III Larry Davis Bruce W oodzell Roxanne White AMENDED o R DIN A NeE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE IN CERTAIN SECTIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VIII, known as "Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate", of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted in certain sections as follows: ARTICLE VIII. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL, HORTICULTURAL, FOREST OR OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE* * * * * * Sec. 8-33. Applications for assessment-By property owner. (a) The owner of any real estate meeting the criteria set forth in sections 8-31 and 8-35(b) herein and the standards adopted by the commissioner of agriculture and consumer services, the department of forestry or the department of conservation and historic resources, and this article, must submit an application for taxation on the basis of a use assessment to the local assessing officer by November first preceding the tax year for which taxation is sought or within thirty (30) days of the mailing of notices of a general reassessment. An individual who is an owner of an undivided interest in a parcel may apply on behalf of himself and the other owners of such parcel upon submitting an affidavit that such other owners are minors or cannot be located. (b) Same. * * * * * Sec. 8-35. Determinations to be made by local officers before assessment. Paragraph same. (1) Same. ( 2 ) Same. (3) Determine further that the real estate is not in a planned development, or an industrial or commercial zoning district established prior to January 1, 1981, as referred to in Section 58.1-3237.1 of the Code of Virginia. * * * * * Sec. 8-37. Changes in use of assessed real estate; roll-back taxes. (a) When real estate qualifies for assessment and taxation on the basis of use under this article, and the use by which it qualified changes to a nonqualifying use, it shall be subject to additional taxes, hereinafter referred to as roll-back taxes, in an amount equal to the amount, if any, by which the taxes paid or payable on the basis of the valuation, assessment and taxation under this article were exceeded by the taxes that would have been paid or payable on the basis of the valuation, assessment or taxation of other real estate in the taxing locality in the year of the change, plus simple interest on such roll-back taxes at the rate of ten (10) per centum per annum. Such additional taxes shall only be assessed against that portion of such real estate which no longer qualifies for assessment and taxation on the basis of use. If, in the tax year in which the change of use occurs, the real estate was not valued, assessed and taxed under this article, the Page 1 real estate or portion thereof shall be subject to roll-back taxes for such of the five year immediately preceding in which the real estate was valued, assessed and taxed under this article. (b) Same. (c) Liability to the roll-back taxes shall attach when a change in use occurs, but not when a change in ownership of the title takes place if the new owner continues the real estate in the use for which it is classified under the conditions prescribed in this article and article 4 of chapter 32 of title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. (d) Liability to the roll-back taxes shall attached at any time the zoning of property taxed under the provisions of this article is changes to a more intensive use at the request of the owner or his agent, such property shall not be eligible for assessment and taxation under this article for the years such more intensive use is effective, and for three years thereafter if rezoned to agricultural zoning. (e) Same. (f) The owner of any real estate rezoned as provided in subsection (d) of this section, or liable for roll-back taxes, shall, within sixty (60) days following such change in use or zoning, report such change to the county assessing officer on such forms as may be prescribed. The county assessing officer shall forthwith determine and assess the roll-back tax as provided in subsection (a), which shall be assessed against and paid by the owner of the property at the time of the rezoning or the change in use which no longer qualified occurs and shall be paid to the director of finance within thirty (30) days of the assessment. * * * * * Sec. 8-40. Violations; penalties; assessment. (a) sixty (60) finance in qualifying The owner of any real estate liable for roll-back taxes shall, within days following a change in use or zoning, report to the director of writing, the date of any change in the use of such property to a non- use, or rezoning to a more intensive use. (b) Same. (c) Same. (d) Payment of the roll-back tax plus interest and any penalty thereon shall be due within thirty (30) days of the date of assessment. An additional penalty equal to ten (10) per centum of the amount of the roll-back tax due shall be assessed for failure to pay within such thirty (30) day period, plus simple interest at the rate of ten (10) per centum per annum until the date of payment. (e) Same. * * * * * I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on August 11, 1993. {U CCL~tL' of County ors, CMC Page 2 T (, , ", ' . . L~Srm.luted to tk1.1rcl ,.' ;'. . ---. ~~: ~ger.d, It"rn rt;" :'. . ". -~. ---.......,;,~,.., COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596 (804) 296-5823 July 14, 1993 Mr. Stuart T. Birckhead Post Office Box 398 Keswick, VA 22947 RE: (SP-93-03) - Stuart Birckhead Dear Mr. Birckhead: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 13, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. No items shall be located as to interfere with sight distance of Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive); 2. There shall be no occupying of any shed or anyon-site sales; 3. Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D(2) shall not be manned by an employee nor shall an office area be established; 4. The business owner shall, at all times, have any approved home occupation permit for shed sales from the County. This approval shall not include the storage and/or display of these structures at the home; 5.' Administrative approval of a site plan waiver to include Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 11, 1993. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. , , . Stuart Birckhead Page 2 July 14, 1993 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~Jt~~~ ~~~ Yolanda A. Hipski Planner YAH/blb cc: '~la Carey Amelia Patterson Riverbend Drive Land Trust Jo Higgins . . . , STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: YOLANDA A. HIPSKI JULY 13, 1993 AUGUST 11, 1993 eSP-93-03) - STUART BIRCKHEAD Petition: Stuart Birckhead petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for visible outdoor storage and display within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District (30.6.3.2) on 0.4752 acres zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D(2), is located within the Pantops Shopping Center between First Virginia Bank and Taco Bell (see Attachment A). This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and in Urban Neighborhood 3. Character of the Area: This site and Taco Bell share an entrance onto Riverbend Drive. There is an on-site access road connecting this site, the Bank and Taco Bell to the Shopping Center ring road. This parcel is flat with four Bradford Pears along Riverbend Drive. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The site originally accommodated (SP-91-059) Mark Wilson (see Attachment C). The applicant proposes visible outdoor sales and display of sheds and has submitted a revised description of this request (see Attachment B). This use will be permanent. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: eZMA-83-02) - Riverbend Limited Partnership - On June 15, 1983, the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal to rezone 28.735 acres from C-1, Commercial to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center on Tax Map 78, Parcels 17D, 17D(2), 17F, 17G, and parts of Parcels 15C(1) and 17A. eSDP-83-029) - Riverbend Shopping Center Site Plan Phases I, II, and 111- On June 7, 1983, the Planning Commission approved a site plan to locate a 183,600 square foot Shopping Center. eSDP-83-054) - Riverbend Shopping Center Phase 1 Entrance Clarification - On November 15, 1983, the Planning Commission approved a proposal to relocate an access road on Parcel 17(D)2. eSP-91-059) - Mark R. Wilson - storage and display within the District on Tax Map 78, Parcel eighteen (18) months only. Petition for visible outdoor EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay 17(D)2. This approval was for 1 . . . f SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: At its meeting on December 18, 1991, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved (SP-91-059) Mark Wilson (see Attachment C). The special use permit envisioned a staff person, on-site sales and meetings. Condition three of the permit states: "Fire Officer shall be permitted to periodically inspect use of sheds. There shall be no occupancy of any shed". This condition was included due to Inspections Department's concern of BOCA code violations (see Attachment C Page 13 of this report). On February 22, 1993, the Zoning Administrator issued a official determination of Zoning Violation (see Attachment D). The applicant has submitted this request to address the violation as well as make this a permanent use as well. Staff has reviewed the revised request and offers the following comments which are favorable: 1. The previous special permit envisioned on-site staffing. The applicant now indicates there shall be no salesperson on-site. 2. The previous special permit request envisioned on-site sales and meetings. The applicant now states there shall neither be on-site sales nor meetings with public. Customers will circulate through the site unassisted by any sales representatives. 3. The applicant intends to file a home occupation application. All business related to this permit shall be conducted in accord with this license. 4. The site shall be utilized only for display and storage. Both the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Inspections endorsed this proposal (see Attachment E). Staff offers the following comments which are unfavorable: 1. Without a permanent office, there still remains the possibility for violations. Potential customers may necessitate that the applicant meet them on site. 2. The Zoning Administrator has indicated enforcement restrictions to on-site activity would be difficult due to the need to observe business activity on the property between an employer and potential purchaser. 2 . ~ . Because this proposal will be a permanent change in use, the Zoning Administrator determined a site plan will be required in accord with Section 32.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a site plan waiver request (see Attachment F). Because there will be neither employees nor permanent structures, staff identifies no public purpose served by a site plan and requests administrative approval of this waiver subject to Architectural Review Board and Site Review Committee comments. However, since this is now requested as a permanent use, staff will require he parking spaces to be paved. Staff does not support gravel parking in an urban Shopping Center. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states: "The board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare". Given the Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, staff opinion is this request will not change the character of the district and will not be substantially detrimental to adjacent properties. Given the issuance of the Home Occupation license and the deletion of all on-site sales or sales representatives and the site plan waiver review, staff opinion is this use should be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. According to the Zoning Administrator, enforcement of the on-site restriction may be difficult. However, the applicant has stated that this will not occur due to other commitments. Conditions have been included consistent with the applicant's proposal and the Zoning Administrator's opinion that the procedure for sales is "believable and typical". Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. No items shall be located as to interfere with sight distance of Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive). ") "". There shall be no occupancy of any shed or anyon-site sales. 3 . . . 3 . Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D(2) shall not be manned by an employee nor shall an office area be established. 4. The business owner shall, at all times, have an approved home occupation permit for shed sales from the County. This approval shall not include the storage and/or display of these structures at the home. 5. Administrative approval of a site plan waiver to include Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location B - Description C - (SP-91-059) Report D - Determination of Violation E - Endorsements F - Site plan waiver sketch plan 4 / 1 ALBEMARLE COUN I Y 62 IATTACHMENT AI I Page 1\ . ,...:.. . ... I~ .:-.. , ,,~ . .. i u ---........... '" ''--__j MONTICELLO ~ '\ u ,) ~ ~'/ ~ -~-\ ~" --~~ \ 2pt, /""'~ .--- /'"I. ( ----. -...J'. /-/- '--.f I / ~y ) / . '-l ~-1 ~ I ,y ~'" \ . . " !~n /) . ... --- SCALI IN FE[l ... IIDCI "DD '.QO = 92 SCOTTSVILLE AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS SECTION 78 ~)ATTACHMENT,~I I Page 21 ~.;;~, [I4~ V C@l. , " ,. \ ,,"'" ;~ 'r~~l 1~r)J L.:.'__J I , Gd~rt " ~ ''\ .~",,:~. "(.. ",I'~.Jt;:i(jJ ,/ '0" ~~ I A'~ I " 7B4 I I \ .. E: . .' ,< ,0 , ~. A. .'.1'\,1/ I(-~r:-. " ::ED Q " /\ \ ~\.::~ ~" * "'-~ 0'" ~O ~"!', .- '; .... .. '... $" 'l>",~ ~ .. -. "0 ... f6iOl ... ., ".., ~--- \ \...... ..... \. " ... ..@II iEiJ " , I I I ' I I I ChOrJOtleSVil,t f Res rVOH I . : ,.,@lJ (SP-9 3-03) Stuart T. BirCkhead ';, ' .' ~ ~_o I , 64/ ~.IB .- ~"I ~}'.:'''''... ,,'~@..745' ~ i 5 , . ..;.;~ ratS) I I / ( .... : L ,~/. .:':'''' --I --Y I. ".' , II / [Z:ill ....'" I t ~ ~ '.1 > " \ \ :\ o .... '" 'I / ''\-9,.1- J' ....<~-? C'o/\....-?~ /0' \" L./'l: " (> .... .... \" ) "- //-.; .~, q( Q,~,-,,",-~,,\, """,,/Q,/ , " Co'. , \..\~rOO ' / / / \ _'/ ~~,~ I 'f', J' I - -- / / ~."'~ . .......' ~'" "", v i, " ~ ... 6 .,,+' ~ , I :,1">.,.. .l8DiJ r\~;:~; , -I 1 Q3) '" 1 v / ~ G [2Qii] ~// ",--<- .e- '[illJ ~ J~~ .~ Cosh r: "- ;t' I .... ci' c.o f ',' / / ./ -"., .<... The County of Albermarle Stuart Birckhead C/O Sturdy Built Riverbend Dr. Charlottesville VA 22901 I ATTACHMENT B I I Page 11 . . I am in the process of buying the sturdy Built Shed bussiness from Mr. Mark Wilson. I have already made a 50% deposite. From what i understand Mr. Wilson had a special use permit when he had the business, but also he abused the permit by using the lot on Riverbend as an office. I would like to get an 18 month or even perhaps a permint permit to display only my sheds on the same lot My landlord and myself have already spoke with Ms. Yolanda Hispick, I have also spoke with Mr. Jesse Hurt & Ms. Joseph, also Ms. Ameila McCulley. Everyone I have Spoke with at the county has been very helpfull and seems to think this can be done. At this time I will outline in what way I plan to conduct bussiness. As stated earlyier I am only going to use the lot as a display area only. I have a sign with my phone number for interested persons to call me at home All contact I have with customers will be either over the phone or at the customers lot. It is most important for me to see were th customer would like to have a building located, so I must meet with the customer at their home. I work at the Charlottesville Post Office full time. This Bussiness is a sideline for me. I do not have time to spend on the lot acting as a salesperson, the only time I will be on the lot will be cutting the grass. Everyone at the county has been wery helpfull so far and I am sure this will continue. Any other information I can provide your offices with please contact me at(H) 293-6539 Stuart Birckhead Rt. 1 Box 103 Keswick VA 22947 . J . C< ) ~ 5 -i1A,.,J 1. f-? VI' t+- 0_', ,. t<trcrbeNJ (\ r i ;; 'j' ).,J1~/oi+rJ,-,;II~ V'1 . ,'.0 ,,-,',' ..;; ,) f.".L: , ,..', J ?;;Lqo { -rl~'~o~~~"c~;/i-Ih~~';",j ,,\,~~:,_, ';~;,I' IATTACHMENT~ I '\. ... L- r ;fa,", ;" #-~fCbC~~: ~+ b4Yi.Jl':f"el] s ~ r-01.1 "g'V\ ,- 1+ S if1 eo{ , 11 U,S s i /--X s..s -kv f'V\ .ffl t, (Y1 01 Me. tN,hDW. :L ho.~~c;..o.lr-co.cA7 rYll'lcAl9' c/\ S"ofo cA~ft>::"-k-r ~~' -1.0~C\.+ ::r:. 'LAt0cle.r~+CH'-.)cJ (YJr-. W \ \c;.\ w hc:..J CI.. 'Sfec.\o,J U~e.. re\---\V\.~+ l10ku he- h.""u\. M\e.- bu..s.~t-X<;.c;. \ GlA.+ o...\SO h.e.-- c'-l 0 V IJo.hl/l.sr-d ~e-- fet-M~+ b:\..' u ~ \ l-.)j, ~eo. 10+ C) tV R \'vtr-tp-t-.Jv{ Q.~ alV 0 ~c.e ' ""]: ~o-v-.\~ \ \'v-e- ~ ~~--\- a..~ I ~ MO~ Sfec.~D.. \ U- \.e e ~~ O~\{ -+0 ~ ~~It\.Y my 6heol. ~ 0 ~ -{M.e. :5 AfV\.e.- 10+1 (l1 Y JaNcA, {~rd Ct~cJ. M'fS~\{- I'\CMI'C- ~.\~1 ~Fo~ W 1i-4 (Yls. I YolCt.-~JO\ t-h~rlc t:. I r h,,,,,v-e. ~\so S Fe:") ke... lD \ ~ rY\ t-- 0 "-s" ~~5.C: H~4 {- rv\ s. . ~ cs.e~ ~ ~ (Ylo. ~e:~\c.. (Y\c-Cl^.\b~ I bv~/o NC- r ho.-v--c:-- 1foke- VJ; ~ 0-.+ ~ eo-v.u~ nCt ~ fJe~ v~t--f he I p-A,,;\\ C\\o.JeA Sc:-~~ +0 +klu~ R(~ &>...~ b €- 0\ 0 N L.. \ It+- +-hl~ --h ('r'\e.. 5 tN; II OCA+ f,' rJt:-;~v.J k+ wCJ../ :r f fO-N 4-0 towel u.d- b u.s,S,)..n" l.S, ~ 5 ~+r--d eCA.Ntc.~:I- ~'^" 0 N \\,. ~a ~ ~t +u v..'i..e- ~e... 1 o':\- a( ~ O<.~ d\ ~ ~ ~t Cd:--~'a. (J W \j' :r ~. ~'C- (\ 5 ~ 1N'1~ ""{ fh.(~ "-i'^-t~k.r- -J..)r" j'l-Jftr'!;fc-1 fe~/)\~s,. -tv Cct I rr1e~ 0.-+ nMY't:5:- \ fJ) J C'o~d ..:C hCtYr. w~#, .C~ cu..s'b,"'-.@-\ ~ ~" I \ ~e- ~;+h-e~ , 0 "t'ct- ~e. ~h tr~- ot- q, -\- ~ ~ Ut.~~eJo-:>. 10+-. I; -:r+- ; s> fY1 os+- \ \J f ~cl -Art- Me- +0 ..s. e c- I LA..) tV'-C-- 4-t'\c- C u ~ +0 "'^ ~ W 10 "" \ J I I I Le -m h Cd,2::..-- ! C\. b iA ( \ J c ~v.1 /oc .rt-v c/( 50 ::I- _ r!' VI ~ +- me-e-+ Itv \ +h. ~ c u.s.--k",^-e-t~ 00-. -\- ~ t-b'"fV\ e- . X (N C \-- k 0-. +- -J-I~ C ho..H 6--t--+.:- ~ v {ill:": fD.S.T-- o-N-t-c ~ -fiCA I( h r~'\J?_. 7h,<; b Ll.i5. jlVC-'~ 1'S, Cj s~de \; \'J'e- ~ M~l J- o{o '-Jo+ ho.Y'-c_ -h'\'V\~-f.o 5~~dow it\E-- t o~ 0IC-~'1 C1S ~ Set (~Sf8N.e101 ~ 0 w',/ -H Me-- -J- IN I Il be-- 0 tV {/"C--- I 01- w (\\ h e_ Q LA. ~ tu C{ Re-. c"1 \<'<- ~ C; 'r... \. \ ~)V~......) ,.:1"-\(, " . . . . . . .j COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road . Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5i)23 January 3, 1992 Mark R. Wilson P. O. Box 192 Keswick, VA 22947 RE: SP-91-59 Mark R. Wilson Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D2 Dear Mr. Wilson: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors I at its meeting on December 18, 1991, unanimously approved the above-noted request for outdoor display and storage of modular buildings on 0.4752 acres. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This permit shall be valid for eighteen months only; 2. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness; ~ 3. Fire Office,hshall be permitted to periodically inspect use of sheds. There shall be no occupancy of any shed; 4. No items shall be located as to interfere with sight distance on Rt. 1116 (Riverbend Drive); 5. There shall be no more than eight sheds at anyone time on the site. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jlj~ .' v. ~;yn;f Cilimbe g Director of PIa ni g & Community Development VWC/jcw cc: Amelia Patterson Riverbend Drive Land Trust Marcia Joseph Jo Higgins Jay Schlothauer . . . J STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SP-91-059 - MARK R. WILSON Petition: Mark Wilson petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for visible Outdoor Storage and display within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District (30.6.3.2) on 0.4752 acres zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 17(D)2, is located within the Pantops Shopping Center between First Virginia Bank and Taco Bell (see Attachment A). This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and in Urban Neighborhood 3. Character of the Area: This site and Taco Bell share an entrance onto Riverbend Drive. There is an on-site access road connecting this site, the bank, and Taco Bell to the shopping center ring road. This parcel.is flat with four Bradford Pears along Riverbend Drive. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted two descriptions of this request (see Attachment B). There will be approximately eight sheds. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: This site has extensive history. The followtng list is a summary: ZMA-83-02 - Riverbend Limited Partnership - On June 15, 1983, the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal to rezone 28.735 acres from C-1, Commercial to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center on Tax Map 78, Parcels 17D, 17(D)2, 17F, 17G, and parts of Parcels 15(C)1 and 17A. 83-029 - Riverbend Shopping Center Site Plan Phases I, II, and III - On June 7, 1983, the Planning Commission approved a site plan to locate a 183,600 square foot Shopping Center. SDP-83-054 - Riverbend Shopping Center Phase I Entrance Clarification - On November 15, 1983, the Planning Commission approved a proposal to relocate an access road on Parcel 17(D)2. 1 .. J . , . SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Architectural Review Board recommends approval of SP-91-59 on a temporary basis and subject to conditions (see Attachment C). Given the applicant's written and verbal statements, staff recommends an eighteen monthl limit. The applicant intends staffing this site and has demonstrated that businesses within the shopping center agree to his employees using their restroom facilities (see Attachment D). In a memo dated October 21, 1991, the Inspections department outlined their position regarding occupancy of the sheds (see Attachment E). The applicant has verbally indicated that he does not intend to occupy any shed. Section 25A.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states: "Outdoor storage, sales or display shall be permitted only when enclosed by appropriate visual screening." Staff opinion is the that concern for'aesthetic resources will be adequately addressed by the Architectural Review Board. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states: "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Given the Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, staff opinion is this request will neither be detrimental to adjacent properties nor change the character of the district. Given potential development under the present zoning, staff opinion is this use should be harmonious with the purpose of intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to conditions: 2 ... ~ . , . RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This permit shall be valid for eighteen (18) months only. 2. Architectural Review Board issuanc~ of a Certificate of Appropriateness. 3. No items shall be located as to interfere with sight distance on Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive). 4. There shall be no occupancy of any shed. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Maps B - Description of request C - Architectural Review Board D - Letter permitting use of facil~t~es E - Letter dated October 21, 1991 from'Jay Schlothauer ., 3 ( J ~ .., ; , . " ."", ,.., . ... . ~ IATTACHMENT cl IPage 51 i T ,. I ~TTACHMENT ~ [Pag~JJ: L._ u --........... '" -'--__j MONTICELLO u -' ... --- SC,t,\"( IN ,tET ... lloe .... , 92 SCOTTSVILLE AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS SECTION 78 1, " -----=-- ' ~ ,.. ..,... ... IATTACHMENT Cfpage 61 ~ ~ Chorlal1nville R."nou " .::> o TO .z'ON'CROSSkUADS il IATTACHMENT AI IPage 21 ..... / ..... ~ ...) o " ~ .::> ) ~/ ~ ~ '?' / ~ r,;:-) . . .' ~ ,. . Mark R. Wilson P.O! Box 192 Keswick, VA .22947 (804)295-2440 , , .]lm:@JillWLE]~l OCT 8 1991 PLANNING D1VlSJON [ATTACHMENT 81 Ipage 11. October8th,1991 Desc~iptive Statement fo~ Sturdy Built Sheds & BUildings The property located in the Pantops Shopping Center, known as Tax 78, Parcel 17D2, will be used to sto;r'e and display wooden storage sheds and buildings. These buildings will represent a small sample of the styles available from Sturdy Built and will be displayed facing Riverbend Drive and the adjoining Parcels. A sale representative may staff the lot at certain times of the day and on weekends. The hours of duty will depend on weather and advertising schedules. I BUildings on the lot may actually be sold in certain circumstances. When an on site building is sold it will be replaced and a new one constructed in its place. Our basic construction and marketing plan is to build structures on the customer's site. . " \," 'J...,. r .."I- . .~ . . Mark R Wilson Box 192 Keswick, VA 22947 (804)295-2440 r,' PLANNING DIVISION ~TTACHMENT @ [page ~ October 17th, 1991 Department of Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Lipinski: Thank you for taking the time to dj:scus~ the comments following the Architectural Review Board M~,eting this past week. I have given some thought to their recommendations and would like to make the following change. I would like to change the period of occupation from one year to two years 01" eighteen months. This would give the business a more reasonable time to evaluate a long term property commitment. In addition, I can assure both your office and the A.R.B. that my site will be clean and orderly. I believe planting perennials in either tubs or beds may benefit the appearance of the buildings. I will also keep the grass mowed and would take step~ to prevent erosion or mud developing from pedestrian paths. This could be done "lith either river gravel walk areas or landings using pine bark mulch. Thank you for your assistance in this matter and I shall look forward to hearing from your office in the near future. Sincerely, ~~ "-...~ J..- Mark R. Wilson . .' . '. -'.I L!- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Deyelopment 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 IATTACHMENT cl IPage 11 October 3G 1991 Mr. Mark Wilson posf Office Box 192 Keswick, VA 22947 RE: Mark R. Wilson Preliminary Conference (ARB-P-(SDP)-91-21) Dear Mr. Wilson: On October 14, 1991, the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board approved your request to locate an outdoor storage and display area within the EC," Entrance Corridor Overlay District on 0.4752 acres Zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 17(D)2 is located within the Pantops Shopping Center between First Virginia Bank and Taco Bell. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The Board supported the request for no more than 12 months. The Board made the following suggestions for the final Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. Cluster buildings far enough back to limit vi~ibility from Route 250. ~ 2. Limit on the number of buildings that can be there at anyone time. (The applicant indicated 8 buildings will be adequate.) 3. If special permit is approved the applicant should come back and respond with a sketch showing an orderly arrangement of buildings and use of "tub" landscaping. 4. Maintain Lawn. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~~~ <;~nSki Planner YAL/blb II 'lOV 1 1991 :;' . " IATTACHMENT CIPage 101 := COUNTY OF AL PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM fATTACHMENT cj IPage 21 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Planning Commission Architectural Review Boar~ October 30, 1991 SP-91-059 Mark Wilson The Architectural Review Board discussed Mr. Wilson's proposal to change the length of his temporary us~ of this site. His initial request was for one (1) year. He then amended his request for eighteen (18) months to two (2) years.~ The Architectural Review Board can support the request for an.eighteen (18) month period. .' This item must be submitted to the Architectural Review Board for a Certificate of Appropriateness. MJjsp ..., . . , '~'.:;'l:;' ,- ,.-:,' "..;'..'.-.-, :-"\..,;,~.,...:_~,._",i.~.':,~,~",,,:,;"";~:='-C2Z!?~~tJ0:'-" . -,-{?~'c.7iJt~-"'-- ...~<,}.' ,... ;..' ..'.: , ~f-~-_.:." ;..t~ 'Aijf;~CHMEt:rrt~Dj< --- ...-----; ~ " l\"'~Ot' .~~ .;,:)t :.I~ ..-' " .. --- .' . No Name, i 532 Pantops Center · Chad : IATTACHMENT C!Page 121~ (804) 979-52-\.~~~~~,iil'. IATTACHMENT D :jPage 21 . .. .# /" 0' w0v~ ,I I (Vll(" r !1/'NlI'~ S/O/\...J /r ,N-Pf J I J I /h fA '1 Cvd ('I--J . LJ I J 5011' r; .P "" I /d Y (-f' -Jv /A Sf C?1/' ~Ps. ~/ ~ C ~ '; h . f' 5 . , IAJ' ~ M )"C' .. ,., - \:' '/ 't t "".';<<~~;' ~ f'~ ':tSl.::7?' ~ir~~, ~t, ~ l;: ',' ;' . I' . ; .'~- I ~ \ 'to 11 I """'}J ~;< ~ , ~ .' > I"" <. (-t ".. ' ". F ,~"d e '(,i ~~;~j~' ~~~~.;.""""~J';' ~.' :-:'.- ~,:~:'~"~i.~.~~ , r ~( .: ~.'-" .....::.d {~ '. ~~ ~.\~.~~" '~,~:.:."..'r \\! 5 1991 . t'"' ,. I to . ) ::;. ~ ."'. " " PI t~ .~~ !,.! ~ h. L.:. tJ ~ t~ ~ '.J ~ V ~ ~ ,\ .:0..' ,. ....... . , . ~ .. ... .. ATTACHMENT C Page 13 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. Department of Inspections 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5832 MEMORANDUM ',)I_~T 23 1991 PLANNING DIVISION IATTACHMENT E\ TO: Yolanda Lipinski - Planner Jay Schlothauer - Deputy Director of Inspections~ October 21, 1991 FROM: DATE: RE: Outdoor storage of Sheds Your Memo of October 16 Mark wilson's proposal, dated October 8, 1991, is not necessarily acceptable or unacceptable to this Department. It does not contain any indications that he intends to occupy any of the buildings which are on display. If he does not occupy in this fashion, his operation will not cause any building code involvement. However, if a desk, chair, table, file cabinet~ etc. are placed in one of the storage sheds, this Department will~interpret such action as occupancy. Such occupancy will constitute a violation of the building code. The building code does not comment on the sharing of bathroom facilities by various neighbors. It does require that if a building is constructed it must contain a bathroom, unless a bathroom is available in another building, under the same ownership, within 500'. In summary: 1. If Mr. Wilson does not create an office or other occupied building on site, then the use of a neighbor's bathroom will be solely at the discretion of the neighbor. 2. If an office is created at the site it must meet all of the applicable requirements of the building code; including the construction of a bathroom. 3. If one of the storage buildings is used as an office, Mr. Wilson will be charged with violating the building code. JS:wmp , fJ . , .. .~ I: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF ZONING VIOLATION NO. V-93-11.TE DATE: Februarv 22, 1993 FROM: Amelia G. McCullev (Zoning Administrator) TO: Mark Wilson, Riverbend Drive Land Trust (Violator and Owner) You are hereby informed that after investigation the Zoning Administrator has determined that the following use or activity constitutes a violation of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County: Property: 78 (Tax Map No.) 17D2 (Parcel No.) Owner: "RDLT", c/o Carlo Colombini Trustee violator: Mr. Mark Wilson NATURE OF VIOLATION: 1) Occupancy of a structure in violation of Condition #3 of SP-91-59; and section 31.2.4.3 of the Albemarle Countv Zoninq Ordinance. 2) occupvinq a structure without a certificate of Occupancy in violation of section 31.2.3.1. You are hereby ordered to cease and desist from the above violation no later than March 25. 1993. If you need additional time for termination of this violation you may come to the office of the Zoning Administrator at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia and a written consent order granting you an extension to a later date will be considered. . .. .. fJ' '( ~ Official Determination V-93-11/TE Page 2 Under Virginia Code Section 15.1.496.1, if you disagree with this determination of violation you may appeal this decision within thirty days of the date of this letter by filing with this office a written notice of appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. If you do not file such written appeal within thirty days, this decision will become final and unappealable. Zoning Administrat Albemarle County I Virginia , AGM/sp CERTIFIED MAIL: P 640 042 005 , P 072 262 179 . : -:. .: I, . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 Mcintire Road C harlottesviJIe. Virginia 22901-45QS (804) 296.5875 MEMORANDUM TO: Yolanda Hipski, Planner _J:"') f:I' it < FROM: Amelia G. MCCulley, Zoning Administrator~~ RE: Temporary Pantops Shed Sales Lot (formerly Mark Wilson / presently Steve Birckhead) DATE: June 9, 1993 , This is to respond in writing for the record, to confirm those items we have discussed verbally. As I understand it, Mr. Birckhead is interested in purchasing the shed business from Mark Wilson. The current location will be utilized only for the display and storage of the structures. The business phone number will be listed; however, the site will not be manned by an employee. When a customer sees or otherwise finds out about a shed in which they are interested, they will call Mr. Birckhead at home. He will arrange to come to their property with catalogs, to disquss the placement of the structure. This is similar to a pool contractor, an aluminum siding contractor, and the like. Therefore, it is my opinion that for zoning purposes, the Pantops site is not an office; and the activity occurring at Mr. Birckhead's residence is a home occupation. I suggest that you consult the BUilding Official as to how the building codes address the activity at the Pantops site. t You have asked for my comments as to whether this proposal is enforceable and if there is potential for continued violations. I assume that the focus of your inquiry relates to the Pantops property as opposed to either the business owner's or some customer's property. In the event of violation, enforcement Would be difficult because we would need to observe business activity occurring between an employee and potential purchaser on the Pantops property. However; the procedure for sales as described by Mr. Birckhead is believable and typical. Oistrnuted ID &l..r~' ".:"~",.. ! i\Q,end.ll it...'11 No ,c___"'-'''-''' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596 (804) 296-5823 \J m rn1 22i~ ~ uly 22, 1993 00 BOARDOFsupsmnSORS oses Agee, Jr t. 1, Box 191 smont, VA 22937 SP-93-17 Mt. Ararat Lodge Tax Map 121, Parcel 32A ear Mr. Agee: he Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 0, 1993, unanimously recommmended approval of the above-noted equest to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Please ote that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Administrative approval of site plan to include landscape plan; 2. The building shall be limited in size to 2,200 square feet; 3. Maximum attendance at meetings shall not exceed those limits as established by the Health Department; 4. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structure outlined in the staff report shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors; 5. Compliance with section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 11, 1993. Any new or additional information 1 oses Agee, Jr age 2 uly 22, 1993 egarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the oard of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled earing date. f you should have any questions or comments regarding the above- oted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. incerely, .~~~~ Hipski Amelia McCUlley Jo Higgins Mt. Ararat Lodge #20 Pete Gorham 2 ~.'\. .\Y \ ,'j F PERSON: ING COMMISSION: OF SUPERVISORS: YOLANDA A. HIPSKI JULY 20, 1993 AUGUST 11, 1993 sP- 3-17 - MT. ARARAT LODGE pet.tion: Moses Agee, Jr. petitions the Board of Supervisors to iss e a special use permit for a lodge [10.2.2(2)] on 2.11 acres zon d RA, Rural Area (see Attachment A). Property, described as Tax Map 121, Parcel 32A, is located on the southeast side of the int rsection of Route 715 and Route 714 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area IV). \ racter of the Area: Except for a small flat area of gravel, property is heavily wooded. The lot is long and narrow and ps in elevation toward the rear. PROPOSAL: response to staff's request, the applicant submitted a letter cribing the~proposal and a sketch plan (see Attachment B). applicant verbally stated there shall be approximately four five banquets per year. '. ING AND ZONING HISTORY: - Mt. Ararat Lad e 20 - On April 14, 1993, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a request to allow relief from Section 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The variance reduces front se backs from 75 feet to 49 feet and rear setbacks from 35 feet to 26 feet (see Attachment C). s Y AND RECOMMENDATION: Vi ginia Department of Transportation recommends the proposed en ranee onto Route 715 be relocated away from the Route 715/714 in ersection. Final entrance location and design shall require Vi ginia Department of Transportation review and approval. At this time, the applicant has not submitted a soils report. Th architectural drawings indicate a kitchen facility is pr posed. Given the size of the property, the applicant is put on notice that large water uses may be limited. Health De artment review and approval of maximum occupancy shall be re uired prior to site plan approval. ff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes and intent of Comprehensive Plan. Due to the limited number of proposed tings and special events, this use should not be detrimental 1 " to idjacent properties. Given the limited scope and seale of act vities and the building size as proposed by the applicant and as presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the use should not cha~ge the character of the district. Given the site plan review pro~ess, this application should be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends app oval subject to the following conditions: RE ED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Administrative approval of site plan to include landscape plan; 2. The building shall be limited in size to 1,920 square feet; 3. Maximum attendance at meetings shall not exceed those limits as established by the Health Department; 4. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structure outlined in the staff report shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors; 5. Complianc~ with Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. I \,~ AT'! ACHMENTS : A - Location Map B - Description of Request C - Variance Report D - Virginia Department of Transportation comments 2 " .,' ALBEMARLE COUNTY III ',,"w j ~ i + z ~. " " " if '-~ IZIt -+-....1 ~ \.. SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 121 'r I, ~.;. ...' . --- l1t. ~. - ___ . ~'".11\' 1 ~t'I' /', / , '0'-1 ~..+- " f ,. ~ ~ 'r' , ..\ ..) " ~ :1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE" Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902.4596 (804) 296-5823 Ju e 8, 1993 Mr Moses Agee, Jr. Po t Office Box 24"\ .~ " Ke ne, VA 22946 De r Mr. Agee: as hoping to reach you earlier to discuss these questions. In er for this department to process your application, please wer, in writing, the following questions by June 15, 1993. I e to talk with you prior to your response. If you have any stions, please ~ontact me at your convenience. 1. How many members do you anticipate belonging to this Lodge? 2. Please describe the activities of the lodge. How many meetings do you anticipate having per month"or week? Will you have day care, Morning out for Mothers, classes, special events? Be aware that some activities, such as daycare involve another special use permit. Please attempt to be as thorough as possible so not to limit further activities. 3. I understand you plan to build a 1,920 square foot lOdge. Please be aware this building size will most likely be the maximum size allowed. 4. Have you contacted the Health Department? This is a very small property and septic field size may limit your activities. Also, what types of meals do you plan to serve? Be sure to discuss this with the Health Department and to me. 5. I have a copy of the sketch submitted for the variance (ZA-93-3 Mt. Ararat Lodge). Please submit six copies of this sketch so that I may provide preliminary comments for the site plan. 6. What measures will be taken to ensure this use will not conflict with Section 5.1.2.a which limits noise to 40 decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line. 7. Will there be any outdoor activities. This includes picnics, etc. r responses, along with comments from other agencies, will vide a basis for recommended conditions of approval. ase provide any r application. e 15, 1992. If possible. other information you feel would be helpful in All information must be received no later than you have any questions, please call me as soon ~-k A. Hipski \"..,. - RECEIVED JUl 0 1 1993 Planning Dept. . Yolanda A. Hipski, Planner unty of Albemarle t. of Planning & Community Development 1 McJ:ntire Road arlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Ms. Hipski: am writing in response to your letter dated June 8, 1993, arding Mt.~Arratt Lodge No. 20's application. 1. There are 30 men and 18 women members. 2. Activities of the Lodge include; business and general meetings. a. We anticipate having 4 meetings per month. ene per week. b. There will be no Day Care, and no morning out for mothers. c. Ther~ will be some special events, such as; Banquets and Programs. 3. We understand that the 1920 square foot building will be the maximum size allowed. 4. J: spoke with Mr. steve Gooch who will have to speak to Mr. Bill Rice and get back to me c::;~ncerning this. 5. 6. There will be no excessive noise. 7. There will be no picnics. ".... - olanda Hipski age 2 I hope this information is adequate to your questions. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. S =el~ J, M ses Agee, Jr. t ~ ~ .%~ '" ""A l! ~ ~ g ..J A; l. i. 02: 'oN ~V.HVHV .,..J.~ I ill~. ~ i DNIG1Ina '~DG~ly,uJ ~d~; ~ I ~ . ::':;.'::::: .:.~. '\~:":J:;'I'~'I~:'"',, :'~',: ',.<'.~: ' ",:::>. .., :.....:. ,:> :.,.,.;. : ;"".:,; "...8;C' Co:, '. . ." " '. "'_'.".' _ ,c; 1~~~;~~:"'~'2'~:;;~~'~< ',' "'. -~ . :: . Ii; -ll.'" '.! ~ " '.:;.~, ,',: ' : ~ '. "~..' . '-~;J . ~ · ,- -- ..::~~i--- - " 1 N V la d.VU ld. d..~av.l.l NV1~ aOO~~,~aM01 ONJlAVllO '. ..... . .' ~:~~l<<1,~).I'T: . . ,~ ::-:::--- --- -- "--- ,.." . '^ :~".~.,~~ .'.0 -,~, b" ::E- · g · mtilOO:llsOO' ~ IOSlIlDRDJ.N :HU:l3I.lOlN . ~ .... S3~VIJOSSV .LNVAM. : i ClaI-_~\.IIM/J\:8IrI M . .o.:'ll:n.l ";lIC".!. t'X. ....H i -~'Jh~~.~' , " 'f' i~ i~ ti: "' ~ ~kl;.:' , ~ ?tBa~ ~~~ ....-- ;, . -4-- \. i . ".:r::b: , ~~f \ ~"g ..---1 ill.-=..- = --:----- -- -~irN:LS-' ~ ----~ ,1"\;IX.' ,(0'1;1.\01.'2 .~1''''':';':V1l'' co .... z w :E J: U ~ ~ , ~ , '.J~r I ~ _.o:JHH';l-; '~ .;:~~~~~~ 6 ~I:IIU~ " ~~St__~. e; t~~~'t~~ a: ... . {'I. ..e. 00:( ""'~.......... 1.41 C)"4 .....w:.. [II z:z: WlIIlI/I"1 o .(....vtlaJl.:l:l Z <<<<~.<< LO (1) 0') ca c. Jhlr A~" ....... J"'" ,'-.1 i ,,~. 1 5- , : R i!i I . : I~----_- ~-r'-- -- r-------------- ---- .~ I "Ii: .~ .;.. ," : . ----------- ------------..--- ---- 1 I ., I It... I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 ......, I 1 1 1 I ~--- '---------------j .,..;.> 1 1 I l. ~ , > !~2 ~... _.J --- ~ C /: i- f 0 8 ~an S E ~ I;~ ~:\~: ~ V .. ~~ ~ ::a _____, _-....... I I ",../1 I ol en. "M.IIG:II w. I .. . .... ._._._._._._~~.~.~ -.-.- -. l;i ! I/I(r , 1 'i~h h;~; J, ~ ~r~ -......., ~. flj:cl~ ":::. ~ :1 t~,lh a~ ;, H~~i~I,~Y: Li-~-7 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I " 1 1 I 1 , , 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I ~ 1 ~ 1 1 I 1 .. J .. I 1 1 1 1 I I :_--------- ~ I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I ,I , .vr" i I I I 1 I I' 1 I I I ~ l. ~ .,~..~. ~ tw........." ~'Q'" . II.lIO" Q I' oJ n~ u ..11/, 01-",., ~ U 1 I i~1 I : 37 1 j- 1 ~ : ~ 1 , Of-"H . . ......, ......, Ig f: . j I~' . I,t !I: I ~ . (If" ~I' il~ ;.:: " I,ill )11 H Ii , 'if ;~s! }~ ~. V; tf '3BI. .~ ~a ~ ~!1 f~ 0 '~it~ H ~~ z j 0. .-J ~ ~ I! i ~ ~ [->J ~ ~ ~ !~'!I' <i ~~ --1 ~;- 0.: .:..:, tr~~ ~ ~8& (f) t \-:rLJ l~~'bin~-- ~~~~t~~w~~-. ~~~~I.\f~.3~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~I:1 t; ~l~~ ~IS 53., :z: 0 Q. Q) w ." 0 > ~ Ui :10 0) = c: 0 -' '2 => c: W -, I1l c: a: ; 1.-- ....~lt' I ~ ~ ... ,. r ~ ,. k'l II I I , jt l.j ( . t~ j ~ ," , ~ j . . ~ t:l ~g . 5lll: ~ , s ! J ~ ~ t~ J 8 i; s ~ ,~ ~J . .. ~~ ~) ~ . NMOO ~.< ~g ~ :ll~ ~ :fit L-, 8~ ll: ll:j i -</1 r .vr~ .v., -.~ -. ~~. "'H~. 11_" ...,.- s -r : -5- tJ 5 lC~ -~- ~ >- .tArg - .tAr ~ : .- ' .~., ,--- -. .... J'-; SHIV J.S L . ~ .. ~ ... . ~ )~ \ .> ~ -.... --~ . r< L,-/ ..~. ',- Il:lHOd AH.LN3 /'01<") _~ L ...... -- -"- z j Il. ~ H ~ i ~ . ~ ~ € r. , !. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901.4596 (804) 296-5875 is letter is to inform you that on April 14, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County ard of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (5:0) approved your request for V A-93-03, s bject to the following condition: oses Agee, Jr. oute 1, Box 191 mont, V A 22937 Board of Zoning Appeals Action V A-93-03 Mount Ararat Lodge #20 Tax Map 1~1~ Parcel 32A . 1) A landscape plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Design Planner before a building pennit shall be issued for the lodge. : is variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning rdinance to reduce front setback from 75 to 49 feet and rear setback from 35 to 26 feet. I you have any questions, please contact our office. ~,'7t, n/l /I A .~V<-V~ : Mt. Ararat Lodge #20 . . STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 4/14/93 ER/APPLICANT: MAP/PARCEL: NING: REAGE: CATION: Mount Ararat Lodge #20 121-32A RA 2.110 In Keene, at the intersection of Routes 714 and 715. ~~ T: The applicant Plans~o b !ld a 1920-square foot masonic dge. In order to place the l~ 49 feet fro~ the front pro~erty ne and 26 feet from the '~d property l~ne, the appl~cant quests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning dinance. This section requires structures in the rural areas ning district to be set back 75 feet from the front property line d 35 feet from the rear property line. e applicant's justification includes the following: e lot is very long and shallow. The grade drops off sideways the road. eness of Ha other properties in the area are as shallow. of the Area ere are no homes on the adjoining property. To the rear of the operty are woods that can screen the lodge from parcel 34. There space available for landscaping to the front of the property. VANT HISTOR: The creation of the lot predates zoning in bemarle County. There is an application pending for the special e permit needed to place a lodge on this property. Unless dified by the Planning Commission, the supplementary regulations section .-,5.1.2 will apply to this use. These regulations limit e noise generated from the lodge and subordinate uses to 40 cibels at the nearest property line. These regulations also ohibit subordinate activities between the hours of 11: 00 P.M. and 00 A.M. ON: e Planning Department has reviewed this request and made the llowing comment: "Due to the shape of the lot, this variance uld appear appropriate. RA setback and yard requirements are tended to maintain a rural character and to provide fire 1 VA-93-03 Page 2 I I I " . s~parat1on. Pr10r to 1976, front setback was 30 feet and rear yard was 35 feet in depth". I I s~aff recommends approval for cause. The lodge is modestly Pfoportioned, about the size of a single-family house. It is PiSSible that the lodge could be redesigned to lie parallel to R ute 715, which would make unnecessary a variance of the rear s tback. However, the visual impact of such a design would be g eater, possibly making the third criterion of approval more d"fficult to meet. I I i I I I I I i This Department has received rrquest. I S~ould the Board approve this f~llowing conditions: I I i 1 I I I I I I I I 1 2~ I i I I i I i I 3~ I' i The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship_ Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment of the shape of the lot. Meeting both the front and rear setbacks would allow only a 20-foot buildable strip down the middle of the property. The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared _generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. other properties in the area are much deeper. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. There are several dwellings in the vicinity of this parcel which do not appear to meet the 75-foot front setback. It is staff's opinion that a condition requiring a landscaped buffer t6 the front of the property, along Routes 714 and 715, would protect the rural character of the area. no letters of objection to this request, staff recommends the It A landscape plan shall be submitted for the approval of the i Design Planner before a building permit shall be issued for I lodge. --..-~~ -, ~ COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA RAY D. P HTEL COMMISSI NER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 671 CULPEPER. 22701 I ATTACHMENT 0 l DONALD R. ASKEW DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR Ronald S. Keeler Co nty Office Building 401 McIntire Road Ch rlottesvil1e, Va 22902 June 29,1993 r Mr Keeler: We have reviewed the submittals for the July public Hearings and offer the following comments: SP 93-17 Mt. Ararat Lodge access point on Route 715 should be relocated to a point ther away from the intersection. recommend the entrance meets the commercial entrance standards a single two-way entrance with right turn and taper. developer should be required to label the sight distances along approaches at each access point. SP 93-18 Worrell Land and Cattle Company re currently exists a commercial entrance which is adequate. ir frontage will allow for adequate entrances at various ations. 93-19 John Alford No Comment Th se comments are made to assist the developer and the County and ar preliminary in nature and may be modified as additional in ormation becomes available. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Otst;ibukc1.; -: ~ ~rtj- , , AI'T-n ., I ' ---...c: '6, OJ' .t'l"m !\.], ,,'-_ ~..........: ,,---',L!_:......:.,....::~ i COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 rn .4 f!m 00 A gust 4, 1993 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS hn Alford . 2, Box 324A ozet, VA 22932 SP-93-19 John Alford Tax Map 26, Parcel 12 Mr. Alford: e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on gust 3, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of the above- ted request to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. ease note that this approval is subject to the following nditions: 1. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design to ensure that no portion of the span is within the floodplain elevation; 2. County Engineer approval of bridge modification consistent with Section 62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia, if necessary; 3. County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in floodplain in accordance with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; 4 Compliance with all local, state and federal permit requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream. J hn Alford P ge 2 A gust 4, 1993 ease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 11 review this petition and receive public comment at their eting on August 11, 1993. Any new or additional information garding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the ard of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled aring date. you should have any questions or comments regarding the above- ted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. lliam D. Fritz nior Planner Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Pete Gorham STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ AUGUST 3, 1993 AUGUST 11, 1993 SP-93-19 JOHN ALFORD Petition: Petition to construct a footbridge in the floodplain of the Moorman's River [30.3.5.2.1(2), 30.3.5.2.2(1), 30.5.5.2d(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcel 12 is located on the south side of Route 614 approximately 400 feet west of Route 674 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated ,growth area (Rural Area III). Character of the Area: Route 614 is gravel at this point. The site is developed with one single family house which accesses Route 614 via an open ford. No other dwellings are visible from this site. The Moorman's River is designated as a state scenic river and a county scenic stream and is part of the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. A~Dlicant's ProDosal: The applicant has submitted a description and justification for this request (Attachment C). The applicant proposes to construct a footbridge to provide access to the existing dwelling. The footbridge will be approximately 30-50 feet downstream from the existing ford. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance with particular emphasis on Section 30.5.5.2d(6) and recommends approval subject to conditions. Planninq and Zoninq Historv: June 5, 1972 - Plat signed adding 2.2 acres to the parcel under review. December 8, 1992 - The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance for a deck. Two special use permits for stream crossings near this site have been identified by staff: SP-83-18 - Approved by the Board of Supervisors July 6, 1983 (Tax Map 25, Parcel 18). SP-86-93 - Deferred due to a lack of information (Tax Map 26, Parcel 12A). 1 ~ staff has used the information in both files as reference m,terial during the review of the current request. c'm rehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan states "Maintain n tural corridors along scenic streams to protect the visual alities of such watercourses" and "Avoid crossing of scenic streams by roads, utilities and the like" (p. 88). The Plan states as a general standard for surface water "Avoid placing f$nces, bridges and other impediments across canoeable streams" (~. 62). This stream is canoeable during high water only. staff h,s contacted the state scenic river committee to obtain their c~mments. No written comments from the committee have been o~tained as of the preparation of this report. However, verbal c~mment indicates no opposition to the request. I I Based on the facade of the bridge and the height above the s!reambed, this crossing should have a minimal impact on the rver. While visible from the stream, staff opinion is that the c aracteristics of the bridge will not be adverse to the intent o the Comprehensive Plan. ~~RY AND RECOMMENDATION: I s~ction 30.5.1 states that the intent of the Scenic streams Overlay District in part is: 1 "This scenic streams overlay district (hereafter referred to as SS) is created to conserve elements of the county's scenic beauty as are contained along scenic waterways." T~e Moormans River is the only designated scenic stream in the c~unty. The proposed bridge will be slightly visible to the tfaveling public and will be clearly visible to users of the s~ream. The Moormans is a trout stream and has been stocked. T erefore, use by fisherman is likely. Based on information s bmitted during the review of SP-83-18, this portion of the M~ormans is usable by canoeist 3-4 times a year on average (not a~ all in dry years and up to 10 times in wet years). Due to the h$ight of the bridge above the streambed (several feet), the btidge should not prohibit canoe use. The bridge will be located j*st above the 100 year floodplain. During a 100 year flood (or njar that level) the bridge would impede canoes as would other c ossings of the river. The applicant is proposing a facade t eatment for the bridge which should reduce the negative visual i pact the bridge may cause. 1 1 T;e Flood Hazard District is intended "for the purpose of p oviding safety and protection from flooding". This district d es not address the issue of access at the time of flooding. T4e current request is unusual in that no activity is proposed in tije stream bed and only the two support pillars are to be located i~ the floodplain. The steps and bridge itself are to be located 2 a]~ove the floodplain elevation. Therefore, effect on the f oodplain is minimal and due to the limited area of disturbance, a water quality impact assessment will not be needed. S ction 30.5.5.2(d)6 contains criteria for review of the pEtition. Staff will address each provision: 6 Bridges, causeways and other similar structures designed for pedestrian and/or vehicular access; provided that the board of supervisors shall find, by clear and convincing evidence, in addition to the findings required by section 31.2.4.1, that: (a) such bridge or other struqture is to be located at the site of an existing bridge, ford or other stream crossing; As stated previously, the proposed bridge is downstream of the existing ford. The existing ford exists within an easement and is not as well suited, due to terrain, for a footbridge as ~s the proposed location. The bridge will provide a second crossing for this property, which can be viewed as a negative in terms of number of crossings. (b) such existing crossing is regularly used, and such bridge or other structure is to be used, as to the sole means of access to one or more existing, lawfully occupied dwellings; The existing ford is regularly used to access the dwelling on-site and the proposed bridge will be used as an alternative means of access. (c) no alternative means of access to such dwellings is physically practicable; The applicant has stated that alternative access would require an easement on property of others which cannot be obtained. Staff notes that, due to topography in the area, even with an access easement any proposed road would lie within the floodplain and in close proximity to the river. (d) no such alternative means of access has been abandoned, aliened or otherwise relinquished by the voluntary act or omission of the owner of the land upon which such dwellings are located since December 10, 1980; No other means of access has ever existed. 3 U _ I_ ..'. (e) such bridge or other structure is necessary to prevent, eliminate or substantially alleviate a hazard to the life or property of any resident of the county; Due to the length (approximately one mile) that must be walked to access the house during periods of high water, this bridge would be primarily a convenience. However, the bridge would provide access in the event of an emergency when otherwise the property owner may attempt to ford the stream in times of high water to avoid the mile walk. (No access easement exists for the current one mile pedestrian access.) (f) such bridge or other stru~ture is so designed as to pose the minimum practical disruption of the environment of the stream consistent with the other provisions hereof; As stated previously, the bridge will have a facade to reduce the potential negative impact of the bridge. The only portion of~he bridge within the floodplain will be the support pillars. The proposed area of earth disturbance is minimal and no disturbance of the streambed is proposed. (g) and such bridge or other structure shall comply with all applicable state and federal law including, but not limited to, Chapters 3.5, 7, 8, 9 and 20 of Title 62.1 of the Code of virginia (1950), as amended, to the extent that any or all of the same may be applicable in a particular case. Section 62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia states in part that it shall be unlawful for any person to "make or cause to be made any obstruction which exists for more than a week (excepting a lawfully constructed dam) in, under, over or across any river, creek, stream, or swamp so as to obstruct the free passage of boats, canoes, or other floating vessels, or fish in such waters". Recommended Condition 2 addresses this issue by requiring "County Engineer approval of bridge modification consistent with Section 62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia, if necessary". Extensive discussion of the relationship of canoeing and the proposed bridge is provided in the County Engineer's memo originally submitted during the review of SP-83-18. 4 ---- r aff opinion, based on comments provided to date from the state s enic river committee, is that the proposed bridge will have m'nimal impact on the scenic aspects of the Moorman's River. The l'mited activity within the floodplain is significantly less than t at for a vehicular crossing. staff notes that the proposed c ossing is largely for convenience. However, SP-83-18, which p rmitted reconstruction of a crossing to allow crossing during h'gh water, is similar in that it was for convenience. staff has i entified one footbridge located upstream of this site which is a companied by a nearby ford. (No special use permit can be i entified for this crossing.) staff opinion is that this r quest will not set a precedent for other actions. staff o inion is that construction of the footbridge is preferable to t e improvement of the existing ford as improvement of the ford w uld require extensive in-stream work. aff recommends approval of this request subject to the llowing conditions: COMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Department of Engineering approval of bridge design to ensure that no portion of the span is within the floodplain elevation; County Engineer approval of bridge modification consistent with section 62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia, if necessary; 3 County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in floodplain in accordance with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; 4 Compliance with all local, state and federal permit requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream. TACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicant's Justification D - County Engineer's Memo E - Letter From Adjacent Property Owner 5 ~ "" '" jATTACHMENT AI -.\, -<.. ~ V o u .. .............. ... "-.... @!:,l~ \/..., ~ G ~ ~ '?- ~ C, ~ , ~ c., o ~ / / I '- ~ }\P"--l/ 'f" --'-' FLAT MTN, .::, o u ~ ~ " ' 0' ALBEMARLE COUNl IATTACHMENT BI 25 14 sn 27-1 4 --+ IEl 2~-27 13 CALE IN FEI'T WHITE HALL DISTRICT SECTION 26 l' -r jATTACHMENT cl I! II ) i I! I; I' Ii JO; r!c(hl\'l ~ <:'.0 in lY\: SS ;. ()h "Ylc.f B I:xtcJ 0 {' S" fer-v :~Qrs._. i i 1-1 I L-) ^ Itrbl11'~' J011~ant!RI.1vtL,u A-LtfJfJ/ I: . J l~&l D;;cY. ~ I+rruS '1. wu-tkhr/dr 60'2r rf1<JcOrJw,'i~&L'~~.m ."_'0... U.O., .........0.. . r]. ...u. .. ..,.... _...'.00. .. I j;)+,J e "",.,;I- ~ r mW'3:"> ; we. a.re. c<< ( r ~ .:tl; I..U/ A b J.-.. .10.- _... i I CLC C e 550 "-C P'" ! v--t; a "',! A 0"" Q. L,)':/I, .oj 6-0 rdr"":J:I.4"-. __m !I0'Jk (0},/c). ftt?J'l-tI"'''NI ,"-t"- f,r 66 04-'0 re<irr:~~__-- oo_.....,.. lf~;t< 6ol{ 7 ~~c .uQh/()~j, A-IL /"> eef-!~ a~/ .?O(~};!...oCqU~._...o_ mo. 0_0 -1 j c)r' /nQ.. (!-;~ $/1 ~ 'fJe r-/u<.!.(' ,beG-o"es / yczJICc /;')e. -g;:..s.__o__ ___. .U'U'O.., .0' ~kle<</li 'IIJ cJl kr cn~ 0'7 1-0 l.e7 /-0 L...> Dr-C. eJ,f" Sc/~:-LJ./__. - nm! Ifs 1= f.v-k cY= =^, "" 1';.(" 0/'/''''';/< s/d',- Cl k,J? .1c"d:-x . ._-. ... i i:!o ....,' M! ) 1, 10' S --: .;1r<-, .It~. ;' /'V Ie" .ftp"t' Y"'~ - I'c>~Cd.<c. liAt~S(:... cz.11cfc/fn,~ft/Y?cd7 Cl 1?7//-<- k D~<.J/' ue.J;"rJe..5 ...__.....". u,."" j ! f i 1 i lrrh j- l!-{ h CUl tLvdJu. ch u.".;1 t9 '" 6) /"} i I ? it U":; J ~k6'.e..~ eU<?jOhe. J;"'u --!4e./r II y;( b'-':) 1. ~?l' K- e r-f O-A..J/'y 'fI,. e./... .If . . '. , ! u '11..k+>~ ,uf;/qjjc<> . te.. iJ.t~jlll.,-t /f /J ;Y(l.D<k/"'--t..y..:L:..__ !I/~ "'-<--/N/"4;/); D"5< ry "y,;u- 07 D'fI,ifC <//'-'''''.m .HO.H'.h.o .J f r/jif ,t..f ~. 4t.1/c.4 ./..> c... I DL--<,~ ect U"MC/LL-7..z . S)0..0!t./.(0,_d~_'0'00, I, [. / uUm I i/reJ~~ k-k , P . l~\DPOS_e,;f ~~uiL~~; h)sL ll' f fir' ::;1d4"\ y4 L ('-; V e.r- Q '1. ! 1'5 ef1.c.-LosJ / / cf) l.<.,r- 11(:')), d Dr C2.J ('~/).;t r /i'/U4/ A~~:-? 10 w.S. 0e// ct-f -00 CA-. . - . - - ftv !dJ5-L 1-0 ~l-V-f('vt~ . / '4 r'j -~ h !/~.(!. ',)I/) CA/15f('ucr ,~LJc&J<.Jx-~~ a. d4cc;!d cL~?'/~., . . . . C0 IATTACHMENT Cll Page 21 I i I I It. 11 c,p- ~ b<L. rn-J ,'Q... 'f!}~ sfu~ eno,/4 ~q, r-~mE-*ct:2-' C-eJ'vldWS/o~ c/-o <t!1/ ~ S'-l/YD~~J , ~ ,bb?offfiv.',<-vti t<J/11 hq.uu<... .q P-S-ctc ('-~ ~'L(, lOck --(1(. ce a'~ I. " "" , .','. J;!,,- 6:-/Jt-'- /'O!,'~ tJ:11 1," u"<- UbO,P (Gej<<J- 5/;d,.;;;) n'n !i8l7~'r~1~ C-bVef'I'y w~ mdc..e. STtu.~-j:-L{j'-e., If ull(~L(~/c?-:!~__ lJ7at'lf'cd;1 , ,_. I :y/s L);!/ C/llow~s . tv !tAJ.k.. &~ y-Ite. CJ//o.s/I~ S'/d_<;..~_,_ /#ce. r,' 1fl!/1 ~. u) 4lz Gt e: N9l, -' 10 o'-<{' /'*'I' k fYPU?..l,Jj'jl,,~~ lforJ1;;s 11'"'-.. f'i\t0 da/I; (}-*If eu.--d d-nt!7 01.. h';7:d"...?""<L: i LJQ)-i/Cj~ s ) I I I I j. I ! i i 1 ! i : ; I 1 i I I' I I I i i' i I ! j..- l I r- , I i I 11 r- ! j I ! I- I 1 t, I 1 .' ALf D l~) r:{) (/--L I ' ( '0 . ) ''''- \.... .... ....., u tV\7 ~ I Ct-1- I ATTACHMENT C 'I Page 3 r.. ~ i .-., I" \i ,~\ ~l,l7 qr t+~ Hew \0. ~ \" '- ".' , ',,",' ,. ", <,,( \. -.-------- 5 I " 0 I b t, \ S --: pe..L-.: .,L!.f6 ~\ -JOIST f('\h ~ \ Jftl" f~ oiel) 3. ~<6/(c..OhC.r-Jl b)od~ Ct bU.-ht'\0lvt lI5 too If OfICj(~ b~qlC -3 -" f, ~~ (,.JiJ.t. c1~c-~; AJ 6o,ct tJ \..)<&\(Wo; l~ 6<>,,/YJ.) S; 3!o )-d,~ h CLvtc9 'feu L ' /-;. C:J) 5"";;1/ S "'f I?~ rT f o,-t- -1-0 j ~ i " 1,0. r ~ Il \,r +D .A~ hJ tq i L T, C~dQr S /JJ'hj 6rlJV1-- de.c.k boCtlcP i-o b(){fv~ 1 bC\.f' JOI01-, " \ c~c L{~l e.. ) ,/ / g II X Lf- II '- All w ~oc~ p re~s UK -ke.cc1eJ (/ .. [ATTACHMENT 0 I \u)~((;~[WfEllli ~ JUN 2S \983 TO: RON !<~TI_EF: ~ ASS I SJ AI'H D I RECTOR OF F'LPINN I NG FROI'I: TOl'1 I'IUI\ICA~;TER.,)~ l'1A'y'l\lAI=\:D ELROD ~.1.L RE: CANOEING THE UPPER MOORMANS RIVER DATE: 6/29/83 B;LANNIN~T. The following are our comments regarding SP 83-18: ~gQgiiigQ_~Q~~~~~2igl_~.L~ We have walked the site with Mrs. Buxton and examined the U.S.G.S. and tax maps of the region. No practical alternate exists to the north because of a steep 900 foot high mountain. None exists to the west ~upstream) because of the distance involved (3000 feet). There is a physical possibility of an access to the east (downstream) ~ however~ that access would have to pass between an existing home and a steep enbankment. The area between the home and the embankment is about 30 feet and the landowner will not give his permission for a driveway that close to the home. The only practical access is to the south as the Buxton's propose. ~gQgitiQD_~Q~~~~~2igl_~~i The three major canoeing guidebooks for this area all mention the upper Moormans. Randy Carter wrote the original whitewater "b i b 1 e" ~ G2.Qg~iQg_~b.it.~_~2.t.~~r:.__B;i_~~c__(2'=!iQ~~ in 1967. On page 112 of the cir..:jhth edition he SB.YS~ "For some real thrills (with higher water) ~ put-in along the road which goes to the Charlottesville Reservoir abOVE? Route 810... Use all safety precauti.ons and then some!" R,:,'mdy Car-ter paddled open boats B.nd IS best known for his gaging system found on bridge abutments throughout the state. , Burmeister's a~~2.1~~bL2.Q__~2.t.~r:.~_~ii__Ib.g__~g'=!t.b.g~~t.gr:.Q__Bi~~r:.~ recommends this stretch of river only to experienced paddlers equipped with decked boats probably because he rates the rapids up to Class 4. He says boats can be put in 1/5 mile below the Sugal- Hollow Dam when .'Ja,ter levels are "high-plus"~ which he describes as bankfull. He goes on to say that these favorable conditions are normally found from the end of March through the first two weeks of April. ~iC9iQi2._Wb.Ltg_~2.t.~r:. by Roger Corbett is currently THE canoeing _. 1. - . , I ATTACHMENT 0 II Page 2/ guide for the state. Corbett recommends putting in well above the fined br-idge befol-e the dam. "Then prepare for an e;.:citing Class 3 downstream dash through immovable slalom gates (trees), over flexible obstacles (bushes), and under country guillotines (wire fences); then you are ready for rock gardens, quick turns, low hanging trees, small ledges, and narrow passages. Sheer delight, except for one moment of sheer (but unwarranted) terror. If you make the trip, you will recognize that spot; make an eddy turn and set up below that point to see the expressions on the faces of the following canoeists. The upper part of the Moormans River is best for open boaters who can and will Jump out c;,lld hDld their ce\noes... This is' no placE~ to be swept into trees or fences that wait for the hesitant, the unskilled, or the benumbed." My personal experience includes many trips on the, Moormans below Route 810, but never above. There are Randy Carter gages on thE- l"loormans at Wh i tehall (Route 810 br i dge) and 1'1i 11 i ngton (Route 671) and the Doyles~iver (Route 674) which enable one to determine whether or not the stream is canoeable. In my experience the Millington gage is most accurate for this stretch, that is, "zel-o" is the minimum canoeable depth. Several years ago I grew tired of driving all the way out to Millington only to find there wasn't enough water to paddle, so I decided to find a better way. A gage was installed on the Moormans just upstream of Free Union Road (Route 6(1) October 1, 1979, so by noting the. discharge and whether or not the stream was canoeable a minimum discharge could be determined. I knew from experience that 200 cfs was minimum on the Rivanna River, therefore a narrower stream would certainly be less. It turned out that 165 cfs is the minimum canoeable discharge on the Moormans River below Route 810. It should be noted that parts of the stream may be paddled at lesser flows, but some walking will definitely be required. Rapids, the reason everyone paddles, are the first parts of a stream to not be canoeable at low flows. Also, since the Moormans proper is the topic of discussion, it should be mentioned that time after time when the Moormans is passable there is not enough water in the Moormans at Route 810, putin must be on the Doyles River at Route 674. Knowing the minimum canoeable discharge on the Moormans I did a linear regression analysis between the Moormans and Palmyra gages. Using the 366 data points for the 1980 Water Year a correlation coefficient of 0.885 was determined. This meant I could call the Palmyra gage, a telemark, and get a reasonable estimate as to whether or not the Moormans was canoeable. The system has worked quite well even without considering the influence of the Sugar Hollo~ Dam or South Fork Rivanna Dam. I also tried to correlate rain events with canoeability, but was unsuccessful. Given the fact that 165 cfs is required below Route 810 a reasonable estimate for the" smaller stream above " ..:.. ., I ATTACHMENT ollpage 31 Route 810 would be about 150 cfs. The next question 1S how much of the tim~ does the Moormans River above Route 810 exceed 150 cfs? The Water Control Board compiles flow duration curves for the state's stre~mflow gaging system. The closest gage with a meaningful period of record is the Palmyra gage. It may stretching things to compare flows from Palmyra's 664 mile watershed to the approximately 20 square miles at the Buxton's~ but in lieu of a better analysis~ it is a reasonable method to extrapolate the percent of time the flow exceeds 150 cfs. SCS Hydrology Manual methodology was used as a first cut to relate discharge and drainage area. Actual data using the Moormans~ South Rivanna and Palmyra gages did not compare well with this technique. Instead of the discharge per square mile increasing on the way up the watershed, cfs/square mile remained almost constant. 150 cfs/20 square miles at the Buxton's corresponds to 4980 cfs at Palmyra. The Water Control Board's flow duration curves indicate this flow can be expected to be exceeded 1.0% of the~ime. That is, on the long term, it is estimated that the mean daily flow for the Moormans River above Route 810 will be adequate for canoeing 3-4 days a year. This data compares very favorably with a similar analysis done using the South Fork Rivanna gage near Earlysville which is no longer in service. It should be repeated that this analysis was done for mean daily flows and there will be other days with transient flows above the canoeable minimum. Also, the discharge is influenced by the Sugar Hollow Dam and its operation obviously would have a considerable impact. Besides looking at the long term number of days of canoeabilty it might be tonstructive to look at a couple years of actual flows. The Moormans gage is the closest and it has two years of published data available. 150 cfs/20 square miles corresponds to 560 cfs at the Moormans gage. In Water Year 1980 (October 1~ 1979 to Sept.ember 30~ 1980) this mean daily flow was e;-~ceeded 10 times~ in other words, it is estimated the stream was canoeable 10 ti mes. Water Year 1981 did not appear to be canoeab Ie -,atr., all. Based on 48 years of data the Palmyra gage average flow is 717 cfs which means Water Year',1980 (930 cfs mean) was a wet year and 1981 (241 cfs mean) a dry year. The above d ~ scussi on i nd i cates that the e;d st i ng si te woul d""- be canoeab 1 e 3-4 days per year normal 1 y, not at' all in "dry year's II' and on the order of 1 0 days dur i ng "wet years". The e;,; act ef f ect of the proposed structure is not easy to determine by analytical methods because of the turbulence that the stream would exhibit at the one to three foot depths of flow. The question at this point. is how necessary is it to determine the effect of the structure on the canoeability of the stream if the stream is only canoeable 3 t6 10 times a year without the structure? Also, we are concerned that such an analysis could be rendered useless if a large storm occured and changed t.he stream topography. ...:. . . I I ATTACHMENT 0 IIPage 41 Other than the canoeability question we feel that the structure as designed (with some minor changes) will ponding or siltation problems that w00ld str-eam. ~gQQitLgQ_]Q~~~~~~iQ~_Q~g not pose any erosion~ adversely affect the The Buxtons or their engineer will have to apply to the SWCB who will process a joint (local-state-federal) review. A copy of the permit application has been furnished to the Buxtons. - 4 - .. IArTA~HMt:NT E I RECEIVED JUl 0 1 1993 Planning Dept. Route 2, Box 325 Crozet, Virginia 22932 June 29, 1993 'lliam D. Fritz C unty of Albemarle D partment of Planning a d Community Development 1 McIntire Road arlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 SP 93-19 John Alford ar Mr. Fritz, I am in receipt of your letter dated June 25, 1993 informing me of the Alford's intent to build a footbridge across the Moorman's River. I will not be attending the public hearings scheduled July 13 and ugust 11, but wanted to let the Commission and Supervisors know that I endorse the proposed project. nCer~lY' C ~ Bonnie C_ Cady ~~~ djacent property~w~ BCC/pl cc: Ruth and John Alford Transpotom c Plaza Suite 1000, 1199 No ~ Fairfax Street Alexandria, VA 2314-1437 - The Blaustein Building One North Cha les Street Baltimore, MD 1201-3793 - 8280 Greensb ro Drive Suite 900, TyS( ns Corner McLean, VA 2 102-0346 - World Trade Center Suile 9000, 101 W t Main Street Norfolk, VA 2 510-1655 . McGUIREWOODS BA'ITLE&BOOTHE Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville, VIrginia 22902-1288 One James Center 901 East Cary Street Ric~ond, VA 23219-4030 The Army and Navy Qub Building 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-4007 Phone: (804) 977-2500 (VoiccfIDD) Fax: (804) 980-2222 250 Avenue Louise, Bte, 64 1050 Brussels, Belgium July 30, 1993 associated office: P.O. Box 4930 Bahnhofstrasse 3 8022 Zurich, Switzerland Mr. William Fritz Sen~or County Planner Cou~ty of Albemarle Planning and Community Development Albj:mar1e County Office Building REOEIVED 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -- Re: SP-93-19/John Alford AUG 0 ~ 1993 Dear Bill: Planning Dept~ This letter is a follow up on our telephone conversation in reg~rd to comments by the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Board to the above Special Permit request. Enclosed is a copy of my letter to the members of the, Board which indicates I have no personal objj:ction. I only received one response to this letter, with the fee~ing the request was reasonable. Therefore, I believe you can state the Moorrnans Scenic River Adv~sory Board has raised no objection to the Special Permit. Very truly yours, Frl~ FSLI/sg Enc+,-osure cc: Mr. R. G. Gibbons (wi Enclosure) U:\25 1\LTR\FRITZ.2 , . MCGUIREWOODS BATTLE&BoOTHE Trans tomac Plaza Suite 1000, 11 North Fairfax Street Alexandria VA 22314-1437 The Bla stein Building One No Charles Street Baltimore, 021201.3793 Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1288 One James Center 901 East Cary Slreet Richmond, VA 23219.4030 Phone: (804) 977-2500 (Yoice/TDD) Fax: (804) 980-2222 The Army and Navy Club Building 1627 Eye Streel, N.W. Washington, DC 20006.4007 250 Avenue Louise, Bte. 64 1050 Brussels, Belgium World rade Center Suile 9000, 1 I West Main Street Norfolk, A 23510-1655 associa'ed office: P.O, Box 4930 Bahnhofstrasse 3 8022 Zurich, Switzerland July 14, 1993 A I Members of Moormans Scenic River Advisory Board ( ee attached list) Re: John Alford Footbridge D ar Ladies and Gentlemen of tJ~e Commi t tee: I am enclosing herewith a copy of a letter from William Fritz, nior Planner of the Albemarle County Planning Department, gether with attached materials. As you can see, we need to give y comments we might have for the benefit of the County in nsidering this application. You will also note the time quirement for a hearing on August 3. Although I would not generally be in favor of bridges over the ver, I do not personally have any objections to this proposal. om the sketch and specifications, it looks like he is doing a od job, both from an aesthetic and structural perspective. early, it will be quite an expensive bridge. From the rspective of canoeists, the bridge is high enough that it would t be a problem. If the water is high enough to put a canoeist in nger of hitting the bridge, it is probably unsafe to be on. If you have any comments, please let me know. I would like to m ke a report to Mr. Fritz by the week of July 26. I will at that t'me pass on any comments I have received and assume those who have n t responded have no comments. S, in,cerE7fY'" ) r-.---) !) /~./ J .'"\ ,q\ v-<::" I /' , :::::1 _/ ..d./.-- , ' ,;\ '-.: I Fred S. Landess L:sg closures Mr. R. G. Gibbons 2541\LTR\MOORMANS.9 - 'i',\1'.::::...-I--. 'tv om b-ll -93 'V- yl · 8-3-93 D BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SP-93-19 John Alford - Petition to construct a foo rl ge the floodplain of the Moorman's River [30.3.5.2.1(2), 30.3.5.2.2(1), 30.5.5.2d(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcel 12 is located on the south side of Route 614 approximately 400 feet west of Route 674 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area III). Deferred from the July 13, 1993 Commission Meeting. Mr. Fritz distributed a copy of a letter from Mr. Fred Landess which stated that the scenic streams committee had no concerns about the request. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Blue asked if the applicant, or a previous owner, had ever requested approval of a vehicle crossing. Mr. Fritz replied that there had been a request on an adjacent property but there was no history of a request for a vehicular crossing on this property. Mr. Blue asked if staff had any information on the dimensions of the bridge. (He assumed it would be a high enough to clear the floodplain.) He calculated, based on what was upstream, that a height of at least 6 feet would be necessary. Mr. Fritz replied: "That's likely what it will be. He's already got, by using the bank, some elevation. " Mr. Blue felt the proposed location was a good one from a canoeist standpoint. Ms. Huckle wondered about the choice of facade treatment. Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant had chosen a facade which would blend with his existing house. The applicant, Mr. John 'Alford, was present and offered to answer Commission questions. He stated he would be using the existing parking area, with no enlargement planned. In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, he explained that he lives on the property, "full-time." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-93-19 for John Alford be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: Ju~-1o Bet ~ -1(--33 ~TATEI'ARK~EOEIVED COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA AllMIr>;ISTRATIOr>; NATURAl. HERITAGE 1'1.Ar>;NIN(; AND RECREATION RESOURCES SOIl. ANIl WATER CONSERVATION j, ROBERT HICKS, jR Dir("nor AUG ~ 1993 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION DIVISION OF PLANNING AND RECREATION RESOURCES TDD (804) 786.2121 An Buchler, Division DireClor 203 Governor Strcet, Suite 326 Richmond, Vir!;inia 23219-2010 (804) 786-2556 Planning Dept. August 5, 1993 Mr. William Fritz Senior County Planner County of Albemarle Planning and Community Development Albemarle County Office Build~ng 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Bill: BOARD OF SUPERVlSORS The proposal of Mr. John Alford to construct a foot bridge over the Moormans Scenic River has been reviewed by my staff and the Advisory Board. Normally the placement of additional bridges over a scenic river would be discouraged by this office. In this particular instance it appears that consideration for the scenic and recreational values of the river have been considered by the applicant in the design and placement of the bridge. The Department would ask that minimal disturbance of the shore line vegetation take place during the construction. The construction area should be restored to a natural condition upon the completion of the project. The Advisory Board has reviewed the proposal and has concluded that bridge design will not pose a safety hazard to canoeist under normal water conditions. The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this and similar projects. Scenic Rivers are valuable natural resources ~ith important identifiable values. Each level of government, as ~ell as the private sector, has a role in the maintenance and management river and the attendant corridor values. Cc: Fred S. Landess, Chai John R. Davy Jr. - Moormans SRAB G03105/PRR DATE AGENDA AGENDA {LLlCflt~Lt II /(~'(}~l u ITEM NO. 93, (6/ /, i( }C#' DEFERRED UNTIL Form. 3 7/25/86 ) I , -.~... Edward H, Ba n, Jr, Samuel Mill r David p, Bow rman Charlottesvil e Charlotte Y. umphris Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 M E M 0 RAN DUM 0: Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~, ROM: August 6, 1993 Reading List for August 11, 1993 1/ May 6, 199;1- pages 15 (#15) . pages 25 (#21) !)I"tliu::ted tJ !XliI':;, f~geni1.. I~""! f\j," / 0'- - 25 #21 - Mr. Marshall - end - Mr. Bowerman ril 14, 1993 - pages 12 (#11) - end - Mr. Martin * Printed on recycled paper " ....,""".~,., ~.., '-;~d (, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter F, Perkins White Hall U;STI(I['IJtF.:D l' 0 80,\'~!) MFMB;:~S c_,~,; .."'....-..0......-.._..._..,.....,..__... P.o.. Bo){ 4835 A :J, 1993 BOARDOF~SO~J Charlottes\lil J.~ugt1.st 3 I Board of Supervisors Countt Office Building 104 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear .~embers of the Board: The Board of Supervisors' decision to support a referendum on b~.ilding a ne~ high school is commendable because it allows voters to participate in decision making. However, the downside of this referendum is that other than voting for or against the new schclo1~ no alter.u.ati'Jes haTJe been suggested. Cloning the two existing high schools would replicate many questionable programs that have little or nothing to do with basic education, and would not markedly improve educational progress. As one alternative, why not build a facility that would serve t~e entire County and be dedicated to academics; one that would not only specialize in college preparation courses, but also in applied technology. Students who wanted to e}{cel could elect these cla5:ses, perhaps on a half-da')l basis, and could continue their "feel gooe." courses at their assigned schools. Perhaps this might not be the best solution. out there waiting to be heard. A better idea migt.t be Perhaps high school teachers would be willing to e}{press their ~'iews (anorymously, if they chose) on what should or should not be inc'luded in an ideal high school. Perhaps pre-1990 high school graduates system could have served them better~ could suggest possible ...T'=: -':?C'" VV(~. '1 ...;;J the I propose that each County Supervisor and his/her School Board ~Y"tY'>.'~;Y"\+-~~ h,.....1,.:J ;'Y'I4=<'"""\'Y'",,~' rl;c-+-.....,;r-+ l'nC~C3.+;'Y'IrYC"" +-r"\ c_~,.....'\1;,.;+- .......r-"1C"';rl~'Y'I+-C'" ;"t-'\"."ll+- ~J::-'.I::-"~..J..J..I.'-'-\'~ J....'-'..J..\.....L ....L....I..LV.L.UI.(-L....!. \.A....L-..J'-....L.\.......... .11.'-"-'-...........1.::;1......, '-'-' ......,\..."..L........'-'~~ .J..'--...;J..J..~\_.1.J.'-....:;J .......1....1.IU-'- on alternatives. Many residents are reluctant to attend or participate in Board meetings at the Co'unty Off ice Building ltlhe.r'e comments are allowed, but dialogue is discouraged. However, they might attend local gatherings with friends and neighbors. It is unacceptable to incur an additional twenty (plus) million dollars in debt for the proposed school without prior thorough "Y'ocoo":],,...,,...h ..... ~...:;I\,.~("..4.J., ............. Sincerely yours, (Lr .1/:;&/ 12 CL~1 P:l.~IJ. Francis