Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-03-19
ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of March 19, 2003 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION March 24, 2003 ASSIGNMENT Call to Order. · Meeting was called to ~Order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier. All BOS members present, except Mr. Perkins. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and Ella Carey. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Diantha McKeel, speaking as a private citizen and not representative of the School Board, said she does not think the County will be able to fund its programs if there is not a tax increase at some point, whether this year or next year. There needs to be some new income to support the police, fire and rescue, school system and do all the things this community wants because we are gOing from a.rural county to an urban county. 5.2 Set public hearing on Albemarle County's Annual Plan for Administering Housing Choice Vouchers. · SET public headng for May 7~ 2003 on proposed Annual Plan. 5.3 Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium Consolidated Plan, proposed use of funds. · DESIGNATED owner-occupied housing rehabilitation as the primary use of HOME funds for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003, DESIGNATED the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as the sub recipient of HOME funds, and SUPPORTED using HOME funds ina manner to maximize leverage of other public and private funds. 5.4 Request to participate in 2003-04 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program. · SUPPORTED the County's participation in VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program for FY 2003-04, requesting a total of $500,000 (to be matched with available County CIP funds) for Sunset Avenue improvements, AUTHORIZED Chairman to sign letter notifying VDOT of intent to participate in Program, and SUPPORTED the transfer of previously allocated Revenue Sharing funds ($300,000) for James River Road (Route 726) to Georgetown Road (Route 656). 6. To review proposed projects for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. Proposed activities include a Dry Well Replacement Program and development of a community service facility for the Whitewood Road area. · ADOPTED the attached resolution to apply for $375,100 in Community Development Block Grant funding from DHCD. Such funding would be secured by deed of trust on property to ensure that the community service facility is utilized as proposed for minimum often years with periodic reporting of activities and outcomes to the County's Office of Housing. - 7, ZMA'2002-00'I. Fontaine Avenue Condos (Signs #77&81). · CONTINUED public hearing and DEFERRED ZMA-2002- Clerk: Advertise public hearing. Chief of Housing: Proceed as approved. Planning staff: Proceed as approved. Clerk: Forward resolution to Chief of Housing. (Attachment 1). Chief of Housing: Proceed as approved. Clerk: Schedule for April 16th agenda. 001, by a vote of 5:0, until April 16, 2003. 8. SP-2002-023. White Gables (Sign #56&57). · APPROVED SP-2002-023, by a vote of 5:0, subject to nine conditions. 9. SP-2002-071. Crown ~)rchard Company-Pinnacle Carter's Mountain. APPROVED SP-2002~071, by a vote of 5:0, subject to seven conditions. 10. ZTA-2001-008, Neighborhood Model. · ADOPTED ZTA-2001-008, by a vote of 5:0, and APPROVED the preapplication process as recommended by staff. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · SCHEDULED for public hearing the real estate tax rate at $.76/$100 and the personal property tax rate at $4.28/$100. · CANCELLED the public hearing scheduled on March 26, 2003 on the Mountain Overlay District. Staff to bring back information on recommendations for a committee including staffing. 12. Adjourn. · At 9:05 p.m., the meeting was adjourned until March 27, 2003 . for a public workshop on the Route 29/Hydraulic/Route 250 Bypass Intersections Study. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval in Attachment 2. Clerk: Set out Conditions of approval in Attachment 2. Clerk: Forward adopted ordinance to County Attorney's office for inclusion in next update of County Code. (Attachment 3) Clerk: Advertise for public hearing. Planning staff: Provide information for April 2"d meeting. /ewc Attachment 1 - Resolution - Community Development Block Grant funding Attachment 2 - Planning Conditions of Approval Attachment 3 - ZTA-2001-008 Ordinance Attachment 1 RESOLUTION WHEREAS the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent, affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents; and WHEREAS, the County of AIbemarle is committed to mproving the livability of all neighborhoods and access to supportive services by residents; and WHEREAS, The County of Albemarle is committed to preserving, to the extent possible, all existing affordable housing stock and eliminating blighted conditions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Hearings held January 8, 2003 and March 19, 2003 the County of Albemarle wishes to apply for $375,100 in Community Development Block Grant funds for a Community Service Facility Project for the Whitewood Village Apartments; and WHEREAS, other resources estimated in excess of $9,000,000 including, but not limited to, VHDA loans, Low- Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME funds, Federal Home Loan Bank, Virginia Housing Partnership Fund, the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund, and funds leveraged by the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund will be invested in the project; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the population residing at Whitewood Village Apartments is very-low and extremely-low.income, all receiving rental assistance through project-based vouchers; and WHEREAS, the project-based contract expires March 31,2003; and WHEREAS, the new owners have committed to improving the physical condition of the p~:operty and provide services to current and future tenants; and WHEREAS, the projected benefits of the project include Rehabilitation of 96 affordable rental units benefiting approximately 350 persons, one-third of whom are children; > Construction of a community center; > Provision of services to enhance the livability and improved self-sufficiency of the tenants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for applying for this Virginia Community Development Block Grant application. Attachment 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agenda Item No. 8, SP-2002-023. White Gables (Si.qn #56&57). Public hearing on a request to allow development of maximum of 76 condominium dwelling units in accord w/Sec 23,2.2.9 of the Zoning Ord, TM 60, Ps 26&27A contains 7.097 acs. Loc on N sd of Ivy Rd (Rt 250 W) approx 1/4 mi W of intersec of Ivy Rd & Rt 29/250 By-pass. Znd CO & EC. Samuel Miller Dist. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual-Plan (January 10, 2003 revision) (the "Conceptual Plan") and special permit justification dated April 22, 2002. Modifications to the design of the interior loop road, approved by the Director of Engineering and Public Works to accommodate fire trucks, shall be deemed to be in genera accord with the Conceptual Plan; As shown on the Conceptual Plan, no new structures shall be located in the front (southern) portion of the property. There shall be a minimum distance of two hundred fifteen (215) feet between the southern-most structure and the front (southern) property line; The entrance road shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by'the applicant to an urban road standard from its junction with Route 250 West to the interior loop, and shall include a sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path constructed to a standard acceptable to the Departments of Planning and Community Development and Engineering and Public Works, along one side connecting the interior loop to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road; All roads on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section standard, with a minimum width of twenty (20) feet, final width to be determined at the time of final site plan apprOval by the Director. of Engineering and Public Works. All roads connecting to adjacent properties shall include a sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path along one side, constructed to a standard acceptable to the Departments of Planning and Engineering and Public Works, providing a connection to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road; Upon request by the County, an access easement shall be provided on the property for traffic from the Kappa Sigma property(Tax Map 60, Parcels 27 and 27B) across the White Gables property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. This access shall be constructed by the applicant to the same standard as required in Condition 4; Should a consolidated entrance be located at a point west of the White Gables property inthe future, an access easement shall be provided on the property for traffic from the National Legal Research Group property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 25) across the White Gables property, and this access shall be reserved on the final subdivision plat/site plan. This access shall be constructed by the applicant to the same standard as required in Condition 4. In the event that such consolidated entrance is provided, either the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") or the County's Director of Engineering may require the applicant to close the existing entrance shown on' the Conceptual Plan, convert it to a right in/right out only entrance/exit, or require that other modifications be made to the entrance; Within each pavilion shown on the Conceptual Plan, the largest condominium unit shall be at least thirty (30) percent larger, based on floor area, than the smallest unit within the same pavilion; The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and construction of the entrance to the property, as outlined in its letter of January 28, 2003 (Attachment H). The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of a traffic signal and its installation (the "signal") at the intersection of Route 250 West and an access point serving the property approved by VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering, as provided in this condition. Unless the signal already has been installed, the applicant shall pay to the County the cost of the signal as. follows: (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the fourth pavilion, the applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide other security ("security") acceptable to the County in an amount equal to the cost of the signal (currently estimated to be $140,000), which amount shall be calculated in the year in which the security is provided. The security 4 shall continue so that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit; Security provided that is not in an interest-beanng account shall be annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer'price index; (b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the 'signal, and VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering approve the signal's installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit for the fourth pavilion, the County may demand payment of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay the cost to the County within thirty (30) days; and (c) The County may apply the applicant's security to construction 0fthe access road or other elements of the future transportation improvement project other than the trafficsignal. The applicant shall provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with road improvements to Ivy Road as required by VDOT and the Department of Engineering and Public Works in conjunction with preliminary subdivision/site plan approval. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2002-071. Crown Orchard Company-Pinnacle Carter's Mountain. Public hearing on a request to allow co-location of 2 add'l arrays of 6 antennas at between 60 and 70 ft on existing205-foot tall tower, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TMap 91, P 28 contains 234.165 acs. Znd PA. Loc on Carter's Mountain Trail, approx 1 mi S of intersec w/Thomas Jefferson Parkway (St Rt 53). Scottsville Dist. The tower shall not be increased in height; The two (2) additional arrays of panel antennas may be attached only as follows: a. The highest portions of the panel antennas in the top array shall not exceed seventy-six (76) feet above ground; b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted; none of the antennas shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and c. The antennas subject to this approval may be replaced administratively, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the replacement antennas are in compliance with these conditions of approval and in accordance with the regulations set forth in Section 5,1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance. Al work shall be done in general accord with that described in the applicant's request and site construction plans, entitled "Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations - Pinnacle Carter's Mountain", last revised on November 7, 2002; With the exception of the safety lighting required by Federal Aviation Administration regulations, outdoor lighting shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire that is not required for safety shall be fully shielded as required by Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower; The tower and all supporting facilities shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued; and No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the tower. Attachment 3 ORDINANCE NO. 03-18(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE Ill, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the E~oard of SUpervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Sec. 4.15.11 Sec. 7.0 Sec. 8.1 Sec. 8.2 Sec. 8.3 Sec. 8.4 Sec. 8.5 Sec. 8.5.1 Sec. 8.5.3 Sec. 8.5.4 Sec. 8.5.5 Sec. 8.5.6 Sec. 8.5.6.1 Sec. 8.5.6.2 Sec. 8.5.6.3 Sec. 8 5.6.4 Sec. 8.5.6.5 Sec. 33.4 Sec. 33.5 Definitions - Regulations applicable in the PUD zoning district Establishment of districts Intent Relation of planned development regulations to general zoning, subdivision or other regulations Planned development defined Where permitted Procedures for PD applications Applications, materials to be submitted Preapplication conferences Planning commission recommendations to the board of supervisors Action by board of supervisors Final site development plans and subdivision plats Contents of site development plans: subdivision plats Approval of site development plans: subdivision plats Variations from approved application plans Building permits, grading permits Special provisions applicable to certain PD districts Public notice Report by planning commission to board of supervisors after hearing By Deleting: Sec. 8.5.2 Planning commission procedures By Adding: Sec. 8.6 Sec. 20A. 1 Sec. 20A.2 Sec. 20A.3 Sec. 20A.4 Sec. 20A.5 Sec. 20A.6 Sec. 20A.7 Sec. 20A.8 Sec. 20A.9 Sec. 20A.10 Amendments to planned development districts Purpose and intent Status as a planned development district Application requirements; required documents and information General development plans Codes of development Permitted uses Residential density Mixture of uses Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas Streets Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Definitions Ameni~ An area of activity designed principally for, and accessible to, persons residing or working within a development. Areas of activity may be either indoors or outdoors, including but not limited to swimming pools and=tennis, volleyball and basketball courts. An outdoor area of activity may be a passive or an active area, including but not limited to playgrounds, pedestrian paths through natural areas, courtyards, and paved pedestrian areas for gathering. An indoor area of activity includes, but is not limited to gyms, weight rooms, indoor swimming pools, indoor basketball courts, and other indoor recreational areas. Amenities may be located in required green space and be included in both required green space and amenity calculations. Application plan: The graphic depiction of a proposed development containing the information required by section 8.5.1 (d). Block: An area shown on an application plan or a general development plan that is typically surrounded by streets and.within which land use activities occur. Although blocks usually imply a grid street system, where steep topography exists blocks may exist in non-rectilinear shapes. Code of development: The development standards for a neighborhood model district that include, but are not limited to, uses delineated at the block level, densities, maximum building heights, yards or build-to lines, and architectural and landscape treatments. Conservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains cultural assets or natural__features such as non-tidal wetlands, floodplain, slopes identified .in the open space element of the comprehensive plan, or streams and stream buffers, within which only limited disturbance or development is allowed. Uses allowed in conservation areas include, but are not imited to, utilities, greenways, pedestrian paths, streets, and stormwater management facilities, where, in the opinion of the director of engineering, no other location is reasonably available and when these improvements have the least impact possible on the environmental features of the area. General development plan: An application plan for a proposed development within the neighborhood model district, containing the information required by sections 8.5.1(d) and 20A.4. Green space: An area of land covered in grass or other vegetation or a water feature required by this chapter. Uses in green space may include, but are not limited to, stormwater areas, wooded slopes, graded and revegetated slopes of twenty-five percent (25%) to fifty percent (50%), required yards on both residential and non-residential lots, landscaped areas, landscaped islands in parking lots, and other land coVered in vegetation. Where areas for amenities are vegetated, such as in parks and playgrounds, amenities shall be included in required green space calculations. Non-tidal wetland: A wetland, other than a tidal wetland, that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, in 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(b). Preservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains natural features such as non-tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and stream buffers that are to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmadefeature. 7 Specimen tree: A tree in a mature form that approaches the optimum form and density characteristics for the particular species and variety. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD and NMD zoning districts The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning districts: , Sign Sign Area Sign Height Setback Siqn Tvl~e Number of Signs Allowed (Maximum) (Maximum) (Minimum) 1 or more per establishment; ~24 square feet, 6 feet 5 feet Directory, as authorized by zoning aggregated · administrator 1 per street frontage, or 2 per 24 square feet, entrance, per lot with 100 or more aggregated; if more Freestandin feet of continuous street- frontage than I sign, no 12 feet 5 feet g plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater single sign shall than 4 acres and has more than'l exceed 12 square ~ approved entrance on its frontage feet ' 30 feet, but not to exceed the Not Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet top of the fascia applicable or mansard 24 square feet, SubdiVision 2 per entrance per subdivision aggregated, per 6 feet 5 feet entrance 12 feet, if freestanding sign; 20 feet, if residential wall 1 per street 24 square feet sign or 30 feet if 5 feet . Temporary frontage per establishment .. nonresidential wall sign, but not to exceed the ' ' top of the fascia or mansard 1 square foot per 1 linear foot of · ~ establishment structure frontage, 20 feet, if not to exceed 32 residential wall Same as that Wall ' As calculated pursuant to section square feet if sign or 30 feet if applicable to 4.15.20 residential wall nonresidential structure sign, or 100 square wall~sign feet 'if nonresidential wall sign (12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.4; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; 03-18(2),-3-19-03) State law reference- Va. Code § 15.2-2280. Article III. District Regulations Sec. 7 Establishment of districts For the purposes of this chapter, the umncorporated areas of Albemarle County are hereby divided into the. following districts: Commercial District - C-1 Commercial Office- CO Heavy industry - HI Highway Commercial - HC Light Industry -LI Overlay Districts: Airport Im pact Area - AIA Flood Hazard - FH Natural Resource Extraction - NR Scenic Streams - SS (Amended 9-9-92) Entrance Corridor - EC (Added 10-3-90) Neighborhood Model - NMD Planned Development-Industrial Park - PD-IP Planned Development-Mixed Commercial - PD-MC Planned Development-Shopping Centers - PD-SC Planned Residential Development- PRD Planned Unit Development - PUD Residential - R-1 Residential- R-2 Residential- R-4 Residential- R-6 Residential - R-10 Residential - R-15 Rural Areas - RA Village Residential - VR Sec. 8 Planned development districts - generally Sec. 8.1 Intent The planned development-districts are the Planned Residential Development (PRD), Planned Unit Development (PUD), Neighborhood Model (NMD), Planned Development- Mixed CommerCial (PDMC), Planned Development - Shopping Centers (PDSC), and Planned Development - Industrial Park (PD-IP) zoning districts, Each of these districts is distinct in purpose; however, all are intended to provide for variety and flexibility in design necessary to implement the various goals and objectives set forth n the comprehensive plan. Through a planned development approach, the regulations in section 8 are intended to accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to a greater extent than the regulations of conventional districts. In addition, theSe regulations are intended to promote: economical and efficient land use through unified develOpment; improved levels of amenities; appropriate and harmonious physical development; creative design; and a better environment than generally realized through conventional district regulations. In view of the substantial public advantages of planned development, these regulations are intended to encourage the planned development approach in areas appropriate in terms of location and character. Planned development districts shall be developed: to provide for the comfort and convenience of residents; to facilitate the prOtection of the character of surrounding neighborhoods; and to lessen traffic impacts through a reasonably short travel time between origins and destinations of persons living, working, or visiting in such developments. Housing, commercial and service facilities, and places of employment shall be related either by physical proximity or by adequate street networks so as to promote these objectives. Sec. 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations The regulations in section 8 shall apply to the establishment and regulation of all planned development districts. If any regulation n section 8 or the specific planned development district conflicts with any regulation in sections 4, 5 or 32 of this chapter, an applicant may request that any requirement of sections 4, 5 and 32, or the planned development district regulations be waived or modified if it is found to be inconsistent with planned development design principles. The applicant shall submit its request in writing as part of the application, and shall demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and, in the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification. Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4, 5, or 32 establishing a procedure for considering a waiver or modification, any waiver or modification to a regulation applicable to a planned development shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan. Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined A planned development is a development that meets all of'the following criteria: (1) the land is under unified control and will be planned and developed as a whole;'(2) the development is in general accord with one or more approved application plans; and (3) the development will provide, operate and maintain common areas, facilities and improvements for some or all occupants of the development where these features are appropriate. Sec, 8.4 Where permitted A planned development districts may be established in any development area identified in the comprehensive plan, provided that its location is suitable for the character of the proposed uses and structures. Sec, 8.5 Procedures for planned development applications Sec, 8.5.1 Applications and documents to be submitted Each application for a planned development district shall be submitted as provided for other zoning map amendments. The documents required by Subsections (a) through (e) below shall be submitted with the application. After the alsplication is submitted, the director of planning and community development may request additional plans, maps, studies and reports such as, but not limited to, traffic impact analyses, identification of specimen trees, and reports identifying potential non-tidal wetlands which are deemed reasonably necessary to analyze the application: A regional context map at a scale of not less one (1) inch equal to one thousand (1000) feet showing topography at a maximum of ten (10) foot intervals, surrounding properties, improvements to those properties, surrounding public streets, private, roads, and other thoroughfares; An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan limit showing the location and type of boundary evidence; c. A map showing: ]0 Sec. The following existing physical conditions: streams, wooded areas, potential non-tidal wetlands, slopes in excess of twenty-five (25) percent, historic structures and sites included in. the records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, floodplain, and any identified features in the open space element of the comprehensive plan; Existing topography accurately shown with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet; other interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning and community development where topographic considerations warrant; 3. Existing roads, easements, and utilities; 4. The existing owners and zoning district; The present use of adjoining tracts and the location of structures on adjoining parcels, if any; and 6. The existing location, type and size of ingress and egress to the site; An application plan based on a minimum of two (2) data references for elevations to be used on plans and=profiles showing: The areas to be designated as preservation areas, if appropriate, and areas to be designated as conservation areas, such as streams, wooded areas, specimen trees, non- tidal wetlands, and other significant environmental featureS; 2. The proposed grading/topography with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals; 3. The general location of proposed streets, alleys, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths; 4. Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape; Connections to existing and. proposed streets: as well as proposed thoroughfares shown on the corn prehensive plan; 6. Trip generation figures; 7. The general lay-out for the water and sewer systems, conceptual management, and a conceptual mitigation plan; stormwater The location of central' features or major elements within the develcpment essential to the design of the development, such as major employment areas, parking areas and structures, civic areas, parks, open space, green spaces, amenities and recreation areas; A summary of land uses including dwelling types and densities, and the gross floor areas for commercial and industrial uses; 10. The general lot lay-out; and 11. Standards for development including proposed yards, building heights, open space characteristics, and any landscape or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the district. 8.5.2 Preapplication conferences Each applicant for a planned development shall attend a joint meeting with the planning, engineering, and zoning staff as well-as other qualified officials from outside agencies such as the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Albemarle County Service Authority to review the application plan and the proposed development before the application is submitted. The purpose of the preapplication conference shall be to assist the applicant to assure that the application and the documents to be submitted with the application comply with all applicable'regulations, and to identify as soon as possible conflicting regulations and necessary waivers or modifications. Each applicant is encouraged to use the preapplication conference process to develop an application for a planned development that, when submitted with its supporting documents, will be as complete and comprehensive as possible. Sec. 8.5.3 Review and recommendation by the planning commission Each application for a planned development shall be reviewed by the planning commission as follows: The commission shall consider and make its recommendation to the board of supervisors on each application for a planned development district as it does for other, zoning map amendments. Within the time provided to make a recommendation, the commission may hold work sessions on the application and proceed to a public hearing after it determines that no further work sessions are necessary, or at any time the applicant requests a public hearing. In making its recommendation on the application to the board of supervisors, the commission shall make findings about the following: The suitability of the tract for the proposed planned development in terms of? its relation to all applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to the surrounding area; The relation of the proposed planned development to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services; Each requested waiver or modification, including whether the requirements of section 8.2 are satisified. Depending on the findings it makes, the commission shall either recommend approval of the application as proposed, approval of the application with changes to be made prior to action on the application by the board of supervisors, or disapproval. Sec. 8.5.4 Review and action .by the board of supervisors The board of supervisors shall consider and act on each application fora planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments. If the bOard approves the application, the approving action shall constitute approval of the application plan and all standards for development submitted by the applicant. The board's action shall also identify which proffers it has accepted and which waivers or modifications it has granted. Once an application is approved, the application plan, all submitted standards for development, and all accepted proffers shall be included as part of the zoning regulations applicable to the planned development. Sec. 8.5.5 Final site plans and subdivision plats Sec. 8.5.5.1 Contents of site plans and subdivision plats Each site plan and subdivision plat submitted for development in a planned development shall comply with the following: Generally. Each site plan for a planned development shall comply with section 32 of this chapter, subject to the waiver or modification of any such regulation pursuant to Section 8.5.3(b)(3). Each subdivision plat for a planned development shall comply, with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle, subject to the waiver, variation or substitution of any such regulation pursuant to section 14-237. Within the neighborhood model zoning district. In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a), each site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development within the neighborhood model zoning district shall pertain to a minimum area of one block and shall include a phasing plan, and each site plan shall include building elevations for all new or modified structures. Sec. 8.5.5.2 Review of site plans and subdivision plats Each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations: (1) in effect at the time the lands were zoned to a planned development district; or, (2) at the option of the applicant, currently in effect. In addition, each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the following: The approved application plan, and the approved standards for development, the accepted proffers, and the authorized waivers or modifications and any conditions imposed therewith, if any; The permitted uses within the planned development zoning district, including all proffers, as determined by the zoning administrator after consultation with the director of planning and community development; in making this determination, the zoning administrator shall be guided by section 22.2.1 of this chapter; In addition to the foregoing, conformity with the application plan and the standards of development. Within each neighborhood model zoning district, the. general development plan and the code of develOpment, as determined by the director of planning and community development after consu Itation with the zoning administrator. Sec. 8.5.5.3 Variations from approved plans, codes, and standards of development The director of planning and community development.may allow a site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development to vary from an approved application plan, standard of development and, also, in the case of a neighborhood model district, a general development plan or code of development, as provided herein: The director is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an approved plan, code or standard: 1. Minor variations to yard requirements, maximum structure heights and minimum lot sizes; Changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the plan, provided that the major elements shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same; Changes to phasing plans; Minor changes to landscape or architectural standards; and Minor variations to street design. t3 The applicant shall submit a written request for a variation to the director; the request shall specify the provision of the plan, Code or standard for which the variation is sought, and state the reason for the requested variation; the director may reject, a request that fails to include the required information. The director is authorized to grant a variation upon a determination that the variation: .(1) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development; (3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district; (4) does not 'require a special use permit; and (5) is in general accorG with the purpose and intent of the approved application. d. Any variation not expressly provided for herein may be accomplished by rezoning. Sec. 8.5.5.4 Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits Building permits 'and erosion and sediment control permits may be issued as provided herein: A building permit, including any special footings or foundation permits, may be issued for any work within a planned development, excluding the installation of street s~gns, only after the approval of the final site plan or final subdivision plat in the area in which the permit would apply. An erosion and sediment control permit may be issued for site preparation grading associated with an approved planned development if an erosion and sediment control plan satisfactory to the director of engineering and public works has been submitted and reviewed in conjunction with the application plan, and the director of planning and community development determines the proposed grading is consistent with the approved application plan. In cases where the director finds that there ~s not enough detail on the approved application plan to assure consistency, no erosion and sediment control permit shall be issued until the final site plan is approved, or the final plat is tentatively approved. Within each neighborhood model district, the department of planning and community develepment shal review each building permit application or modification to determine whether the proposed structure conforms with the architectural and landscape standards in the approved code of development. Sec. 8.5.5.5 Site plan and subdivision plat requirements for planned development zoning districts established without an application or application plan If a planned development zoning district was established without an approved application .plan as required by section 8, then neither a site plan nor a subdivision plat shall be approved for any lands within the district unless and until an application plan and all other, documents required by section 8.5 are submitted by the owner and are approved as provided therein. If such a district was previously established in conjunction with an apprOVed site plan the approved site plan shall be deemed to be the application plan, and the district shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of section 8. In such a case, if the site plan or subdivision plat has expired, a new site plan or subdivision plat must be approved prior to any development activity. (Amended 7-16-86) Sec. 8.6 Amendments to planned development districts Each amendment to a planned development district shall be submitted and reviewed as provided in section 8. In addition, with each application to amend the area of the planned development district, or to amend the proffers, the application plan, the general development plan, or the code of development within an area that is less than the entire district, the applicant shall submit a map showing the entire 14 existing planned development district and identifying any area to be added to or deleted from the district, or identifying the area to which the amended proffers, application plan, general development plan, or code of development will apply. Section 20A Neighborhood Model .NMD Sec. 20A. 1 Purpose and intent The purpose of the Neighborhood Model district (hereinafter referred to as the "NMD") is to establish a planned development district in which traditional neighborhood development, as established in the county's Neighborhood Model, will occur. The county's Neighborhood Model was adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Neighborhood Model.' The regulations in section 20A encourage a development form and character that is different from conventional suburban development by providing the folloWing characteristics: Pedestrian orientation; Neighborhood friendly streets and paths; Interconnected streets and transportation networks; Parks and open space as amenities; Neighborhood centers; Buildings and spaces of human scale; Relegated parking; Mixture of uses and use types; Mixture of housing types and affordability; Redevelopment; Site planning that respects terrain; and Clear boundaries with the rural areas. The NMD is intended to provide for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan. The particular uses permitted within a particular district, as well as the character, form and density of the development, shall be derived from the comprehensive plan, including the land use plan for the applicable development area, the master plan for the applicable development area, and the Neighborhood Model. Density shall be achieved with careful attention to design, as articulated in the Neighborhood Model. These regulations are intended to provide an applicant with maximum flexibility in creating and implementing the general development plan and the code of development. Sec. 20A.2 Status as a planned development district An NMD is a planned development district within the meaning of section 8 of this chapter, subject to the following: As a planned development district, the standards for development shall be particular to the district and not be based on standards established for conventional zoning districts or the general standards for commercial or industrial districts in sections 21 and 26, respectively, of this chapter. The standards for development that are submitted by an applicant and approved by the board of supervisors for a particular NMD shall be the district's code of development described in section 20A.5. 15 An application is not necessarily required to possess every characteristic of the Neighborhood Model delineated in section 20A.1 in order to be approved as an NMD. The size of the proposed district, its relationship to a larger neighborhood, or other similar factors may prevent the application from possessing every characteristic. c. An NMD shall have no minimum acreage requirement. Sec. 20A.3 Application requirements; required documents and information The following documents and information shall be submitted in addition to any other documents required to be submitted under section 8.5 of this chapter: A statement describing how the proposed NMD satisfies the intent of the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the applicable goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the land use plan; the master plan for the applicable development area, and the Neighborhood Model; if one or more characteristics of the Neighborhood Model delineated in section 20A. 1 are missing from an application, the applicant shall justify why all of the characteristics cannot or should not be provided; A parking and loading needs study that demonstrates parking needs and requirements and includes strategies for dealing with these needs and requirements, including phasing plans, parking alternatives as provided in section 4.12.8 of this chapter, and transportation demand management strategies as provided in section 4.12.12 of this chapter. Strategies for establishing shared stormwater management facilities, off-site stormwater management facilities, and the proposed phasing of the establishment of stormwater management facilities. A general development plan, as provided in section 20A.4, including all information required by sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the plan. A code of development, as provided in section 20A.5, including all information required by sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the code. Sec. 20A.4 General development plans A general development plan shall serve as the application plan required by section 8.5.1(d) of this chapter. In addition to the application plan requirements of section 8.5.1(d), the following are required elements of the general development plan: The amount of gross square footage devoted to nonresidential uses and a residential equivalent, expressed as the product of the square feet per unit multiplied by the number of dwelling units proposed. If a residential equivalent is not provided by the applicant, it shall be the product of one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet multiplied by the number of dwelling units proposed. The general allocation of uses to each block in terms of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, amenities, parks, recreational facilities open to the public, and any other use category proposed by the applicant and which complies with the requirements of section' 20A.8. The location of proposed green spaces, amenities, conservation areas or preservation areas, as provided in section 20A.9. Building footprints or graphic representations of central features or major elements that are essential to the design of the development, shown at the block level. Sec. 20A. 5 Codes of development A code of development shall establish the unifying design guidelines, the specific regulations for the district, and the use characteristics of each block; provide for certainty in the location of and appearance of central features, and the permitted uses in the district; and provide a flexible range of a mix of uses and densities. To satisfy these requirements, each code of development shall establish: The uses permitted in the district by right and by special use permit, as provided in section 20A.6. The amount of developed square footage proposed, delineated for the entire NMD and by blOck by use, amenity, streets and lot coverage. The developed square footage may be expressed as a proposed range of square footage. The maximum residential densities, as provided in section 20A.7, and the maximum number of residential units for individual residential land use categories and mixed-use categories, delineating at least two (2) housing types, as provided in section 20A.8. The amount of land area devoted to green space and amenities, as provided in section 20A.9. All requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated in paragraph (a). All uses expressly prohibited in the district, so that they may not be considered to be uses accessory to a permitted use. Architectural and landscape standards that will apply in the NMD, which shal following: The form, massing, and proportions of structures; Architectural styles; Materials, colors, and textures; Roof form and pitch; Architectural ornamentation; Fa(;ade treatments, including window and door openings; Landscape treatments; and The preservation of historic structures, sites, and archeological sites identified by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. The range of uses permitted on the block by right and by special use permit; All requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated in paragraph (i)(1); Build-to lines, which are the required distance from the right-of-way to a structure; 17 address the Preliminary lot layout. For each block: 4. Minimum and maximum lot and yard dimensions; 5. Maximum building heights; 6. Sidewalk and pedestrian path locations; 7. Green space and amenities; 8. Conservation areas and preservation areas, if applicable; 9. Parking areas; 10. Civic spaces, which are public areas for community or civic activities (e.g., libraries and their associated yards, schools and places of worship); Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses The following uses shall be permitted in an NMD, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the a ppr0ved general development plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers: a. By right uses. The' following uses are permitted by right: 1. Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district, except for those uses allowed only by special use permit delineated in subsection (b); provided that the use is identified in the approved code of development. 2. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformity with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. 3. Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings. 4. Home occupation, Class A, where the district includes residential uses. 5. Temporary construction uses. 6. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies, public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines~ treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. 7. Tourist lodgings, where the district includes residential uses. 8. Homes for developmentally disabled persons, where the district includes residential uses. b. By special use permit. The following uses are permitted by special use permit: 1. Drive-through windows serving or associated with permitted uses. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a by right permitted use, if any portiOn of the use would be visible from a travelway. Sec. 20A.7 Residential density Residential density within each NMD shall be as follows: The gross residential density should be within the applicable recommended gross density range established in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. In its deliberations regarding the appropriate residential density for the district, the board of supervisors shall take into account the amount of land devoted to non-residential uses. The gross residential density shall be measured ,in dwelling units per acre and calculated by taking the gross acreage of the district divided by the proposed number of dwelling units in the proposed district. Sec. 20A.8 Mixture of uses There shall be a mixture of uses within each NMD as foll.ows: Each district shall have at least two housing types; provided that this requirement may be waived by the board of supervisors if the district is an infill project or at least two (2) housing types are already present within one-q uarter mile of the proposed district. The following are considered to be different housing types: (1) single family detached dwellings; (2) single family attached dwellings; (3) duplexes; (4) triplexes; (5) quadplexes; (6) townhouses; (7) multifamily dwellings; (8) accessory apartments; (9) manufactured housing; and (10) special needs housing such as assisted living facilities, group homes, and nursing homes. An "infill project" is a project in which a parcel is developed or redeveloped, where abutting or nearby parcels are already developed, and the project area is relatively small compared to the developed abutting or nearby parcels. Each district shall have at least two different general use classifications (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, parks or recreational facilities open to the public); provided that this requirement may be waived by the board of supervisors if a different use is already present within one-quarter mile of the proposed district and accomplishes the mixture of uses within the neighborhood sought to be achieved by this section to an equivalent degree. The mixture of uses shall be based upon the uses recommended in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. The required mixture of uses may be obtained with different uses in different buildings or a mixture of uses within the same building. Sec. 20A.9 Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas Each NMD shall include the following: a. Green space. The minimum area devoted to green space is 'as follows: For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential, urban density residential, transitional; neighborhood service, community service, or office service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas shown in the land use element of the corn prehensive plan as regional service, office regional or industrial service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least fifteen percent (15%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to green space. The m~nimum area devoted to green space may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the request of the applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall consider these factors: the relationship of the site to adjoining or nearby properties containing public green space such as parks or natural areas; the knOwn future uses of the of the adjoining properties; and whether a reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan. Amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities is as follows: For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential, urban density residential, neighborhood service, and community service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas shown in the land use element of the corn prehensive plan as regional service, office service, office regional service or industrial service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least ten percent (10%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the request of the applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall consider these factors: the relationship of the site to adjoining or nearby properties containing amenities; the proportion of residential uses to nonresidential uses proposed; the 'known future uses of the of the adjoining properties; and whether a reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan. Additional requirements for amenities. Amenities shall also be subject to the following: At least ninety percent (90%) of the residential units in the NMD shall be within a one- quarter mile walk of an amenity. The size, location, shape, slope and condition of the land shall be suitable for the proposed amenity. The amenity shall be suitable for the specific population to be served. The design of any recreational facilities shall meet the minimum design requirements from recognized sources of engineering and recreational standards. in nonresidential areas of the development, amenities shall be located so that they are easily accessible to patrons and employees of the development. Green space within parks and recreational amenities. Any portion of an amenity that ~s covered in grass or other vegetation may be counted as both green space and an amenity. 20 Preservation areas within green space. Preservation areas that preserve environmental features shall be included as green space area. Conservation areas within green space. Conservation areas that maintain environmental features shall be included as green space area. Sec. 20A.10 Streets Each street within an NMD shall meet the street standards for a traditional neighborhood development established by the department of engineering and public works. Article IV. Procedure Sec. 33.4 Public hearing - notice The commission and the board of supervisors shall hold a public hearings on any such petition or resolution as provided by Virginia Code § 15.2-2285, after notice is provided as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204. If any portion of the affected property is within a planned development, then, in addition to the notice required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204, notice shall be given to the owners, or their agents or the occupants, of each parcel within the planned development. The notice shall be given in the manner provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-2204 for notice to abutting properties. However, failure to give the additional notice provided in this paragraph to an owner, agent or occupant of any parcel within the planned development shall not invalidate any action by the commission or the board of supervisors affecting the planned development. Sec. 33.5 Report by planning commission to board of supervisors after hearing After the conclusion of the hearing provided for in this section, unless the proceedings are terminated as provided herein, the commission shall report to the board of supervisors its recommendation with respect to the proposed amendment. Failure of the commission to report to the board of supervisors within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission following the date the proposed amendment has been referred to the commission shall be deemed approval by the commission. In acting favorably with respect to a proposed amendment initiated by the petition of a property owner or owners, the commission need not confine its recommendation to the proposed amendment as set forth in the petition, but may reduce or enlarge the extent of land that it recommends be rezoned or may recommend that land be rezoned to a different zoning classification than that petitioned for, if, the commission is of the opinion that such revision ~s in accord with public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice and is in furtherance of the purposes of this ordinance and section; provided that before recommending an enlargement of the extent of land or a rezoning to a less restricted classification than was set forth in the petition, the commission shall hold a further hearing on the matter, pursuant to the requirements of Virginia Code § 15.2-2204 and section 33.4. No amendment to the zoning map shall be approved for a change in zoning classification different from that applied for and contained in the public notice of hearing nor for any land not included therein without referring said change to the commission for its review and recommendations and proceedings,pursuant to this section and section 33.3; provided, however, that an amendment may be approved for only a portion of the area proposed for rezoning if the portion rezoned is accurately and sufficiently delimited in the approval action, or if a portion is reclassified pursuant to section 30.3. 2] COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AG E N DA TITLE: Request to set Public Hearing on Albemarle County's Annual Plan for Administering Housing Choice Vouchers SU BJ ECT/PRO POSAL/REQU EST: HoUsing Choice Voucher Annual Plan for FY beginning July 1, 2003 STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Roxanne White, Ron White AGENDA DATE: March 19, 20'03 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: IREVIEWED BY: / BACKGROUND: The U'.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires each public housing agency to prepare a five-year plan for administering public housing assistance programs. Administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers makes Albemarle County subject to this requirement. In addition to completing a five-year plan, an Annual Plan must be submitted each year. Prior to submission, the plan must be reviewed by a Resident Advisory Board for comment and input. After receipt of this input, the final plan is presented for adoption at a Public Hearing. DISCUSSION: The 5-year plan was submitted to HUD in January 2001. Subsequent annual plans have been submitted and approved. Work has begun on the proposed plan, a summary having been sent to members of a Resident Advisory Board for review and comment and a summary prepared for i'eview by the Housidg Committee. The final plan may include revisions and/or comments, as a result of these processes and input at a public headng. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends setting and advertising a public hearing on the proposed Annual Plan for the April 2, 2003 Board of Supervisors meeting. 03.033 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium Consolidated Plan SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposed Use of Funds STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Roxanne White, Ron White AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2003 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATrACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually provides funding under the HOME Investment Partnership Program to units of state and local government through formula allocations. Only the larger jurisdictions receive funding under the established formulas. HUD does, however, allow smaller localities to form a consortium in order to receive an allocation of HOME funds. Albemarle County has participated as a member of the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium (six jurisdictions of the Planning District). HOME funds may be used for housing rehabilitation, homebuyer assistance, development/renovation of multifamily rental property, and tenant-based rental assistance. DISCUSSION: The bulk of the HOME funds have supported housing rehabilitation activities serving sixty-seven Iow-income homeowners. In addition HOME funds provided mortgage assistance to four families, and supported property acquisition for the development of affordable rental housing. Over $72,000 of the current year allocation of $104,500 has provided assistance to rehabilitate 4 homes. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) has been the County's designated subrecipient for the purpose of implementing housing initiatives with the HOME funds. AHIP is also a certified Community Development Housing Organization (CHDO) and, as such, has access to a fifteen percent (15%) set-aside of HOME funds for CHDO development activity. HOME funds are the primary source of public funding for continued housing rehab activities in the County. AHIP generally leverages these funds with private loans and loans through USDA Rural Development to complete necessary rehab. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that owner-occupied housing rehabilitation be designated as the primary use of HOME funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003 and that Albemarle Housing Improvement Program be the subrecipient of HOME funds. Staff further recommends that HOME funds be used in a manner to maximize leverage of other public and private funds. 03.032 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Revenue Sharing Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request by County to participate in 2003-04 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs.,Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2003 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATFACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program provides an opportunity for the County to receive up to an additional $500,000 for road ~mprovements. The program requires a dollar-for-dollar match by the County. The result is total commitment of up to $1,000,000 towards improvements to the local road system. The County has participated in this program since 1988. The County's match is allocated in its Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). DISCUSSION: The County must formally request participation in the 2003-04 program by March 28, 2003. Attached is a draft letter of intent to participate in the program. VDOT recommends that the funds for FY 2003-04 be used to reconstruct Sunset Avenue (Rt. 781 ) to two lanes with curb and gutter, sidewalks and bike lanes from the City line to Fifth Street Extended (Attachment A). Road improvements in this area are becoming increasingly important as new development is taking place. If the Board of Supervisors decides to proceed, the revenue sharing funds will be in place to use on this project. This project is currently scheduled to be advertised in October 2011. Staff is also requesting that the Board of Supervisors transfer previously allocated revenue sharing funds for James River Road (Rt. 726) to Georgetown Road (Rt. 656). James River Road is no longer in the six year funding cycle. Although revenue sharing funds can be allocated to projects that are not in Six Year Construction Program, VDOT and staff support transferring the previously allocated $300,000 to Georgetown Road. Georgetown Road received revenue sharing funds in FY 97/98 and FY 2002/03. If supported by the Board, Georgetown Road would also receive revenue sharing in FY 2003/04. Staff supports this transfer because the urgency to complete the improvements on Georgetown Road and relative Iow cost of the proposed improvements to James River Road. This transfer does not require another resolution by the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the County participate in Revenue Sharing Program, requesting a total of $500,000 (to be matched with available County ClP funds) for Sunset Avenue improvements and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached letter notifying VDOT of our intent to participate in the program. Staff also recommends that the Board support the transfer of previously allocated revenue sharing funds ($300,000) for James River Road (Rt. 726) to Georgetown Road (Rt. 656). 03.034 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA PHILIP A. SHUCET COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 140t EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23219-2000 JAMES S. GIVENS DIRECTOR of LOCAL ASSISTANCE January 31, 2003 Boards of Supervisors of $11 Counties And the City of Suffolk Council Re: County Primary and Secondary' Road Fund (Revenue Sharing Program) Fiscal Year 2003-04 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors And Members of the Council: The County Primary and Secondary Road Fund, more commonly known as the "Revenue Sharing Program," allows the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to provide state funds to match local funds for the construction, maintenance, or improvement of primary and secondary highways in your county. This money may also be used for the addition of subdivision streets otherwise eligible under Section 33.1-72.1, Code of Virginia. Such a cooperative program between local governments and VDOT allows for an increased number of road improvements throughout the Commonwealth. In the current fiscal year, 49 counties chose to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program providing $30 million for additional improvements to the primary and secondary systems statewide. The Commonwealth Transportation Board's annual allocation of state funds can vary. The General Assembly is Still in session and the funding for this year has not been set. If your county wishes to participate in the program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004, the Board of Supervisors or City Council must notify VDOT of: · its intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program, · the amount of local funds to be provided, not to exceed $500,000, and · the prioritized list of eligible projects with individual estimated project costs. The Resident Engineer for your locality will work with you to identify a list of one or more improvement projects to be undertaken with these funds. Your Resident Engineer will also help you establish estimated project costs and will prepare the necessary detailed information so that the submitted projects can be reviewed for program funding eligibility. The Local Assistance Division of VDOT must receive this information on the attached forms by March 28, 2003. VirginiaDOT. org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING The submittal of this package should be coordinated through the Residem Engineer's office. The Resident Engineer should forward this package, along with a prepared Designation of Funds form, to: James S. Givens Director of Local Assistance Virginia Department of Transportation Local Assistance Division 1401 East Broad Street- - Richmond, Virginia 23219 Note: a sample letter of notification of desire to participate in the 03-04 Revenue Sharing Program and a Designation of Funds form are attached for your reference. In the event that localities throughout the state request a total in excess of the available funds, the Commonwealth's participation will be adjusted downwards on a pro rata basis to remain within the limits of the appropriation. The adjustment may require that the lowest priority project be dropped from the program or that the scope of some projects be reduced. You will be notified of the preliminary amount available to your locality in April 2003; this amount will be subject to approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in July of 2003. Conversely, should total requests require less than the available funds, those counties which initially requested the $500,000 maximum may apply for a part of the remaining appropriation as specified in Section 33.1-75.1, Code of Virginia. The allocation of any remaining funds will be decided in June 2004. Note: a set of guidelines for administering this program is enclosed to assist you in making your request. Thank you for continuing your support of this effort. Sincerely, )~ ,, JAmes S. Givens Director of Local Assistance Division Attachments CC: Mrs. Barbara Reese Mr. Claude D. Garver, Jr. District Administrators Resident Engineers Draft of Letter to be Sent to Resident Engineer for Forwarding to Local Assistance Division ,2003 County Primary and Secondary Road Fund (Revenue Sharing Program) Code of Virginia, Section 33.1-75.1 Fiscal Year 2003-04 County of Mr. James S. Givens Local Assistance Division .Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Mr. Givens: The County of ., Virginia, indicates by this letter its official intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 2003-04. The County will provide $ ($500,000 maximum) for this program, to be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from funds of the State of Virginia. The County worked with its Resident Engineer, and developed the attached prioritized list of eligible items of work recommended to be undertaken with these funds. The County also understands that the program will be reduced on a pro rata basis if requests exceed available funds. (Applicable if County requests $500,000 and wants to participate in additional funding from the Revenue Sharing Program): Having requested the maximum of $500,000 in state funds, the County further requests that an additional amount of $ be made available in the event that any funds remain unallocated after initial allocations are made. Sincerely, Attachment (Priority listing of projects) cc: Resident Engineer Chairman, Board of Supervisors District: Residency: rev 19Aug98 Page _ of __ FY Designation of Funds __ Revenue Sharing County Project # and UPC # County State 6 Year Proj. Funded Project From: , Res Engr Admin by Funding Split FHWA Proposed or Route # and Local Match Match Plan w/Rev. Shat. Length Bridge Apprvd Description of VDOT or PE / RW/ 534 Adv. Street Name ($) · ($) Priority Only (Y/N~j (mi/kin) 1o: VPD (Y/N) (Y/N) Proposed Work County Constr Codes Date Total $ - $ - . . Guide to the Revenue Sharing Program of the Virginia Department of Transportation For further information, contact Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation or Local Assistance Division Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 786-2746 Copyright 2001, Commonwealth of Virginia VIRIGNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROADS DIVISION hdEMORANDUM GUIDE TO THE REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM (Chapter 280) This revised document provides a comprehensive summary of the Revenue Sharing Program as established by the Code of Virginia and as governed by the policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. It is intended to serve as a reference for local jurisdictions and VDOT staff in preparation and disposition of applications for program funding. This document defines eligible projects, summarizes funding limitations, and describes the roles of the parties involved in the application and approval process. All previous instructions regarding administrative procedures for Revenue Sharing projects are hereby superseded. Copyright 2001, Commonwealth of Virginia GUIDE TO THE REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM CONTENTS III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. Purpose Definitions ~' ~ A. Budget Item Number B. Construction Improvement C. County Primary and Secondary Road Fund D. Incidental Improvements E. Maintenance F. Matching Funds G. New Hardsurfacing (Paving) H. New Roadway I. Plant Mix J. Project (Eligible) K. Project Number L. Six-Year Plan Eligible Work A. Deficits on Completed Construction or Improvements B. Supplemental Funding for Ongoing Construction or Improvements C. Supplemental Funding for Furore Construction or Improvements D. Construction or Improvements not Included in the Adopted Six-Year Plan E. Improvements for the Acceptance of Subdivision Streets F. Unprogrammed Maintenance Application Process Approval Process Implementation Process A. VDOT Administered Work B. County Administered Work Additional Allocations Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia 5 6 6 8 9 GUIDE TO THE REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM I. PURPOSE (24 VAC 30-280-10) The "Revenue Sharing Program" provides additional funding for the maintenance or improvement of the primary and secondary highway systems and eligible additions in the counties of the Commonwealth, including the former Nansemond County portion of the City of Suffolk. The program is administered by the Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the participating localities, under the authority of Section 33.1-75.1 of t_he Code of Virginia. An annual allocation of funds for this program is designated by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, with statutory limitations on the amount authorized per locality. Application for program funding must be made by resolution of the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the road is located, prOject funding is allocated by resolution of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Construction may be accomplished by the Department of Transportation or, where appropriate, by the locality under an agreement with the Department. II. DEFINITIONS (24 VAC 30-280-20) The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: A. Budget Item Number, means a multi-digit code that identifies work to be completed; it is used for minor activities that are usually done in one year. (See term "incidental improvements"). The usual format for a budget item number is rrrr-ccc-RS,yy, where rrrr is the four-digit route code, ccc is the three digit locality code, and yy represents the last two digits of the fiscal year in which an allocation to the improvement is made. B. Construction Improvements, means operations which usually require more than one fiscal year to complete, and which change or add to the characteristics of a road, facility, or structure. C. "...County Primary and Secondary Road Fund", means the designation given to the fund used to finance the specially funded program developed by the county government and the Department of Transportation subject to approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. This is more commonly referred to as the Revenue Sharing Program. D. Incidental Improvements, means any operation, usually constructed within one year, which changes the type, width, length, location, or gradient of a road, facility, or structure; or the addition of features not originally provided for such road, facility, or structure. E. Maintenance, means activities involved in preserving or restoring the roadway, facility, or structure to its original condition, as nearly as possible. F. Matching Funds, means funds provided'by the Commonwealth which are allocated to eligible items of work in participating counties and the City of Suffolk to supplement, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, the locality's contribution for eligible projects. G. New I-Iardsnrfaeing (Paving), means the first-time paving of a previously unpaved roadway; usually composed of a multiple course asphalt surface treatment. In order for a road to be eligible for paving, it must meet the minimum traffic volume criteria of 50 vehicles per day (VPD). It. New Roadway, means the establishment of a new facility to be part of the primary or secondary system of state highways. In order for a new roadway to be eligible for Revenue Sharing funding, it must be a part of a locally adopted plan such as the County Comprehensive Plan or must be expected to divert sufficient traffic from existing public roads so that those roads will not need to be improved in the foreseeable future. I. Plant Mix, means an asphalt-based compound used in highway construction and maintenance. For a road to be eligible for plant mix, it should: * have an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 500 or greater; * be a major secondary and serve as a major transportation facility in the locality; and * be classified as "tolerable" in accordance with established standards for such determination. J. Project (Eligible), means work including construction, improvement, maintenance, and additions costs. K. Project Number, means a multi-digit alphanumeric code which identifies work to be completed; it is used in conjunction with construction. The usual format for a project number is mr-ccc-sss, Jnnn, where irn is the four-digit route code', ccc is the three-digit locality code, sss is a three-digit section code, J is the phase identifier, and nnn is the job number. L. Six,Year Plan, means either the Secondary Six-Year Plan, the official listing of improvements to be constracted, which is developed jointly by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the county governments (Section 33.1-70.01, of the Code of virginia); or the Virginia Transportation Development Plan, formerly known as the Six Year Improvement Program for Interstate, Primary, Urban, and Secondary Highway Systems, developed by VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board. 2 III. ELIGIBLE WORK (24 VAC 30-280-30) The Revenue Sharing Program may be used to finance eligible work on a county's primary or secondary system. Below is a list of work that could be considered eligible for Revenue Sharing financing, and examples of each. A. Deficits on Completed Construction or Improvements. When the appropriate Resident Engineer or local Preliminary Engineering Manager has a completed project with a deficit, the county may request that the deficit be financed by the Revenue Sharing Program provided the county is willing to contribute one half of the deficit as its portion. Example: Actual Cost = $120,000 Available project funding = $100,000 Actual Deficit = $ 20,000 County participation = State match = Revenue Sharing Funding = $10,000 $10,000 $ 20,000 B. Supplemental-Funding for Ongoing Construction or Improvements When the appropriate Resident Engineer or local Preliminary Engineering Manager anticipates the cost to complete a project will exceed the financing currently committed to this work, the county may request that the anticipated deficit be financed by the Revenue Sharing Program provided the county is willing to contribute one half of the anticipated deficit as its portion. Example: Available project fanding = Estimated cost = Estimated Deficit = $100,000 $150,000 $ 50,000 County participation = State match = Revenue Sharing Funding = $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 5O,OOO C. Supplemental Funding for Future Construction or Improvements Listed in the Adopted Six-Year Plan When the appropriate Resident Engineer or local Preliminary Engineering Manager anticipates allocations (in addition to those proposed in the adopted Six-Year Plan) will be required to completely finance a project, the county may request permission to provide one half of such additional financing with the remaining one half provided by state matching funds. This includes, but is not limited to, such things as signalization, additional preliminar~ engineering, or acquisition of additional right-of-way. This procedure may be utilized to accelerate the funding of a project and thereby permits its completion earlier than otherwise would have been possible. D. Construction or Improvements not included in the Adopted Six-Year Plan. When the appropriate Resident Engineer or local Preliminary Engineering Manager believes that the work may be eligible for program funding, the county may request one half the funds to construct a project not currently in the Six-Year Plan. However, in such cases, the county funds, together with the state matching funds, should finance the entire estimated cost of the project within the fiscal year involved. The Revenue Sharing Program was initially intended to provide funding for relatively small, immediately needed improvements. Over time, use of the funding from the program has grown to include larger improvements that require funding over several years. When the Department is administering a project, no improvement receiving funding over several years and not included in the Six-Year Plan should be advertised until the final expected year of funding because of the discretionap/nature of county participation in the program. E. Improvements Necessa~ for the Acceptance of Specific Subdivision Streets Otherwise Eligible for Acceptance into the System for Maintenance. The improvements (widening, surface treating, etc.) necessary for the acceptance of certain subdivision streets otherwise eligible under Section 33.1-72.1, Code of Virginia, for acceptance into the secondary system of state highways may be funded by the Revenue Sharing Program. F. Unprogrammed Maintenance Whose Accomplishment is Consistent with the Department's Operating Policies. Examples of this type of work include normal maintenance replacement activities such as guardrail replacement, plant mix overlays, sidewalks and curb & gutter repair. 4 IV. APPLICATION PROCESS (24 VAC 30-280-40) Application for Revenue Sharing funding may be made only by ~the governing body of the county or the City of Suffolk in which the road is located. The following process describes the steps which occur in determining the funding available for each participating locality to finance eligible projects. 1. VDOT's State Secondary Roads Engineer sends a letter inviting all county governments to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for the coming fiscal year. The County Government determines its intent to participate in the program, and the mount of county funds to be provided. The County Government and appropriate Resident Engineer or local Primary Engineering Manager jointly prepare a prioritized plan to recommend assignment of requested funds to eligible projects. This prioritized plan should: * list what is to be included for each project (example: length of road, width of road, estimated cost, etc.); * identify who will administer each phase of each project (see Subsection 33.1- 75.1 [BI of the Code of Virginia, regarding when a project may be administered by a county). While there is no limit on the amount of funds the county may contribute, the amount of funds eligible for State matching funds may not exceed the statutory limitation. o The appropriate Resident Engineer or local Preliminary Engineering Manager submits the detailed prioritized plan developed in Step 2 of-the process with recommendations to the Secondary Roads Division, with a copy to the appropriate District Administrator. This prioritized plan must be received by the date specified in the invitation letter. 4. VDOT's Secondary Roads Division reviews the submitted prioritized plans and notifies the appropriate Resident Engineer or local Preliminary Engineering Manager of the amount of state matching funds available for use in their counties, subject to the approval of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. If the total requests exceed the amount available according to statute, each participating county will receive State matching funds on a pro rata basis, and the prioritized plan will be adjusted accordingly. V. APPROVAL PROCESS (24 VAC 30-280-50) The following process describes the steps that occur in securing approval of the Statewide Revenue Sharing Program from the Commonwealth Transportation Board. 1. VDOT's Secondary Roads Division reviews the individual plans, and if found to be acceptable, develops the Statewide-Plan and recommends it be submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for approval. The Maintenance and Programming & Scheduling Divisions will also review the plans as appropriate for their areas of responsibility. The Commonwealth Transportation Board approves the Statewide Program, including allocations to specific projects in each county's plan. Upon approval of the Plan, it constitutes the "...county primary and secondary road fund." Any. modification of the approved program must be agreed upon by the county government and VDOT and approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. VI. IMPLENTATION PROCESS (24 VAC 30-280-60) A. VDOT AdminiStered Work The following process describes the steps which occur in the implementation of the Revenue Sharing Program, beginning with the approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and ending with the payment by the county and subsequent state match. VDOT's Secondary Roads Division authorizes the Fiscal Division to reserve the State Matching funds for the approved specific projects. These monies are placed in a special VDOT account for this purpose. 2.: If applicable, the Secondary Roads Division prepares county/state agreements that governs performance of work administered by VDOT. The agreement must be executed prior to incurring any cost to be financed fi.om the Revenue Sharing Program. 3. Either the Fiscal Division bills the county or the appropriate Resident Engineer or local Preliminary Engineering Manager requests payment from the county for its share of the estimated cost of work tobe performed; the money is collected prior to the beginning of work in accordance with the current billing procedures. 4. After the project is completed, the Fiscal Division makes final billing to the county for its share of the actual costs incurred, in excess of those provided in Step 3. If the county's share of the actual cost is less than the estimated cost, the 6 difference may, if desired by the county, be refunded to the county or reassigned to another Revenue Sharing project. If a County Govemmem wishes to cancel a project begun under the Revenue Sharing Program during the Preliminary Engineering (PE) or Right of Way (RW) phases but prior to the Construction phase, it may do so by Board of Supervisors' resolution. The Department retains the sole option to require reimbursement by the county of all State matching funds spent from the time the project was begun until it is canceled: If construction does not begin before the end of the fiscal year involved, the county must pay the Department its share, or certify that the money is held in a special fund account specifically earmarked for the project or projects: This must occur by June 30 of the fiscal year or it may result in loss of state matching funds. B. County Administered Work The following process describes the steps which occur in the implementation of the Revenue Sharing Program, beginning with the approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and ending with the payment by the county and subsequent state match. 1.' VDOT's Secondary Roads Division authorizes the Fiscal Division to reserve the State Matching funds for the approved specific projects. This money is placed in a special VDOT account for this purpose. The Secondary Roads Division prepares county/state agreements that govern the performance of work administered by the county. The agreement must be executed prior to incurring any cost to be financed from the Revenue Sharing Program. 3. After all work is completed the County makes a final billing to VDOT for its share of the aCtual eligible costs incurred. If the actual cost is less than that provided by the agreement, the difference may be reassigned to another Revenue Sharing project in the county, or, if the county desires, refunded to the VDOT Revenue Sharing account. If a County Government wishes to cancel a project begun under the Revenue Sharing Program before it is completed, it may do so by Board of Supervisors' resOlution. The Department retains the sole option to require reimbursement by the county of all State matching funds spent from the time the project was begun until it is canceled. VII. ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS (24 VAC 30-280-70) One month prior to the end of any fiscal year in which less than the total provided appropriation has been allocated from state funds under Section 33.1-75.1 ID] of the Code of Virginia, those counties requesting $500,000 may be allowed an additional allocation. The difference between the amount allocated and the amount appropriated shall be allocated at the discretion of the Commonwealth Transportation Board among the counties receiving the maximum allocation. 8 VIII. SECTION 33.1-75.1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA Special funds for systems in certain counties A. From, and as a first priority of, annual allocations of state funds for the maintenance, improvement, construction, or reconstruction of the systems of state highways, the Commonwealth Transportation Board shall make an equivalent matching allocation to any county for designations by the governing body of up to twenty-five percent or $500,000, whichever is greater, of funds received by it during the current fiscal year pursuant to the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, hereinafter referred to as "revenue sharing funds," for use by the Commonwealth Ti'ansportation Board to construct, maintain or improve the primary and secondary highway systems within such county. Such funds appropriated by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and such federal revenue sharing funds shall be placed in special fund accounts of the Board and county, respectively, both to be known as the ". ............ County primary and secondary road fund," and shall be used solely for the purposes of either (i) maintaining, improving or constructing the primary and secondary highway systems within such county, or (ii) bringing subdivision streets, used as such prior to July 1, 1990, up to standards sufficient to qualify them for inclusion in the state primary and secondary system of highways. The governing body may place an equivalent amount from county general funds in such fund in lieu of such federal revenue sharing funds. After due consultation and exchange of recommendations with the Board, the governing body of such county shall determine what portion of such funds shall be used for construction, and what portion for maintenance or improvement, of primary and secondary roads in such county. That portiOn so designated by the governing body £or construction shall be allocated to specific projects by the Board; that portion designated by the governing body for maintenance or improvement shall be allocated to specific roads by the governing body. The county shall pay over to the Board that amount of its special fund account needed for a project upon notice by the Board of its intent to proceed with the project. Projects identified by the board of supervisors for construction with revenue sharing funds need not be included in the county's six-year plan. B. Upon indication by the resident engineer of a county that a project or projects funded pursuant to subsection A of this section cannot be implemented by the Department of Transportation within the fiscal year for which such revenue sharing funds have been allocated, the Department may contract with the county for the implementation of the project or projects by the county. Such contract may coyer either a single project or may provide for the county's implementation of several projects during the fiscal year. Upon approval by the Department, the county may expend from its special fund created under subsection A of this section funds to undertake the implementation of a particular project or projects. The county will undertake implementation of the particular project or projects by obtaining the necessary permits from the Department of Transportation in order to ensure that the improvement is consistent with the Department's standards for such improvements. C. Total state funds allocated statewide under this section shall not exceed $10 million in any one fiscal year. D. Notwithstanding the limitations specified in subsection A of this section, one month prior to the end of any fiscal year in which less than $10 million has been allocated from state funds under this section, those counties requesting more than $500,000 may be allowed an additional allocation. The difference between the amount first allocated and $10 million shall be allocated at the discretion of the Commonwealth Transportation Board among the counties receiving the maximum allocation under subsection A of this section. (1974, C. 543; 1976, c. 208; 1977, c. 221; 1979, cc. 88, 89; 1980, c. 405; 1983, c. 343; 1984, c. 467; 1985, c. 574; 1987, c. 440; 1988, cc. 31, 84, 562; 1990, c. 561; 1991, c. 250; 1993, c. 71; 1995, c. 416; 1998, cc. 330, 340; 2001, c. 95.) 9 FAX (434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlot~esville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE 11434) 296-5832 03-04-0i 22:~ TTD (434) 972-4012 March 3, 2003 Brian Ray 1717 Allied Street, Suite I-B Roger Ray & Assoc., Inc. Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -Tax Map 31, Parcels 23, 23D, 23H & 23J (Property of Mary Jane Chisholm, Trustee) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Ray: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 31, Parcel 23 is a parcel of record with five (5) development rights. Parcel 23D' is comprised of two (2) separate parcels of record. Each of these parcels has five (5) development rights. Parcel 23H is a parcel of record with one (1) development right. Parcel 23J is a parcel of record with one (1) development right. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows. Our records indicate Tax Map 31, Parcel 23 contains 545.021 acres and 3 single family dwellings, I mobile home and 3 commercial retail structures. The property is in the Jacobs Run Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1720, page 377. A portiOn of this parcel is zoned Light Industry, LI. No development rights are associated with this area of the property. Our records indicate Tax Map 31, Parcel 23D contains 49.140 acres and no dwellings. The property is in the Jacobs Run Agricultural Forestal District. The most r~Cent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1720, page 377. Our records indicate Tax Map 31, Parcel 23H contains 2.629 acres and one dwelling. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1720, page 377. I:\DEP'r~3cZS\Determin of Parcel\31 ;23 Chisholm Trust.doc Mary Jane Chisholm, Trustee March 3, 2003 Page 2 Our records indicate Tax Map 31, Parcel 23J contains 2.98 acres and no dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1720, page 377. This determination begins with the deed dated April 14, 1950 and recorded in Deed Book 288, page 407. This conveyed land estimated to contain about 700 acres from E. D. Tayloe & Elizabeth H. Tayloe to Edward Morris Chisholm. The property is described as being in all respects the same property conveyed to E. D. Tayloe by Deed Book 151, page 234. One half an acre for a graveyard was excepted from this conveyance. Deed Book 290, page 241, dated June 14, 1950 conveyed 134 acres, more or less, from Edward Morris Chisolm & Mary Jane Chisholm to John R. Morris. The property is described as being a portion of the tract of land containing 700 acres conveyed in Deed Book 288, page 407. As a result of this transaction the residue of what is now identified as Parcel 23 contained-apprOximately 566 acres. The 134 acre tract is now identified on Tax Map 31 as Parcel 23A. Deed Book 304, page 487, dated March 2, 1953 conveyed two parcels of land from Edward Morris ChiSholm & Mary Jane Chisholm to the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. The property is described, in part, as follows: (1) A parcel containing approximately 1.50 acres, designated as Parcel A on a plat by O. R. Randolph, dated February 25, 1953. (2) A parcel containing approximately 13.87 acres, designated as Parcel B on a plat by O. R. Randolph, dated February 25, 1953. This deed also conveyed a perpetual flight easement over a 20.49-acre portion of Parcel 23. As a result of this transaction the residue of what is now identified as Parcel 23 contained approximately 550.63 acres. Deed Book 339, page 398, dated April 15, 1958 conveyed two certain tracts or parcels of land from Bellemoore Realty Corporation to Edward Morris Chisholm & Mary Jane Chisholm. The property is described as Tract D1 containing 35.76 acres and Tract D2 containing 13.38 acres. The parcels are shown on a plat by A. R. Sweet and Associates, dated April 8, 1958 and recorded in Deed Book 339, page 396. Tract D1 and D2 are shown as one (1) parcel identified as Parcel 23 D on Tax Map 31. These parcels are not adjacent to one another. On the basis of this deed and plat, it is determined that Parcel 23D consists of two separate parcels of record- Tracts D1 and D2. Each of these parcels has five (5) development rights. I:\DEP'f'tBCZS~)etermin of Parcel\31-23 Chisholm Trust.doc Mary Jane Chisholm, Trustee March 3, 2003 Page 3 Deed Book 670, page 412, dated April 23, 1979 conveyed 2.629 acres from Edward Morris Chisolm & Mary Jane Chisholm to Mary Jane Chisholm Tyler. The property is shown on a plat by Kurt GIoeckner, dated October 24, 1978. This parcel is identified as Parcel 23H on Tax Map 31. As a result of this transaction the residue of what is now identified as Parcel 23 contained approximately 548.001 acres. On the basis of this deed, Parcel 23H is determined to be a parcel of record with one (1) development right, The most recent instrument for this Parcel 23 and Parcel 23J recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is in Deed Book 705, page 60. This is a certificate of plat dated November 15, 1980. The plat by Roger W. Ray, dated July 17, 1980 shows a survey of 2.98 acres described as being a portion of the same land acquired by the said E. Morris Chisolm property on April 14, 1950 by the deed recorded in Deed Book 288, page 407. As a result of this transaction, the residue of Parcel 23 contained 545.021 acres. This 2.98-acre parcel is identified as Parcel 23J on Tax Map 31. On the basis of this plat, Parcel 23 is a parcel of record with five (5) development rights and Parcel 23J is a parcel of record with one (1) development right. Deed Book 887, page 483, dated March 1, 1986 conveyed 2.269 acres from Jane Ann Chisholm Tyler to E. Morris Chisholm. The parcel is more particularly described on the plat by Kurt Gloeckner dated October 24, 1978 that is recorded in Deed Book 670, page 414. This is identified as Parcel 23H. This transaction had no effect on the development rights of this parcel. Deed Book 1395, page 726, dated April 4, 1994, conveyed several tracts of land from Mary Jane Chisholm, Executor of the Estate of Edward Morris Chisholm to Mary Jane Chisholm. Among the tracts are the following: TRACT FIVE: [23H] A certain parcel 2.629 acres shown on the Kurt GIoeckner plat recorded in Deed Book 670, page 414. TRACT SIX: [23D] Those two certain tracts shown as D1 containing 35.76 acres and Tract D2 containing 13.38 acres shown on the A.R. Sweet plat recorded in Deed Book 339, page 398. TRACT SEVEN: [23J] A certain tract containing 2.98 acres shown on a plat by R. O. Snow and R. W. Ray recorded in Deed Book 705, page 61. I:\DEPT~BCZ. S~Determin of Parcel\31-23 Chisholm Trust.doc Mary Jane Chisholm, Trustee March 3, 2003 Page 4 TRACT EIGHT: [23] That certain tract containing about 700 acres, less and except one- half acre reserved for a graveyard, and being the same land conveyed to Edward Morris Chisholm by the deed recorded in Deed Book 288, page 407, less and except the following off conveyances: (1) A tract containing 134 acres by deed recorded in Deed Book 290, page 241. (2) Two tracts containing 1.50 and 13.87 by deed recorded in Deed Book 304, page 487. (3) A parcel containing 2.629 acres by deed recorded in Deed Book 670, page 412. (4) A parcel containing 2.98 described as TRACT SI-'VEN herein. This conveyance had no effect on the development rights or status as separate parcels of record of the subject properties of this determination D~ed Book 1720, 'page 377, dated June 18, 1998, conveyed the same property described in Deed Book 1395, page 726 from Mary Jane Chisholm to Mary Jane Chisholm, Trustee under the Mary Jane Chisholm Declaration of Trust dated May 16, 1994. This conveyance had no effect on the development rights or status as separate parcels of record of the subject properties of this determination. Based on this history, Tax. Map 31, Parcels 23 is determined to be a parcel of record with five development rights. Parcel 23D is determined to be comprised of two (2) separate parcels of record. Each of these two parcels contains five development rights. Parcel 23H is determined to be a separate parcel of record with one development right. Parcel 23J is determined to be a separate parcel of record with one development right. These parcels can utilize these development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty-one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres may be created as the property can support, if all other applicable regulations can be met. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was. given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. /~0~'~ ,.Sh~phe-rd Manager of Zoning Administration I:\DEPT~BCZS\Determin of Pamel\31-23 Chisholm Trust. doc Mary Jane Chisholm, Trustee March 3, 2003 Page 5 Copies: Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Reading File Ella Carey, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Mary Jane Chisholm, Trustee 3260 Earlysville Road Earlysville, VA 22936 I:\DEPT~CZS~Determin of Parcel~31-23 Chisholm Trust.doc FAX I434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 40I Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator~~%''¢ March 4, 2003 2002 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals Please find the attached 2002 annual report of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Summary information from the four (4) preceding years is included to provide a five (5) year context. The number of appeals in 2002 decreased by three, from 13 in 2001 to 10 in 2002. Of those, 5 appeals were withdrawn and 5 were heard in 2002. The number of variances in 2002 increased by four, from 23 in 2001 to 27 in 2002. Of these, 5 were withdrawn and 22 were heard in 2002. The percentage of setbacks relating to either signs or other structures has decreased generally. The number of appeals relating to violations or use determinations has also decreased. The annual report proceeding this, which will cover the current year, will be expanded to provide additional information on the outcome of the variance and appeals hearings. In addition to the total number of each type of application (variance and appeal), we will provide a listing the BZA action (approved as submitted, approved with modifications or denied). We will also list any Court action on BZA items. These changes will provide more information not only about what is submitted but will include the results of BZA actions. 03-04-03 20:48 IN 2002 ANNUAL REPORT ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS INTRODUCTION This repod includes summarized information for the past five years 1998-2002. The Code of Virginia states that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall submit a report of its activities to the governing body at least once each year {Sec. 15.2-2308}. This report is a brief outline of the past years activities. II. PERSONNEL The Board of Zoning Appeals consists of five members. They are appointed by the Circuit Court for a term not to exceed five years. The Board members during the year 2002 were: Member Term Expiration Max C. Kennedy, Chairman Reappointed May 23, 1998 for a five year term - to expire May 23, 2003 David Bass, Vice Chairman Reappointed May 23, 1997 for a five year term - to expire May 23, 2002 * George Bailey, Secretary Reappointed May 23, 2000 for a five year term - to expire May 23, 2005 Richard Cogan Reappointed May 23, 1997 for a five year term - to expire May 23, 2002 * Randy Rinehart Reappointed May 23, 2001 for a five year term - to expire May 23, 2006 III. OPERATING PROCEDURES Regular meetings of the Board are held the first Tuesday of each month starting at 2:00 p.m. Special meetings are called in cases of appeals or a high number of submittals, when the regular schedule does not provide sufficient hearing time. These special meetings may begin at 1:00 p.m. 2002 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals March 4, 2003 Page 2 The Board operates with a set of by-laws. In addition, there is a procedure statement relating to filing and processing applications. Rules of procedure adopted in 2002 have been reviewed by the County Attorney's office to be consistent with those of the Planning Commission. These rules of procedure replace the prior by-laws and procedure statement. IV. EXPENSES The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have a separate budget. Compensation and mileage are included within the budget of the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services, specifically within the Zoning cost center. Funding for Board salaries in the fiscal year 2001-2002 is consistent with pnor years and was a total of $3321.20. Board members are each reimbursed for mileage traveled to the meeting and $45 per meeting. Staff to the Board includes the Director of Building Code and Zoning Services (Zoning Administrator), Manager of Zoning Administration and the Chief of Zoning Administration (Deputy Zoning Administrator). Support staff includes the Office Associate IV and the Zoning Tech. V. ACTION SUMMARY The number of actions considered by the Board during 2002 are shown by category in the following table: Area Application StructureSignage, Regulations or Variances Appeals Type Setback Inc. S.P. Frontage ParkingWithdrawn Appeals Withdrawn Number of Applications 14 2 5 1 5 10 5 The Board of Zoning Appeals held 15 meetings in 2002. The prior years' summaries are as follows: 2002 15 meetings 2001 12 meetings 2000 13 meetings 1999 13 meetings 1998 13 meetings 2002 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals March 4, 2003 Page 3 A History of Appeals Is As Follows: 2OO2 2 1 1 1 5 Determination of use Determination of violation Determination of non-conforming use Determination of parcel Withdrawn 2001 3 3 Determination of use Determination of violation 2O0O 3 2 Determination of use Determination of violation 1999 3 2 Determination of use Determination of violation 1998 5 2 Determination of use Determination of violation VI. IMPACT ON REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A prior change to the State Code increased the number of appeals by legislating that the zoning administrator's decision if not appealed in a timely fashion (within thirty days), is final and unappealable. A later Code amendment further legislates that after sixty days, a decision may not be changed or reversed by the administrator or other administrative officer unless the decision was improperly obtained. Many appeals result from official determinations of zoning violation resulting from enforcement action. While 10 appeals were filed this year, 5 were resolved and resulted in the appellant withdrawing the appeal. A wholesale revision to the sign regulations in 1992 decreased the overall number of sign variances. However, some sign variance requests, such as height of wall signs, have recurred. A recent amendment to the sign regulations has largely eliminated wall sign height variances. Another recent zoning text amendment relating to additions to non-conforming structures has reduced setback variance requests. *These Board members' terms are pending official Court action for renewal. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent, affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to improving the livability of all neighborhoods and access to supportive services by residents; and WHEREAS, The County of Albemarle is committed to preserving, to the extent possible, all existing affordable housing stock and eliminating blighted conditions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Hearings held January 8, 2003 and March 19, 2003 the County of Albemarle wishes to apply for $375,100 in Community Development Block Grant funds fOr a Community Service Facility Project for the Whitewood Village Apartments; and WHEREAS, other resources estimated in excess of $9,000,000 including, but nOt limited to, VHDA loans, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME funds, Federal Home Loan Bank, Virginia Housing Partnership Fund, the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund, and funds leveraged by the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund will be invested in the project; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the population residing at Whitewood Village Apartments is very-low and extremely-low income, all receiving rental assistance through project-based vouchers; and WHEREAS, the project-based contract expires March 31, 2003; and WHEREAS, the new owners have committed to improving the physical condition of the property and provide services to current and future tenants; and WHEREAS, the projected benefits of the project include Rehabilitation of 96 affordable rental units benefiting approximately 350 persons, one-third of whom are children; Construction of a community center; Provision of services to enhance the livability and improved self-sufficiency of the tenants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for applying for this Virginia Community DevelOpment Block Grant application. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of a resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held March 19, 2003. Clerk, County Board RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent, affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle ~s committed to improving the livability of all neighborhoods and access to supportive services by residents; and WHEREAS, The County of Albemarle is committed to preserving, to the extent possible, all existing affordable housing stock and eliminating blighted conditions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Hearings held January 8, 2003 and March 19, 2003 the County of Albemarle wishes to apply for $375,100 in Community Development Block Grant funds for a Community Service Facility Project for the Whitewood Village Apartments; and WHEREAS, other resources estimated in excess of $9,000,000 including, but not limited to, VHDA loans, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME funds, Federal Home Loan Bank, Virginia Housing Partnership Fund, the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund, and funds leveraged by the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund will be invested in the project; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the population residing at Whitewood Village Apartments is very-low and extremely-low income, all receiving rental assistance through project-based vouchers; and WHEREAS, the project-based contract expires March 31, 2003; and WHEREAS, the new owners have committed to improving the physical condition of the property and provide services to current and future tenants; and WHEREAS, the projected benefits of the project include Rehabilitation of 96 affordable rental units benefiting approximately 350 persons, one-third of whom are children; Construction of a community center; Provision of services to enhance the livability and improved self-sufficiency of the tenants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for applying for this Virginia Community Development Block Grant application. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of a resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held March 19, 2003. Clerk, County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing - CDBG Funding SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Application for Community Development Block Grant Funding - Whitewood Village Apartments and Dry Well Replacement Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Roxanne White, Ron White AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2003 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes / BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) administers the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. CDBG funding is provided for a variety of activities including housing, economic development, and community facilities. Projects must meet at least one of three national objectives. For fiscal year 2004, DHCD expects to make available approximately $12.6 million for competitive grants and $2.5 million to help residents replace dry wells as a result of the drought of 2002. The County of Albemarle held a Public Hearing on January 8, 2003 to begin receiving input on eligible housing or community development activities that may seek CDBG funding. No one spoke at the public hearing and no new proposals have come forward since that time. Staff has been working with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) to develop two proposals - one for funding a dry well replacement program and the second to fund a community service facility at Whitewood Village Apartments, now owned by Albemarle Housing Associates, LP (AHA) a partnership controlled by AHIP. DISCUSSION: Dry Well Replacement Program: During 2002, AHIP began receiving applications for replacement wells. Some of these applicants were able to get funds from other sources [o drill new wells but a number had no resources for.this activity. In the fall of 2002, Governor Warner announced the availability of $2.5 million statewide to replace dry wells. On January 8, 2003, the County Executive was authorized to execute application documents and contracts to offer this program to eligible County residents. The County has executed a contract with DHCD to implement this program and has designated AHIP as the implementing agency. The program is available to homeowners with incomes below 80% of the area median income who have dry wells as a result of the 2002 drought. AHIP will continue to take applications for assistance for loans of up to $5000 for this activity. Community Service Facility - Whitewood Village Apartments is approximately 30 years old and has been maintained in relatively good condition. For fifteen years, the property has been under a rental assistance contract with the assistance tied to all 96 units. The contract for the rental assistance expires on March 31,2003 at which time all eligible residents will receive Housing Choice Vouchers. The County previously received a Planning Grant from DHCD to study the feasibility of acquisition and rehabilitation of Whitewood Village 'Apartments. Feasibility studies included a market analysis and architectural study to determine rehabilitation needs and estimated costs of improving the units and constructing a community center. The studies have resulted in a final scope of work and project budget totaling approximately $10 million. Current funding commitments have resulted in a gap to be filled by AHIP. The CDBG funds for the construction of the community center will address a significant portion of this gap. AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing -CDBG Funding March 19, 2003 Page 2 The propOsed activities at Whitewood Village Apartments include improvements to the residential units and construction of a community center to enhance livability at the property. In addition to improved housing, AHIP proposes to linkservices based on tenants' needs with organizations that can provide the needed services including after school programs, .lob training, and educational opportunities for adults. Development of a community center would allow family support programs currently provided by a number of organizations at other locations to use the facilities at Whitewood. Proposed funding sources will include loans from VHDA and DHCD, private gap financing, CDBG, Iow-income housing tax credits, Federal Home Loan Bank, HOME funds, and local funding through the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund. To minimize displacement for extremely Iow-income families, the County Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program will maintain project- based assistance to 24 units in the development that will serve families below 30% of the area median income. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a resolution (attached) to apply for $375,100 in Community Development Block Grant funding from DHCD. Such funding would be secured by a deed of trust on the property to ensure that the community service facility is utilized as proposed for a minimum of ten years with periodic reporting of activities and outcomes to the County's Office of Housing. 03.031 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 58:23 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 February 13, 2003 Wes Bradley 2117 RoSalind Avenue Roanoke, VA 24014 RE: ZMA-02-01 Fontaine Avenue Condominiums, Tax Map 76, Parcels 12A and 12G Dear Mr. Bradley: At the Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting on February 11,2003, a motion to recommend approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors failed by a 2-2 vote. Should.the Board of Supervisors approve this petition, the Planning Commission does recommend the approval be subject to the attached proffers. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review, this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 5, 2003. 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, Senior Planner Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Fontaine Avenue Condos - ZMA 02-01 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to rezone 12.606 acres from Highway Commercial (HC) to Residential (R-15) with proffers to allow 112 dwelling units. The property, described as Tax Map76 Parcels 12A and 12G are located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of Fontaine Avenue [Route #702] approximately .25 miles west of the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood 6. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Barnes; Mr. Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: February 11, 2003 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: No ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Background On May 7, 2002, the Planning Commission held a worksession on the Fontaine Avenue Condos rezoning request (ZMA 02-01). At the worksession, staff identified the following issues as outstanding (see Attachment A-3 for the first staff report): 1. The lack of a pedestrian bridge across Morey Creek. 2. The lack of sidewalks within the site. 3. The need to better relegate the parking. 4. The lack of a conceptual grading plan. During that worksession, the Commissioners added the following issues as additional concerns that needed to be worked through: A. The need to provide an adequate streetscape along Fontaine Avenue. B. The need for the applicant to hold a meeting with the Buckingham homeowners to better understand and address their concerns. On November 19, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public heating on the Fontaine Avenue Condos rezoning request. At that time, the staff report recommended approval with acceptance of the proffers (See Attachment B-3 for the executive summary) because staff believed that the proposal (Attachment C-3) met the issues raised during the May 7th meeting. However, during the public heating, adjacent residents voice a series of concerns with the project (Attachment D- 3). Their concerns fell into four general categories: A) Building massing/visual impacts; B) The potential for student hOusing; C) Environmental impacts; and, D) Traffic. Based on the citizen's concerns and the Commission's reaction to these concerns, the applicant requested deferral in order to meet with the adjacent property owners in an attempt to resolve their issues. On December 15, 2002, the applicant resubmitted plans that he felt would address many of the residents concerns (Attachment E-3). On December 30, 2002, the applicant met with the Fontaine Avenue Condos - 3rd Staff Report residents of Buckingham Circle to show them the new plans and to appease their concerns. The applicant has provided a meeting summary that listed the high points of the meeting (Attachment F-3). The meeting summary was mailed to the residents of:Buckingham Circle. In that mailing, the applicant also provided a self, addressed envelope with which residents could make further comment. Discussion In the most recent submittal (Attachment G-3), the applicant has attempted to address the adjacent residents' concerns in the following manner. Buildin,q massin,q/visual impacts The residents expressed a strong concern with the project's appearance from Buckingham Circle. The shift from two larger to three smaller condo buildings on the side facing Buckingham Circle and the removal of the upper most floor are the chief distinctions between the plan submitted fore the November 19th meeting (Attachment B-3) and the current submittal (Attachment G-3). The reduction in building size should help address part of the residents' concerns with the massing. The applicant also proffered to plant pine trees at select locations along Buckingham Circle to provide additional screening of his project (See Attachment H-3, proffer #2). The one of the neighbors final aesthetic concern was with the building fafades. Staff determined the building elevations proffered revised in the most recent plans and by the applicant to be adequate (Attachment G-3, pages 5 of 8, 6 of 8 and 8 of 8). The applicant has also proffered that building elevations will be applied to all sides of the buildings (Attachment H-3, proffer #1). The potential 'for student.housin.q The potential for disturbance from a high percentage of student residents in the Fontaine Condo project was listed as another adjacent resident complaint. The current proposal (Attachment G-3) reduces in total dwelling units from 112 units to 86 units. Of these 86 units, the applicant is projecting 52 three-bedroom units, 22 two-bedroom units, and 12 townhouses. The applicant has stated that the three-bedroom units will be more amenable to families. While staff is not in a position to determine how future residents would ultimately use these dwelling units nor is the Zoning Department in a position to enforce any proffered condition that would prevent students from living in the proposed complex, the applicant has suggest that he would place a restriction in the future homeowrier's agreement that would limit to two the number of persons unrelated by blood or marriage per unit. However, any such covenant within the homeowners agreement would not be enforceable by the County or adjacent residents, and therefore, could have little effect at limiting the number of future student residents in this project if this provision is not enforced by the homeowners association. Environmental impacts Impacts to wildlife and water quality have been other concerns listed by adjacent residents. While the previous proposal (Attachment C-3) encroached slightly into the 100-foot Water Protection Ordinance Stream Buffer, the current plans do not show any buildings within the 100- foot buffer. It is important to note that grading for the project will certainly impact the 100-foot buffer. However, the Water Protection Ordinance only prohibits for disturbance within the waterward 50 feet of the buffer. It is unlikely that this portion of the buffer will be disturbed. Fontaine Avenue Condos - 3ra Staff Report Traffic Finally, VDOT and the County's Engineering Department did not feel that the previously proposed 125 unit wOuld have traffic impacts that would justified a traffic study or off-site improvements to the road netwOrk. With a reductiOn to 86,unitS, any traffic impact will.be even further reduced. Finally, the applicant has proffered a pedestrian bridge over Morey Creek and a sidewalk connection to the FOntaine Research Park as well as a possible greenway connection along Morey Creek to a large parcel of land to the north of the site currently owned by UVA (Attachment H-3, proffers #3, 4, 5, 6 and 8).. Staff believes that these proffered improvements will greatly improve the multi-modal oppommities for residents of the area as well as pedestrians headed to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. Additionally, these multi-modal oppommities wilI further ease any negative traffic impacts. Recommendation Staff believes that the applicant has tried to meet the concerns of the adjacent neighbors by reducing the density, the building massing, providing landscaping, etc. AdditiOnally, the proposal and proffers meet the Concerns raised by staff during the review process. Therefore, staff recommends approval of ZMA 02-01 with the attached proffers. Attachments A - StaffReport for May 7th PC worksession B - Executive Summary for the November 19th Public Hearing C - Plan proposed for November 19th Public Hearing D - Minutes from November 19th PC worksession E - Plans submitted on December 15~ for meeting with Neighbors on December 30th F - Applicant's summary of the December 30t~ meeting G - Current Proposal (submitted January 31 s) H - Current Proffers Fontaine Avenue Condos - 3 Staff Report 3 ATTACHMENT STAFF PERSON: ELAINE ECHOLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION: ~MA~02 ZMA-2002-01 FONTAINE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS REZONING Purpose of the work session: The Fontaine Avenue Condominiums rezoning request has been brought to the Planning Commission as a work session item instead of the usual public hearing to discuss the 'big picture' issues with the Planning Commission before staff and the applicant continue work on the more detailed itemS. The applicant and staff are seeking direction from the Planning Commission as to the proposed zoning, and associated density, uses, on and off-site improvements, and layout. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant requests to rezone the property from Highway Commercial (H-C) .to Residential (R-15) to allow the construction of 124 two-bedroom units in five buildings with associated parking, open space and recreational facilities. The parcel contains twelve acres; however, only about half of the acreage is developable. Morey Creek and associated ponds and wetlands occupy the other half of the parcel. Attachment D is a copy of a proposed plan for the development. Attachment E shows perspective drawings for the development. Once the big issues have been resolved, thc applicant intends to proffer a plan of development as well as make additional commitments through written proffers. Petition for Rezoning: Request to rezone 12.606 acres from Highway Commercial (H- C) to Residential (R-15) to allow 124 units (each with 2 bedrooms) in five buildings. The properties described as Tax Map 76 Parcels 12A and 12G are located in :the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of Fontaine Avenue [Route #702] approximately 0.25 miles west of'the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood 6. (See Attachments A & B.) Applicant's Justification: The applicant has stated a desire to bring the parcel into conformity with surrounding residential uses. Rather than propose a use allowed under Highway-Commercial zoning, such as "storage", the applicant proposes high density residential with an extensive green area and water feature. The applicant also submitted a letter in response to staff's initial comments on the request, which addresses the principles of the Neighborhood Model (see Attachment C). Character of the Area: The site is bordered on the west by a large single family lot, on the north by vacant land owned by the University of Virginia, on the east by the Buckingham Circle subdivision and across the street to the south by the UVA Forestry Department. To the west is Trinity Presbyterian Church, which has a large congregation. To the east is the Fontaine Avenue Research Park, which is being developed by the University of Virginia, and will serve as a major employer in the immediate area. The site is also within close proximity to two major highways, Route 29 and 1-64. zoning.and Subdivision History~: ATTACHMENT SP-1996-32 ~i~proved fill in the floodplain for the construction of the pond. This approval required Engineering Department approval of a wetlands mitigation plan. By-right Use of the Property: The property is currently zoned Highway-Commercial, which permits numerous high intensity commercial uses, such as: grocery stores, gas stations, hotels, car sales, and a large number of service type uses. It also allows uses permitted in R-15 by Special Use Permit. However, the applicant chose to rezone the property to allow the R-15 setbacks, which are less than those required in HC. STAFF COMMENT: Comprehensive Plan: Requests for rezonings in the Development Areas are assessed for conformity with the Neighborhood Model and the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan shows this area as Neighborhood Service, which should: include uses such as neighborhood-scale commercial; specialty shops; professional and office uses providing retail, wholesale, and/or business within a Community. This scale of commercial is the type anticipated within a planned development approach; · include urban density residential uses as a secondary use; · require a small site size (I~5 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. The specific recommendations for this site 'are as follows: · Development plans along Route 250 West and Fontaine Avenue are to be sensitive to their status as Entrance Corridor roadways; · Limit the Neighborhood Service designation on Fontaine Avenue west of the Bypass to existing zoned land; and · Provide pedestrian connections from the residential areas in the Neighborhood to the Fontaine Avenue Research Park. When the Neighborhood Service designation was put on the Land Use Plan, it was in recognition of the commercial uses and buildings akeady on the site and on nearby properties. This proposal does not include any neighborhood-scale commercial uses; however, the density of the proposed project is consistent with the Urban Density classification. There are two other commercial buildings nearby as well as the offices of the Virginia Department of Forestry. Use of this site in a residential capacity will remove a significant portion of the Neighborhood Service area from future retail and service use. ATTACHMENT A"'~ The Open Space Plan shows a Major and Locally Important Stream Valley and Adjacent Critical Slope around Morey Creek, and identifies Morey Creek as a perennial stream with non-tidal wetlands, wooded areas and floodplain. The wetlands associated with Morey Creek have been significantly altered in this location, but remain in a relatively natural state upstream. The Open Space Plan says, "When wetlands are to be disturbed on a development site, require the deVeloper to provide evidence of compliance with State and Federal wetlands regulations prior to County approvals." Most of this work was completed when the wetlands were recreated with a pond mitigation plan. The ways in which the proposed project meets the twelve principles for development in accordance with the Neighborhood Model are provided below. Pedestrian The comprehensive plan calls for pedestrian connections from the Orientation residential areas in the neighborhood to the Fontaine Avenue Research Park. The applicant is propOsing to build sidewalks along Fontaine Avenue to the underpass, except where Fontaine Avenue crosses Morey Creek. Staffbelieves a pedestrian bridge or some provision for a continuous pathway is necessary across Morey Creek. Pedestrian access is shown on-site as gravel paths in front of the bumper blocks in the parking lots. Staffbclieves either concrete or asphalt should be used. Neighborhood The proposal does not include streets; rather, the concept plan shows Friendly Streets drive aisles through parking lots and gravel sidewalks adjacent to and Paths parking spaces. While the drive aisles are proposed as asphalt, the applicant proposes an unconventional surface for the parking spaces - prime and double seal using a tan river gravel, topcoat rather than black asphalt. The applicant believes that the light-colored gravel makes for a more friendly parking and path system than concrete or asphalt. Staff agrees that the light-colored gravel will soften the appearance of the parking lot The Engineering Department will make a judgement on whether or not this surface meets the minimum requirements under Section 4~12.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance at the site plan stage. At this juncture, the question is Whether or not gravel is a friendly enough surface for pedestrian access. InterconneCted Two possible connections are shown'on the western edges of the Streets and parking lot; howe/,er, physical constraints and existing development Transportation patterns make it difficult to connect this property to adjacent Networks Properties to the west. There may be an opportunity in the future to connect this property to the north, to whatever development may occur on the University's property and/or Balmoral Heights. Parks and Open More than half the site remains undeveloped with this proposal. The Space applicant proposed deeding that portion of the site, which includes ~ Morey Creek, and it's associated wetlands to the County Parks Department. The Parks Department has declined the offer; therefore, this area would be open space/passive recreation to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The proposal also includes a fitness center and pool for the residents on the western side ATTACHMENT '.of the development, whi.'ch~is.~cor~venientI¥ loc~ted to m~st units. Neighborhood The proposal does not include, a neighborhood center. Ir'is the intent Centers of this petition to proVide as much high-density homing on the site as possible within the physical constraints. The Comprehensive Plan calls for neighborhood-scale commercial uses and residential as a secondary use. Development of this property as residential only may ignore an oppommity to create a neighborhood, center in this location. Buildings and The prOposed'elevations show buildings with features designed at a Spaces of Human hUman scale, including covered ~'r!tries and multi-story outside patios. Scale Staffbelieves these elevations acceptable. (See Attachment E.) Relegated Parking The parking is pro~ided' in front of the. buildings throughout this development and along Fontaine Avenue. To reduce the visual impact of parking along the frontage, the applicant has included garages along Fontaine Avenue. Additional perspective drawings will be needed to judge hoW well the garage buildings, hide the parking areas. Staff does not believe the proposal appropriately relegates parking. MixtUre of Uses The proposal includes a single use, attached residential dwelling units, ' MixtUre of Housing The prop;sal includes a'singie housing tyPe; hOwever, its presence in Types and the neighborhood that contains some affordable traits would offer an Affordability.. . additional type ofhg.using. Redevelopment The proposal would redevelop an 'existing property With two vacant commercial bui.ldings.. Site Planning that The attached concept pla~ dots not show topography. Tl~e prex)ious' Respects Terrain concept plan showed topography such that staf. f could determine that the buildings are placed to correspond with the existing terrain. (A copy of the previous concept plan will be available at the meeting.) The application proposes approximately 10 units per acre, which is less than the 15. units per acre allowed in R- 15. However, in order to fit the number of units desired within t_he physical constraints of the site, it is not clear whether retaining walls will be necessary along the western property boundary. Also, three of the buildings encroach into the 100' stream buffer of Morey Creek. It is possible to request a . waiver of up to 50', but the applicant must demonstrate a mitigation plan acceptable to the Water Resource.P.r. otection Specialist. Clear BoUndraa~ies This Principle is not applicable because the property doesn't b'0rder Rural Areas. Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district According to the Zoning Ordinance, the R-15 zoning district is intended to provide for compact, high-density residential development. The district permits a variety of housing types and provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental, and developmental amenities. Staff believes that the R-15 zoning district, ~1~ '~1~ ATTACHMENT with proffers, could provide appropriate density if the character and form of the development is supportive of the density requested. Public need and justification for the change The County's policy for encouraging develOpment at higher densities within the Development Areas provides a public need and justification for the request. Form and design are as important to a successful project, though, as the density. Anticipated impact on public =facilities and services Transportation - VDOT has requested a traffic study to determine improvements that may be needed for the transportation system. At this juncture, staff believes that mass transit oppommities should be explored as well as possible Transit Demand Management tools. UTS provides service to the Fontaine Research Park. CTS service stops at Jefferson Park Avenue (JPA). A bikeway/walkway across the frontage of the property could help connect this property to the bikelanes in front of the Fontaine Research Park. Water and Sewer - Water and sewer are available to serve the site. There should be no issue with fire flow because the buildings will be sprinkled. Schools- Children from this development would attend Murray Elementary School, Henley Middle School, and Western Albemarle High School. Using the County's multipliers for multi-unit development, a total of 30 children are anticipated with the 153 units. Stormwater Management - The Engineering Department has reiterated to the applicant that the wetlands that were created with the pond mitigation plan are jurisdictional wetlands and therefore cannot function as a Best Management Practice for this development. Water quality measures must be conceptually sized and shown on the plan. They have not been addressed adequately at this time. With regards to water quantity, a detention waiver is possible since this site is located adjacent to a FEMA floodplain. A request and justification for this waiver is required and must address the provisions of Section 17-314F(6). Fiscal impact to public facilities A fiscal impact analysis will be provided at the time of the public, hearing. As with all residential rezonings, the fiscal impact is likely greater than the revenue generated to pay for services. Anticipated impact on natural-, cultural, and historic resources There are no recognized cultural or historic resources located on the property, which would be affected by either a by-right development or this rezoning. However, any ATTACHMENT B" ~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Fontaine Avenue Condos - ZMA 02-01 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to rezone 12.606 acres from Highway Commercial (HC) to Residential (R-15) with proffers to allow 112 dwelling units. The property, described aS Tax Map 76 Parcels 12A and .12G are located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of Fontaine Avenue [Route #702] approximately .25 miles west of the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood 6. AGENDA DATE: November 19, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA:' ACTION: No ATTACHMENTS: Yes ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Barnes; Mr. Cilimberg REVIEWED BY: Background On May 7, 2002, the Planning Commission held a worksession on the Fontaine Avenue Condos rezoning request (ZMA 02-01). At the worksession, staff identified the following issues as outstanding (see Attachment F for the complete staff report) : 1. The lack ora pedestrian bridge across Morey Creek. 2. The lack of sidewalks within the site. 3. The need to better relegate the parking. 4. The lack of a conceptual grading plan. During the worksession, lhe Commissioners added the following issues as additional concerns that needed to be worked through (see Attachment G for the Commission Minutes): A. The need to provide an adequate streetscape along Fontaine Avenue. B. The need for the applicant to hold.a meeting with the Buckingham homeowners to better understand and address their concerns. The 'applicant and staff have spent the intervening time wOrking on these issues. Discussion Staff and the applicant have worked to resolve the issues raised at the worksession. The apphcant has proffered to construct a pedestrian bridge across Morey Creek (For the applicant's proffers - See Attachment A). Additionally, the applicant is also providing paved sidewalks within the site. The most difficult design issue has been the relegation of parking from Fontaine Avenue and the streetscape along Fontaine. At the worksession, the Commission reviewed a plan that showed parking lots along the entire extent of Fontaine (Attachment B). The applicant's concept was to soften the impact of the parking lots by providing garages and landscaping across the frontage for Fontaine Avenue Condos - 2~a Staff Report A TTA CHMENT B "3 screening purposes. The Commission agreed with staff that this design (Attachment B) did not adequately reflect the intent of the Neighborhood Model. Furthermore, the Commission expressed the concern that the garages not show a rear side/blank fagade to the street. To counter staff's and the Commission's concerns, the applicant submitted a plan that brought the buildings closer to Fontaine and relegated all of the parking (Attachment C). Staff rejected this conceptual plan because it created a "sea of parking" internally. Additionally, this plan still retained a travelway between Fontaine Avenue and the buildings. Staff and the applicant have continued to work through numerous concept plans and have arrived at the current concept plan (Attachment D). From a planning perspective, staff believes that the current proposal (Attachment D) has the following advantages over the previous submitted plans (Attachment B & C): 1. It brings at least two of the buildings up to Fontaine Avenue. The eastern most of these two buildings has the additional advantage of screening the parking from the main approach to the site. 2. The parking area will be screened from Fontaine with landscaping and garages that will have windows in them. The windows will keep the garages from having a blank fagade facing the street. 3. The current plan keeps all the buildings except Building 1 out of the 100-foot stream buffer. 4. The current plan spreads the amenities through out the site. 5. The current plan does not concentrate all of the parking into one area internally. 6. The applicant has provided and proffered appropriate building elevations. Staff's only concern with the rezoning is with the proposed grading plan. The plan's proposed parking lot grades exceed the maximum grades allowed by the ordinance. Until the applicant is able to demonstrate that it is possible to grade site to the ordinance's standards and achieve the proposed layout, staff will be unable to recommend approval. Finally, the applicant has indicated that he believes that he has satisfied all of the concerns raised by the residents of Buckingham Circle at the May 7th worksession. Additionally, he has stated to staff that he intends to meet with the Buckingham Circle residents prior to the November 19th public hearing (See the applicant's letter to the Commission -Attachment H). Recommendation Staff feels that the basic issues that were raised during the Planning Commission's worksession have been resolved. Staff would recommend approval if the Engineering Department's concerns with the grading plan were satisfied. However, until these concerns with the proposed grades are resolved, staff is unable to recommend approval. Attachments A - Proffers B - Applicant's proposal Shown at the Commission's May 7th worksession C - Applicant's proposal provided in response to the Commission's worksession F - Staff Report for May 7th PC worksession G - Minutes from May 7th PC worksession H- Applicant letter to the Commission D - Current proposal E - Building Elevations Fontaine Avenue Condos - 2~a Staff Report T, M. 1bP - P. A~ LOT 5 BK ~ ~C, ~ "BU(.;KI~' ID. B. :29'0-6~1 PLAT T. M. I~ - P. I:2ID ID. B, 45~-~ PL~T 50 FO(IT, WULAND l, STREAM BUFFER -LIMIT LIME ~ROXIHATELY 7500 SO.rt. ~IOLOGICAL FILTER F~ ~DSURFACE 100 FOOT ~FER LINE 'T. M. 3b - P, 16 ID~ V. 4 D. D: ~)24'-t04 ID. B. 240-1:24 PLAT f / I '\ FAMILY HOME SITE ~BU1LDING ENVEL~E., WITH (]NE PRIVATE ENTRANCE PER VOgT STD. '\ TMIS SITE PLAN WAS BASE~ Up~ JNDART & 1 SURVEY OF 1199 ACRES TAX HAP 76, PARCELS I2AO AND lOGO O~ - 350 - 419 - 12.009 AC AND 597 ~E LOCATE~ DH STATE ROUTES 702 k 820, JUSt WEST ~ CITY DF CHA~LDTTESVILL[ SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT AL ~EN~LE, C~UNTY VIRGINIA BENCH ~RK A.) NO ~ETERHINATION MADE TO THE EXISTENCE ar UNDERGROUND UTILITIES EXCEPT AS SHD~N HEREON [) CITY Dr CHARLOTTESVILLE ENGINEERING DEPT. BENCH L~AT~D ON TH~ NORTH S~DE OF THE STREET ~' SOUTH l' EAST OF THE NORIHEAST CORNER DF THE INTERSECIION aF FOUNTAIN AM~NUE ~ PIEDMONT AVENUE. ~HISELED SGUARE DN CURD ZONING EXISTING ZONING IS HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL PROPOSED ZONING RESIDENTIAL 15, fOR ALL 1~.606 ACRES DENSITY MAXIMUM PROPOSEDDENSITYlidCONDD41NIUMS, 110 CDNDDMINIUMS 5 TrlWNMD4ES 2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES GRDSS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS 9,4 DU/ACRE ' BUILDING COVERAGE 2 BEDROOMUNITS= I10 TOWNHBNES =5 SINGLE FAMILY =E MAX, DUILDINO FOOTPRINT = ov,450'SQ.FT. IR.COG ACRE s 549,~17. MAX, BUILDING HEIGHT = 47'-0' PARKING ~ OPrN SPACE 224 (~)PARKING IN GARAGES TOTAL SPACES ~ 2,40 SH(]W CASE HaME SITE ENV£LDP£J ONE HOUSE ~ITH ATTACHED CARE J TAKER APARTMENT WIIH PRIVATE! ENTRANCE PER V~OT STD, I L APPRDqMATE LOCAT(]14 DF [XlSTlt~i BRIDGE pROpOSED BITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ATTACHMENT C-"~ PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPblENT PlAN · ? ATTACHMENT D--...~ Mr. Clark stated that it was five percent of the cross sectional area of the flood plain at that point. Mr. Edgerton asked could a parking area have been built anywhere on this site without being in the flood plain? Mr. Clark stated probably not. Mr; Rieley stated that he did not know how the 100-year flood plain relates, but this was Bill Ketso's old house and the house had been flooded before. Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any other questions before he opened the public hearing. There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. Charles Lunsford, applicant, stated that.he did not have too much to add other than what was in the report. He pointed out that the goal of the driveway was to improve an existing back entrance which the previous owners had been using for safety reasons as their existing driveway really abuts right up to heavy truck traffic on Plank Road. Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were questions for Mr. Lunsford. There being none, he asked if there was anyone else present who wanted to speak concerning this application. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the application back before the Commission for action. Mr..Rieley stated that it seems that the only substance isSue here is engineering one relative to the construction of the floodway. Since Engineering said that they would have approved this if it were an original application, he stated that it was a pretty clearly justifiable request. Mr. Loewenstein asked for a motion if there was no further discussion. Mr. Rieley moved for approval of SP-02-12, 4749 Plank Road Driveway, with no conditions Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (7:0) with no conditions as presented. Mr. Loewenstein stated that SP-02-12 was approved and would go to the Board on December 4th. ZMA-02-01 Fontaine Avenue Condos (Sign # 77~ 81) - Request to rezone 12.606 acres from Highway Commercial (HC)to Residential (R-l§)to allow 112 units. The property, described as Tax Map 76 Parcels 12A and 12G are located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of Fontaine Avenue [Route # 702] approximately .25 miles west of the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and Route 29. The' Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood 6. (Michael Barnes) Deferred from the November 12, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. Deferred Items: ZMA-O2-01 Fontaine Avenue Condos (Sign # 77, 81) - Request to rezone 12.606 acres from Highway Commercial (HC) to Residential (R-15) to allow 112 units. The property, described as Tax Map 76 Parcels 12A and 12G are located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of Fontaine Avenue [Route # 702] approximately .25 miles west of the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood 6. (Michael Barnes) Deferred from the November 12, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES ATTACHMENT D-.-~ Mr. Loewenstein stated that staff just handed out some additional comments. Mr. Barnes presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) He pointed out that the Commission reviewed this request on May 7th' There were several outstanding issues that included.the central grading plan on the site, how to relegate the parking on the site, the lack of sidewalks in the site, the desire for pedestrian access and and how to make connectivity to Charlottesville improved. Those issues were raised in staff report. The Commission raised the concepts of ~mproving the Streetscape along Fontaine Avenue and addressing the needs that the Buckingham homeowners addressed at that meeting. The owner has worked on the grading plan and the appearance from Fontaine Avenue. The applicant went through numerous plans to arrive at the plan that is seen on the left. He apologized for not having a better display pointing out that Attachment D shows a cross section of the site. The basic intent of what our strategy was for relegated parking was to bring the buildings closer to Fontaine Avenue. The strategy was to bring some of the buildings up to the road, retain the garages that were previously proposed along that road, and add windows to the garages. It would not appear as though one is seeing the rear of the garage, but a building that interfaces with the street and screens the parking that is internal to the site. He noted that this does not show the landscaping that the applicant has proffered Staff feels that strategy will adequately provide a streetscape, a presence on the street and shield the majority of the parking. They have gone through trying, to provide the relegated parking internally on the site. What they achieved with that was two large parking bays internal on the site. Staff feels that this is a good compromise in the street approach from city because the visual impact of site would be accommodated. Other advantages of this site plan 'is that it pulls the buildings out of the 100-foot stream buffer except for the building that is immediately adjacent to Fontaine Avenue and closest to the eastern side of the site. Approximately about one-third of the building is within the 100-year flood plain buffer. The point of that building is to provide some presence to.the road and to draw the eye to the building as opposed to the parking lots. He referred to the colored plan on the wall. One of the biggest issues for the Commission, Planning and Engineering was the conceptual grading plan. The plan was deferred from the 12th to tonight because the grading issues were still being worked through with the applicant and the Engineering Department. He pointed out what he handed out tonight is the comments from the Engineering Department. He read the circled portion; the latest conceptual grading plan and cross sections indicate that the proposed grading can meet the standards of the ordinance. Their remaining concern was that the parking lot to the east of Building 7 was proposed at the grade of 7 percent. They felt that this could be remedied in the site plan with a 2 to 3 foot retaining wall to the left of sidewalk. The problems had been that the grades internal to the site were too steep to meet the Ordinance's required five percent maximum grade for the parking lot. That was the reason primarily that staff in the recommendations had stated that until the grading issue was resolved, that staff could not recommend approval. With this information from the Engineering Department, staff is now able to recommend approval of ZMA-02-01 to the Planning Commission. Mr. Edgerton asked which attachment that he was recommending approval of Mr. Barnes noted the following for the benefit of the Commission: · Attachment B was the plan that was submitted to the Commission on May 7th. · Attachment C is an immediate plan that staff included to show what happens when you try to get this much density on this site with all the parking relegated. · Attachment D is the plan before the Commission. · Page 6 was the interim plan that is not being considered by the Commission at this time. · Pages 7 through 10 are the proffered plans that are before the Commission for consideration. · Page 11 is the proffered elevations. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES A'I-I'ACHMENT D~.-~ Mr. Rieley asked if there was discussion with the applicant on the proposal for the rezoning of this property to consider the:mixed-use development to be more in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. Mr. Barnes stated that they had discussed it several times. The property was currently zoned highway commercial. It is the old Route 29 and does not get the same amount of traffic that it once did. Obviously in a neighborhood center construct this might have the possibility of becoming the neighborhood center for this portion of Neighborhood 6. However at this time there is not enough vehicle traffic to have that type of use that would rely on highway commercial uses. It perhaps could be used for a commercial use or offices with end designation, But for retail business, staff came to the conclusion that this was not viable in this area at this time. It would not support that ~e of mixture of use. Staff determined that the highway commercial uses were not viable uses because there were not enough people in the area to support the small shops, etc. Mr, Thomas asked if the applicant has met with the residents and discussed the situation. Mr. Barnes stated that he would have the applicant address that. He pointed out, that he had counseled the applicant to do so, Mr. Loewenstein stated that he asked that of the applicant at the last meeting. The staff report said that the applicant planned to meet with the residents. He noted that he did not see anything in attachment Hthat addresses that. He noted that they could ask the applicant, Mr. Craddock asked what could be done in the flat lots along Buckingham Road? What could those areas be used for? Mr. Bames stated that the upper lots are within the 100-foot buffer and have critical slopes and the one towards the bottom of the page is within the 100-foot buffer. Therefore, they are not build able lots and would be part of the open space on the plan. Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing and asked if applicant was present to address the Commission. Larry Burnette stated that he had owned 'this prope ,r~with Bob Boyle for four and. one-half years and planned to put a hotel on it. After September 11 it seemed wiser to do something else with the property. They approached Planning staff and they highly recommended that they make it a high residential area. They have done about 17 different studies and Planning staff has seen 6 of them. They have lowered the density from the time that they started. He showed the Commission what the plan on the lower left that they planned to use. He noted that was what they would build if they have the permission. The town homes on the sheets were the concepts that they started with initially and he did not want to get into the architectura~ detail until they get the building locations and arrangements that people are satisfied with. He displayed several renderings of the proposed development .at different scales. He pointed out that with the heavy landscaping added the site would not be very visible within ten years. The final discretion on the landscaping has been reserved in the proffer for the Planning staff. This plan is new to the Commission, but not for the majority of the residents of BuCkingham Circle~ They have had a web site up since June and these renderings have been put there. He noted that he has had ongoing email correspondence with the residents of Buckingham Circle and has tried to answer questions as they came up in a way that the Planning staff thought was reasonable. He pointed out the preferred architectural look for the town homes. He stated that he has canvassed about 35 of the 53 homes in Buckingham Circle. The neighborhood has a newsletter that has the comments from the Planning staff. Therefore, he felt that the residents of Buckingham Circle have been very well informed about the development even though there was no formal meeting. He pointed out that he intended to purchase one of the units. The units would be town homes or condominiums and not rental units. The units would be relatively affordable. He pointed out that he had been working with Planning staff for one year and he had tried to address everything. He asked to be able to go ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES ATTACHMENT D o~ forward with the project. He pointed out that he was willing to proffer to take out the one building out of the 100-year bUffer if that was something that was important to the Planning Commission. Mr. Finley asked why they reduced the density. Mr. Burnette stated because it worked and the neighborhood had an issue with the density. He noted that he cut the density as much as possible. Mr. Loewenstein asked for public comment from the sign in sheet. Donald Day stated that ,the Buckingham circle residents have been interested in the development of this site. He asked that all the residents of Buckingham Circle raise their hands. He pointed out that they wanted to play a constructive role in the property's development. They wanted to make sure that the best use was made of the property for a lasting value for the community. He questioned why the rezoning was being requested. They can see several uses available to this property under their current Highway Commercial zoning that would be better for the community. In conclusion, he asked that they deny the rezoning request because there has been no give and take with the community. Vincent Dy, resident of 118 Buckingham Circle, stated that he was opposed to the development as it stands. He noted that from looking at the plans, this was going to be student housing and would be out of context with the neighborhood. He asked that the neighborhood have more input into the process. Paul Root, resident of 103 Buckingham Circle, stated that they appreciated the modification made, ~)ut he was still opposed to the proposal. He noted that it was disturbing that these units would become university housing. This proposal has not addressed the traffic flow issue which was already a problem getting in and out of their neighborhood. The increasing flow of traffic will show a tremendous amount of problems particularly with the very narrow bridge at the bottom of that area. He stated that he had seen that bridge under water at a foot and a half. He asked that the Planning Commission continue studying the plan and be thoughtful of the rezoning change. Bill Goldene supported Mr. Day's comments. He noted concem with the fact that staff would recommend approval of the request when it goes totally against the DISC and the Neighborhood Model. He asked that the Commission deny this request. Barry McClary, resident of 175 Buckingham Circle for 18 years, stated that his understanding of the Neighborhood Model was to encourage rather than distract from the community. He stated that in this instance this proposal does not meet the Neighborhood Model. Since his house was the most affected visually by this development; he asked that the Commission deny the request. He pointed out that the applicant did not stop by his house during his distribution of materials. He stated that there has not been any give and 'take in this process and the density would be the highest in the area. Fontaine Avenue is the only access to this area, which created many concerns. Mary McClary, resident of 175 Buckingham-Circle, thanked the applicant for the use of the property for the barbecue and yard sale. She noted that they wanted to get to know their neighbors, but felt that the huge buildings would be very overwhelming. She voiced concerns about the damage to the environment and the little one-way road that served the development. She noted her disappointment in the applicant not contacting them. She asked that the Commission deny the request because it did not fit the Neighborhood Model. Alana Day, resident of 151 Buckingham Circle, stated that she had submitted an email yesterday. She noted that she would not repeat many of the concerns that the other neighbors had. She emphasized that Mr. Burnette has not provided a perspective of what this would look like from the McClary's house. She stated that there would be about 400 additional people added to the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES ATTACHMENT D neighborhood with this development. They would have no bus lines or sidewalks available for pedestrian access. She asked that the Commission deny this request because Fontaine Avenue is the entrance into the University and the traffic needs to be able to flow well. Regina Carlson, resident of 109 Buckingham Circle for 16 years, stated that she supported the use of this property for residential development, but opposed the proposed high-density level. She felt that it was out of context with the adjacent neighborhoods. She favored having a mixture of residential uses with lower density unless some of these other issues could be addressed. She. stated that they already had a problem with the road because it is a dead end read. Fontaine Avenue becomes'very narrow after the bypass. She noted that the University was not going to extend the bus tine to this area. She felt that there should be a formal meeting with: the developer to try to address these issues. She asked that the Commission deny the request, particularly because of the traffic issues. Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was anyone else that wants to speak. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matterto the Commission for discussion. Mr. Thomas asked'what the traffic situation was in terms of how many vehicle trips per day. Mr. Barnes stated that he did not have an existing traffic count for that road. He stated that VDOT made the determination that a traffic study would not be warranted for that. He stated that their logic was that if a site.impacts an intersection by more than 15 percent, then they need to study that intersection. The amount of traffic that was moving through the intersection of Fontaine is more than what this site would be generating. He pointed out that it was more of a public issue than an individual development issue. Mr. Thomas asked if the narrow.bridge would be adequate. M r. Barnes stated that the bridge accOmmodated vehicle traffic, but it certainly was a substandard bridge. He noted that he cOuld not speak to whether two tractor-trailers could pass on bridge. He pointed out that one of the supporting factors in this rezoning was the pedestrian bridge that the applicant was proffering as well as the sidewalk that would take from the site u p to the sidewalk system that ends at Fontaine Avenue Research Park: Mr. Finley stated that what they were hearing from the present residents came up during the work session. They' had questions to be answered that have not been done, Mr. Rieley stated that he was not at the work session, but obviously from the minutes there was a clear direction to the applicant to work with the neighbors in developing the plan. Mr. Loewenstein stated that was part of this week's staff report as well. He noted that he had issues with that as well as some other concems. He stated that .in his opinion this particular request that they had was not fully addressed by the developer. With all due respect for Mr. Bumette's efforts to get infom~ation out, he did not think it was done in a way that encouraged very much direct feedback from the people that he was asked to meet with. He felt that it was not fully accomplished. Mr. Rieley asked that they discuss the major issues. Being familiar with the site, the.crux of his concern about the proposal is that it was avery ordinary request, but the site being a sloping piece of property next to this stream, corridor creates some concern. He agreed with Mr. Day's four summary points that he made. He noted that Mr. Loewenstein had mentioned the first one.. The second point was that the proposed residential development was inconsistent with the Neighborhood Model. He stated that rezonings are their best opportunity to get closer to the Neighborhood Model. The proposal before them had no mixture of uses for the fundamental Neighborhood Model. It has very in the way of the mixture of housing types. Essentially the same scale of housing type was being used. The attempts to relegated parking have basically been ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -NOVEMBER 19, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES A'i-rACHMENT D-~) unsuccessful. The reason is that this kind of housing type on a narrow piece of property makes it almost impossible to achieve that. The street cross-section that they have talked about so much in the evolution of the Neighborhood Model and its capacity to get a humanized scale to a more urban environment in an enclosed open space at a human scale is completely lacking. This preposal is inconsistent with the Neighborhood Model. He felt that this was a piece of property that lends itself enormously to the application of those principles.. The third point was the development's density exceeding that of the surrounding area. That is obviously true because when you are in the development areas you have to acknowledge that they are going to have situations in which infill is greater density than the existing development. That is a normal situation. Nevertheless, it should be harmonious with it even if it is at a greater density. Some highway departments are using the phrase context sensitive design these days. It is usually used in pretty strange situations. He noted that it was a good term and that they should be sensitive to the context, in this case this is a community that surely has a value as it is. The fourth statement was that clearly the existing zoning allows for the use of the property, which was a true statement. He reiterated what Mr. Loewenstein previously stated concerning the fact that the applicant has not availed himself for comments from the members of the community Mr. Thomas felt that the development was very well suited for this piece of preperty. He noted that the density had been brought down from what it was originally set at. Taking that into consideration, he felt that this piece of property would be difficult to development due to the slope of the preperty and the wetlands. He stated that if the project goes forward that the building that was sitting in the lO0-year floodplain does need .to be moved back..He stated that the density was normal for the development area. He felt that the pond separates the high density from the Iow density well enough. He felt that the meeting with the developer and the neighbors needs to occur. Mr. Finley questioned whether the procedure is working. He asked if the applicant needs to start over at this point since he had already had a work session and they heard all that they had to say. He noted that Planning and Engineering were both recommending appreval. He asked what else the applicant has to do? Mr. Loewenstein stated that .some of the goals that they asked the applicant to achieve at the work session were not, in the opinion of some people, achieved. He noted that was a quick response to a small part of it. Ms. Hopper stated that one of the things that came out from the last work session, was that the applicant needs to hold a meeting with the neighbors. When that did not happen, then that was her primary reason for having problems with this application. She noted that certainly a work session was helpful, but their work session directed pulling in comments frem the neighbors which would have been incredibly helpful at the front end of this project. Aisc, regarding the Neighborhood Model and the mixture of uses or housing types, she did not think that each application has to have a mixture of uses and-a mixture of housing types. She felt that they needed to look at the area to make sure that there is a mixtureof uses and housing types to make sure that the Neighborhood Model's principles are met that way. She stated' that if the applicant decides to defer and come before them again, she would like to see that explained to address that principle more. The main concern is the human scale and the pedestrian friendly so that there is a place that people want to hang out other than having parties. She pointed out that there were no courtyards. She stated that 'she did not see, how the storm water detention pond has been incorporated into the overall development. She voiced great concern over the one access for the traffic. She asked for more information on the traffic since she could see that intersection getting backed up leaving the site. She noted that if the design was more apprepriate that the density could be supported. She asked for more detail about the screening. Mr. Craddock stated that he sat out at the site for about one-half of an hour today and wondered where all of the 'cars were coming from that were turning around. Obviously, he knew the buses turning around were going .to the LaFayette School, but the cars were going to the Chinese ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES ATTACHMENT D- ;, Dragon and just turning around to come back into town. He pointed out that he leamed tonight why they were turning areund was because they could not turn left to go into town. He assumed that the bridge was State approved and safe. He stated that if this was developed as Highway Commercial, a hotel or gas station/convenience store would not be any worse than what is being proposed, particularly in crossing that bridge. Mr. Barnes stated that there was no doubt that the bridge was substandard. He pointed out that the Engineering Department would look at the difference in the traffic for residential as opposect to commercial development. Mr. Loewenstein invited the applicant to come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Bumette stated that Mike Grimes at VDOT had studied the traffic and he assured him that there was no reason to write a report from his view as a traffic engineer. He suggested that they COuld do a model setup, but it would show that this was well within what they had expected. He pointed out that they were paying to open up a sidewalk all along there to Fontaine Research Park and adding a bridge. He noted that they had a deceleration lane coming into the preperty and designed it so that it was plenty wide for persons coming in and out of the preperty. This was per VDOT's direction. In terms of the rezoning, the Planning Department told him that he could apply for this as a use with a special use permit and leave the Highway Commercial, but they preferred that he rezone it. He stated that he has tried to meet every request that has been given to him. He noted that he had given on every single point. He stated that if he meets with the neighbors that he was sure that they would ask for things that he could not give. He apologized for not meeting with the neighbors. He noted that he wanted to make sure that he had something that the Planning Department could say yes that it was correct. He noted that he hesitated'to meet with the neighbors and give them his ideas that the County had not agreed to. He stated that it took one year before Engineering and Planning told him that they would recommend approval. The very next day he went out into the neighborhood and passed our information. They had discussed bus service very early on, and Ms. Echols stated that there was no chance for bus service. He noted that they did add the sidewalks and screening along the road. He noted that they did not plan to just hOuse students because it was 'not designed as such. Mr. Edgerton stated that the apPlicant should have gotten a strong signal from the past work session that they wanted him to identify their concerns. He felt that the applicant did not schedule the meeting with the neighbors because he was not interested in changing the scale of his proposal. Technically, they have to include the entire acreage of this property. About 60 percent of the property is very sensitive and environmentally challenged and should be respected. Anything that is done on this site will affect this. The scale of the proposal was overwhelming and he had a great deal of difficulty with what is proposed. He agreed with Mr. Rieley on the lack of sensitivity to the surreunding area. He noted that technically it can be done, but it does not mean that it should be done. He stated that he could not support the application. He felt that it should be acknowledged in the plan that portions of the property should never be developed. In reviewing the Neighborhood Model, he could not find where any of the principles nave been supported by the proposed plan. He felt that this was a proposed housing project that was totally unsympathetic to this neighborhood. Mr. Loewenstein stated that he was unable to support the request. He noted that they have looked a lot at the density issue. Even at a reduced density level on this parcel, the scale is-still wrong. There was an opportunity here to do something about a mixture of housing types that might have helped to reduce that scale and oossibly reduced the density. In this particular case, he might not have as much trouble if the scale was brought into proportion to what surrounds it. In this particular location the scale issue is a really important one because of the potential impact. He felt that the residents would have complaints in the future regarding accessibility. He felt that the development would end up being student housing and would create an immense difficulty with the traffic flow and with a great many things. In this case he did not think this was in the interest of the people in the community.. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES ATTACHMENT D--~ Mr. Thomas stated that the property was zoned highway commercial and the development of that would be more intense. Mr. Loewenstein stated that he did not see this site supporting those kind of uses, particularly with the limited access. Mr. Finley asked what would be feasible and what would happen next. Mr. Loewenstein stated that they had to take some type of action unless the applicant was interested in a deferral to do further wOrk based on the Commission's comments and the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Rieley pointed out that he believed Mr. Bumette that he did not intend to have student housing. The difficulty was that the land use permits run with the land and not with people. Therefore, they had to make a decision based on what this zoning change will allow without any regard to who owns it at any given time. Ms. Hopper asked if the applicant was interested in requesting deferral. Mr. Burnette asked to be able to see if he understand that correctly, He stated that he could say yes that he would like a deferral and then go back and study this some more and make some decisions about what was doable. He stated that he could say no, let's have a vote, and then it would be approved or denied and allows him to go forward to the Board of Supervisors. He asked if this work session would count as the formal meeting with the residents. Mr. Loewenstein stated that this was a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The applicant's presentation is to be to the Commission and not the audience. In his opinion, this does not constitute an open meeting to allow an open dialogue with the public. Mr. Bumette asked for indefinite deferral of the request. Mr. Rieley moved to accept the applicant's request for an indefinite deferral. Mr. Finley seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (7:0). Mr. Loewenstein stated that this matter would not go to the Board of Supervisors on December 11th as originally scheduled. Public Hearing Item: SP-02-051 Violet Mawyer Mill Mountain (Nextel) - Request for special use permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service facility, with a 105 foot tall wooded monopole, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for microwave transmission towers and their appurtenances by special use permit. The property, described as Tax Map 98, Parcel 22, contains 48.83 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on Rt. 804 (Thackers Lane) approximately 400 feet east of the intersection with Rt. 29S (Monacan Trail Road). The property is zoned PA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property Rural Areas 4. (Stephen Waller). ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES 100 YEAR FL00D LINE~ ELEV ~ 43B.0' LOT 3 BK 3 SEC 3 "BUCKtNOHAM" D, B. 270-65 PLAT T. M.'TB - P. 12D UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION 3f B~ 1225-285 D~ B. '~53-$B6 PLAT TOTAL HARD SURFACE AREA 18~4B3 SO. fT.\,~ BiO,FilteR REQUIRED, AT 5 Z 6,8~5 SQ. fTi PROVIBED APPROXIMATELY 7500 SO,FT. BIOLOGICAL FILTER.FDR;HARDSURFAC£ RUNBFF-----~ ~ '~ 100 FOOT ~ %_J " ......... LINE 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE--~ ELEV = 438,0' 50 FOOT WETLAND & STREAN BUFFER LIMIT LINE--~ T.M. 76 - P. 16' ' DORSET V. ~ IMOOENE~ S. BIAS D. B. 240-12~- PLAT LEGEND ss-- SANITY SEWER ~-- WATER LINE --=-- BURIED DRAIN PIPE ---E DC--- UNDER GROUND ELECTRICAL ......... PROPD~E~ GRADES BIOFILTER L M, 76D - P. A2 .OT 2 BK a SEC 3 '~UCKINGNAM" 3. b. 270-63 PLAT POND £LEv.=. 45~'~Y ,I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '\. LEGAL DE8CRIPTION THIS SITE PLAN WAS BASED UPON BOUNDARY & TOP SURVEY DF I1,99 ACRES TAX MAP 7~ PARCELS t2A0 AN~ 1800 DB - 350 - 419 - 12,009 AC AND 597 AC, LOCATED DN STATE ROUTES 708 & 8~0, dUST WEST DF THE CITY DF CHARLOTTESVILLE SANUEL MILLER DISTRICT ALBEMARL~ COUNTY VIRGINIA BENCH MARK !A.> ND DETERMINATION MADE tD THE ~XISTENCE OF : UNDERGROUND UTILITIES EXCEPT AS SHOWN HEREON '{B,) CIT~ ~F CHARLOTTESVILLE ENGINEERING DEPT, BENCH MARK i LOCATED ON THE NORTH SI~E DF THE STREE% 5' SOUTH & · 1' EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER DF THE INTERSECTION DF FOUNTAIN AVENUE & PIEDMONT AVENUE. .CHISELED SQUARE DN CURB ELEVATIDN ~ 538,~3' ZONING ~EXISTING ZONING IS HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, ,PROPOSED ZONING RESIDENTIAE. D5, POR ALL 18.60~ ACRES DENSITY ~AXIMUM PROPOSED DENSIT~ 90/~DNDDMINIUMS, ;GROSS RESIDENTIAL DENSITYI~ %14 DU/ACRE · BUILDING COVERAGE BUILDING No, ) = 2 UNITS L590 SQ.FT, BUILDING No. ~ = 6 UNITS 5,180' SQ,FT, 'BUILDING No, 3= 38 UNITS 5,936 SQ,FT. BUILDING NO, zl= 32 UNITS 5,936 SQ,FT, BUILDING No, 5 = 24 UNITS 5,936 SQ.FT, BUILDING No, 6= 84 UNITS 10,840SQ,FT, BUILDING No, 7= '~ UNITS 3,180 SO FT, BUILDING No, 8= 12 UNITS 5,120 SQ,FT, ~VE., BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 5,388 SQ.FT, 18,606 ACRE = 549J17 ~AX BUILDING HEIGHT = 36'-0' TO MID POINT DF GABLE ROOF PARKING REQUIRED 180 SHED 18 TOTAL SPACES 831 RUNNING PATH EASEMENT TO ALBERMARLE COUNTY'ALONG STATE RUTE 808 (WEST BUCKINGHAM CIRCLE) IS IN THE PROFFERS, L APPRDNIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING BRIDGE MAXIMUM GRADE IN PARKING AREAS 5% MAXIMUM GRADE AT ENTRY AT FnNTAINE AVENUE 6,5% MAXIMUM ~RAD£ DN FDNTAINE AVENUE PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ATTACHMENT E't'~ ~o PROi'OSED SITE I Di:NELOPUENT m · PIIN ATTACHMENT F~,.~ Larry Bumett - Jefferson Lodge LLC P.O. Box 19622 Boulder, CO 80308 January 6t" 2003 RE: FONTAINE ARBORS CONDOMINIUMS PROPOSAL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Dear Neighbor, This is a report of the neighborhood meeting which was held in the Etheridge Meeting Room of the Charlottesville, VA Hampton Inn at 7:00pm on December 30, 2002. The following people were in attendance: Larry and .Bobi Glenn Bumett Henry V. Kaeiber Paul Rood Gall Pataky Donai Day Gene V. Leake Lois Austin Scott and Ann Stacy Bob Miller Ruth Goideen Will Rieley The meeting began with Larry Bumett of Jefferson Lodge LLC reviewing the latest concept plan for Parcel 12A and 12G of tax map 76, which property is being proposed to be rezoned to R-15 from the existing Highway Commercial zoning. In general, most comments by West Buckingham Circle residents were not supportive of the development~ As Gene Leake put it, "This is a case of 'not in my back yard'" However, for the purpose of understanding and response, I will try to summarize the essential categories of comments brought forth bythe attendees. -I am interested not so much in an exhaustive list of every comment, but rather in gleaning an understanding of the specific categories of comments, which then become the possible areas where changes can add value for both the neighborhood and the project. COMMENTS ON THE USE AND DENSITY ~ Most participants thought that the densi~ was too high: "this will haveail the same problems as your last proposal", - "Our neighborhood is R-2, we could only support about an R-4 density.' The neighborhood could probably only support one story homes on ~ acre lots similar to Buckingham Circle." "less than 48 units" we would consider supporting an office building, and upgrade hotel, restaurant, child care, or something commercial - have you considered a U-store it?.". Ok for buildings to face Buckingham Circle. Town cluster concept is good. COMMENTS ON VISUAL ~ ~'our one story lower buildings are still "too visual", '~ve'd have to 'see it' when we ddve by". The. two story buildings are too tall, "Have you considered turning them sideways so the side would face the pond", and "We would like the front to face to pond", ~ve would like garages to face the pond~. We would like to see tall trees to block the view but it will take twenty years to grow. 'N'ou should put the trees on the island and in front of the houses so we can still see the pond." It should be noted here that the McLerran's were unable to attend, and that their house is the only house truly visible from across the pond. Previous discussion with the McLerran's on how to screen their view of the hotel that was then being planned seemed to be acceptable to Mrs. McLerran at that time. ATTACHMENT NOISE AND LIGHTS AT NIGHT? ~ "We want to see the stars and not lights at night", and "commercial and office will be quieter at night than neighbors." THE QUESTION OF SECURITY ~ who will be out Neighbors? We want to be safe and know who is ddving in our neighborhood. We keep check on each others homes. We do not want strangers in our neighborhood. We want to be safe and private. THE QUESTION OF VALUE ~ There seemed to be agreement on having neighbors that were neither too poor nor too rich. Comments that upscale values were preferable to lower values. Lower pdces would be affordable to students which was bad, but the upper end of pdces I suggested were considered too piracy. THE QUESTION OF BENEFIT TO WEST BUCKINGHAM CIRCLE Vigorous discussion of what might benefit Buckingham Circle residents arrived at no conclusion, with friendly exchange from attendees on both sides of most issues. Toward the end of the meeting, a written list of comments was started by Donal Day, and added to by other attendees. All of those comments are included herein. For the benefit of anyone not able to attend, or previously comment, I have added another stamped, addressed envelope for your response. For Jefferson Lodge LLC, my initial response is that since the majodty of my development background is in commercial and retail development, ! do know one very fundamental difference between commercial and residential developments is that with commercial, much effort is expended in attracting as many people to the commercial location as possible for as much of the day as is possible. Commercial development on Fontaine Avenue will work against the secluded nature of the area. North 29 is a commercial area, and it represents the desirable nature of a commercial development. Traffic, visibility, and activity' begets business. Highway Commercial development would become a significant detriment, not a benefit, to.the peaceful seclusion of West Buckingham Circle and the surrounding area. The visual issues, which again relate to peaceful seclusion can be handled with trees in a short time frame. The density of half of the allowable, at R - 7.15 is reasonable. The architectural style is without criticisms, and the interior layouts accommodate couples and families. The change to residential will significantly benefit this secluded area... Sincerely, Larry Bumett, Jefferson Lodge LLC Cut here'to return your comments, clarifications, or questions. Sirs, My additional comments on the proposed residences are as follows; t00 YEAR FLOOD LINE~ ELEV : T. M, 7BO - R, A3 _OT 3 BK 3 SEC 3 'BUCKINGHAM" 3. 8. 270-65 PLAT \ T. M. 76 - P. 12D UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION D. B, 1225-285 D. B, 453-380 :~LAT I EA 181,811SQ. FT, 5 % 6,091SQ. FT, I )ED APPROXIMATELY 6500 SQ, PT ACE RUNOFF AT THREE LGCATIDNS 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE---~ ELEV : 438.0' 50 FOOT WETLAND & STREAM BUFFER LIMIT \ TOTAL HARD SURFACE AREA 1B4.483 SO, FT, ~',.. BID-FILTER REQUIRED AT 5 % 6,285 SO. FT PROVIDED APPROXIMATELY 7500 SQ,FT, BIOLOGICAL FILTER FORHARDSURFADE RUNOFF _OCATinNS --~ "',, tO0 FOOT '%~] LINE '1,. ", "~T LOT DORSEY V, ,~ IMOGENE S BIAS O, B. 524-104 D. B, 240-124 PLAT LEGEND ss: SANITY SEWER ',/ VATER LINE ~ D BURIED DRAIN PIPE ---g Be--- UNDER GROUND ELECTRICAL ~ BIOFILTER .Y L M. 76D - P. A2 LOT 2 BK A SEC 3 "BUCKINGHAM" O. B, 270-65 PLAT S L A N D POND ELEV,= 434'.~/ \ '\ '\ \"\,,\', LEGAL DESCRIPTION THIS SITE PLAN VAS BASED OPDN BOUNDARY & T[ SURVEY OF tl.99 ACRES TAX ~Ap 76. PARCELS iBAO AND i8G0 DB - 350 - 419 - 12,009 AC AND .597 AC LOCATED ON STATE ROUTES 708 & 880, JUST ~/EST OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT ALBEMARLE, COUNTY VIRGINIA BENCH MARK A.)'NO DETERMINATION MADE TO THE EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES EXCEPT AS SHD~/N HEREDN~ B,) CITY DF CHARLOTTESVILLE ENGINEERING DEPT, BENCH MARX LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE DF THE STREET, 5' SOUTH 1' EAST DF THE NORTHEAST CORNER ]F THE INTERSECTION OF FOUNTAIN AVENUE & PIEDNONTAVENUE, CHISELED SQUARE ONCURB ELEVATION 538,83' ZONING EXISTING ZONING IS HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. PROPOSED ZONING RESIDENTIAL 15, FOR ALL 18,606 ACRES DENSITY MAXIMUM PROPOSED DENSITY 86 CONDOMINIUMS, GROSS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS 6 B gU/ACRE 18,606 ACRE = 549,117 BUILDING COVERAGE BUILDING No. 1= 8 UNITS 1,590 SQ,FT BUILDING No 8 = G UNITS 4,770 SQ,FT BUILDING No, 3= 14 UNITS 5,936 SQ,FT BUILDING No ~ = 14 UNITS 5,93G SQ,FT BUILDING No, 5= 14 UNITS 5,936 SQ,FT BUILDING No, 6: 8O JNITS 10,814 SQ,FT BUILDING No. 7= 4 UNITS 3,180 SQ.FT BUILDING No, 8= 12 UNITS 5,180 SQ.FT AVE,, BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 5,401 SO,FT. BUILDIN~ FODTPRINz AREAS ARE WITH OUT OPTIONAL ELEVATORS MAX, BUILDING HEIGHT = TOPEE STORIES PARKING REQUIRED ]80 ~OPEN SPACE PARKING = 818 ~}PARKING IN SHED 18 TOTAL SPACES 830 NOTE, RUNNING PATH EASEMENT TO ALBERMARLE COUNTY ALONG STATE ROTE 8B8 (VEST BUCKINGHAM CIRCLE) IS IN THE PROFFERS. '\,,\ APPROMIMATE LOCATION DF EXISTING BRIDGE MAXIMUM GRADE IN PARKING AREAS 5% MAXIMUM GRADE BN FONTAINE AVENUE 9,5% PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ATTACHMENT ENGINEER i o~ I~O~ o 29508-18 ~ ,o. 23502 LARRY January 31. 8003 PROPOSED SITE DE~P~ENT PLAN I. 9NlallflB I // 8 ~)Nl(]llfl8 C]NO,L38 ~ ONI(3qlR8 , BflNBAV 8 9NIOllng ARKING ~ UILDING 2 ~i~I~I~, EASEMENT KEY ~ EXISTING GRADE NEW GRADE SECTION 3, KEY ~ EXISTING GRADE NEW GRADE ENGINEER ~Z~ "6 0 LARRY BURNETT ~January 31, ~003 SECTIONS 3 AND4 06~ aN V-IS I ' FLOOR PLAN FRONT ELEVATION SCALE 1/8' = 1'~0' ,,O-J = NOIJ, VA~[~I~{ ,,O-,I = ,,'~/! NOI,I.VA~ £HDI~t __L_ J IIN::ISVg 1:1^:il NI¥1N IN3H"qSYR DIlYd DNINI~ N3H3.LIN 9NIAI~ 1=lA=Il a::lddf~ ATTACHMENT G"_~ MASTER BEDROOM 9'-4 lYE' DECK LIVING 149 SQ,FT, BEDRDOH #8 KITCHEN DINING BEDROOM #2 KITCHEN i49 SQ,FT. / !.:-- .- '"-"-'":'~-~ 7~ I ~ i L DINING LIV1NO 130 SQ.FT, BEDROOM #3 i' _ : ( ,.~.! CLOSET_~ BEDROOM #2 130 SO,FL MASTER BEDROOM DECK LIVING BA I I CLOSET~ DINING DINING ~L!~~' KITCH£N LIVING BEDROOM #3 190 ~Q,FT, /~ ' 149 SQ,FT, BEDROOM #8 MASTER BEDROOM 198 SQ,FT, MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ENGINEER o 2350~-78 LARRY BURNETT I January 31, 8003 BUILDINGS 3-4-6 NOI.LYA~I1:I 3QIg Original Proffer 10/01/2002 Amended Proffer ~02/03/03 (Amendment # t0 ) PROFFER FORM Date: February 3, 2003 ZMA # 2002-001 Tax Map 76 and Parcel Numbers 12A and 12G 12.606 Acres to be rezoned from HC (Highway Commercial) to R-15 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent,, hereby volUntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezOned with the.offered plans approved for development. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. (1) The development on Tax Map 76 Parcels 12A and 12G shall be in general accord with the plan produced by Future Engineering Technology Group, Inc, dated January 3'1, 2003, entitled "Site Development Plan, Fontaine Avenue Condominiums", herein referred to as the plan, (sheets 1 of 8, 2 of 8, 5 of 8 and 6 of 8 and 8 of 8). The following must be adhered to: On Sheet 1 of 8, the relative location of the structures, parking lots, and sidewalks. On Sheet 2 of 8, the fences and windows in the garages as illustratively shown in Section 1. On Sheets 5-of' 8 and 6 of 8 and 8 of 8, the building's streetscape massing, scale, and features that breakup the massing of the building such as the porches, variation in building materials, and rooflines shall be applied to all sides of the buildings. Final design details, accents, dormers, fenestration, building material and color specifications, and floor plans with or without elevators for the dwelling units are not proffered.: No building Permit shall be issued unless and until the Department of Planning and Community Development's Design Planner determines that the architecture is in general accord with the intent, and/or as shown on Sheets 5 of 8 and 8 of 8. (2) Along the entire frontage of Fontaine Avenue between the garages and buildings, the landscaping elements are proffered: Flowering Cherry trees spaced in 30 ft intervals between the sidewalk and the bike path accented by one red maple tree at the west end and on either side of the foot bridge. All of the buildings and fences alohg Fontaine Avenue will be obscured (relegated) by plantings of Dogwood trees and floWering shrubs such as, Azalea, Rhododendron, and/or Spiraea when fully mature. The Fontaine Avenue landscape planning shall be subject to Albemarle County Planning Department.staff approval. At selected locations along West Buckingham Road, pine trees will be added to partially obscure, when mature, the direct view between existing houses and the planned condominium homes, and some of the above flowering shrubs will be added to partially mimiC the Fontaine avenue streetscape. The landscaping required by this proffer shall be designed, bonded and installed in the same manner, as the landscaping required as part of the site plan. (3) The Owner shall shoW on the Preliminary and Final Site Plans a 5-foot sidewalk, in the general location shown on Sheet 1 of 8 of the plan, and a bike path, in the general location shown on Sheet 1 of 8 of the plan and construct the bike path to a standard approved by the Virginia reconvene to the Owner or his assigns. Whether County fight-of-way is dedicated, or if open space, the Fontaine Avenue Condominium Home Owners Association shall have right of access from State Route 820 to maintain the Morey Creek pond, water way and wetland area. (9) No retaining wall shall extend more than four (4) feet above grade as measured fi:om the top of the wall to the top of the fill at the base of the wall. Stepped retaining walls; with no step exceeding four (4) feet may be constructed where the grade change to be retained and protected exceeds 4 feet. ~il~namres of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) A'FTACHM E~\.i ~_j. Original Proffer 10/01/2002 Amended Proffer 02/03/03 (Amendment # 10 ) PROFFER FORM Date: February 3, 2003 ZMA # 2002-001 Tax Map 76 and Parcel Numbers 12A and 12G 12.606 Acres to be reZoned from HC (Highway Commercial) to R-15 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned with the offered plans approved for development. These-conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions haVe a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. (1) The development on Tax Map 76 Parcels 12A and 12G shall be in general accord with the plan produced by Future Engineering Technology Group, Inc, dated January 31, 2003, entitled "Site Development Plan, Fontaine Avenue Condominiums", herein referred to as the plan, (sheets 1 of 8, 2 of 8, 5 of 8 and 6 of 8 and 8 of 8). The following must be adhered to: On Sheet 1 of 8, the relative location of the structures, parking lots, and sidewalks. On Sheet. 2 of 8, the fences and windows in the garages as illustratively shown in Section 1. On Sheets 5 of 8 and 6 of 8 and 8 of 8, the building's streetscape massing, scale, and features that break up the massing of the building such as the porches, variation in building materials, and rooflines shall be applied to all sides of the buildi.ngs. Final design details, accents, dormers, fenestration, building material and color specifications, and floor Plans with or without elevators for the dwelling units are not proffered. No building permit shall be issued unless and until the Department of Planning and Community Development's Design Planner determines that the architecture is in general accord with the intent, and/or as shown on Sheets 5 of 8 and 8 of 8. (2) Along the entire fi'ontage of Fontaine Avenue between the garages and buildings, the landscaping elements are proffered: Flowering Cherry trees spaced in 30 ft intervals between the sidewalk and the bike path accented by one red maple tree at the west end and on either side of the foot bridge. All of the buildings .agd fences along Fontaine Avenue will' be obscured (relegated) by plantings of Dogwood trees and flowering shrubs such as; Azalea, Rhododendron, and/or Spiraea when fully mature. The Fontaine Avenue landscape planning shall be subject to Albemarle County Planning Department staff approval. At selected locations along West Buckingham Road, pine trees will be added to partially Obscure, when mature, the direct view between existing houses.and the planned condominium homes, and some of the above flowering shrubs will be added to partially mimic the Fontaine avenue streetscape. The landscaping required bY this proffer shall be designed, bonded and installed in the same manner, as the landscaping required as part of the site plan. (3) The Owner shall shoTM on the Preliminary and Final Site Plans a 5-foot sidewalk, in the general location Shown on Sheet 1 of 8 of the plan, and a bike path, in the general location shown on Sheet 1 of 8 of the plan and construct the bike path to a standard approved by the Virginia ATTACHMEN] reconvene to the Owner or his assigns. Whether County fight-of-way is dedicated, or if open. space, the Fomaine Avenue Condominium Home Owners Association shall have right of access from State Route 820 to maintain the Morey Creek pond, water way and wetland area. (9) No retaining wall shall extend more than four (4) feet above grade as measured fi.om the top of the wall to the top of the fill at the base of the wall. Stepped retaining walls; with no step exceeding four (4) feet may be constructed where the grade change to be retained and protected exceeds 4 feet. Signatures of All Owners Primed Names of All Owners Date OR Signature of Attomey-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attomey) Primed Name of Attorney-in-Fact COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 2002-023 White Gables Condos SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for special use permit to allow development of a maximum of 76 condominium dwelling units in accordance with Section 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for R-15, Residential use in a CO, Commercial Office district. The property, described as Tax Map 60 Parcels 26 and 27A, contains 7.097 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of Ivy Road [Route #250 West] approximately 1/4 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road and the 29/250 By-pass. The property is zoned CO, Commercial Office, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Office Service in Neighborhood Seven. STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Thomas, Mr. Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBERS: Planning Commission, February 11, 2003 Board of Supervisors, March 19, 2003 ACTION: Yes - Recommend approval INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The White Gables Condos special permit application was heard by thePlanning Commission on February ~11,2003 and recommended for approval, with conditions. After the Planning Commission's public hearing, the Assistant County Attorney suggested that the language of the recommended conditions be clarified and made more specific (see Attachment A). The applicant has reviewed the amended conditions and is in agreement with them. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended approval, with conditions. Attachments: A- Proposed Conditions of Approval (with amended language) 03-]2-03 ATTACHMENT A White Gables Planning Commission Conditions of Approval [revised for March 19 BOS hearing] 1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan (January 10, 2003 revision) (the "Conceptual Plan") and special permit justification dated April 22, 2002. 2. As shown on the Conceptual Plan, no new'structures shall be located in' the front (southern) portion of the property. There shall be a minimum distance of two hundred fifteen (215) feet between the southern-most structure and the · front (southern) property line. 3. The entrance road shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban road standard, from its junction with Route 250 West to the interior loop, and shall include a sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path, constructed to a standard acceptable to the Departments of Planning and Community Development and Engineering and Public Works, along one side connecting the interior loop to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road. 4. All roads on the proPerty connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section standard, with a minimum width of twenty (20) feet, final width to be determined at the time of final site plan approval by the Director of Engineering and Public Works. All roads connecting to adjacent properties shall include a sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path along one side, constructed to a standard acceptable to' the Departments of Planning and Engineering and Public Works, providing a connection to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road. 5. Upon .request by the County, an access easement shall be provided on the property for traffic from the Kappa Sigma property (Tax Map 60; Parcels 27 and 27B) across the White Gables property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. This access shall .be constructed by the applicant to the same standard as required in Condition 4. 6. Should a consolidated entrance be located at a point west of the White Gables property in the future, an access easement shall be provided on the property for traffio from the National Legal Research Group property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 25) across the White Gables property, and this access shall be reserved on the final subdivision plat/site plan. This access shall be constructed by the applicant to the same standard as required in Condition 4. In the event that such consolidated entrance is provided, either the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") or the County's Director of Engineering may require the applicant to close the existing entrance shown on the Conceptual Plan, convert it to a right in/right out only entrance/exit, or require that other modifications be made to the entrance. Within each pavilion shown on the Conceptual Plan, the largest condominium unit shall be at least 30% larger, based on floor area, than the smallest unit. within the same pavilion. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and construction of the entrance to the property, as outlined in its letter of January 28, 2003 (Attachment H). The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of a traffic signal and its installation (the "signal") at the intersection of Route 250 West and an access point serving the Property approved by VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering, as provided in this condition. Unless the signal already has been installed, the applicant shall pay to the County the cost of the signal as follows: (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the fourth pavilion, the applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide other security ("security") acceptable to the County in an amount equal to the cost of the signal (currently estimated to be $140,000), which amount shall be calculated in the' year in which the security is provided. The security shall continue so. that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit; security provided that is not in an interest-bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index; (b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering approve the signal's installation before the applicant has obtained .a building permit for the fourth pavilion, the County may demand payment of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay the cost to the County within thirty (30) days; (c) The County may apply the applicant's security to construction of the access road or Other elements of the future transportation improvement project other than the traffic signal. 10..The applicant shall provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with road improvements to Ivy Road as required by VDOT and the Department of Engineering and Public Works in conjunction'with preliminary subdivision/site plan approval. February 13, 2003 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 92-20-03 Vito Cetta Weather Hill Homes 315 Old Ivy Way Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: SP-02-023 White Gables; Tax Map 60, Parcels 26 and 26A Dear Mr. Cetta: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 11, 2003, by a vote'of 4:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: ]. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan (January 10, 2003 rewsion) (the "Conceptual Plan") and special permit justification dated April 22, 2002. 2. As shown on the Conceptual Plan),/no new structures shall be located in the front (southern) portion of the property. There shall be a minimum distance of two hundred fifteen I215) feet between the southern-most structure and the front (southern) property line. 3. The entrance road shown on the Conci~ptual Plan shall be constructed by the aPplicant to an urban road standard from its junction with Route 250 West to the interior loop, and shall include a sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path, constructed to a standard acceptable to the Departments of Planning and Engineering and Public Works, along one side connecting the interior loop to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road. 4. All roads on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urbansection standard and shall include a sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path along one side, constructed to a standard acceptable to the Departments of Planning and Engineering and Public Works, providing a connection to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road. 5. Upon requestby the County, an access easement shall be provided on the property for traffic from Kappa Sigma across White Gables to its entrance at Ivy Road; this access shall be constructed by the applicant to the same standard as that serving the Legal Research property tothe east; the access easement shall be reserved on the final subdivision plat/site plan. Should a consolidated entrance be located at a point west of the White Gables property in the future, an access easement shall be provided on the property for traffic from the Legal Research parcel (Parcel 25) across White Gables, and White Gables may be required to close its present entrance, convert it to a right in/right out only, or make other modifications as determined by VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering; this access shall be reserved on the final subdivision plat/site plan. 7. Residential condominium unit types (size, configuration, pricing, etc.) shall be mixed within and among each of the pavilions constructed on the site. 8.~ The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation related to design and construction of the entrance to the property, as outlined in its letter of January 28, 2003 (Attachment H). 0. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of a traffic signal and its installation (the "signal") at the intersection of Route 250 West and an access point serving the property approved by VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering, as provided in this condition. Unless the signal already has been installed, the applicant shall pay to the County the cost of the signal as follows: (a) Prior to the issuance of a 'building permit for the fourth pavilion, the applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide other security acceptable to the County in an amount equal to the cost of the signal (currently estimated to be $140,000), which amount shall be calculated in the year in which the security is provided. The security:or 'escrow shall continue so that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit; security provided that isnot in an interest-bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index. ~ (b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and the County's Director of Engineering approve the signal's installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit for the fourth pavilion, the County may demand payment of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay the cost to the County within thirty (30) days; or (c) The County may apply the applicant's security to construction of the access road or other elements of the future transportation improvement project other than the traffic signal. 10. The applicant shall provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with road improvements to Ivy Road as required by VDOT and the Department of Engineering and Public Works. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 19, 2003. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days pdor 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, Senior Planner Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN THOMAS, AICP FEBRUARY 11, 2003 MARCH 19, 2003 SP 2002-023 WHITE GABLES CONDOS Revised for the February 11, 2003 meeting; new information and/or changes are indicated in bold font. Applicant's Proposal: Weather Hill Homes, applicant, proposes to construct six (6) condominium complexes containing a maximum of 76 units on two parcels of land located on the north side of Ivy Road (Route 250 West), opposite Birdwood Estate (see AttachmentS A and B). These units are designed for older couples and individuals, and would be similar to-the Ednam deVelopment located across Ivy Road to the southwest. The existing house on the site would be used as a community building, with the potential for a few offices for residents. (see Attachment C) The Commission held a work session on this project on September 10, 2002, at which indicated general agreement with the residential use and concept plan on the site. Issues of primary concern at that time were traffic and access, impacts to the historic character and appearance of this portion of the Ivy Road corridor, and mass and scale of structures on the site. Petition for Special Use Permit: Request for special use permit to allow development of a maximum of 76 condominium dwelling units in accordance with Section 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for R-15, Residential use in a CO, Commercial Office district. The property, described as Tax Map 60 Parcels 26 and 27A, contains 7.097 acres, and is located in the Samuel'Miller Magisterial District on the north side of Ivy Road (Route 250 West) approximately 1/4 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road'and the 29/250 By-pass. The property is zoned CO, Commercial Office, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Office Service in Neighborhood Seven. Approval by the Commission of one-way circulation, and curvilinear and parallel parking is also requested by the applicant. Character of the Area: This portion of Neighborhood Seven is best known for a series of historic estates and homes, some of which have been adapted for re-use as offices and sites of special events. A substantial amount ofinfill residential and office use has occurred around these older structures, generally maintaining the original character of the area. The Legal Research Group, located on the adjacent property to the east, and the Ednam condominium and office developments are examples of this infill and adaptive re-use. It is staffs understanding that the Institute of Textile Technology property is or soon will be listed for sale. A number of proposals have been made for the White Gables property, none of which reached this level of design specificity or review. Several relatively undeveloped University of Virginia properties are located on the south side of Route 250 West, including Birdwood Golf Course, and these could influence the character of the area significantly if they were developed more intensively. The University has not identified any specific plans for these properties at the present time. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has asserted that there is a need for in-fill housing in this portion of the Designated Development Area, to serve residents down-sizing from neighborhoods such as Farmington and Ednam Forest who no longer wish to or are able to maintain large properties. Zoninq and Subdivision History: 6/29/99 SP 1999-052 Charles W. Hurt (indefinite deferral): proposal for 66 condominiums 10/22/99 SUB 1999-27 Hurt Investment: created second, front parcel (Parcel 27A) from parent parcel (Parcel 26) 10/16/00 SP 2000-68 Terry Deane Dance Studio (indefinite deferral): proposal to allow structure to be used as dance studio 12/18/00 SP 2000-81 Terry Deane Dance Studio and Reception Hall (indefinite deferral): proposal to alloTM structure to be used as dance studio and rental facility Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Office Service in Neighborhood Seven. Zoning is CO, Commercial Office, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The intent of the CO district is: "to permit development of administrative, business and prOfessional offices and supporting accessory uses and facilitieS. This district is intended as a transition between residential districts and other more intensive commercial and industrial districts." R-15 Residential use is allowed in a CO district, by special Permit. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan makes the following recommendations relevant to this request: Development plans along Route 250 West are to be sensitive-to its status as an Entrance Corridor Roadway; No Community Service and/or Neighborhood Service uses are recommended because the existing commercial services on Route 250 West and in the City adequately support the area and are easily accessible; - TranspOrtation h~provements include: Widen Route 250 West (Ivy Road) to four lanes. [This policy recommendation relates to that portion of the road lying east of the 29/250 By-pass, and is no longer supported by the City.] Provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with road improvements. Utility Improvements include: Upgrades to the Meadowcreek Interceptor Locate a new fire and rescue station in this area :to.serviCe Neighborhoods Six and~Seven, the University and Ivy as response times require. The station should be funded and operated jointly by the City, County, and University. The station should be staffed by volunteers to the greatest extent possible. The Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, sets forth seVeral General Principles for Land Use in Designated Development Areas which are relevant to this proposal and supported by it: · Accommodate new growth in the County within Development Areas. · Encourage greater utilization of land in designated Development Areas by achieving higher gross densities for residential and non-residential development than in the past. · Encourage intill development of Vacant lands and development of under-used areas within the designated Development Areas. · Discourage extensive linear style development along major roads. · Plan for a system of transportation and community facilities and services that support and enhance the Development Areas. The NeighborhOod Model Twelve principles of development are set forth in the Neighborhood Model.. A staff discussion of the manner in which this development proposal addresses each principle is included below. Pedestrian .Orientation - The six proposed condominium complexes are organizedaround ~a central lawn, with walkways leading from each building to the interior one way access road/driveway, and presumably across the access road/driveway to the lawn. The lawn, ~ of an acre in size, is intended for use by residents, and includes several features that might be walking destinations, such as a reflecting pool, bocce court, gazebo, and some small groves of trees. The concept plan does not show paved walkways as part of the lawn. Topographically, there are opportunities for pedestrian connections m the adjacent parcels although none are shown. Comprehensive Plan recommendations call fOr pedestrian and bicycle facilities with any public road improvements. The applicant is willing to provide these improvements along Ivy Road. Pedestrian facilities will also be included with the access road improvements to White Gables and Legal Research, at the time of site plan submittal. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths - The concept Plan shows a separated entrance with a private two-way 22-foot urban .sectiOn access following the existing driveway alignment to the loop intersection. A private two-way 22'foot urban sectiOn access also extends to the Legal Research properB~ boundary to the east, which will be serVed by the improved White Gables entrance. Should Kappa Sigma wish to connect to the White Gables entrance, that property would be similarly served with an internal access. Engineering and Planning have endorsed an urban road standard for both of these road sections. The White Gables interior residential loop varies between 22 and 12 feet, and is currently shown as a rural cross section road. At site plan, Engineering will verify that a rural section road can adequately direct stormwater to stormwater structures on the site. · 3 The intention is that the White'Gables access and connector to Legal Research will remain private access roads. Currently no pedestrian facilities are shown along the interior roads on the concept plan but they are called for along Ivy Road. Staff recommends that the interior connector 'road(s) and entrance road include a sidewalk or other type of pedestrian path along one side, designed and constructed to the satisfaction of Planning and Engineering, to allow residents and employees access to the public sidewalk and suggests that this path be designed to minimize disti~rbance to the eXisting trees, vegetation, topography, and historic character of the area. Engineering in a previous comment indicated that it would support the request for one-way circulation as well as curvilinear and parallel parking, around the Lawn area. The Engineer's current comment about the inadvisability of a westbound acceleration lane has been incorporated into the current concept plan, which now shows a yield sign at Ivy Road with no acceleration lane. (see Attachment D) The zoning text amendment related to parking requirements currently under is scheduled for the February 5 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Changes to the portions of the ZTA related to one-way circulation, curvilinear and parallel parking are not anticipated. However, because the ordinance changes have not yet been approved, the applicant wishes to request approval for the three circulation provisions noted above from the Planning Commission. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks - The proposed entrance along the current driveway alignment represents the applicant'S compromise after many attempts at consolidating existing entrances and traffic at more centrally located points along the corridor. Internal factors, at Kappa Sigma have made it impossible for. the organization to respond to the applicant's offer to relocate and construct the eXisting entrance to a point opposite Birdwood Golf Course, although there appears to be general support for the idea. Another concept put the relocated entrance along the Kappa Sigma property line, or at the existing Kappa Sigma eastern entrance, but again internal factors precluded a decision by that organization. Ultimately the applicant succeeded in working with the Legal Research property owner toroute the latter's traffic through the new White Gables entrance, which would provide increased traffic volume in support of the signal request and remedy a long- standing afternoon peak hour exit problem for the office building. The applicant is willing to work with the County to provide flexibility in locating the Shared access at a Central location. No connection to the nOrth is suggested, given the presence of the raikoad. Parks and Open Space - Approximately 43 percent of the site would have pervious cover under the applicant's Concept Plan. The arrangement of the open space allows access and use by all of the six complexes. A number of the large trees on the site will be preserved under the plan; this issue has been extensively addressed by the Architectural ReView'Board and therefore won't be discussed here, although staff has a copy of the Tree Report which it will provide to any interested Commissioner. A conservation plan is required at the site plan stage to assure that trees indicated for retention are not lost. Neighborhood Centers - Both the Bellair Market and Boar's Head Inn.appear to be neighborhood centers, in that they generate steady activityand serve the larger neighborhood. With several large, properties and structures prominent in the local area, there is no one clear 4 physical center. As proposed, White Gables w6ulditelateto the neighborhood centers similarly to other properties along the corridor, such as Ednam and Farmington. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale - The proposed pavilions are large structures, four of them containing three floors and two four floors. (Staff notes that the two tallest structures are located at the lowest portion of the site, the northeast comer, and in fact their rooflines are within one foot of the opposing three-story structures across the lawn.) All of the buildings are much larger than the original house althoUgh their positioning relative to it is mUch more favorable, with the front two structures approximately in line with it, north to south. The mass of the pavilions is mitigated at least somewhat by their formal arrangement around the large lawn, which provides balance to the building size. Mature trees on the site also tend to balance the size of the buildings. The formality of the site organization seems appropriate along this corridor and is reminiscent of landmark sites like the Farmington estate house and Birdwood. Responding to earlier Architectural Review Board concerns, the applicant reduced the front buildings' side dimensions such that they more closely reflect the width and height of the house. There has also been an attempt to make the southern elevation of the front two buildings look more like a front presentation, which was another ARB concern. The complexes also line up south to north behind the front two pavilions, which minimizes their visibility from the corridor. Their mass seems more significant in visual impact from within the site than it would be to the traveling public, but adjacent properties would certainly be aware of the mass and bulk of the buildings. A significant change has been made to the concept plan since the September work session, and that is the elimination of the two southern structures, most visible from the road. This change maintains the front lawn undisturbed except for the entrance roads, and preserves the historic setback between buildings and stone wall. In staffs view, this is a very significant, positive development for the proposed site, the adjacent properties, and for this historic and beautiful section of Ivy Road. Staff notes that a by-right office development on this site would have less motivation than the condominiums to be sensitive to the issue of human scale, particularly if the two parcels were developed under separate schemes. However, office occupants would not live with the scale and mass of the buildings, as residents of course would on a daily basis. The fact that this proposal addresses both parcels with one development concept, incorporates the original residence in the architectural treatment and orientation of the new structures, and leaves the front lawn intact are positive features, is a strong advantage, in staffs view. With the elimination of the two front structures and relocation of the remaining six structures at or behind the existihg residence and off the front parcel, staff is not as concerned with the sequencing of construction of the complexes as previously since their visibility is greatly reduced. The Architectural Review BOard has reviewed the project on three occasions, and its most recent comments are attached (see Attachment J). The project will be reviewed for a fourth time on February 18. Relegated Parking - This proposal very successfUlly relegates residential parking in subterranean garages. This parking arrangement is permitted by right. Guest parking is located around the lawn, along the one-way driveway. There is one entrance to the connected subterranean parking areas per range, economizing on the need for enu'ances and impervious surfaces. It is noted that Pavilion II may have a second level of subterranean parking if needed. Mixture of Uses - The existing residence on the site will become a community building under this proposal, with the potential-for a'few small office spaces for use by residents within it. In staff's view, it is primarily a support structure for.the residential use and does not truly mix uses. With an appropriate design, office use could be mixed successfully with the condominiums on this site. However, a substantial supply oi~office use eXists along the corridor and more is not needed on this site. Staff finds the residential use to be appropriate on this site. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability - The site does not mix hOusing types; however, the applicant has indicated that there is likely to be some variety in the size and cost of condominium units due to market demand. The high land cost makes affordable housing problematic on this site. Within Neighborhoods Six and Seven there is a mixture of housing types and affordability, on a larger scale. Redevelopment - The existing residence on the site will be redeveloped as a community building. The orientation of the lawn in front of and behind it, with new structures ranging north and south at the edges of the site, appears to be a significant feature of the redevelopment. Site Planning that Respects Terrain -Although the six structures are large in comparison to the existing house, grading appears to be quite careful and mainly confined to the building footprints. Base elevations of the complexes mostly take advantage of existing grades. The subterranean parking appears to be designed to utilize site topography. Engineering has indicated that the applicant's stormwater management concept appears to be acceptable with more information needed on drainage control and water quality at site plan stage. (see Attachment D) Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas - The parcel is located at the northern edge of the Neighborhood Seven, a portion of the Designated Development Area. This bOundary is reinforced by the presence of the railroad to the north, forming a clear edge for the site. Analysis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: The Board qf Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use perrnits 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 detn'ment to adjacent proper~_ , White Gables is consistent with other developments along this portion of the Ivy Road corridor in its residential use and targeted upscale retirement market. The mass of the buildings is also similar in scale to portions of the Ednam development, although the site arrangement is quite different. Most of the proposed structures are less visible - or may even be invisible from the public road since they are "lined up" behind the front two buildings - but their mass may be more conspicuous to those on the site. No substantial detriment to adjacent properties is expecte_d as a result of this project. The adjacent property owners, lessors of the National Legal Research Group Building, have indicated a willingness to combine their traffic with that of White Gables, in a shared entrance. For this consolidation to be optimal, the"eurrent Legal Research entrance should be closed. that the character o_f the district will not be changed thereby, This use is consistent with existing uses in the district and by its nature will not negatively impact the district character. As noted at the work session, the verbal and written comments received by staff from an adjacent Property owner regarding the significance of the front setback have been addressed in the current concept plan. The plan preserves a front lawn similar to that of the other four properties between Piedmont Tractor and the Farmington entrance road, originally under one family ownership. Staff notes that if the special permit is approved as proposed in this concept plan, the front parcel will essentially be undeVeloped. Other surrounding properties currently zoned CO were originally were part of the same family group, and face adaptive re-use/infill challenges similar to White Gables. No significant change to the character of the surrounding district is anticipated, primarily because under this plan new structures would be concentrated at the rear of the site where they would have less visibility and impact to adjacent properties. The number of condominium complexes .contemplated for this site by White Gables wOUld create a greater density of development than currently exists on any of the four historic parcels along this stretch of the corridor. Density created on this site appears to be similar to or less than the Ednam development, by comparison and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The condominium use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, and the CO district. with the uses permitted b_¥ right in the district, The proposed Pavilion VI in particular wffi visually impact the National Legal Research Group property, which now has a relatively undeveloped western view. The applicant has increased the setback between Pavilion VI and the Legal Research office building to 50 feet, to mitigate the effect of the two large buildings on each other and on 'the public. ~o. setback is required under the ordinance in the CO district.) The proposed residential use itself will not negatively affect other Commercial Office uses. However, given the size of the pavilions, significant visual and noise impacts to adjacent properties and the Ivy Road corridor could result from the White Gables development ifHVAC and other equipment were located at the rear of the buildings and not placed and enclosed or screened carefully. The ARB review addresses this and other visual impacts to the Entrance Corridor. Staff notes that a residential development like this one is more dependent for its success on retaining the aesthetic appeal of the corrid°r and co-existing with the surrounding neighborhood than a by-right commercial office use would be. Similarly, under a by-right commercial office development scheme, little other than the ARB review of impacts to the Entrance Corridor would influence the site design. Staff believes that the proposed uSe is in harmony with the other uses permitted by,right in this district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 qf this ordinance, Section 5.0 regulations do not address this use. and with the public health, sa_£etv and general welfare. Traffic is the area of most concern in terms of public safety, for several reasons. This section of the 250 West corridor carries a high volume of traffic, has many access points, exhibits horizontal and vertical curvature, and already has three traffic signals. There is a difficult balance between maintaining traffic flow and providing for safe and convenient access to the public road. The applicant has proposed upgrading the existing entrance on property to serve the new condominium units as well as the Legal Research Group, which would subsequently close its existing entrance. Provisions have also been made to connect KapPa Sigma to the White Gables access, or, better yet, carry traffic from White Gables and Legal Research across Kappa Sigma, to a new consolidated entrance to be developed opposite Birdwood Golf Course. The applicant's transportation consultant submitted a warrant analysis to VI)OT, requesting a signal at the current entrance. The Culpeper District found that one of the signal warrants would be met under the proposal, and it was staff's understanding that the District was willing to approve a signal. However, the Charlottesville Residency has recommended against installation of a signal until all three entrances (Kappa Sigma, White Gables, Legal Research) can be consolidated. The Residency will approve a commercial entrance permit for the project, however. (see Attachments F, G and I-I) . National Legal Research in particular has a very difficult traffic situation that will deteriorate further as traffic increases. The White Gables proposal would address this existing situation effectively. The 250 West Advisory Committee has. stated that it does not support the immediate installation of a traffic signal at the consolidated entrance, but only when warrants listed under Section 4C-2 of VDOT's Manual are met. The Committee also has stated that the Birdwood location is the preferred location for the signal. (see Attachment I). Anticipated traffic under residential development (the special permit proposal) indicates that average weekday vehicle trips per day (vtpd) for 76 Condominiums would be 445.. The weekday AM peak hour traffic would be 33 (7-9 AM), with weekday PM peak hour traffic 41 (4-6 PM). The average Saturday vehicle trips per day for 76 condominiums would be 431; the average Sunday vehicle trips per day for 76 condominiums would be 368. (per ITE Code 230) Anticipated traffic under general office (the by-right development proposal) indicates that average weekday vehicle trips per day for 420,000 square feet of general office would be 4624, with weekday AM peak hour traffic would be 655. The weekday 'PM peak hour traffic would be 626. The average Saturday vehicle trips for a 420,000 square foot general office building would be 995. The average Sunday vehicle trips for a 420,000 square foot general office building would be 411. In summary, traffic generation from the proposed residential development would likely generate less significant traffic impacts than by-right development under current zoning. (The following assumptions were used in determining the average general office vehicle trips: 20,000 square ,feet of land developable for an office building per acre, and each acre developed with a three story building. This scenario would represent an extremely intensive office development.) 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD:~ This project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on three occasions, and the current revised plan will be reviewed again on FebrUary 18. In the past, primary concerns of the ARB have been the scale of the proposed structures relative to the existing house and Ivy Road corridor, maintenance of the historic character of area, and preservation of the mature treeS'and historic character of the front lawn. The conditions previously recommended by the ARB of relevance to this revised plan are set forth below. A. The development shall maintain the existing character of the site of broad lawns with mature trees as viewed from the EC; B. Destroyed trees shall ~be replaced with new trees that compensate for the loss with increased caliper and increased quantity; C. The stone wall at the'front of the property shall be maintained. If the existing entrance will be closed, it shah be closed' such that the stone wail is extended in a manner consistent with the existing .appearance. The new entrance and driveway shall also be consistent with the existing appearance. A stone gateway and iron gates shall be created; D. Any signs proposed in the future shah not overpower the stone wall at the front of the proPerty or the entrance to the property and shah be compatible With both; E. The entrance and travelways shall be located such that a minimum number of trees will be removed from the site(s); F. The renovation of the residence into a community building shah maintain the historic appearance of the building; G. Condominium complex basements and garage doors shall be oriented away from the EC to eliminate visibility; H. Grading shall respect the natural slopes at. the front of the property between the existing building and Route 250; I. Paving in front of the existing residence shah be kept at a minimum. J. Additional landscaping beyond standard minimum ordinance and guideline requirements is considered to be desirable on this site and must be approved by the Architectural Review Board. SUMMARY In staff's opinion, the following factors are favorable to this request:. · The residential use takes advantage of the proXimity of the site to existing commercial develoPment which can provide goods and services to future residents. · The residential use helps to create a mix relative to the adjacent office and institutional uses. · The residential use is arranged to preserve the historic front lawn at the southern portion of the property, concentrating density at the rear of the site where it does not affect the character of the corridor as significantly. - 9 · Most of the structures will not be easily seen from Ivy Road. · The formality of the design is in keeping with the historic character of the corridor and neighborhood. · The consolidation of the National Legal Research traffic with that of White Gables and subsequent closing of the Legal Research entrance will improve traffic flow and safety on the corridor. In staffs opinion, the following factors are not favorable to this request: · At this time the applicant has been unable to consolidate entrances on the north side of Ivy Road at the preferred Kappa Sigma location opposite Birdwood Golf Course, although the consolidation of White Gables and Legal Research is positive. · The mass of the proposed pavilions may be inappropriately large. RECOMMENDED ACTION: On balance, staff finds that the applicant's special permit application for residential use would not create adverse impacts to adjacent properties and/or the district, and in fact would compliment and benefit from existing uses. Preservation of the front lawn and concentration of structures at the rear of the site are significant, positive features of the site plan that would be very unlikely under a by-right development scheme. Some beneficial consolidation of traffic is achieved with this plan, and greater traffic consolidation may be possible in the future. In staff's view, th, applicant is demonstrating a willingness to continue working to achieve an optimal traffic management solution. Thus, staff recommends approval with Conditions I through 6 below, along with an additional condition regarding the future installation of a traffic signal. At the time of submittal of this report, staff is still in the process of working with the applicantand his attorney, the County Attorney and the Director of Engineering to draft a condition that adequately addresses future installation of a traffic signal by the applicant. Special Permit Staff notes that approval from the Architectural Review Board is necessary and requires a separate action. At its November meeting, the ARB proposed a series of conditions, of which those th at relate to the current (revised) plan are set forth below. Based on the ARB conditions and those proposed for Planning Commission action (1 through 8 below), staff recommends approval of the White Gables Condos Special Permit 2002-023 subject to the following conditions: 1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan (January 10, 2003 revision) (the "Conceptual Plan") and special permit justification dated April 22, 2002: As shown on the Conceptual Plan), no new structures shall be located in the front (southern) portion of the property. There shall be a minimum distance of two hundred twenty (220) feet between the southern-moSt structure and the front (southern) property line. 10 3. The entrance road shown on the ConcePtUai Plai~shaH be constructed to an urban road standard from its junction with Route 250 West to the interior loop, and shall in clude a sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path, constructed to a standard acceptable to the Departments of Planning and Engineering and Public Works, along one side connecting the interior loop to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road; 4. All connector roads to adjacent properties shown on the Conceptual Plan shah be constructed to an urban section standard; the connector road to the Legal Research parcel located to the east (Parcel 25) shall include a sidewalk or other appropriate pedestrian path along one side, constructed to a standard ~acceptable to the Departments of Planning and Engineering and Public Works, providing a connection to the public sidewalk at Ivy Road; 5. Upon request, access shall be provided for traffic from Kappa Sigma across White Gables to its entrance at Ivy Road; this access shall be constructed to the same standard as that serving the Legal ReSearch property to the east; 6. Should a consolidated entrance be located at a point west of the White Gables property, White Gables shall provide access across its property to traffic from' the Legal Research parcel (Parcel 25); 7. Residential condominium unit types (size, configuration, pricing, etc.) shah be mixed within and among each of the pavilions constructed on the site; 8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation related to design and construction of the entrance to the property, as outlined in its letter of January 28, 2003 (Attachment H); 9. (As mentioned previously, staff will provide draft language for an additional condition prior to the February 11 meeting.) Request for one-way circulation, curvilinear and parallel parking: In the event that proposed revisions to the parking ordinance are not approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 5, staff recommends approval by the Commission of the applicant's request for one-way circulation, and curvilinear and parallel parking along the interior loop drive. ATTACHMENTS: A - Area Map B - Plat C - Applicant's Justification D - 12/16/02 Letter from Applicant's Engineer E 1/7/03 Engineering comments F - 7/17/02 Letter from Owners of National Legal Research Group Building G - 7/17/02 VDOT comments H - 7/25/02 VDOT comments I - 1/28/03 VDOT comments J - 1/29/03 Memorandum frOm-250 West Task Force K- 11/25/02 ARB Action Letter Under Separate Cover: Architectural Packet (includes Concept Plan) 11 ATTACHMENT A HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON APRIL I, 2002 SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 0 THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION & -~LIEF AND IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION IT IS 3MPLETE AND A~/~RATE. NOTES: I. LEGAL REFERENCES: T.M. 60-26 - D.B. I996~23§, 2;37 PLAT, D.B. 1764-91 & D.9. 77~6-343 PLAT T.M. 60-27A- D.B. 1960-5,79 & D.B. 1895-237 PLAT 2. ACCORDING TO THE 'FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS DATED DEC. 16, 1980 (COMMUNITY PANEL §10006' 0~20 B), PARCEL A & PARCEL B DO NOT LIE IN ZONE A 000 YEAR .~?~.~ FLOOD PLAIN), BUT IS LOCATED IN ZONE C. 3. PARCEL A SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (D.B. 722-305 & D.B. 262-464)~ PIPE FOUND THE CHESAPEAKE [ OHIO ~ 4. PARCEL A [ PARCEL B SUBJECT TO EASEM~T TO NIT'25'22"E 1.09' RAILWAY COMPANY~ ~ ~ CENTRAL TELEPHO~ COMPANY OF VIRGI~A [D.B. 615-451) FROM CORNER D.B. ~69 - 593, 594 PLAT ~ INSOFAR AS IT MAY APPLY. 5. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. PARCEL A [ PARCEL B ~ ~ _ ~. SUBJECT TO ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, EASEMENTS IRON-- ' 355 ~~0"~ ._~ ~._' , ., UTILITIES, AND/OR COVENANTS THAT MAY EXIST. SET ~~ 6, THE SOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON ' L- 404J4' ~~REA ~A~ ~~~ ~ C- 403~42' BUILDING ~ON SET ~ IRON FOUND z PARCEL A ~ N45'54'~T"W N56'OO'38"E 7.99' 4 5 ~ Z 150.95' FROM CORNER POLE POLE POLE ) ~SLATE- ~ ~z STEPS ~ FOUND IRON FOUND \0~-t ~ IRON IRON CONCRETE ~ \~'~ ~ ~'OUND FOUND CASINGS ~ ~ \~ '~ PARCEL B ~ ._o = ' F~,~',X 2.052 ACRES ~ ~ IRON R' ,~&.~. , _-,, IRON F°UND .5 OCK WA~L ~,~. ~ FOUND ~ow~. ~ ~ .s~-~'.~':w2 w,T~aZ "'~ ~ ~ ~ TEL. LI~ 365.33' ~ METER/ j '% ROCK COLUMN BOUNDARY& PHYSICAL SURVEY PARCEL A, THE PROPERTY OF VIRGINIA LAND TRUST AND PARCEL B, THE PROPERTY OF WHITE GABLES I LAND TRUST LOCATED ON U.S. ROUTE 250 SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA SCALE: r' = lO0' DATE: APRIL I, 2002 FOR VITO CETTA ROGER W. RAY & ASSOC., INC. 1717-16 ALLIED STREET CHARLOTTESVILLEi VA 22903 12647 , ATTACHMENT B 13 ATTACHMENTC '~ :. - · Does the owner or' mrs propcrt¥~o~n~i,o.[navc_Lany., ownersmp mtercst,t.n.}._a.n_y,,,_a..b..u__t.tm§ pmpcny:-:~_~._~e Ust: thosii tax map and parcel numbers .~r-:/~t~. '¢~.~.$~.-v.'i-~.~-¢~,~m~e"..-"-~-,~,~~~_.m~_'~ .'. · :,~:r.~ ,. · . · ..a?. , ' . · · · - - ,.~,._~ ..... ~-u,~ ......... ~ ..... ~,f. .... ~,: .:t;/:.'.'--~Sectton',31:2.4.~:of,the Albemarle County Zoning ..Ordm,~c~ stat.es ~at, 'The board ~6~iunto ~mea me ngm to,msue;~u ~ spec~m~u~pe_~m' ~a~ nereunner:L~p~m.use . ,~ - ' '~ ' ' ~ ~ .,n - .. ~ ~ '~';'L..;~. c %b ~-::'.'.~ He,will thepro~scd s~ial ~eaff~tadja~nt pro,ny7 .;-~.x:' .?,n,'..'- ~-/'/.~; '-;- :::'::.:.:v:.?:7. ~'~'-'<"~7' "": '- ' -.' ::" .............. ~ :>~~' *?-'.-:-~ - v"?-~'.~ ~.L~.'?~ ' .... ..-. '- ' . .- ' ' ' .;: ~::~"~-.~'} ~ ..:.'7 : ...... '~;'-'~'~'~ '~.X~ ..... ~'.~.."'~' '~' ~' ..... ' ' "~' ~ ' ~}'~ '" ' ' ~ 5 How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property7 How is the use in h~ony with the pu,ose ~d intent of ~e Zoning Ordinance? ~ ~~ How is the usc in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? . .['f'~}.'{;j~_W_.~at additional .regulations pro~,ided in Section 5.0 or the Zoning Ordin~Cg~a~i~.i~'thi~'~ise? 'R:' ~'''- ':;?:~;;'?'~;" 4 .... .'.-: . ',-%-'.;.-.----c._.;~:, ''.'-~;-::.',-, .....;...: ......,-~' _..,--. ........ . '-',,::4-' :-;_,.-.::,:~-;_~.':..',,~r;;~...',_ .~4~";4~.- ~ -g--,.~,.'.'.-':':-.;.-....~-.. -~-.':.~---~- =~.-'-3.*.M,.<.::X--,X~,. ~.~..~:"--;, : :;~;~;~-How will ~l~ u~ promote the publ~~~ I~'~ ~ ;'~'~}~~~' , . ~ -'*,.~.~.~ ~ ":~ . -.~g.~.,~',~ '~~~' ' ~. ' . ~ :~~~.~ ~ ~I . .... ~,-. ~ ~' ~..,~ .~..,., ,~ ~~.., ~.~;:.: ...... . ,~. ., <-~' ':" --"~-' no recorded ' ~- .. ..... , p~pe~ d '"~' D~'B ........ ~hmb ~d p ge - ook ~d'page er or Plat Book a number.' ': - ~- '~ - - ' Note: If ~ou ~ ~qu~ting a speciM ~e pe~it only for a portion of the propeay, it '-:':' ' ~ ',/. ..... :'deeds to'be'described or delineated on a"c0P~'6f the'Plat'o~ su~ey~d ~wing. ' .'2.Ownership informa~on - if ownemhip of the propemy is in the n~e of ~y ty~e of leg~ entity or org~i~fion including, but not limited to, the n~e of a co,emilen, p~emhip · ' or ~socia~on;or in the n~e of a ~st, or in a ficti~ous n~e, a do~men/accepmble to the .COunty must be--Sub~ae~ ce~fyiBg that the pemon signing beloTM h~ ~e au~ofity todoso ' -'" - ' ' '" ' If th~ appIicant'is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acc~epmble to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: ...... - i: '!D~aW-ing ~ °ncepit[alpl ..... .:._7- ~ - -. ' $ O C ails, · : --- '. ~-".¥.. ] -: )[-" , :.~...:,. [~1 '4. ,~..,Additionai Ini;ormation,'if ay., '.. ~.;'::. ;[¥: ,,,.}. ':,~: ..;.... :.-:i ".z::,'i}~,, (},-}:, ,i -::,-_,; i:..:.'%~.:<,;;:--"[,~.:~?. ':::?..' ':-' ' 5("... :i:J2)(".:: I ha~s~ Certify thit I 0'~fi·the Subj~i'3-~'perty [.(_'. :.:~'~ '. . ...',': . .--~:-., ;: ..;:; ..... ~.::.o.'.:~ ,~ ? -it",~--- -.. -:- -.?-i-~,:;~-~ .... ~ -;- ~- . ..2<z'~:'~.':?"*:.'. ~.:'.-~X:.~s. --~.a~:,;',J,;--~-;2,~' '~-', ~'¢~.-" 'i6'-?.:.p;:~:.._.. ':wr~-,~.'filmg this apphcauon.[I_ also ~.~i~'tl}~_.at the information provided is tree ~,an, d'acx:urate to the ,best' of _my ~'.~[¥p"r-~i~- : .~. ........ ~.-,. .-~'~,~'"i. ;; ~ w~' '.~.:"'-.~m . ". '.. '". '' :".. ' ':1.' .'l .' '-'., .'.-.2.",~' .. '4,'-;.' ' .... '"'"'"', "- : 'n "~-"'~".' ...... ,': ...... ' ;."' ...... ".,'--''i..i* 2':-3~'~.'~.'"I'~-)'¥:"''~~.-~.,~ -' . -''~kno led e....-.. , ~ "' ~ "" ......... L~ -.. ,, - , .. . .... ...r.. ~ .... ~':"'"' - ..... _-,..,- . · g ........ ,'; '. ~ .~'-*' .......... -'.=~'~,-" '*'~,,';'"--'~", ':t- ".-*' - ' ._~I-'0 .... ...: ....,.- ,-.. ........ : ....... _,, ~;,~_~.:,-~ ~:, .-..,.,/.. s ..: -,.. ,.,~.,:, ', *'-- 's '~-~*~.~; i~..,_._'~.,_. *~',-l[~,I/&~,.~.~,~,";;~'- ' .,, ..,..,: :.. . .... .... ,. ,.,... ..}..-.., _q.~,..., ... ..~...~ .~,~,. . · ?,...,-~,.:,- .- .,,., :.~,.:.,,~! ~'.'~ ... ?-.:.~.? .,..B...-~_.,.~.;j :..~ . ~ ....)., .,.~.., .... · ...., .... .. .. .... : ,, .... . · .-~.'*,.-, .....-% .., . -, ~ :,~?,~'-':' .... · ' · · - a:- ~.'. ;,.-?.- ~.;, .--:,, ..... ' . ,_. ............... ... -- ...---.. · '":;:'.';:"'~ '' ' - ''-; ................. ' ....... ,~" - "" ",' F,','- '"' " ..... 'q',,';:..."':' '"".' ;~:; ..'"'.'n"- ,T'.~ ,' "'. ~:' ').~I~'," ~' ~ .')~P', '"." · ,.,....: .. ,: ': ,-n '.'~: ,,.,, ..... .,,..t. ~.~ ,-.. ~.: ." -. · ..~:-- - .... SI naturc· ~ .,, ...,:,~. .... · .",--'J,;. ' ~i. ~.. Date..,· .. ~. ~., .. , ~, ,.. ..-~ .... , a... ,,.~.:,, . . ., ... ,..._ ;,.,,. ,. .,....,..m .......... . ... · . ,.,-,. ,.,,~ . · · .... ~.~ ,-:,~, ,, ........ .. , . .,.,~_ ..._~., ,.. - .~.', . .,,. ,..?~'q ... .. .-~: ....~:,,.~}... .~ . , ...... ,., ~ ............ .~.~ ,,,~..,..: ...... ,, ....... .~ .... ~.~..,.,~,, ~ ,...., -~-:~ ..-. ,Zb .... ' ' ' ~'"~"'~"~ ~ ~a':'" ':4'" ,¥, ..- " '~-~.....~. ~ ~ .,."wi.,.. . :..,_,..,..,,,,,..,, · ,., .:,- _~ .,: ,., . ~, .,, ~.. ., . .~ ; · .,, ~' ~. ,~.~, ,.i.':~.~,.,-,~,:.,,,.,~.,~..~ .... 2~v:~&n~"~.q~r,9~'~,",'~.'4',,r"' ~; _~".,.~3-"-,'-;~ ::'.'"'.'"'~'"~';)~,'~.~'."aeacn['~)~'~;~%=,~*."::~v-~-'1~~'~'~:'. '~:'::., ~J.'..~.;.~_' Printed' l'q am~ '~,':~- ,-..,~ ..;<~,,.. ,.....> ;q...-c,;. e~r,-'~l/~.~. · .n~. ~', · vavtime'vnon'c numar o~. alanatory, ~~?.~ ~-~' ,. · ..2 ,.~' .... · .... :.,.. ~, ..... ....~,,..., ..... ... . ~.t .... , ,.. :..,, ..,. ~.; .... , ~ ....... ,. . .. . ...: :.:,....:,:,,,.....::..., .... ..... .,.+,,,...,,,: .......... ....... · '::.':' ' 4.- ' ' "' '~,-, -" ~',".~&',.-' "-~':~,-'.: ~.':" ,- :,','' '"." '~, ~'~--~' °":,' TM '"~"~ .~I 'i a: )i't:,,~.')" ' ..-~ .... . ...... ..:.......l¢_-f ........... .... ,,~-.,.,... . ...... . .... ,,.....~._,,.~, ......... -, ........... ...,~ .... . ....... ~~'~.~. ':?::~-.',".' ' '"? .... ~"' '~ "'""" '"'_ i_;' '" ....... - ....- '- .................................................................... ATTACHMENT D ~2 McKEE CARSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LAND pLANNERS 16 December 2002 Ms. Susan Thomas Albemarle County Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: White Gables; St~bmission of Amended Plan Dear Susan: Please find attached our formal resubmission materials for the proposed White Gables development. We would like this information to serve as an enhancement, and where appropriate, a clarification of materials previously provided to youby Vito Cetta as part of his original application. Rather than reiterate much of the information contained in that report, we would like to briefly describe how the plan of development has 'changed and offer justification for these changes, all of which we hope have resulted in a plan that is supportable by staff. The original concept called for the ultimate construction of eight buildings consisting of two rows of four structures flanking either side of the manor house. Proximity of the new buildings to Route 250, the scale of the structures closest to the roadway and the configuration of paved areas out front of the manor house were topics of considerable discussion at the irdtial hearing. Also of primary concern, whether to the ARB or Planning Commission, were the means of ingress/egress to the project from the public roadway and the means by which stormwater management was to take place. Since the first application was discussed the plan has undergone several design iterations. Among those were several resizings of the front-most buildings and even replacement of those structures with duplex townhomes. With each alternative, changes to the site package in front of the manor house alsO occurred. Shifting of the main entry to the project moved in response to the evolution of talks between Vito Cetta and his neighbors. Each entry location came with its own set of design parameters around.which we developed solutions. What is before you today is a comprehensive site development proposal that responds to the concerns and desires of the various agencies involved to date as well as the programmatic and fiscal objectives of the Applicant. You will note that the current plan calls for only six buildings. There are no half buildings or townhomes proposed. This makes for a cleaner design at this point in the planning process. Buildings have been pulled back into the site and away from Route 250 (329' vs. 224' and 263' vs. 154' respectively) such that their facades generally align with the existing structures within this precinct. The buildings closest to Route 250 are one story lower than their counterparts to the rear of the site. In total, 76 units are proposed with this submission. A traffic study was prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates and submitted to VDOT for review. The study suggests that a signal would be warranted when traffic from the National Legal Research Group is redirected toward this site and the proposed new entrance. We welcome this level of consolidation and encourage Kappa Sigma to participate as well. Opportunity for future access to both adjacent parcels has been accommodated. Affiliated w#h Reid Sport. Conceots. Ltd. 17 · www. mckeeca.-on.com 301 -, 'r',~', EasL H ~,; Street · Char!ottesvi!ie. V~rg~nia 22902 · 804-979-7522 · Fax: 804-977-1194 mc@mckeecarson.corn RECEIVED IN PLANNING DEC. 16, 20~ Ms. Susan Thomas 16 December 2002 Page 2 The entrance to the property is now proposed at the location of the current site entrv. The proposed entrance - configuration suggests the removal of the existing stone-wing walls and having the existing gap in the main wall serve as the location for an inbound traffic lane. The terminal pier of the western wall section will also remain as a centerpiece within a traffic island between entering and exiting lanes. This central column will still hold the brass "White Gables" plaque. The stone wall length will be reduced in only a westerly direction and its new terminus graced with a new, but matching column. Once through the wall, a singular accessway will follow very closely the alignment of the existing driveway thereby reducing the amount of pavement found in the area between the manor home and Route 250 and preserving many of the noteworthy trees that currently contribute to the front yard setting. As with the first submission, all parking for residents and a few guest spaces will be provided under the buildings. The balance of the guest spaces will be located as adjuncts to the one way travelway that circumnavigates the rear garden commons. Unlike the travelway itself, these park'mg areas will be established as porous paving zones that can also support truck and emergency vehicle traffic while serving as stormwater infiltration zones. The balance of the stormwater management program is to be handled through the installation of a series of infiltration banks. Insofar as the site is sandwiched between the Birdwood and Farmington Golf Courses, this means of collecting, storing and treating runoff entirely underground seemed the most functional and appealing. Because White Gables will be developed in phases, a modular product line was selected. Beyond the aesthetic and environmental concerns, we also recognize the quantitative sensitivities surrounding the handling of storm runoff. To that end we have chosen to propose an on-site system robust enough to handle a 100-year storm event. With this management approach, we can assure our downstream neighbors that runoff from deVelopment at White Gables will not adversely impact their property. Very minimal grading is required to realize the development concept. This means that the design should dovetail well with the site and result in little or no change when viewed from the public domain. You will note that not only have we preserved numerous mature plantings, but the plan also suggests significant new plantings to replace those lost to construction and to enhance the site architecture. We hope that the accompanying plan and support documentation meets your needs for distribution to staff and the Commission. Should you need further information or additional copies please let us know. We appreciate your assistance in processing this request and look forward to your comments and the guidance of all involved. Mark E. Keller, CLA MEK:mek enclosure: Plans xc: Vito Cetta 0219 18 ATTACHMENT E Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comments Engineering SP S P-20~2-023 White Gables Condos revision 5 reviewer received reviewed decision Jeff Thomas 12/17/02 1/7/03 approved with conditions The special use permit application'for the White Gables Condominiums received on December 17, 2002 has been reviewed. The Engineering Department recommends approval with the following conditions. 1. Drainage control must be provided, and runoff must be directed to the proposed SWM facilities. [18- 32.7.4, 17-315] There are currently no drainage control measures shown on the concept plan, and we believe it is unreasonable to expect that all runoff will be sheet flow. We realize that such details are probably beyond the scope of a special use permit concept plan. Therefore, adequate drainage control must be included on the site plan. 2. The entrance driveway must be an urban section road to the loop intersection. All connections to adjoining properties must be urban section roadways. 3. We feel the acceleration/deceleration lane to the west does not provide adequate weaving length given the amount of traffic on U.S. 250, particularly during the peak hour periods. The right turn only lane must therefore terminate at the westbound lane for U.S. 250 with a yield condition. The following comments must be addressed with the site plan. 1. An access easement must be provided for the future Legal Research driveway. It must be platted and recorded prior to final site plan approval. 2. We offer the following comments regarding the conceptual stormwater management plan. a) We support the applicant's desire to use alternative SWM technologies such as the Haricot Land Max system. From the manufacturer's literature and notes on the concept plan, it appears that the pdmary consideration has been a reduction in runoff volume. Water quality must also be addressed. We feel that it is possible that the Hancor system can be adapted for water quality treatment as well as detention. b) The Hancor system and similar technologies relies heavily on porous soils, which may or may not be present on-site. This may necessitate additional excavation of the existing soil and placement of porous media to achieve the desired result. c) As stated above, it is important that as much impervious area runoff as possible be directed to the SWM facilities. d) We support the concept of the "porous paving grid" shown on the plan. However, we feel that Grasspave and similar materials are not well-suited to high traffic areas. Most of the examples pictured in the Grasspave brochure are overflow parking lots, fire lanes, and other areas Which do not experience frequent use. We recommend the stone pavers be used in the areas indicated on the concept plan. These pavers should provide an infiltration benefit and more .durable .parking surface. If the applicant feels this is not poSsible, then the SWM facilities could be expanded to compensate for the additional impervious area. 1/7/03 04:54 PM Page 1 of I ATTACHMENT F ROSSER ASSOCIATES, LLC POST OFFICE BOX 6668 CttARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 July 17, 2002 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Planning Commission Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: White Gables project on Ivy Road As next-door neighbors to the seven acre site called "White Gables" which is situated on the north side of Ivy Road between our property, the National Legal Research Group Building at 2421 Ivy Road, and the national offices of Kappa Sigma, we are greatly concerned about the 8 building, 78 condominium up. it development proposed by Weather Hill Homes (Vito Cetta, Developer/Architect). Each unit proposed by Weather Hill Homes will have two bedrooms and a den; assuming a likely density of 3 persons per unit and 2 cars per unit, the development will add 234 persons and 156 cars. By any standard, this seems to be a staggering population to add to the already intensely crowded 250 West corridor, especially in terms of automobile traffic. We at National Legal Research Group literally put our lives at risk every evening when we try to mm left onto Rt. 250 in the. face of unrelenting rush hour traffic heading west. To a lesser degree, we face this same problem in the morning when we come to work. We are not sure that the new traffic light proposed by Weather Hill will truly alleviate safety concerns. There are akeady 4 traffic lights in the short span between Bellair and Boar's Head, yet our own entrance remains very dangerous. The light at Bellair is the site of frequent accidents. Simply eliminating "right on'red" roms from the underpass onto Rt. 250 might reduce the chance of accidents and might provide more breaks in west-bound traffic, thus increasing the oppommities for safe exit. The 250 West corridor is uniquely beautiful, being largely devoid of commercial development and exhibiting some of the best landscaping in our community. Very simply, it's among the prettiest roads in Albemarle County or anywhere for that matter! Between Bellair and Boar's Head, every property has a matching swatch of green lawn with bordering stone walls. This look will be detrimentally altered by the proposed development. Two 2 imposing buildings will be placed in front of the'old Rinehart house and a road parallel to the bordering wall will be conslmcted. The lovely lawn will be lost and' many mature trees will be destroyed. Preservation of the 250 West corridor has been a ~riority of many individuals and civic organizations, such as the Albemarle Chapter of the Garden Club of Virginia. Many proper~ owners along Rt. 250 have donated conservation easements to preserve the distinctive beauty of this gateway. For these reasons, we fervently urge you to narrow the scope of the White Gables project and disallow the two proposed buildings in fi:ont of the old Rinehart house. Their placement will destroy the continuity of the lawn that starts at our property and continues to the Farmington entrance. Mature trees will be lost and the stone wall will be breached by the proposed traffic light. The parallel road(s) inside the stone wall will be highly visible. The increase in traffic is obviously a safety issue of Particular concern to us, but also affects everyone who uses Route 250. A reduction in the scale of the project will, at the very least, reduce the traffic it will undoubtedly generate. With sincere thanks for your consideration. Mary We~flo.~ollock Managing~l*f~mber Philip A. Schucet COIV&IlSSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 July 17, 2002 ATTACHMENT G JAMES L BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER White Gables Signal Susan Thomas Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire ROad Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Susan, Using the available data and trip generation projections, the proposed intersection between 250 and Birdwood & White Gables / Kappa Sigma barely meets one of the signal warrants. The Culpeper District Traffic Engineering section has recommended that the proposed consolidation of the White Gables and Kappa Sigma entrances, and their realignment with the Birdwood Golf Course entrance, should proceed. Once the consolidation and realignment is complete, the merits of a signal at this location can be more adequately assessed. When a signal is needed, as determined by the Traffic Engineering section in Culpeper, it should be installed at the cost of the developer(s) of the affected properties. If there are any questions or concerns, please advise. CC: Anne Hagan Charles Proctor Sincerely, Matthew C. Grimes, Eli Transportation Engineer TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21st CENTURY Philip A. Shucet COMMISSIONER COMMONWEAL TH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLO3-rESVILLE VA 22911 Jul 25, 2002 ATTACHMENT H JAMES L BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER White Gables Signal Susan Thomas Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Susan, In response to you request for clarification on the proposed signal on US 250 at the Birdwood Golf Course entrance, I offer the following comments. As I mentioned previously, the panning analysis we are able to conduct with the available data and trip generation projections indicates that the proposed intersection between 250 and Birdwood & White Gables / Kappa Sigma barely meets one of the signal warrants. The Culpeper District Traffic Engineering section has recommended that the proposed consolidation of the White Gables and Kappa Sigma entrances, and their realignment with the Birdwood Golf Course entrance, should proceed. Once the consolidation and realignment is complete, the merits of a signal at this location can be more adequately assessed by studying the actual traffic volumes and driver behavior patterns of the new intersection. When a signal is needed, as determined by the Traffic Engineering section in Culpeper, it should be installed at the cost of the developer(s) of the affected properties. The approximate cost for thiS new signal and its required control equipment is $140,000. If there are any questions or concerns, please advise. ccvia email: Anne Hagan Charles Proctor Sincerely, Matthew C. Grimes, Ell Transportation Engineer 23 TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 sT CENTURY Philip .4. Schuc~t COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of-VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT. WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 ATTACHMENT I JAMES L BRYAN RESIDENT ENGa~EER Janu. ary 28, 2003 Susan Thomas Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: White Gables, SP-2002-23 Dear ~as, The purpose of this letter is to present our comments on the proposed White Gables development on US 250. As you know, the applicant has requested a traffic Signal and has delivered a signal warrant study, which incorporates traffic from the proposed development as well as the adjacent Legal Research offices. This study showed that only one of the eight signal warrants will be met when construction of the proposed development is complete. The most recent proposals submitted to the Residency show that the. adjacent Kappa sigma property will not access the proposed signal, and that the entrance to the Legal Research offices will remain open. Leaving these entrances open, particularly since the Kappa Sigma traffic will not have access to the signal, is not consistent with prudent access management practices. Therefore, Charlottesville Residency staff recommends against the installation of a traffic signal at this location until such time as the Kappa Sigma, White Gables, and Legal Research individual driveways can be closed and consolidated at a single intersection with US 250. If the site proceeds according to the most recent proposal, but without signalization, the site entrance should be redesigned to eliminate the free flowing fightmm lane currently shown on the plans. Atwo lane egress will be permitted', however, both left and fight lanes must have a full stop condition. In addition, the concrete structures shown at the entrance should not extend beyond the face of the proposed curb. If there are any questions or concerns, please advise. Sincerely, Matthew C. Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer cc via email Juan Wade TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21s* CENTURY RECEIVED IN PLANNING JAN 30, 2003 ATTACHMENT J Route 250 West Task Force County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 To: Susan Thomas, Albemarle County Senior Planner From: Route 250 West Task Force~~ Ref: White Gable Condos Proposal Date: June 3, 2002- Revised July 24, 2002- Revised January 29, 2003 The Task Force has revieWed the most current plans for the White Gable Condos and had a presentation from Mr. Vito Cetta at their last Task Force meeting. The Task Force would like to update their July 24, 2002 memo. The Board of Supervisors charged the Task Force with reviewing development proposals along the Route 250 West corridor and the impact they could have on the traffic and safety along the corridor. The Task Force offers the following comments: The Task Force strongly believes the parcels adjacent to the White Gable Site should have one combined access to. Route 250 and the access should align with the Birdwood Golf CoUrse access, · The parcels should have an internal road offRoute 250 West that connects the parcels. The Task Force believes it is critically important to determine the intended use of Parcel t3_, which is adjacent to Route 250 West. The Task Force does not support the immediate installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. 250, Birdwood Golf Course, and the combined White Gables' access. A traffic signal should be installed when the warrants listed under section 4C- 2 of VDOT's Manual are met. · The developer of the White Gables Condos should proffer a land conservation easement along portiOn of the site adjacent to Route 250. Thank you for your consideration. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 November 25, 2002 ATTACHMENT K Vito Cetta 315 Old Ivy Way, Suite 102 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: ARB-2002-122 White Gables; Tax Map 60, Parcels 26 and 27A Dear Mr. Cetta: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on November 18, 2002, completed a preliminary review of'the above-noted request to establish a 70-unit condominium complex composed of e~ght 2- and 3-story buildings with underground parking and central amenities. Regarding the request for the Special Use Permit, the Board voted to send the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: The ARB offers no objection to the special use permit for White Gables, ARB-2002-122, based on the plans presented to the ARB, with the following recommendations: The development shall maintain the existing character of the site of broad lawns with mature trees as viewed from the EC. 2. Destroyed trees shall De replaced with new trees that compensate for the loss with increased caliper and increased quantity. 3. The scale of Pavilions 7 and 8 should be further reduced. 4. The stone wall at the front of the property shall be maintained. If the existing entrance will be closed, it shall be closed such that the stone wall is extended ~n a manner consistent with the existing appearance. The new entrance and ddveway shall also be consistent with the existing appearance. A stone gateway and iron gates shall be created. 5. Any signs proposed in the future shall not overpower the stone wall at the front of the proper[7 or the entrance to the property and shall be compatible with both. 6. The entrance and travelways shall be located such that a minimum number of trees will be removed from the site(s). 7. The renovation of the residence into a community'building shall maintain the histodc appearance of the building. 8. Townhouse basements and garage doors shall be odented away from the ECto eliminate visibility. 9. Grading shall respect the natural slopes at the front of the property between the existing building and Route 250. 10. Paving in front of the existing residence shall be kept at a minimum. 11. That additional landscaping beyond standard minimum ordinance and guideline requirements will be appropriate for this site. Page 2 November 25, 2002 Regarding the site plan, the ARB offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal. Please note that the following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review and changes to the plan. 1. The development shall maintain the existing character of the site of broad lawns with mature trees as viewed from the EC. 2.. Destroyed trees shall be replaced with new trees that compensate for the loss with increased caliper and increased quantity. 3. Continue to improve the compatibility of scale of Pavilions 7 and 8 with the existing building. Buildings 7 and 8 are still too large. The scale, issue includes height, footprint and mass. Deeper articulation in the buildings would be beneficial. 4. The new entrance and driveway shall be consistent with the existing appearance of the site. A stone gateway and iron gates shall be created. Drawings shall be submitted for review and approval of the ARB. 5. Any signs proposed in the future shall not overpower the stone wall at the front of the property or the entrance to the property and shall be compatible with both. 6. The entrance and.travelways shall be located such that a minimum number of trees will be removed from the site(s). 7. The renovation of the residence into a community building shall maintain the historic appearance of the building. Provide detailed information on the proposed changes to the extedor of the building visible from the EC. 8. Provide information on all proposed retaining walls visible from the EC, including location, heights, materials, appearance, visibility. 9. Provide a grading plan. 10. Regarding landscaping: · A full landscape review has not been done at this time. Provide for final review a detailed landscape plan identifying the plants with botanical names and proposed sizes. · Show spot elevations at the corners of the buildings in order to evaluate what trees can actually remain. · The Tree Invento~ Report recommends that trees #.49 & #50 be saved, but the Tree Inventory Plan identifies them for removal. Please reconcile the difference. · The loss of existing mature trees is a concern because they define the character of the property as viewed from the EC. Because of the substantial number of mature healthy trees that are proposed to be removed, consider reducing the size of Pavilions 5 and 6 to retain more trees, and compensate for the lost units with an additional pavilion located at the rear center portion of the site. · Sign the Conservation Plan Checklist. Show on' the plan the information that is required by the checklist to demonstrate the measures that will be implemented during construction to protect any existing trees that are proposed for preservation (i.e., tree protection fence, trunk armoring detail, tree wells, tree walls). · Additional landscaping beyond standard minimum ordinance and guideline requirements will be appropriate for this site. · If a new entrance will be proposed, provide complete landscape information for all parcels that will be impacted by the entrance proposal. · More trees should be added at the front of the site to maintain the existing character. The trees should be a mix of evergreen and deciduous and should be spaced along the new driveway or distributed You may submit an application for continued ARB review of your site at your earliest convenience. Schedules, applications, and checklists are available at www.aibcmarle.or.~'plannin~. Page 3 November 25, 2002 Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Please include a memo outlining how each comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel 'free to call me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Design .Planner MM/jcf Cc: File Susan Thomas February 13, 2003 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmer~t of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, ,Virginia 229024596 (434) 296- 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 40t2 Ambre Blatter Omnipoint Communications/T Mobile 5041 Corporate Woods Drive, Suite 200 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 RE: SP-2002-071 Crown Orchard Company Pinnacle/Carters Mountain TaxMap 91, Parcel 28 Dear Ms. Blatter: The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on February 11, 2002, by a vote of 4:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The tower shall not be increased in height. The two (2) additional arrays of panel antennas may be attached only as follows: a. The highest portions of the panel antennas in the top array shall not exceed 76 feet above ground. b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted; none of the antennas shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and ~n no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure. c. The ante nnas subject to this approval may be replaced administratively, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the replacement antennas are in corn pliance with these conditions of approval and in accordance with the regulations set forth in Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance. All work shall be done 'n general acco~:d with that described in the applicant's request and site construction plans, entitled "Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations - Pinnacle Carter's Mountain", last revised on November 7, 2002. With .the exception of the safety lighting required by Federal Aviation Administration regulations, outdoor lightin§ shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire that is not required for safety shall be fully shielded as required by Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower. The tower and all supporting facilities shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the tower. 02-20-03 Page 2 February 13, 2003 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 19, 2003. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days pdor to your scheduled hearing date. ~f you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Stephen Waller, AICP Senior Planner SW/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN B. WALLER, AICP FEBRUARY 11, 2003 MARCH 19, 2003 SP 02-071 CROWN ORCHARD CORPORATION (PINNACLE) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposal is for the co-location of six (6) additional antennas in two arrays ranging between 60 and 70 feet on an existing 205-foot tall guyed tower (Attachment A). The proposed panel antennas are approximately 6 feet in length and 1-foot in Width, and would be flush-mounted, so that there is not more than 12 inches between the structure and the face of each antenna. Ground equipment, housing PCS, E-911 and GPS hardware would be installed in cabinets to be placed on an existing 12-foot x 20-foot concrete located on the east side of an existing building at the site (AttaChment B). The property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 28, contains 234.165 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas (Attachment C). This site is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District, on Carter's Mountain Trail, approximately 1 mile southeast of the intersection with the Thomas Jefferson parkway [State Route 53]. The ComPrehensive Plan designates this site as Rural Area 4. Petition: This request is for a special use permit to allow the co4ocation of antennas and ground equipment at an existing personal wireless communication facility, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers. The tower for this facility is currently owned by Pinnacle Towers Inc., and the applicant Omnipotent Communications, operating nationally as T-Mobile Communications, is in the process of expanding its service area into Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and the surrounding region. ,Planning and Zoning History: Several towers, satellite dishes and various other communications facilities are currently located within the exiSting "tower faire" at the top of Carter's Mountain. Staff has identified the following actions that have been taken to approve several of those facilities since 1'978: SP 7842 Motorola - On October 4, 1978; the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 200-foot tall tower for two-way radio communications (Attachment D). This tower is the mounting structure that is subject to the requested collocation in this proposal. SP 79-76 Jefferson Cable - On January 18, 1980, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow the installation of a 5-meter satellite receiving dish. SP 80-02 Shenandoah Valley TV - On March' 19, 1980, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request allowing the removal of an existing 230-foot tall tower, and replacement with a 186-foot tall television tower. SP 88-14 Central Virginia Educational TV - On May 4, 1988, the Board of Supervisors approved a sPecial use permit reques, t to allow a 293-foot tall television tower. SP 90-74 Charlottesville Cellular - On September 19, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 150-foot tall cellular telephone tower. SP 91-23 CharlotteSville Quality Cable - On August 7, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permi! request to allow a 200-foot tall wireless cable transmission tower. SP 93-10 Crown Orchard Company (WVIR-TV) -On June 9, 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 60-foot tall television reception tower. SP 93-15 RAM/BSE Communications - On July 14, 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a multi-purpose tower not to exceed 300-feet in height. SP 94-37 Centel Cellular - On March 13, 1995, the Board of Supepcisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 200-foot cellular telephone tower. SP 96-16 Sm-Comm. Inc. - On July 10, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 190-foot multi-purpose tower. SP 00-88 Carter's Mountain Emergency Communication Facility - On April 18, 2001 the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 250-foot tower as part of the area emergency communications system. SP 00-72 Crown Orchard (NEXTEL/Crown Castle) - On April 16, 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow the co-location of an additional array of antennas, on an existing 270-foot tall guyed tower owned by American Tower Corporation, and a new 9'xl 6' equipment building. SP 02-43 Crown Orchard (WVIR TV) - On December 4, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow the construction of a 250-foot tall lattice tower for the attachment of an antenna supporting the Virginia Broadcasting Corporation's federally mandated transition from analog to digital broadCasts. - ' Character of the Area: This facility site is located within an existing "tower farm-" at the top of Carter's Mountain on property owned by Crown Orchard Company. The facility, which is.maintained by Pinnacle Towers Inc., was.constructed in 1978 and currently has several antenna arrays attached to the guyed tower serving as its mounting structure. Several other existing facilities with towers that range between 60 and 300 feet in height are located on the subject property. Although the outlying area immediately surrounding the tower farm consists of orchards, there are no significantlysizedtrees within the immediate area when compared to the existing towers. There are no dwellings within 2000 feet of the Pinnacle facilities and the nearest public road is Route 53, whichis more than one mile away. The site is accessed from Carter's Mountain Road, which begins at the eastern side of Route 53, south of Michie Tavern. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Open Space Plan and Chapter Two Staff notes that an existing concrete pad would be used for the groUnd equipment cabinets so this proposal does not necessitate any additional disturbance. Furthermore, vehicular access is already provided to the site from the private access road, which begins at State Route 53 and extends south to the site. Therefore, staff's review of this request for compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan focuses mainly on the possible visual impacts that could result from the presence of the new antennas and the new equipment cabinets at the proposed location. The Open Space Plan and Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapters of the Comprehensive Plan provide staff with guidance for the protection of the CoUnty's natural, scenic and historic resources, and preservation and management of those resources in order to protect the environment for future use. Staff has identified two Open Space resources that could potentially be affected by this application: the MoUntain Resource Area and important historic sites. The site is located in the resource area for Carter's Mountain which begins at the 700 foot contour on the USGS maps and peaks at an elevation of approximately 1,400 feet above sea-level (ASL). The,Comprehensive Plan designates mountains as major open space systems that provide scenic views, naturally forested areas and wildlife habitat, and are recommended for protection in the Rural Areas. Staff has identified the following general standard that has been set forth for protecting mountain resources. Locate houses and structures to make them unobtrusive in the landscape. - Do not build structures taller than the natural tree canopy. - Do not locate houses and structures where they will be "skylightcd" against the horizon. - Do not alter the continuity of thc ridgeline. There is no existing tree canopy within close proximity that could provide assistance in mitigating the facilities within the tower farm. There are several existing towers located within this area that are comparable in height with that of the existing tower proposed to serve as the mounting structure for the antennas proposed for this facility. Because of the varying terrain, 3 concerns with the possibility of skylighting (visibility of structures in against open skies without background) and altering the continuity of the ridgeline are mainly functions of the locations from which the proposed and existing structures can be viewed. This tower is skylighted from a various locations throughout the area and the ridgeline has already been altered by the facilities that currently exist within the tower farm. However, this proPosal for mounting two additional arrays of antenna at points that are appr6ximately 1/3 of the total height of the existing tower does not require the tower to be increased in height and, therefore should have minimal additional visual impact. The Open Space Concept Map identifies several historic sites on properties that are adjacent to and near the subject property. This includes the Nationally Registered Historic Properties of Monticello and Michie Tavern, both of which are located to the north of the tower sites on Carter's Mountain. Due to the distance from those historic properties, and the topography of Patterson Mountain, which lies between them and the tower farm, it is staff's opinion that the two flush-mounted arrays of panel ~antennas wouldhave very limited visibility from those properties. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy: In accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy, staff analysis is focused mainly on the visual impact of proposed facilities from surrounding properties and roadways. Except when strategically sited and designed to minimize visibility and mitigate their impacts upon the natural landscape, wireless facilities should not be located within "Avoidance Areas" such as mountains. This includes the recommendation for implementing structures that are no taller than the natural tree canopy, and locating structures so that they are nor "skylighted" against the horizon, and do not alter the ridgeline. As a result of the structure heights and the fact that they are situated at the top of a mountain, the towers on Carter's Mountain are already skylighted, and highly visible from several points throughout the County and the City of Charlottesville. Whenever possible, the wireless policy also encourages the utilization of existing structures for 'new facilities when. antennas can be flush-mounted. The supplemental regulations of the Zoning Ordinance allow up to three (3) arrays of antennas to be attached on an existing structure. However, the tower proposed to accommodate this co-location is akeady outfitted with several whip antennas, most of which are located at greater heights than those being proposed for the two panel antenna arrays.' Because this request would allow the applicant to take advantage of a co- location oppommity with lirm'ted visual impacts, it is staff's opinion that approval of this application would be consistent with the policies and guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for siting personal wireless service facilities. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues ofthi, s request in four sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and, Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(lI) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 4 Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the B0 .ard of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_, The existing tower farm i s lOCated at the interior of a parcel that contains many acres, and is isolated from the adjacent properties. Staff is of the opinion that the ground eqUipment cabinets would not be visible from adjacent properties and public roads; nor would it impose any unfavorable impacts upon the orchards and forests near the site. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The preserVation of the agricul.tural and forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the natural, scenic and historic resources are listed as purposes of the Rural Areas zoning district include. Uses allowed by right are either residential, or those related to agriculture/md forestal activities. Those uses that are allowed by special use permit in the Rural Areas district are most often services related to bY-right activities. However, due to the fact that the existing facility at this site is located so far away and at such a high elevation in relationship to surrounding properties, it is staff's opinion that the proposed co-location alone'would not be have the effect of changing the character of the area. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated Sections 1.4.4, 1.5 and 1.6, all of which address the provision of public services. Staff also gives consideration for the concerns that these regulations set forth for the possible impacts that public service facilities can have upon the rural areas and the natural environment. Whenever telecommunication facilities cannot be designed to stealthily blend in with the existing surroundings, staff has recognized a preference to co-locate on existing structures within utility easements or to build new structures in areas where similar facilities are already present. Both of these practices can be effective for ensuring that new facilities are not located in a manner that requires extensive environmental degradation that could occur in addition to the perceived visual impactsl Section 1.4.3 states that one of the intents of the Ordinance is, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." It is clear that the existing facilities on Carter's Mountain provide a wide range of services to County residents and other people throughout the area. Because an opportunity for co-location on an existing structure is proposed with this request with no disturbance, and a minimal increase in visibility, it is staff's opinion that the approval ofthis proposal could result in a more convenient and attractive community. Therefore, staff's opinion is that this request complies with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, especially as it pertains to the siting of utilities. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Because the orchards have been used continually in the presence of the existing facilities within the tower farm, it is apparent that this proposal would not have the effect of restricting any of the current uses that are allowed by right within the Rural Areas zoning district. This has also been demonstrated in the fact that the existing tower farm has coexisted on the subject parcel with the existing fruit orchards. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The Board of Supervisors adopted the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy to provide guidelines for the siting and review of proposals for personal wireless service facilities. Section 5.1.40c of the Zoning Ordinance addresses proposals that are allowed by-fight, specifically concerning the attachment of facilities to existing structures as recommended under Tier One of the wireless policy. Under those regulations the owner of an existing structure is allowed to support the collocation of the combination of three (3) arrays of flush mounted panel and/or Whip antennas, by right. However, because several antennas are already attached to the nonconforming tower, this proposal requires the approval of a special use permit. 2. Section 704(a)(7)Co)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, 'No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to prOtect the public health and safety under. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the siting and design of wireless facilities. In their current states these existing facilities and their mounting structures appear to offer adequate support for three providers of personal wireless communication services. The applicant has not provided any information regarding the aVailability, or lack thereof, for any alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered with the proposed antennas at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal wireless services. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 3. 4. 5. The ground equipment subject tO this special use permit will not restrict any of the uses that are permitted by right or impose any additional impacts on adjacent properties. The new ground equipment cabinets would not be visible from areas outside of the facility. No clearing or other disturbance is necessary for'the placement of the facihty. This proposal represents a co-location oppommity for antennas that are likely to have very minimal Visual impacts. The proposed antennas would be located on the lower third of the tower. Staff has identified no unfavorable factors that would result from the approval of this request. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: 1. The existing tower has several existing antennas mounted at various heights. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staffrecommends approval of the requested special use permit subject to the with conditions: (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended conditions of approval: 1. The tower shall not be increased in height. 2. The two (2) additional arrays of panel antennas may be attached only as fOllows: The highest portions of the panel antennas in the top array shall not exceed 70 feet above ground. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the'tower. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted; none of the antennas shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure. The antennas subject to this approval may be replaced administratively, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the replacement antennas are in compliance with these conditions of approval and in accordance with the regulations set forth in Section 5.1 ~40 of the Zoning Ordinance. All work shall be done in general accord with that described in the applicant's request and site construction plans, entitled "Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations - Pinnacle Carter's Mountain", last revised on November' 7, 2002. With the exception of the safety lighting required by Federal Aviation Administration regulations, outdoor lighting shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire that is not required for safety shall be fully shielded as required by Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower. o The tower and all supporting facilities shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued. 7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the tower. ATTACHMENTS: B- C- D- Application and Applicant's Additional Information Construction Plans, .last revised November 7, 2003 Parcel and Location Maps SP 78-42 Motorola Approval Letter, dated October 11, 1978 10/2~/2002 I5:36 FAX 43A 972 AI~ Da~ ~ owner of ~is prap~y~wn (ar havc any aWn~mhip int~es~ in) an~ akU[a.~.g ~ro~e~yT. ff y~. pi~c lis~ thasc ~ map ~d p~l numb~ ~ .. .401 McInti~ Road q- Charlatt~sville.'"VA 22902 -:- Voice: 296-5832 -:- Dax: 9724126 10/24/2002 t5:36 FAX 434 972 4126 BLD CODE & ZONING h*~by, m~s unto i~elf ~e right to i~ue aU s~ u~ .pe~ ~ for ~= ~ pro~d~ in ~s or~n~ ~y ~ ~ued ~po, a findini ~y !' ~ of supe~ that ~cl~ u~ will no[ b, of subs~fi~ d~ffim~t m ~j~n~.pm~ay, tha~ ih~ ~hm~ of ~ di~ will not ~ C~ged ~mby ~di~ such~ will..~'in }l~nony wiU, ~ ~ ~d intel of ~s' ord~cc, with ~ u~ ~~ by right in the disffic~ with. ~ditio~ mgul~o~.p~ .' 5.0 of ~is ordinate, ~d wi~ ~ ~blic ~ safety ~d g~nc~ welf~e~ < · i' .. : _. W~tis~mprch~i~Phn~i~ionfor~isp~y? . '; '~ ,= . . . . ~. ' ~ : :, ' · . ~ .' i .. ' · no~ ~iit am pro.cd s~ial us= ~f~t thc ~t~ of a= d~ict su~nding ac'p~p~y? _ How is ac mo in h~ony wia au p~ ~d in~, of ~ ~ning O~i~? :: - -~ . · ATTACHMENT A t0 ATTACHMENT, A Note: If ¥~u are requesting a special use p~rmit o~ily for a portion of the propm"ty, it ncr, ds to b'-. cle, scrib~ or delirte,~ed oa [ copy o~' r, hc plat or surveyed drawing. Ownm'ship information - If ownership of tt~ property is in the name of ~ny ty~ of l~al -entio) or or~anizatlon includinj, bu~ not Iimir~ to, t.h¢ name o£a corporation, panncrslzip or association, or iL the name of a true, or in a f'~firiaus nar~, .a do~um~t acc~pr~ie tO ~h= C~un.~ must t~ subx~ttcd c~.i~g that thc l~rson signing b~low has thc au~hodty tO gO SO. If th~ apptican~is a ~on~'act purchase, a documet~t a .cc~ptabtc to the Count~ must ;ubmitlect conmi-ing the owner's w~itten consent to the'applJca~i0n.' !f the applicant is the agent of tl~ owner, a documenl ac~p~bIe to ~h¢ C_~unty mu~t be submitted that is c*videncc of thc e, xistu~c= and scope or cbc agency, . OFTIONAL ATTARS: / 0~/' 3. Drawing or conc'.ptuaJ any. ~/~ 4. Additional Information, if ~y. I h~re~y ccrt~5, that I own thc. subj=t pml:m'ty, or hav~ ~c legal pow= to act on b~l'mlf of th, owner ~_~,F~,~s apptication. I aho ce, rd.'O'~ ~e information provided is t.m= and accurat~ to ra~ b~st o~ my , _, ; f'jTj..o_z__ - . · ' Printed N~m~ D~ytim= pho~ uumt~r af Siguatm'y I1 ATTACHMENT A ..,:./,.~ ·_ :"' :,~ . ,......:-:::!~... ,; ""'"'.-:'"~" :' .. -i. )~ ~i. '. :.*: ~.. ~ ' . :' .'.~ -~. 12 FE.i:i ~4 2U03 in:54RM HP LRSERJET 3~00 A~ ATT HMENT A -Mob, fie,' RECEIVED IN PLANNING FEB. 4, 2003 757-490-7200 $029 CORPORATF- WOODS DRIYE, SUITB 225 VIRGHglA BEACH, VA ~2 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET F~OM: Stepha~ Waller COI~PANY: FA~ NUMBER: i 434-972-4012 DATI~ FEBRUARY 4, 2003 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUD'II~G COVER: 2 RE: SF-NDER'S PHONE NUMBER: 757-490-7212 SI~NDBR'S FAX NUM~ER: 757-490-6195 Fax: 7~7-490-619~; X URGENT /-'] FOR REVIEW Stephen, PLEASE COMMENT r']PLEASEREPLy [] PLEASE RECYCLE P!e-&se diseeg'~i Re rmx I sent over earlier *Jais morning. The attached is thc ~curare antenn~ ctirncnaions. - ! Thaxzk you, Ambrc 5041 CORPORATE WOODS DRIVE SUITE ZOO VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 17 Yroduct Description ATTACHMENT A A Digit, on ol EMS Ticll~elegies, Il're. Company Information AJ=ou! EMS Wirele~ Presl Room Contact Us Cu~tornel* Support Upcoming Events Career Opportunllle) Regletar Home Product lnformaUon New Products Proctuct Catalog Mobile Wireless Products In-Building Solution:; Repeaters & Amplifiers Fixed Wll'ele~s Product~ Custom -~le Healthcare Solutions Antenna Search p~ttern Library Ordering Guide Request a Quote Antenna Tach Articles Repeater AppllcaUon Notes To reque,,;t an EMS Wireless representative contact you, click here, Return to Dual DR65-19-XX_PQ 1850 MHz - 1990 MHZ General Specs Bearmafdfl'i 65° G~in 16.4 dBd (18.5 dB0 Select Electrical Eh3wnffit O 02° © 04° .................. -::::=':-""~ .... '-;-i .............. Select a downlilt and click either of me above Polar Par/em buttor~ to view a printable Polar Plot, OM; I Picture trot' Available Careers Contact Us Terms of Use o! Interest http:/.../pro_pagetemp.asp?id=1310&series=&pol=R&type=&hbeam=&gain=&~tenna=Fals 2/4/2003 ATTACHMENT A Stephen Waller From: Sent: To: Subject: Blatter, Ambre [Ambre. Blatter@T:Mobile.com] Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:21 AM Stephen Waller (E-mail) Pinnacle/Carters Mtn tower In speaking with our engineers, they have stated that we are no longer going to be using the MFR antenna. That will be deleted fro, m our plans. Thank you, Ambre Blatter > .T.--Mobile. 757-490-7212 ambre.blatter@t-mobile.com 19 F~IPTION )N OF NEW ANTENNAS '-W EQUIPMENT WILL BE )NS EAST (CARTERS ; PEACHES. IF YOU SITE APPROX. 1 MILE .SFFE LOOA'nON NOT TO SCALE . $/TE OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS CAP OPERATIONS LLC SITE NAME PINNACLE CARTER'S MOu AiN SITE NUMBER VA22843A SITE ADDRESS 1920 CARTER'S MOUNTAIN ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 SITE COORDINA'rF~, LATITUDE: N37'59'09.6" (NAD 83) LONGITUDE: W78'28'¢6.2" (NAD '~83) ELEV.: 1437' (NGVD 88) SITE INFOR~_A_TION JURISDICTION: ALBEMARLE COUNTY TAX MAP: 09100000D028C0 D.a.: N/A, PO N/A CODE: BOCA OCCUPANCY: UNMANNED ZONING: RA CONSTRUCTION USE; 2C CONSTRUCTION USE GROUP: U CIVIL/SURVEYING DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES 8090 VILLA PARK DRIVE RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23228 PHONE: 804-264--2228 FAX: 804-264-8773 MISS UTILITY' CONTRACTOR TO CAU.. 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGINGi PHONE: (800)552-7001 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE OF EXISTING trr~ mr~ APPROVED FOR ZONING -PROPERTY OWNER OR REP. CONSTRUCTION ZONING REAL ESTATE '-~F;TWORK OP-'RATIONS OTHER SHEET INPEX T1 TITLE SHEET N1 GENERAL NOTES N2 GENERAL NOTES N3 GENERAL NOTES Ci ...$~ TEl PLAN C2 SITE DETAIL PLAN C3 TOWER ELEVATION AND ANTENNA SCHEDULE C4. CIVIL DETAILS C5 CIVIL NOTES C6 BTS AND EQUIPMENT PLATFORM ,,PRO~E~T SUMMARY LANDLORD_ PINNACLE TOWERS ,301 N. CATTLEMAN ROAD SARASOTA. FL. 34234- PH: (888) 748-3482 PROPERTY OWNER CROWN ORCHARD COMPANY PO BOX 299 BATESVILLE, VA 22924 APPLICANT OMNIPOINT COI.~MUNICATIONS CAP OPERATIONS. LLC 5041 CORPORATE WOODS DRIVE, SUTE 200 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 2,3462 PH: 757-490-7214 FAX: 757-490...,3778 CONTACT: NATHAN HOLL~D ,CONSULTANT~ ELECTRICAL/STRUCTURAL TELESIS/LDS P.C. 2112 WEST L~BURNUM AVENUE SUITE 201 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23227 PHONE: 804-358-1100 FAX: 804-,358-1188 DOMINION VIRGINIA ONE JAUES RIVER p~ 701 EAST CAEY STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 PHONE: 1-888-667-3000 POWER VER~ZON CONTA:T: CUSTOMER SERVICE PHONE: 800-g54-6298 Draper Aden Associates 8090 MLLA PARK DRI~ (1~0 ~(~MI3ND, VA 4) 284--2228 PHONE (m~) 2s4-8773 FAX OMNZPO]:NT COMMUN]:CATI:ONS CAP OPERAT~ONS~ LLC 50~1 CORPORAT~ WOOOs DP. SUITE: 200 MRGINIA BEACH, VA 234~2 PN: (757) 490-7240 FAX: (75*'/) 490-3770 # 022873 ~ NO: VA2224.~ TITLE SHEET VA22343A PldNACLE CARTI~8 MOUNTNN CHARLOTTESV~Li= vA ~a~ OOBd ONIZINVA'J~O ~I-IL HO/494 O.L ~O9OO JNIVd O~JSg~-ONIZ ~ $~G~IB ONIZINVA~ BO S.UIO 09~1.t .LNNd 0NV 'IVlB3£~4 4~ J.~':IdSNI 'NOIIO3B3 JO NOlL99dlqOO XOdfl :NOU.O'ItOBd NOU.NO]X3 ~ '1331~ L;YJ 3B 33YHS 5d~0 T~ 'A ~ 3~ NI ]~M ~9 a~ 190B ~S ~1~ NOBI ~ 3B ~S ~ ~OddB5 3~1~ 03B~ 'fl '~d~O O~ NOI~3L O~ Sd~O O~ 'Sd~O OL O~ 3~ ION A~ ~B S~gONI 3BW~ B3~O '5 '~ 3~ Y ~ 9~HS ~SOd '~0~8~ ~ OOB SSDBI HONI g/~ V ~VH ~S ~ ON3 a~ ]i~ B]NB03 9~ 'O ~ ~0~3S SSO~O ~N~03 ~ BO ~Nl ~/~ ~ H3NI gt/~ 3B ~S S~B B]H3~S 'd '~ ]N~ LV ]B~ NOISN~ ~OH OL LgOB-~ ~ HO~ ~/t ~ HO~ XIS V 30~d 'O 'SlSOd ~ ~ B3NBOO ff SdRO 3~ ~S 3BI~ NO~N~ ~VOO ONJZ 30R~ B 'ON V 'N 'NO'SOd N3dO 3~ NI ~ ~ 9~ BO~ O30~O~d 38 ~S SB3d33N ~ SdO~ 'S3~l~ ~03 BO '~3HHOV~V ~B930 BB[ '60tg ~OOH ~ ~ 30NIH :-:'Sago 3~S~W JO ~3sn ~ 33~d 'O3Sn ION '5B3NBOO O3~ 3A~ 'o3sn ~ON ~HONI ¢ ~HONI ~ B3NBOO ~NI B/L-~ 3Nn ~ZINYA~ O~ ~03H0S 3B ~ S~ ~ '0 '03~ ~ON '3 'L 5~O ~6~-V ~ SNOE~UIO3dS 3~ ~ ~BOJN~ ~S 31a~J 'S3~3~O~0B 'B30~ ~]~Bd ~ ~OGH ~l~ ~Bt~ C~['O) 30Vf19 6 'ON JO HS3~ ~NR NIfO HONI-O~ ~ ~S OlBBVJ 'B '03Z~A~ O]ddlO-lOH 3B ~S ~ B3~O O~ 3~MO~ 'S390d 'S9~ '3BIA 31B~J ~V ~ROOBd - ~Od O~ 3BN~ 'ONtON~-LBL-J-BB NOE~JD3dS ~3O~ '0 NOB~ ~OB-LOH ~OJ NOE~IjIO3dS OL~-~L~ 03ddIa-loH 3~ ~ (03ZI~AWO) 0~3 3NIZ '~BO/~ 3H/ 3J.3'ldt103 01 (I3BINO3B S'htB3LWI JO ,UJgVNO ONV 3a,U. '3BNa330Bd 3H1 JO aOHJ314 3tLL ltYNgIS30 O£ ONY SONI~AVBO 3HL JO ~glNI 3FLL J3ada3641 o~ si SNOIIVOUI33dS 3EL ~O 3$Od~Nd 3FLt '.LOVl~UN03 3H~ NI S~ ~0~ qRL JO NOIL-i-ldr~03 ONV NOUR33X~ '~108 NI 0314103d$ ~0 031VOIONI 'N~OHS · 5V 3HL 3NO0 3a 93VH$ ~1 '~3H£O 3HZ ION ~NV 3NO NO O3~133aS aO O3~¥310~1 'N/~OH$ 3a ONIHItNV (]gnOHS 'a3/,3~OH '~VlN3Y139dd~$ ON¥ AaOZWfldX3 ~nJ 38 0! 030N3~1 3BY SNOLtyOI4D3~$ 0NY S~N~YaO 3H~ 'k43~3n~ BO~ O3HSIN~J 3B O~ sg~IB3LW 3H£ 3NO~ 3B Ol ~0~ 3HL 3B1~3S3~ ~3H/ $~NI/~YaO NOLt3~BLSNO3 0NY SNOL[V3~I33~S 3S3HI J~3~l V~ 9V'd3N30 L ,L~Vd S31ON 94rd3N39 - t NOISI~O INSULATION IPLASTIC DEGREES )SELY D BY ~TED OR ANCE AND 22. GROUNDING CONDUCTORS SHALL BE SOLID TINNED COPPER UNLESS OTHERMSE NOTED. 23. METER SOCKET AMPERES. VOLTAGE. NUMBER OF PHASES SHALL BE AS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS, MANUFACTURED BY "SQUARE D COMPANY'. OR APPROVED EQUAL, 24. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE U.L LISTED. 25. CONDUIT A. ALL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT SHALl. BE SCHEDULE 40 PVC. B. ALL EXTERIOR ABOVEOROUND CONDUIT SHALL BE SUNUGHT RESISTANT SCHEDULE BO PVC. C. ALL INDOOR CONDUIT SHALL BE EMT. D. FLEXIBLE CONDUIT MAY BE USED AT EQUIPMENT CONNECTIONS. FLEXIBLE CONDUIT SHALL BE UOUID TIGHT, SHALL NOT BE LONGER THAI~ B FEET AND SHALL CONTNN GROUND CONDUCTOR SIZED IN ACCORDANCE ~TH THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. 26. ALL ELEC1RICAL EOUIPMENT SHALL BE LABELED ~TH PERMANENT ENCRAVED PLASTIC LABELS. 27. COORDINATE THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE ~TH THE UTIU~ COMPANY, AND PROVIDE DAILY UPDATES TO PM UNTIL RNAL ELECTRICAL SERVICE IS EFFECTED. 28. UPON COMPLETION OF WORK, CONDUCT CONTINUITY, SHORT CIRCUIT, AND FALL OF POTENTIAL GRODND 'JESTS FOR APPROVAL SUBMIT TEST REPORTS TO PROJECT MANAGER. CLEAN PREMISES OF ALL DEBRIS RESULTING FROM WORK AND [EAVF WORK IN A COUPLEIE AND UNDAMAGED CDNDI.~,OH, 29. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ~TH uTIUTY COMPANY FOR CONNECTION OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT POWER TO THE SITF_ ]HE TEMPORARY POWER AND ALL HOOKUP COSTS TO BE PAID BY CONTRACTOR. GROUNDING STANDARDS 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 AREAS DF CONCERN: WHEN DESIGNING A GROUNDING SYS1EU FOR A MOBILE RADIO FACIUTY THERE ARE FOUR INTERRELA'IED AREAS OF CONCERN· THE BASIC ~JECIIVE FOR EACH IS: A. UGH1NING PROIECTION - TO MNNTAIN AU. EQUIPMENT AT THE SAME POTENTIAL DURING A UGHTHING IMPULSE_ B, RR FOR NOISE INDUCTION CONTROL - TO ESTABLISH THE LOWEST POSSIBLE IMPEDANCE AMONG ALL EQUIPMENT. C. ELECTROSTATIC CONTROL - TO REDUCE ELECTRDSTATIC DISCHARGE PROBLEMS. D. PERSONNEL SAFETY- TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY TWO METALUC OG.ECTS WHICH PERSONNEL MIGHT CONTACT SIMULTANEOUSLY. 1.2 A/C GROUNDING: ALL GROUNDING CONNECTIONS INSIDE OF CABINETS-SHALL BE SCRAPED TO BARE METAl AND COATED ~TH CONDUCTING LUBRICANT. STA/ION GROUNDING SYSTEM 2.0 MATERIALS: A. ~2 AWG. BARE SOUD TINNED COPPER WIRE. FOR ALL EXTERIOR CONDUCTORS AND TOWER GROUND BAR CONDUCTORS OR AS DTHER~SE SPECIFIED. GROUNDS TO THE LNAS SHALL BE NO. 6 STANDARD OREEN INSULATED JUMPERS, THE DROUND ~RE TO THE MOB SHALL BE GREEN INSULATED #2 ~RE BURNDY CONNECTED TO THE BUSS BAR AND CONNECTED TO THE GROUND RING ON A GROUND ROD. B. j~2 AWG, INSULATED STRANDED COPPER CABLE SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR INTERIDR GROUND 8AR CONDUCTORS ON TENANT IMPROVEMENT SITES. C..'3/4" X 10'-0" ORQUND RODS OF SOUD COPPER, STAINLESS STEEL OR COPPER CI.AD HIGH STRENGTH STEEL D. ABOVE GRADE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE BURNDY HYGRODND COMPRESSION. BELOW GRADE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE EXOTHERMIC WELD, E. CONDUCTIVE LUBRICANT SHALL BE USED IN ALL MECHANICAL CONNEC~ONS. F. MECHANICAL FASTENERS (I.E., DOUBLE LUGS, SPUT BOLTS PARALLEL OONNECTDRS) SHALL BE BRONZE, BRASS, COPPER DR STAINLESS STEEL AND HAVE CONDUCTIVE LUBRICANT BETWEEN CONDUCTOR AND CONNECTION, G. BOLTS, NUTS AND SCRLI~S USED TO FASTEN MECHANICAL CONNECTORS SHALL BE STAINLESS STEEL WITH STAR T~E STAINLESS STEEL LOCK WASHERS. H. ALL LUGS SHALL HAVE 1WO HOL~S FOR A DOUBLE BOLT CONNECTION. ?-1 MASTER GROUND BAR (MDB): THE PURPOSE DF THE MASTER GROUND BAR IS TO GROUND THE BTS AND ANY OTHER MElALUC OBJECTS AROUND THE BTS. 2.2 ANTENNA GROUND BAR (ADB): THE PURPOSE OF TI-lB ANTENNA GROUND BAR IS PRIMARILY FOR UGH1NINC PROTECTION. COAXIAL CABLE IS USUALLY TiqE ONLY ITEM GROUNDED TO 1HIS BAR. HOWEVER IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO BOND EXTERIOR; CABLE TRAY, WAVE GUIDE PORTS AND CANTILEVERED WAVE GUIDE BE DGES TO THE ADB. 2.3 SURGE ARRESTOR GROUND BAR (SAGB) THE PURPOSE OF THE SURGE ARRESTOR CRQUND BAR IS FOR UGHTNING PROTECTION. 2.4 ANTENNA GROUNDING; EACH ANTENNA COAXIAL CABLE SHALL TYPICALLY BE GROUNDED AT THREE POINTS USING A COAXIAL CABLE KIT, A TYPICAL INSTALLATION SHALL BE AS FOU_OW~: A, THE FIRST GROUND ,CONNECTiON SHALL OC~R AS CLOSE TO THE ANTENNA AS POSSIB[£. B, THE SECOND GROUND SHALL BE MADE AT THE BOTIOM OF THE VERTICAL RUN OF lite COAXIAL CABLE AS IT TURNS OUT AWAY FROM THE TO~ER TOWARDS 1HE BTS. THIS GROUND SHAll_ BE IERMINATED AT THE ADB, THE ADB SHAIJ. HAVE ~ (2) LEADS IN PVC OONDUIT. lltE TH RD GROUND S~4ALL BE · THE SURGE ARRESTOR GROUND IT SHALL BE Ali'ACHED TO THE CABLE ON S1EAIGHT RUNS (NOT t~THIN BENDS AND BE YE. ATHER PROOFED pER THE MANUFACTIJRES SPECiFiCATIONS.) THE SURGE ARRESTORS SHALL BE GROUNDED TO THE GROUND BAR. THE SAGB SHALL HAVE TWO (2) LEADS OF 1~2 AWG BARE llNNED SOLID COPPER WIRE. AND SHALL TERMINATE AT THE TOWER GROUND RING. THESE SHALL BE INCASED IN PVC. 2,5 PERIMETER FENCE GROUNDING: A. CORNER FENCE CROONDINO B, AU. FENCE CORNEt~ AND END POSTS (HI.MUM OF TWO) SHALL HAVE ONE ,iF2 SOLID TINNED COPPER GROUND .RE. THeE .osTs SHALL, TO ~E GROUND RIND. ~LMNN DISCONNEC~D FR~ ~ CA~ POS~ D. CA~ POSTS ~AL[ BE GRDUND~ TO EACH ENTRE FEN~ HA~ E~C~IC~ C~NUI~. C~NEC~oNs SHALL BE DRI~ AND TAF ~ BURNDY ~[ KC22 A ~2 AWG BARE SOUD ~NNED C~P~ ~RE, F. GA~S SHA~ BE BOND~ TO GA~ POSTS ~ A 18' BRAIDED S~ ~E 9018G92. ~E CONNEC~ONS SHA~ BE BURNDY 2 H~E LUGS (3/8'~H~ES, 1' CEN~R TO C~R) BOL~ ~R~GH EACH POST. GEN~ATOR ~EL TANK ~OUNDING: ~[ GENERATOR FU~ TNIK. IF REOUIRED, SHA~ 8E C~NEC~ IN AT ~AST ~E PLACE ~ ~[' MAIN EX~RIDR ~ND RING. ~ AWG BARE SOLID ~ED COPPER ~RE ~A~ BE BURNDY CONNEC~ SUPPORT LEG OF ~E '~L T~K AND CAD ~LD TO ~E NEAREST EX~RIOR ~OUND ~NO ORQUND ROD. EOUIPMENT ROOM ~NDING: ~ MAB~R GROUND BAF((MOB) SHA~ ~R~ AS ~ C~C~ON POINT F~ ~E UTS AS ~ A~ ALL IH~RIDR N~-E~C~ICAL ~OUNDED METAL MA~s; CADL~A~, A~M ~NC~ON BOX, ETC.. SHA~ BE ~NDED ~ ~ AWG S~D[D (~EEN) GR~ND ~RES · ~ INDI~ RUNS BACK TO ~E 2.~ NOT US~. SER~CE GROUNDING C~HEC~ONS ~E NEURAL CONDUCTOR .~ ~E E~C~IC SER~CE SHA~ BE GRINDED IN ACCORD~CE ~ ~[ NA~ONAL [LEC~tC~ CODE COAX BRIDGE / CAB~ ~AY DRONING: BONO ~E COAX ~ID~ t)R CAB~ ~AY TO ~E ABB ~DED INS~ GR~E~ ~R[ ~[ CONNEC~ONS SHA~ BE DOUB~ LUG BOL~D / SCRE~D ;~J[CHA. CAL C~NEC~ONS ~ STAR LOCK WASHERS AND CONDUG~ LUBRICANT. A~ BRIDGE SPU~S SHA~ HA~ - ~MPER~ OF ~2 S~AMD~D INSULA~D GREEN 2.11 TENANT IMPROVEMENT SITE GROUNDING: FOR ROOF TOP ANTENNA INSTALL~lloNS ADDITIONAL ANTENNA · NA MOUNTS SHALL BE GROUNDED WI~-I A ~2 AWG CONDUCTOR CONNECTED TO ~E NEAREST BUILDING S~EL ~ ~E A~B iNS~A~D AT ~E ~OUNT. ALL BUSS B~S, BO~ MGB AND ~GB(S), SHALL BE · [ ] M~T p. HUME RUN BACK TO ~ ~E NO BUI~ING S~ IS AVN~BLE E MDB ?-12 LIMITS OF BEND RADIUS: IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE GROUNDING CONDUCTOR CONNECTING THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE GROUND SYS~MS BE AS S~RAIGHT AS POSSIBLE, IMTH NO TURN OR BEND SHORTERi THAN ONE FOOT RADIUS NTH A THREE FOOT RADIUS PREFERRED. NO RIGHT SHARP BENDS SHAH BE ALLOWED. 2.1~ BONDING PREPARATION & F1NISH: ALL SURFACES REQUIRE PREPARATION PRIOR TO BONDING OF EITHER CAD WELD OR MEONANIOAL FASTENERS. QALVANIZED SURFACES SHNJ.' BE GROUND OR SANDED TO THE P~INT OF EXPOSING THE STEEL SURFACE BELOW, PRIOR TO BONDING THE GROUND CONDUCTOR. FOR OTHER SURFACES INCLUDING COPPER BUSS BARS AU. PAINT, RUST TARNISH AND GREASE SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO BDNDINO THE OROUND CONDUCTOR. OF COLD GALVANIZATION AND WHEN APPUCABLE, FINISH PAINTED Ni~ AN APPROPRIATE OOLOR AB REQUIRED. MECHANICAL IYPE BONDS ON ALL OTHER SURFACES, OTHER THAN BUSS BARS, SHALL BE FINISHED ~lH THE APPUCAllON OF COLD GALVANIZATION AND/OR THE APPROPRIATE PAINT TO MATCH A~ REQUIRED. Drap Aden Associates BOgO MI..LA PARK DRIVE · mC~MC~D, VA (804) 264--2228 PHONE (eD4) 264-8773 FAX ?-15 HIGH RISE BUILDING: ~. HIGH RISE BUILDINQS PRESENT A UNIQUE PROBLEM IN GROUNDIN~. A FACIUTY INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE MADE INTO ]HE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING, AND AS TO THE POSS~LE PRESENCE,OF AN EXISTING LIGRTHING PROTECTION SYSTEM. IF ONE IS IN PLACE, IT Y~LL BE NECESSARY TO CONNECT THE ANTENNA SYSTEM TO THE TO THE UGHTENIND PROTECTION SYSTEM, WiTH A TEST TO THE SYSTEM AF'~R INSTALLATION TO ENSURE THAT IT HAS NOT CAUSED THE SYSTF~ TO [XC~o S OHMS. B, STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS: IF THE BUILDING IS BUILT OF STRUC1URAL STEEl. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO GROUND THE ANTENNAS TO THE BUILDING SITE. IT IS PREFERABIr TO GROUNQ THE ANTENNAS AND THE SITE TO A DIRECT EARTH CONNECTION. BY USE OF SEPARATE DOWN LEADS DF 250 MCM COMING FROM GROUND BUSS BARS TO CONNECT IHE GROUHD INPUT, AND RUN DOYrN A VER'nCAL SHAFT TO A PATIERN OF NO LESS iTHAN FOUR ORODND RODS. tI~IERE PRAcTIcAl. THE BUILDING Sl~EL SHOULD BE BONDED TO THE GROUND RiNG ~TI-I A SEPARATE LEAD TO THE OROUNO ROD RELD. C. STRUCTURAL CONCR~ BUILOINGE A~E MORE DIFFICULT TO GROUND PROPERLy. THE ANI[NNAS sHouLD BE GROUNDED TO A SEPARATE BUSS BAR AND BOYS. LEAD WHERE THE COAXIAL CABLES EN'rER THE BUILDINQ. '~H~' DOWN LEAD SHOULD BE .o~c~D ? P_vc CONQU~T ARp S~O~.D BE INSTAL[~ AS FAR ^~;~ .......... ,_.~,=~u -u~ uur~Au[ EACH 01HER UNTil ~u.~uuuN ~TH THE RRST GROU/;~D ROD. THE OUTSIDE GROUND RING SHALL BE TESTED AFTER INSTALLATION BUT PRIOR TO BACKFILLING ~ GROUND RING TRENCH. THE GROUND FIELD RESISTANCE SHALL MEASURE 5 OHMS OR LESS TO GROUND. RESULTS OF THIS TEST SHALL BE BROUGHT 1'0 'THE PRO.CTMANAGER. THE METHOD,RESISTANCE TO GROUND SHALL BE MEASURED USING THE FALL POIENTIAL GENERAL NOTES VA22343A P~NACLE CARTE~S lg20 CARTEFrB MTN ROAD CHARLO~ VA 'S~OaV 8V9S a3QNR ONV NBOM 3/IS ~OJ .LS~L-O ~SW H/IM 30NVOBOOOV NI'~SNOO HR~I~ ~6 ]B 33VNS NOI~OVd~OO '03NIVI80 SI 30~OO ~gd~o0 9ENfl ~ 3~B Ol 3~NI~NOO '~O~NOO 3HL ~Oa~ 3~93B ~O INIOd Ol dR ONI~31YM AB S~ OOdVOSON~ ONV a3033s Jo H~OBO 3B~SN] O[ ~91BISNOdS3B S,BOIOVBINO3 3HI SI 11 · a3onaoad a33s 3HZ AB a3aN]~oooa ~IZNVRO 3HZ 301~ NI SNOllOoala O~ NI 033S MOS '1lOS ~]H[ NOSOO1 ,aNY 3Ov~BnSOH~ N3~ 0~ aoao~s ol s~BY ']~: '0NILOOB 3OVBROON3 ~IM HOIHM SNOILIaNOO 30wans oL o319aav 3a 99~s ~]Zlqll~]j aNY 033S 'r 7ONIIt~ NI 'A93~VIO3~I a3NMO 3H~ 3S~ 3ONValno SIHI ;HLIM .IOlgJNO0 x-.SNOIZV~q3::BO SNOlSOa aONMO . . ~1 '?31IS,:'OL.;/N30Vra~A93/VIOO~r B~M 9NlaNV~ BO ' saavMOl B3IVM- ~33Bla .~N& os a30~a OB ~3A~nO ~O SOq~ '-SOHO/lO 991M~S33~ROBI3 ON BOaNR 'm 't i ~ ~Hl BOlerO SOdOgS -~O 99V O10NV S~BV ONINBVd '~BV 311S OBON3J 99V JO S3d09S'~BOlS 3H101 031qddV 3a 99VHS d~dl~ 'H ',, '031VOIQNI ~ ~aV 3HI BBAOO 99~HS ONV 3~S 3H[ ONO~B IOO~ 3NO JO ~R~INI~ V ONB~3 '3SagO3 3OVJ~RS, dO1 ONIO~qONI '3O~0 HSINI~ 3H1 'O '~ ~BN ONI0~d 3aoaBa 10vd~oo · 3Nols ~0 991J ONIO~d 3~OJBB 3OV~B~S 3HI ~OO~S ON~ BB~V~ OIN~OBO A~ 3AOm3a Ol OYOa ONIISIX3 3H1 3~O 'OVO~ SSBOOV ONIISIX3 NV ONIAOBd~I N3H~ 'OBION 3SI~BH10 SS39NR .7'u~ . N! ~QRgONI 3UV '3~V~HO~OBOH1 OI90Rd 3HI H~ NOIlOBSB31NI JO 1NlOd 3~ 1V ONIONB~OO '3~1S 3~ O1 SSBOOV aO~ 03ZI91~ BO S~Oa 99V 'BSBROO 33vJans ~0 SBHONI O~ ONIB3AOO '031VOIONI 3SI~B3H10 SS39NR 0NV ONIHO~O 'ONINNVB 'ONIO~O ),~03N 99V SBoRgONI 10~INOO 3H1 'ONOd A;Y~4 ~31VM3BBH~ SNOISSBBd3O ONII~BO OIOAV 'ONl[t~ NI 'B3OVNV~ ~oB?oaa AB 03ZIBOHIRV SS39NR ~aBdO~d 3S~9 SBBNMO 3HZ ~0 SLI~I9 3HZ aNOVa OBi~nogY3 38 Ol 3BY SNOIIV~93 3Hi '(NOllASl~lSla N~ 3alAOBd) SNOI%VONRO~ 3HL ONILVAVOX3 ~OaJ ONI~gRs3~ 91OS 3Hi HIIM ~1~O3~ SV OVO~ SS3OOV ONV 3lis 3HL 991J ~O 'SNOIIVaNRO~ ONI~BO~ Ol BOIad NOIlV~93 3SBROO 3SVB -aRS 3HL ~Y. 3B 99VHS S~BV ONROBVN~I ONV 3~S 3HI 'V NOIL~gVLSNI ~'~ 'O3BIRO3B ~ ~VM ~0 tHOIB OVOa SS3OOV a~ ~v 3ils ~Oad SlaB30 ONV HSnBB 'S33ai a~90 'V NOI/~03X3 ~ iaVd 093H flN~ '~BAl~O-~3~Od ~8 0310Vd~OO 38 99VHS ~aV a399V~S 'NOIIOVd~OO NIYIBO Ol OBBInOBa 38 kV~ INB~I~B~ BBIVM 'SN01 3Aid /S~9 LV ONIHOIBM Sa3990B qBIl B3BB~B Sd33HS AB Q31OV8~OO 38 99VHS ~ aBOa~ 'SN~ 9VOINVHOO~ AB OOHSlgd~OOOV 38 99~S ONIlOVd~OO 'NOI~Q3 'SNOIIVOIjIOOdS 3OOlUa ONV OVOU NOIIV/BOdSN~i ~O l~aVdO~ VINIO~IA 3HI JO S~ NOIIO~S NI ~ONI~NOO SNOI~I~I~OdS O~ ~BO~NOO 99VHS 'NOI[VOI~IOOdS OBVONV~ NOI~V~OdSNVa[ 319BRd O~ AVMHOIH ~O 9VOO~ Hll~ 30NVQ~OOO~ 39BVId3OOV .- 9VIB3~V~ 991~ :sgvIB~V~ 3lis ONV 0VO~ MOB3 B~i 3NO ao~ a33m~no 3B ~IM 'iO~INO3 3Hi ~O 3dOOS 3HI NIHUM 03ongONI ~NVBBVM Z'~ -a3alno3a ~1 '~NDm3~V~ ~M ONIdVDSQN~ · OBalno3~ Jl 'aBZlgliaBJ aNY 033S S~O NO 10~Oad ~O NOEdlBOS3O NOIIOnBIsNOO -~'gVla31vm .Bsanoo .BovBans 03SOdO~d ' 3H/~0 SN01/VOIBIO3dS 3H1 9VAOBddV NOIIO~B~NOO 3BO33B 'V 'BNOZ ~NOII0RBISNOO ~Od~31 ~O~ 'H~OBO 3B~SN3 Ot' aBSV~ . 'NOIIV~93 'Bsanoo 3~e 01 ~O~ SSBDDV ~NV 311S 3HI ONIONI~B B3~Y A93WIOB~I ~V 03BBMISIO HOqR~ ON~ 3ZI91~33 'O33S '30~0 '03Bm~o3a 31 '0 · s39~ 9~3~3~ 31vIs '9~09 99v HII~ 3ONVOBOOOV NI '~1~ SSBOOV ONOgV 3NOZ NQI1O~BISNOO 'gVla31V~ 3~a-ens ~I~NOV8 30 /NO,OD'd BO NOIIO~ISNOO NOIIVONRO~ Ol aOIad ~aV 3ils ONV avOa 'NOt~O~SNO0 XNV O~ .... :'.~2'... :,~'~H~~-.;'~ . ;?,; 'V. -m:.-;. ;/...- - :"-" ?-.-" - .:~¥':." - ~'~',~qS..'~UNOO 'V 5NIONDnO3s g' t EXIS~NG OHP: LE15 TELCO: EB~-14 EXISTING MIDATLANTIC TELECOM 80X -- 101T1 2B006 EXIS~NG GUYED WIRES (TYP) PROPOSED OMNIPOINT EQUIPMENT EXISTING BUILDINO'--~ h~PHIC SCALE //'-' ACCESS ROAD ,~\~2, .....~-':'"~'~-'~.....,'~: EXISTING OHP: LE18 ~ CONC. PAD PROPOSED II~E BRIDGE 205' TALL GUYED TOWER 1. A CURRENT fiELD BOUNDARY SURVEY WA,,~ NOT PE~FORI~ED IH (~&INC3ION WI'~I 3HE PRE:PARA'liON OF THESE SI'IE PLANS. EXISTING B&~E MAPPING WAS PREPARED FROM AN OCTOBER fiELD SNETCH. 2. SUBJECT TO ANY STATE OF FACTS THAT ~ ACCURATE BOUNDARY SUR~Y' · 3. SU&JECT TO ANY STA'I~ OF FACTS 3]-IAT AN UP-TO-DA3E ABSTRACT OF 1TILE WOULD DISCLOSF_ 4.. SUItE:CT TO N.L RIGHI'S, F. ASE~ENTS, COVIDINCl'S OR RI:.%~rRIC'iiONS OF' RECORD. 5. .BY GRAPHIC PLO'FlING ONLY, T/IlS PROPERTY APPEARS TO LOCA1ED ~'ll. IIN FLOOD ZONE: 'C', AS SHO~N BY FIRM MAP, COMMUNITY PANFI_. NUMBER 0375 B, EF'FEC'IWE: DALE., DECEMBER 16, 1980. NO SURimi'lNG WAS DONE TO LOO&TE '1tt15 FLOOD ZONE. 6. NOT FOR RECORDATION OR CONVEYANCE. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=~' Draper Aden Associates BOgO ~ILLA PARK DRIVE RICHMOND, VA 252211 (804) 264--2228 pHONE (~oq.) 2~4--S773 FAX OMNTPOINT COMMUNTCATIONS CAP OPERATTONSt LLC 504.1 CORPOR&'IE ~K~30$ DR. SUITE 200 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23482 PH: (757) 490-7240 FAX: (757) # 022873 4 · r~ ND:. VM234~ ,, 94~C~ED ~r: OaS PLAN ~ VA22343A ~20 CARTEFrS brrhL ROAD CHAHLO~4E VA 22902 30OlBB '401 03$OdO~d OVal 'N30 ONII SIX3 --~ (]Vd 3i3BONO0 Ol 03HO¥11V O0'L-91 SllnONO0 ,,~ (~) a3soaoBd :0094; gL39 :dHO OYd ':II3BONO00J. O3HOVJiV B3MOd BOJ £1RONO0.~ 99V1 ,gO~ ONIISIX3 331 ONLL~IX3 ~_ONICI-IIn8 ONU.SIX3 ~ av~ 'ONOO I ONIISIX3 i ('~L) s3a~ (]3AI9~ ONII SIX3 ~_('~x~) avoa $$300¥ ONLL$1×3 NOTE: PRIOR TO ATTACHING ANTENNAS AND MOUNTING SECTIONS, EXISTING TOWER AND TOWER FOUNDATION MUST BE~ ANALYZED BY Al LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO VERIFY TOWER iS CAPABLE OF J A-1 A-5 SUPPORTING PROPOSED LOADS. REFER TO STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS I DOWNTILT (ONE RED) ~SG_T_D.t~_~ (FIVE EEO) BY OTHERS FOR EXACT MOUNTING DETAILS AND INFORMATION. THIS ASSEMBLY A-2 ALPHA PLAN S FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND NOT INTENDED TO BE USED FORJ REOUIREO FOR ALL A-8 I PANEL 1YPE-~ ANTENNAS~ A-3 A-7 CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. OWO RED) (SiX RED) (THREE RED) L (SEVEN RED) USE PROPER SIZED C-1 A-4 o PCS PANEL (ONE WHITE) (FOUR RED) (EIGHT RED) (~h'O WHITE) LOW NOISE AMPLIFIER C-,3 (LNA) ('PfP - 2 PER (THREE WHITE) BETA SECTOR LINES I & 4) (FouRC-w4HiTE)_ BLUE) ~.ECTOR 3 C-5 (SIX BLUE) MFR ANTENNA GAMMA (FIVE WHITE) B-7 C-8 B-1 (SEVEN BLUE) (SIX WHITE) (()NE BLUE) GUYED C-7 B-2 (EIGHT BLUE) PCS PANEL (SEVEN WHITE) ('l~/O BLUE) ANTENNA C-8 P~PE MOUNT-\ (EIGHT WHITE) (THREE BLUE) (FOUR BLUE) ~ REFER TO STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS BY OTHERS FOR · EXACT MOUNTING DETNLS AND INFORMATION, ~' 1/2" 12-UNE (VERTICAL-POLARRY) COLOR CODINO NOTE: AZIMUTHS SHOWN ARE 3'YPICAL. SEE RFDS FOR ACTUAL AZIMUTHS. (~'P) ~._ MFR MOUNT DETAIL NOTE: REEERTO~RUCTU~L MOUNT TYPICAL ANTENNA PLAN NOT TO SCALE MOUNT,N~ O~ mD NOT TO SCALE ALL DOWN TILT AND AZIMUTHS TO BE VERIFIED BY RF SITE DATA SHEE'L SEE PROJECT ~IANAOER FOR INFORMATION. ~ QUAD-POLAR PANEL ANTENNA DETAIL NOT TO SCALE ANTI~NNA ond COAXIAL CABLE SCHEDULE I M,N,MUM Loss/ ANTENNa[MARK ANTENNA AZIMUTH CENTERRAD DOWNTILTMECN' COAXIALLENGTH,cABLE COAXIAL CABLE BENOING RABIUS 100'** fOTAL LOSS A-1 DR65-19-XXDPQ O' 60' O' 65' 4 - 1-5/8" ,~ 20" 1.2 2.;tO A-2 DR65-19-XXDPQ O' 60' O' 85' 4 - 1-5/8" e 20' 1.2 2.40 B-1 D~'65-'l~-XXDPQ 45' 60' O' 85' 4- - 1-5/8' I~ 20' t.2 2,40 B-2 ~R65-19-XXDPQ 45' 60' O' 85' 4 - 1-5/6" ~ '" 20' 1.2 2.40 C-1 ~t~5-19-XXOPQ 240' 60' O' 65' 4 - 1-5/6" ~, 20" ' 1.2 2.40 C-2 3R65-19-XXDPC 240' 60' O' 8,5' 4 - 1-5/8" e 20' -. 1.2 2.40 ' I TOTAL LENGTH 2,04D' *E61]MA3ED LENGTH - CON'1RACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ,' . '*ESI1MATED LOSS- RF TO 'v'[RIFY COAX CABLE IDEN_TIFICATION -r CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE EASY IDENTIFICATION AND UNIFORM MARKING OF ANTENNA CABLING, PER THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS: 1. LOCATION: MARKINGS SHALL BE MADE USING COLOR TAPE W/ 3" OF COVERAGE AFFIXED AT THREE PLACES ON THE COAX CABLE RUN AS · .~ FOLLOWS: FIRST-ON THE COAX AT THE CONNECTOR NEAREST THE ANTENNA (WHERE THE COAX AND JUMPER ARE CONNECTED), SECOND - AT THE BASE OF THE TOWER STRUCTURE (FOR TOWERS ONLY). THIRD - AT A POINT OUTSIDE THE BTS (JUST PRIOR TO MOB). RF$ COAX BEND TABLE: CABLE RFS MANUF. HANGER CABLE TC ~AX VER. ~I~X HOR,! CABLE ~IIN BENt RFS CABLE HANGER, H'ANGERi SIZE, 'TYPE t~ RADIUS CAT. ~ SPACING SPACING S~ACINGI 1/2" 810916-001 5"- 916659 1/2' 4'-0" $'--0" 7/6~ 81o92~-oo1~ lo~ 9~566o 1/~" ~,_o. ~ I-5/B' 9109~0-0ol, 20" 9186m 1/~' ~'-o" '~'-o" 1/2" 811206-0D7. 1-1/4" 916659 1/2" 4'-0" 3'-0" 2. SECTOR IDENTIFICATION: NORMALLY A SITE WILL HAVE UP TO THREE SECTORS. SECTORS SHALL BE DESIGNATED IN A CLOCKWISE MANNER; THE ALPHA SECTOR IS CLOSEST TO ZERO DEGREES (NOR1H) THE BETA AND GAMMA FOLLOW CLOCKWISE IN SEQUENCE. ALPHA SECTOR - RED BETA SECTOR - BLUE GAMMA SECTOR - WHITE QANTENNA SCHEDUL~. z I.- z fl. {'~, TO.WER ELEVATION Draper Aden Associates BO90 VILLA PARK 0RI~I~ RICHMOND, VA 23228 (804,) 264.-2228 PHONE (800 204-8773 FAX OMNTDO]:NT COMMUNTCAI'J:ON$ CAP ODERAT]:ONS~ LLC 5Q4.1 CORPORAI~ WO00S DR. SUITE 200 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23462 PH: (757) 490-7240 FAX: (767) 490-377~ ~0 ~JAME$ H. Bi:lENT. ~[ #022873 N~ D[SCR~ I K~S~D n~.,,.Ce~UEN~ ~SSUm ~eR RNa. ./O?/O2 TOWER ELEVATION AND ANTENNA SCHEDULE _GENERAL NOTES 1. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO EXAMINE ALL PLAN SHEETS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH THE WORK OF ALL OTHER CONTRACTORS TO ENSURE THAT WORK PROGRESSION IS NOT INTERRUPTED. 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING A NEAT AND ORDERLY SITE, YARD AND GROUNDS. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OFF SITE ALL RUBBISH, WASTE MATERIALS. LITTER, AND ALL FOREIGN SUBTANCES. REMOVE PETRO-CHEMICAL SPILLS, STAINS AND OTHER FOREIGN DEPOSITS. RAKE GROUNDS TO A SMOOTH EVEN-TEXTURED SURFACE. '~ !..QCATON OF EXISTINC SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES, ABOVE GRO~J~ID"S~RUCTURES AND/OR U~ILITIES WITHIN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSEB WORK ARE NOT NECESSARILY SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AND IF SHOWN ARE ONLY APPROXIMATELY CORRECT. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. 72 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING OR DRILLING, CONTACT LOCAL UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE. 4. THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE NOTIFIED N WRITING OF ANY CONDITIONS THAT VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR'S WORK SHALL NOT VARY FROM THE PLANS WITHOUT THE EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE; B. THE CONTRACTOR IS INSTRUCTED TO COOPERATE WITH ANY AND ALL OTHER CONTRACTORS PERFORMING WORK ON THIS JOB SITE DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY DAMAGED OR REMOVED TO AT LEAST AS GOOD OF CONDITION AS BEFORE DISTURBED AS DETERMINED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIRED PERMITS. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING PROPERTY LINE MONUMENTATION. ANY MONUMENTATION DISTURBED OR DESTROYED, AS JUDGED BY THE-OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. g. ALL TRENCH EXCAVATION AND ANY REQUIRED SHEETING AND SHORING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEWATERING AND THE MAINTENANCE OF SURFACE DRAINAGE DURING THE COURSE OF WORK 11, ALL UTILITY WORK INVOLVING CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING SYSTEMS SHALL BE OWNER. NOTIFY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND THE UTILITY OWNER BEFORE EACH AND EVERY CONNECTION TO EXISTING SYSTEMS IS MADE. 12. MAINTAIN FLOW FOR ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. 13. ALL SITE FILL SHALL MEET SELECTED FILL STANDARDS AS DEFINEB BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 14. OONTRACTOR TO GRADE ALL AREAS ON THE SITE TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING OR EQUIPMENT PAD AND THE TOWER. 15. PROPOSED TOWER FOOTING/FOUNDATION DIMENSIONS (IF ANY) ARE SHOWN FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ACTUAL FOUNDATION DIMENSIONS WITH FINAL 7C ..... L'E33,, AN~ ; Ob,'4DA'i'jC~,~ bESiGN AS PROVIDED TowE~' MANUFACTUR'ER.' .......... 16. PARKING DURING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONFINED TO THE PROPOSED COMPOUND &. ACCESS ROAD. 17. NOTE THAT ALL DIMENSIONS. ELEVATIONS, AND EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY MATERIALS ORDERING. FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION WORK. 18, THE CONTRACTOR WILL REWORK (DRY, SCARIFY, ETC.) ALL MATERIAL NOT SUITABLE FOR SUBGRADE IN ITS PRESENT STATE. IF THE MATERIAL. AFTER REWORKING, REMAINS UNSUITABLE, THEN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNDERCUT THIS MATERIAL AND REPLACE IT WiTH AN APPROVED MATERIAL. ALL SUBGRADES SHALL BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A FULLY LOADED TANDEU AXLE TRUCK PR OR TO PAVING. ANY SOF'¢ MATER AL SHALL BE REWORKED OR REPLACED. 19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LIMITS OF OVERHEAD AND OR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE, 20. THE CON~;~ACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE LOCATION OF NEW UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE SERVICE WITH THE TELEPHONE UTILITY AND THE OWNER'S REQUIREMENTS. 21. ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) YEAR FROM DATE OF ACCEPTANCE. 22. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES (ELECTRICITY. TELEPHONE, ETC.) SHALL BE INSTALLED AND TESTED SATISFACTORY PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY PAVING OPERATIONS WHERE SUCH UTILI'I'I~S ARE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PAVING. 23. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPOINTING A DESIGNATED "RESPONSIBLE LAND DISTURBER" (ELD) WHO SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTING AND MAINTAINING ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. THE RLD SHALL BE CERTIFIED IN VIRGINIA. Draper Aden Associates 8090 ~ILLA PARK DRl~ mc.~o.u, VA 2322, (e04.) 2~4--222e PHONE (804) 264.-6'773 FAX OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS CAP OPERATZONS~ LLC 504.1 CORPORATE ~0005 DR. SUI'iE 200 ~ROINIA BEACH, VA 23482 PH: (757) 490-7240 I CIVIL NOTES VA22343A PINNACLE CARTEFr8 MOUN'rNN ~920 CARTEF~B MThL ROAD CHAHLOTTESVLLE VA 22e02 33¥35 Oi iON /90\ ]]l~Oaa - ~'ao~l¥]d M]~ iNO~J 39YOS Ol iON ~ 'lN3~dl~03 ~ MBO~i¥~d ±N3~dI~03 ~ M31A NVTd (~lOOa sm8 ;~o.-I 30NYEI¥390) 'NI~ ~-,~ ~BOJlYqd iN3~dlnb (znMlSlNn) MOW OOT41/U3MOd--~ '3S¥B SIB O/ I3NIBYO 00931 OBi llnaNoo 0093i .Z (0 3NO (~ 'SJ.80i ~3MOd ~O~ aN30i aSHJ¥ii¥ ,,i:naNOJ X393,, :3SVB Si80l Odd. ~0~.~ SllflONOJ U3MCd ~J (~) 33~H1 (~ '3~4VBJ ~4HO:LLVqH Oi 3SV8 Si8 £90B ([ :310N $18 3~nlnJ ? ~OSN3S NOIJ IH919 Xll~f133S (390V1 d303B BOIVB3N39 B30Nf~) 390¥1d303N 139 390Vid303B BOIYB3N30 XON3OB3~3 'd~V 00~ _/ .9-,Z j :" ~ 'XV~ ,,9 ,,0-.0 L 0093J. BOJ ~J3SIB ~J3SI~J OAd .~ (L) 3a¥I 39YOS OJ. ION 91V130 SJ. 8 39YOS OJ. tON ~ /N3~4dl~O3 ~2 Y~OzLLV~d IN3~4dl~O3 ~ / X~IV~I~d YNN31N¥ 00931 ~'- XOB B3MOd ,--Odd ~40BJ-IH~I9 / ~o~ ilnaNoO Bo a3s~ NOI.LO~4/M IHOI9 AII~DO3S lSOd 9331S 'AqVO ,,~ 3OOlBB 398¥0 'AINO S3SOd~Jfld 3AIJ.¥1N3S3Ba3B ~tOJ 3B3H NMOHS '3NI '~3NIOP ;~ INRH AB SONIMV~a 9Y~JRIOR~IS 91VI3q ONV ~4BOJ/Vld OJ. B3~3~ 'S~3HIO ,kB O]NOIS30 ~O~/V9d IN3Y4dI~O3 :S3ION · M~:I O00I = HONI I H'IVOS (IHVliO~IO I~I~IOHO I£O'CO dS ITl Z .-I / / / / / / / rn z -I t~ I 'I %,, 4- OOZ [ 009 0 133J ~l~ldRI MO 1~3~'.J-~ 'f~LLYJM39~Id~II MO g~LIJ~ 0N ~ JlOIJ. OH COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Larry W. Davis, County Attomey /I Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney ~,' March 19, 2003 ZTA 2001-008 Neighborhood Model; Errata and clarifications This memorandum is a list of errata and clarifications for the Board of Supervisors' consideration that have beenidentified since the distribution of the March 5, 2003 draft ordinance. 1. Page 2: Section 3.1, Definitionsl definition of "ameniW," line 6: The comma before the word "gyms" should be deleted so that punctuation is consistent within the definition. 2. Page 4: Sec. 8.1, Intentl line 4: The dash after the word "Development" should be replaced with a hyphen. 3. Page 6: Sec. 8.5.1, Applications and documents to be submitted: The second sentence of the first paragraph draft reads: In addition to the documents required by subsections (a) through (e) below, the director of planning and community development may request additional plans, maps, studies and reports such as, but not limited to, traffic impact analyses, identification of specimen trees, and reports identifying potential non-tidal wetlands, subsequent to the submittal of the application, which are deemed reasonably necessary to analyze the application: Staff recommends that the text be revised as follows: The documents required by subsections (a) through (e) below shall be submitted with the application. After the application is submitted, the director of planning and community development may request additional plans, maps, studies and reports such as, but not limited to, traffic impact analyses, identification of specimen trees, and reports identifying potential non-tidal wetlands which are deemed reasonably necessary to analyze the application. The proposed revision breaks the first sentence into two sentences. The first sentence clarifies that the documents listed in subsections (a) through (e) are to be submitted with the application. The second sentence reorganizes the text pertaining to documents the director may request after the application has been submitted. Staff believes that the revised text more clearly states the applicable rules without making any substantive changes. 4. Pages 12-13: Sec. 8.5.5.3, Variations from approved application plans and standards of development: The heading will be revised to state: "Variations from approved plans, codes and standards". Subsections (a), (a)(2), and (b) will be revised to refer to the plan, code or standard, as appropriate. 5. Page 15: Sec. 20A.2, Status as a planned development district: The first sentence of subsection (a) reads: As a planned development district, the standards for development shall be particular to the district and not be based on standards established for conventional zoning districts or commercial, or industrial districts in the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends that the text be revised as follows: As a planned development district, the standards for development Shall be particular to the district and not be based on standards established for conventional zoning districts or the general standards for commercial or industrial districts in sections 21 and 26, respectively, of this chapter. The revised text is in italics. Staff believes that the revised text is a clearer reference to the general standards for commercial and industrial.districts in sections 21 and 26. This is not a substantive change. 6. Pages 17-18: Section 20A.5, Codes of development: Subheadings "(d)", "(e)" and "(f)" are repeated. The second grouping of subheadings should be identified as paragraphs "(g)", "(h)" and "(i)", and the reference to paragraph "(f)(1)" in current paragraph (f)(2) should be revised to refer to paragraph "(i)(1)." 7. Page 21: Section 20A.9, Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas: A hyphen should be inserted between "one" and "quarter" in paragraph (c)(1) to maintain the style for that term used throughout the ordinance. 2 ORO~A~CE NO. 03-1S(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Sec. 4.15.11 Sec. 7.0 Sec. 8.1 Sec. 8.2 Sec. 8.3 Sec. 8.4 Sec. 8.5 Sec. 8.5.1 Sec. 8.5.3 Sec. 8.5.4 Sec. 8.5.5 Sec. 8.5.6 Sec. 8.5.6.1 Sec. 8.5.6.2 Sec. 8.5.6.3 Sec. 8.5.6.4 Sec. 8.5.6.5 Sec. 33.4 Sec. 33.5 Definitions Regulations applicable in the PUD zoning district Establishment of districts Intent Relation of planned development regulations to general zoning, subdivision or other regulations Planned development defined Where permitted Procedures for PD applications Applications, materials to be submitted Preapplication conferences Planning commission recommendations to the board of supervisors Action by board of supervisors Final site development plans and subdivision plats Contents of site development plans: subdivision plats Approval of site development plans: subdivision plats Variations from approved application plans Building permits, grading permits Special provisions applicable to certain PD districts Public notice Report by planning commission to board of supervisors after hearing By Deleting: Sec. 8.5.2 Planning commission procedures By Adding: Sec. 8.6 Sec. 20A. 1 Sec. 20A.2 Sec. 20A.3 Sec. 20A.4 Sec. 20A.5 Sec. 20A.6 Sec. 20A.7 Sec. 20A.8 Sec. 20A.9 Sec. 20A. 10 Amendments to planned development districts Purpose and intent Status as a planned development district Application requirements; required documents and information General development plans Codes of development Permitted uses Residential density Mixture of uses Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas Streets Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Definitions Amenity: An area of activity designed principally for, and accessible to, persons residing or working within a development. Areas of activity may be either indoors or outdoors, including but not limited to swimming pools and tennis, volleyball and basketball courts. An outdoor area of activity may be a passive or an active area, including but not limited to playgrounds, pedestrian paths through natural areas, courtyards, and paved pedestrian areas for gathering. An indoor area of activity includes, but is not limited to gyms, weight rooms, indoor swimming pools, indoor basketball courts, and other indoor recreational areas. Amenities may be located in required green space and be included in both required green space and amenity calculations. Application plan: The graphic depiction of a proposed development containing the information required by section 8.5.1 (d). Block:. An area shown on an application plan or a general development plan that is typically surrounded by streets and within which land use activities occur. Although blocks usually imply a grid street system, where steep topography exists blocks may exist in non-rectilinear shapes. Code of development: The development standards for a neighborhood model district that include, but are not limited to, uses delineated at the block level, densities, maximum building heights, yards or build-to lines, and architectural and landscape treatments. Conservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains cultural assets or namral__feamres such as non-tidal wetlands, floodplain, slopes identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan, or streams and stream buffers, within which only limited disturbance or development is allowed. Uses allowed in conservation areas include, but are not limited to, utilities, greenways, pedestrian paths, streets, and stormwater management facilities, where, in the opinion of the director of engineering, no other location is reasonably available and when these improvements have the least impact possible on the environmental features of the area. General development plan: An application plan for a proposed development within the neighborhood model district, containing the information required by sections 8.5.1(d) and 20A.4. Green space: An area of land covered in grass or other vegetation or a water feature required by this chapter. Uses in green space may include, but are not limited to, stormwater areas, wooded slopes, graded and revegetated slopes of twenty-five percent (25%) to fifty percent (50%), required yards on both residential and non-residential lots, landscaped areas, landscaped islands in parking lots, and other land covered in vegetation. Where areas for amenities are vegetated, such as in parks and playgrounds, amenities shall be included in required green space calculations. Non-tidal wetland: A wetland, other than a tidal wetland, that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 404 of the federal Clean Water ACt, in 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(b). Preservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains natural features such as non-tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and stream buffers that are to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmade feature. Specimen tree: A tree in a mature form that approaches the optimum form and density characteristics for the particular species and variety. Article H. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD and NMD zoning districts The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Neighborhood Model (NMI)) zoning districts: sign Area Sign Height Sign Setback Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed (Maximum) (Maximum) (Minimum) 1 ormore Per establishment, 24 square feet, Directory ' 6 feet 5 feet as authorized by zoning administrator aggregated 1 per street frontage, or 2 per 24 square feet, entrance, per lot with 100 or more aggregated; if more Freestanding feet of continuous street frontage than 1 sign, no single 12 feet 5 feet plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than 4 acres andhas more than 1 approved sign shall exceed 12 entrance on its frontage square feet 30 feet, but not to ' Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet exceed the top of Not applicable the fascia or mansard 24 square feet, Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision aggregated, per 6 feet 5 feet entrance 12 feet, if freestanding sign; 20 feet, if residential wall 1 per street ]sign or 30 feet if Temporary frontage per establishment 24 square feet nonresidential 5 feet wall sign, but not to exceed the top of the fascia or mansard 1 square foot per 1 linear foot of establishment structure frontage, 20 feet, if residential wall Same as that Wall As calculated pursuant to section not to exceed 32 4.15.20 square feet if sign or 30 feet if applicable to residential wall sign, nonresidential structure or I00 square feet if wall sign nonresidential wall sign (12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.4; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; 03-18(2), 3-19-03) state law reference- Va. Code § 15.2-2280. Article IlL District Regulations Sec. 7 Establishment of districts For the purposes of this chapter, the unincorporated areas of Albemarle County are hereby divided into the folloWing districts: Commercial District - C-1 Commercial Office - CO Heavy Industry - HI Highway Commercial - HC Light Industry - LI Overlay Districts: Airport Impact Area - AIA Flood Hazard - FH Natural Resource Extraction - NR Scenic Streams - SS (Amended 9-9-92) Entrance Corridor - EC (Added I0-3-90) Neighborhood Model - NMI) Planned Development-Industrial Park - PD-IP Planned Development-Mixed Commercial- PD-MC Planned Development-Shopping Centers - PD-SC Planned Residential Development - PRD Planned Unit Development- PUD Residential - R-1 Residential - R-2 Residential - R4 Residential - R-6 Residential - R- 10 Residential - R-15 Rural Areas - RA Village Residential - VR Sec. 8 Planned development districts - generally Sec. 8.1 Intent The planned development districts are the Planned Residential Development (PRD), Planned Unit Development (PUD), Neighborhood Model (NMD), Planned Development- Mixed Commercial (PDMC), Planned Development - Shopping Centers (PDSC), and Planned Development- Industrial Park (PD-IP) zoning districts. Each or, these districts is distinct in purpose; however, aH are intended m provide for variety and flexibility in design necessary to implement the various goals and objectives set forth in the comprehensive plan. Through a planned development approach, the regulations in section 8 are intended to accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to a greater extent than the regulations of conventional districts. In addition, these regulations are intended to promote: economical and efficient land use through unified development; improved levels of amenities; appropriate and harmonious physical development; creative design; and a better environment than generally realized through conventional district regulations. In view of the substantial public advantages of planned development, these regulations are intended to encourage the planned development approach in areas appropriate in terms of location and character. Planned development districts shall be developed: to provide for the comfort and convenience of residents; to facilitate the protection of the character of surrounding neighborhoods; and to lessen traffic impacts through a reasonably short travel time between origins and destinations of persons living, working, or visiting in such developments. Housing, commercial and service facilities, and places of employment shall be related either by physical proximity or by adequate street networks so as to promote these objectives. Sec. 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations The regulations in section 8 shall apply to the establishment and regulation of all planned development districts. If any regulation in. section 8 or the specific planned development district conflicts with any regulation in sections 4, 5 or 32 of this chapter, an applicant may request that any requirement of sections 4, 5 and 32, or the planned development district regulations be waived or modified if it is found to be inconsistent with planned development design principles. The applicant shah submit its request in writing as part of the application, and shall demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and, in the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification. Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4, 5, or 32 establishing a procedure for considering a waiver or modification, any waiver or modification m a regulation applicable to a planned development shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan. Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria: (1) the land is under unified control and will be planned and developed as a whole; (2) the development is in general accord with one or more approved application plans; and (3) the development will provide, operate and maintain common areas, facilities and improvements for some or all occupants of the development where these features are appropriate. 4 Sec. 8.4 Where permitted A planned development districts may be established in any development area identified in the comprehensive plan, provided that its location is suitable for the character of the proposed uses and structures. Sec. 8.5 Procedures for planned development applications Sec. 8.5.1 Applications and documents to be submitted Each application for a planned development district shall be submitted as provided for other zoning map amendments. The documents required by subsections (a) through (e) below shall be submitted with the application. After the application is submitted, the director of planning and community development may request additional plans, maps, studies and reports such as, but not limited to, traffic impact analyses, identification of specimen trees, and reports identifying potential non-tidal wetlands which are deemed reasonably necessary to analyze the application: a. A regional context map at a scale of not less one (1) inch equal to one thousand (1000) feet showing topography at a maximum of ten (10) foot intervals, surrounding properties, improvements to those properties, surrounding public streets, private roads, and other thoroughfares; b. An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan limit showing the location and type of boundary evidence; c. A map showing: 1. The following existing physical conditions: streams, wooded areas, potential non-tidal wetlands, slopes in excess of twenty-five (25) percent, historic structures and sites included in the records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, floodplain, and any identified features in the open space element of the comprehensive plan; 2. Existing topography accurately shown with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet; other interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of plsnning and community development where topographic considerations warrant; 3. Existing roads, easements, and utilities; 4. The existing owners and zoning district; 5. The present use of adjoining tracts and the location of structures on adjoining parcels, if any; and 6. The existing location, type and size of ingress and egress to the site; d. An application plan based on a minimum of two (2) data references for elevations to be used on plans and profiles showing: 1. The areas to be designated as preservation areas, if appropriate, and areas to be designated as conservation areas, such as streams, wooded areas, specimen trees, non-tidal wetlands, and other significant environmental features; 2. The proposed grading/topography with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals; 3. The general location of proposed streets, alleys, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths; 4. Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape; 5. Connections to existing and proposed streets, as well as proposed thoroughfares shown on the comprehensive plan; 6. Trip generation figures; 5 The general lay-out for the water and sewer systems, conceptual stormwater management, and a conceptual mitigation plan; The location of central features or major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, such as major employment areas, parking areas and structures, civic areas, parks, open space, green spaces, amenities and recreation areas; A summary of land uses including dwelling types and densities, and the gross floor areas for commercial and industrial uses; 10. The general lo~ lay-out; and 11. Standards for development including proposed yards, building heights, open space characteristics, and any landscape or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the district. Sec. 8.5.2 Preapplication conferences Each applicant for a planned development shall attend a joint meeting with the planning, engineering, and zoning staff as well as other qualified officials l~om outside agencies such as the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Albemarle County Service Authority to review the application plan and the proposed development before the application is submitted. The purpose of the preapplication conference shall be to assist the applicant to assure that the application and the documents to be submitted with the application comply with all applicable regulations, and to identify as soon as possible conflicting regulations and necessary waivers or modifications. Each applicant is encouraged to use the preapplication conference process to develop an .application for a planned development that, when submitted with its supporting documents, will be as complete and comprehensive as poss~le. See. 8.5.3 Review and recommendation by the planning commission Each application for a planned development shall be reviewed by the planning commission as follows: The commission shall consider and make its recommendation to the board of supervisors on each application for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments. Within the time provided to make a recommendation, the commission may hold work sessions on the application and proceed to a public hearing after it determines that no further work sessions are necessary, or at any time the applicant requests a public hearing. In making its recommendation on the application to the board of supervisors, the commission shall make findings about the following: The suitability of the tmet for the proposed planned development in terms ofz its relation to all applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its reIation to the surrounding area; The relation of the proposed planned development to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services; Each requested waiver or modification, including whether the requirements of section 8.2 are satisified. Co Depending on the findings it makes, the commission shall either recommend approval of the application as proposed, approval of the application with changes to be made prior to action on the application by the board of supervisors, or disapproval. Sec. 8.5.4 Review and action by the board of supervisors The board of supervisors shall consider and act on each application for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments. If the board approves the application, the approving action shall constitute approval of the application plan and ali standards for development submitted by the applicant. The board'S action shall also identify which proffers it has accepted and which waivers or modifications it has granted. Once an application is approved, the application plan, all submitted standards for development, and all accepted proffers shall be included as part of the zoning regulations applicable to the planned development. Sec. 8.5.5 Final site plans and subdivision plats Sec. 8.5.5.1 Contents of site plans and subdivision plats Each site plan and subdivision plat submitted for development in a planned development shall comply with the following: ao Generally. Each site plan for a planned development shall comply with section 32 of this chapter, subject to the waiver or modification of any such regulation pursuant to section 8.5.3(b)(3). Each subdivision plat for a planned development shall comply with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle, subject to the waiver, variation or substitution of any such regulation pursuant to section 14-237. bo Within the neighborhood model zoning district, In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a), each site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development within the neighborhood model zoning district shall pertain to a minimum area of one block and shall include a phasing plan, and each site plan shall include building elevations for all new or modified structures. Sec. 8.5.5.2 Review of site plans and subdivision plats Each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations: (1) in effect at the time the lands were zoned to a planned development district; or, (2) atthe option of the applicant, currently in effect. In addition, each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall Be reviewed for compliance with the following: The approved application plan, and the approved standards for development, the accepted proffers, and the authorized waivers or modifications and any conditions imposed therewith, if any; The permitted uses within the planned development zoning district, including all proffers, as determined by the zoning administrator after consultation with the director of planning and community development; in making this determination, the zoning administrator shall be guided by section 22.2.1 of this chapter; In addition to the foregoing, conformity with the application plan and the standards of development. Within each neighborhood model zoning district, the general development plan and the code of development, as determined by the director of planning and community development after consultation with the zoning administrator. Sec. 8.5.53 Variations from approved plans, codes, and standards of development The director of planning and community development may allow a site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development to vary from an approved applicatinn plan, standard of development and, also, in the case of a neighborhood model district, a general development plan or code of development, as provided herein: The director is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an approved plan, code or standard: 1. Minor variations to yard requirements, maximum structure heights and minimum lot sizes; Changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the plan, provided that the major elements shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same; 3. Changes to phasing plans; 4. Minor changes to landscape or architectural standards; and 5. Minor variations to street design. The applicant shall submit a written request for a variation to the director; the request shall specify the provision of the plan, code or standard for which the variation is sought, and state the reason for the requested variation; the director may reject a request that fails to include the required information. The director is authorized to grant a variation upon a determination that the variation: (1) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development; (3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district; (4) does not require a special use permit; and (5) is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved application. d. Any variation not expressly provided for herein may be accomplished by rezoning. Sec. 8.5.5.4 Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits may be issued as provided~herein: ao A building permit, including any special footings or foundation permits, may be issued for any work within a planned development, excluding the installation of street signs, only after the approval of the final site plan or final subdivision plat in the area in which the permit would apply. An erosion and sediment control permit may be issued for site preparation grading associated with an approved planned development if an erosion and sediment control plan satisfactory to the director of engineering and public works has been submitted and reviewed in conjunction with the application plan, and the director of planning and community development determines the proposed grading is consistent with the approved application plan. In cases where the director finds that there is not enough detail on the approved application plan to assure consistency, no erosion and sediment control permit shall be issued until the final site plan is approved, or the final plat is tentatively approved. Within each neighborhood model district, the department of planning and community development shall review each building permit application or modification to determine whether the proposed structure conforms with the architectural and landscape standards in the approved code of development. Sec. 8.5.5.5 Site plan and subdivision plat requirements for planned development zoning districtS established without an application or application plan If a planned development zoning district was established without an approved application plan as required by section 8, then neither a site plan nor a subdivision plat shall be approved for any lands within the district unless and until an application plan and all other documents required by section 8.5 are submitted by the owner and are approved as provided therein. If such a district was previously established in conjunction with an approved site plan the approved site plan shall be deemed to be the application plan, and the district shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of section 8. In such a case, if the site plan or subdivision plat has expired, a new site plan or subdivision plat must be approved prior to any development activity. (Amended 7-16-86) See~ 8.6 Amendments to planned development districts Each amendment to a planned development district shall be submitted and reviewed as provided in section 8. In addition, with each application to amend the area of the planned development district, or to amend the proffers, the application plan, the general development plan, or the code of development within an area that is less than the entire district, the applicant shall submit a map showing the entire existing planned development district and identifying any area to be added to or deleted from the district, or identifying the area to which the amended proffers, application plan, general development plan, or code of development will apply. Section 20A Neighborhood Model -NMD Sec. 20A.1 Purpose and intent The purpose of the Neighborhood Model district (hereinafter referred to as the "NMD") is to establish a planned development district in which traditional neighborhood development, as established in the county's Neighborhood Model, will occur. The county's Neighborhood Model was adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Neighborhood Model." The regulations in section 20A encourage a development form and character that is different from conventional suburban development by providing the following characteristics: Pedestrian orientation; Neighborhood friendly streets and paths; Interconnected streets and transportation networks; Parks and open space as amenities; Neighborhood centers; Buildings and spaces of haman scale; Relegated parking; Mixture of uses and use types; Mixture ofhousing types and affordability; Redevelopment; Site planning that respects terrain; and Clear boundaries with the rural areas. The NMD is intended to provide for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan. The particular uses permitted within a particular district, as well as the character, form and density of the development, shall be derived from the comprehensive plan, including the land use plan for the applicable development area, the master plan for the applicable development area, and the Neighborhood Model. Density shall be achieved with careful attention to design, as articulated in the Neighborhood Model. These regulations are intended to provide an applicant with maximum flexibility in creating and implementing the general development plan and the code of development. Sec. 20A.2 Status as a planned development district An NMD is a planned development district within the meaning of section 8 of this chapter, subject to the following: As a planned development district, the standards for development shall be particular to the district and not be based on standards established for conventional zoning districts or the general standards for commercial or industrial districts in sections 21 and 26, respectively, of this chapter. The standards for development that are submitted by an applicant and approved by the board of supervisors for a particular NMI) shall be the district's code of development descn~bed in section 20A.5. An application is not necessarily required to possess every characteristic of the Neighborhood Model delineated in section 20A. 1 in order to be approved as an NMI). The size of the proposed district, its relationship to a larger neighborhood, or other similar factors may prevent the application from possessing every characteristic. c. An NMD shall have no minimum acreage requirement. Sec. 20A.3 Application requirements; required documents and information The following documents and information shall be submitted in addition to any other documents required to be submitted under section 8.5 of this chapter: A statement describing how the proposed NMD satisfies the intent of the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the applicable goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the land use plan, the master plan for the applicable development area, and the Neighborhood Model; if one or more characteristics of the Neighborhood Model delineated in section 20A. t are missing from an application, the applicant shall justify why all of the characteristics cannot or should not be provided; A parking and loading needs study that demonstrates parking needs and requirements and includes strategies for dealing with these needs and requirements, including phasing plans, parking alternatives as provided in section 4.12.8 of this chapter, and transportation demand management strategies as provided in section 4.12.12 of this chapter. Strategies for establishing shared stormwater management facilities, off-site stormwater management facilities, and the proposed phasing of the establishment of stormwater management facilities. A general development plan, as provided in section 20A.4, including all information required by sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the plan. eo A code of development, as provided in section 20A.5, including all information required by sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the code. Sec. 20A.4 General development plans A general development plan shall serve as the application plan required by section 8.5.I(d) of this chapter. In addition to the application plan requirements of section 8.5.1(d), the following are required elements of the general development plan: The mount of gross square footage devoted to nonresidential uses and a residential equivalent, expressed as the product of the square feet per unit multiplied by the number of dwelling units proposed. If a residential equivalent is not provided by the applicant, it shall be the product of one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet multiplied by the number of dwelling units proposed. The general allocation of uses to each block in terms of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, amenities, parks, recreational facilities open to the public, and any other use category proposed by the applicant and which complies with the requirements of section 20A.8. The location of proposed green spaces, amenities, conservation areas or preservation areas, as provided in section 20A.9. Building footprints or graphic representations of central features or major elements that are essential to the design of the development, shown at the block level. Sec~ 20A. 5 Codes of development A code of development shall establish the unifying design guidelines, the specific regulations for the district, and the use characteristics of each block; provide for certainty in the location of and appearance of central features, and the permitted uses in the district; and provide a flexible range of a mix of uses and densities. To satisfy these requirements, each code of development shall establish: a. The uses permitted in the district by right and by special use permit, as provided in section 20A.6. The amount of developed square footage proposed, delineated for the entire NMD and by block by use, amenity, streets and lot coverage. The developed square footage may be expressed as a proposed range of square footage. 10 c. The maximum residential densities, as provided in section 20A.7, and the maximum number of residential units for individual residential land use categories and mixed-use categories, delineating at least two (2) housing types, as provided in section 20A.8. d. The mount of land area devoted to green space and amenities, as provided in section 20A.9. e. All requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated in paragraph (a). f. All USes expressly prohibited in the district, so that they may not be considered to be uses accessory to a permitted use. g. Architectural and landscape standards that will apply in the NMD, which shall address the following: 1. The form, massing, and proportions of structures; 2. Architectural styles; 3. Materials, colors, and textures; 4. Roof form and pitch; 5. Architectural ornamentation; 6. Facade treatments, including window and door openings; 7. Landscape treatments; and 8 The preservation of historic structures, sites, and archeological sites identified by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. h. Preliminarw lot layout. i. For each block: 1. The range of uses permitted on the block by right and by special nsc permit; 2. All requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated in paragraph (i)(1); 3. Build-to lines, which are the required distance from the right-of-way to a structure; 4. Minimum and maximum lot and yard dimensions; 5. Maximin building heights; 6. Sidewalk and pedestrian path locations; 7. Green space and amenitiesg 8. Conservation areas and preservation areas, if applicable; 9. Parking areas; 10. Civic spaces, which are public areas for community or civic activities (e.g., libraries and their associated yards, schools and places of worship); Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses The following uses shall be permitted in an NMD, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the approved general development plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers: 11 a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by fight: Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning dish-icL except for those uses aliowed only by special use permit delineated in subsection (b); provided that the use is identified in the approved code of development. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformity with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. 3. Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings. 4. Home occupation, Class Pt, where the district includes residential uses. 5. Temporary construction uses. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies, public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. 7. Tourist lodgings, where the district includes residential uses. Homes for developmentally disabled persons, where the district includes residential uses. b. By special usepermit. The following uses are permitted by special use permit'. 1. Drive-through windows serving or associated with permitted uses. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a by right permitted use, if any portion of the use would be visible from a travelway. Sec. 20A.7 Residential density Residential density within each NMD shall be as follows: The gross residential density should be within the applicable recommended gross density range established in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. In its deliberations regarding the appropriate residential density for the district, the board of supervisors shall take into account the mount of land devoted to non- residential uses. The gross residential density shall be measured in dwelling units per acre and calculated by taking the gross acreage of the district divided by the proposed number of dwelling units in the proposed district. Sec. 20A.8 Mixture of uses There shall be a mixture of uses within each NMD as follows: Each district shall have at least two housing types; provided that this requirement may be waived by the board of supervisors if the district is an infill project or at least two (2) housing types are already present within one-quarter mile of the proposed district. The following are considered to be different housing types: (1) single family detached dwellings; (2) single family attached dwellings; (3) duplexes; (4) triplexes; (5) quadplexes; (6) townhouses; (7) multifamily dwellings; (8) accessory apartments; (9) manufactured housing; and (10) special needs housing such as assisted living facilities, group homes, and nursing homes. 12 An "infill project" is a project in which a parcel is developed or redeveloped, where abutting or nearby parcels are already developed, and the project area is relatively small compared to the developed abutting or nearby parcels. Each district shall have at least two different general use classifications (Le., residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, parks or recreational facilities open to the public); provided that this requirement may be waived by the board of supervisors if a different use is akeady present within one-quarter mile of the proposed district and accomplishes the mixture of uses within the neighborhood sought to be achieved by this section to an equivalent degree. The mixture of uses shall be based upon the uses recommended in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. The required mixture of uses may be obtained with different uses in different buildings or a mixture of uses within the same building. Sec. 20A.9 Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas Each NMI) shall include the following: a. Green space. The minimum area devoted to green space is as follows: For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential, urban density residential, transitional, neighborhood service, community service, or office service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office regional or industrial service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least fifteen percent (15%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to green space. The minimum area devoted to green space may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the request of the applicant. In acting on a request, the board Shall consider these factors: the relatiouship of the site m adjoining or nearby properties containing public green space such as parks or natural areas; the known future uses of the of the adjoining properties; and whether a reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan. Amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities is as follows: For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential, urban density residential, neighborhood service, and community service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office service, office regional service or industrial service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least ten percent (10%) of the gross acreage of the site. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in paragraphs Co)(1) and Co)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the request of the applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall consider these factors: the relationship of the site to adjo'ming or nearby properties containing amenities; the proportion of residential uses to nonresidential uses proposed; the known future uses of the of the adjoining properties; and whether a reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan. 13 c. Additional requirements for amenities. Amenities shall also be subject to the follOwing: At least ninety percent (90%) of the residential units in the NMD shall be within a one-qnarter mile walk of an amenity. The size, location, shape, slope and condition of the land shall be suitable for the proposed amenity. 3. The amenity shall be suitable for the specific population to be served. The design of any recreational facilities shall meet the minimum design requirements from recognized sources of engineering and recreational standards. In nonresidential areas of the development, amenities shall be located so that they are easily accessible to patrons and employees of the development. Green space within parks and recreational amenities. Any portion of an amenity that is covered in grass or other vegetation may be counted as both green space and an amenity. Preservation areas within green space. Preservation areas that preserve environmental features shall be included as green space area. Conservation areas within green space. Conservation areas that maintain environmental features shall be included as green space area. Sec. 20A.10 Streets Each street within an NMD shall meet the street standards for a traditional neighborhood development established by the department of engineering and public works. Article IV. Procedure Sec. 33.4 Public hearing - notice The commission and the board of supervisors shall hold a public hearings on any such petition or resolution as provided by Virginia Code § 15.2-2285, after notice is provided as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204. If any portion of the affected property is within a planned development, then, in addition to the notice required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204, notice shall be given to the owners, or their agents or the occupants, of each parcel within the planned development. The notice shall be given in the manner provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-2204 for notice to abutting properties. However, failure to give the additional notice provided in this paragraph to an owner, agent or occupant of any parcel within the planned development shall not invalidate any action by the commission or the board of supervisors affecting the planned development. Sec. 33.5 Report by planning commission to board of supervisors after hearing After the conclusion of the hearing provided for in this section, unless the proceedings are terminated as provided herein, the commission shall report to the board of supervisors its recommendation with respect to the proposed amendment. Failure of the commission to report to the board of supervisors within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission following the date the proposed amendment has been referred to the commission shall be deemed approval by the commission. In acting favorably with respect to a proposed amendment initiated by the petition of a property owner or owners, the commission need not confine its recommendation to the proposed amendment as set forth in the petition, but may reduce or enlarge the extent of land that it recommends be rezoned or may recommend that land be rezoned to a different zoning classification than that petitioned for, if; the commission is of the opinion that such revision is in accord with public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice and is in furtherance of the purposes of this ordinance and section; provided that before recommending an enlargement of the extent of land or a rezoning to a less restricted classification than was set forth in the petition, the commission shall hold a further hearing on the matter, pursuant to the requirements of Virginia Code § 15.2-2204 and section 33.4. No amendment to the zoning map shall be approved for a change in zoning 14 classification different from that applied for and contained in the public notice of hearing nor for any land not included therein without referring said change to the commission For its review and recommendations and proceedings pursuant to this section and section 33.3; provided, however, that an amendment may be approved for only a portion of the area proposed for rezoning if the portion rezoned is accurately and sufficiently delimited in the approval action, or if a portion is reclassified pursuant to section 30.3. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a mae, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by , as recorded below, at regular meeting held on March 19, 2003. erk, Board of Cotmty Supervisors ~ Aye Mr. Bowerman X Mr. Dorrier X Mr. Martin X Mr. Perkins Absent Mr. Rooker X Ms. Thomas X Nay 15 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing: ZTA 01-08 Neighborhood Model District and Planned District Changes SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: ZTA Request to modify Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance related to Planned Districts Generally and to add Section 20A to the Zoning Ordinance to establish a Neighborhood Model District STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Echols AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2003 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: IN FORMATION: Yes On January 8, 2003, the Board of Supervisors held a worksession on ZTA 01-08. The Board received considerable comment from the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association (BRHBA) as a whole and from individual members. One Board member offered additional comments for consideration. The Board referred the comments and the ordinance to DISC II for review and recommendation. DISC II met five times over the course of five weeks to discuss the issues, the ordinances, and to make recommended language changes. The committee discussed each issuein detail and nonmembers in attendance provided substantial input, Individual Board members attended and participated in several of the meetings. Summaries of each meeting are included as Attachment A. DISCUSSION: Attachment B is the revised ordinance which contains the recommended changes from DISC II. This ordinance has been advertised and is the subject of the public hearing. One issue of major concern to the BRHBA was the fact that a lot of information is required up-front with any rezoning proposal. Several developers have expressed an interest in finding out from staff and the Planning Commission if a proposal has merit before expending a great deal of time and expense. DISC II and the staff discussed the issues and staff is developing a preliminary evaluation process for rezoning requests and major special permits that could be undertaken at the option of the applicant as an alternative to making full application for a ZMA or SP. The idea is that an applicant could request a preliminary review of a project for input from the community, staff, the Planning Commission, and potentially, the Board of Supervisors, before expending a great deal of time and money on detailed plans. This concept is early in the development process, and staff will continue to flesh out the concept with the Development Departments' staff, the development community, the Commission and Board and the public. Some of the key outcomes/benefits for them from such a process would be: · Understanding whether the concept of the project, from a land use perspective, is "approvable," focusing more on the land use issues type/intensity/mix of uses, and general impacts of the development, prior to delving into more detailed design related issues. Identification of neighborhood/resident concerns. (Informational meetings with the public would likely be required.) · Guidance from the decision-makers on what could make the proposed land use and mix of uses potentially acceptable prior to focusing in on more design related issues. · Direction from the decision-makers on the activities which should be explored to help mitigate impacts of a proposed change in use, if the proposed change is viewed as potentially acceptable. AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing: ZTA 01-08 Neighborhood Model District and Planned District Changes March 19, 2003 Page 2 · A better understanding by the developer and the staff of the decision-makers' issues and concerns early in the proposal process. The applicant could then more effectively address those issues in the ZMA or SP process--in the end, making for a more efficient review and potentially reducing the overall review period. · Knowing whether there are "non-starter" issues that will make approval of any discretionary request unlikely. The concept for the review would be similar to a "review for compliance with the comprehensive plan" that the County undertakes for public projects. At present, the Planning Commission determines whether the proposed general use(s) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and allied plans and policies. The focus is more on the land use issues (consistency of the proposed uses, or mix of uses and general scale of development) than on detailed development plans. The general characteristics of the process envisioned are: · The process would be optional and at the developer's discretion. · It is intended to require less information "up front," and have a relatively short period for review (approximately 6 Weeks). · There would be a minimal fee. The minimal fee is an incentive to use the process. This process should also create efficiencies during the ZMA review that should save time; thus, helping to recover initial costs. · Staff would provide a report to the PC on the items identified in the section above. The findings would also include comments qualifying the finding and advising on issues of concern or expectations to be addressed in the rezoning process. · Public comment would be very important and should be a requirement of this process. · The Planning Commission's assessment and comments would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their information. Provided that the Board of Supervisors believes this would be a valuable addition to the development review process, staff will continue to refine the concept with input from the Development Departments' staff, the development community, and the public. Once completed, staff will bring the fully developed proposal to the Planning Commission and Board for affirmation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and DISC II recommend approval of the ordinance in Attachment B. Staff and DISC II also recommend that the pre- application, process described above be further developed. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Summaries of DISC II Meetings Attachment B: Ordinance 03-18 Neighborhood Model District and Planned District Changes 03-035 Development Areas Initiative Steerinq Committee II Wednesday, January 15, 2003-- ROOM 235 Albemarle County Office Buildinq 12:00 p.m. to ~:20 Affirmed with corrections 1/22/03 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Edgerton, Marilynn Gale, Katie Hobbs, Tom Loach, Will Rieley, Ivo Romenesko, Eric Strucko - - Chair, Steve Von Storch, Jeff Werner, Charles Martin - Board of Supervisors Representative. OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Lindsay Dorrier, Sally Thomas, Mike Fenner, Cliff Fox, Kelly Strickland, Marcia Joseph, Frank Cox, Chuck Rotgin, Nell Williamson STAFF: David Benish, Wayne Cilimberg, Jan Sprinkle, Elaine Echols SUMMARY OF MEETING Carrying out the Charge from the Board of Supervisors - DISC II agreed that the charge is to review the comments from the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association provided on 1/3/03 and comments from Dennis Rooker. A reduced list of requested changes is expected from The Free Enterprise Forum to replace the list from the Blue Ridge Homebuilders prior to the next meeting. This list concentrates on Section 8.5.1 of the existing and proposed ordinances and a few other areas. Board of Supervisors members in attendance gave the nod to reviewing this replacement list rather than the longer list. Staff will provide the new list as well as Dennis Rooker's substantive comments as soon as it receives the recommendations from Nell Williamson. Format for discussion of the issues, protocols, and process to complete the charge - DISC II ag reed to systematically follow the list of suggested changes, item, by item, with Dennis Rooker's comments added into the list. The Chair will recognize guests for comments upon request of the guests to provide additional information relative to the discussion. Relevant PEC comments will be considered by DISC II after the review requested by the Board. Any additional comments by members will be taken as DISC II reviews the pertinent sections of the ordinance. Next meeting dates and times - DISC II agreed to meet from 5 - 6:30 on Wednesday, January 22 and January 29. With the shorter list of items to discuss, DISC II anticipates being able to make recommendations on the Free Enterprise Forum's and Dennis Rooker's suggestions on January 22. On January 29, DISC II said it would consider the recommendations of the PEC which were provided by Jeff Wemer at the meeting. Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee II Wednesday, January 22, 2003-- ROOM 235 Albemarle County Office Buildinq 5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Edgerton, Marilynn Gale, Katie Hobbs, Tom Loach, Will Rieley, Ivo Romenesko, Eric Strucko - - Chair, Steve Von Storch, Jeff Werner, Charles Martin - Board of Supervisors Representative. OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Sally Thomas, Steve Runkle, Valerie Long, Fred Missel, Mike Matthews, Mike Fenner, Cliff Fox, Kelly Strickland, Marcia Joseph, Chuck Rotgin, Nell Williamson, and two other guests. STAFF: David Benish, Wayne Cilimberg, Janice Farrar, Susan Thomas, and Elaine Echols SUMMARY OF MEETING Review of Summary from Meeting held January 15, 2003 - DISC II affirmed the written summary provided by staff with one correction. The following sentence was added to the second paragraph, "Any additional points by members will be taken as the committee proceeds." Review of letter from BRHBA dated January 21,2003 and Comparison of Existing Sec. 8.5.1 to Proposed Sec. 8.5.1. for Changes Associated with the NMD dated 1/22/03 - DISC II recommended modifications to the introductory paragraph,8.5.1.c.1., 8.52 .e., and 8.5.1 .d.1. Staff was asked to reword these sections and bring back for DISC II review. The reworded sections are at the end of this summary. DISC II was unable to come to consensus on 8.5.1 .d.4 and agreed to begin at this point at the next meeting. 6. Adiournment - The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. REWORDED SECTIONS BY STAFF: Sec. 8.5.1 Introductory paragraph: Each application for a planned development district shall be submitted as provided for other zoning map amendments. In addition to the documents required in subsections (a) through (e) below, each applicant shall submit additional plans, maps, studies and reports which may be reasonably required by the director ofplarming and community development subsequent to the submittal of the application but deemed necessary to analyze the application. Alternative language suggested by Elaine to incorporate the recommendations made for 8.5.1.c.1 and 8.5.1.d.1.: Each application for a planned development district shall be submitted as provided for other zoning map amendments. In addition to the documents required in subsections (a) through (e) below, the director of planning and community development may request additional plans, maps, studies and reports, such as but not limited to traffic impact analyses, identification of specimen trees, and non-tidal wetland delineations subsequent to the submittal of the application which are deemed necessary to analyze the application. Sec. 8.5.1.c. A map showing existing topography and all applicable conditions including streams, wooded areas, potential non-tidal wetlands, topography, slopes in excess of 25%, historic strictures and sites identified by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, floodplain, and any identified features shown on the open space element of the comprehensive plan. Sec. 8.5.1.(old g.) Connections to existing and proposed streets as well as proposed thoroughfares shown on the comprehensive plan and trip generation figures. Sec. 8.5.1.d. 1. The areas to be designated as preservation areas, if appropriate, and areas to be designated as conservation areas, such as streams, wooded areas, specimen trees, potential non-tidal wetlands, and other significant environmental and historic strictures and sites. 5 Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee II Wednesday, January 29, 2003-- ROOM 235 Albemarle County Office Building 5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Edgerton, Marilynn Gale, Katie Hobbs, Tom Loach,, Ivo Romenesko, Eric Strucko -- Chair, Steve Von Storch, Jeff Werner, Charles Martin - Board of Supervisors Representative. OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Dennis Rooker, Steve Runkle, Mike Matthews, Cliff Fox, Kelly Strickland, Marcia Joseph, Chuck Rotgin, Nell Williamson, Sam Craig, and Ann Rooker. STAFF: Wayne Cilimberg, Sharon Taylor, and Elaine Echols SUMMARY OF MEETING 1. Review of Summary from Meeting held January 29, 2003 - DISC II made the following changes to the summary of the meeting held January 29: Introductory sentence to 8.5.1. Each application for a planned development district shall be submitted as provided for other zoning map amendments. In addition to the documents required in subsections (a) through (e) below, the director of planning and community development may request additional plans, maps, studies and reports, such as but not limited to traffic impact analyses, identification of specimen trees, and reports identifying potential non-tidal wetlands subsequent to the submittal of the application which are deemed reasonably necessary to analyze the application. Sec. 8.5.1.c. - A map showing existing topography and all applicable conditions including streams, wooded areas, potential non-tidal wetlands, topography, slopes in excess of 25%, historic structures and sites included in the records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, floodplain, and any identified features on the open space element of the comprehensive plan. Continuation of Review of Comparison of Existing Sec. 8.5.1. to Proposed Sec. 8.5.1 for Changes Associated with the NMD dated 1/22/03, Board of Supervisor Comments for the NMD dated 1/~ 4/03, and Summa~_ of Chanqes to Consider for NMD dated 1/22/03- DISC II made the following changes to the proposed language: Sec. 8.5.1.d.4.- Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape. Add to Sec. 8.5.5.3.a.5. - Minor variations to street design. Sec. 8.5.1.d.5. - The general water, sewer and storm drainage layout. (staff was to bring back information on mitigation). Sec. 8.5.1. d.7. - The location of central features or major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, such as major employment areas, parking areas and structures, civic areas, parks, open space, green spaces, amenities and recreation areas. Other business - DISC II noted that the Blue Ridge Homebuilders did not wish to have any language related to specimen trees in the ordinance and that DISC II and the Homebuilders respectfully agreed to disagree. In other business, Jeff Werner said that he would provide a much shorter list of recommendations from the PEC than previously provided so that'the ordinance can progress more quickly. The committee also requested that the importance of making changes to the public and private street standards to support Neighborhood Model development be emphasized with the Board. The committee acknowledged that the County is working on this item at present but wanted the Board of Supervisors to know that this item is crucial to the success of the Neighborhood Model. DISC II decided to hold its next meeting from 5 - 6:30 on Wednesday, February 5, noting that the meeting room will be different. 4. Adjournment- The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Development Areas Initiative Steerinq Committee II Wednesday, February 5, 2003-- ROOM 214 Albemarle County Office Building 5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Edgerton, Marilynn Gale, Katie Hobbs, Tom Loach, Eric Strucko -- Chair, Jeff Werner, Charles Martin - Board of Supervisors Representative. OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Sally Thomas, Steve Runkle, Cliff Fox, Marcia Joseph, Chuck Rotgin, Nell Williamson, Sam Craig, Jo Higgins. STAFF: Wayne Cilimberg and Elaine Echols SUMMARY OF MEETING Review of Issues Related to Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control PlanS - Mark Graham, Director of Engineering and Public Works assisted the Committee in making the following changes: Sec. 5.1.d.5. The general water and sewer layout and conceptual stormwater management and conceptual mitigation plan. Sec. 8.5.5.4.b. An erosion and sediment control permit may be issued for site preparation grading assoCiated with an approved planned development under the following condition: An erosion and sediment control plan satisfactory to the director of engineering and public works has been submitted and reviewed in conjunction with the application plan and the director of planning and community development determines the proposed grading is consistent with the approved application plan. In cases where the Director finds that there is not enough detail on the approved application plan to assure consistency, no erosion and sediment control permit shall be issued until approval of a final site plan has occurred or tentative approval has been given to a final subdivision plat. A question was asked regarding the ability to approve an erosion and sediment control plan in a planned district where critical slopes are involved. Staff indicated that, in a new planned development it should not be a problem; however, in existing (old) planned developments, the issue needs to be addressed. Staff said it would provide appropriate language for the Board of Supervisors for this occurrence. Another question was asked regarding notification to adjoining property owners about the fact that, once approved by the Board of Supervisors, preliminary grading could occur in a planned district. At present, few adjoining property owners are aware that preliminary grading can happen. DISC II asked staff to provide such notification in public headng notification letters. Continuation of Review of Comparison of Existing Sec. 8.5.1. to Proposed Sec. 8.5.1 for Changes Associated with the NMD dated 1/22/03, Board of Supervisor Comments for the NMD dated 1/14/03, and Summary of Changes to Consider for NMD dated 1/22/03 - Sec. 5.1.d.10. Standards for development including proposed yards, building heights, open space characteristics and any landscaping or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the district. DISC II discussed at length the addition al language proposed by the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association to Section 8.1. (intent of the planned district). There was no agreement on appropriate language but staff was asked to directed to suggest language for the next meeting. Other business - Sally Thomas discussed the Board of Supervisor's desire and need for DISC II to complete its work quickly. Several members indicated that the request by the Board for DISC II to review the document and make recommendations required a thorough discussion, which may not occur as quickly as the Board initially believed it could. DISC II decided to hold its next meeting from 4 - 5:30 on Wednesday, February 12, 2003. Ad|oumment - The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Development Areas Initiative Steerinq Committee II Wednesday, February 12, 2003-- ROOM 320 Albemarle County Office Buildin.q 4:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Edgerton, Marilynn Gale, Katie Hobbs, Tom Loach, Will Rieley, Steve Runkle, Eric Strucko -- Chair, Steve Von Storch, Jeff Werner, Charles Martin - Board of Supervisors Representative. OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Cliff Fox, Chuck Rotgin, Neil Williamson, Sam Craig, Fred Missel, Peter Hallock, Kelly Strickland STAFF: Wayne Cilimberg and Elaine Echols SUMMARY OF MEETING Discussion of chan,qes to Section 8.1 Intent of Planned Developments - Significant discussion took place regarding the relationship of planned developments to the Comprehensive Plan. Questions regarding, the Neighborhood Model as "th e form of development" vs. "a form of development" continued to be made by various members of the development community in attendance. Because the discussion so closely resembled the discussions of DISC II and the development community from the previous May and June, the adopted Comprehensive Plan language was provided to the group. The particular section is reiterated below: The twelve principles contain the characteristics the Development Areas are to reflect at buildoUt. However, it is recognized that as individual proposals are considered, all of the principles of the Neighborhood Model, listed as the General Land Use Standards, below, may not be equally applicable to any specific proposal. All proposals will need to be considered in a more global context, particularly as they relate to mix of uses. It is recognized that there are multiple applications of those principles as they relate to the mix of uses. It is recognized that there are multiple applications of the principles of the Neighborhood Model and balanced, rational and reasonable application of those principles is expected. After this information was provided, DISC II recommended the following changes to Sec. 8.1 Intent: Planned develonment districts include PRD, PUD, NMD, PD-MC. PD-SC, and PD-IP. Each of these districts is distinct in nurpose; however all Pl~-~ucd ~ .... 1 ...... ~:~ ~.~ · ...... ~, ............... are lnt~ded to pro.de for v~e~ and flexibili~ in desi~ necess~ to implement the --~ ................. various goals and objectives ~c.~ .......... ¥ ~o set fo~ in the comprehensive plan. ~ough a pla~ed development approach, theac apcc~al relations in section 8 are intended to accomplish the p'~oscs ~oals and obiectives of the comorehensive pl~ ...... ~ ......... ~ ....... . ~ ............. s~.mc a~eater extent ~ ~an the reg~afions of conven~onal dis~icts. In addition, plm~ucd ...... ~ ....... these regula~ons ~e ~tended to promote: economical ~d efficient l~d use ~ough ~ified development; improved levels of ~enifies; approp~ate and ha~o~ous physical development; creative desi~; and a be~er enviroment than g~erally realized t~ough conventional dis~ict re~lafions. ~ view of the substantial public advantages of plied developm~t, these regulations are ~tended to ~co~age the plied developmem approach in areas appropriate ~ te~s of location and character. Continuation of Review of Summary of Changes to Consider for NMD dated 2~3~03 - DISC II decided to leave Sec. 8.5.5.1 .b, 8.5.5.2.c., and 8.5.5.3.a.4. as written and recommend the following changes: Sec. 8.5.5.1 Within the neighborhood model zoning district. In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a), each site plan or subdivision plat for a~,,,.,,"' .... ,,,,..,,'~ development within the neighborhood model zoning district shall pertain to a minimum area of one block and shall include a phasing plan and (b)=each site plan shall include building elevations for all new or modified structures.,,"""",,,,,,,,,,"~;~-,u .-,,~;"~",u,-- family rccldcnts. lO Sec8.5.5.2.c. In addition to the foregoing, conformity with the application plan and the standards of development. Within each neighborhood model zoning district, the general development plan and the code of development, as determined by the director of planning and community development after consultation with the zoning administrator ' .......... *" "~'"" ~'" ~'~'~"'~ ~'"""'~ """ ......... '~ "~'""'"~ plan In Sec. 8.5.5.3. The director is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an approved application plan or standard of development: 1. Minor variations to yard requirements, maximum structure heights and minimum lot sizes; 3. Changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the application plan or the plan of development, provided that the major elements shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same; 4. Changes to phasing plans; 5. Minor changes to landscape or architectural standards; and 6, Minor variations to street design. Sec. 20A. 5. b. The amount of developed square footage proposed, delineated for the entire NMD and by block by use, amenity, street and lot coverage. Develooed souare footaoe may be submitted as a ranoe of souare footaqe. Sec. 20A 5.f. The uses permitted in the district by right and by special use permit as provided in section 20A.6. The_ uses may be submitted as a list of oossible uses. Sec. 20.A.7.a. The gross residential density should be within the annlicable recommended eross density range established in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. In its deliberations re~arding the annronriate residential density for the district, the board of supervisors shall take into account the amount of land devoted to nonresidential uses. Sec. 20.A.8. Each district shall have at least two housing types; provided that this requirement may be waived by the board of supervisors if the district is an infill project and or=at least two housing types are already present within one-quarter mile of the proposed district. The following are considered to be different housing types: (1) single family detached dwellings; (2) single family attached dwellings; (3) duplexes; (4) triplexes; (5) quadplexes; (6) townhouses; (7) multifamily dwellings; (8) accessory apartments; (9) manufactured housing; and (10) special needs housing such as assisted living facilities, group homes, and nursing homes. An "infill project" is a project in which a parcel is developed or redeveloped, where abutting or nearby parcels are already developed, and the project area is relatively small compared to the developed abutting or nearby parcels. 11 ..... · :~.,~ ..;,~. ....... u^_ based upon the auggcatcd uses recommended in c. The mixture of uses shall be ..... v ......................., the land use element of the comprehensive plan. The required mixture of uses may be obtained with different uses in different buildings or a mixture of uses within the same building ........................................ - .................................. s, ~ .... Sec. 5.1.d. lO. Standards for development including proposed yards, building heights, open space characteristics and any landscatmige=or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the district. Other business - During the'meeting Chuck Rotgin asked DISC II to support his idea for the formation of a committee made up of developers and, if they wanted, DISC II, to improve the development review process. Also, Jeff Wemer said he would like to discuss issues related to achieving the gross densities recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. DISC II postponed any discussion on these items. At the end of the meeting, the Chair thanked the committee and the visitors for their participation in the development of the recommendations. He also noted the absence of Ivo Romenesko due to the recent loss of his son. He asked that all present remember Ivo and his family in their thoughts and prayers. The Chair also said that he would notify DISC II at a later date of its next meeting. Adiournment - The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. 12 Draft: 03/05/03 ORDINANCE NO. 03-18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC 'REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations; and Article IV, prOcedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and.reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Sec. 4.1-5.11 Sec. 7.0 Sec. 8.1 Sec. 8.2 Sec. 8.3 Sec. 8.4 Sec. 8.5 Sec. 8.5.1 Sec. 8!5.3 Sec. 8.5.4 Sec. 8.5.5 Sec. 8.5.6 Sec. 8.5.6.1 Sec. 8.5.6.2 Sec. 8;5.6.3 Sec. 8.5.6.4 Sec. 8.5.6,5 Sec. 33.4 Sec. 33.5 Definitions Regulations applicable in the PUD zoning district Establishment of diStricts Intent Relation ofplarmed development regulations to general zoning, subdivision or other regulations Planned development defined Where permitted Procedures for PD applications Applications, materials to be submitted Preapplication conferences Planning commission recommendations to the board of supervisors Action by board of supervisors Final site development plans and subdivision platS Contents of site development plans: subdivision Plats Approval of site development plans: subdivision plats Variations from approved application plans Building permits, grading permits SpeCial provisions applicable to certain PD districts Public notice Report by planning commission to board of supervisors after heating By Deleting: Sec. 8.5.2 Planning commission procedures By Adding: Sec. 8.6 Sec. 20A. 1 Sec. 20A.2 Sec. 20A.3 Sec. 20A.4 Sec. 20A.5 Sec. 20A.6 Sec. 20A.7 Amendments to planned development districts Purpose and intent Status as a planned development district Application requirements; required documents and information General development plans Codes of development Permitted uses Residential density Draft: 03/05/03 Sec. 20A.8 Sec. 20A.9 Sec. 20A.10 Mixture of uses Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preserVation areas Streets Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Def'mitions AmeniOi: An area of activity designed principally for, and accessible to, persons residin~ or working within a development,. Areas of activi~a~v be either indoors or outdoors, including but not limited to swimming pools and tennis, volleyball and basketball courts. An outdoor area of activity may be a passive or an active area, including but not limited to playgrounds, pedestrian paths through natural are_as, courtyards; and paved pedestrian areas for agagagagagagagagaga~_~erin_g. An indoor area of activity includes, but is not limited to, gyms, weight rooms~ indoor sWimming pools, indoor basketball courts, and other indoor recreational areas. ~Amenities may be located in required4~:~n space and be included in both re~d green space and amenity calculations. Application plan: The ~d~iction of a r~sed development containing the information re~d b_y section 8.5.1(d). Block: An area shown on an application plan or a general development_plan that is typically surrounded by streets and within which land use activities occur. Although blocks usually im_p~l a grid street system, where steep topography exists blocks mag exist in non-rectilinear shapes. Code of development: The development standards for a neighborhood model district that include, but are not limited to, uses delineated at the block level, densities, maximum building height_% yards or build-to lines, and ar~chitectural andre treatments. Conservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains cultural assets or natural features such as non-tidal wetl~ floodplain, slopes identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan, or streams and stream buff~ within which only limited disturbance or development is allowed. Uses allowed in conservation areas include,~ ~but_ are not limited to, utilities} greenways, pedestrian paths, streets, and stormwater management facilities, where, in the opinion of the director of engineering, no other location is_ reasonably available and when these improvements have the least impact possible on the environmental features of the area. General development plan: An application plan for a proposed development Within the neighborhood model district, containing the information required _by sections 8.5.1 (d) and 20A.4. Green space: An area of land covered in grass or other vegetation or a water feature required by_ this chapter. Uses in green space _may include, but are not limited to, stormwater areas, wooded slopes, graded and revegetated slopes oftwen .ty-five perCe~5%~.o fifl~Lp~_c_ent 5~°/_~ required yards on both residential and non-residential lots, landscaped areas, landscaped islands in par_king lots_, and other land covered in vegetation. Where areas for amenities are vegetat~ such as in~oarks and playgroUnds, amenities_ shall, be included in required green _space calculations. 2 Draft: 03/05/03 Non-tidal wetland: A wetland, other than a tidal wetland,that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do sup4~o~_revalence ofvegetatiqn typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions as defined_by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 404 of the federal Clean W_ater Act, in 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(b). Preservation area: An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains natural features such as non-tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and stream buffers that are to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmade feature. Specimen tree: A tree in a mature form that approaches the optimum form and density characteristics for the particular species and variety. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD and NMD zoning districts_ The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for'which a sign permit is required within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Neighborhood Model ENMD) zoning district=s: Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area Sign Height Sign Setback (Maximum) (Maximum) -(Minimum) 1 or more per establishment, 24 square feet, 6 feet 5 feet Directory · as authorized by zoning administrator · ,. aggregated 1 per street frontage, or 2 per 24 square feet, entrance, per lot w/th 100 or more · aggregated; if more feet of continuous street frontage ~ ~ . . Freestanding ........ man ~ s~gn, no smg~e 12 feet 5 feet plus I per lot ffthe lot ~s greater than ..... , ~ ~ s~gn snm~ exceea tz 4 acres and has more than 1 approved · entrance on its frontage square feet 30 feet, but not to Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet exceed the top of Not applicable the fascia or mansard 24 square feet, Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision aggregated, per 6 feet ~ feet I entrance 12 feet, if freestanding sign; 20 feet, if residential wall sign or 30 feet if 1 per street 24 square feet 5 feet Temporary frontage per establishment nonresidential ' wall sign, but not to exceed the toP of the fascia or. mansard I , 1 square foot per. 1 i 20 feet, if As calculated pursuant to section linear foot of residential wall Same as that ~ establishment sign or 30 feet if applicable to Wall , 4.15.2.0 structure frontage, nonresidential structure · ~ not to exceed 32 wall sign Draft: 03/05/03 square feet if residential wall sign, Or 100 square feet if nonresidential wall sign (12-10-80; 7-8:92, ~ 4.15.12.4; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01) State law reference -Va. Code § 15.2-2280. Article III. District Regulations Sec. 7.-0 Establishment of dis.tricts For the purposes of this c,r-~:,~nn,~ncc chapter, the unincorporated areas of Albemarle County are hereby divided into the following districts: Commercial District - C-1 Commercial Office- CO Heavy Industry - HI Highway Commercial - HC Light Industry - LI Overlay Districts: Airport Impact Area - AIA Flood Hazard - FH Natural Resource Extraction - NR Scenic Streams - SS (Amended 9-9-92) Entrance Corridor- EC (Added 10-3-90) Neigh~rhood Model - NMD Planned Development-Industrial Park - PD-IP Planned Development-Mixed Commercial - PD-MC Planned Development-Shopping Centers - PD-SC Planned Residential Development - PRD Planned Unit Development - PUD Residential - R-1 Residential - R-2 Residential - R-4 Residential - R-6 Residential - R-t 0 Residential - R-15 Rural Areas - RA Village Residential -~VR See. 8 Planned development districts - generally Sec. 8.1 Intent The~lanned development districts are the Planned Residential Development (PRD), Planned :Unit Develo mp~_e_nt (PUD); Neighborhood Model (NMD~)~ Planned Development - Mixed Commercial (PDMC), Planned Development - Shopping Centers (PDSC)~_and P1 _armed Development - Industrial Park (PD-!P) zoning districts. 'Each of these districts isJdistinct in 4 Draft: 03/05/03 purpose; however, ou m .... .~ .~ .... ~ .....· ............... v ...............are intended to provide i'or variety ~d flexibiliW ~ desi~ necess~ to ~plement ~e ~ various goals ~d objectives ~*~ ~ set fo~ in the compreh~sive pl~.' T~ough a plied development approach, theae apcdal re~lafions i~ section 8 are ~tended to accomplish ~e ~ goals ~d objectives of~e compreh~sive pl~ zor2ng ~nd ~*~ ..... ~:~ ...... ~*;~'~ ....... vv ...... ~, ~ ........to ~.~ amine ~ ~eater ext~t ~ than the re~lations of conv~tion~ ~s~cts. ~ addition, v~ ......... v ...... these re~lahons are int~ded to promote: economical ~d efficient l~d use ~ough uffified.development; improved levels of menities; appropriate ~d h~offious physical developm~t; ~eative desi~; ~d a better ~vkoment ~ genially re~ized ~ough conventional disffict re~lafions. In-hew of the substantial public adv~tages, of plied development, ~ese re~latio~ ~e ~t~ded to ~courage ~e plied development approach in ~eas appropriate in t~s of location ~d ch~act~. Planned development districts shall be developed: to provide for the comfort and convenience of residents; to facilitate the protection of the character of surrounding neighborhoods; and to lessen traffic impacts through a reasonably short travel time between origins and destinations of persons living, working, or visiting in such developments. Housing, commercial and service facilities, and places of employment shall be related either by physical proximity or by adequate street networks so as to promote these objectives. Sec. 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to ...... ' ~-: ..... ~'a:-:~: .... other zoning regulations The~,,.,,v~"^--:.. -.-a ....... v-,, v .o.,~,~;~;~ regulations in section 8 shall apply gcncrally to the establishment and regulafi ofallplann ddev 1 p ntdi tfiCts xxn. ..... ,~:~. ....... ~.~,. ..... It !f any regulation in section 8 or the specific planned development district conflicts with any regulation in sections 4, 5 or 32 of this chapter, an applicant may~request that any requirement of sections 4, 5 and 32, or the planned development district regulations be waived or modified if it is found to be inconsistent with planned development.design principles. The applicant shall submit its _request in writing as part of the application, and shall demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and, in the c_ase of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation would be satisfied to 'at leaSt an equivalent degree by the modification. Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4 5._5,_or 32 establishing a procedure for considering a waiver or modification, any waiver or modification to a regulation applicable to a planned development shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan. Draft: 03/05/03 SeC. 8.3 Planned development defined ,, ,,l v~v ............. ~ ......... , a A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria: (1) the land is under unified control and wilI be planned and developed as a whole; (2) the development is in general accord with one or more approved application plans; and (3) the development will provide, operate and maintain common areas, facilities and improvements_ for some or all occupants of the development where these features are appropriate. Sec. 8.4 Where permitted .......... be established in any development area' A Pglanned development districts may u .... r,^~ identified inthe comprehensive plan, provided that its location is suitable for the character of the proposed_uses and structures. *- ...... a__, ,^ ,u .... : ....... .~.~.~ ,~, .... :,.,.~ :~ l^~..x~ +l,,~ ,-1 .... 1 ..... + Sec. 8.5 Procedures for PD planned development applications Sec. 8.5.1 Applications, .......... and documents to be submitted Each application for a planned development district ^ ~,,ve ........................shall be submitted as provided for other zoning map amendments. In addition to the documents required [~"O~l[""lJkll'~O~ ...... -,'u~,-'~'~:"ha the dkector ofRl~ing ~d co~u~W developm~t may request additiOnal ~ns, m~, studies ~d r~o~s such as, but not li~ted to, traffic ~pact ~alys~ identification of specimen ~ees, ~d repoAs idenfi~g potential non-tidal'wetl~ subaequ~t to the sub~Ral of~e application, which ~e deemed reasonably necess~ to ~alyze ~e A regional context map at a scale of not less one (1) inch equal to one thousand (1000) feet showing topography at a maximum ofien (1 O) foot iniervals~ surrounding properfies, improvements to those properties, surrounding public streets, private roads, and other thoroughfares: -b. do Draft: 03/05/03 An _accurate. boundary survey of the tract or plan limit showing the location and type of boundary evidence; A map showing[ 1. The following existing physical conditions: streams, wooded areas, potential non- tidal Wetlands, slopes in excess of twenty-five (25) percent, historic structures and sites included in ihe ~ecords of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, floodplain, and any identified features in the open space element of the comprehensive plan; 2. Existin tg~pograghy accurately shown with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals at a scale of not less than one l~ch equal to one hundred (100) feet; other interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning and community development where topographic considerations warrant; 3. Existing roads, easements, and utilities; 4. The existing~o_wners and zoning district; 5. The r~nt use of adjoining tracts and the location of structures on adjoining parcels, if any; and 6. _ The existing location, type and size of ingress and egress to th~ An a_pplication plan based on a minimum of two 2~ta references for elevations to be used on plans andsrofiles showing;.' t. The areas to be designated as preservation areas, if appropriate, and areas to be designated as conservation areas, such as streams, wooded areas, specimen trees~ non-tidal wetlands, and other 'significant environmental features; 2. The proposed~ding/to~th a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals; 3. The general location ofproposed streets: alleys, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths; 4. Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape; 5. Connections to existing and proposed streets, as well as proposed thoroughfares shown on the comprehensive plan; 6. Trip generation figures; 7. The general lay-out for the water and sewer s_ystems~ conce_p_tual stormwater mana eg_em_ent, and a conceptual mitigation plan;. 8. The location of central features_or major elements within the development essential to the design of the development s.~_uch as major employment ar~ 7 Draft: 03/05/03 park_'m~areas and structures, civic area_s~2P_a~ks o~ s~ace, green spaces, amenities_ and recreation areas;_ A summar~ of land uses including dwelling types and densities, and the gross floor areas for commercial and industrial uses; 10. The general.lot lay-out_Land 11. Standards for development including proposed yards, buildings o~ space characteristics,_ and an~J_landscape_ or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge o£the district. Draft: 03/05/03 J. Sec. 8.5.32 PreappHcation conferences ~ .r~, ............ .~ ....... Each apphcant for a planned development shall ~attend a joint meefi_n~g w/th the planning, engineering, and zoning staff and as well.~ as.other qualified officials from outside a_gencies such as the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Tr~ and the Albemarle County Service Authorit~ to review the application plan and -'-~.-.-~ ":~ "" w,,v,,o.-~ v-"~--';^' +'~ .... o.~,..,,.-"~;'++~ the proposed development before the a~plication is submitted. The purpose of auc,h the preapplication conference shall be to assist the applicant to assure that Ln bnnging.the application and the matc~al documents to be submitted with the a=gplication comply with all applicable regulations, and to identify as soon as pOssible conflicting egulati and c ssary waivers or modifications and Each applicant is encouraged to use the preap h~tion conference process to develop an a~. plicafion for a planned 3evelopment that,_ when submitted with its supporting documents, will be as complete and comprehensive as possible. 9 Draft: 03/05/03 and recommendation by the planning commission Each application for a planned development shall be reviewed by the planning commission as follows: a. The commission shall consider and make its recommendation to the board of supervisors on each application for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments_. Within the time provided to make a recommendation, the commission may hold Work sessions on the application and proceed to a public hearing after it determines thai no further work sessions are necessary, or at any time.the a4aplicant requests a public hearing. In making its recommendation on the a~plication to the board of supervisors, the commission shall make findings about the following: al. The suitability of the tract for the ..... ~, ....rDr~ ~:~,~^, s ........ jv ............ proposed planned development in terms of~ its relation to all applicable prOvisions of the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to the surrounding area; b2. .......... The relation of the p~oposed planned development to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services; Each requested waiver or modification, including whether the requirements of section 8.2 are satisified, e~:~:~ ~^~:*:~-':~ :- nr~ ........ ~ .... ~.: ..... ................... ~o Depending on the findings it makes__, the commission shall either_ recommend approval of the PD amcndmcnt application as proposed, ~ ....... ~ ...... +;--111"*~ ~^'~:C'~.*: ^_. ~x~al of the a~opplication with changes to be ccnditioncd '*v ...... v ...................... . made prior to action on the application by the board of supervisors, or disapproval. 10 Sec. 8.5.~_4 - Draft: 03/05/03 ...... ~ ......... ~, ........Review and action by the board of supervisors The board of supervisors shall consider and act on each application for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments, If the board ap~x~ves the application, the a~oving action shall constitute approval of the application plan and all standards for development submitted by the applicant. The board's action shall also identify which proffers,it h:as accepted and which waivers or modifications i_Lh_ash s granted.__ Once an application is approved, the aPPlication p}an, all submitted standards for development, and_all accepted proffers shall be included as part of the_zon_~,_regulations applicable to the planned development. Sec. 8.5.65 Final site ...... e .....plans and subdivision plats Sec. 8.5.65_.1 Contents of site dcvc.opmcr, t plans? and subdivision plats Ea_ ch site plan and subdivisiOn plat submitted for development in a planned development shall complzwi__th the following: ao Generally. Each site plan for a planned develOpment shall~y with section 32 of this chapter, subject to the waiver or modification of any such regulation pursuant to section 8.5_~.3 b)(3). Each subdivision plat for a planned development shall comply with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle, 'subject to the waiver, variation or substitution of any such regulation pursuant to section 14-237. Within ~hborhood model zoning district. In addition to the_ requirements of paragraph (a), each site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development within the ne~ighborhood model zoning district shall pertain to a minimum area of one block and shall include a phasing plan, and each site pi_an shall include building elevations for all new or: modified structures. 11 ' Draft: 03/05/03 Sec; 8.5.65.2= ~ Review of site ,.~ a .... ...v~...~.' ..... * plans~ and subdivision plats Each preliminary and fmal site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for com4)liance with the applicable regulatiOns: (D in effect at the time the lands were zoned to a planned development district' or.=p&J2) at the option of the applicant, currently in effect. In addition, each_preliminar~ and final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the following: The approved application plan, and the approved standards for development, the accepted proffersi and the authorized waivers or modifications and any conditions imposed tkere~ The permitted uses within the planned development zoning district_~_includin aga!Lcrll roffers, as determined by the zoning administrator after consultation with the director of planning and community development; in making this determination, the zoning administrator shall be guide~ion 22.2.1 of this chapter: In addition to the foregoing~conformiW with the application plan and the standards of development. Within each neighborhood model zoning district; the_general development plan and the code of devel0~ as determined by the:director ofpl ~apning and community development after consultation with the zoning administrator. Sec. 8.5.6._5.3 Variations from approved application plans The director of planning and community dev_elo~)ment may allow a site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development to vary from an approved application plan, standard of development ~and, alSo, in the case of a neighborhood model- district, a general development plan or code of development~_as~, rovided_herein: The director is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an a~pr~ ~ion plan or standard of development:- Minor variations to yard requirements, maximum structure heights and minimum lot sizes; Changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on_the application plan or the plan of develo4~ment,pro;vided that the major elements shown on and their relationships remain the same; 3. Chan ege~sl, to phasing plans; 12 Minor changes to-landscape or architectural stand,ds; and Draft: 03/05/03 5. Minor variations to street design. The~applicant shall submit a written request for a variation to the director; the request shall speci .fy the provision of the application plan. or the standard of deve~e~!~lo ment for which the variation is sought, and state the reason for the requested variation; the director may reject a request th_at fails to include the required information. The director is authorized to grant a variation upon a determination that the variation: (1) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive _plan; (2) does not increase the approved development densi~hmr intensity of development; (3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the ~ district; (4) does not require a speclal use permit; and 5(5) is ~d with the purpose and intent of the appro~ d. Any variation _not expressly provided for herein may be accomplished by rezoning. Sec. 8.5.6,.=5.4 Building permits, grafting pcrr~Mtg and erosion and sediment control permit~ Building permits and erosion and sediment controLp~rmits may be issued as provided herein: A.buildin~, inclu~ecial footings or foundation permits, may be issued for any work within a planned development, excluding the installation of street signs, only after the approval of the final site plan or final subdivision plat in the area in which the permit would apply. An erosion and sediment control Permit may be issued for site rep_rpp_aration_o_n4~rading associated with an approve~olanned development if an erosion and sediment control plan satisfactOry to the director of engineering and public works has been submitted and reviewed in conjunction with the application plan, and the d'_u'ector of planning and __community development, determines the pro~~ading is consistent with the approved a_a_oplication plan. In cases where the director f'mds that there is not enough detail on the a=gproved application' plan to assure consistency, no erosion and sediment control permit shall be issued until the _final site plan is approved, or the final plat is tentativelg approved. Within each neighborhood model district, the department of planning and community deve_!ogment shall review each buildin~ application or modification to determine whether the proposed structure conforms with the architectural and Iandscape standards in the approved code of development. 13 Draft: 03/05/03 Sec. 8.5.-65.5 c_..:., .....:~: ...... .:~.~.~, .... +_:_ ur, dl trl Site lapIa_n_and s_ubdivision plat requirements for planned development zoning districts established without an application or application plan ........ a; ...... ~ ....... ;+*' +*'; .... +:~- If a planned development zoning district was established Without an approved application plan as required by section 8, then neither a site plan nor a subdivision plat shall be approved for any lands Within the district unless and untiI an a~401ication plan and all other documents required by section 8_5. ~mi_'tted by the owner and are approved as provided therein. If such a district was previously established in conjunction ~ approved site ...... a .... ~ ..... z-, ...... + plan, ~"~*' the approved site a .... 1..... *.]o~ ..... ~ ...... ~ ...... v,~ shall be de~ to be -~v ........~d ~e dis~ct shall be deemed to have com~d wi~ ~e req~r~ents of section 8. In such a case, if the site plan or subdivision plat has expired, a new site plan or subdivision plat must be approved p~or to an)_~_de_v__elo~ent activity_. (Amended 7'-16-86) Sec. 8.6 Amendments to planned development districts Each amendment tea planned development district shall be submitted and reviewed as provided in section 8. In addition, with each application to amend the area of the planned development district.~_or to amend the proffers, the application plan, the general development ~ or the code of development within an area that is less than the entire distri_ct~ the~2plicant shall submit a map showing the entire existing planned development district and identifying any area to be added to or deleted_ from the district, Or identifying the area to which the amended proffers, application plan, general developm~, or code of deve~lo ment will ap_p~l. _Section 20A Ne~hborhood Mode!-NMD ~ee. 20A.1 Purpose and intent The purpose of the Neighborhood Model district .(hereinafter referred to as the "NMD") is to establish a planned development district in which traditional neighborhood development, as established in the county's Neighborhood Model, will occur. The county's Neighborhood Model was adopted as part of the comprehensive ~s h_ere_inafte_r referred to ~ the 14 Draft: 03/05/03 "Neighborhood Model.': The regulations in section 20A encourage adevelopm__ent form and character that is different from conventional suburban development by providing the f_ollowing characteristics: Pedestrian orientation; - Neighborhood friendly streets and paths; Interconnected streets and transp_ortation_ network~ parks and open space'as amenities; Neighborhood_centers; - Buildings and spaces of human scale; Relegated_oarki_/gg; - Mixture of uses and use types; Mixture of housing types and affordabilit¥; - Redevelopmen~'t' Site planning~that res~oects terr~n;_and - Clear boundari6s with the _rm-al areas. The NMD is int_ertded t_~rovide for comp~c_t, mixed-use developments with an urban s~ mas_s=~g,_c[e_nsity¢ and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan. The particular uses permitted within a particular district, as well as~the character, form and density of the devello~m_ ent, shall be derived from. the comprehensive plan, including the land use plan for the applicable development area, the master_~lart_ for the a~plicable development __arena and the Neighborhood Model.. Density shall be achieved with careful attention to design, as articulated in the NeighbOrhood Model2 These regulations are intended to provide an_applicant with maximum flexibility in creating and _implementing the general development plan and the code of develop_~ent. Sec. 20A.2 Status as a planned development district An _NMD is a planned development district within the meaning of section 8 of this chapter, subject to the follow_~.' a. As a planned development district, the standards for development shall be43articular to the district and not be based on standards established for conventional zoning districts or commercial, or industrial districts in the zoning ordinance. The standards for development that are submitted by an_applicant and a~proved by the board of_ supervisors for a particular NMD shall be the district's code of development described in section 20A.5. bo An application is not necessaril~required to gossess every characteristic of the Ne~hborhood Model delineated in section 20A.1 in order to be a4~p_roved as an NMD. The size of the proposed district, its relationship~to a l~___g~_r nog_hborhoo~d or other similar factors may prevent the ap4alication_from possessing_every~characteristic. c. An NMD shall have no minimum acreage requirement. 15 Draft: 03/05/03 Sec. 20A.3 Application requirements; required documents and information The following documents and information shall be submitted in addition to any other documents required to be submitted under sect_ion 8.5 of this chapter: A statement describing how the proposed NMD .satisfies the intent of the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the apph'cable o~~ectives of the comprehensive plan, the land use pl~=~_the master plan for the applicable develogment area~_ and the Neighborhood Model; if one or more characteristics of the Neighborhood Model delineated in section 20A. 1 are missing from an application, the _app~lic _~t shall justify why all of the characteristics cannot or should not be provided: A parking and loading needs study that demonstrates parking needs and requirements and includes strategies for dealing with these needs and requirements,~_mc_luding phasing ~tives as~rovided in section 4.12:8 of this chapter, and transportation demand management strategies as provided in section 4,12.12 of this chapter. Strategies for establishing shared stormwater management facilities, off-site stormwater _management~fa_cilities a,_an_nd the40rogo~ed ph__h _asing of the establishment of stormwater management facilities. A general development la!an~,~_as_.as~provided in section 20A.4, including all information required by sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the plan. A code of development, as provided in section 20A.5, including all information required by sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the code. Sec. 20A.4 General development plans Ageneral development plan shall serve as the application plan required by_section 8.5.1 (d) of this chapter. In addition to the a~pj~lication plan requirements of section 8.5.1(d), the following are required elements of the general development plan: The amount of gross square footage devoted to nonresidential uses and a residential.~ ~val~t__~_ex_pressed as the product o£the square feet per unit multig!i_ed by the__ number of dwelling units proposed. If a residential equivalent is not provided by the applicant, it shall be the product of one'thousand five hundred (1500) square feet multiplied by the n_umber of dwelling units proposed. b. The general allocation of uses to each block.in terms of residential, commercial, _industrial, institutional, amenities, parks, recreational facilities open to the public, and any other use category proposed by the applicant and which complies with the re~Luirements of section 20A.8. The location of proposed green spaces, amenities, conservation areas or preservation areas, as provided in section 20A.9. Building footprints or graphic representations of central features or ma~or elements that are essential to the design of the development, shown at the block level. 16 Draft: 03/05/03 Sec. 20A. 5 Codes of development A code of development shall establish the_ unifying design guidelines~g_the specific regulations for the district, and the use characteristics of each block; pro_vide for certainty in thelocation of and __appearance of cenIral features, and thc permitted uses in thc district: and provide a flexible range __ot'a mix ol-'uses arid densities. To satisfy these rcquircmcnts, each code ot'devck)pmcnt shall establish: The uses permitted in the district by right and by special use permit, as provided in section 20A.6. bo The amount of developed square footage proposed, delineated__ for the entire NMD and by block by usg amenity, streets and lot coverage. The developed square footag,~m~_ be ex_pressed as a proposed range of square footage. Co The maximum residential densities, as provided in section 20A.7, and the maximum number of residential units for individual residential land use categories and mixed-use_ categories, delineating at least two (2) housing types, as provided in section 20A.8. The amount of land area devoted to green space and amenities, as provided in section 20A.9~ e. All re~q_uirements and restrictions associated with each use._delineatedin_paragraph (a). f. _All uses expressly prohibited in the district, so that they may not be considered to be uses accessory, to a permitted use._ Architectural and landscape standards that will apply in the NMD, which shall address the following: 1. The form=m_massing,__and proportions of stmcture_m;s' 2_ Architectural styles; 3. Materials, colors, and textures; 4 Roof form and p'lt~ch' 5. Architectural ornamentation; 6. Faqade treatments, including window and door o_p_~ings; 7. Landscape treatments; and The preservation of historic structures, sites, and archeological sites identified by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. e. Preliminary lot layout. 17 Draft: 03/05/03 f. For each block: 1. The range of uses permitted on the block by fight and by special use pe~_~ 2. All requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated in paragraph (f)(l~ 3. Build-to lines, which are the r~quired distance from the right-of-waTM structure; 4." Minimum and maximum lot and y_~dd dimensions~ 5. Maximum building heights; 6. Sidewalk and pedestrian path locations;. 7. Green space and amenities; 8. Conservation areas and preservation areas, if applicable; 9. Parking areas; 10. Civic spaces, which are public areas for community or civic activities e .( e( e( e( e( e( e( e( e(~. libraries and their associated yards, schools and places ofworshig); Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses The following_uses shall be permitted in an NMD, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the approved general develog_m_ent_plan and code of develo mp=m=go& and the accepted proffers: a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right: Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district, excep2 for those uses allowed only by special use permit delineated in subsection (b); provided that the use is identified in the approved code of development. 2. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utilit..,~/_~Water distribution and sewerage collection lines~g~__pLm~ stations and appurtenances_ owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformity with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other_agp~licable_ law. 3. Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings. 4. Home occupation, Class A, where the district in_eludes residential uses. 18 Draft: 03/05/03 5. Tempor ._ar~ construction uses. ¸. Public uses and buildin~gs including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools; offices, p~laygrounds and roads funded, owned or operate~y local, state or federal agencies,4~ublic water and sewer transmission, m__ ain or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and SeWer Authorit~ 7. Tourist lodgings, where the district includes resid_ential uses. Homes for developmentally disabled persons, where the district includes residential uses. b. By special use permit. The following uses are permitted by special use permit: 1. Drive-through windows serving or as~sociated with permitted uses. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a by ri~J!~ permitted use, if any portion of the us_e would be visible_from a travelwa¥. Sec. 20A.7 Residential densiW Residential density within each NMD shall be as follows: The ~9_ss residential density should be within the.applicable recommended gross density range established in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. In its deliberations regarding the appropriate residential densi!~, for the district, the board of supervisors shall tako into account the amount of land devoted to non-residential uses. The gross residential density shall be measured in dwelling units_per acre and Calculated by taking the gross acreage of the district divided by the proposed number of dwelling units in the pro_posed district, SEc. 20A.8 Mixture of uses There shall be a mixture of uses within each NMD as follows: Each district shall have at least two housing Iypes; provided that this requirement may_he_be waived bg_the board of supervisors if the district is an infill W~i_.'ect or at least housin~es _are already_ present within one-quarter mile of the_ rlx~osed district. The_ following arc considered to be differ, tnt housing types: .(1 ) single family detached dwellings; (2) single [hmily.attached dwellings; (3) duplexes; (4) triplexes; (5) quadplexes; (6) townhouses; (7) multifamily dwellings; (8) accesso .ry__apartments: 9(,9_)~ar~- ufactured housing; and (10) special needs hous_u~og such as assisted livin~g facilities, ~p_up homes, and nursing homes. An "infill project" is a project in which a parcel is developed or redeveloped,.where abutting_or nearby parcels are already developed, and the project area is relatively small compared to the developed abutting or nearby parcels. 19 Draft: 03/05/03 Each district shall have at least two different general use classifications (i.e., residen~ commercial i~ndustrial, institutional, parks or recreational facilities open to the up=~blic~; provided that this requirement may be waived by the board of supervisors if a different use is already present within one-quarter mile of the proposed district and accomplishes the mixture of uses within the neighborhood sough~o be achieved by this section to an equivalent degree.' c. The mixture of uses shall be based upon the uses recommended in the land use element of the comprehensive plan..The required mixture of uses may be obtained with different ~ses in different buildings or a mixture of uses within the same bu~ Sec. 20A.9 Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preserVation areas Each NMD shall include the following a. Green space. The minimum area devoted to green space is as follows: For areas shOwn in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential, urban density residential, transitional, neighborhood selMce, community service, or office service~ the area devoted to g[een space shall be at least twentgg_erc_ent~_2_0%~)_ofthe gross acreage of the site. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service~ office reg12q__nal or industrial service, the area dev0t, ed to green space shall be at least fifteen percent (15%) of the gross,acreage-of the site. For areas havin~se designation not addres_ _sed in_ paragraphs (a)(1) and ~)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to green space. The minimum area devoted to ~_een sp3_q_e may be reduced bythe board of supelMsors at the request of the applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall consider these factors.'_ the relationship of the site to adjoin~ or nearby properties containing public green space such as parks or natural areas; the known future uses of the of the adioining properties; and whether a rexluction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan. b. Amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities is as follows: For areas .shown in the land use .element of the comprehensive plan as n_e_ighhorhOod density residential, urban density residential, neighborhood service, and communitx_s_elw_ice, the _area devoted to amenities shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the site. For are~ shown in the land use element of the comprehensive ')lan as regional service, office service, office re~gional service or industrial servlce~ the area devoted to amenities shall be at least ten percent,(10%) of the gross acreage of the sit_e. 2O Draft: 03/05/03 For areas having a land use designation not addressed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), the_recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive ~ shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to amenities. The minimumarea devoted to amenities may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the request of the applicant. In acting on a request~the board shall conm~ler these factOrs: the relationship of the site to adjoining-or nearby pro=p~rties_ containing amenities; thejoro40ortion of residential uses to nonresidential uses propose__dg_the known future uses.of the of the adjoining properties; and whet_her_a_ reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan. c. Additional requirements for amenities. Amenities_shall also be subject to the following: 1. At least ninety40ercent_ (90%) of the residential units in the NMD shall be within a one quarter mile Walk of an amenity. The size, location, shape,~slope and condition of the land shall be suitable for the proposed amenity. 3_ . The amenity shall be suitable for the specific population to be served. The design of any recreational facilities shall meet the minimum desi?.~n_ requirements from recognized so_urces of engineering and recreational standards. In no_nresidential areas of the development, amenities shall be located so that they are easily acceSsible to patrons and employees of the development. Green space within parks and recreational amenities. Any portion of an amenity that is covered in grass Or other vegetation may be counted as both~_een .space. and an amenity, Preservation areas within green space. Preservation areas that preserve environmental features shall be included as greets_ space area. Conservation areas within green space. Conservation areas that maintain environmental features shall be include_d as green space area. See. 20A.10 Streets Each street within an NMD _shall meet the street standards for a traditional neighborhood development established by the department of _en~ne_.eringand public works. Article IV. Procedure Sec. 33.4 Public hearing - notice The commission and the board of supervisors shall hold a public hearin~ on any such petition or 1 rio provid dby ~*~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ^c~,~ ,~^.~^ ~c~ .... ~: ......... :~ ~. ..... ~:~ ~ ~ ~ 2204 c,f said Code Virginia Code § 15.2-2285_, aft_er notice is provided as required by V~inia 21 Draft: 03/05/03 Code § 15.2-2204. If any portion of the affected property is within a_planned development, then~ in addition to the_ notice rectm2red b~ginia Code § 15.2-2204: notice shall be given to the owners, or their agents or the occupants, of each parc¢l within the planned development. The notice shall be given in the manner provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-2204 for notice to abutting properties. However, failure togive the 'additional notice provided in this paragraph to an owner, agent or occupant of any parcel wi_thin the planned development shall not__invalidate, any'action by the commission or the board of supervisors affecting!he planned development. See. 33.5 Report by planning commission to board of supervisors after hearing After the conclusion of the hearing provided for in this section, unless the proceedings are terminated as provided herein, the commission shall report to the board of supervisors its recommendation with respect to the proposed amendment. Failure of the commission to report to the board of supervisors within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission following the date the proposed amendment has been referred to the commission shall be deemed approval by the commission. In acting favorably with respect to a proposed amendment initiated by the petition of a property owner or owners, the commission need not confine its recommendation to the propOsed amendment as set forth in the petition, but may reduce or enlarge the extent of land that it recommends be rezoned or may recommend that land be rezoned to a different zoning classification than that Petitioned for, if, the commission is of the opinion that such revision is in accord with public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice and is in furtherance of the purposes of this ordinance and section; provided that before recommending an enlargement of the extent of land or a rezoning to a less restricted classification than was set forth in the petition, the commission shall hold a further hearing on the matter, pursuant to the requirements of section 15.2-2204 c,f tk, c Co, dc Virginia Code § 15.2-2204 _and section 33.4. No amendment to the zoning map shall be approved for a change in zoning classification different from that applied for and contained in the public notice of hearing nor for any land not included therein without referring said change to the commission for its review and recommendations 'and proceedings pursuant to this section and section 33.3; provided, however, that an amendment may be approved for only a portion'ofthe area proposed for rezoning if the portion rezoned is accurately and sufficiently delimited inthe approval action, or if a portion is reclassified pursuant to section 30.3. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to __, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorder Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors 22 Memorandum To; Froml Date: Subject: Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission Scottsville Planning Commission March 5, 2003 Scottsville Planning Commission respm~se to the Rural Area Worlc~op conducted by the Albemarle County Planning Department. The members of the Scottsville Planrfing Commission attended the Rural Area Workshop that occurred at Scottsville Elementary SchOol on January 6, 2003. After that meeting, the following points were agreed upon by the Commission to be communicated to the County of Albemarle as it conducts this review of Rural Area Development. Seottsville Planning Commission has consensus on the following points: Commercial and industrial development should be discouraged in rural areas; high residential development should also be discouraged from rural areas. Any development should be limited to low density development that preserves the rural character of the area; The Planning Commission reaffirms the current principle of the Albemarle County Service Authority limi,ting water and sewer service to customers inside the Town Limits; We recommend that road design and improvements preserve rural character, while ensuring safety; We support the present Comprehensive Plan's incorporation of walkways and bikeways in rural areas, Rober~ C. Mellow, Chairman For the Commission. David P. Bowerraan Rio Linds~y G. Dottier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 February 26, 2003 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Reeker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. Larry Burner PO Box 19622 Boulder, CO 80308 RE: ZMA-2002-001 Fontaine Avenue Condominiums - Tax Map 77, Parcel 12A Dear Mr. BurneR: This letter is to confirm that the above-noted petition has been rescheduled for public hearing by the Board of Supervisors for WEDNESDAY, MARCH t9, 2003. The Board of Supervisors meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the tentative agenda prior to the meeting. YOU OR yOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THiS MEETING. If you should have any questions or comments concerning this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 296-5843. Sincerely, Ella W. carey, Clerk /ewc CC: V. Wayne Cilimberg Michael Barnes Wes Bradley Printed on recpcled paper David P Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 February 26, 2003 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouet~ Sall~, H. Thomas Samu*l Miller BIAS, DORSEY V & IMOGENE S COMMONWEALTH OF VIRIGNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY FONTAINE LAND TRUST; WILLIAM W STEVENSON & SHIRLEY L FISHER TRS FOREMAN, SUSAN; C/O TRAINING ROOM UVA FOXHAVEN FARM LLC HEILMAN, TY W & SALLY H BROWN & MARY J H MASSIE WILFONG & NANCY H MATTHEWS, JOHN F MCLERRAN, BARRY J OR MARY E ROOD, VERNON PAUL OR JUDY T SCHMIDT, BARRY R OR PAULA W SMITH, DiCK IV OR KARIN MARIE TAYLOR S TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; THOMAS W GILLIAM JR ETAL UNIVERSITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION RE: ZMA-20002-001 Fontaine Avenue Condominiums - Tax Map 77, Parcel 12A Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you as an adjacent property owner of the above-referenced petition described as follows: ZMA-2002-001. Fontaine Avenue. Condos (Si,qns ~.7&81.).. Request to rezone 12.606 acs from HC to R-15 to allow 112 units. TM 76, Ps 12A & 12G. Loc on N side of Fontaine Ave (Rt 702) appmx .25 mlsW of intersec of Fontaine Ave & Rt 29. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood 6.) Samuel Miller Dist. This petition has been rescheduled for review and public comment by the Board of Supervisors for WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2003. The Board of Supervisors meeting wilt be held at 6:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntim Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. You may review the file in the Planning Department, at the address above. If you should have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 296-5843. ]ewc Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk CC: V. Wayne Cilimberg Michael Barnes Jack Kelsey Wes Bradley Robert P. Boyle/Jefferson Lodge, LLC Larry BurnerdJefferson Lodge LLC ~ Printed on recycled paper February 7, 2003 Jerry Kamis March Mountain Properties, LLC 800 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP 2002-016 Old Trail Golf Club (Formerly Bucks Elbow Golf Club) Tax Map 55, Parcels 71, 83, 84C, 84E, 102, 103 & 103F Dear Mr. Kamis: This letter is to notify you that your above-referenced petition, has been scheduled for public hearings as follows: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2003 This item was considered by the Planning Commission on January 28, 2003, and was recommended for approval with conditions. However, due to an error in the previous notification of adjacent landowners, this item must be heard again by the Planning Commission before going to the Board of Supervisors for approval. This will allow all of the adjacent landowners the appropriate opportunity to comment on this project at a public hearing. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m., and the Board of Supervisors meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the staff report and tentative agenda one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS. Februanj 7, 2003 ANDERSON, JOHN W OR AGNES J BARRETT, ROBERT L OR RUTH A BELEW, MARY MAUPIN BOLLENDORF, BETTY L TRUSTEE OF THE BETTY L BOLLENDORF LIVING TRUST BRADLEY, DAVID D OR HELENE BRANDT, RICHARD M TRS U/A RICHARD M BRANDT U/A MATTICE F BRANDT U/D/T BROKAMP, JEAN H (NO ADDRESS) CASTNER, KEVlN C OR JUDITH SELLER CLARKE, PAUL W W OR LOIS S PATKIN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SCHOOL BOARD HENLEY & BROWNSVILLE ELEM SCHOOL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SCHOOL BOARD WESTERN ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL CRAIG, S DALEY JR OR DOROTHY D & DAVID F OR LUCIA C RIDDICK CROZET LODGE NO 2164; LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE INC CUBERO, JOHN G & OLGA M DAMERON, MARGARET V & JAMES DOUGLAS DAVIS, RANDOLPH F OR DORIS S DURRETT, DORIS A DURRETTE, GENOVA EWELL, JAMES H OR ELLEN LAWSON E FROEHLING & ROBERTSON INC ATTN IRVING PHILLIPS GOEKE, THOMAS J OR LUCY GOLD, PETER S OR REBECCA S HALL ENTERPRISES LLC HARRIS, GEORGE F OR EVELYN HARRIS, JULIA J ESTATE; GEORGE F HARRIS & CYNTHIA H ELDER CO-EXECUTORS HILLSBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, TRUSTEES; CLARENCE BLACt~ HUCHENS & JOHN W CLAYTON JR TRS HUGHES, STEVEN GREGORY OR JAMIE KRISTINS FOR HUGHES JOHNSON, DON M OR DONNA F JORDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION C/O ELAINE MCDANIEL/MGMT SRVS CORP KE LSEY, DANIEL G OR LANA L KEPCHAR, JAMES KIMBERLY KING, DAVID L OR ELLEN C KIRTLEY, BRUCE W OR BONNIE M KIRTLEY, W J JR & BRUCE W KIRTLEY KRISTINA FORD HUGHES MAUPIN, G WILLIAM JR OR KAREN L MESLAR-LITTLE, DEBORAH MOYER ETAL TRUSTEES MOYER, JOANNE L G FAMILY TRUST; RICHARD W PASTORS, DAVID T PATTERSON, JOHN P OR THERESA H PUGH, MARK E OR TRACEY R QUALITY FAMILY LAND TRUST; JAMES L STORK TRUSTEE R A YANCEY LUMBER CORP ROSENBLUM, JOHN W OR CAROLYN J RYALLS, LARRY WAYNE OR'LORA SUE SPENCER R RYALLS, LORA S SAUL, CLAUDE H OR PATRIClA C SCHEINER, ANDREW C OR MARY M GALLO SHAPS, MICHAEL SHEEHY, COLETTE SPICERi DAVID S OR DOROTHY C SPROUSE, JEFFREY S STRADFORD, ESTA CUYLER LIFE ESTATE THOMPSON, KAREN M OR ALLEN D THOMPSON~TRIPLETT THORNBIRCK DEVELOPMENT LLC TRIPLETT, MARK R OR ALLISON W U/D/T & MATTICE F BRANDT TR VIA, DAVID J OR FRANCES S WASHINGTON, RONALD D OR JACQUELINE M WILLIAMS, CATHARINE MOYER WOODSON, DAN WYANT, RAY W OR FRANCES N YANCEY, RICHARD A JR, E D B YANCEY & SARAH T MAY ZOBRIST, DUANE H OR SHARON A RE: SP 2002-016 Old Trail Golf Club (Formerly Bucks Elbow Golf Club) Tax Map 55, Parcels 71, 83, 84C, 84E, 102, 103 & 103F Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you as an adjacent property owner of the above-referenced petition described as follows: SP 2002-016 Old Trail Golf Club (Formerly Bucks Elbow Golf Club) - Request for special use permit to allow a public golf course with clubhouse in accordance with Sections 10.2.2.4, 13.2.2.4, and t6.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allow for "swim, golf, tennis, or similar athletic facilities.". The property, described as Tax Map 55 Parcels 84C, 84E, 102, 103, 103F, 83 and 71, contains 207 acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Rockfish Gap Turnpike [Route # US 250] approximately 0.5 miles east of the intersection of US 250 and Interstate 64. The property is zoned RA Rural Areas, R-I Residential, R-6 Residential, and EC Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in the Crozet Community and Rural Area. This petition will be reviewed and public comment received according to the following public hearing schedules: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2003 This item was considered by the Planning Commission on January 28, 2003, and was recommended for approval with conditions. However, due to an error in the previous notification of adjacent landowners, this item must be heard again by the Planning Commission before going to the Board' of Supervisors for approval. This will allow all of the adjacent landowners the appropriate opportunity to comment on this project at a public hearing. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m., and the Board of Supervisors meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Should you wish to attend these meetings, you may call this office during the week of the meeting to ask the tentative time the item is scheduled on the agenda. You may review the file in the Planning Department, at the address above. If you should have any questions, comments or observations concerning this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 296-5823 ext. 3325. Sincerely, Scott M. Clark Planner SMC/blb AFFIDAVIT DATE-FEBRUARY 7, 2003 I, V. Wayne Cilimberg, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) was sent on the above date to all persons listed on said notice. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning & Community Development Given under my hand in the County of Albemarle, State of Virginia this 7TH day of February, 2003. Notary Public My commission expires August 31~ 2003. FILE: SP 2002-016 OLD TRAIL GOLF COURSE (FORMERLY BUCKS ELBOW GOLD CLUB) Jerry Kamis - Old Trail Gulf Course Page 2 February 7, 2003 At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public headng, the zoning administrator or designee shall erect on the property, subject to the above-referenced application(s), a sign or signs indicating the property is to be subject to public hearing and referencing how to obtain additional information regarding such hearing. The sign shall be erected within ten (10) feet of whatever boundary line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road. If more than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as above on at least two boundaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. The filing of the petition or application shall be deemed to grant consent to the zoning administrator or designee to enter upon the property and to erect the signs. Upon a finding by the board of supervisors that failure to comply with the posting requirements of this section has denied the public reasonable notice of the public hearing, the board may defer action on the petition or application until reasonable notice by posting is given. The applicant shall exercise due diligence to protect the sign or signs erected pursuant to section 33.8 from vandalism and theft; maintain the sign or signs in the location or locations in an erect position as placed by the zoning administrator or designee; and ensure that such sign or signs remain legible. Failure to comply with these responsibilities may be grounds for the commission or the board of supervisors to defer action on the petition or application until there is reasonable compliance. Any sign erected pursuant to section 33.8 shall remain the property of the board of supervisors. It shall be unlawful for any person, except the applicant performing maintenance required by this section or the zoning administrator or an authorized agent of either, to remove or tamper with any sign erected pursuant to section 33.8. All such signs shall be removed by the zoning administrator or designee within fifteen (15) days following the board of supervisors' final action on the petition or application or the applicant's withdrawal of the petition or application. Should you have any questions regarding the procedure for posting of signs, please do not hesitate to contact the Zoning Administrator. Sincerely, Scott M. Clark Planner SMC/blb cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depan'meq£ or'Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 02-19-03 February 13, 2003 Wes Bradley 2117 Rosalind Avenue Roanoke, VA 24014 RE: ZMA~02-01 Fontaine Avenue Condominiums, Tax Map 76, Parcels 12A and 12G Dear Mr. Bradley: At the Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting on February 11, 2003, a motion to recommend approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors failed by a 2-2 vote. Should the Board of Supervisors approve this petition, the Planning Commission does recommend the approval be subject to the attached proffers. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Superwsors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 5, 2003. 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, Senior Planner Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Original Proffer 10/01/2002 Amended Proffer 02/03/03 (Amendment// 1 O) PROFFER FORM Date: February 3, 2003 ZMA # 2002-001 Tax Map 76 and Parcel Numbers 12A and 12G 12.606 Acres to be rezoned from HC (Highway Commercial) to R-15 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned with the offered plans approved for development. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. (1) The development on Tax Map 76 Parcels 12A and 12G shall be in general accord with the plan produced by Future Engineering Technology Group, Inc, dated January 31, 2003, entitled "Site Development Plan, Fontaine Avenue Condominiums", herein referred to as the plan, (sheets 1 of 8, 2 ofS, 5 of 8 and 6 of 8 and 8 of 8). The following must be adhered to: On Sheet 1 of 8, the relative location of the structures, parking lots, and sidewalks. On Sheet 2 of 8, the fences and windows in the garages as illustratively shown in Section 1. On Sheets 5 of 8 and 6 of 8 and 8 of 8, the building's streetscape massing, scale, and features that break up the massing of the building such as the porches, variation in building materials, and rooflines shall be applied to all sides of the buildings. Final design details, accents, donners, fenestration, building material and color specifications, and floor plans with or without elevators for the dwelling units are not proffered. No building permit shall be issued unless and until the Department of Planning and Community Development's Design Planner determines that the architecture is in general accord with the intent, and/or as shown on Sheets 5 of 8 and 8 of 8. (2) Along the entire frontage of Fontaine Avenue between the garages and buildings, the landscaping elements are proffered: Flowering Cherry trees spaced in 30 ft intervals between the sidewalk and the bike path accented by one red maple tree at the west end and on either side of the foot bridge. All of the buildings and fences along Fontaine Avenue will be obscured (relegated) by plantings of Dogwood trees and flowering shrubs such as, Azalea, Rhododendron, and/or Spiraea when fully mature. The, Fontaine Avenue landscape planning shall be subject to Albemarle County Planning Department staff approval. At selected locations along West Buckingham Road, pine trees will be added to partially obscure, when mature, the direct view between existing houses and the planned condominium homes, and some of the above flowering shrubs will be added to partially mimic the Fontaine avenue streetscape. The landscaping required by this proffer shall be designed, bonded and installed in the same manner, as the landscaping required as part of the site plan. (3) The Owner shall show on the Preliminary and Final Site Plans a 5-foot sidewalk, in the general location shown on Sheet 1 of 8 of the plan, and a bike path, in the general location shown on Sheet 1 of 8 of the plan and construct the bike path to a standard approved by the Virginia ATTACHMENT H '~ Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the County Engineer. The Owner shall bond for the construction of the sidewalk and bike lane prior to the issuance of the first building permit and complete construction of the sidewalk and bike lane prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy or within one (I) year of the issuance of the project's first building permit. The Owner shall design and construct a pedestrian/bicycle bridge crossing Morey Creek, as shown on plan sheet 1 of 8, to a standard approved by VDOT and the County Engineer and expected to be a fully engineered clear span bridge, similar to the "Connector" as manufactured by the Steadfast Bridge Company, or an approved equal type of bridge. The Owner shall provide a bridge design with the Preliminary Site Plan. The Final Site Plan shall not be approved until VDOT and/or the County Engineer approves the bridge design, expected to be similar to this lpicture. The "Connector" bridge built by the Steadfast Bridge Company 4021 Gault Avenue South- Fort Payne, Alabama 35967 (5) The Owner shall bond for the construction of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The Owner shall complete construction of the bridge within one (1) year from either the issuance of the project's first building permit or, the Owner shall demonstrate to the Zoning Administrator that the necessary permits to construct the bridge have been obtained within one (1) year from the issuance of the project's first building permit and the owner shall complete construction of the bridge within two (2) years from the issuance of the project's first building permit. (6) The Owner shall note on the Preliminary and Final Site Plans a 5-foot paved shoulder adjacent to the edge of the existing pavement on the southside of Route 702 (Fontaine Avenue) between Buckingham Circle and the Route 29 Northbound off-ramp. The Owner shall bond for the construction of the paved shoulder prior to the issuance of the first building permit and complete construction of the paved shoulder prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. (7) The Owner shall allow for future development on the parcels to the west and the north of the Fontaine Avenue Condominium site to construct interparcel vehicular and/or pedestrian connections where these interconnections are not primary access routes, only secondary access routes, and deemed reasonably feasible and logical by the Director of Planning and Community Development and the County Engineer. (8) Upon request by the County of Albemarle, Virginia, for the purpose of the construction and maintaining of a greenway trail connecting Route 702 (Fontaine Avenue) and Tax Map 76 Parcel 12D, the Owner shall dedicate to the County a right-of-way sufficient to allow such in,ess and egress across the property from the Rome 820 (West Buckingham Road) right of way to said greenway, wltich shall be a strip of land at a width deemed necessary by the County, but not to exceed fifty (50) feet in width within the area bounded by Morey Creek and Route 820 (West Buckingham Road). If the County does not request that the land be dedicated within twenty-five (25) years after the date these proffers are accepted or if the land is dedicated but at any time thereafter the County determines not to use it for public right-of-way purposes, the land shall 35 ,x ~ ~ A UHMENT reconvene to the'Owner or his assigns. Whether County right-of-way is dedicated, or if open space, the Fontaine Avenue Condominium Home Owners Association shall have right of access from State Route 820 to maintain the Morey Creek pond, water way and wetland area. (9) No retaining wall shall extend more than four (4) feet above grade as measured from the top of the wall to the top of the fill at the base of the wall. Stepped retaining walls; with no step exceeding four (4) feet may be constructed where the grade change to be retained and protected exceeds 4 feet. ~i ~gnamres of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 February 5, 2003 Wes Bradley 2117 Rosalind Avenue Roanoke, VA 24014 RE: ZMA-02-01 Fontaine Avenue Condominiums (Sign # 77, 81) Tax Map 76, Parcels 12A and 12G Dear Mr. Bradley: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 28,2003, by a vote of 5:0, accepted your request for deferral of the above-noted petition. Therefore, this item has been rescheduled as follows: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2003 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -WEDNESDAY. MARCH 5, 2003 The Planning Commission meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. Please note that review of the public hearing items for the March 5th Board meeting will begin at 1:30 p.m. Both the Commission and Board meetings will be held in Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the staff report and tentative agenda one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. MB/jcl Cc: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department o£ Planning & Community Development 40 t Mclntire Road, Room 218 charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 22::E January 23, 2003 BIAS, DORSEY V & IMOGENE S COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY FONTAINE LAND TRUST; WILLIAM W STEVENSON & SHIRLEY L FISHER TRS FOREMAN, SUSAN C/O TRAINING ROOM UVA FOXHAVEN FARM LLC HEILMAN, TY W & SALLY H BROWN & MARY J H MASSIE WlLFONG & NANCY H MATTHEWS, JOHN F MCLERRAN, BARRY J OR MARY E ROOD, VERNON PAUL OR JUDY T SCHMIDT, BARRY R OR PAULA W SMITH, DICK IV OR KARIN MARIE TAYLOR S TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; THOMAS W GILLIAM JR ETAL UNIVERSITY MONTESSOR! SCHOOL INC UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION RE: ZMA 2002-001 Fontaine Avenue Condominiums - Tax Map 76, Parcel 12A Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you as an adjacent property owner that the applicant has requested that the above-noted petition be deferred to the February 11, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. The Albemarle County Planning Commission will take action on this deferral request on January 28, 2003. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors public hearing date will be March 5, 2003. If you should have any question, comments or observations concerning this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 296-5823 ext. 3386 Senior Planner MDB/bib cc: ~la Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Wes Bradley Robert P. Boyle/Jefferson Lodge; LLC Larry Burnett/Jefferson Lodge LLC