HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-16 (2)
FINAL
Septelllber 16, 1992
Roolll 7, County Office Building
4:30 P.M.
1) Call to Order.
2) Work Session:
3) Other Matters
4) Adjourn.
Recycling Pro~.
Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
7:00 P.M.
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) Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend & reenact Section 2.1-4(b) of the
Code of Albemarle known as the "Totier Creek Agricultural and Fores-
tal District" by adding 3 parcels totalling 1392.220 ac located between
Scottsville & Howardsville, N of Rt 723/Rt 626 & W of Rt 627. Review
date for the entire district is June 20, 2001. The existing district
contains 7246.52 ac.
7) Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend & reenact Section 2.1-4(k) of the
Code of Albemarle known as the "Lanark Agricultural/Forestal Dis-
trict" by adding 32 parcels totalling 4625.885 ac located in the Carters
Mtn area on Rt 795, Rt 727, Rt 627 & Rt 20. Review date for the
entire district is April 20, 1998. The existing district contains 996.05
ac.
8) Appeal: SUB-92-097. Brook Ridge Preliminary Plat.
9) SP-92-53. St. John's Episcopal Church (owner), Elaine Clark (applicant).
Public Hearing on a request for a day care on 5.35 acs zoned RA.
Property on N sd of Dick Woods Rd (Rt 637) approx 800 ft E of Miller
School Rd (Rt 682). TM73,P20&20B. Samuel Miller Dist. (This pro-
perty is not located in a designated growth area.)
10) CPA-90-03. Wendell Wood. Public Hearing on a request to amend the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use
designation from Industrial Service to Regional Service and High
Density Residential on approximately 125 acres of land west of Route
29 and east of Route 606 in the Hollymead Community.
11) Loan Request - East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department.
lla) Discussion: Meadow Creek Parkway Information Meeting.
12) Approval of Minutes: November 13, 1991.
13) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
14) Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board for the Department
of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk,
Circuit Court, for the Month of August, 1992.
FOR INFORMATION
5.2 Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the Beginning of the
First Day of January, 1992, of the Property of Gas and Pipeline Distribu-
tion Corporations in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State Taxes
Extended for the Year 1992 (on file in Clerk's office).
5.3 Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the Beginning of the
First Day of January, 1992, of the Property of Telecommunications Compa-
nies in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State Taxes Extended for the
Year 1992 (on file in Clerk's office).
5.4 Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the Beginning of the
First Day of January, 1992, of the Property of Water Corporations in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the State Taxes Extended for the Year 1992
(on file in Clerk's office).
5.5 Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the Beginning of the
First Day of January, 1992, of the Property of Electric Light and Power
Corporations in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State Taxes Extended
for the Year 1992 (on file in Clerk's office).
5.6 Letter dated September 27, 1992, providing notice of a triathlon to benefit
the Lake Monticello Fire and Rescue Squads scheduled for September 27,
1992.
5.7 Copy of letter dated September 8, 1992, addressed to Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Department of Transportation, from Robert W. Paskel,
Division Superintendent, Albemarle County Public Schools, re: Closing of
Bridge on Route 671 over Moorman's River.
5.8 Monthly Bond and Progress Report for Arbor Crest Ap&rtJnents (Hydraulic
Road ApartIIlents) for the month of August, 1992.
5.9 Albemarle County Service Authority's 1993 Annual Budget.
/
l\{'
MAPLE GROVE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
(..A_ L'l'-(' /!_--
'l/I;Jt/.2
?{/~
(DISCIPI_ES OF CHRIST)
Proffit Road - Route ,1, !3ox 9(, - Chc~loltesville. Virginia 22901
C:.:, f:~~ CE ~ \/ E.: [)
July 30, 1992
AUG 0 3 1992
~.J~.}\;'.:: ~:.., C~~':~:~T.
Mr. William D. Fritz
Ser'lior Planner
De artment of Planning & Community Development
Conty of Albemarle
40~ McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Re: SUB-92-097 Brook Ridge Preliminary Plat
We, -the undersigned Trustees of Maple Grove Christian Church,
op ose the subdivision plat referred to above. It is our
re~ommendation that the preliminary Brook Ridge Subdivision plat
no be approved for the following reasons:
~.
o The Brook Ridge plat is not compatible with all other
land developments off State Route 649 in that the density
is too high.
o No common area is available for use by all property
owners. The lots are very small and no common area is
provided for use by children.
o The preliminary plat will result in traffic congestion
on a section of State Route 649 which is not currently
adequate.
o The size of the proposed lots will not provide adequate
space for automobile parking.
o
The preliminary plat does not
future intended use of the
Surrounding properties drain
future development would be
adjoining property owners.
adequately identify the
2.2 acre Buffer Area.
into this area and its
a maj or problem for all
.'
M
William D. Fritz
- 2 -
July 30, 1992
Based upon these reasons, we recommend that any development
on this land provide for the following:
o A ten (10) foot buffer around all sides of the property.
This is a common requirement for other developments in
this area.
o The 2.2 acre Buffer Area on the preliminary plat should
be deeded to the County and dedicated as open space.
o The developer should be required to provide sidewalks.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration of our requests.
As an adjoining property owner, we are confident that approval of
t s preliminary plat as submitted would have a negative impact on
property and create a further problem for the County of
emarle.
Respectfully submitted,
Rby
,,'
./'J.'
<// ,Ie,
Robert E.
')
/./ I/'
,g'.:LP/2/'L--L"l.-/L
Herring, Trus ee
(. ( . //1 (
oliver L. McCauley,
July 30, 1992
'"'"'r- ,,,,,>,r-. :~f'!""D
' " . <,;~:~' l t:.
AUG U 3 1992
-....~ q ~ ~f. ".~" tt-, D::r~T
I .'1 a ~ \ :~.' \1/.., ': t
I' :'~..Al1 ),J.':; ~\... ..- ..
Mr William D. Fritz
Se ior Planner
De artment of Planning & Community Development
Co nty of Albemarle
40 McIntire Road
Ch rlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Re: SUB-92-097 Brook Ridge Preliminary Plat
De r Mr. Fritz:
We, the undersigned residents of Albemarle County, oppose the
su division plat referred to above. It is our recommendation that
th preliminary Brook Ridge Subdivision plat not be approved for
th following reasons:
Ii'
o
The Brook Ridge plat is not compatible with all other
land developments off state Route 649 in that the density
is too high.
o No common area is available for use by all property
owners.
o The preliminary plat will result in traffic congestion
on a section of state Route 649 which is not currently
adequate.
o The size of the proposed lots will not provide adequate
space for automobile parking.
o The preliminary plat does not adequately identify the
future intended use of the 2.2 acre Buffer Area.
Based upon these reasons, we recommend that any development
on this land provide for the following:
o A ten (10) foot buffer around all sides of the property.
Mr. William D. Fritz
- ~ -
July 30, 1992
o The 2.2 acre Buffer Area on the preliminary plat should
be deeded to the County and dedicated as open space.
o The developer should be required to provide sidewalks.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration of our requests.
Th approval of the preliminary plat as submitted would have a
ne ~tive impact on our neighborhood and create a future problem for
th County of Albemarle.
Respectfully submitted,
1.
" '" 'ltl POf~ aw//&r
2 .
4
8 .
9 .
Ij'
10.
11. /!! ""'~/ h ( ; ::J},) d 1/ tf1.,/
12 .17L- (12,< ___ C' J'/\;~' r'rl. ~~'-u/I-L-{~ /{/ "
l' / . 1 / /1 ..-;' / ~-? ,( ~
13. ~~~~~ ~~~ /~'-r'
14. /--<.~/".. ~C~C:d{ a----
15. /) vI c::a"
~) . 'J!
16. C~,~,:zA ';'~.' ('---Y/ (4/
~ )/'
17 .,,~-U,./~;<. Cr ,/,h? /( 'L-_
18. ~ /.L Ct,,-,,) (r J. /Jl.rt<{ ; ,-(',t d
I) t1 '
19. l 41.J /" p, . I, ) ,;
..-----~. - '4~---u ~'( ./)
2 0.\ .." / . / L{/. " "7 ,
'-- . ',. '/
.'
Mr William D. fritz
- J -
July 30, 1992
22.
/ -
It-0Z/l /
;
aJl! 13
~J~ ~~-1
I I
..r...
23. ~ (!!~
24. ~ sflQ nU1)LwJ~S)[)
25. ({jditfo ct At A;;
26. ~-CI) llJO f'\{,~ '
27. '0 ~"~/;.'/ : '\ ' (C;-J"; " '
28. ~,-Q u, J q--l,
2 9. /JCL-Co a" \-(ic-(.,'~'-
30. -b~c' :['J,o j; .' J f\, )
\
V ,'. ----
C) ) I '- (I I:~, " A f (
3 1 . ,A. '-- \ /I- ",- <- ' , . , "
:::~~ffi,~
v, ~7>) I~
349 , ',-Y I I 1 uA/(\/J~
,
35. qa~~ 7'7)/>;J/rm/Yl)
3 6 .~J~" Ci' YJvr ,r.~.~~../ L
0/
37. " v
.
"
40.
41. . /.il:, ,:.)
(\
42. 1\ ~.." <~ {: rlrJ1/~
43,' c1f!"" A-, (,v,i, t/4-v(
44 . .5r/./71!f/'L-t< (~/~'vtA /
,,'
4 5 . I~u---a
A [1.11 /1 /.~
.
-'/ , (7 lJ'l L7 I /) t:.. ~ I
46 . c--VZ, v/)c.{' S }. J ./L '7~' /\ ~ \JV
. () /L) ----;-
47. ~/j ( ,t2: :/~e11 (c t...
4 8 ~..-r-rA-~ -\?{.\--;IJ~ ,~I //'vt ':r~/'---~
. "T ! ), I ,I P4.
49 .j. .lc\\~\\ 1, T/, "\".' "L' ~
/...\ . " ,
) / - / .
// , ". '(' j 'I ) ~.
50 j ,/ 1(,',' 1/;' " ; / ,( 1____
/ / /)
/ ,/ ,/
Mr william D. Fritz
~'
- .1 -
July 30, 1992
53.
58.
59
~
60.
.
..
62. C/C-;lL-i
/ "
63. I (,i..J0L.
64. cYZMA'~ ~. t~J(1L"~
65. {~/eL(,\LJ-'1-_/ /l ,1 LC{~~vfe~?
66. ULt,ILL k &, 71\ I:! t (1. (..z1~/L r
67. -If -e ~
68.\cfY!.m}(! /,}lj.) r(\~h!1 j-+~F;L~
-' / I ~ ' I t'1
'\ . L I -/ \ '"
69. - r"/ ~}) ((~), (,. ';
~ , ----------j
;.:( (,/,~. ~ , ;;
72.
75.
7 6. (\ r v \ 'I n () , )
77. (),,,-^,ij' ~ . f\\ (\ ), ;^J,rJ j/'/~
78. 'WJ~Afj '/fy-l!LL
79. ":-1~)l.il,.(~, (,<C{C<-(..-,/
80. C ,Q\;l.'/)\\ \ (' \"\"
,
."f
r_? :..." r':~ i-~~,~ l t, f':,~: ~~r.
, ~'\., It
August 3. 1992
AUG U 3 1992
epartment of Planning
ounty of Albemarle
p1 Mcintire Road
harlottesville, VA 22901-4596
;j,l..f\ij}~-<~;\<~-.~ t~,Cr~T.
Re: SUB-92-097 Brook Ridge Preliminary Plat
ear Planning Commission:
I the undersigned adjoining property owner and resident appose the subdision plat
ferred to above for the following reasons.
The Brook Ridge Plat is not conducive with any of the other land developed off Route 649 as
e density is to high,
For adjoining property owners no buffer area is allotted for privacy to said individuals,
The size of the plats does not provide any area for children to play, resulting in invasion of
~joining properties, and furthermore there will not be ample parking spaces for vehicles,
This plat does not provide sidewalks for residents for safety along the streets,
Current traffic on Route 649 at present is extremely high and this will add to the problem,
Most of the property owners in the neighborhood have invested their life savings in their
operty and the high density of this development will only result in the devalue of the property in
is area,
I,'
Based on the above as an adjoining property owner and resident I feel the following
~ould be considered:
, The size of the lots be increased to provide ample space for parking and yard space for
l1ildren to play in their own front and back yards,
, An additional 10 feet of buffer area between this proposed development and adjoining
roperty owners and a fence installed,
, A developement of this density should not be built in a neightborhood this close to current
I>sidents but should be in a set back area like Forest Lakes,
In summary it is felt by everyone I have talked to in this neighborhood, and I have talked
D many, that all this developer has in mind is to make a lot of fast money and get out leaving
ur community with a possible ghetto This could lead to high crime and this we do not want or
eed,
ommen\: In 1985 I purchased this adjoining property: As a retired individual I was looking for a
uiet neighborhood to live out my golden years, and with the proposed development this will all
e elimintated and this applies to other residents also.
,d ///.ii ~
~;;.vr.~<-~ It} L~
Franklin 0, Jones
Adjoining Prope wner/Resident
.
.
'..
I M 3fj/ ?92
-',I;"" .......\":' \', lr: 'D
'<.".,tJ<._: -' ,~
~\UG U '3 1992
1{~,O~ 1). :f~
k~ f?JZ.~
. , ','''-:' r;f'P1.
=;..1 : . ~. . ~'l'.';. \ ~ '" ... . ~ f..... :"'-
j)[: 5,,8 - 92- () 'i 7 g4-~ fi'.;jpv .f~ f1d..
0(' ~J +- Ja~~ tf jJl-e. ;Jfi~![:m~
.1Jl~~.~4J ~ ,/!~ r, il4/ ~
~~ JurJ; ~-<// I.kJ ~
~,fld a<!/ J~~ ~. ~.l
~J/ J.~/ ~/ fiY~:Y r~
Ovvt-J! l2~--Y~'-_/rn_2-~v0 -
}. ('01 5' u JJ .. oj ;lL.'.cJ /Vh.A.'L ~~/ .M4.1A J~
~Q~ 0. ~YA//f:-"~ ~ h<L if oJ- ~4bf Jujt ,
~ c[u.Q<2/ ~;f 4~ ~. ;t:l~ P 1vT;
-1. /?~J t~.-L' ./,"J{Jl~^- eci P"'d~j
.dffl....<J24'~ ..J!C~ k~~,z, (Y-u-y.J2~v .
3, pjJ do--w/ /'-~J ~ Jd7 ~-;./
~ c..~'><./' 'f --f CVG). ~"--W h<h'.Z."<'/,
,J /U/71~c-f ~~h--;to C&v--vY~ 1~~
if-nA .~ ~--J ~~ ;lj!-d- ~
~ /O'P~ chv O-'-'l';f/ 1,1 9.2 ..
J~'-~'Q , .f)
{~Jj::af/ .::/. r ~-71'L-c-rrL/
,Ii
Mr. william D. Fritz
- 5 -
, ( I v ~/'
81.U~ A'~A7711 C. /~~
82. --1.(c/--?~~ / ~ZC
8 d'cf~--c;Ae,,,,, Ci )/<t:cf/
84.
85.
86.
87.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
Ij'
97.
98.
99.
100.
July 30, 1992
.
'"
County Share State Share Total
PARTMENT OF FINANCE: istl// f~bf!/f/ 9/)-~ .2-S-
/6'a/6 ~:~4
3;/~/j/ 3/G://
GIONAL JAIL: / 7/fcJl 7/ / ;~Jt7~
3,31' ff ?? /
COURT: -13/f(<f/j/
,
I'ATEMENTS OF EXPENSES
State Compensation Board
Month of Auqust, 1992
PARTMENT :
,":;
I,.,
J
q-j/.~Gl?
92. ' Octfla (S-l I)
te: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
ich the State Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
e not the total office expenses of these departments.
I
MOTION: Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mrs. Humphris
MEETING DATE: September 16, 1992
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provi-
sions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1
requires a certification by the
Supervisors that such executive
conformity with Virginia law;
of the Code of Virginia
Albemarle County Board of
meeting was conducted in
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of
each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia
law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this
certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public
business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
[For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the
requirements of the Act should be described.]
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Marshall.
(. ! r (
-- (~jC/~_ ( \_ C lj " {~"--/t l
Senior Deputy Clerk, Albemarle C~unty
Board of Supervisors
"
;,.-,
9- /1-92
({i~"Q97~l;' & )
/~.f_
Se terQber 27. 1992
I
18:00 a.m.
Swim - 1_5k
Bike - 42k
Run - 1 Ok
, \.')
Albema Ie County Board of SupervIsors
401 Me htI re Road
Charlot 'esvIlle, VA 22901
The De l/Irtment of TransportatIon has been contacted to provIde permISSIon to
allow t Ie use of the publlc byways for the use of a trIathlon, for the benefit of
the Lak ' MontI cell 0 FIre and Rescue Squads. The race 1 s scheduled for
Seepte 'ber 27, 1992, beg1nn1ng at 8:00 a.m.. The tr1athlon, cons1st1ng of
sw1mm hg, b1cycllng and running, wll1 be held with1n the conf1ne of Lake
Monticelllo, except for the bIcycllng port10n.
,
,
The b1c icllng portion wIll begIn about 8:30 a.m. and wll1 ut1l1ze roads 1n both
Fluvann and Albemarle Count1es. A race map 1s attached for your reference.
The las bICycllst wIll be done with that portIon of the race by 11 :00 a.m..
There pl be about 400 athletes of all ages and abllH1es partlcIpating In th1s
race. T ' ensure the1r safety, there will be support and ambulance vehIcles
leadI ng $nd tralling the racers, as well as beIng stationed throughout the
course. ~ourse marshals wlll al so be stationed throughout the course and the
cr1tical ~ntersections will be controlled by police officers.
We are iontacting all pOllee agencies, fire and emergency agenci es, and affected
governi 19 bodi es as required by the Deapartment of Transportat i on, so as to
provide the safest sporting event possIble. Our efforts have proven safe and
enjoyab Ie In year's past whlle also raising several thousands of dollars for the
,
Rescue quad.
I
As al w IYs, we look forward to worki ng with you. Pl ease feel free to contact
me if I ~n be of servi ce to you.
hilti'
a Si..azt HaE'peF - Diredon 1180f. 979-249& I ''Jig-1M 1M P .0.Boz 5512 C!IIa.dotbnille. 'fa. 22CJII5
.-
~(~~~
~~ :: ci ~
:I _C7'-CI
"":c:rn=ri
~;.~,gCl
;g~:r.~
n n-"'C
....~.,~c
0. ~.c::. C7'
., n n :::.
= _ ClI =n
= =. ~ :::..,
::::J c n u ~
~~:~~
~~;~~ co
~~~~~ X"
::J n '" ~
..c:.<__-
CI C'I "" n
c: _..c o::r 0
~~~:: ~
n..e c:I c: ~ U'1
_(::1_"= CD
3 c>> Q,. CA ::r
:....:: n c ~ 0
-. CI 3 - C'C
:'o:..n n Ul
.., .., = a n
;;~~~; ..,
__ - "0
~~.~~~ =
~ ~ ~~ g ~
..,' ~ e-
YI nO.
~~~-i
UI ::J ~ t'lI
~ 5 ~ ~
" c._
C :7 ""'I ::J
:I~~~
_"c.
;~3~
n"Cltc.
o =' .., C't
C "
.., ".
" "
" ;;'
(')
:r:
~
",
r-
0
-I
-I
m
IJl
<
(') -
r-
0 r-
c: m
", ttl
(J) c:
m c
r- r-
~ -
"
0 :r:
CD c: -I
-t
-t
",
-
~
=' :r:
- r-
" 0 ,
m z :
I
(') j
0
c:
",
IJl
m
~
0
()
:r:
>
:0
r
0
~
~
m
(f)
<
r
r
:0 m
0
c
~
m
m
-'-
CD
IS
~~
c."
",;;
... ..,
~ "
_"
".=
... "
_"
c "
.., "
'" -
,-
.. ".
.., "
"
C <Jl
'" -
c."
..,
~
" ....
-'""
" -
:-:.
~ =: ~ "tJ
c..=.,:'
_u"'<
:I. Q,,:'
~; ~.~
_::::J := a
C'I C'I..a ca
"'Cf_Q"
n .., :r I
" C'I " ~
" ~
;.~i]-
::!'~
~:.~~
n CA ., ..,
I'll 0 ..,-
~. ~ ~. ~
" a.
~ ? ~ ;.~
:> ~~~
., C'I=-<!
~ C'I _.n
"O~(
;Q
c:
:z.
n
Cl
c:
;Q
r.n
I'T1
o
m
r.n
n
;Q
-C
~
Cl
;Z
m
Z
-t
",
~
Z
(')
m
J,
~
o
:0
()
:r:
~
o
z
o
""-
'"
.
r";"'C'r!' \'0.__,_' Q-II-c-l1
t/;;;~r;,..iltC...: to t):__",'_, U, ..---...., ~~...".._~....p..
C1Z /'{J I I (S. '7 )
AEC-rti? :~:~:' :~,'}. ..,__I__~.:_.t.__~/~~~..__...,.' "
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Office of the Superintendent
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
>-
~
-, )
September 8, 1992
M . Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner
D partment of Transportation
1 01 East Broad St.
R chmond, Va. 23219
Mr. Pethtel,
The purpose of this correspondence is to express my deep
ncern about the way in which Albemarle County Schools were
tified about the closing of the bridge on route 671 over
orman's River. On Thursday, September 3, 1992 the Chairman of
e Board of Supervisors, David Bowerman, received a facsimile of
communication from you informing him of the proposed closing of
e bridge due to significant deterioration. While your letter
ated "no doubt the bridge will have to be closed in the near
ture", it also stated that the bridge had been posted at 3
ns, making it impossible for a school bus to traverse.
Your letter also stated that "since there may be some
hool bus traffic involved, I felt we should let you know as
on as possible so school buses are not scheduled for this
hool year." While I am grateful for your concern in notifying
e school division, I am extremely concerned about the timing
volved in your decision and notification. School throughout
e Commonwealth of Virginia began today, September 8, 1992. By
n tifying us of the necessity to reroute buses late on September
3, you caused a great deal of confusion and concern. Your action
r sulted in over 50 students having to either be rerouted or
c anged to other buses. Please be aware of the fact that bus
s hedules are established early in the summer and parents were
n tified of bus assignments several weeks ago.
My concern is that if the bridge were deteriorating at the
te you spoke to in your letter, the notification of the posting
3 tons and t~e potential closing could have been decided upon
"We Expect Success"
/ ..
..
~eptember 8, 1992
~ge 2
lich earlier than September 3. I, as Superintendent, have yet to
~ceive any direct communication from your office. Had the
hairman of the Board of Supervisors been out of town, the
otification may never have reached the school division in time
o make any changes.
I trust that you will accept this expression of concern as a
fquest for your department to be more cognizant of the results
f decisions of this magnitude and the importance of early
0tification. Should you wish to discuss this matter with me
urther, feel free to contact me at (804) 296-5826. Thank you
or your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
.7 v.z;
,
Robert W. Paskel
Division Superintenden
WP/ac
';"920908
c: D. Bowerman, Chairman, Board of Supervisors
R. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
P. Moore, Chairman, School Board
C. Hastings, Asst. Superintendent
W. Smith, Director of Transportation
III ~~~fh <. ~~l~~r~ Street
Suite 1540
Baltimore, MD 21202
410-659-7500
~
September 14, 1992
r. Bob Richardson
ovran Bank, N.A.
ost Office Box 26904
ichmond, Virginia 23261
e: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
ear Mr. Richardson:
nclosed please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
ursuant to Section 7(a} of the Deed Restrictions for the month
f August 1992.
f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
t 410-659-7500.
incerely,
~,,-fJ }ylt~~,~,~~ /'fJ
~ f (/Y'1
heila H. Moynihan
roject Monitor
shm
nclosures
cc: Ms. Lettie Neher
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
-
I
....
Effective August 31, 1992
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TC
ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lombard street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apa.rt:Jrents
Charlottesville, virginia
Pl ~suant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
R~~trictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
A Iril 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
A pemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
t ~stee, the undersigned author ized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
P rtner ship, (the "Purchaser"), hereby cert if ies with respect to
t e operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
C arlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
s own below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 15 .
2} The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
3} The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
{l} and {2} is 51
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
un its in the proj ect is 23%
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
N WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of
September 4, 1992
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: ~~ 14qa:zz-
Authorized Representative
Prope"Y:
BONO PROGRAM R~PORi
Mont"
August
Y N' ..l.22l
Number 01 Unit.
September 4, 1992 Effective 8/31/92
OaT.
Total Occupied
Bond Occupied
051-35371
66
bor Crest Apartments
arlottesville, VA
Loretta Wyatt
M.M~r
(H draul ic Road A ts.) Proj.ct.:
66
15
g units h.~ been d~SlgNlt.d as "lo-.1r Income" un.ts
1 Crest Dr. 2t Eleanor Blair 41
81.
2 4 Crest Dr. 22 Margaret Q. Sandford42
62.
3 5 rbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 4)
6.),
4 9 rbor Crest Dr. 24 Virginia Burton 4.4
84,
~ 12 rbor Crest Dr. 2~ G. Robert Stone ..~
6~,
6 14 rbor Crest Dr. 26 Evelyn Dover 46
M,
7 . 15 rbor Crest Dr. 27 Jane Wood 47
87,
a 20 rbor Crest Dr. 28 Evelyn Mandeville 48 6a
9 24 rbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49
69,
10 78 rbor Crest Dr'30 Ernest M. Nease ~
70,
t, 84 rbor Crest Dr. 3t Juanita Boliek ~1
71.
12, 90 Arbor Crest Dr'31 Florence Wheeler 52
72.
13 94 Arbor Crest Dr.)) Sarah E. Fischer 53
73,
14 102 Arbor Crest Dr')4 Anne Lee Bullard 5-4
74.
15 106 Arbor Crest Dr'35 Katherine T. Nowlen
55 75,
16 36 ~ 76,
11 :11 57. 77.
lIS J8 56, 78.
19 39 59 78.
~'O 40 60 &0.
T ne en. S Irom pI e't"ouS repOI\ ,,.Ileeted in th. abOve hsllng .r.
Oelellona AddlUon.a
.t " , 1.- , "
2 12 2 12,
3 ,) 3 '3,
4 14 4, 14,
5 15 5 15.
6 t6 6 16.
7 17 7 17.
I ,a 8, la"
, 19 9 It.
to 20 10, 20.
_ ( .J ....; )
ALE EMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
p,O, Bcbx 1009 401 MciNTIRE RD. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 (804) 296-5810
September 11, 199~ <,
Lettie Neher, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, VA
Dear Mrs. Neher:
Enclosed please find the Albemarle County Service
Authority's approved 1993 Annual Budget. I have enclosed
copies for each Board member, Bob Tucker, one for yourself
and an extra copy for the files.
Please distribute accordingly.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(]\ UJC,- V-\(:tC KJ.f(
Lisa Thacker
Secretary
o R DIN A NeE
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Section 2.1-4(b) of the Code of Albemarle
known as the "Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
C unty, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4, subsection (b) known as the
" otier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District", of the Code of
A bemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
(b) The district known as the "Totier Creek Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 121, parcels 70, 72C, 85; tax map
122, parcelS; tax map 128, parcels 13, 14A, 14B, 14C,
14D, 27, 29, 29A, 30, 72; tax map 129, parcels 3, 4, 5,
6, 6A, 7A, 7D, 9, lOA; tax map 130, parcels 1, 4, 5, SA,
7, 7A; tax map 134, parcels 3, 19; tax map 135, parcels
7,10,11.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
w iting is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the
Bard of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
r gular meeting held on September 16, 1992.
c~~q(~erVisors
o R DIN A NeE
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Section 2.1-4(b) of the Code of Albemarle
nown as the "Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District"
C
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
nty, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4, subsection (b) known as the
tier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District", of the Code of
emarle, is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
"
(b) The district known as the "Totier Creek Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 121, parcels 70, 72C, 85; tax map
122, parcelS; tax map 128, parcels 13, 14A, 14B, 14C,
14D, 27, 29, 29A, 30, 72; tax map 129, parcels 3, 4, 5,
6, 6A, 7A, 7D, 9, lOA; tax map 130, parcels 1, 4, 5, SA,
7, 7A; tax map 134, parcels 3, 19;tax map 135, parcels 7,
10, 11.
* * * * *
. , ' ,
c/
G vJ 1-.<
l-(
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING:
MARY JOY SCALA
August 18, 1992
September 16, 1992
ADDITION TO TOTIER CREEK AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
Puroose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal district
is "to conserve and protect and to encourage the development
and improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural and
forestal lands for the production of foods and other
agricultural and forestal products..." and "to conserve and
protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural
and ecological resources which provide essential open space
for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat,
as well as for aesthetic purposes."
Factors to Consider:
The following factors must be considered by the Planning
Commission and the Advisory Committee, and at any public
hearing when a proposed district is being considered:
1. The agricultural and forestal significance of land
within the district and in areas adjacent thereto;
2. The presence of significant agricultural lands or
significant forestal lands within the district and in
areas adjacent thereto that are not now in active
agricultural or forestal production;
3. The nature and extent of land uses other than active
farming or forestry within the district and in areas
adjacent thereto;
4. Local developmental patterns and needs;
5. The Comprehensive Plan and, if applicable, the zoning
regulations;
6. The environmental benefits of retaining the lands in
the district for agricultural and forestal uses; and
7. Any other matter which may be relevant.
Effects of a District:
1. The proposed district provides a community benefit by
conserving and protecting open space resources such as
forests, farmlands, stream valleys, wildlife habitat,
cultural and aesthetic resources.
1
. '"
2. The landowner receives certain tax benefits*, and
restrictions on public utilities and government action
(such as land acquisition) to protect the
agricultural/forestal use of the land. In exchange,
the landowner agrees to not develop his property to a
"more intensive use" during the specified number of
years the district is in effect.
* Since Albemarle County currently permits all types of use
value assessment, a district designation may not provide any
additional real estate tax reductions. Land in a district
is protected from special utility assessments or taxes.
3. Future land use decisions must recognize the
agricultural/forestal district. The district may have
no effect on adjacent development by right, but could
affect proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit
which are determined to be in conflict with the
adjacent agricultural/forestal uses.
"4. In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on
land use. The property owners in the district are
making a statement that they do not intend to develop
their property in the near future, and that they would
like the area to remain in the agricultural and
forestal uses. Adjacent property owners may be
encouraged to continue agricultural uses if they do not
anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Location: The proposed addition is located between
Scottsville and Howardsville, north of Rt. 723 and Rt. 626,
and west of Rt. 627.
Acreaae: The proposed addition contains 1,392.220 acres in
three parcels. The existing district contains 7,246.52
acres.
Time Period:
the original
Totier Creek
renewed last
The proposed time period is the same as for
district, or ten years from June 29, 1991. The
District was established in 1983, and was
year.
AaricUltural and Forestal Sianificance: Land in the
proposed addition is being used for agriculture (cattle,
crops) and forestry.
Sianiticant Land not in Aaricultural/Forestal Production:
The use value assessment program is a good indicator of the
actual use of the properties. All three parcels are
enrolled in the program. 935.53 acres are enrolled under
agriculture; 452.69 acres are enrolled under forestry; 4.0
acres are non-qualifying due to dwellings.
2
Land Uses Other Than Agricultural/Forestry: There are four
dwellings in the proposed addition.
Local Developmental Patterns and Needs:
of large farms and scattered dwellings.
for enrollment in a district.
This area consists
It is well suited
Comprehensive Plan and Zoninq Requlations: This area is
located in Rural Area IV in the Comprehensive Plan, and is
zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Growth Area is
scottsville Community, a distance of about 4.5 miles east.
Preservation of agricultural/forestal resources in the Rural
Areas is a major goal of the Plan. The Open Space Plan
shows this area to have important farmland and forestal
soils. The floodplains of Ballinger Creek and Joe Creek are
within the proposed addition.
Environmental Benefits: Environmental benefits include
protection of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat and
open space.
staff Comment: Staff recommends approval of the addition
as proposed.
Advisorv Committee Recommendations: The Advisory Committee
at its meeting on July 27, 1992, recommended unanimously to
approve the Addition to Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal
District as proposed.
Planninq Commission Recommendation: The Albemarle County
Planning Commission at its meeting on August 18, 1992,
recommended unanimously to approve the Addition to Totier
Creek Agricultural/Forestal District as proposed.
.
3
TOTIER CREEK ADDITION
AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
Note: Parcels marked with an asterisk are not currently enrolled
in the use value assessment program.
Tax Map/ Acreage/
Parcel Total Acreage Owner Dwellings
128-29A 9.390 JWK Properties 0
134- 3 1330.490 JWK Properties 3
134-19 52.340 JWK Properties 1
TOTAL DWELLINGS 4
TOTAL ACREAGE 1392.220
, q.'
'~I'
/. !
~
"\
/ -t
I
(
(
\
~
"'~, "---~
o
N
/'
..
N
on
<
,/
,/ )<
/
;("-1-:1
"'<0\
)<( on/,
/ //x ")<
, ,
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, Albemarle County
J. Gordon Yager, District Conservationist, SCS
Soils Report on Agricultural/Forestal Districts
Addition to Totier
July 27, 1992
oils are classified into eight capability classes with Class I
eing the best and Class VIII having the most 1imitat{ons for
gricu1tura1 uses. The following table gives a breakdown of
apabi1ity Classes for the district.
Capability Class
II
III
IV
VI
VII
otier
38%
26%
18%
13%
5%
he following table gives the percentage of the district that is
,uitab1e for cropland, hay1and, pasture and forestry.
Suitable
for .
Cropland
Suitable
for
Grassland
& Forestry
Suitable
for
Forestry
otier
64%
95%
100%
very high percentage of this District is suitable for grassland
nd agricultural uses.
..
The So~ Conservation Service
IS an agency of the
Department of Agricultura
II
Addition to Totier Creek AGricultural/Forestal District -
Consists of three parcels totalling 1,392.220 acres located
between scottsville and Howardsville, north of Rt. 723 and
Rt. 626, and west of Rt. 627. The addition must be reviewed
with the original district, which has a time period of 10
years from June 28, 1992. The existing Totier Creek
District contains 7,246.52 acres.
Ms. Scala presented a brief staff report.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the
Addition to the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
.
.
.
~,...-
~erk, Board of County Supervisors
~bemarle County, Virginia
Agenda #
roR IN OFFICE USE ONLY:
For Zoning Petitions and Matters from Planning Office, the fol-
~owing materials must be mailed to the Board and corleJ.ated in
~he following order:
~etition No.
d1 ---'- . /
~;Lc. It.t l....
I
(,
C~lh (: '_/C/
Petition Name
pate of Hearing
r t If
, C {~'~" I'~ i' ,,"';
.L.~'"-)r~'"~' _ s..
I
~roffer Letter
(If amended proffer is received before mail out, insert here.)
Planning Commission Recommendation
J'
J?roffer Letter
If Planning Commission action is conditioned on such a letter.)
~etter of Objection (on mobile homes, etc.)
,/
ptaff Report
~ocation Map (and any plats sent)
~ighway Department Comments
~etters from citizens
Planning Commission Minutes
If not available, insert note to that effect.)
~iscellanous Materials
~aterials which are NOT to be mailed include:
. Letters to applicant and adjacent property owners stating date
petition will be heard.
~. Letters giving continuous deferral dates.
. Letters from Clerk or Planning Commission acknowledging letters
rom the applicant, or his agent.
~ote: After Board Meeting, send to Planning a copy of any letters,
eports, etc. received by the Board which were not also directed to
he Planning Department.
F rm.l
7 29/86
I
l
o R DIN A NeE
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Section 2.1-4(k) of the Code of Albemarle
known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District"a
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
Ccunty, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4, subsection (k) known as the
"Ianark Agricultural and Forestal District", of the Code of
A bemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
(k) The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and
Ferestal District" consists of the following described properties:
Tex map 90B, parcels 11, 12, 13; tax map 91, parcel 20, 21, 21A,
2 B, 31, tax map 92, parcel 64, 64A; tax map 102, parcels 33, 35B,
3-, 40, 40A, 40B; tax map 103, parcels 1, lA, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F,
1e, 1H, 1J, 1K, 1L, 2A, 3, 5, 9, 10, lOA, lOB, 10C, 10D, 43.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
wliting is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the
Beard of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on September 1.6.'.. 19..92. ~.
o _ ~k
~G) ?/?!:tfft'l/
Clerk, Board of C6unty Supervisors
t;-f/-9L
, , '7t)
/; 1 Ilt.'II-;/;;' !
ll,x , 1..' I 1(1
o R DIN A NeE
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Section 2.1-4(k) of the Code of Albemarle
knownaas the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District"a
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
nty, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4, subsection (k) known as the
nark Agricultural and Forestal District", of the Code of
emarle, is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
(k) The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and
estal District" consists of the following described properties:
90B arcels 11 12 13. tax map 91, parcel 20, 21, 21A,
tax ma 92 arcel 64 64A' tax ma 102 arcels 33 35B
40A 40B' tax map 103, parcels lL lA, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F,
1J, 1K, 1L, 2A, 3, 5, 9, 10, lOA, lOB, 10C, 10D, 43.
* * * * *
,
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING:
MARY JOY SCALA
AUGUST 18, 1992
SEPTEMBER 16, 1992
ADDITION TO LABARR AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
Purpose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal district
is "to conserve and protect and to encourage the development
and improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural and
forestal lands for the production of foods and other
agricultural and forestal products..." and "to conserve and
protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural
and ecological resources which provide essential open space
for clean air shed, watershed protection, wildlife habitat,
as well as for aesthetic purposes."
Factors to Consider:
The following factors must be considered by the Planning
commission and the Advisory committee, and at any public
hearing when a proposed district is being considered:
1. The agricultural and forestal significance of land
within the district and in areas adjacent thereto;
2. The presence of significant agricultural lands or
significant forestal lands within the district and in
areas adjacent thereto that are not now in active
agricultural or forestal production;
3. The nature and extent of land uses other than active
farming or forestry within the district and in areas
adjacent thereto;
4. Local developmental patterns and needs;
5. The Comprehensive Plan and, if applicable, the zoning
regulations;
6. The environmental benefits of retaining the lands in
the district for agricultural and forestal uses; and
7. Any other matter which may be relevant.
Effects of a District:
1. The proposed district provides a community benefit by
conserving and protecting open sp~ce resources such as
forests, farmlands, stream valleys, wildlife habitat,
cultural and aesthetic resources.
4
I
2. The landowner receives certain tax benefits*, and
restrictions on public utilities and government action
(such as land acquisition) to protect the .
agricultural/forestal use of the land. In exchange,
the landowner agrees to not develop his property to a
"more intensive use" during the specified number of
years the district is in effect.
* Since Albemarle County currently permits all types of use
value assessment, a district designation may not provide any
additional real estate tax reductions. Land in a district
is protected from special utility assessments or taxes.
3. Future land use decisions must recognize the
agricultural/forestal district. The district may have
no effect on adjacent development by right, but could
affect proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit
which are determined to be in conflict with the
adjacent agricultural/forestal uses.
4. In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on
land use. The property owners in the district are
making a statement that they do not intend to develop
their property in the near future, and that they would
like the area to remain in the agricultural and
forestal uses. Adjacent property owners may be
encouraged to continue agricultural uses if they do not
anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Location: The proposed addition is located in the Carter's
Mountain area on Route 795, Route 727, Route 627 and Route
20.
Acreaae: The proposed addition contains 4,625.885 acres in
32 parcels. The existing district contains 996.05 acres.
Time Period: The proposed time period is the same as for
the original district, or ten years from April 20, 1988.
Aaricultural and Forestal Sianificance: Land in the
proposed addition is being used for agriculture (grassland,
crops) and forestry.
sianificant Land not in Aaricu1tural/Forestal production:
The use value assessment program is a good indicator of the
actual use of the properties. Ten of the 32 parcels
(103.889 acres) are not enrolled in the program. 1,375.994
acres are enrolled under agriculture; 3,118.002 acres are
enrolled under forestry; 28 acres are non-qualifying due to
dwellings.
Land Uses Other Than Aaricuitural/Forestry: There are 32
dwellings in the proposed addition.
5
I
Local Developmental Patterns and Needs:
of large farms and scattered dwellings.
for enrollment in a district.
This area consists
It is well suited
Comprehensive Plan and Zoninq Regulations: This area is
located in Rural Area IV in the Comprehensive Plan, and is
zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Growth Area is the Urban
Area, a distance of about one mile west. Preservation of
agricultural/forestal resources in the Rural Areas is a
major goal of the Plan. The Open Space Plan shows most of
this area to have important farmland and forestal soils.
The floodplains of Massey Creek, Lee Jones Creek, Slate
Quarry Creek and Murphy Creek are within the proposed
addition as well as is Carter's Mountain. The proposed
addition includes two National Register properties, Morven
(91-21) and Blenheim (103-10B). Two other National Register
properties lie adjacent to the addition: Ash Lawn and
Redlands. Rt. 20 is a County Scenic Highway, VA Byway, and
a designated Entrance Corridor.
~
Environmental Benefits: Environmental benefits include
protection of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat,
critical slopes, the historic landscape, and open space.
staff Comment: Staff recommends approval of the addition as
proposed.
Advisorv Committee Recommendation The Advisory Committee at
its meeting on July 27, 1992, recommended unanimously to
approve the Addition to Lanark Agricultural/Forestal
District as proposed.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Albemarle County
Planning Commission at its meeting on August 18, 1992,
recommended unanimously to approve the Addition to
Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District as proposed.
.
6
I
LANARK ADDITION
AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
Note: Parcels marked with an asterisk are not currently enrolled
in the use value assessment program.
Tax Map/ Acreage/
Parcel Total Acreage Owner Dwellings
*90B-11 combinedlr 15.260 JWK Properties 0
*90B-12 JWK Properties 0
*90B-13 JWK Properties 0
(inactive parcels)
91-21 97.194 JWK Properties 3
91-21A 823.676 JWK Properties 4
91-21B 381.110 JWK Properties 6
91-31 488.500 JWK Properties 1
92 - 64 378.912 JWK Properties 0
92 - 64A 672.795 JWK Properties 3
102-33 43.545 JWK Properties 0
102-35B 61. 950 JWK Properties 0
102-37 78.125 JWK Properties 1
102-40 174.010 JWK Properties 3
*102-40A 10.042 JWK Properties 1
102-40B 9.120 JWK Properties 0
103-1B 173.040 JWK Properties 0
*103-1C 1.420 JWK Properties 1
103-1D 7.180 JWK Properties 1
103-1E 326.630 JWK Properties 0
103-1F 3.010 JWK Properties 1
*103-1G 4.140 JWK Properties 0
103-1H 10.820 JWK Properties 0
I
103-1 144.270 JWK Properties 0
103-3 123. 116 JWK Properties 0
*103-5 36.952 JWK Properties 0
*103-9 12.722 JWK Properties 0
103-10 238.488 JWK Properties 1
103-10A 22.753 JWK Properties 0
103-10B 9.852 JWK Properties 2
*103-10C 12.681 JWK Properties 0
*103-100 10.672 JWK Properties 1
103-43 253.900 JWK Properties 1
TOTAL DWELLINGS 32
TOTAL ACREAGE 4625.885
I
.' '. >.' ~" ,^~u;"";'X.,, ~\l ''-/ . )~Y'-+:" A~~.,.,;~
(' ,. ',;.'~:....:. "\ i" \\ '- I., I \" \ \ ~ r~ ....
I.. f" \ \ ' , , I , "'" " '~
. -- ,.' ;I..~' - -v I ')""'X \./ /' ) + +--,,":1' (:;;;&'~ '" k,
( -. r- \l'- \ .......... ..l.....+-I ~ ..I....h
) , , · I) ,', ~ ,/ / '~;<'''~/-1 . .. \.. 0'1' --+-if
( y/ ( '.' ..", ," \ l, ";;-~ ').,1, ',;." ^' LA"',) ~/ 'rlx'0
~ u, ., '-'" "I '" 11111. "- " ' .(
. .::- '_"~';"'r-. j'\c", \ I' &1117 T (/. "\ ,_' ) :Z I '"
t"'""" J)(:~,,2: / /~~~~;;?~/~ >~ ,,~_ f~-/
~"--,LI";-1T~ )~- I", "'X":;;:0~~.#d~~~;:l..':^ #'~
/--., ....;" -::::ii-- "iL/:;: y, I/; 'I II I /'1 "'l o/,,'(J.r ; 1~ . -0
~*~ ,. /; ~.;;-/1.k~/II? '7f!!~ ~~~;I&0.r;:~
/ ?~ '" ,J/!j///; I(j filii '>17!/1f l/iIi'l iJ.~ ~ M~ ~'-f-. -,<:/' \
/ - ,\, '~~. (~~--"';7"u '/;;11///1 '/. 1'/~~/~~l"fW. W&~'i/l/ ~ ! >'\>
/,- I ,,:, '-.,J (/II//. " rll/Y6'u/lI/J ""< '/,:'i 1 I_~
'?f' "'~ ,\"., ) \i II/Iu '" ~ 'aWII f/f', ~/'I ~ ~U;/ 0{'< -'pJ..
1/ · '111 "\ ( \, '//~, 'de '" '2 1171~1l ~ r ~
/ - "'l/~ ~ ' {y '-, ' '~ 'f! '''-'''1. /IJ/;/;:; . v /II If Ii '(/' Y " I
. \;\ .. .. ~~ 0l/ ~- ~ ,.,:..~~.1:!l;~ II '~ -\ / k
" . :;:/1 ~'V' ~I~/ ~~ i<',.,:~::~..~~. ;~:N'~{tlJ.l'\. , \.,' v'..) .J
~ I ~\,"-"\~.... ,V \ ^).. "--,
f \~ '1 .' Y' V// ~ .-J ./) \ / x
~;.- '~/III, " c ~ ' ".:di 'F'-"('~' 'J ^"
. F-'-~ -'( m \ I) /A /;// ' ~/-:. ,,- 1~":?-"~51-:+- ~.'~"- '\-\
\' " '", m ,:1, . , '''''(I 11/'/'._ .. ,.1. .?i: .. : I X~ / f-.._ -(
-=--./ ~ ~, /I 'l, . / J Y I Oi!:" ,,' ( . ~'" ~,
<b~ I ---..., . ?" " "'~",,, ,-t '. ">(J _____ '-----...........,(\
' "... ",,,- " ~ . T
,
/',,, . -+- '. - 'II;;;' ....
"">- '- ' 0, \,- - \ ~ ~,.... .'-~~ - 1/" ( - oi'~;J .; AIF DISTRI~T '-___~,
.. " -I \ '\ '\ ", . 'Ioj ~.~. , . . {J!j.~~~.~~ :"', ~~/ "', b _""
y ", " \ \ )i);,1 ~~ 1JJrJ .~. '-. D~ .. :.>~":;,.... '-~'" /..$
, ..' ( \ AlIIII II -- '-....."-.:' ".~'''- ''-E.~. .:r ,," /---/ ..) <.~.-./ H
" " 1<" ''-'''' " , , ". /' ./C'/" '. !
. /' ./ '." ,,'" '"' ,.. ~ )
'\. ", ~ M'....~ ~u ~,.-..:..""_ .~. 1-- ...--:'" .1'\ .,.;~~~.:' -. ~;~.:~ 1'----..
.. \ ,,\ t.. t . . ~;~. 1, ~ ',,-- \. "II'~ "~"-....'ll p. 'i.~. _/ . (''\' ~~. ~...,"> ~ ~... 1-, ._
." " , " IIIlI)" " ;A )-.' ';t""~ A
\." \\.. ~ s.:~" 'V, "'+~i . ~ -' A>'C';" -l'tv \.,\;:(.;::-, _____
I .. JIA~ '<^ / 1),.' ~~. 'z h ..l--~ . "''1'' ,
;< , "'~~ ','I , .:<J'/-;, \\" ,/ , \ "'''~'>- ;.' . "X
). ) . -...--: --- III ?l71CrO' :x~.. . .\.-\,,,\.. f,_._,_.._ ._._.~' /' -7;.1::>,.. .,
I .r--~ - ~/I//I/I/'L,,~ f....,\\. '. ~.I\ ,T .x-" .~.' ~' ,,~',,'d:: ':'..'
:~,~. .. "lo./'I/II'~./ '....\X\j\ 'kt,.V"., -~.'~~'oII(<)";"
r-r'-"C'-'"'i~A",- ~ /- ." ~. ',J-" ", .."'. '.'.~' ,~...";,,,~~,~, ,";I.\!;~~..,.,
^,-.,.--, ~ -<, / --\-- ,. . ~ , ... ,... . """ ....:,. -,,,. "
J. c<:< \~ ....... .... 1\ .,: ~ .... ........,.<<-",., r' '-'r;--t:;p.. .. ') , T ~'~_:.'--;<, J..,..,t.:.;'(;'15J;~.?,;&..~L<'hiY. .!-:.::;~~
\ - . U I ~,,".,Y, ~1( -- , \' x.' ", -;of.,:. ,,:,.'i[":3.r":-'''::'''>(..~' e,..;.",;
, . - -." .. I ":? ~ \ 1.-' v' , . ,. >
;J;-,~" ... ;, ~.. . :.-.....-x. '--'s:t'~ ......." I .
~.,..,. y('" :.. ' .. '" ,,~~..,.... r +- ..
. L';,,-;:.- z... ... .
"-. ~
P' I
'5~1
~Et>~"~~. :?~,
\'"
:Y.
...
-
I
Advisory Committee Minutes - July 27, 1992
The Chairman, Stephen Murray, called the meeting to order at 7:37
p.m. Other members present were: Joe Jones, Jacquelyn Huckle,
Bruce Hogue, Walter Perkins, and Bruce Woodzell. Absent were:
Corwith Davis, Lindsay Dorrier, Marcia Joseph, and W.D. Maupin.
Staff members present were: Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner and
Gordon Yager, District Conservationist, Soil Conservation
Service.
Members noted changes to the address/phone list.
The Chairman asked Ms. Scala to present the staff report. Ms.
Scala read the Addition to Totier Creek report. The Chairman
asked Mr. Yager to present the soils report on Totier Creek
Addition. Mr. Yager noted that 38% of the soils are Class II, an
unusually high percentage- of good agricultural soils.
Ms. Huckle asked what is the agricultural use of the land?
Mr. Yager responded that the majority is grassland or woodland.
He guessed that about 75 acres are in crops. Corn is planted in
the floodplain and some uplands area.
The Chairman asked if there are only cattle on the farm, and if
they have a conservation plan.
Mr. Yager replied yes to both questions. He said they had put in
a lot of water tanks. Yager digressed on the subject of
cropland. He said they would be hard pressed to find as much as
4,000 acres of cultivated cropland in Albemarle. He said most of
the land is in grass.
Ms. Huckle said that public education is needed. She gave an
example of a person at a meeting who did not realize that
grassland is considered agriculture.
Mr. Jones asked about the old railroad grade traversing the farm.
Mr. Woodzell said you could hardly tell it is there. He thought
it was an easement which had reverted back to the property owner.
He said it is 30-40 feet wide.
Ms. Scala asked Mr. Woodzell to check into the ownership since an
adjacent owner, Thomas Forrer, had raised a question about it.
Mr. Perkins added that the rail had been used to carry pulp wood
from Esmont years ago.
Mr~ Hogue noted that this would be a nice addition to the
district.
I
Ms. Huckle moved for approval of the proposed addition.
Mr. Hogue seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Chairman asked Ms. Scala to present the Addition to Lanark
report.
Ms. Huckle questioned the three subdivision lots being included
from Marshall Manor.
MS. Scala said the lots total about 15 acres, had been purchased
py Mr. Kluge and combined. The lots are not built on, and are on
the wooded slopes of Carter's Mountain.
The Chairman asked Mr. Yager for his soils report.
Mr. Yager said there is not as much good farmland here, yet there
is a band of excellent Davidson soil. Some of the best hardwood
aites in this area are on Carter's Mountain. The majority of the
addition is in grass and woodlands, with a few crops. He noted
the tremendous deer population on Carter's Mountain.
The Chairman asked about the large lake, the road and how much
acreage Mr. Kluge owns, and his future plans for the property.
Mr. Woodzell said 10,000 to 12,000 acres.
Mr. Yager said he is using a lot of land for agricultural
purposes, including cattle and sheep.
Mr Hogue said he does
pattIe embryos, etc.
plans for the future.
and bought more land.
district.
experimental work with different grasses,
He said joining this district indicated his
He wished Mr. Kluge had come here sooner,
He said this area is ideal to have in a
Mr. Jones said that he felt Mr. Kluge was environmentally
concerned, planting trees in old fields, etc.
Mr. Yager said he went to Enniscorthy to offer advice on a swamp
which Mr. Kluge considered draining. He suggested fencing the
swamp and leaving it alone. So Mr. Kluge had a fence put up
around this 40-50 acre swamp. He said it would probably be
considered a wetland area.
Mr. Jones made a motion to approve the proposed addition.
Mr. Hogue seconded.
~he motion passed unanimously.
II
~r. Jones noted that a forester, Dave Tice, told him that the
~eer on Carter's Mountain were making paths that could lead to
~rosion.
~he meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
~
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, Albemarle County
J. Gordon Yager, District Conservationist, SCS
Soils Report on Agricultural/Forestal Districts
Addition to Lanark
July 27, 1992
pils are classified into eight capability classes with Class I
sing the best and Class VIII having the most limitations for
~ricultural uses. The following table gives a breakdown of
~pability Classes for the district.
Cap,ability Class
II
III
IV
VI
VII
21%
19%
20%
19%
22%
he following table gives the percentage of the district that is
uitable for cropland, hayland, pasture and forestry.
Suitable
for
Cropland
Suitable
for
Grassland
& Forestry
Suitable
for
Forestry
40%
79%
100%
large percentage ~f this addition to the Lanark District is
~itable for grassland and agricultural uses. The mountain areas
n this District offer some of the best hardwood soils in the
bunty.
The So~ Conservation Service
IS an agency 0' the
Oepartment of AgriCulture
8-18-92
2
Addition to Lanark Aqricultural/Forestal District - Consists
of 32 parcels totalling 4,625.885 acres located in the
Carter's Mountain area on Rt. 795, Rt. 727, Rt. 627, and Rt.
20. The addition must be reviewed with the original
district, which has a time period of 10 years from April 20,
1988. The existing Lanark District contains 996.05 acres.
Ms. Scala presented a brief staff report.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the
Addition to the Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The
motion passed unanimously.
~: ".. .9 -11- q ;:L __~.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
i'
\
'ugust 19, 1992
ayne and Hodous
'TTN: Fred Payne
412 East Jefferson st
~harlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Addition to Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District
Addition to Totier Agricultural/Forestal District
Dear Mr. Payne:
~he Albemarle County Planning commission, at its meeting on
August 18, 1992, unanimously recommmended approval of the above-
!noted agricultural/forestal districts to the Albemarle County
iBoard of Supervisors.
iPlease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of supervisors
!will review this petition and receive public comment at their
imeeting on September 16, 1992.. Any new or additional
iinformation regarding your application must be submitted to the
,Clerk of the Board of supervisors at least seven days prior to
your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-
noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
sincerely,
~~
~ary qg ~cala
Senior Planner
, MJS/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
to
;\,....\. '.
UI..~,ntl;jtC'~ lJ
i\~'C.;lC!,~
. _ ~-I/-q2-
{.} -, ,-
--J,?-~f??Z(~~?~~ v
:-j-.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dep1- of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296,5823
Au ust 5, 1992
~
pi ehurst Development Group
10 5 Locust Avenue
Ch rlottesville, VA 22901
.'
RE Brook Ridge Preliminary Plat
Tax Map 32, Parcel 29N
r Sir:
Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
ust 4, 1992, unanimously approved the above-noted preliminary
t. Please note that this approval is subject to the following
ditions:
1.
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the
final plat until tentative approvals for the following
conditions have been obtained. The final plat shall not be
signed until the following conditions have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit;
c. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
9. Department of Engineering approval of storrnwater
detention plans and calculations;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road
and drainage plans and calculations;
f. Fire Officer approval of hydrant locations;
.
.
pi
pa
Au
Development Group
1992
g.
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water
and sewer plans;
h.
Staff approval of open space easements documents, to
include access to the open space;
i.
Note area reserved for access to Tax Map 32, Parcel 33;
2. Staff approval of the final plat.
ase be advised that preliminary plat approval is valid for six
months. Failure to submit a final plat to the Department of
nning & Community Development within that time will render the
liminary approval null and void.
order to expedite completion of the above noted items, please
e the appropriate agency or department notify the Department
o Planning & Community Development, in writing, that the
a plicable condition has been met.
..'
I you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-'
n ted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
S'ncerely,
!I
~n/~
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
Tom Gale
.'
,,;
r" t .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DepL af Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
August 21, 1992
Pinehurst Development Group
1005 Locust Avenue
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: Brook Ridge Preliminary Plat
..
Dear Sirs:
This letter is to notify you that an adjacent owner has
appealed the Albemarle County Planning Commission decision
of August 4, 1992 to the Board of Supervisors. Therefore,
this preliminary plat has been scheduled to be reviewed by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at their meeting
on September 16, 1992. The meeting will be held at 7:00
p.m., Meeting Room #7, Second Floor, County Office Building.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
J ./
. // . ~/
2 /../ /' . /J 0/.-
/' tV ~-t:~_ - ?/ >?-/
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: ~m or Marilynn Gale
\,/Lettie E. Neher
..
August 14, 1992
Bo rd of County Supervisors
40 McIntire Road
Ch rlottesville, Va 22901
Ge tlemen:
I would like to note an appeal of the decision of the Planning
Co ission on August 4, 1992, of the Brookridge Subdivision plat,
fo the following reasons. Concerns about:
Recreational area
Sidewalks
Traffic congestion which will be created
Drainage areas
Sincere~~
Rl!:lake
Trustee, Maple Grove
Christian Church
J.~ I
/ / .~;,~
/. i ,-)
"-
,'"", .)
"1/</
/j
I\~~./_:_" i -,'- i
,
I
v'. I It
lc
, J:-- '~
, -
,
_,";l ----- "
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
AUGUST 4, 1992
;,
f,r:
, 0
, '
SUB-92-097 BROOK RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to divide 9.9 acres
into 28 lots with an average lot size of 9,600 square feet
and with 2.22 acres of open space. Access will be to
Proffit Road (Route 649) over a new public road.
Reason for planning commission Review: Preliminary plat
requiring Planning Commission approval.
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 29N, is
located on the south side of Proffit Road (Route 649)
approximately 750 feet west of Timberwood Parkway in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned R-I0,
Residential [proffered] and is located in a designated
growth area (Community of Hollymead recommended for High
Density Residential).
STAFF coMMENT:
This site was rezoned by the Board of supervisors on January
22, 1992. The plat reflects the proffers of that rezoning.
Access to adjacent properties has been provided to adjacent
properties where reasonably practical due to topography and
design considerations. The plat has been revised in
accordance with the Site Review committee comments. No
waivers or modifications are requested or necessary. Staff
opinion is that the plat complies with the requirements of
the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and the proffers of
ZMA-91-08 (Attachment C). staff's only concern with this
subdivision is the number of small lots proposed resulting
in the underutilization of land zoned for ten (10) dwelling
units per acre. (This request results in a density of 3.6
dwelling units per acre on the 7.68 acres of the site which
is developable.) It should be noted that no ordinance
provisions exist that could prohibit underutilization of
land zoned a given density. Staff recommends approval of
the Brook Ridge Preliminary Plat subject to the following
conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final plat until tentative approvals for the
following conditions have been obtained. The final
plat shall not be signed the following conditions have
been met:
1
. .
I
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit;
c. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
f. Fire Officer approval of hydrant locations;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer plans;
h. staff approval of open space easements documents;
i. Note area reserved for access to Tax Map 32,
Parcel 33;
2. staff approval of the final plat.
History: January 22, 1992 - The Board of Supervisors
rezoned the property from R-1, Residential to R-10,
Residential [Proffered] with ZMA-91-08.
comprehensive Plan Recommendation: This site is located in
the Community of Hollymead and is recommended for High
Density Residential [10.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre].
School Impact: This proposal may result in the following
school impacts:
Hollymead Elementary School - 15 additional students
Jouett Middle School 7 additional students
Albemarle High School 8 additional students
Environmental Conditions: The site is currently wooded.
~he area proposed for development is gently rolling. The
area to be preserved as open space is in critical slopes and
a small stream is also in the open space area. Soils in
this area consist of Elioak Loam and Glenelg Loam. These
are deep and well-drained soils, however, they are very
erosive.
2
Utilities; Fire Protection: The site is served by public
water and sewer. Available fire flow is 1,099 gpm at 20
psi. Required fire flow is 750 gpm at 20 psi.
Stormwater Detention/Runoff Control: The Engineering
Department will review the drainage plans and require
necessary structures to be installed.
Transportation: During review of ZMA-91-08 proffers were
made regarding the widening of Proffit Road and the
provision of area for a bike lane. These areas are noted on
the plat. The plat also indicates future access to adjacent
parcels. The Virginia Department of Transportation and the
Engineering Department will review the road plans.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Proffers of ZMA-91-08
D - Subdivision Plat
3
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
Rl (,61
I
I
f
'- - - --------- - - - - ----- -- - - ------ --- --
JQillJ
rt:"';"~ I.~~' [
o l)
..
660
"-
"-
:-.
,
o
'''~
,
"
I ATTACHMENT AI
c
1\1
c
o
u
EARL YSVILLE AREA
'OUR "MES MAP SCAlE
CK
TN
"_It."on 510'.
o~
"'11\1
GC
~\.......,,~
/.::,~c,
. /~d . C'
"'~~ 0,.
....Ov \ V I
.,,-<-
~
0"
~
,
\
\
,,,
..:::,
o
"
!~
f818]
ALBEMARLE
20
COUNTy
I ATTACHMENT B I
31
10
\
\
""
\
,0C
'00
'0'
lOr.
'0"
101
,0'
10L
Brook
SCAL[ IN ~~~t
4G
RIVANNA DISTRiCT
SECTION
32
I ATTACHMENT C I
---
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DepL of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
C harlatt8sville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 2965823
January 27, 1992
Nellie L. Moubry
809 Monticello Avenue
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA-91-08 Nellie Moubry
Tax Map 32, Parcel 29N
Dear Ms. Moubry:
The Albemarle County Board of supervisors, at its meeting on
January 22, 1992, approved the above-noted request to rezone
9.9 acres from R-1 to R-10. Property located on the south
side of Rt. 649 approximately 750 feet west of Timberwood
Parkway. Please note that this approval is subject to
proffers 1, 3, and 4 as set out in letter dated November
22, 1991 from Ms. Marilynn R. Gale, L.S., Roudabush, Gale
and Associates, Inc., addressed to Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior
Planner, Albemarle County Planning Department; and subject
to proffer as set out in the letter dated December 9, 1991
from Ms. Marilynn R. Gale, L.S., Roudabush, Gale &
Associates, Inc., addressed to Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior
Planner Albemarle County Planning Department, as follows:
1. The applicant agrees that any plan submitted for review
to the County after rezoning will honor a minimum 50
foot building setback buffer (utility construction is
not restricted) from the existing drainage swale at the
rear of Parcel 29Ni the buffer will exceed 50 feet from
the point where contour 498 leaves the 50 foot buffer,
and follow contour 498 to the western property line, in
order to protect critical slopes in the buffer area. A
topographic and boundary sketch dated November 22, 1991
is attached for visual clarification.
2. The applicant agrees that any plan submitted to the
County after rezoning will include areas reserved for
construction of connecting internal roads with 50 foot
rights-of-way to adjacent properties, with the
.
r"
Nellie L. Moubry
Page 2
January 27, 1992
I ATTACHMENT C II Page 2 \
exception of Forest Lakes townhouses, for future access
as the County may deem necessary. The applicant shall
not be obligated for the cost of construction of such
connecting internal roads.
3. The applicant agrees to dedicate a 30 foot strip across
the state Route 649 frontage and reserve an additional
30 foot strip for future road improvements by the
County of Albemarle or Virginia Department of
Transportation.
4. The applicant agrees to reserve up to nine (9) feet
beyond the thirty (30) foot dedication and thirty (30)
foot reservation aforementioned, for construction of a
bike path. The applicant shall not be obligated for
the cost of construction of such bike path.
The applicant's representative agreed that the thirty (30)
foot dedication (Proffer #3) will take place at' such time as
the site plan or subdivision plan is submitted to the
County.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
sincerely,
()~ I
V. Wayne cilimberg (
Director of Planning,_ft, community Development
VWC/jcw
cc: Marilynn Gale
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
VI ~ ~
Ii!
rq,O(fJ~'f.
~~\~
~'7'-o
~-o<J..~
, 0
~~~~
~
,,-- ~
~: g ~
~ ~~;
. ~
~ ~ i;: c.
E:::g;
S~~~g~~
; ~ :~~;:
~a:~;~~
cr :::rC':::I 0
~~a~~~
g. Dl- n:i~
_ lI'I- 0 0
;:; 0; i; ;;- ~
::l..... X
n Ht
a;I ~ ;5VlVlN ~ ~
~~:c~~~ ~~
; m~i~ I,; :
r i !~;..~ ~~~
~ ~;..,:~ ;~:
~ ~ ~;~:~ '<~;
:t :::Ig~:~LI( ;.~
g..._~:: C)~ c.
;~~~: ~~:
; ~~~ ~~ ~ ~
~~~; ~ ~
~ ;nN-"-
.~~~..
'i? ::~ VI
~ ;;;
oog ..
;
_0
III g~
,.
//
....08
\~:~
o (S)~-a
~'b-o~:;
,. ~t,
~C?~
r
C
~
"
<
()
-. z
=i
r<
s::
~
"
~<-?~'1-
~lS! ~~
q.,~f,)
0"-0
~~~
'.oQIS'.
,. .".~
%lP~
<!).
"
'"
c
'tl
~
1>
J)
,.....
n ~~~ r<
0 "',.. Ul
rnz
!.: ~ . . ,.. :J::Z c
~~j!; -<0> ,..,.. CD CD
< rr:'n ~:t:~ JJ 0 II
~.... m n ,..
~i;2~~ ~ :.. r rn ,.. :J:: 0 H \i
'- rn Gl, 0 < a
~~ii~ " n"'" ^ H .
C 00> . < 0
"':0 ... "'Z_ c-< Ul 0
!"6Pln> ~ _ rn . zrnw H .. g ~
< Ie -<J)", JJ 0 ~
~~~~~ , .-<;: I I ,
!J' H Z -;,. = 0 c ~
r'" .
~ < to 0 - r- c ~ ~
~ ~i; _0 ...aZ G) -0 ~-.;. . . n
to J)'" 1TI r (:~ . c ~
ii a to ",en " ~ c J:
'" ...-< J> C1 '"" -' . 0 J:
-I ~ c
zJ) 1".-1 111 : . .
...... -" <.D % m
<.D ~
,..n :-I N 0 Z
-< ~ -i
C
..
___,oft,
\
I ATTACHMENT 0 I
C}~\
~
i Z ~~~.,;,....t\"
~~~\.. ~'
'\,\ (\ ~<:J<:J ~,\
~l~'r;
<;)' i'<:"V'
1-(\
~.!,"""I'.';"""I" Jr. D
. .. ',.". ~.! :': ~
,IlJL 1 3 1992
''', ~'" 'j\'" o-nr
"'~_."\P.\)'~.~~.~J ..t':'I~" .
~
SUBDIVISION PLAT
BROOK RIDGE
T.M.P. 32-29N
RIVANNA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA
IS'
006>(
<9
.,r'
c
,
SCALE 1- = 100'
DATE: JUNE 15, 1992
C' I. = 2'
p
REV JULY 13, 1992
7
ROWA8USH. SALE. AND ASSOCIATES
A PROfESSIONAL CORPORATION
SURVEYORS. PLANNERS. ENGINEERS
91~ MONTICELLO ROAO
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA
1.
lazal'd area,
',..
Edward H, Ba n, JL
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R Marshall. Jr
Scottsville
David p, Bow rman
Charlottesvil e
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
While Hall
August 19, 1992
Mr. Ray Leake
Tr stee
M le Grove Christian Church
R te 2, Box 79
R ckersville, VA 22968
Dear Mr. Leake:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 14,
1992, appealing the decision of the Planning Commission of August 4
o SUB-92-097, Brook Ridge Preliminary Plat. This appeal has been
scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 16,
1992, at 7:00 p.m. The Board meets in Room #7 on the Second Floor
of the County Office Building. If you have any questions, please
d not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
~~
Po~!::~ '"routing request pad 7664
LE :ec
Please
DREAD
o HANDLE
o APPROVE
and
o FORWARD
o RETURN
o KEEP OR DISCARD
o REVIEW WITH ME
ROUTING - REQUEST
T.~~FO
cc: V. Wa~
Rober1
Bill]
Dale
From
II
jSUB-92-097 - Brook. Ridge Preliminary Plat -:,Proposal to
'cFeate 2810'averagi'ng9, 60'0 square ff' .... with 2.22 acres
of open space from a 9.9 acre parcel. }_~perty, described
as Tax Map 32, Parcel 29N, is located on the south side of
Proffit Road (Route 649) approximately 750 feet west of
Timberwood Parkway. Zoned R-10, Residential [Proffered] in
the Rivanna Magisterial Dsitrict. This property is located
in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead,
recommended for High Density Residential) .
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He also distributed
copies of petitions of opposition to the request. Staff
recommended approval, subject to conditions.
~
Referring to staff's concern regarding underutilization of
the land based on it's R-10 zoning, Mr. Blue noted that the
main objection from adjoining property owners and the church
is based on a feeling that the proposal is an overuse of the
land. He asked staff to comment on this dichotomy. Mr.
Fritz responded that he did not recall there having been any
significant opposition during the rezoning process (January,
1992) .
~
Referring to the requests made by the adjoining church in
its letter of July 30, 1992, Mr. Blue noted: "with the
physical limitations of that lot, if you have a la-foot
buffer and place for parking, you either have to eliminate a
lot of lots or it just isn't big enough. Is that right?"
Mr. Fritz responded: "If you put in open space along here
and recreation, yes, to get the same number of lots in less
area you have to condense the size of those lots and make
them samller." Mr. Blue noted: "But you could still do
that under the law. It would make them less desirable from
the selling standpoint, but the density wouldn't be
effected. Is that correct?" Mr. Fritz: "They would still
be within the 10 dwelling units per acre that they are
permitted. Whether or not they would still have realistic
building sites on each lot, I could not speculate." Mr.
Blue: "Probably wouldn't would be my guess." Mr. Cilimberg
added: "You would probably be looking at a different type
development altogether. You may be looking at a higher net
density in the developed area but at the same gross density
you would probably be looking at townhouses." Mr. Blue
.
..
I
8-4-92
10
concluded: "I guess the point I am trying to make, from the
standpoint of adjacent owners, you might end up with a less
attractive development if you do some of the things they're
asking. It's oppressive to me that so many people are
objecting and yet it seems well within the realm of what's
legal." Mr. Cilimberg noted that this proposed development
is lower density than the adjoining Forest Lakes.
Mr. Cilimberg described the history of the rezoning of the
property. He stated: "The features that are shown here
reflect that rezoning, except for the density. So they are
really developing in accordance with the rezoning and what
the Comprehensive Plan has identified for that area." Mr.
Blue added: "And the density is less, yet all the
objections are that it is too dense."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Roudabush. He
pointed out that staff's review found the plan to be in
compliance with all applicable County regulations and
zoning. His comments, answers to Commission questions and
responses to the items listed in the church letter were as
follows:
--The decision has already been made that this is a
proper place for this type of development.
--The development is compatible in size with lots in
adjoining Forest Lakes. The smallest lot width in this
development is approximately 70 feet (vs. 65 feet in Forest
Lakes) .
--The Ordinance requires 2 off-street parking spaces
for each lot and should not be a problem for these lots.
--The development is compatible with adjacent
development in Forest Lakes and future development along Rt.
649.
--This area has been designated for growth by the
County because it has utilities available and the roads are
"reasonably adequate."
--The County has required dedication of land for future
widening of roads (just as the church was required to
dedicate land for widening). Thirty feet is being dedicated
and an additional 30 feet is being reserved, plus nine
additional feet for a bike trail. The developers are doing
all that they can to improve the transportation network,
including the Rt. 649 situation. (He noted that this issue
had also been faced by the church.)
--2.2 acres is being set aside for dedication to the
homeowners (when the homeowners' association is formed) and
that will be used as a passive recreation area and all lots
will have adequate access to that area.
--A la-foot buffer around all sides of the property is
not realistic, "but it is the intention of the applicant to
provide for la-buffers in the restrictive covenants that are
drafted along with the final plat. That buffer will provide
that there be no clearing other than undesirable undergrowth
and smaller vegetation, that larger trees be maintained and
~
t
~
II
8-4-92
11
no grading be done within ten feet of the rear lot lines."
He felt all the adjoining property owners could expect was
that "the common boundary between this project and their
properties have some buffer."
--Dedication of the 2.2 acre common area to the County
is not a workable suggestion because the County does not
want to own small 2-acre parcels throughout the County. It
is in the best interests of the residents and the adjacent
property owners that these areas be owned by the homeowners
association who have a real interest in the area to maintain
them and make sure that they are used for proper purposes.
--Forest Lakes has no sidewalks and no problems have
been encountered. Very little foot traffic is anticipated
within the neighborhood. VDOT will not maintain sidewalks
so maintenance would have to be guaranteed by the County.
--It is anticipated that utilities will be located
along the front of the property and the electricity will
probably be underground.
--The developer will be selling the lots and purchasers
will make the decisions about the type of house. It is
planned that there will be restrictive covenants, but those
have not yet been determined. It is anticipated that the
houses will be "compatible to Forest Lakes."
--There are no critical slopes within the lots, though
there are some in the green space.
~
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons, including neighboring property owners
and members of the Maple Grove Christian Church, addressed
the Commission and expressed their opposition to the
proposal: Mr. Don Donlenger, Mr. Franklin Jones, Mr. Ray
Leake, Mr. Keith Jones, and Ms. Ruth Lucas. (Approximately
15 others--members of the church--showed their opposition to
the proposal by standing when asked to do so by Ms. Lucas.)
Their reasons for opposition included the following:
--Not sufficient room for children play area.
--Devaluation of neighboring properties.
--The original rezoning was a mistake.
--Density too great.
--The lots are so small that they will invite the
development of shacks.
--Emergency vehicles will have difficulty serving the
development because of the narrow streets. (Mr. cilimberg
.,explained later that the final design of the road will have
to meet VDOT standards, including an adequate turnaround
area, in the cuI de sac, for buses.
--Additional traffic on an already overburdened road.
All those who spoke indicated they would not be opposed to
the development if it is similar to Forest Lakes. However,
most were skeptical that that would be the case.
Ms. Huckle asked the owner of the property (Mr. Mowbry) to
describe the type of houses that would be built on the lots.
.
~
1
12
8-4-92
Mr. Mowbry again explained that he would not be building the
houses, but rather was just developing the lots. Mr.
Roudabush explained that at the time the final plat is put
to record, restrictive covenants will be included which may
cover such things as size of dwelling and other items which
are normally addressed through restrictive covenants. In
response to Ms. Huckle's question about type of materials,
pitch of roof, etc, Mr. Roudabush stated: "That is not
something the County normally regulates and is not something
that is submitted as part of submission for approval." Mr.
Mowbry noted that the property has been in his family for
many years and he had "no pes ire to create a ghetto on
Proffit Road, and no desire to do anything but have a very
compatible community to the area out there. We are going to
take care of the area as best we can." Ms. Huckle noted
that the neighbors would feel more comfortable if these
items were addressed in the covenants.
Regarding access to the common area, Mr. Mowbry explained
that an easement will be created, probably somewhere along
the property line, to get to the common area. Mr. Roudabush
expounded: "More than likely, it will come through the stub
street, and then down the property line the shortest
distance across the back of two lots that back up to Mr.
Jones' property."
l\
Mr. Mowbry noted that he had attended the rezoning hearing
and he recalled that only Mr. Keith Jones, of those who are
now objecting, had been present at that meeting.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Blue asked staff to comment on whether not their
professional opinion regarding this proposal had changed as
a result of the public comment. Mr. cilimberg responded
that the concerns noted would have been helpful at the time
of the rezoning. He pointed out that the applicant has
addressed all the requirements of both the zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances. He concluded: "We can say with all
confidence that we have no reservation about the
recommendation as it is before you."
Mr. Blue concluded that the public was not opposed to the
,development of the property, but primarily felt the lots
were too small, making it incompatible with adjacent
properties. He felt it was unfortunate that the public had
not made their concerns known at the time of the rezoning,
though he was uncertain whether staff's recommendation would
have been any different.
Mr. Blue pointed out that the County is currently in the
process of trying to get more affordable housing in the
County and "when you go to larger lots you meet higher land
..
.
I
8-4-92
13
costs. It is the basis of planning to have higher densities
in concentrated areas where the water, sewer and
transportation is availabile. It seems to me unfortunate
now that we are running into areas that are right on the
fringes of the growth area where we are getting into areas
that don't want to be zoned high density, they are already
there, the houses are already there and they would like it
to stay more rural."
Mr. Blue concluded: "The way that staff has (recommended
approval) and the way it has met all the regulations, I find
it hard to see how the Planning Commission could turn it
down."
In response to Mr. Blue's comments, Mr. Bowling explained
that "specific reasons for disapproval have to be set out in
a written document or written on the plan and the reasons
for disapproval 'shall identify deficiencies on the plat
which cause the disapproval by reference to specific newly
adopted ordinances, regulations or policies and shall
generally identify such modifications or corrections as will
permit approval of the plat'."
~
Mr. Blue responded: "And if I understand what you just
read, we don't have that.11 Mr. Bowling replied: "If what
staff says is correct, that they meet all the requirements
of the ordinances, that's a correct statement."
Mr. Blue felt that the Commission had no choice. He stated
that unless he heard some very convincing dissenting views,
he would support the request.
Mr. Johnson indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Blue. He
noted that the minimum lot size for conventional development
under R-IO is 4,356 square feet, and these lots are almost
double that size, some more. He concluded that there was no
reason not to approve the request because it complies with
the zoning Ordinance. However, he added: "But I sure think
it raises a red flag that the zoning Ordinance needs looking
at."
Mr. Grimm felt the reason the property had been zoned to
R-10 was in anticipation of the future development of this
~art of the County and was looking to provide dense housing
;close to the metropolitan Charlottesville area. He
concluded that he would support staff's recommendation.
Ms. Andersen moved that SUB-92-097, Brook Ridge Preliminary
Plat, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
8-4-92
14
'.
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations.
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
f. Fire Officer approval of hydrant locations;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer plans;
h. staff approval of open space easement documents to
include access to the open space.
i. Note area reserved for access to Tax Map 32, Parcel
33.
2 .
staff approval of the final plat.
\
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle stated she would support the motion, but she
stated she was sympathetic to the public concern. She urged
that the public must make their concerns known at the time
the rezoning is being proposed.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Mr. Nitchmann suggested to the applicant: lilt might be nice
to put in a tot lot, somewhere around 23 or 24, for all
those kids. 11
The regular public hearing ended at 9:10 p.m. The meeting
recessed for 10 minutes.
laine Clark
age 2
eptember 11, 1992
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Health,
Virginia state Fire Marshall, or any other local, state
or federal agency.
Maximum enrollment shall not exceed nine (9) students or
such lesser number as may be approved by the Health
Department.
Improve sight distance to virginia Department of
Transportation commercial entrance standards by October 25,
1992.
lease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of supervisors
ill review this petition and receive public comment at their
eeting on September 16, 1992. Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the
Board of supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-
noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
sincerely,
\~
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
RSK/jcw
cc: Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
Lettie E. Neher
st. John's Episcopal Church
I
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 (THURSDAY)
SEPTEMBER 16, 1992
SP-92-53 ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH (owner), ELAINE CLARK
(applicant)
Petition: Elaine Clark petitions the Board of Supervisors to
allow a day care [10.2.2(7)] on 5.35 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 20 and 20B is located
on the north side of Dick Woods Road (Route 637) approximately
800 feet east of Miller School Road (Route 682) in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Character of the Area: This site is developed with a church, one
dwelling, a fellowship hall and a cemetery. There are four
dwellings visible from the church property. The Ivy landfill is
located approximately 0.2 miles to the east.
APplicant's Proposal: The applicant intends to use the existing
fellowship hall as a day care for nine children aged 2 1/2 to 5.
The applicant and one other individual will provide the day care.
The day care will operate from 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon Monday
through Friday from September through May. The facility will be
run with the assistance of the Church, but is not a church day
care.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for
compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and
recommends denial of SP-92-53.
Planninq and Zoninq History: None available. (Staff notes
Elaine Clark was issued SP-81-46 which established a twenty
day care at Crozet Park. That permit is not transferrable.
applicant is not making use of that permit at this time.)
that
child
The
Comprehensive Plan: Staff.believes that, because the day care
will be operating in an existing building on the church site,
that this proposed use is not in conflict with the intent of the
Rural Area. In'addition, there are no other day care centers in
the general area. The Willis day care, Millstone of Ivy, (SP-90-
115 and SP-92-05) is located in Ivy, but is remote from this
site. Millstone of Ivy is approved for a maximum of forty-five
(45) children.
1
I
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
staff opinion is that certain uses such as churches, day care,
and schools contribute to the well-being and moral fiber of the
community. In this posture, staff review is confined to issues
of physical development while other considerations of
appropriateness of the use to a given location is a matter of
legislative discretion.
staff has identified fifteen (15) requests heard by the Board of
Supervisors for day care centers in the Rural Areas since the
adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance. Of these requests, one
(1) was the reapproval of an expired permit and one (1) was an
amendment to increase the number of children allowed by a
previous permit. Of the remaining thirteen (13), requests (all
approved), four (4) involved the use of a new structure and nine
(9) involved the use of existing structures. Past day care
centers approved by the County in the Rural Areas have been for
nine (9) to eighty-three (83) children. Requests by churches
have ranged between ten (10) to eighty-three (83) while other
service providers have been smaller, ranging from nine (9) to
forty-five (45) children.
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section
31.2.4.1 which 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 'of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, that the character of the district will
not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony
with the purpose and intent of 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."
Staff opinion is that due to the existing development the
proposed use will' have a minimal impact on the adjacent
properties and the Rural Areas. Staff has identified one issue
regarding this use which is not consistent with Section 31.2.4.1.
The existing entrance to this site has only 275 feet of sight
distance to the east and 450 feet is required (sight distance to
the west is adequate). No alternative entrance locations exist
which would provide for the minimum necessary sight distance.
Removal of a retaining wall, relocation of at least two grave
sites and substantial grading are required to achieve the minimum
sight distance for the existing entrance. Staff is unable to
2
I
support a request which does not have adequate sight distance due
to the stated purpose and intent of the ordinance with particular
reference to sections
1.4.1
To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of
access and safety from fire, flood and other dangers;
and
To protect against: ...danger and congestion in travel
and transportation
In addition the Zoning Ordinance states in part in Section 32.7.2
"Each development shall be provided with safe and convenient
ingress from and egress to one (1) or more public roads."
1.4.6
Staff has historically not supported a reduction of sight
distance, a matter of public safety. Based on the lack of
suitable entrance location, staff recommends denial of SP-92-53
Elaine Clark. Should the Board of supervisors choose to approve
this request, staff offers the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without any required
licenses. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator
a copy of any required licenses (or proof of exemption
from licensure) and all renewals thereafter and to
notify the Zoning Administrator of any license
expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3)
days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by
the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with
the provisions of this ordinance; and
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Health,
Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state
or federal agency.
3
I
2. Maximum enrollment shall not exceed nine (9) students or
such lesser number as may be approved by the Health
Department.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Virginia Department of Transportation Comment
4
MOUlllfll.1F
'. \'
\.'- .
..\.' '. "
," ... 668
~,6-,1j [@ "
"
~
~
<
o
i:::
.~
~
',J.'
'''0
:6- ~; )
I ATTACHMENT AI
;1
'""
d
"
'"
u
"
'"
u.
@l] 1673!
" ,~'t'
J.....
'"
~
"
'"
'"
:;?
'"
q'
Q.
v
hlJ~'-~"
- - ,?,/
lS4i
--
~
.::,
J:'
b
Q
<-
~
4J
J:'
'"
'l-..... ~_:J ',.~l
~1- j
o
v
\,
"
MOUN1A'N
...
'i.\.:oO'J'l
'"
c}'?
'00
~.~
-::>
o
lJ'
o
"t-
('
o
\
l
l "",>,
.
\
I
'-,
'>>~
~~..~.,
~":,,
c..
-1-
u""
..
~
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
I ATTACHMENT B
t
3ZA
~
Z8
'~
\ )(
J--, / ,0C
\..~~
/300
AL8EMARLE COUNTY
LANDFILL
''J(
(
/
~\
t
".
~~
. ~----/\
Z6 Z~~
l .
. ~,)--
"J _ J ~...... -~
-.- ?~,--..... X
~'.,~~ .../ ~\
f-..;; -..... " /\.
2 tPi..- "/ -
/ · '~, ( \\ Z~)
~ ~ ~
. >;\,,~-\
Z4 ~ \\ )
~..
~-
,II
~1I11
'11
~-
~'1I11
~-II
'\-
;,-
~
~
\ 43
~
'"
~
87
SCALE IN FEET
SAMUEL MILLER AND WHITE HALL
DISTRICTS
SECTION 13
... HMDWA"[ IIG tCUL TURAL a 'OIl($T,AL DISTRICT
I
,,~~,,:'?,c<:':~~.:
<tr"'I..'.1I.~1~/;'-:"~
tf,r', ' '<'),
~: , ..~....,l.':)! l}~
e~A~~t\ ,'1
~ ~,., < 'rf-C i ~ ;:f<
V."'~~id.(',;>;", ,(:~
:J.:.'i,C'..r....~1>..7_:,...~ ';11
'~~ty;f.
I ATTACHMENT C I
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D, ETHTEL
COMMI SIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
POBOX 671
CULPEPER. 22701
20 July 1992
THOMAS F, FARLEY
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
September Public Hearings
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Keeler:
The Department offers the following comments on the submitted
rezonings and special use permits:
Allen and Edna Dunbar (SP-92-51) The existing private road
entrance onto Route 631 lacks sufficient sight distance due to
horizontal and vertical alignment. In addition, it appears that
this roadway is on a twenty foot easement, which is too narrow for
a commercial entrance.
~
st. John's Episcopal Church (SP-92-53) The existing entrance to
the church has sufficient sight distance to the west on Route 637,
but has only 270' to the east. To obtain suff icient sight
distance, the stone wall and some grave markers may have to be
removed or relocated. In addition, the existing entrance does not
meet current design standards.
Adventure Bound (SP-92-54) Please refer to Jeff Echol's earlier
comments on this proposed special use permit.
I hope you find the above useful. If you have any questions or
concerns, please call me at (703) 829-7555.
Sin~erelY, I
I !' (
, I
/
~,
/'
,{ /
11"/ . \,I
I ), c---
fR. W. Hofrichter
!Transportation Engineer
~--
cc: A. G. Tucker
.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
St. john-fhe-Baptist
Eoi5copal Church
....,0. Dox 351
Ivy. Virginia 22945
(804) 977-5064
The Reverend Dale K. Brudvli
7 september 92
Mr. Ron S.Keeler
Z ning Department
A bemarle County,
V rginia
ar Sir,
We have reviewed the report on SP-92-53 regarding the st.
J hn's entranca~ We will take the nece5sary steps to remove the
r taining wall and grade the bank to achieve the desired sight
d stances.
We warn everyone who uses the church; church education
asses, wedding rehearsals and weddings-the church has
tivities that occur on days other than sunday; to carefully
ear the ~oad to the east when they enter back on highway 637.
at condition has existed and warnings given for decades and it
c n be difficult if someone is not careful. ' . At night the
ojection of vehicle lights give greater warning and the
trance less difficult.
The pre-school staff and parents are 50 advised in their
ientation.. The five or six additional cars which will enter
d leave the church each week day should not preclude starting
e pre-school in September while we make necessary steps to
move the wall and grade before our homecoming which is 25
tober. 92.
Thank you for your report. We are
effort because we believe Elaine Clark's
significant contribution tq our community.
willing to make this
Pre-School makes a
)j,
~cerelY Yours
-rv-~ ~~-~
. Dale K. Br;d~i/~~
Vicar
st. John-the-Bapt18t
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Aug st 21, 1992
Ela"ne Clark
Rou e 1, Box 159
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: SP-92-53 St. John's Episcopal Church (owner), Elaine Clark
(applicant)
Dear Ms. Clark:
This letter is to notify you that your above-referenced petition,
has been scheduled for public hearings as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION,
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1992
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1992
Bo h of these meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room
#7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Ch rlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the staff
ort and tentative agenda one week prior to the Planning
ission meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE
you should have any questions or concerns about this petition
schedule, please do not hesitate to contact me."
//' /7 /:::;,:1.---
//?-::"?-,~ // ;;p
liam D. Fritz
ior Planner
WD fmem
cc~.
St.
Lettie E. Neher
John's Episcopal Church
.
9-10-92
PR POSED
1
t.
/
",
SEPTEMBER 10. 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission heldap\lblic
hearing on Thursday, September 10, 1992, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter
Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. william Nitchmann; Mr. Tom.
Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; and Ms. Ellen Andersen. Other ,
officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning,
and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Huckle.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
Mr. Keeler briefly previewed the september 15th Consent
Agenda (Woodcreek Final Plat). Mr. Blue expressed support
for this proposal; however, because of the complicated
nature of the exchange of parcels in relation to the
alignment of the road, he was concerned that it might-be
difficult to accurately mark points of tangent and
curviture. He asked if the County had authority to require
that the surveyors mark not only the corners of the lot, but
also the beginning and end of the curve. He feared there
could be confusion for future owners if this was not done
properly. Staff offered to look into this issue.
[NOTE: At the end of the meeting Mr. Bowling addressed Mr.
Blue's question. He quoted from section 18-55 (n) of the
Subdivision Ordinance: "Monuments set after recording of
plat: No monuments other than the permanent control
monuments required in Sec. 18-39(k) shall be required to be
set before the recording of the plat or the conveyance of
land by reference to plat if the land surveyor includes in
his certification on such plat that any additional monuments
required by this chapter shall be set on or before a
specified later date. ...." section 18-39(k): "Permanent
Monuments: Permanent (control) monuments shall be placed by
the developer in the ground at all corners, and angle
points, in the outher lines of the subdivision, and at all
points of angles and curvatures in the right-of-way lines of
all streets, and at all lot corners within the subdivision.
" He concluded: "So if what you're talking about
constitutes permanent monuments, it appears that they do
have to be set. If they are not set it is a violation of
the Subdivision Ordinance." However, he pointed out that
the County probably does not have the resources to inspect
to see that all the monuments have been set.
Mr. Blue asked that staff convey to the surveyor and
developer his concerns to ensure that the monuments are set
on the points of curviture on the new road.
II
.r
2
9-10-92
SP-92-53 st. John's Episcopal Church (owner). Elaine Clark
(applicant) - Petition to issue a special use permit to
allow a day care [10.2.2(7)) on 5.35 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcels 20 and
20B, is located on the north side of Dick Woods Road (Rt.
637) approximately 800 feet east of Miller School Road:(Rt.
682) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site
is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area
3) .
Mr. Keeler explained that staff had originally recommended
denial of this request based on the inadequacy of the
entrance and the feeling that it would be unlikely that a
day care center of this scale would be able to make the
necessary improvements to the entrance. However, the church
has advised staff that funds have now become available to
make the site distance improvements, so staff's position has
changed to a recommendation for approval subject to three
conditions. (Mr. Keeler suggested the third condition as
follows: "Under VDOT permit, improve the entrance to VDOT
commercial entrance standards with sight distance
improvements to be completed by October 25, 1992.") He
explained that staff was not requiring that the actual
physical construction of the commercial entrance be
completed by that time, but that the sight distance be
achieved.
Mr. Johnson noted that the virginia Department of
Transportation had not commented specifically on the issue
of a commercial entrance. Mr. Grimm felt that the letter
implied that a commercial entrance should be constructed.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Keeler
explained the two types of VDOT entrances. Mr. Nitchmann
questioned whether it was necessary to require any
modifications to the entrance beyond the sight distance
improvements. Mr. Keeler explained that staff generally
follows VDOT's recommendations, and has never recommended
against the sight distance requirement. He recalled a
couple of instances where the Commission had not required
that the entrance be upgraded to the VDOT standard.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Rev. Dale Brudbig addressed the Commission. He explained
that the creation of a commercial entrance would require
negotiations with a neighboring property owner to acquire
additional property. He asked that a commercial entrance
not be required. He noted that the entrance has been in use
since 1890 and the day care use will cause a minimum
increase in traffic (5 cars/day). He agreed that the sight
distance problem needed to be corrected and confirmed that
I'
3
9-10-92
the church was prepared to make those improvements.
Regarding the possible moving of some graves, he felt that
sight distance improvements could be made without disturbing
the graves, but he stated that proper administrative
procedures will be followed if it becomes necessary to move
the graves.
Mr. Johnson asked the applicant if he felt the entrance
would be safe, once the sight distance problem is corrected,
without further improvements to the existing entrance. Rev.
Brudbig did not answer this question definitively. (Later
in the meeting, Ms. Clark, also the applicant, addressed
this question and stated that she felt there would be no
other safety problems with the existing entrance once the
sight distance is achieved.) Rev. Brudbig indicated he was
not aware of any safety problems with the entrance, other
than the lack of adequate sight distance.
There was a brief discussion about additional signage on the
road. Mr. Blue noted that a commercial entrance would not
address safety problems on the road. The applicant stated
that the safety of the road would be improved by widening
and hard surface "all the way to 682." Mr. Johnson
suggested that the applicant write to the local Resident
Engineer (VDOT) to request warning signs on the road. Mr.
Keeler also suggested that the existing international sign,
showing that the road changes from pavement to gravel, be
changed to one saying "Gravel Surface Ahead" and that it be
placed north of the church property.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated he was very familiar with the road. It
was his opinion that the extension of sight distance to the
east would "provide adequate safety for that entrance and
that any additional (improvements) which might be required
would be unnecessary and would be a consideration at such
time in the distant future when they extend paving of that
road."
commissioners Blue and Nitchmann agreed.
Mr. Grimm expressed mixed feelings because of VDOT's
determination that the entrance "does not meet current
design standards." He felt that because a commercial use is
proposed for the property, the entrance should meet
commercial entrance standards.
Mr. Blue noted that improvements beyond sight distance
correction would create an additional expense for the
applicant when no other safety issue has been identified.
He noted that the road itself does not meet current design
standards. He concluded that this was an instance were he
II
9-10-92
4
did not feel compelled to go along with VDOT's
recommendation. He stated he would feel differently if the
recommendation to upgrade the entrance to current design
standards was related to a safety issue.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed. He felt that, based on the lack of
specificity in VDOT's comments, the decision was being: left
to the Commission.
Mr. Johnson asked why the enrollment of the day care was
limited to 9 students. Ms. Clark explained that 10 was all
that state licensing would allow for one teacher, and
because the County's fee was broken down by number of
children, i.e. 6-9, 10+, etc., she had requested 9 children.
Mr. Johnson advised her that she could request an amendment
to the permit at some future time if she wished to expand.
Based on Mr. Blue's comments, Mr. Grimm stated he would
change his position and would not oppose the request.
Mr. Johnson moved that SP-92-53 for st. John's Episcopal
Church, be recommended to the Board of supervisors for
approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with section 5.1.6 of the zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without any required
licenses. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the zoning Administrator a
copy of any required licenses (or proof of exemption from
licensure) and all renewals thereafter and to notify the
zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension,
or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure
to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made
by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this ordinance; and
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing
stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the virginia Department of Health, Virginia
state Fire Marshall, or any other local, state or federal
agency.
2. Maximum enrollment shall not exceed nine (9) students or
such lesser number as may be approved by the Health
Department.
3. Improve sight distance to VDOT commercial entrance
standards by October 25, 1992.
II
9-10-92
5
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Johnson requested that staff look at the "scope of the
Architectural Review Board as far as its application to
major modifications to buildings already in being."
September 22nd Meeting - It was noted that Commissioners
Grimm and Johnson will both be absent from the September 22
meeting. The Commission decided not to cancel the meeting
(provided that a quorum could be established) and that a
temporary chairman be appointed to chair that meeting. Mr.
Jenkins suggested that it might be desirable to defer the
CIP Work Session scheduled for the 22nd, with the decision
about deferral to made at the September 15th work session.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
7:45 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
DB
~i{~~~
/ / //
/ \ ,~ c: )
DATE ;" " / i / '-,
....L!.-A"-- ''-' I / / r.7'--'
eJ / //, ~ .l )
AGENDA ITEM NO. / I . '- "> "',
/ ') ()
( I i' C / / 1
AGENDA ITEM NAME I /'1 ,- / (' 'v / \, ~' ~, ~-<-( t i... (...' C'__n_..--
<,
DEFERRED UNTIL tC " "I -/
\. -" ...,
Form. 3
7/25/86
,
,
I
I
- . . ..
/C~L0{ re c( C; / I (C / c; ?--
8 Jefferson National Bank
~iB> P.O, BOX 711. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 · (804) 972-1100
September 15, 1992
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
RE: East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department
This letter is to confirm that the above referenced organization
has applied for a $200,000 loan to complete the construction of their
new headquarters in the Glenmore subdivision.
Subj ect to our receiving the proper documentation necessary to
for a loan of this type, the loan stands an excellent chance of approval.
This letter does not guarantee approval of this loan, but is only
intended to confirm the status of the request.
Sincerely,
~~
Stephen B. Isaacs
Administrative Officer
And Loan Officer
. -l
JEFFERSON COUNTRY FIRE AND RESCUE ASSOCIATION, INC.
.,
203 RIDGE STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
11 September 1992
Mr. Richard E. Huff, II
Dep ty County Executive
Cou ty of Albemarle '
401 McIntire Road
Cha lottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dea Mr. Huff:
On 9 September 1992, the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue
ciation approved a motion to support a resolution requesting
County of Albemarle to provide up to $200,000 to the East
nna Volunteer Fire Company, through either.a bridge loan or an
nced allocation. The payback time is not to exceed six (6)
hs.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
~~~~i
IAN H.TALIAFERRO
S RETAR~/TREASURER
J.C.F.R.A.
BMG wpg
COUNTY OF ALBEMARle:
'~..~.,.r~1S t'*:g f'" ii_It." ~.,~..".,;",
: f};!- ~/ '
~' SFP 14 1992 . ,
.'
~ ~
. ',to . ~ yr:_t'c. _' '_, ._'''''
\\;;;~r ,,_
EXECUTIVE OFFlga
"Serving Charlottesville - Albemarle Since 1972"
tJ-II-9.2-
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STAFF C
Messrs.
- East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
AGENDA DATE:
September 16, 1992
ITEM NUMBER:
q:/. Dt/( & .5-; 3.
AGENDA
Loan Re
Departm
ACTION:---1L-
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Huff
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGRO
East Ri anna Volunteer Fire Department is approximately $200,000 shy of being able to finish
their n w fire station at Glenmore. This amount was to have been realized from the sale of
their 0 d fire station at Keswick. The potential buyer of their old station is now unable
to clos on the sale. On September 9, 1992, a special meeting of the Jefferson Country Fire
and Res ue Association was called at the request of East Rivanna in order to consider a
resolut'on of support to ask the County to try to help East Rivanna so that they won't have
to stop construction and send the contractors home within the next several days. The new
buildin is approximately six weeks from completion.
JCFRA meeting, a unanimous resolution was passed supporting East Rivanna's request
for th County to consider either that an additional $200,000 be put into the Advance
Allocat'on Loan Program (as all current funds are encumbered) or a bridge loan of up to
$200,00 to be considered by the county until bank financing can be secured. A repayment of
not mor than six months was recommended on either process.
DISCUSS
If the
to be m
associa
repayme
term to
is sold
precede
Advance
ON:
oard considers placement of an additional $200,000 into the Advance Allocation Fund
de available to East Rivanna, this would eliminate the costs to the fire department
ed with bank financing for both interest and "points." It would guarantee a regular
t schedule through their annual allocation from the County if set up for a 15 year
coincide with their original draw of $504,000 from this fund. If their old building
this could be paid off immediately. As a drawback, staff has some concern about the
t that this action could set in dealing with future requests for loans when all
Allocation Funds are encumbered.
rnative of a bridge loan to keep the contractors on site and avoiding remobilization
uld be structured such that draws could be made against the loan for a period of time
until b nk financing could be obtained. This period of time is expected to be approximately
90 days. At the time of this writing, East Rivanna representatives advise that they will
forward a letter of pre-approval from a lending institution prior to the Board meeting on
Septemb r 16.
loan to be repaid from bank loan proceeds removes the County completely from the
ion once permanent financing is in place. It will cost the fire department some
al expense for the period of time it takes to sell their old building.
building has been listed by a real estate agent and is generating some
Both of these alternatives are proposed in an effort to prevent the County from
the position of having to approve a land use change for the old property in order
paid loan proceeds.
I
AGENDA ~ITLE: Loan Request - East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department
Septemb~r 16, 1992
Page 2
RECO
If the
cons ide
Process
92.133
ATION:
Board chooses to make any type of loan, staff recommends that a bridge loan be
ed to alleviate the precedent involved in adding funds to the Advance Allocation
H"::;J! >.;::'
]f~/(-?r:L-
J~. o.io'1.~(i1
1.~I~ ;~..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Develapment
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
EMORANDUM
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning &~COmmunityGluU~
Development
September 11, 1992
Meadow Creek Parkway Information Meeting
".
he Department of Planning & Community Development and Sverdrup
orporation is scheduling a public information meeting for the
eadow Creek Parkway alignment study. This meeting will~cover
eadow Creek Parkway between Rio Road and Rt. 29N, an 'extension
f Meadow Creek from Rt. 29N to Airport '~ad (Rt. 649), and the
onnector roads to Meadow Creek east of Route 29 (the "T"
onnectors). The Board has asked that this meeting be held in
he County Office Building Auditorium and be centered around a
resentation to the Board, Planning Commission and public with
est ions and answers to follow.
here are two possible dates for this meeting which do not
onflict with Board or Planning commission meetings and in which
he Auditorium will be available - October 1 and October 15. The
onsultant prefers October 1 because of their schedule and work
ommitments. I would like confirmation that this date will be
uitable for you. The meeting would begin at 7:00 p.m.
Edward H, Ba n, Jr,
Samuel Mill
David p, Bow rman
Charlottesvill
Charlotte y, umphris
Jack Jouett
S
L :ec
D!':~,!;~ '"
0/-" ,q.2: ...
, - ,"-,,,,,-"',-,' ~- . . -
--
q;2 t O'1I'!;_~.F:.S
,...' \.-.,',...
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(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
Board of Supervisors
CMC jYJ
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk,
September 11, 1992
Reading List for September 16, 1992
_.BowermJl1 ,c4:
- - p.:lg~s.58q( #16J -_end.