Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-10 (night) ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of November 10, 1999 November 11, 1999 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Call to Order. 2. Report on Rural Areas District Section of Comprehensive Plan. · Received. Comments made by various members of BOS and Planning Commission 3. Adjourn. The joint meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m. REGULAR NIGHT MEETING 1. Call to order. 4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. · There were none. 5.1. Adopt resolution supporting RailWatch. · ADOPTED the attached Resolution. 5.2. Adopt resolution for installation of '~/Vatch for Children" signs in Forest Lakes Square in Forest Lakes Subdivision. · ADOPTED the attached Resolution. 5.3. Appropriation: General Fund, $600 (Form #99042). · APPROVED. 5.4. Authorize County Executive to execute drainage easement agreements for Minor Ridge and Brookmill areas. · AUTHORIZED County Executive to execute drainage easement agreements to allow construction to begin without delay, as recommended by staff. 5.5. Truck Restriction in Batesville community (Route 692 between Route 250 West and Route 29.) · AUTHORIZED staff to proceed with the steps required to officially request VdoT/CTB restriction of through trucks on Route 692 between Route 250 West and Route 29. 5.6. Proclamation recognizing November, 1999 as Virginia Literacy Month. · ADOPTED. Chairman presented to Frances Lee Vandell. 5.7. Resolution to Deny Claim Asserted by Karl Mansoor. · ADOPTED the attached Resolution. 5.8. Resolution to Deny Claim Asserted by Michael Gan'ison. · ADOPTED the attached Resolution. 5.9. Request from School Board that Board of Supervisors hold public hearing on SP-99-66, Monticello High School, on December 8, 1999, following the Planning Commission's public hearing on December 7, 1999. · APPROVED. 5.10. Update on Hunting Enforcement Program for Year 1999-2000. · Some Board members mentioned a discrepancy in the numbers provided in the report. ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to Order at 5:30 p.m. All BOS members were present. Planning staff: Incorporate comments into report. Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman. Ail BOS members present. None. Clerk: Forward to RailWatch and copy Juan Wade. Clerk: Forward to Juan Wade. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. County E~ecutive: Execute agreements. Clerk/Juan Wade: Coordinate scheduling of public hearing and other necessary requirements. None. Clerk: Forward to claimant's attorney. Clerk: Forward to claimant's attorney. Clerk: Forward letter to John Baker. Lee Catlin: Clarify the numbers. 6. PUBLIC HEARING on Ordinance to amend Section 9-404 of County Code to establish amounts of license fees for motor Vehicles. · ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. 7. SP-99-54, Covenant Upper School (Si.qn #27). · APPROVED subject to five conditions. 8. SP-99-55. CV201 Route 676 (Ivy Creek Methodist Church) (Sian #43). · REFERRED back to the Planning Commission. 9a. CPA 99-02. Piney Mountain Community Industrial Service Area. · DENIED. 9b. ZMA-99-2. Value America (Si,qns #29&30), · REFERRED back to the Planning Commission. 9c. ZMA-99-3. Value America (Sign #28). · ACCEPTED the applicant's request to WITHDRAW. 10. Discussion: FY 2000/2001 Budget/Salary Recommendation (continued from November 3, 1999.) · RECEIVED. Clerk: Forward Ordinance to County Attomey for inclusion in next update of County Code and copy Melvin Breeden. Clerk: Set out conditions in memo to Wayne Cilimberg. Clerk: Include in memo to Wayne Cilimberg Clerk: Include in memo to Wayne Cilimberg Clerk: Include in memo to Wayne Cilimberg Clerk: Include in memo to Wayne Cilimberg None. 11. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of November 17, 1999. None. · MEETING CANCELLED. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. · Ms. Thomas asked that a report from a recent Water Summit meeting be put on the Board's next consent agenda. · Ms. Thomas asked about the organization of the Water Supply meeting that is being held on November 18th. · Ms. Humphris mentioned that in a set of the Planning Commission minutes she recently read, it kept referring to RWSA when it should have been ACSA. 14. Adjourn to November 18, 1999, 7:00 p.m., Monticello High School. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Clerk: Include on consent agenda. Attachment I - RailWatch Resolution Attachment 2 - '~/Vatch for Children" Resolution Attachment 3 - Resolution to Deny Claim by Karl Mansoor Attachment 4 - Resolution to Deny Claim by Michael Garrison Attachment 5 - Ordinance to amend Section 9-404 Attachment 6 - Planning actions COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, Clerk, C~'w November i 1, 1999 Board Actions of November 10, 1999 At its meeting on November 10, 1999, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. 2. Presentation: Background Report on Rural Areas District Section of Comprehensive Plan. Requested staff to incorporate comments into the report. Item No. 5. I. Adopt resolution supporting RailWatch. · ADOPTED the resolution. Item No. 5.2. Adopt resolution for installation of "Watch for Children" signs in Forest Lakes Square in Forest Lakes Subdivision. ADOPTED the resolution. Item No. 5.5. Truck Restriction in Batesville community (Route 692 between Route 250 West and Route 29.) AUTHORIZED staff to proceed with the steps required to officially request VdoT/CTB restriction of through trucks on Route 692 between Route 250 West and Route 29. Item No. 5.9. Request from School Board that Board of Supervisors hold public heating on SP- 99-66, Monticello High School, on December 8, 1999, following the Planning Commission's public hearing on December 7, 1999. APPROVED the request. Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg November 11, 1999 Page 2 Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-54. Covenant Upper School (Sign #27). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow priv school (upper school campus) in accord w/Sec 14.2.2 (5) of the Zoning Ord. TM9OA, P2, contains 25.933 acs. Znd R-2. Located on Hickory Street near the intersection of Oak Hill Dr (Rt I 113). Scottsville Dist. APPROVED subject to the following conditions provided the site plan is in substantial accord with what was presented to the Planning Commission at its October 12, 1999 meeting, especially related to percentage of impervious surface: The Covenant Upper School shall be operated in accordance with the special use permit application and attached July 23, 1999 letter from Frank D. Cox, Jr., PE AICP, herein included as Attachment B. Student enrollment is not to exceed 550 students; No subdivision of the property or expansion of the school use beyond that stated in the original special use permit application shall occur without amendment of this special use permit: Prior to final site plan approval, the applicant will be responsible for satisfying all Virginia Department of Transportation requirements related to signalization, intersection improvements, and roadway improvements on Stage Coach Road and Oak Hill Drive, and meeting requirements of the Department of Engineering and Public Works regarding traffic management and roadway improvements on Hickory Street; All uses associated with the Covenant Upper School Hickory Street campus shall comply with the commercial setbacks set forth in Section 21.7 and the lighting requirements of Section 4.17(a) of the Zoning Ordinance; and Final site plan approval shall not be granted until the Albemarle County Service Authority approves public sewer service to the site. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-99-55. CV201 Route 676 (Ivy. Creek Methodist Church) (Sign .......... ca~t ~quests defe~al. REFE..RP~E. D hack to the Planning Commission. Agenda Item No. 9a. IEPA 9~-02. ibiney Mountain Communi _ty Industrial Service Area, PUBLIC HEARING to consider an amendment to the Comp Plan Land Use Plan for Piney Mountain Community in that area E of Seminole Trail (Rt 29N),'W of Watts Passage (Rt 600) & N of the N Fork Rivanna River to expand or adjust the Development Area boundary, meaning the Land Use Plan designation may change from Rural Area to Industrial Service and from Industrial Service to Rural Area. DENIED. Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg November 11, 1999 Page 3 Agenda Item No. 9b. ZMA-99-2. Value America (Signs #29&30). m mi Ir' Tlc ADI~'fl''~ ~ ,~,-,.t.,.,.,..o,. ~.,., ,,,..,-,,.,.,,.. ~..., . ,., ,., .., o.,..o ,.,,,_,,,.~ ~.,~ ,. ~,.., ,..,,, ,.~, o.~,,..,,, .-~.,,~,~., "'"'1.' *'"' '-"'~*"'"' "'*"*'~5' "*'""'"'~" *"-' \Ir ^ ~'~ :~1 * . . . Pdvanna D~st. (Apphcant requests deferral.) REFERRED back to the Planning Commission. Agenda Item No. 9c. ZMA-99-3. Value America (Sign #28). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone 17.21 acres from RA to LI to allow a 100,000 sq ft office bldg. TM33, Pi5 (part requests withdrawal.) ACCEPTED the applicant's request to WITHDRAW. Agenda Item No. 1 I. CANCELLED. ,/ewc Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of November 17, 1999. MEETING David P. Bowerman Charlo~ Y. Humphr~ Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY Of ALBEMA~I f Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V'wginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 IAX (804) 296-5800 November 11 1999 Chartez S. Martin Walter E Perkins White Ha~ Sally H. Thomas RailWatch 1436 West Gray PMB #612 Houston, TX 77019-4946 Dear Sir or Madam: At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on November I 0, 1999, the Board adopted the attached resolution supporting RailWatch and its efforts to educate the public about railroad safety. Sincerely, 'Ella W. Carey,/C}erk, CMC I /ewe cc: Juan Wade Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION WHEREAS; there is a train accident every ninety minutes; and WHEREAS; a train carrying hazardous materials goes off the tracks somewhere in the United States roughly every two weeks, resulting in a spill and the evacuation of people living nearby; and WHEREAS; local cify and counfy officials have no wntrol over train speeds in their communities although they have the most familiarity with local traffic patterns; and WHEREAS; railroads use 1930's safety technology that jeopardizes the safe~y of everyone including railroad employees; and WHEREAS; according to the Federal Railroad Administration, more than 80 percent of public railroad crossings are unprotected by lights and gates; and WHEREAS; investigations have uncovered alarming safe~y violations including defective train equipment, overworked employees, a failure by companies to provide employee training and employees who are encouraged not to report equipment defects or injuries. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Counfy, Virginia, does hereby support RaiIWatch and its efforts to educate the public about railroad safety, and joins RailWatch in calling for a wmplete and thorough investigation of railroad safe~y by the United States Congress. L Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, wrrect copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Counfy by vote of six to zero at a regular meeting held on November i O, 1999. --~Clerk, Board o~f Coun~/$~ervisors / / / / / COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Information on RailWatch SU BJECTIPROPOSALIREQU EST: Resolution for the Board of Supervisors to RailWatch and its efforts to educate the public about railroad safety. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Benish,Cilimberg,Wade AGENDA DATE: November 10, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: .~~"---'-----' BACKGROUND: The RailWatch organization mailed the Board of Supervisors (BOS) information about its organization along with a resolution requesting the BOS endorsement for RailWatch efforts to educate the public about railroad safety. This information was presented to the Board of Supervisors at its October 6, 1999 meeting. The Board of Supervisors requested that Planning staff investigate this organization's objectives further and to inquire with the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) about their knowledge of the objectives. DISCUSSION: RailWatch is a new organization. It has been around less than a year. The earliest members of the organization were mayors and city council members who had problems dealing with the railroads at the local level. Some of their supporters include: more than 75 local officials, the Ohio Association of Elementary Administrators, the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, the Minnesota Secondary School Principals and the Texas Municipal Police Association. RailWatch is attempting to build a strong national, grassroots organization of individuals and organizations who share their concerns. RailWatch sends regular newsletters and updates to its supporters. They sent the same request to others cities and towns in Virginia. If the Board of Supervisors chooses to support RailWatch, the County would receive the newsletter and updates as well. Their most immediate goal is for Congress to hold in-depth, thorough hearings on railroad safety The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation does not know too much about this organization. Their understanding of RailWatch is that it is an organization that promotes improving the safety of railroad crossings. VDRPT supports this, but realizes that it would be very expensive and impractical to improve the safety of all problem railroad crossings at one time. They see no problem with supporting a resolution if it is general in nature. RailWatch has given each locality the flexibility of to rewrite the resolution, but staff does not think it is necessary to amend the resolution from RailWatch. It does not commit the County to anything, but it does express our support for improving rail safety. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors support the resolution from RailWatch. 99.209 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Forest Lakes Community Association, Incorporated, is concemed about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play in the subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Association believes that five '~Natch for Children" signs located near the Clubhouses would help alleviate some the concems; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install five "Watch for Children" signs on Ashwood Boulevard (Route 1670) and Timberwood Boulevard (Route 1721). I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of six to zero on November 10, 1999. ~-C~erk, Board o~Supervis/gr~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Forest Lakes Square "Watch For Children" Sign SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to install Watch For Children signs in the Forest Lakes subdivision STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg,Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: November 10, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY:.~~''~''~' BACKGROUND: The residents of Forest Lakes and South Forest Lakes have requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to install a total of five "Watch For Children" signs on Ashwood Boulevard (Route 1670) and Timberwood Boulevard (Route 1721). This request requires a resolution of support from the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On March 3, 1999, the Board of Supervisors endorsed new guidelines for the installation of "Watch for Children" signs. Staff will use these new guidelines to review this request. "Watch for Children" signs shall only be considered on seconda~ roads. The residents have requested the signs be located at the following locations:' Two signs on Ashwood Blvd near the South Forest Lakes Clubhouse and three on Timberwood Blvd near the Forest Lakes Clubhouse and Tennis Courts. Both of these roads are secondary roads. These signs will alert all vehicles to be cautious as they drive in the vicinity of these areas. 2. The request must come from a Homeowner's Association where applicable. Please find attached a letter requesting the signs from the Forest Lakes Community Association. 3. There must be child activity attraction nearby for the sign to be considered. The signs will be located near two large athletic facilities. The installation of the sign shall not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. The proposed location of the sign will not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. Staff will work with VDOT to determine the exact location for the signs. RECOMM EN DATIO N: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse a resolution supporting "Watch for Children" signs at the requested locations in Forest Lakes and South Forest Lakes. 99.207 October 21, 1999 FOREST_LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. INC. RECE!VFD PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Juan Wade Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Juan, At our Forest Lakes Community Association Board of Directors meeting on October 12, 1999, the Board voted to request from the County and VDOT, that "Watch for Children" signs be installed at the locations indicated on the enclosed map. As you can see on the map, signs 1 & 2 are for our Forest Lakes North athletic facilities and signs 3 & 4 are for our Forest Lakes South athletic facilities. If you have any questions, please call me. Yours very truly, Post Office Box 8084. 1824 Timberwood Boulevard Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 (804) 973-7222 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, DirectOr of Finance Ella W. Carey, cMc, CI~ November 11, 1999 Board Actions of November I O, 1999 At its meeting on November 10, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved the following: 5.3 Appropriation: General Fund, $600 (Form #99042). Attached is the signed appropriation form. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend Section 9-404 of the County Code to establish amounts of license fees for motor vehicles. ADOPTED the attached ordinance. /ewc Attachments pc: Anne Gulati Robert Walters APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99~00 NUMBER 99042 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SPCA FROM DMV ANIMAL FRIENDLY LICENSE PLATES. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1000 39000 565510 SPCA-ANIMALFRIENDLY $600.00 TOTAL $600.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1000 22000 220106 STATE REVENUE-DMV $600.00 TOTAL $600.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE NOV. 2, 1999 //-//-?? COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - General Fund SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #99042 receiving and disbursing $600.00 from the sale of special license plates by the Division of Motor Vehicles to support dog and cat sterilization. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. Gulati AGENDA DATE: November 10, 1999 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes / BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has been selling the Animal Friendly license plates as part of its special license plate program. The plate is issued to support dog and cat sterilization programs at a cost of $25.00 per year in addition to the regular vehicle registration fee. After the first 1,000 sets of license plates are sold, $15.00 of the fee is made available to the locality where the vehicle is registered to be used to support the sterilization program. For fiscal year 1999, Albemarle County is due $600.00 from this fund. Virginia Code Section 46.2-749 requires that these funds be used for the sterilization program. If the locality does not have a program, it may make the funds available to any private, nonprofit sterilization program in the locality. Albemarle County does not have this program, however, the Albemarle S.P.C.A. does. It is recommended that these funds be made available for use by the Albemarle S.P.C.A. to support their sterilization program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations as detailed on Appropriation #99042. 99.211 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY'- AGENDA TITLE: Stormwater Control Projects Minor Ridge and Brookmill Areas SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Request to Approve Drainage Easements AGENDA DATE: November 10, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHME. NT.S: Map.of Project Locations STAFF CONTACT(S): REVIEWED BY: ~--/~~ Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Mawyer / BACKGROUND: The Stormwater Program was established in the Capital Improvements Program to purchase, construct and maintain permanent stormwater control facilities throughout the County. Stormwater control facilities include collection and conveyance structures such as ponds, basins, underground pipes and aboveground channels and ditches. These structures are part of stormwater management systems designed to detain runoff, prevent downstream flooding, minimize soil erosion and improve water quality in our streams. In July of this year, the Board approved construction of the following stormwater projects: Minor Ridge Piping Replace ment: A major underground pipe replacement project to provide additional capacity and prevent flooding in and around 20 residences in the Wynridge subdivision. This project is located north of Greenbrier Drive and west of Commonwealth Drive. The stormwater system accepts runoff from a larger drainage area including the new Greenbrier Office Park. Construction Budget: $250,000 Brookmill Stream Bank Repairs: An environmentally significant project to rebuild an eroded stream bank of Meadow Creek. The purpose of this project is to protect ten residences adjacent to the river, reduce sedimentation of the stream and improve the health of Meadow Creek. The Brookmill subdivision is located in the Branchlands area, south of Greenbrier Drive. Construction Budget: $50,000 Both of these projects are located on privately owned properties. Construction is scheduled to begin by January 1 st DISCUSSION: In addition to construction funding, the County must develop a strategy to address the maintenance of stormwater systems. The County Attorney's Office advises that a public benefit must be derived from the expenditure of public funds and a permanent drainage easement dedicating the system to public use must be obtained. With regards to the Minor Ridge and Brookmill projects, there are several alternatives to gain a public benefit and to address maintenance responsibility: The County and the property owners can agree to permanent drainage easements dedicating the system "to public use". An easement of this nature will give the County access to the system and an obligation to maintain the system. AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: Page 2 of 2 Stormwater Control Projects November 10, 1999 Minor Ridge and Brookmill Areas The County and the property owners can agree to permanent drainage easements dedicating the system "to public use", but specifically agreeing that the County will not be responsible for maintaining the system. An easement of this nature will give the County access to the system with no obligation to maintain the system. Mr. Bowerman and Engineering representatives have met with the residents of these neighborhoods to review their flooding and erosion problems. There is a high expectation from these residents, as a result of the Board's action in July, that the County will proceed with the construction measures necessary to alleviate their concerns and complete the work by the spring growing season so their yards can be reestablished. A work session with the Board has been scheduled for December 1st to review construction, maintenance and dedication issues related to our Stormwater Program and the alternatives to fund anticipated costs. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the County Executive to execute drainage easement agreements for these projects to allow construction to begin without delay. Engineering recommends the easement for Minor Ridge properties be written as outlined by alternative #1, while the easement for Brookmill properties should be written as outlined by alternative #2. The maintenance obligation included in Alternative #1 is not recommended for the Brookmill project because the project involves the restoration of a stream bank. This type of stabilization is subject to the uncontrollable actions of major storms and may not be a reasonable obligation of County resources. 99.213 TOWNWOOD SO~ EARLY: :I=22 WOOOL DOMINION COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Truck Restriction in Batesville SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to restrict trucks in the Batesville community AGENDA DATE: November 10, 1999 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimber~h Benish, Wade / BACKGROUND: The Batesville Ruritan Club has requested that VDOT restrict through trucks in the Batesville community (Attachment A). VDOT reviewed the request and forwarded it the County for a resolution from the Board of Supervisors. The guidelines for truck restrictions on State maintained roads are found in Attachment B in italics. Staff has attempted to address these guidelines below each italicized statement. This section of road began to see increased through truck traffic after state and local officials began to strictly enforce truck height and weight limits on Route 151 in Nelson County. Route 692 was an alternate route for those trucks with Route 29 South destinations. The Board of Supervisors may hold a public hearing for this request, although it is not required. The Commonwealth TranSportation Board (CTB) has the final determination on all truck restriction requests. DISCUSSION: According to staff review, the through truck restriction on Route 692 meets four of the VDOT's five criteria. It should be noted that this area is also the home of several residents with dump trucks, logging often takes place in the area, deliveries to Little Market and Pages Market are done by truck, and there are some orchards in the area that use trucks. Trucks with an origin or destination along the restricted road section are not prohibited from travel along the posted section if the request is granted. Based on staff's review of the through truck restriction criteria, this request appears to be a reasonable and justifiable request for Commonwealth Transportation Board consideration. If authorized by the Board of Supervisors, staff will take the necessary steps to officially request VDOT and the CTB to restrict through trucks on Route 692 between Route 250 West and Route 29 South (See Attachment C). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors authorize staff to proceed with the steps required to officially request VDOT/CTB restriction of through trucks on Route 692 between Route 250 West and Route 29. c: Angela Tucker 99.212 ATTACHMENT A Batesville Ruritan Club Batesville, Va 22924 Resolution Request for "No Through Truci~' Designation for Route 692 Whereas, the Batesville Ruritan Club has historically represented the Batesville Community and continues to do so, and Whereas, State Route 692, Plank Road, is the main mad of our residential community, and Whereas, there has been increased truck traffic on Rt. 692 due to stricter enforcement of nearby "No Truck" mutes (Rts. 6 & 151), and Whereas, the configuration and speed limit of this road is not suitable to constant track traffic, and Whereas, the increase in truck traffic represents a threat to the safety and-well being of the residents of Batesville, therefore Be It Resolved, that the Batesville Ruritan Club request that the State and County declare Rt. 692 in Batesville a "No Through Track" mute, and Be it further resolved, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors and the Virginia Department of Transportation for their consideration. Passed unanimously at the March l 8, 1999 meeting of the Batesville Ruritan Club. Attest: $ohn K. Pollock, Secretary RECEIVED JUN 0 4 1999 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT B Reasonable alternate routing is provided. To be considered "reasonable", the alternate reute(s) must be engineered to a standard sufficient for truck travel. The effect on the alternate routing will be evaluated for traffic and safety related impacts. If an alternate contains a Secondary route that must be upgraded, funds must be provided from the county Secondary construction funds. The termini of the proposed restriction must be identical to the alternate reuting and effectively equivalent to allow a time and distance comparison to be conducted between the two routings. Also, the alternate routing must not create an undue hardship for trucks in reaching their destination. Although the through truck restriction request is for Batesville, the restriction must cover Route 692 between Route 250 West and Route 29 South. This proposed restricted area is 10.5 miles. It takes approximately 14 minutes to drive it going the posted speed limit. The closest reasonable alternate route would be a distance of approximately 24 miles and would take approximately 25 minutes traveling the posted speed limit. The alternate route would be to travel: · On Rt. 29 from Rt. 692 northbound to 1-64; then, · 1-64 west bound to Route 250 at the Yancey Mills exit; then, · Route 250 westbound to Route 692. Route 6, to the south, already has a truck restriction from Route 151 to Route 250. Interstate 64 is the next closest road capable of handling truck traffic. The alternate route adds an additional 11 minutes to the trip for the through trucks. Staff considers this a reasonable alternate route, therefore this criteria is satisfied. The road requested for restriction is functionally classified as local or collector. Route 692 is classified as a major collector and, therefore, meets this criterion. The other secondary roads in the area are local or collector roads and are not capable of handling the current truck traffic on Route 692. The County would have to use their secondary funds to upgrade any secondary roads in the area to accommodate truck traffic. The character and/or frequency of the truck traffic on the route proposed for restriction is not compatible with the affected area. According to VDOT's guidelines, a road with total traffic volumes between 1000 - 2000 should have a total truck volume range of 50 - 100 to meet the criteria. VDOT considers this truck volume the "total" truck volume and not the "through" truck volume. The daily traffic on the proposed restricted area is approximately 1,500 including a total truck traffic of 90 according to VDOT's most current traffic count. The proposed restricted area meets this criteria. The engineering of the roadway and/or the accident history of the route proposed for restriction indicate that it is not suitable for truck traffic. According to the Albemarle County Police Department records, there were six accidents on Route 692 between 1995 and 1998. Three of these took place in the vicinity of intersecting Routes 693 and 635, but staff could not establish any particular historical pattern to these accidents. None of these involved trucks and five of the drivers were residents of Albemarle County. While sections of the road are relatively narrow, with hills and curves, the accident data does not appear to indicate a problem with truck traffic, VDOT will do a more detailed analysis of this criteria if the Board of Supervisors decides to request a through truck restriction. Route 692 is marked with a centerline only from Batesville to Route 29. Staff took several road surface measurements between Batesville and Route 250. The measurements were: 17 feet 6 inches =near the intersection of Rt. 250 18 feet 9 inches =near the intersection of Rt. 691 16 feet 11 inches =at the bridge west of Batesville (the posted weight for this bridge is 18 tons) 20 feet 6 inches =in Batesville at the parking lot for Pages The narrow bridge west of Batesville (structure #6079) has a 18 ton weight limit. Staff believes this weight limit should restrict most large trucks. It is staff's opinion that this through truck restriction request will meet this criterion due mainly to the weight restriction on the bridge west of Batesville and other road geometrics restrictions. Within 150' of the existing or proposed roadway center#ne, there must be at least 12 dwellings per 1000 feet of roadway. There are approximately 12 dwellings within the boundary of Batesville. VDOT only will consider residences in this calculation. The area of proposed through truck restriction is approximately 9.5 miles and Batesville is the only area with any semblance of residential concentration. Under this criteria, homes are counted on both sides of the road and the average number of dwellings per 1000 feet is calculated along the entire proposed restricted area. Along the entire length of Rt. 692 there would need to be approximately 80 -100 foot frontage lots with homes on both sides for the entire length. This criterion is rarely met outside urban or suburban settings. This restriction request does not meet these criteria. Summary: Failure to satisfy at least three of the five criteria will normally result in the rejection of the requested restriction. According to staff review, the through truck restriction on Route 692 meets four of VDOT's five criteria. 99.212B ATTACHMENT C RES~ZC?INO THROUGH ?RUCRS ON ~ND~Y ~e=~ton 46.2~09 (f~rmerly ~t~ 46.1-17~.2) o~ ~o ~e q~erntn~ ~, 8~tor M~d ~y ~ ~o~d p~ henr~ngs, ~y, ~o~nati~. e~ep~ a pAc~up or ~eA t~c~, ~ ny oiling o~ C~e ~monweilth. Nothing ~rein ~ll a~f~t the vnAAdity o~ ~y ~y ~hartor provAH~ or oily o~ninoe ~naure ~h~ a~ oon~erned have an op~r~un~ty ~o provide input the pro--ed re~C~tc~ i~ alternite route, ~e ~O~OW~ng ~ be adhered C~e pro~d throu~ ~uc~ re~tr~0~ and ~he ~lte~te route W~ ~he ~_~C~- A ~ o~ t~ no2~s must be (~) ~ p~l~c bearing ~M~ .be held by the l~al g~vern~ng TEL: 3un 1~ 99 1~:16 No.O05 P.O~; (C) The ~e~o~ut~on m__u~ describe the proposed (D) ~e governing b~y mu~t ~n~lude ~ the ~e~ted throug~ ~ruu~ r~Criution. NOV--09--99 TUE 12 :$i PM LIT£RACYlVOLUNT££R~ICH--~_, , . $~4977585~ .... , P.el CERTIFICATE of RECOG TION VIRGINIA LITERACY MOWI~H letting and Ls =sscar~ ~ thg gmwtl~ ~ success of ~ ci~n ~ o~ gr~t math and critical rain. n{, and these st. ifl.~ are tcqu~ to accon~h a variety of WBF, REAS. Farew. s are their children's ~ teacher, prcpm-tns theb children to 1~ mi n~;_~_ in school and their environment; and WBEREAS, Vksb2a's St~ of~ kolp to ensure trust young students across the Commonwealth n~sttr all ~ areas, includtn~ reading; and WI~REA~, a literate workforce is easent~ to oar great Commonwealth c~mpeti~i,~enm~ anio~ othea' national markets; and ~, Vir~h~a Literacy Month will c:~.cura$c at~d promote litcra~ and lifelong leami~ actm,s our lreat state; NOW, THRRF~ORE, I, Jame~ S. Oitmore. m, do hereby reco~aize Novemeer 1999 as Vl~GI~A LITERACY MOIFI'H In tho COMMONT~ALTH OF VIRGINIA, and Icnll this observance to the attention of~dl our citizem, ~ec~d#rd of the Cemmomeeattk David R Bo~em~n Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marsh~, Jr. COUIVI'Y OF Al REMARI F. Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlotte~lle, Vh~inia 229024596 (804) 296-584,3 FAX (804) 296-5800 November 11, 1999 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Deborah C. Wyatt, Esquire Wyatt & Carter 300 Court Square P.O. Box 2726 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-2726 Re: Karl Mansoor v. Albemarle County; Notice of Claim Dear Ms. Wyatt: You are hereby given notice that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, on November 10, 1999, adopted the attached resolution denying the claim of Karl Mansoor against the County of Albemarle presented in your letter of October 18, 1999. Sincerely, ~ W: Carey,'CMC- _~'~ Clerk, Board of Superiors ! Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM ASSERTED BY KARL MANSOOR WHEREAS, Karl Mansoor, by counsel, has asserted a $100,000 claim against the County of Albemarle arising ~om alleged wrongful actions of the Albemarle County Police Department; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the claim is not supported by the facts or by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia denies the claim of Karl Mansoor for alleged damages in the amount of $100,000. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a meeting held on November 10, 1999. _ ~ --/ Clerk, Board of County SupervisOrs Aye Nay Mr. Marshall Y Mr. Bowerman Y Mr. Perkins Y Ms. Humphris Y Mr. Martin Y Ms. Thomas Y David P. Bowerman Charlott~ Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMaRi F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V'L~inia 2290245915 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296--5800 November 11, 1999 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas George M. Coles, Jr., Esquire 415 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Michael Garrison v. Albemarle County; Notice of Claim Dear Mr. Co~s: You are hereby given notice that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, on November 10, 1999, adopted the attached resolution denying the claim of Michael Garrison against the County of Albemarle presented in your letter of October 6, 1999. Sincerely, Clerk, Board of Superv/i4~rs Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Hurnphfis Forrest R. ~all, Jr. COUntY Of ^t B~I F~ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V'Lrginia 22902-4S96 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 November ! 1, 1999 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Wh~e Ha~ Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. John E. Baker, Chairman Albemarle County Schools 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Baker: At its meeting on November 10, 1999, the Board of Supervisors agreed to hold its public hearing on SP~99-66, Monticello High School, on December 8, 1999. The Planning Commission's hearing will be held on December 7, 1999. A copy of the Board's agenda for this meeting will be forwarded to you prior to the meeting. Sincerely, "a w. ~arey, Clerk, Cp¢lC / /ewc CC: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Dr. Kevin C. Castner Printed on recycled paper ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 November 10, 1999 Charles Martin, Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Martin: The school division is currently in negotiations with the Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR) to rent the Monticello High School for approximately 40 days beginning in md-June of 2000 to conduct the grading of international qualifying exams for Certified Financial Analysts. The 40 days would include approximately 20 days for the actual grading of the exams, with the remaining days used for setup and cleanup. AIMR, which is based in Charlottesville, is a global, non-stock, non-profit professional organization that serves the worldwide investment community. The school division stands to earn approximately $140,000-$180,000 after expenses for this rental, which could be used to address many critical instructional needs. The Child Nutrition Program would also contract separately with AIMR for meal services during the rental period. Earnings from providing meal services could be utilized for long-term equipment needs for this £mancially self-sustaining program. In working with local government staff on the logistics of this possible rental agreement, the school division was advised by the Zoning Department that a Special Use Permit would be required for this use of the Monticello facility. This permit would be required because the area where Monticello High School is located is zoned R15 (High Density Residential). The activities involved in the rental would be more consistent with a CO (Commercial Office Zoning). In response, the School Board authorized the application for the Special Use Permit. The Planning Department has indicated that based on the normal process, a decision by the Board of Supervisors on this application would not be forthcoming until approximately the middle of January. We have been informed by AIMR of the need to know that the Special Use Permit would be granted by as early as possible in December, in case other facility arrangements needed to be made. Because of the need for AIMR to know the status of the application at an earlier point, and because of the significant financial implications for the school division involved, I have been asked by the School Board to request the Board of Supervisors to ask local government staffto expedite the Special Use Permit approval process. Specifically, I would ask that the Planning Commission review this request at its December 7 meeting and that the Board of Supervisors consider it at its December 8 meeting. I know that this request represents a major deviation form normal procedure; however, the revenue that this rental would generate could be used in a number of ways to support our students. The School Board would deeply appreciate the Supervisors' consideration of this special request. As always, thank you for your strong support of our schools. ,Sir~er~y, Chairman cc: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, County Executive Dr. Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County School Board "We Expect Success" COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Hunting Enforcement Program- Year 1999/00 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Report on Upcoming Expanded Hunting Enforcement Program for General Rifle Season Beginning STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Ms. Catlin AGENDA DATE: November 10, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes. REVIEWED By: .~~'~'~'''''''' BACKGROUND: In response to citizen concern regarding illegal hunting, the Board authorized additional county resources to supplement the effort of the game wardens during the 1998/99 deer hunting season. The Albemarle County Sheriffs Department provided specially trained auxiliary and off-duty deputies to heighten law enforcement visibility in the field, speed the response of officers to calls and respond to routine calls for service so that game wardens could concentrate their efforts on responding to more serious hunting-related incidents. Statistics gathered from the police and sheriff departments and from the game wardens indicate that efforts to increase contact and visibility were successful. The data also provides baseline statistics to use in analyzing future enforcement efforts. Based on assessments from all involved parties, the effort was deemed successful and additional resources were added by the Board of Supervisors to allow an expanded hunting enforcement effort to go forward during the 1999/00 deer hunting season. DISCUSSION: The Shedff's Department will again be providing specially trained auxiliary and off-duty deputies to meet the enforcement goals stated above. These deputies have received five sessions of training encompassing traffic stops, radio communications, reporting, fire arms, officer survival and field training to prepare them for this effort. The deputies have developed a calendar of special enforcement details that will allow them to concentrate manpower during the times of highest demand, specifically weekends and holidays. In addition, the Police Department's Community Policing Division will be coordinating special details involving police officers to supplement the efforts of the deputies and the game wardens. While a strong emphasis will be placed on locating and arresting violators, an important aspect of the program will also be preventing illegal hunting through education, outreach and continued visibility and contact with the hunting population. The following is a brief recap of statistics compiled from the three law enforcement agencies involved in this effort. A complete summary of the activities of the game wardens was received from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries on November 2, 1999, and is attached. 67 charges placed by game wardens 10 of 11 convicted of failure to wear blaze orange 6 of 8 convicted of trespass to hunt posted property 4 of 4 convicted of trespass to hunt unposted property 6 of 9 convicted of hunting without required license 4 of 4 convicted of violating department regulations AGENDA TITLE: Hunting Enforcement Program -Year 1999/00 November 10, 1999 Page 2 I of 1 2 of 2 5 of 6 convicted of 8 of 8 convicted of 8 of 8 convicted of I of 1 convicted of 1 of 1 convicted of 1 of 1 convicted of 1 of 1 convicted of 2 of 2 convicted of convicted of trespass by use of ATV convicted of exceeding daily bag limit possessing illegal wildlife transporting loaded firearm in vehicle killing wild animal in closed season hunting with unlawful firearm possession of firearm by felon concealed weapon possessing illegal weapon discharging firearm from highway 69 calls for service answered by game wardens 9 charges placed by county police officers 1 of 2 convicted of spotlighting I of 3 convicted of discharge of weapons in roadway 1 of 1 convicted of failure to tag deer 2 of 3 convicted of trespass on posted property 1 charge placed by deputies 1 of 1 convicted of discharge of weapons in roadway 187 hunters checked by deputies 165 public contacts by deputies 86 calls for service answered by deputies RECOMMENDATION: No action is required by the Board regarding this item. 99.210 ALBEMARLE COUNTY GAME VIOLATION SUMMARY 1998-1999 SEASON Code Cite Conviction Dismissed Fail to Wear Blaze Orange 29.1-530.1 Yes $55.00 29.1-530.1 Yes $55.00 29.1-530.1 Yes $65.00 29.1-530.1 Yes $55.00 29.1-530.1 Yes $55.00 29.1-530.1 Yes $80.00 29.1-530.1 Yes $30.00 29.1-530.1 Yes $17.00 18.2-560.1 Yes $2.00 29.1-530.1 Yes $30.00 29.1-530.1 Yes Trespass to HUnt Posted Property 18.2-134 Yes $65.00 18.2-134 Yes $105.00 18.2-134 Yes $105.00 18.2-134 Yes $105.00 18.2-134 Yes 18.2-134 Yes $80.00 18.2-134 Yes $80.00 18.2-134 Yes Trespass to Hunt Property (Not Posted) 18.2-132 Yes 18.2-132 Yes 18.2-132 Yes 18.2-132 Yes Hunt Without Required License 29.1-335 Yes 29.1-335 29.1-335 29.1-335 29.1-335 Yes 29.1-335 Yes 29.1-335 Yes 29.1-335 Yes 29.1-335 Yes Violate Department Regulations 29.1-505 Yes 29.1-505 Yes 29.1-505 Yes 29.1-505 Yes Trespass by Use of ATV 46.2-915.1 Yes Exceed Daily Bag Limit 4VAC 15-230-9 Yes 4VAC 15-230-9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Fines/Costs $80.00 $52.00 $80.00 $80.00 $30.00 $105.00 $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $55.00 $80.00 $80.00 ALBEMARLE COUNTY GAME VIOLATION SUMMARY 1998-1999 SEASON Code Cite Conviction Possess Illegal Wildlife 29.1-521 Yes 29.1-521 29.1-521 Yes 29.1-521 Yes 29.1-521 Yes 29.1-521 Yes Transporting Loaded Firearm in Vehicle 18.2-287.1 Yes 18'.2-287.1 Yes 18.2-287.1 Yes 18.2-287.1 Yes 18.2-287.1 Yes 18.2-287.1 Yes 18.2-287.1 Yes 18.2-287.1 Yes Kill Wild Animal in Closed Season 29.1-552 Yes 29.1-552 Yes 29.1-548 Yes 29.1-548 Yes 29.1-548 Yes 29.1-548 Yes 29.1-548 Yes 29.1-548 Yes Hunt With Unlawful Firearm 29.1-5 i 9 Yes Possess Firearm by Felon 18.2-308.2 Yes Concealed Weapon 18.2-308 Yes Possess Unlawful Weapon 18.2-308.5 Discharge Firearm from Highway 18.2-2~86 Yes 18.2-286 Yes Dismissed Fines/Costs Yes No $80.00 $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $55.00 $55.00 $60.00 $80.00 $55.00 $60.00 $55.00 $55.00 $380.00. $380.00 $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $60.00 $810.00 $80.00 $50.00 $100.00 1999 THIRD QUARTER BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 INDEX I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C& D) III.Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart E) IV, Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F-H) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA Single-Family (includes modular) Single-Family Attached Single-Family Townhouse Duplex Multi-Family Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) Accessory Apartment During the third quarter of 1999, 192 permits were issued for 193 dwelling units. In addition, 4 permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $10,000. I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIA,L DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month MONTH 1991 ' 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 JAN 64 183 49 190 50 26 54 38 49 FEB 31 72 56 53 43 44 44 39 84 MAR 57 64 58 72 47 61 57 65 65 APR 62 72 76 69 46 71 75 62 102 MAY 44 62 45 60 41 63 118 65 55 JUN 64 48 79 70 62 41 89 85 75 JUL 58 62 81 186 51 87 59 74 69 AUG 58 126 116 49 44 105 34 221 56 SEP 55 48 45 47 56 64 48 68 68 OCT 39 43 68 51 42 186 216 61 NOV 42 49 65 60 66 43 49 48 DEC 50 37 67 32 48 44 62 48 TOTAL 614 866 805 939 595 835 905 874 623 Chart B, Three Year Corn parison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month IChart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U.s by Month z (.9 z 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MD NTH 1[]1996 []1997 D1998 I Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development. Office of Mapping, Graphics. and Information Resources -3- Quarter 3 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. D.U. RIO 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 5% JACK JOUETT 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4% RIVANNA 65 10 6 0 0 1 1 83 43% SAMUEL MILLER 39 0 0 0 0 2 0 41 21% SCOTTSVILLE 14 4 0 0 0 4 0 22 11% WHITE HALL 23 2 0 0 0 6 0 31 16% TOTAL 156 16 6 0 0 14 1 193 100% Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 14 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 14 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 21 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 RIVANNA VI LLAGE 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 71 16 6 0 0 0 0 93 RURAL AREA 1 15 0 0 0 0 5 0 20 RURAL AREA 2 23 0 0 0 0 I I 25 RURAL AREA 3 36 0 0 0 0 3 0 39 RURAL AREA 4 11 0 0 0 0 5 0 16 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 85 0 0 0 0 14 1' 100 TOTAL 156 16 6 0 0 14 1 193 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources Quarter 3 II1. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Chart E. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. Amount-$ No. Amounts No. Amount-$ No. Amounts No. Amount-$ RIO 11 1,459,740 23 321,707 6 1,833,002 25 1,671,063 65 5,285,512 JOUETT 7 1,946,000 15 350,494 2 30,001 5 206,435 29 2,532,930 RIVANNA 82 12,918,584 75 1,662,351 8 490,500 19 6,244,910 184 21,316,345 S. MILLER 41 10,726,085 51 2,040,625 1 5,000 5 196,112 98 12,967,822 SCO~-I'SVILLE 21 1,550,600 51 2,015,552 2 1,050,000 14 97,929 88 4,714,081 WHITE HALL 30 4,055,636 64 1,392,992 2 17,000 11 276,807 107 5,742,435 · TOTAL 192 32,656,645 279 7,783,721 21 3,425,503 79 8,693,256 571 52,559,125 Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential Alteration Category. IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY Chart F. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL PERCENT DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. TOTAL D.U. Agnor-Hurt 4 0 9 0 25 01 0 38 19.69% Broadus Wood/Sutherlan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Broadus Wood/Jouett 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.55% Brownsville 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 6.22% Crozet 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 5.18% Greer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Hollymead 10 3 8 0 0 0 0 21 10.88% Meriwether Lewis/Henley 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.55% Meriwether Lewis/Jouett 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3.63% Murray 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5.18% Red Hill 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.59% Cale/Buriey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Cale/Walton 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 25 12.95% Scottsville 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.59% Stone Robinson/Burley 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 7.77% Stone Robinson/Walton 2 0 0 0 0 I 0 3 1.55% Stony Point/Burley 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.55% Stony Point)Sutherland 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.59% Woodbrook 18 5 0 0 0 0 0 23 11.92% Yancey 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.59% TOTAL 130 20 17 0 25 1 0 193 100.00% Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development. Office of Mapping, Graphics. and Information Resources -5- Quarter 3 IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (continued) Chart G, Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SFfTH DUP MF MHC AA RIO 11 0 0 0 25 0 0 36 JACK JOUETT 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2i RIVANNA 44 8 17 0 0 0 0 69 SAMUEL MILLER 25 2 0 0 0 1 0 28 SCOTTSVILLE 23 6 0 0 0 0 0 29 WHITE HALL 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 29 TOTAL 130 20 17 0 25 I 0 193 Chart H. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 11 0 9 0 25 0 0 45 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 15 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 15 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 20 5 8 0 0 0 0 33 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 RIVANNA VILLAGE 8 0 0 0 .0 .,, 0 ' 0 8 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 70 20 17 0 25 0 0 132 RURAL AREA 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 RURAL AREA 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 RURAL AREA 3 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 RURAL AREA 4 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 16 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 60 0 0 0 0 I 0 61 TOTAL 130 20 17 0 25 1 0 193 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development. Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources To: From: Subject: Date: Marsha Davis Ella Washington Carey, Clerk,]C/~ Ordinance Adopted by Board b~h November 10, 1999 November i 1, 1999 The attached ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 10, 1999. The ordinance is forwarded to you for inclusion in your next update of the County Code. · to amend Section 9-404 of the County Code to establish amounts of license fees for motor vehicles. /EWC Attachments ORDINANCE NO. 99-9(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE IV, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, 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 9, Motor Vehicles And Traffic Article IV, County Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 9-404, License fees--Amounts, as follows: Sec. 9-404 License fees--Amounts. A. On all motor vehicles, except as otherwise specifically provided in this article, there shall be an annual license fee based on gross vehicle weight. The fee shall be twenty-three dollars ($23.00) for vehicles with gross vehicle weights of four thousand (4,000) pounds or less and twenty-eight ($28.00) for gross weights in excess of four thousand (4,000) pounds. Gross maximum loaded weight shall be substituted for gross vehicle weight for motor vehicles not designed and used primarily for the transportation of passengers. B. On every motorcycle there shall be an annual license fee of eighteen dollars ($18.00); and an additional license fee of three dollars ($3.00) for each sidecar for each motbrcycle. C. On every trailer or semitrailer not designed and used for transportation of passengers, there shall be an annual license fee as follows: Gross Weight Annual Fee 0 - 1,500 lbs. $ 8.00 1,501 lbs. and above $18.50 D. In the case of a combination of a tractor-trailer or semitrailer, each vehicle constituting a part of such combination shall be licensed as a separate vehicle. E. On every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon which well-drilling machinery is attached or other "specialized mobile equipment" as defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-700(B), there shall be an annual license fee of fifteen dollars ($15.00). (Code 1967, § 12-93; 1-18-73; 6-7-89; Code 1988, § 12-25; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 46.2-694, 46.2-694.1, 46.2-700 and 46.2-701. This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2000. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of 3/lbemarle/C!o. unty, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meetin~)nNoy?/n ,bfir 10, 1999. C~rl~, Boar~''~'~ Vd of Co~ty Supervisors / Aye Nay ! Mr. Bowerman Y Ms. Humphris Y Mr. Marshall Y Mr. Martin Y Mr. Perkins Y Ms. Thomas Y COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendment of Motor Vehicle License Fees SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Ordinance to amend Section 9-404 of the County Code to set motor vehicle fees at amounts consistent with State Code maximums. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker/Davis/Breeden AGENDA DATE: November 10, 1999 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: IN FORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes - Draft Ordinance REVIEWED By://~~''''-'--~' BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-752(A), the County assesses a license fee on motor vehicles, trailers, and semitrailers. The amount of the local license fee may be equal to but not greater than the amount of the license tax imposed by the Commonwealth on such vehicles. Periodically, the General Assembly adjusts the amount of state license tax and the County Code must be amended so that the County fee does not exceed the amount of the corresponding state tax. DISCUSSION: Albemarle County Code § 9-404 sets forth the local license fees on motor vehicles. Currently, the fee for motor vehicles is $20.00 for vehicles under 4,000 pounds and $25.00 for vehicles in excess of 4,000 pounds. The Virginia Code has been amended to raise the state tax for such vehicles to $23.00 and $28.00, respectively. The attached ordinance would amend County Code § 9-404 to increase the local license fee to the state maximum. The Virginia Code also has been amended to raise the state tax for motorcycles to $18.00. The proposed amendment would raise the license fee on motorcycles from $15.00 to $18.00 to correspond to the increase in the state tax. Finally, Virginia Code § 46.2-694.1 has instituted a three-tiered rate schedule based on weight for non-passenger trailers and semitrailers. The attached ordinance would amend County Code § 9-404(C) and (D) to continue a two-tiered fee schedule for trailers and semitrailers rather than to institute a three,tiered fee schedule. The current County Code provides for a two-tier rate structure on trailers (less than 1,500 pounds - $5.00; over 1,500 pounds - $25.00). The allowable three-tier rate would require substantial modification to billing systems and is not being recommended at this time. The Virginia Code tax for large trailers is now less than the County license fee for such trailers. The proposed decrease in the fee for the large trailers, therefore, is mandatory to comply with State Law and will cost $10,030. The proposed increases are shown only for your information and you have the discretion to continue with the current fee or increase the fee up to the maximums shown. Enactment of the new rate schedules would have the following impact on annual revenues: Type Old Rate 'New Rate Variance Revenue Impact Vehicles under 4,001 lbs. $ 20.00 $ 23.00 $ 3.00 $168,924 Vehicles over 4,000 lbs. 25.00 28.00 3.00 39,618 Motorcycles 15.00 18.00 3.00 2,208 Small Trailers 5.00 8.00 3.00 3,465 Large Trailers 25.00 18.50 6.50 (10,030) Net Increase $ 204,185 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board consider adopting the attached Ordinance amending Section 9-404 to decrease the motor vehicle fees for trailers and semitrailers and to consider adjusting the other fees to the amounts now permitted by the State Code. DRAFT: October 13, 1999 ORDINANCE NO. 99-9( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE IV, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, 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 9, Motor Vehicles And Traffic Article IV, County Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 9-404, License fees--Amounts, as follows: Sec. 9-404 License fees--Amounts. A. On all motorized vehicles, except as otherwise specifically provided in this article, there shall be an annual license fee based on gross vehicle weight. The fee shall be ~ twenty-three dollars ($20.00 $23.00) for vehicles with gross vehicle weights of four thousand (4,000) pounds or less and twenty f. vc .twenty-eight ($25.00 .$28.00) for gross weights in excess of four thousand (4,000) pounds. Gross maximum loaded weight shall be substituted for gross vehicle weight for motor vehicles not designed and used primarily for the transportation of passengers. B. On every motorcycle there shall be an annual license fee of c~q~eee~ eighteen dollars r,~ ~a . ~,, ..... $18.00); and an additional license fee of three dollars ($3.00) for each sidecar for each motorcycle. ...... ~ ...... ~. On every, trailer or semitrailer not designed and used for transportation of passengers, there shall be an annual license fee as follows: Gross Weight 0 - 1,500 lbs. 1,501 lbs. and above Annual Fee $ 8.00 $18.50 ~.. D._~. In the case of a combination of a tractor-trailer or semitrailer, each vehicle constituting a part of such combination shall be licensed as a separate vehicle. g-:. E~ On every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon which well-drilling machinery is attached or other "specialized mobile equipment" as defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-700(B), there shall be an annual license fee of fifteen dollars ($15.00). DRAFT: October 13, 1999 (Code 1967, § 12-93; 1-18-73; 6-7-89; Code 1988, § 12-25; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 46.2-694, 46.2-694.1, 46.2-700 and 46.2-701. This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2000. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, 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 Ms. Humphris Mr. Marshall Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The Covenant School to build a new campus on the Hickory Street property in Albemarle County, 10. 12. 13 14. 15. 16. 17. 18 We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The CoVenant School to build a new campus ,on the Hickory Street property in Albemarle County. NAME ADDRESS .., 14. We, the undersigned, support the SPecial Use Permit application of The Covenant School to build a new campus on the Hickory Street property in Albemarle County. NAME ADDRESS z 2- 15. 16. 1: ! 18. 19. 20. We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The Covenant School to build a new campus on the Hickory Street property in Albemarle County. NAME ~ ADDRESS We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The Covenant School to build a new campus on. the Hickory Street property in Albemarle County. NAME /i .-/ 6. ADDRESS 7. 10. 1]. 12. 1.3. 14. 15. ]6. 18. 19. 20. - We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The Covenant School to build a new campus on the Hickory Street property in Albemarle County. NAME ADDRESS ,~,~/,~,~ ~.M. We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The Covenant School to build a new campus on the Hickory Street property in Albemarle County. NAME ADDRESS 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The Covenant School to build a new campus on the Hickory Street property in Albemarle County. NAME ADDRESS 10. ]7. [8. ]9. 20. We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The Covenant School to build a new campus on the Hickory Street property in AlbemaHe County. NAME ADDRESS 6.~~ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The Covenant School to build a new campds on the Hickory Street property in Albemarle County. NAME o ADDRESS 10, 11. 12. 13. 14. 20. We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The Covenant School to build a new campus on the Hickory Street property in Albemarle County. NAME ADDRESS We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The COvenant School tObuild a new campus on the Hickory Street· property in Albemarle County. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 19. 20. We, the undersigned, support the Special Use Permit application of The Covenant School to build a new campus on the Hickory Street property in Albemarle County. NAME ADDRESS o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE D~artment of Planning & Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Susan Thomas, AICP, Senior Planner Jeff Thomas, Senior Engineer November 10, 1999 SP 99-054 Covenant Upper School: Traffic Update This project was considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting of October 12, 1999, and recommended for approval. At the time of preparation of the staff report - and at the Planning Commission meeting - the applicant and VDOT were still engaged in discussion on the nature and scope of transportation improvements which might be required relative to the school use. Mr. Bob Ball of VDOT conducted his own traffic study, which indicated a level of service E for the intersection of Stagecoach Road and Fifth Street Extended. Mr. Frank Cox's study showed a level of service C for this intersection. The applicant indicated a general willingness to provide needed improvements to the intersections and access routes to the school site, but was still in the process of meeting with VDOT to reach a consensus on the differences in their respective traffic studies. Detailed site requirements are fully identified during the site review process, but it is also appropriate to consider traffic impacts at the special use permit stage. Since the Planning Commission public hearing, Planning and Engineering staff have continued to meet with those two parties (including an on-site meeting on October 26, 1999), and offer the following update for the Board's information. A. The applicant is not requesting admission of Hickory Street (a private road) into the state system at this time, but may do so in the future if the owner of the road is agreeable to a formal request, VDOT has indicated that because of the proposed school use, this section'of Hickory Street may satisfy the department's requirements and be eligible for public road status, although it does not serve the required three uSers. B. Oak Hill Drive currently appears to'be sufficiently wideto accommodate the projected school traffic. The applicant has been told by the owner' of Hickory Street that it was constructed to a state standard and thus' pavement construction may be adequate for the additional traffic. · C. Aseparate right turn lane from Stagecoach Drive onto Fifth Street Extended northbound will be needed to accommodate the stacking of exiting schOol traffic:~ It appears that adequate, fight-of-way exists on Stagecoach to accommodate this additional lane, which would probably near at the closest driveway on the east side of Stagecoach and continue to Fifth Street Extended. Observation during the site visit suggests that the majority of traffic exiting Fifth Street Extended southbotind onto Stagecoach tums left onto Oak Hill. VDOT personnel commented that the Culpeper District would perform a traffic engineering study to investigate allowing this heavy movement to become the "free" movement. This would involve moving the existing stop sign from Oak Hill westbound to Stagecoach northbound and other possible improvements. The Southpointe shopping center concept plan designates the StagecoactffFifth Street intersection as its primary entrance, with a traffic signal to be provided by the developer. Covenant Upper School has indicated a willingness to contribute to this traffic signal based on their share of the traffic at this intersection, an improvement that VDOT has indicated it would require. October 22, 1999 Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Frank Cox 220 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22902 SP-99-54 Covenant Upper School Tax Map 90A, Parcel 2 Dear Mr. Cox: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 12, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions, provided the site plan is in substantial accord with what was presented to the Commission at their October 12th meeting, especially related to percentage of impervious surface: The Covenant Upper School shall be operated in accordance with the special use permit application and attached July 23, 1999 letter from Frank D. Cox, Jr. PE AICP, herein included as Attachment B; student enrollment is not to exceed 550 students. No subdivision of the property or expansion of the school use beyond that stated in the original special use permit application shall occur without amendment of this Special Use Permit. o Prior to final site plan approval, the applicant will be responsible for satisfying all Virginia Department of Transportation requirements related to signalization, intersection improvements, and roadway improvements on Stage Coach Road and Oak Hill Drive, and meeting requirements of the Department of Engineering and Public Works regarding to traffic management and roadway improvements on Hickory Street. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 October 22, 1999 All uses associated with the Covenant Upper School Hickory Street campus shall comply with the commercial setbacks set forth in Section 21.7 and the lighting requirements of Section 4.17.2(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. o Final site plan approval shall not be granted until the Albemarle County Service Authority approves public sewer service to the site. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 10, 1999. 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 heating date. The Commission also approved a critical slopes waver in association with SP-99-54, provided the waiver is in substantial accord with the critical slopes grading as represented in the October 4, 1999 letter from Jeff Thomas, Senior County Engineer, to David Benish (copy attached). If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Susan E. Thomas, AICP Senior Planner SET/jcf Cci Ella Carey Jack Kelsey The Covenant School Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS ATTACHMENT L TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM David Ben,h, Senior Planner left Thomas, Senior Engineer October 4, 1999 Covenant Upper School Critical Slope Waiver Request (SP 99-054) This memorandum is to clarify our comments regarding the critical slope waiver request received on September 1, 1999. Based on the concept plan received September 1, 1999, the proposed site has an area of 25.99 acres. This includes a critical slope area of 1.81 acres. Approximately 0.73 acres (40%) of critical slope area on the subject property will be disturbed during construction. From the concept plan, it appears that the slopes will mostly be filled. The main critical slope fill area runs along a proposed soccer field on the south side of the property. As stated in Section 18-4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following concerns must be addressed before any critical slope waiver is granted. 1. "movement of soil and rock" The applicant states in the request letter dated August 14, 1999 that "enhanced slope stabilization and landscaping associated with the campus and athletic field development will be provided with the overall site improvements to improve upon the existing unmanaged slope conditions". Based on the concept plan, we agree with this statement. Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil. 2. "excessive stormwater runoff' A stormwater management plan will need to be submitted with the final plans for approval. This plan must limit the proposed 2-year peak flow, the 2-year flow velocity, and the 10-year peak flow to existing condition values. 3. "siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proposed stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. 4. "loss of aesthetic resource" Some aesthetic loss is expected from tree removal. We feel this will be partially offset by landscaping on the site. 5. "septic effiuenf' Septic fields must not be located on critical slopes. Based upon an August I 1, 1999 memorandum, the applicant is seeking.public water and sewer connections. We strongly recommend this course of action. Based on the review above, the Engineering Department recommends approval of the waiver with the condition that any changes to the site layout shown on the concept plan must not substantially change the amount of affected critical slopes. cc: Susan Thomas, Senior Planner Copy: File SP 99-054 File: critical slope waiver review, doc STAFF PERSON: PLANNING 'COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN E. THOMAS, AICP OCTOBER 12, 1999 NOVEMBER 10, 1999 SP 99-054 COVENANT UPPER SCHOOL Applicant's Proposal: Covenant Upper School proposes to relocate its present location at the former Mclntire School, which is located on the 250 By-Pass at Birdwood Road, in the City. The new site consists of 25.933 acres on Hickory Street, off of Oak Hill Drive. A location map is included as Attachment A; B is the applicant's special use permit justification; C is a plat; D is a concept plan. The applicant is also requesting a waiver to allow grading on critical slopes. (Attachment E) Petition: Request for special use permit to allow private school (upper school campus) in accordance with Section 14.2.2 (5) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for private school. The property, described as Tax Map 90A Parcel 2, contains 25.933 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Hickory Street near the intersection of Oak Hill Drive (Route # 1113). The property is zoned R-2 Residential. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in the Urban Area Neighborhood 'Five Development Area. Character of the Area: Land use in the area is primarily residential, although large areas of undeveloped property exist to the east of this parcel. The site itself is undeveloped and heavily wooded, with hilly terrain. Southwood Mobile Home Park is located adjacent to and immediately south of this property. On the west it abuts Stagecoach Drive, behind the Wachovia Bank processing center, an area of residential lots with houses. To the north are Oak Hill and Southwood Subdivisions. Fifth Street Extended is located approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Hickory Street and Oak Hill Drive. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of sections 31.2.4.1 (criteria for approval of special use permits), and recommends apprOval of SP 99-054 with conditions. Planning and Zoning History.: Covenant Upper School was founded in 1985 at the old Mclntire School, with 45 students in grades K-6. That campus now houses the Upper School, the Lower School having moved to the former Mountainwood Hospital a few years ago. If the new campus is approved, the upper school will relocate to the Hickory Street site, and the lower school will subsequently relocate to Mclntire. The Hickory Street property was recently donated to the school. Project timing is driven in part by the impending expiration of the Lower School lease. Comprehensive Plan: The Hickory Street site is located in Neighborhood Five, close to its shared boundary with Neighborhood Four. The Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, does not address this site specifically other than designating the area for Neighborhood Density Residential. The 1998 revision (South Pointe CPA) to the Plan describes transportation improvements to the 1-64/Fifth Street Extended interchange and signalization of Fifth Street/Stagecoach Road intersection that will benefit school traffic STAFF COMMENT: Once the special use permit has been approved, a site plan will be required and may be approved administratively. Staff opinion is that certain uses such as churches, day care, and schools contribute to the well- being and moral fiber of the community. In this posture, staff review is confined to issues of physical development while other considerations of appropriateness of the use to a given location are a matter of legislative discretion. 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 Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent proper.W, Staff has visited the area and is of the opinion that although the residential character of the neighborhood will be modified as a result of the introduction of the school use, the school will not generate negative impacts on surrounding uses. (The Covenant Lower School, located within one mile of this site, does not appear to have negatively impacted adjacent properties in 2 Neighborhood Five.) Development of the school will provide a certain portion of the site as open space/park, insofar as the athletic fields will remain free of structures. Several nearby residents have remarked that they enjoy walking along Hickory Street and the perimeter of this property, and the applicant has indicated that a trail system along this alignment may be considered in site design. The open space and (possible) trail use would be unlikely to occur under R-2, Residential, development of the property. To further mitigate impacts from the proposed school, Building Code and Zoning Services recommends that the school comply with commercial setbacks as described in Section 21.7 and the 0.5 footcandle spillover from parking lot lighting described in Section 4.17.2(a) of the ordinance, based on the nature of the use and the adjacent by-right residential uses in the R-2 district. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby~ This portion of Neighborhoods Four and Five is largely residential in character, with a central commercial "spine" provided by Fifth Street Extended and approved uses along this portion of it. Schools are typically located close to housing, and although the student body in this case may come from beyond the immediate neighborhood, that also may be expected from a public school. The school use will maintain a certain amount of open space, a characteristic of the neighborhood as it now exists which the residents value, based on their comments. Although traffic and activity levels will increase with the school use, in staffs opinion the increase will not change the character of the district. Other than weekday peak hour traffic to and from the facility, and periodic traffic for athletic events and school functions, the school should not be particularly evident to those who are not involved with it directly. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance~ Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. Staff finds no conflict with these provisions of the ordinance. Staff notes that this request to locate a private school within this portion of the Designated Development Area forwards the intent of the ordinance as stated in the following Sections: 1.4.3 To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; 1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of... schools, parks, forests, with the uses permitted by right in the district~ The intent of the R-2, Residential, district is: 3 · Provides a potential transition density between higher and lower density areas established through previous development and/or zoning in community areas and the urban area; and · Provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental and development amenities; R-2 districts may be permitted within community and urban area locations designated on the comprehensive plan. As previously mentioned, private schools are allowed by special use permit in the R-2 district. Although the educational activity associated with the proposed school is not specifically included in the purposes of the district, the proposed school does meet a community need by providing education. Furthermore, this use does not interfere with adjacent residential uses. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 of the ordinance, Supplementary Regulations, does not address this use. and with the public health, safe ,ty and general welfare No adverse impact on the public health, safety and general welfare of the County has been identified as a result of establishment of a private upper school at this site. The school use will generate traffic in a somewhat different pattern than what might be expected under by-right residential development, although the latter often reflects an equally concentrated AM/PM peak hour pattern as well. Students come to the school in private vehicles: Covenant does not operate buses, although family car-pools are common. The applicant recently provided an intersection analysis requested by VDOT. However, VDOT, Engineering and staffhave not had time to fully review the analysis before the completion of this report. Comment will be provided at the Commission meeting. The applicant has noted that, following the campus relocation sequence described above, the existing Lower School traffic will cease and essentially be replaced by the new Upper School traffic within a similar radius from Fifth Street. Pending the completion of these analyses, the applicant may be required to provide additional instrumentation to the signal scheduled for installation at the Fifth Street Extended/Stagecoach Road intersection, and make intersection improvements such as turn lanes. The proposed Hickory Street campus will have a higher enrollment than the current 340 students at the Mclntire campus; the school projects a total of 450 students through 2010, up to a maximum of 550 students thereafter (faculty extra). The Lower School at Mountainwood currently has an enrollment of approximately 310. 4 VDOT comments also state that the applicant would be responsible for bringing Stagecoach Road and Oak Hill Drive up to roadway standards adequate to accommodate residential and school traffic. To accomplish this, the structural components of these roads may need improvement. Hickory Street is private, and will remain private under the applicant's proposal. Engineering has indicated that Hickory Street may also require pavement reconstruction. The applicant is currently testing pavement on all three roads. The school property has a 50-foot easement across Hickory Street, which primarily serves as one of two accesses to Southwood Mobile Home Park. The applicant has suggested a three-way stop on Hickory at the school entrance; Engineering has commented that stop signs appear to be excessive for what is essentially a twice daily traffic situation, and has recommended use of alternative traffic management measures. In its 9/8/99 comments, Engineering indicates disagreement with the VDOT vtpd (vehicle trips per day) estimate of 2 per student, suggesting that the actual count would be more likely to be 1 per student. (Discussions on this issue are on-going among the applicant, VDOT, and Engineering.) In comparison, by-right residential development of the site at the current R-2 zoning would result in 50 single family residences, generating 500 vtpd at the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) rate of 10 vtpd per household. At the low end of the Comprehensive Plan designation of Neighborhood Residential density (3 - 6 dwelling units per acre), build-out would result in 75 single family residences, for a total vtpd of 750. Depending on the daily trip figure used, school traffic may be less than or slightly more than residential at this site. (Attachment F is VDOT's 8/31/99 letter; G is applicant's 8/12/99 memorandum; H is Engineering's 9/8/99 memorandum; I is applicant's 9/22/99 letter) The site is served by public water but currently does not have public sewer. The applicant has entered into discussions with ACSA (Albemarle County Service Authority) regarding provision of sewer, and there appear to be two options: 1) applicant constructs a private pumping station, which delivers sewage to the line serving Wachovia, pump station to operate until Biscuit Run Interceptor is built (estimated within 10 years); 2) applicant contributes an amount equal to cost of private pump station to ACSA's construction budget for building Biscuit Run Interceptor (a gravity sewer extension), with construction to commence upon approval by ACSA Board of Directors [and approval of this Special Use Permit]. The applicant has submitted an estimate to ACSA (Attachments J), and this item is scheduled to be heard by the Board at the meeting of 10/21/99. (Attachment K) SUMMARY: Factors favorable to this request: 1. Good access exists to the site from 1-64. 2. A lower school campus associated with the same parent school has operated without significant impact or detriment to the adjacent properties for several years in this neighborhood. If the special use permit is approved, the lower school would leave and be replaced by the upper school, essentially 'substituting one set of impacts for another, albeit it in a slightly different location. 3. Establishment of the school would bring sewer service to a portion of the Designated Development Area currently relying on private septic systems, earlier than would otherwise be the case. Without the school as a large user, it does not appear possible to construct the Biscuit Run Interceptor at this time. 4. Although the school use would institute activities different from those associated with a purely residential area, it also would preserve areas of open space that otherwise would be developed as residential lots. This open space provides visual benefits to surrounding residents. 5. The school may provide educational services to families living in the immediate area. Factors unfavorable to this request: 1. Traffic on Stagecoach Road and Oak Hill Drive will increase as a result of the school use. 2. The activity level in the area will increase as a result of the school use. Development factors, including buffering, drainage, and traffic improvements will be addressed during site plan review. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SP 99-054 subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: The Covenant Upper School shall be operated in accordance with the special use permit application and attached July 23, 1999 letter from Frank D. Cox, Jr. PE AICP, herein included as Attachment B; student enrollment is not to exceed 550 students; No subdivision of the property or expansion of the school use beyond that stated in the original special use permit application shall occur without amendment of this Special Use Permit; Prior to final site plan approval, the applicant will be responsible for satisfying all Virginia Department of Transportation requirements related to signalization, intersection improvements, and roadway improvements on Stage Coach Road and Oak Hill Drive, and meeting requirements of the Department of Engineering and Public Works regarding to traffic management and roadway improvements on Hickory Street; All uses associated with the Covenant Upper School Hickory Street campus shall comply with the commercial setbacks set forth in Section 21.7 and the lighting requirements of Section 4.17.2(a) of the Zoning Ordinance; Final site plan approval shall not be granted until the Albemarle County Service Authority approves public sewer service to the site. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER A waiver to allow grading on critical slopes is generally requested in conjunction with a preliminary site plan application. In this case, the applicant has submitted a general waiver request in conjunction with a special use permit, to alert both staff and the Planning Commission that development of the proposed site will require disturbance of critical slopes. The precise extent of such disturbance will be indicated in more detail at the site plan stage, but the disturbed areas generally lie along the perimeter of the site in the following locations: adjacent to Hickory Street at the southeast comer of the property; on the west side of the property behind Stagecoach Road; small area at the center of the site; and, northeast comer of the parcel. Staff refers the Commission to the applicant's critical slopes request, Attachment E. The Department of Engineering is recommending approval of the critical slopes waiver (Attachment L). Based on Engineering's comment staff recommends granting a waiver of critical slopes provisions (4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance). ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Applicant's Justification C - Plat D - Concept Plan E - Applicant 8/14/99 Critical Slopes Request F- VDOT 8/31/99 Letter G- Applicant 8/12/99 Memorandum H - Engineering 9/~99 Memorandum I - Applicant 9/22/99 Letter J - Applicant 9/22/99 Memorandum to ACSA K - ACSA 9/23/99 Letter L - Engineering 10/4/99 Memorandum A: \sp9954 Covenant Up School. doc ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT A OAK HILL OAK HILL LOTS /OT~ IOA-II BLOCK B SECTION I D.B. 360Pg, I05 REVISED IZB. 391 i:'9.483 REVISED D.B 3g~l~2Bl REVISED D.B. 4011~.228 SECTION 2 D.~.~621~ Z2 REVISED DB. 398 I~g.317 REVISED D.B. 4051~. 453 D.S 468 PO- 85 / / SP-99~-54 Covenant Upper School (Sign #27) ........... SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 90A THE COX COMPANY Planners · ~ndscape Architects Civil Engineers · Urban Designers ATTACHMENT B July 23, 1999 I~.~/ayne Cilimberg, Director Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Special Use Permit Application Covenant Upper School Campus Tax Map 90A-2, Parcel A The County of Albemarle, Virginia Dear Wayne: On behalf of The Covenant School, the Board of Directors seeks the County's permission to develop a private school campus on TM 90A-2, Parcel A, a vacant 26-acre parcel on the north side of Hickory Road. Last year's gift to the school of the parcel from the owner's of the larger Biscuit Run land hold- ings enables Covenant to move ahead with its strategic plan for facility development. With this corre- spondence, I am forwarding a Special Use Permit application and supporting information to aid in the County's consideration of this request. The Covenant School has a strong record of educational performance and quality as a college prepara- tory school. While its philosophy emphasizes community service and a well rounded curriculum, it's graduating students have been accepted at the finest colleges in the country. For example, approxi- mately one-third of the 1999 graduating c!ass was admitted to the University of Virginia and ail gradu- ates will attend the college of their first choice. As you may know, the schoo has been in existence since 1985, when it was founded with 45 students (K-6) at the County's old Mclntire High School. Since that time time, the school ha~ grown into a K-12 institution of 640 students. Covenant currently houses its Upper School Campus at the Mcintire site located at 1000 Birdwood Road in the City. Theprogosed project w!ll relocate the Upper School to what will be known as the "Hickory. Road Campus", thereby allowing the Lower Schoo!, currently housed at the former Mountain- wood Hospital to be returned to the Mclntire Campus. The project timing is being driven by the ira- pending expiration date on the Mountainwood lease, which will not be renewed. The school will be developed pursuant to the County's definition of a private school and, further, in ac- cord with the applicable special use as designated the underlying R-2 District, as cited in Section 14.2.2.5. Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Re: Covenant Upper School Campus July 23, 1999 Page 2 The initial phase of the project will accommodate an Upper School Campus for approximately 500 stu- dents as well as 50-60 faculty members and administrative staff. The total building size, including gymnasium and cafeteria, wil be in the range of 90,000 to 95,000 square feet. The planned outdoor athletic facilities will include two soccer/lacrosse fields, a baseball fields, and tennis courts. A con- ceptual master plan for the campus will be presented later during the review process in order to high~ light the features of the proposal. ! believe the rationale for a private school at this location is strong relative to health, safety, welfare and morals precepts. Based on my analysis of the various matters related to the grant of a special use permit, ,the application is consistent with the County's comprehensive planning framework, and it pro- motes good zoning and land use practices. Please consider the following: Neighborhood Planning Considerations: As ~n many other residential neighborhoods throughout Albemarle County, private (and public) schools are complementa,w to and sup- portive of neighborhood and community environments. At this 9articular location, the planned campus will buffer existing single family residential areas from the higher density mobile home park. It will create a Iow-density, community "focal point" within an area which is under served by such features. The character of existing residential develop- merit is underscored by homes which are sited with extensive setbacks from the subject property. Public Utility and Service Considerations: The campus location will have adequate public utilities and services. An existing water main is located in the Hickory Road right of way and the school is working with the Service Authority to establish a sanitary sewer exten- sion. Public water and sewer demands for the school use will be less than those which would be generated by a residential subdivision developed to comprehensive Clan densi- ties. Fire. police and rescue serwces are in close proximity. Traffic and Transportation Considerations: The campus Iocation has excellent access to 5th Street and Interstate 64 via Hickory Road (a private frontage street) and Oak Hill Drive. Transportation capacities in the existing system are more than adequate for the private school use. The tract has approximately 1900 *eet of street frontage on Hickory Road, a length sufficient to provide private individual driveway access to 22 single family residences if developed under R-2 zoning standards. It is intended that access to the pro- posed campus will be limited to not more than two private entrances from Hickory Road. Traffic generated by the school use will be no greater than that which would be generat- ed from the residential development of the site to comprehensive plan densities. Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Re: Covenant Upper School Campus July 23, 1999 Page 3 Land Use Considerations: The school use may, in fact, provide for a better physical and environmental utilization of the property than that which could be achieved via R-2 resi- dential development. Based on the various campus master plan options now under con- sideration by the Board of Directors, the conventional land use ratios and criteria of site utilization far exceed those for conventional, suburban residential subdivisions. As an il- lustration of this, our preliminary site concepts yield the following site and development characteristics for the campus: Planned Building FAR = Less than 0. I0 Planned Building Coverage = Less than 6% of site Open Space and Recreation Areas = Greater than 80% of site Total Impervious Surfaces = Less than :[5% of site Enhanced yards and setbacks Enhanced perimeter buffers Enhanced tree preservation and landscaping Site plan review mandatory (not required for SFD) Stom~,water management and BMPs provided (not required for SFD) I greatly appreciate Bill Fritiz arranging the pre-application meeting which was held today prior to plan submission. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and I look forward to your ongoing direc- tion as we pursue the Special Use Permit approval for The Covenant School. As mentioned in Mr. Tag- gart's letter, I am representing the school as a member of the school's Board of Directors and (2) our's firm principal which is conductin8 planning, engineering, and related site design functions. Please contact me if additional information is'needed. With kind regards, I am Sincerely, -- !//~-:---t. '' .......... '/..."----? ~ / Frank D. Cox. _Ir. PE AICP. / attachments: SUP%~pPlication and Submission Exhibits XC: Jack Taggart. Chairman, Board of Directors Dr. Ronald Sykes, Headmaster Robert Kroner. Esq. The Covenant Sc...~ol SITE LOCATION OaR ~i~l ~rive Upper School Facility * OAK i °~o e 117o/ ,i / l~ II II Il l~ II [] · m~ THE COX COMPANY Planners · Landscape Architects Civil Ens~neers · Urban Designers ATTACHMENT E August 14, 1999 Mr. WoTne Cilimberg, Director Planning and Community Development The County of Albemarle 401 Mclnlire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Special Use Permit- Waiver Request Upper School Campus The Covenant School Dear WalFne: Pursuant to the August 9, 1999 SUP pre-applicationconference with Bill Fritz and the stcfff, it was their recommendation that a critical slope waiver be sought concurrent with the special use permit appli- cation for the Upper School Campus for The Covenant School. As you know, the formal SUP applica- tion was submitted several weeks ago. Thus, in concert with the SUP process, the applicant seeks the Planning Cornmission's relief from the critical slopes restrictions found in Section 4.2.3.2.of the Coun- flys Zoning Ordinance. The accompanying concept plan and critical slope exhibit depicts the location of the relatively small portion of the 26-acre property impacted by the site improvements program with existing slopes equal to or greater than 25%. Based on our analyst~ of the site's topography, shape, location and size of the subject tract, it ~s our opinion that the planned site improvements within the area of the 25% slopes will not be detrimental to the public health, sc[(ety or welfare as well as other considerations related to the objectives of the County's growth management controls. The proposed location of the school buildings will not impact the critical slopes. However, certain athletic fields and landscaped open spaces will encroach upon these areas. Moreover, the selected siting of the school buildin.qs provides for the minimum disruption of the site while, at the same time, meeting the programmatic needs of Covenant School without disrupting any critical slopes. Given the concept plan for the physical layout of the new academic campus, I believe that the con- struction can be undertaken in such a way as to (a) provide for the orderly development of building and site Lnffastructure. (b) satisfy sound environmental engineering principles, pcuEcularly those for enhanced slope stabilization in the vicinity of the athletic fields, and (c) offer a verl~ reasonable siting opportunity balanced against the goal preserv/ngthe vast majority of the site's critical slopes and en- hancing existing open spaces. 804.295' 7131 220 East H~?~h Street Chadottesvilla Virginia 22902 Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director Re: Trinity Church Expansion Project August 14, 1999 Page 2 From a broader perspective, the location of the planned campus is in the upland portion of a small drainage shed which originates above subject property. This shed feeds directly into Biscuit Run, a short distance to the south. The subject athletic field improvements affect only on a small segment of the critical slopes, and the grading for the fields will not have an adverse impact on any adjacent 'downstream' properties. Ln fact, the existing 'critical slopes' are higb_l¥ eroded, having received lit- tle or no maintenance attention in the past. Further, a potential on-site storrnwater management lxmin (located at the site's drainage outfall at Hickory Street) will significantly reduce runoff quantities and velocities. Enhanced slope stabilization and landscaping associated with the campus and ath- letic field development will be provided with the overall site improvements to improve upon the ex- isting unmanaged slope conditions. Also, approximately 75% of the campus will be open space. In conclusion, I believe that the waiver of critical slopes in th~ particular instance is warranted in light of the following site development and environmental planning objectives: Opportunities for slope stabm~-ation measures for the total project area; High quality of temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control prac- tices; Handling and storage of storm drainage for the total site; Opportunities for BMP and drainage controls on the steep slopes on the downhill side field improvements; Opportunities for SWM facilities to lessen runoff impacts below the project area; Avoid disturbance of critical slopes within the areas planned for building struc- tures, parking lots, and impervious surfaces, and Upgrade the open space and landscaping for the overall project area. I look forward to your input and direction in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if addi- tional information is needed in support of tl~ request. With kind regards, Iarn Yours very truly, Frank D. Cox, Jr. PE AICP XC; Bm Fz'itz, Susan Th~ ,as (Coun~ Staff) Dr. Ron sykeS,'-~Ie(~drnaster 3ack Taggart, President, Board of Directors attachments: Concept Plan and Slope Study ATTACHMENT F August 31, 1999 September Public Heating Submittals Mr. David Benish Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Benish: Please fred our comments for the September public hearings listed below: SP-99-53 Hydraulic Road Animal Hospital, Route 743 No comment at this time. SP-99-54 Covenant Upper School, Route 1113 At this time we are assuming that Hickory Street will remain a private road, so these comments relate only to portions of Route 877 (Stagecoach Road) and Route 1113 (Oak Hill Drive) which will be used by site traffic. If the request to make Hickory Street a public road is coming with this SP application, let us know and we will furnish related comments. We have the following comments regarding the Covenant School traffic study dated Aug 23, 1999: The analysis should assume enrollment with ultimate buildout of Covenant School, not just Phase 1. The concept plan indicates Phase 1 will have FAR = 0.10, and Full Development will have FAR = 0.15. Please indicate enrollment with full development of site, as it is our understanding that the school could ultimately accommodate 650 students. · AM peak traffic counts, were performed in August before school was in session. At 5t~ St Ext. / Stagecoach Rd this count is significantly lower than a count in September, 1996 for Southpointe traffic study (WSA, December 4, 1997). We would like to see this intersection analyzed with WSA 2008 AM forecasts, with % pass-by trips based on 1996 enrollment at current Covenant School (for example, if 195 students enrolled in 1996, and 650 students at full buildout, 30% of school trips are pass-by). Along 5th St Ext., WSA assumed 3% annual growth, and there are 2% tracks. · To analyze future school impacts at 5th St Ext / Stagecoach, 2008 AM LOS analysis should be performed with WSA background traffic in three scenarios - 1) No build, 2) with full built school, and 3) with school and Southpointe project traffic volumes as shown in WSA study. · Other intersection analyses should reflect ultimate buildout enrollment. We can provide WSA study data if needed. Comments for related improvements will be given with updated intersection analyses. Applicant is responsible for necessary improvements to bring Stagecoach Road and Oak Hill Drive up to roadway standards to accommodate residential traffic plus future ultimate school ADT levels. 1996 ADT counts indicate 1,800 vpd along Route 1113. Based on ITE #521 (Private School) peak hour rates, we estimate about 2.0 trips / day per student. Core samples may be needed to determine existing structural condition of these roadways. SP-99-55 CV201 (Iw Creek Methodist Church), Route 676 No comment at this time. SP-99-56 Virginia National Bank ATM, Route 601 · There is inadequate sight distance at both site entrances. Along Garth Road, current sight distance is about 290' to the east and 400' to the west; 550' sight distance is required with the unposted 55 mph speed limit. Along Free Union Road, current sight distance is about 220' to the north; due to the intersection / stop sign at Garth Road, a reduced sight distance of 350' is required. Physical improvements and sight distance easements are required to bring these entrances into conformance. · Both site entrances must meet commercial entrance standards. Some current entrance features which may be inadequate at the Garth Road entrance include a minimum 30' driveway width, minimum 12.5' radius remm (25' or more recommended to accommodate fuel and delivery tracks), and 60 - 90 degree entrance angle from public roadway. At the Free Union Road entrance, some of the possible required improvements include 30'-40' entrance width, minimum 50' length tangent section between intersection return and entrance return, and minimum 12.5' radius remm (25" or more recommended to accommodate fuel and delivery trucks). Plans should be prepared to show that commercial entrance standards are met at both entrances. · Off site overflow parking is occurring on gravel area across Free Union Road, which adds conflicting mining movements and pedestrian traffic near the intersection. We recommend that adequate onsite parking be provided. · Internal circulation is easily blocked with 2 vehicles parked at the gas pumps, causing backups into the public roadways. It is recommended that additional internal circulation be provided away from the gas pump area, perhaps behind the store connecting to a relocated entrance along Free Union Rd. · We recommend that internal circulation allow vehicles to maneuver and turn around so that · they can easily enter and exit at the same entrance location. SP-99-57 Averett College, Route 866 No comment at this time. If you have any questions, please advise before releasing to the applicant. Yours Truly, Cc: Karen Kilby H.W. Mills J.H. Kesterson R.P. Ball Transportation Planner THE COX COMPANY Planners · Landscape Architects Civil Engineers · Urban Designers October 1, 1999 Memorandum To: Robert Ball, VDOT Susan Thomas, Albemarle County David Benish, Albemarle County From: Frank D. Cox, Jr. PE AICP Re: Summary: R~vlged Traffic Impact Study Special U~ Permit Application The Covenant School ATTACHMENT G RECEIVED OCT 0 k 1 199 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOI~ Pursuant to your request to further examine future traffic impacts for the subject project, this office has revised the Traffic Impact Study which was previously submitted for the Covenant School project. With this memo, 1 am forwarding copies of our intersectional analysis sheets to be appended to the SUP application. Updated Traffic Countg: The initial study incorporated actual field traffic counts taken during the morning peak hour pe- riod on August 12, 1999. These counts reflected actual conditions before the beginning of the school year and enabled us to model 5th Street without reflecting the impact of the existing Covenant Lower School on Old Lynchburg Road. Subsequent to the submission of the TIA, we have taken additional counts at the impacted 5th Street intersections providing us with peak hour volumes that reflect the additional school year activity. The new counts were field recorded on September 21, 1999. Generation ~: There are no definitive comparables for traffic generation rates. Thus, a hybrid model was ap- plied with the fairly conservative Covenant School traffic loadings based on adjusted ITE gen- eration rates for private schools and counts taken at the existing campus. While the school in- tends to operate for Grades 7-12 (with a large percentage of the students of driving age), we employed generation rates which were equally weighted towards elementary grade traffic vol- umes (thereb~ creating somewhat larger than expected peak hour movements.) 804- 295' 7131 220 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22,°02 M~mor~ldum Re: The Covenant School-Revised Traffic Analysis To: Robert P. Ball Susan Thomas David Benish October 1, 1999 Page 2 As requested, the overall school generation volumes were assigned and distributed, employing HCM capacity tests of the planned facility overlaying both (a) present day background traffic and (b) predicted future backgroUnd traffic based on the VDOT recommended 3% annual in- crease and (c) further evaluating the projected Southpointe Retail Development traffic antici- pated to be generated from the yet-to-be rezoned project. The following outline incorporates the updated information and proVides a summary of our findings and conclusions: Impact of Existing Conditions: Under current land use conditions, the exist- ing intersections within The Covenant School traffic impact area operate at LOS ~A" and are of adequate geometric design and operate at high service capacities for the existing land uses within the study area. Impact of tgampu~ Land U~e and Exiting TrafficVolume~: Under the proposed Covenant School Upper Campus land use conditions, the existing intersec- tions within The Covenant School traffic impact area will continue to operate at LOS UA" when modeled with existing 1999 background traffic. Impact of Campu~ Land U~e Condltlon~ and Background Traffic Growth: In this initial study, we projected traffic based on a first phase campuS of 450 students, with this student census based on Covenant School's esti- mated school population for the 2005-2009 timeframe. In the revised counts, we have employed a figure of 600 students for the maximum school population at full development. This figure is based upon the actual physical development potential of the property, and is not linked to any particular future school census period. As requested by Staff and VDOT, we have evaluated the major intersections employing future traffic from the planned (but not zoned) Southpointe Retail Development on the west side of Fifth Street. This accounts for VDOT's recommended 3% background traffic growth rate and adjusts exist- ing volumes to reflect the relocation of the Covenant Lower School. For analysis purposes, 5th St./Stagecoach Rd. remains the critical inter- section. Traffic at the minor intersections remains at a LOS=A under the test of both the 600 student scenario and the Southpointe development. Memorandum Re: The Covenant School-Revised Traffic Analysis To: Robert P. Ball Susan Thomas David Benish October 1, 1999 Page 3 Summary of 5th Street/Stagecoach Road HCM Capacity Model: Ex/sting Lower School +Background Traffic {2008): School Fhase ! {450 Students)+ Back, round {2008): LOS=^ LOS =A Sc/~ool Full Development (600 Students)+ Background (2008): LOS = B Southpointe + Background (2008): Southpointe + Scflool Full Development (600 Students) + Background (2008): LOS Adequacy of Hicko~yStreet: Hickory Street functions as a two-lane private facility and has ample link capacity to serve the Covenant School Upper Campus. In conjunction with the gift of the subject property to The Covenant School, the private street provides a 50' private access ease- ment for full use by the school. Hickory Street is currently maintained by a private entity, with the primary function to serve the Southwood Mobile Home park. In recent discussions with the owner of Southwood, I understand that Hickory Street was offered at time of construction for dedication in years past but that it was rejected by VDOT due to the fact that it did not serve three property owners. I have not confirmed this point with VDOT. In its present condition as a private street, Hickory provides the necessary and sufficient transportation capacity and geometric characteristics to serve the private school use. l~ecommended Changes to Tran~porta~lon System: If Hickory Street is to remain a private facility, a three-way stop sign is recommended for installa- tion at the Main Campus intersection with Hickory Street. Assuming the continued function as a private facility, the three-way stop will ensure ade- quate traffic calming of through-traffic with origins and destinations in the M~mor~dum Re: The Covenant School-Revised Traffic Analysis To: Robert P. Ball Susan Thomas David Benish October 1, 1999 Page 4 Southwood Mobile Home Park. The implementation of the three-way stop will not reduce link capacity on the private street below acceptable service levels. As an option to this, speed ~bumps~ could be installed. The owner of the pri- vate street has voiced no problem with either of these options. We recog- nize that if Hickory is to become public at some future date, the above op- tions would have to be reevaluated. Thanks for your attention to this matter, l look forward to meeting with you in advance of the Planning Commission meeting to discuss our findings. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have questions. rank D. Cox, Jr. AICP attachments: supplement xc: Dr. Ronald John K. Taggart, III, President, Board of Directors fdcjr/ajh THE COX COMPANY Planners · L~ndscape Architects Civil Engineers · Urban Designers August 12, 1999 Memorandum To: ~Robert Ball, VDOT Susan Thomas, Albemarle County From: Frank D. Cox, Jr. PE AICP Re: Traffic Impact Study Special U~e Permit Application The Covenant School Pursuant to your request, this office has completed the Traffic Impact Study for the subject Special Use Permit Application. With this memo, I am forwarding the requested copies for your review and comment. The study incorporates actual field traffic counts taken during the morning peak hour period on August 12, 1999. The projected Covenant School traffic loadings are based on adjusted ITE generation rates for private schools. While the private school intends to operate for Grades 7-12 (with a large percentage of the students of driving age), we employed generation rates which were equally weighted towards elementary grade traffic volumes (thereby creating some- what larger than expected peak hour movements.) The overall school generation volumes were assigned and distributed, employing HCM capacity tests of the planned facility overlaying both (a) present day background traffic and (b) predicted 2005 background traffic (assuming a gross 20% increase in phv.) The following outline provides a summary of our findings and conclusions: Impact of Existing C~ondition~: Under current lan~ use conditions, the exist- ing intersections within The Covenant School traffic impact area operate at LOS 'A' and are of adequate geometric design and operate at high service ca pacities for existing land uses. Impact of Campus Land Use and Traffic Volumes: Under the proposed Covenant School Upper Campus land use conditions, the existing intersec- tions within The Covenant School traffic impact area will continue to operate at LOS 'A' when modeled with existing 1999 background traffic. The inter- sections are of adequate geometric design and will operate at sufficiently high service capacities to serve the private school use. 8O4- 295' 7~31 220 East High Street Charto~esvill~ Virginia 22902 Memorandum Re: The Covenant School To: Robert P. Ball Susan Thomas August 24, 1999 Page 2 Impact of Campus Land Use Conditions and I~ackgroundTrafflc G-owth: Under the proposed Covenant School Upper Campus land use conditions and assuming an increase of 20% in background traffic, the existing intersec- tions within The Covenant School traffic impact area will continue to operate at LOS"A", with one instance where the LOS = 'B". The intersections will con- tinue to be of adequate geometric design and will operate at sufficiently high service capacities to serve the private school use. Impact on Hickory Street: Hickory Street functions as a two-lane private facility and has ample link capacity to serve the Covenant School Upper Campus. In conjunction with the gift of the subject property to The Covenant School, the private street provides a 50' private access ease- ment for full use by the school. Hickory Street is currently maintained by a private entity, with the primary function to serve the Southwood Mobile Home park. Any change in street designation and functional status must be approved by the owners of the street. With reasonable relief from and appli- cation of County private street standards, this street as it exists provides the necessary transportation capacity and functional characteristics to serve the intended private school use. Recommended Changes to Transportation System: A three-way stop sign is recommended for installation at the Main Campus intersection with Hickory Street. Assuming the continued function as a private facility, the three-way stop will ensure adequate traffic calming of through-traffic with origins and destinations i~ the Southwood Mobile Home Park. The implemen- tation of the three-way stop will not reduce link capacity on the private street below acceptable service levels. Frank D. Cox, Jr. PF_/'AICPi xc: Dr. Ronald S~ke~, Headmaster John K. Taggart, 111, President, Board of Directors fdcjr/ajh --. ATTACHMENT H Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comments Engineering traffic study S P-1999-054 Covenant Upper School revision 1 reviewer received reviewed decision Glenn Brooks 8/19/99 9/8/99 requested changes The special use permit application received on August 19, 1999, the Concept Plan (with critical slopes delineated) received on September 1, 1999, and the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) received on September 1, 1999 have been reviewed. We have examined the Concept Plan and, based on the information provided, have no comments at this time regarding the grading on the critical slopes. All applicable State and County regulations regarding erosion and sedimentation control during and after construction must be observed. Any changes to the Concept Plan must be approved by this department. The Engineering Department will recommend approval when the following items regarding the TIA have been satisfactorily addressed. 1. There appears to be a discrepancy between the number of students used in the TIA (450) and the number of students indicated on the Special Permit application (500 to 600 students plus 50 faculty and staff). We recommend the study be updated to reflect the student, faculty, and staff numbers shown on the Special Permit application. 2. In reference to Item 4 in the Conclusions and Recommendations section (page 23), we would like the consultant to please a) provide the traffic capacity of Hickory Street, including the existing and proposed ADT; b) identify the "private entity" that is responsible for the maintenance of Hickory Street; c) explain exactly what is meant by "any change in street designation ant functional status"; d) elaborate on what is "reasonable relief from and application of County private street standards"; and e) provide vertical and horizontal sight distance on Hickory Street at the proposed school entrance. 3. In regards to Item 5 in the Conclusions and Recommendations section (page 23), we feel.that stopping traffic on Hickory Street with a three-way stop sign is not reasonable given the periodic nature of the school traffic. In other words, the traffic entering and exiting the school driveway would only require some sort of control on Hickory Street twice a day (morning and afternoon) during the school year. Requiring traffic on Hickory Street to stop at any other time is not necessary. We would recommend the school employ a part time traffic officer to control and direct traffic during peak times. A possible long term solution would be the installation of a traffic signal which would operate only during peak traffic periods. 4. It appears from our site visit on September 2, 1999 that Hickory Street will require planing, resurfacing, possible striping, and shoulder and ditch work to safely and adequately convey the additional school traffic. The exact nature of these improvements is dependent on the information provided to us regarding Parts a through e of Item 2 above. 5. We would also ask the consultant to please use more accurate schematics. The directional references in the report do not match the schematic and are difficult to follow without a better map. Please see the attached map copies for guidance. 6. The applicant and VDOT must reach resolution on what specific improvements may be necessary to Oak Hill Drive and Stagecoach Road to accommodate school traffic (VDOT August 31, 1999 letter). 7. With the information presented by the applicant, it appears that the 2.0 trips/student/day requested by VDOT is excessive. This rate would be applicable to a primary school, but the Covenant Upper School is more comparable to a secondary school. Many students in grades ten through twelve will drive their own vehicles. Since this TIA study is considering only the AM peak hour, we feel a more accurate trip 9/20/99 11:10 AM Page 1 of 2 Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comments Engineering traffic study S P-1999-054 Covenant Upper School revision 1 reviewer received reviewed decision Glenn Brooks 8/19/99 9/8/99 requested changes generation rate would be closer to 1.0 trip per student per day. 8. We agree with the remainder of VDOT's comments concerning this special use permit. 9/20/99 11:10 AM Page 2 of 2 SE'P 2, 3 1999 THE COX COHPANY PLANNING AND Planners · Landscal::)e Architects COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Civil Engineers. Urban Designers September 22, 1999 Ms. Susan Thomas Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Special U~ Permit Application Covenant Upper School Campu9 Tax Map 90A-2, Parcel A The County of Alb~marle, Virginia Dear Susan: via FAX and UgPS Thanks for' forwarding the staff comments earlier this week. As an update, please consider the following: Traffic Im pact Analy~i~: As we discussed, I have reviewed Bob Balls comments by phone. He has asked that we run some more intersection analyses and has supplied us with additional traffic projections from the proposed South~ointe project for this purpose. Also, we have taken additional field counts to document the ~school year" AM peak volumes. We have pre- pared additional HCM analyses, as requested, with the ~ultimate" .550 student population, but please keep in mind that the 450 figure is the projected enrollment through the 2005- 2010 perio~i. Our preliminary tests indicate that the key intersections, when tested with the higher student counts, remain of high capacity. Further, when the planned Southpointe/Stagecoach/5th Street intersection is loaded with both Southpointe and new school traffic that the intersec- tion performs roughly the same as when loaded with the original Southpointe projections. As you know, the earlier Southpointe traffic study had included in its initial projections the traffic for the existing Covenant Lower School (on Old Lynchburg Road). Essentially, from a traffic standpoint, we are moving an existing condition from one side of 5th Street to the other. I will provide you with the update traffic information later this week. SanltaryE~we~. We are completing the cost estimate for the pumping station and force main option. I will provide this to the Authority (and copy you) upon completion. 80~. 295.7i31 220 East H~gn Street ,_,ha. fl .... svrll~ Virginia 22902 Ms. Susan Thomas !~: C~wnant UPi~r ~chool Campus September 22, 1999 Page 2 Concept Plan: Please keep in mind that the concept plan submitted with the application is not intended as a ~official~ preliminary site plan. Rather, it was constructed to aid in setting the parameters for the conditions of the special use permit. A formal site plan will be submitted at a later date. Let me know if you would like to have another work session prior to the Commission hearing. With kind regards, I am Sincerely, Frank D. Cox, Jr. PE AICP Jack Taggart, Chairman, Board of Directors Dr. Ronald Sykes, Headmaster Robert Kroner, Esq. O'.~IZ'.~I,.I.~J'.J:~ -.L~:'.';,L LL1X r..~. t K.H.& A. PAGE 02/02 I I THE COX COHPAN¥ Civil Engineers. U~oa~ Designers 1999 Memorandum Paul .~hoop Alberrtarie Count, y 5ervic~ Au~.hori~.y From: Frank D. Cox, Jr. rE AICF F~ Cos~ E~t, lma~ for 0~ Pump 54~1~1o~ ami For~ MS Dear Paul, ~y~m would be the ~r~erred long-arm ~luSion for eewerind ~hi~ Froper~y and t~ eurrounding ar~. ~he pump ~d for~ main op:ion i~ a feae~e eye~m which ~e ~~ School ie willing ~ in~a~ into iC~ ~i~ and ~n~tion p~. [ have eecured eetimate~ from eeveral archit~cture amd COMetruction flrme which are participating In th~ deelgn competl=lon for the ~chool. TI~ hlgheet cost eetlmate which wae presented for the pump and force main ~y~tem conetructlon wa~ $7~.000. Thi~ figure ~xclueiw of engineering, design, e~calar, ion. cont, ingenciee and con~ractor profit and overload. l~es~l on thi~ input.my inclusive ~=imat~ for a "turn k~" pdc~ for the p~j~ct i~ outline~i below: $~3.000 12.OOO 10.OOO $11~5,0OO 804- 295 - 7!D 220 East H:gn Street C.'~'la~.esviiie. V~ini~ Pag~ 2 A~ p~viou~ly indlca~d, it would b~ The Cov~ma~nt Schoot'e d~eire thane, in lieu of the p~lval~ sit~ pump an.~ forc~ main option, the Authorlt~ proc~e~t with tl~ d~vetopn~nt of the run ~ver main, However, to ~andon th~ on-~it~, ~hort-t~rm ~olu~ion. tl~ School wouI~ to I~ ~n~ure~l of tl~ availability of a ~rvlc~ connection in th~ iarc~-F~li of 2001. Should tt~ Authorit,¥wi~h to proc~d with th~ l~l~cuit l~un .,.~'wer, i~ would b~ th~ lnt~nt ~ T~ C~en~ School to ~ntri~ ~ th~ co~t of the ~n~t~uc~i~, I h~e re~mmen~ that t~ p~lon ~ ~ ~~lon If thie oonc~pt ie a0reemble, t woutd like to get together ~oon with you to further di~ou~a~ thie matter and fine-tune tl~ economlc~ of thl~ proposal 1 ~i~eply appr~ciat~ your h~lp and the Authorlt~y'~ consi~l~rat, ton. t look four, rd to hearing from you ~oon. Please keep in mind that our Planning Commission d~e i~ October 10, ~nd I would to pr~n~ ~h~ ~preferred ~w~r option" at that time. Dr. Ron S;~, H~adma~t~ ~l~ck T~g0~rt, Covenant I~o~rd Chairman Su~an Thomas, County of AIb~marl~ NTY SE AUTHORITY '~i'i!~:PjO./.:.'BOX 1C:xE~ 1t68 SPOTNAP ~D. CHAFa-OTrESVILLE VA' 22902 · (804) 977-4511 FAX (804) 9790698 September 23, 1999 Ms. Susan Thomas Dept. of Planning & Community Development Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Covenant Upper School SP-99-055 Dear Susan: This letter serves to confirm the Service Authority has been discussing public sewer options with the consultant de- signing the Covenant Upper School site, proposed on Hickory Street. They are considering a private pumping station to deliver sewage to the existing sewer main at the Wachovia Regional Headquarters, or a participation project with the Service Authority to extend a gravity sewer through a por- tion of the Oak Hill subdivision. Sufficient capacity ex- ists for either option. We have received a cost estimate from the consultant for the private pump option and an offer to contribute an equal sum toward the construction of a gravity sewer exten- sion. This proposal will be presented to our Board of Di- rectors at their next regularly scheduled meeting on October 21st for their consideration. We trust this information is sufficient for your needs. Let us know if you have any questions. PCG:dmg Cc: Frank Cox Bill Brent Paul Shoop Senior Civil Engineer RECEIVED PLANNING AND GOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTY OF ALBEM~LE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS ATTACHMENT L TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: David Benish, Senior Planner Jeff Thomas, Senior Engineer October 4, 1999 Covenant Upper School Critical Slope Waiver Request (SP 99-054) This memorandum is to clarify our comments regarding the critical slope waiver request received on September 1, 1999. Based on the concept plan received September 1, 1999, the proposed site has an area of 25.99 acres. This includes a critical slope area of 1.81 acres. Approximately 0.73 acres (40%) of critical slope area on the subject property will be disturbed during construction. From the concept plan, it appears that the slopes will mostly be filled. The main critical slope fill area runs along a proposed soccer field on the south side of the property. As stated in Section 18-4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following concerns must be adckessed before any critical slope waiver is granted. 1. "movement of soil and rock" The applicant states in the request letter dated August 14, 1999 that "enhanced slope stabilization and landscaping associated with the campus and athletic field development will be provided with the overall site improvements to improve upon the existing unmanaged slope conditions". Based on the concept plan, we agree with this statement. Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil. 2. "excessive stormwater runoff' A stormwater management plan will need to be submitted with the final plans for approval. This plan must limit the proposed 2-year peak flow, the 2-year flow velocity, and the 10-year peak flow to existing condition values. 3. "siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proposed stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. 4. "loss of aesthetic resource" Some aesthetic loss is expected from tree removal. We feel this will be partially offset by landscaping on the site. 5. "septic effluent" Septic fields must not be located on critical slopes. Based upon an August 11, 1999 meniorandum, the applicant is seeking public water and sewer connections. We strongly recommend this course of action. Based on the review above, the Engineering Depathnent recommends approval of the waiver with the condition that any changes to the site layout shown on the concept plan must not substantially change the amount of affected critical slopes. cc: Susan Thomas, Senior Planner Copy: File SP 99-054 File: critical slope waiver review.doc /-uu-uu IU: U4;~q VH COMMUNICATIONS C, P W NIRELE$$ NO. 5409322210 02/02 1150 b-~henandoah Villag~ Drive EO. B~x 1328 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980-0909 FAX: 54O 94~-18§0 540 932-2210 November 09,1999 V, Wayne Cilitnberg Counqt of Albemarle 401 Mclntir~ Koad Charlotte.~viile, Va. 22902-4596 RE: 8P-99-55 Route 676--CV201 Tax Map 44, P121t Duar Mr Cilimberg CFW Wi:~less would like to defer this request at your 1 l/10/99 Board of Supervisors m¢~ing. In an effort to work with the church and the county we are Iooking at another location on the same property. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely Dick Shearer Site Acquisition/Construction Manager October 22, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-$823 Dick Shearer CFW Intetos 1150 Sehnnandoah Village Drive Waynesboro, VA 22980 RE: SP-99-55 CFW 201 Route 676 (Ivy Creek Methodist Church) Tax Map 44, Parcel 12H Dear Mr. Shearer: The Albemarle County Planning CommisSion, at its meeting on October 26, 1999, in a 4-1 vote, recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission cited concerns about the visibility'of the tower, and the proximity of the site to the adjacent Agricultural/Forestal District. The Commission also took the following actions: · Setback Waiver - Denied (4-1 vote) the setback waiver associated with SP-99-55. · Site Plan Waiver - Approved (3-2 vote) the site plan waiver associated with SP-99-555. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 10, 1999. 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, Susan E. Thomas, AICP Senior Planner SET/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Jack.Kelsey Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN THOMAS, AICP OCTOBER 12, 1999 NOVEMBER 10, 1999 SP 99-55 CV 201 ROUTE 676 (IVY CREEK METHODIST CHURCH) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval to install a self supporting wooden pole approximately 10 feet above tree height (tree height is approximately 85 feet) to provide improved wireless service for the Earlysville/Free Union area, within Albemarle County. The proposed tower site is a 20- foot x 20-foot site at the northeast comer of the existing cemetery located east of the church. Petition: Request for special use permit to allow for a personal wireless service facility in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio-wave transmission and relay towers. The property, described as Tax Map 44 Parcel 12H, is the site of the Ivy Creek United Methodist Church and located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District at 674 Woodlands Road (Route 676), approximatelyl/2 mile east of the intersection of Routes 676 and 660. The property contains 1.6 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 1. A location map is included as Attachment A; a plat of the property is Attachment B; the applicant's justification is Attachment C; the tower and antenna design is Attachment D. The applicant is also requesting a site plan waiver and a reduction in setback. A setback variance was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 5, 1999. Character of the Area: Access to the site is a through the parking area of the existing church (located on the adjacent parcel), thence into the cemetery and via an access easement to the 20-foot x 20-foot tower lease area. (Although located on separate and adjacent parcels, the church, parking area and cemetery appear as one property and are used for the same pUrpose.) Existing development within the immediate area is primarily agricultural and rural residential, with smaller parcels along the road and large farms interspersed and located back from the road. Properties located within the Panorama Agricultural/Forestal (A/F) District lie immediately adjacent to the north; the [same] adjacent parcel (TM 44 Parcel 12) also has a conservation easement. The owner of that parcel has indicated via signed letter, that she does not object to a setback waiver. (Attachment E) In conversation with staff, she has indicated that she opposes the proposed tower use. The proposed tower site lies at an elevation of approximately 5.45 feet ASL (Above Sea Level). The closest dwelling is the residence located on the same parcel, on the far (west) side of the church. Approximately 36 residences are located within 2,000 feet (0.37 miles) of the proposed tower. No existing towers are located in the immediate area. The closest existing CFW Wireless facilities are located west of Forest Lakes and at Fashion Square Mall, to the north and east of this site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial. Planning and Zoning History,: None available. Comprehensive Plan: Staff notes that the existing driveway and electrical service to the church would be used for the purposes of the proposed tower. Staff can identify no provision in the Comprehensive Plan which prohibits or has the ,effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communications. This site is located' in the Rural Areas, adjacent to an A/F District and also to property with a dedicated conservation easement. The A/F Advisory Committee discussed this project at its meeting of August 30, 1999 and indicated that it considers tower development this close to an A/F district to have a negative impact on the district. (see Attachment F, minutes) The presence of a conservation easement on the same adjacent property also was considered to be a negative factor in consideration ofthe tower. Because the proposed tower site is located so close to (w/thin 10 feet of) the conservation easement/A/F District parcel, staff found that this tower had a greater potential to negatively impact the adjacent parcel than at other locations where the proposed site is further set back from the shared boundary. Ivy Creek Methodist Church was built in the early part of this century. Although the site was not surveyed in depth to determine its eligibility for the National Register, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources survey includes the following comment: "This church is a well-executed example of early twentieth century Gothic Revival architecture on a small scale." Chapter Two of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (adopted March 3, 1999) sets forth OBJECTIVE: Continue to identify and recognize the value of buildings, structures, landscapes, sites and districts which have historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance. OBJECTIVE: Pursue additional protection measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle's historic and archaeological resources in order to foster pride in the County and maintain the County's character. The proposed tower in this location does not further the above cited goal and objectives. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request in three sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Reduction in setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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 Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_, The proposed tower is located approximately 10 feet fi:om the nearest property line (to the north); that boundary is shared with Tax Map 44 Parcel 12, which is in the Panorama A/F District and also has a dedicated conservation easement. (A setback reduction is requested for this site in addition to the setback variance.) Although the wooden pole proposed resembles common utility poles, its much greater height (approximately 95 feet, probably twice that of most utility poles), location close to the shared property line, and the sparse tree cover on site are anticipated to create visual impacts that would be of detriment to the adjacent property to the north, and in fact to other adjacent and nearby properties due to the lack of visual buffer. The cemetery currently has four significant (oak) trees which are generally located between the proposed lease site and the road, which would be the primary viewing point for both the traveling public and residents on the small parcels to the south. A few small trees are growing along the fenceline to the north and east, providing some screening for the wooden pole, but in general this is a very exposed site with cleared fields around it to the north and east. Tree-top towers have been successfully located where much heavier tree cover exists on site to camouflage the new type of use. Due to the absence of effective tree cover in the cemetery area, there does not appear to be an alternative location on-site that would better mitigate visual impacts. The applicant has indicated that CFW Wireless service personnel will visit the site approximately 3 one time per month, a schedule similar to other utility providers. When electrical power to the site is interrupted by weather or other factors, service personnel would be required to visit the site to ensure that back-up power systems are working. This schedule is not expected to create adverse impacts to adjacent property. Four wheel drive sport utility vehicles [Jeep type] are generally used for this purpose. The proposed tower may offer limited opportunities for collocation in an area which has been identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staff notes that although the County~ encourages collocation of facilities where oppommities eXist, future collocation on this tower, should it be approved, should not introduce telecommunications facilities that more significantly impact the adjacent property and the district. The wooden pole construction and limited height' result in a lack of capacity for vertical separation of antennae belonging to different providers, and thus collocation does not appear probable. No lighting requirement is anticipated since this tower does not penetrate the Airport Overlay District. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Staff has reviewed the impact of the proposed tower relative to the character of the Rural Areas District and Panorama A/F District, and notes that approval of this tower may increase the potential to establish furore facilities of this nature on this site which might, perhaps, have a greater impact than this particular installation. Although physical impacts to the property are anticipated to be minimal since no clearing is required, and access and electrical service already exist on site, staff finds that the proposed tower.would alter the character of the Rural Areas district because it is plainly visible from the Woodlands Road and surrounding property, and introduces a use and structure at a height which differs from the rural residential and agricultural uses characteristic of this district and portion of the county. Due to its height and antenna an'ay, it is likely to be distinctive in appearance and different from the common utility pole which is generally about one-half its height. The sparse tree cover, surrounding open country, and location close to the road combine to offer minimal visual buffering on this site. Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas in the past, without a finding of significant change to the character of the district depending upon the specific site and its surrounding terrain, land use, and other site-specific factors. Staff suggests that site specific factors such as size, construction type and site characteristics be considered within the larger context of the pattern of tower location during the special use permit review process. At the present time, there does not appear to be an excess of tower facilities in this area. However, this parcel does not offer the opportunities for careful siting that are necessary to avoid visual impacts to the RA district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, - Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.4.8, and 1.5. Sections 1.4.3, 1.4.4, and 1.5 address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase-in use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in increase in use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Sections 1.4.5 and 1.4.8 address preservation of historic areas and agricultural, forestal and other lands significant to the natural. Staff finds that negative impacts which would result from the proposed tower in this location conflict with these provisions of the ordinance.' Staffopinion is that this request does not comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed tower will not restrict the church or cemetery use on .this parcel, or other by-right uses available on this site orby-fight uses on any other property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health and safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication 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 Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. In order to operate this .facility, the applicant.is required to meet the FCC guidelines ~for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(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. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision ofpersonaI wireless service. Staff opinion is that the County has no ban or policies that have the effect of banning personal wireless services or facilities and that decisions regarding the approval of facilities to provide service is done on a case-by-case basis. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Because of the absence of existing towers in this portion of the County, as previously mentioned, it has not been possible to identify any suitable collocation oppommity which would address the applicant's desire to provide an improved level of service in the area. In response to staff inquiry regarding use of the church steeple for the tower purpose, the applicant has stated that it is not tall enough to be functional. The applicant has not provided information on alternative sites that may have been considered and found to be infeasible for the tower use. Staff has no independent verification available concerning the engineering requirements of the applicant's network or the location needs relative to this site, Or other sites that would accomplish the applicant's service objective in this area. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 32.2.2 allows the Commission to waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Based on a review of existing conditions on the property and the proposed lease area, staff is unable to identify any purpose which would be served by requiting the submission of a site plan. Should the Commission recommend approval of SP 99-15, staff recommends approval ora full site plan waiver subject to the following conditions: Should the area of disturbance exceed 10,000 square feet (including the access road), an erosion and sediment control plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit; Reduction in setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10.3.1 states: "The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television 'antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. This height limitation shall not apply to any of the above designated structures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements". According to the requirements of this provision, the proposed tower would need to be located a minimum of 95 feet from the edge of the property. The current location is approximately 10 feet from the north property line, 20 feet from the east property line, 0 feet from the south property line [cemetery]. The proposed tower location meets the setback requirement on the west. The owner of the property to the north and east has indicated by letter that she does not object to the setback redUction. The property owner to the south [cemetery] is the chui:ch who also owns the lease parcel; thus, no objection to the reduction in setback in anticipated. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The tower will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.43, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The'tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties; 2. Access to the tower will be from an existing driveway, through an existing entrance; 3. -In addition to residential use, the affected portion of the parcel is presently used for a cemetery. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 1. A non-agricultural/forestal use will be introduced into a rural area, immediately adjacent to an A/F District and a conservation easement; 2. The tower is visible from Woodlands Road; 3. Staff is not able to verify that all alternative locations for this tower have been fully explored. The following factor is relevant to this consideration: 1. There is existing reasonable uses of the property [church and cemetery uses]. Staff opinion is that this request does not comply with the provisions of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, and recommends denial of the application. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that this request does not comply with the provisions of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff feels that negative impacts from the tower would be significant and cannot be mitigated on this site. However, should the Commission recommend approval of this application, staff offers the following recommended conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The height of the tower shall not exceed ten (10) feet above the height of the large 7 oak tree located immediately south of the proposed lease site. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of this tree. A lightning rod approximately one (1) inch in thickness may extend two (2) feet above the height of the tower; The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be Wood; bo Guy wires shall be not permitted; c. The tower shall have no lighting; d. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color; The tower shall be located on the site as follows: ao The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Survey of a Lease Parcel & Ingress Egress Easement for CFW Wireless on the Land of Ivy Creek Methodist Church" dated September 1, 1999 and initialed .SET, 9/27/99;. b. The lease area shall not be fenced; Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: ao Antenna shall be limited to two (2) panel antenna not to exceed six (6) feet in height, mounted flush against the wooden pole and not to extend above the top of the pole; b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas.are pr.ohibited; The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site; The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County; Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding feature. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods of maintenance; No existing trees on site shall be removed. In the event that existing trees on site die or are damaged, a landscape plan shall be developed which provides screening equal to or greater than that provided by the existing trees on the site. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required; Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading necessary to improve the travel surface and the application of gravel. Should installation of the tower require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed; 10. The regular service interval shall be as indicated by the applicant and described herein, except as necessary for repair and restoration of service; 11. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued; 12. 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 and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider; 15. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to authorize a site plan 9 waiver: A waiver of the drawing of a site plan has been granted in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2 subject to the following conditions: Should the area of disturbance exceed 10,000 square feet (including the access road), an erosion and sediment control plan shall be approved prior to the. issuance of a building permit. No requirement for parking is recommended.due to the availability of the church parking lot for this purpose. The applicant's proposal requires approval of a setback reduction for the lease area. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit for the tower use, staff recommends that the setback reduction be granted. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Survey of Property C - Applicant's Justification D - Tower and Antenna Design E - Letter fi.om Adjacent Property Owner F - A/F Advisory Committee Minutes C.' IPLANNINGITOWERS~Ivy Creek Methodist tower, doc 10 ALBEMARLE 30 COUNTY ATTACHMENT A 7 37(:; 4F SP-99-55 CV201 Route 676 (Ivy., Creek Methodist Church) 19& J9 / Z7 22 C ?'SM ?$N ,,,,,?O8 21 3J9 SSA 64' 60 JACK dOUETT DISTR! CTS .~.~,..-~ WHITE. HALL, SECTION 44 ...... AND RIO 50.00' 20.00'  ~d .." ~ ~0.~' I I I I I ,I ! ! I I %'~~ON 'OYI~ County of Alb ' %arle o:- Department of Bt-'.'ling CodtATTACHMENT C ' O~'~'tCE USt~ ONLY Application for Special Use. Permit Project Name i~o,, ~,~ ~r~ to ~.~ CV20t *Existing Use ~ g~ Proposed Use *Zoning District '~Ck ~Ci~' *Zoning Ordinance Section number requested (*staff will assist you with these items) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit ~ir. ~n~ a ..~ ~ ~.~t~ Is this an amendment to an existing Spe~ Use Permit? Are you submitting a site development plan with this application? Contact Person (Whom should we call/write concerning this project?): Address ~15~ ~ho~a~doa~n ¥illa~, Driq¢ City '~x¥~leslooro Daytime Phone ( ~'qtO ) ~%- I ~51 State V/~ Zip Owner 6f land (~ listed in the County's records): IJV ~rC~Jg Address (,,7e ~ctla~d ~0ad Daytime Phone ( ~'0'4 ) ~7~-'t7~ Fax# City f~artoffe~ill¢ E-mail State V/~ Zip 22q01 Applicant (Who is the contact person r~p~-.senting? Who is requesting thc special use?): - ~.aclltl- Imt~O,5 Address 1150 5henaodoah ~'[lage. I~,iCe City l/da~tr~e~oro' State VA. Daytime Phone ( f~/~ ) qq$ ' lg.~l Fax # (5'qo) q32 -2210 E-mail Zip ~.gclgo Tax map and parcel Physical Address Cifassigned) b7q O,~dl~d Location of property (laadmarks. imers~:tions, orothcr) O.ff O~ gOt~e ~'Tb Does the owner of this. property own (or have any owne~ interest those tax map and parcel numbers ~ ~.- ]4 /~.//~' in) any abutting property? If yes, please list OFFICE USE ONLY Fee amount $ "~50 .~ Date Paid Check # 5~ ,~,-- His. tory: Q Special Use Pe~i~: I O ZMAs and Proffem Receipt# /~'~ By:~r'tJTe~ 13 Variances: Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? 13 Letter Of Authorization D Yes 13 No 401 Mclntire Road .:. Charlottesville, VA 22902 o~. Voice: 296-5832 o:o Fax: 972-4126 'Describe your request ~., detail and include all pertinent iaforma~.un such as the numbers of persons invoNed in tlie use, operating hours, and' any unique features of the use: ~TTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, parmership or association, or in the name 0fa trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be' submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the apphcant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Prated N~e Daytime phone number of Signatory 3 Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County .Zoning Ordinance states'.that; "The'board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial 'detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the distr~''~ will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses' permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information wt'dch will assist the County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Howwilltheproposedspecialuseaffectadjacentproperty? bl]ill ti04' a,.~¢~ 44~e pro?~l?, How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? The 4~e/~otae pole I0 ~f 02~ov¢ 'afdc -h'ee$ ~)i4h ~fl, oropria,f¢ ~urrour~d ir~ ~ properS~. qrt~nna.s will no+ ag(ed' -~e Otaracker 06 ~e clis~'ct How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? Iylacetrtettf' 0 f' t,~ood~ pol~ I0 'F¢oc How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the d. is. trict? What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? ~ec~or} ff. t. [2 How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? lg£oViCle-,S atf&rtlct-II'V~ mesas o-F comm~aic~4't'on via wirei~ ~e~ho~e ~d al~o ~ovi~s ~n e~e(q~C~ mea~ ~ comm~i~'on ~ ~'m6 ~ need. 2 -IIV. l...~O ONrlOU~ VNN..gJ. NV )[O&AO 9Z9 .....-?I I'IOU :JO&OC)J~UO3 0 ' :CFW,lnlelos 1150 Shenandoah Village D~ve P.O. Box 1328 Wayn~boro. Virgima 22980-0909 (540) 946.- 1850 ATTACHMENT E September 1. 1999 I am aware ~ CFW-~ is proposing m place a l~Jephone pole on my neighix~s property (Ivy Creek Methodist Chun:h). I have no probJe~n with tim pole ~ placed in the position ru~r m~/proixmy line, AgriculturalfForestal Districts Advisory Committee Minutes August 30, 1999 ATTACHMENT F The Chair, Stephen Murray, was absent. The Vice-Chair, Joseph Jones, called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Other members of the committee present were: Sherry Buttrick, Walter Perk/ns, Robert Bloch, Jacquelyne Huckle, David vanRoijen, Bruce Woodzell, and Rosemary Dent. Other members absent were: Bruce Hogue. Staffpresent were Mary Joy Scala and Susan Thomas, Senior Planners. Gordon Yager, District Conservationist, was absent. Dick Shearer was present, representing CFW-Intelos. SP 99-55 CFW-Intelos CV201 Route 676 (telecommunications facility) The Vice-Chair asked Susan Thomas to begin. Ms. Thomas explained that/he proposed treetop tower would be viewed mostly from Route 676 - it is proposed to be located adjacent to the Ivy Creek Methodist Church. It would resemble a telephone pole about seven ft higher than the nearest tree, with panel antennae (6ft high X I linches wide) mounted at their mid-point to the top of the tower - would add about 3 feet. Her concern was that there are not many trees on the site, only four large oak trees, 70-90 feet tall, Mr. vanRoijen asked if the tower is to be located on the highest part on the parcel. Mr. Shearer said yes. Ms. Dent asked what the need was for the tower, and how long was the access road? How many years would it be there? Mr. Shearer explained the road is existing and goes through the cemetery. They have a twenty year option. He said they are not allowed to collocate on distribution lines to residences or along roadways. They can collocate on larger transmission lines. They have a collocation site on a transmission tower near the Bypass. They collocate with AEP whenever possible. Mr: vanRoijen asked if they could locate on the church. Mr. Shearer said it is too low. Ms. Scala said the Committee has before them two different applications which are reviewed · slightly differently. The tower near the church is adjacent to the Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District, which meant that all land use decisions had to consider the existence of a district on an adjacent parcel. The Foxfield (Peter Easter) tower is actually located within the Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District. There the Committee had to consider if the tower was a more intensive use, and whether it met the stated purposes of a district, including aesthetics. Ms. Huckle asked if the church tower would require BZA approval? ~,,L uy; uN£1~U LAND CORP 8049750287 11/10/9g 5:08PM d0b 264 Page 1/1 999 Mr'. ~gayne Ci I [mberE, [3i rector of Planning, County o~ Albemarl. e ~0] Mclntire Road Charl. ottesvJ lie, Virginia 22902 1'3ear Wayne: a determin'ation that they are ~o[r~g to move, forward locating 'their Corporate Headquarters oi~ Airport Road. Therefore. we wish to withdraw ZMA 99.--'3 (request 'to 17.21 acres). ~e wisl~ ta proceed with ZMA..-99...2; we wish to de.let this request until a d{~'termina'ti(~r~ exact boundaries, consi, stent ,ith the Comprehensive~ Plan. can be ma~e. We wi J I then amend our t-eques't to comp J v wi'th the acreage in the Comprehensiv(:~ Plar~. We believe that the 63 acres is within the Plan, but since conflic't. ~e would ! ike to work wi~:h you to de'terrain(: fha.., exact boundaries. ,.~ i r~cer e? [ y . ¢.,,-." ,;..,-~ .~....,;,. .- ..,,.~,~" 975-3334 9v5-026'? P,O, Box 5548 · Chariom,..sx, illc, Virginia zzgt)5 I1[ (804)c~gg[lll Fax Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 October 25, 1999 Wendell W. Wood Next Generation Land Trust P O Box 5548 Charlottesville, VA 22905 ZMA-99-02 Value America, Tax Map 33, Parcel ID ZMA-99-03 Value America, Tax Map 33, Parcel 15 Dear Mr. Wood: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 19, 1999, in a 6-1 vote, made the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. ZMA-99-02 Value America- Recommended denial. The Commission suggested that if the applicant wants to pursue the rezoning of this site, then he should submit a proposal for rezoning of the land that lies within the Development Area boundary, including a development plan for the property, including proffers, runoff control, and transportation amenities. The Commission unanimously agreed that if the Board acts on the rezoning, they should consider any subsequent proposal to be treated as a substantially different application. The intent of the Commission was that a reapplication should fall completely within the Development Area, and include the ihformation lacking as previously discussed. ZMA-99-03 Value America - Recommended denial. The Commission expressed concern that the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and it is not within the Development Area. Please be advised that the Albemarle County .Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on NOVEMBER 10, 1999. 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. October 25, 19999 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary Joy Scala Senior Planner Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA OCTOBER 19, 1999 NOVEMBER 17, 1999 ZMA 99-002 VALUE AMERICA, INC. Staff Report Revised October 12, 1999 Background: The Albemarle Coun _ty Planning Commission at its meeting on August 24, 1999, deferred action on the rezoning applications of ZMA 99-02 Value America, Inc. and ZMA 99-03 Value America, Inc. to October 19, 1999. Commissioners agreed with staff that additional information was needed, including a traffic study and plan of development for the existing Development Area addressing issues of transportation, utilities, stormwater, open space, public facilities, and areas appropriate for development. Simultaneously, the Commission adopted a resolution of intent to consider a Comnrehensive Plan amendment to review whether or not the area included in the rezoning applications should be included in the Development Area. Within that analysis, the Commission requested staff's recommendation whether or not the Development Area boundaries should be expanded or adjusted. See CPA 99-02. Applicant's proposal: The applicant and owner of land, Next Generation Land Trust, proposes to rezone a parcel of land containing approximately 43.009 acres (original 11.61 acres + 29.471 new acres + 1.928 acres road right-of-way), from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industry to accomodate the offices of Value America, Inc. No proffers have been submitted as of 10-12-99. Petition: Request to rezone 43.009 acres from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industry to allow a 100,000 sq. ft.office building. The property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcel ID, part thereof, Parcel 14, part thereof, Parcel 15, part thereof, and Parcel iF, part thereof, is located in the Rivarma Magisterial District on the east side of Seminole Trail (Ronte 29 North) approximatelyone-half mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River~ The Comprehensive Plan designates part of this property as Industrial Service in the Piney Mountain Community Development Area, and part as Rural Area. (See Attachment A - Tax Map) (See Attachment B - Land Use Plan) (See Attachment C - Topo Map and Development Area bounda~) Applicant's justification: This rezoning will allow an existing, successful operation, founded in Albemarle County, to consolidate local offices that are currently in seven different locations. There is no single location large enough to house the facilities under one roof with ample parking and provide the amenities the company desires to provide for the environment and their employees. Value America provides employment and training opportunities for local people resulting in higher level and better paying jobs. Character of the Area: .Most of the surrounding area east of Route 29 is rural in character and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. There are approximately 91 acres zoned PRD in 1977, to the north of the site. The abutting National Ground Intelligence Center (N.G.I.C.) office building site zoned LI, Light Industry in 1996, is currently under construction. Several existing industrial uses zoned LI, Light Industry and HI, Heavy Industry, are located on Route 29, abutting the North Fork Rivarma River. The GE-Fanuc complex is located on the west side of Route 29, zoned LI. Also on the west side of Route 29 are the Briarwood Subdivision zoned PRD and C-l, and Camelot Subdivision, zoned R-4. 'RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this application for conformance with the provisions of Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Article 7 of the Code of Virginia, and Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, and the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, and recommends denial of the portion of the application outside the existing Development Area boundary_ because the property_ is not located within an existing Dvelopment Area, and due to the recommendation not to expand or adjust the Development Area boundary_ contained in CPA 99-02. Staff also continues to recommend denial of the portion Of the application within the existing Development Area. boundary due to the need for additional information, including additional traffic study information, and a plan of development that addresses Comprehensive Plan issues. NOTE: The applicant has submitted applications to rezone two sites for Value America, Inc. One site is partly within the Piney Mountain Development Area; the other site is outside the Development Area in the Rural Area. The applicant has stated in a recent letter dated October 12, 1999 that Value America, Inc. will utilize one or the other site, but not both. This is a change_from the previous staff report. At this point in the review process, staff has rgquested and is awaiting additional information, specifically a traffic study and plan of development for the existing Development Area. A plan of development would allow issues of transportation, utilties and stormwater, open space, public facilities and areas appropriate for development to be addressed. The applicant has also been informed thqt approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be necessary before a rezoning of the site outSide the DevelopmeAt Area could be considered. This staff report has been written with all available information, but is .not complete. Until the additional information is received and reviewed, staff cannot recommend approval of either application. Staff has suggested that the applicant request deferral, but the applicant has stated that he does not wish to defer the applications at this time because he would like to have an opportunity to discuss the proposal with the Planning Commission. Therefore, staff has .recommended denial of both applications. The applicant stated at the August 24 Planning Commission meeting that he was willing to defer the application if necessa~_ . A plan of development was receivedAugust 16, 1999, which was forwarded to the Site Review Committee for comments. The applicant submitted a letter to increase the acreage o_f ZMA 99-02 on August 31, 1999, and submitted a plat o_f the new acreage on September 24, 1999. The Site Review Committee met on September 9, 1999. Written site review comments_from Planning and Community Development, VDOT, Building, 2 Fire/Rescue, Service Authority, and E-911 Mapping were hand delivered to the applicant at a site visit on October 1, 1999. (See ATTACHMENT E- Planning, Fire/Rescue, Service Authori~ comments) Revisions were requested bY October 11, 1999. Requested revisions have not been received to date. The applicant submitted revisions not requested on October 12, 1999. (See ATTACHMENT F- letter from Muncaster Engineering dated October 12, I999) Plannine and ZoningHistorv_ i CPA 92-01 Amendment to the Land Use Plan, Piney Mountain - February 19, 1992 - Approximately 250 acres of Industrial Service designation added east of Route 29. ZMA 94-12 River Heights Associates - April 11, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved a request to rezone approximately 28.88 acres from Rural Areas to Light Industry with proffers for theN.G.I.C, office building. SP 99-33 N.G.I.C. Access Road - Approved with conditions by Plannning Commission on August 3, 1999; Board of Supervisors date August 18, 1999. Comprehensive Plan: This site is located at the edge of the Piney Mountain Community Development Area. Part of the property is designated for Industrial Service and part is designated as Rural Area in Land Use Plan. The LI, Light Industry zoning district is consistent with the Industrial Service designation. The Open Space Plan recognizes the stream buffers along Herring Branch, North Fork Rivanna River and the pond areas. A buffer area is recommended between the Industrial Service and Rural Area designations. Route 29 is a designated Entrance Corridor. Pertinent Industrial Land Use Standards include: · While single-use industrial sites must be accommodated, rezonings which propose multiple sites served by common' access points should be encouraged. · Industrial sites should locate adjacent to'compatible uses (commercial, other industrial site or employment center, etc.) as opposed to residential, agriculture, or other sensitive areas. Industrial traffic should avoid residential areas and roadways not designed for such traffic. Pertinent recommendations of the Piney Mountain Land Use Plan are: · Three areas of environmental sensitivity exist [including]... the floodplain of the North Fork of the Rivanna River. These areas are not to be disturbed during development. (p.87) · An area east of Route 29 and west of the unnamed tributary of the North Fork of the Rivanna River is designated for Industrial Service. No development of properties above what is allowable under current zoning will take place until water and sewer services are provided to the area consistent with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority for the provision of service to this area. (p.87) · Consider development proposal for the Industrial Service area east of Route 29 under a planned development approach to allow for the coordination of public utilities and facilities, road access and necessary internalized support services. (p.87) · An undisturbed buffer area along Herring Branch should be maintained/provided to reduce the visual impact of the development of the Industrial Service areaeast of Route 29. Also, maintain natural buffers on the perimeter of this site, along steep slopes and stream valleys. (p.87) · Development plans along Route 29 North are to be sensitive to its Status as an Entrance Corridor roadway. Due to the.elevation of the Industrial Service area east of Route 29 and its potential visibility from Routes 29 and 600 and surrounding areas, development of this area will be subject for review for such visual impact. (p.87) · Access to Route 29 for the Industrial Service area east of Route 29 shall be limited to the existing crossover south of the Briarwood/G.E. Fanuc crossover. A second access to the site for emergency purposes should be considered during the development review process. (p. 87) · Access to the Community from Route 600 should only occur in conjunction with an upgrade of the road system. (p.86) · Establish a greenway along the North Fork Rivanna River with connections to the surrounding residential and non-residential areas. (p.88) Staff Comment: The applicant has discussed with staff the possibility that he will apply in the future for an amendment to expand the Piney Mountain Development Area Land Use Plan with mixed uses. Because the Board of Supervisors has made the decision not to expand any Development Areas until the Developmeiat Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC) has made its recommendations, staff has reviewed this application under the assumption that the existing Development Area will continue to develop as an Industrial Service area with office or manufacturing uses. Three zoning districts are compatible with the Industrial Service designation: LI, Light Industry, HI,. Heavy Industry, and PD-IP, Planned Development,Industrial Park. The industrial zoning districts provide for industries and offices by-right, and supporting commercial uses by special use permit, not to exceed 5% of the total floor area devoted to primary uses. The LI, Light Industry zoning district specifically allows "Business and professional office buildings" by right. Both the N.G.I.C. site and this site are proposed for office buildings. The abutting NGIC site was rezoned in 1996 with proffers which affect this development proposal. The Value America web site contains this self-description: "Since 1996, a dedicated community of entrepreneurs, business executives, technical engineers, creative artists, and customer sermce professionals have been working together to build the world's largest Internet store .... 4 At Value America, we want to be your Intemet source for the best products, from the best brands, at the best prices. And that doesn't mean only computers and office products. We're talking housewares, home electronics, sporting goods, jewelry, home and garden equipment, and much, much more.. Transportation: The Virginia Department of Transportation has requested a Master Plan and Traffic Study (See Attachment D - VDOT letters dated 08-17-99 and 09-07-99). A study was submitted to VDOT on 08-13-99, which the August 17 letter addresses. N.G.I.C. proffers # 3, 5 and 6 affect transportation issues for this development proposal (See Attachment E - N. G.I. C. action letter with proffers dated 04-! 7-99). Utilities: Public water and sewer service are currently available, however, water supply and sewer treatment capacity are not adequate to meet the needs of the service area at build-out. The Industrial Service area east of Route 29 has not yet been included in the ACSAjurisdictional area for water and sewer, which needs to be done. Staff has requested formal comment from the Albemarle County Service Authority. Verbal comments are; Water treatment from a 12" line would be provided by the North Fork Rivanna treatment plant_and storage would be provided at Piney Mountain storage tank. This plant also supplies GE, Briarwood, North Pines and Camelot. As the North Fork Research Park and Forest Lakes North develop, the current capacity of the treatment plant of 2 million gallons/day will be reached. Additional water fi.om the South Fork Rivanna and additional storage will be needed. Water service is supplied on a first come - first serve basis. Sewer service would be provided by the Camelot treatment plant, which will also be exceeded at some point. An engineering study in the next few months will look at sewer needs in this area. The Camelot plant capacity is currently 350,000 gallons/day, with 100,000 gallons/day being used (less than 50%). At 80%capacity the system should be redesigned; at 90% capacity the system should be upgraded or replaced. N.G.I.C. is anticipated to use 30,000 gallons/day. Sewer service, like water service, is supplied on a first come - first serve basis, with no capacity reserved. Public Facilities: Police, fire and rescue and library services do not meet the service standards established in the Community Facilities Plan. The impact of this proposed development on public facilities which serve the entire Hollymead/Piney Mountain Development Area should be considered. One of the purposes of requiring a plan of development is to ensure that public facility needs are addessed, even though development may occur piecemeal, one parcel at a time. Two existing proffers address public facilities in the Hollymead/Piney Mountain Development Area: Under ZMA 95-04 UVA Real Estate Foundation [North Fork Research Park], a proffer for up to a maximum of five acres for a fire station, and funding for hazardous materials training was approved. Under ZMA 91-04 Forest Lakes Association [Forest Lakes South], a proffer for a five acre parcel for such public use facilities as the County may select was approved. The Fire Official has commented that the fire department that serves the area is Earlysville, located on Route 660. Response time would be 8-10 minutes, depending on the time of day. There is a proffered site for a County fire station at' the Airport Road side of the new UVA project (North Fork Research Park). If permitted, funds could be proffered to develop the UVA site. That site would increase response times to these areas to 3-5 minutes. Additional stations may be needed if they are proposing additional development on the east side of Route 29. SUMMARY: Section 33.9 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a proposed Zoning Map Amendment shall be reviewed in regards to Sections 1.4 Purpose and Intent, 1.5 Relation to Environment, and 1.6 Relation to Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent on August 24, 1999, to review the existing Development Area boundary_ for possible expansion or adiustment. See CPA 99-02. No expansion or adjustment is recommended. Regarding the portion of the application that is located within the existing Development Area, critical information is still lacking, including additional traffic study information and a plan of development that addresses Comprehensive Plan issues, so that the application remains incomplete. Factors favorable to the application: 1. Location is (partially) within an existing Development Area. 2. The requested LI, Light Industry zoning district is consistent with the Industrial Service Comprehensive Plan designation for this area. 3. Public utilities are available. 4. Value America is a local business which provides employment opportunity. Factors not favorable to the application: 1. No proffers have been submitted. 2. The applicant did not submit a plan of development which addresses Comprehensive Plan issues, nor a complete traffic study, therefore the staff report is incomplete. 3. The Comprehensive Plan recommends two access points on Route 29. 4. The Development Area has not yet been included in the ACSA jurisdictional area. Factors about which there is not suffificent information to comment: 1. The plan Of development does not address open space recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan (stream buffers along Herring Branch, North Fork Rivanna River and ponds; address visual impact from Roure 29; buffer from Rural'Area; greenway along North Fork Rivanna River). 2. The need for public facilities to serve this Development Area has not been addressed. 3. Impacts of development of the remainder of the Industrial Service area are unknown. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends denial of the portion of the application outside the existing Development Area boundary_ due to reasons given in CPA 99-02. Staff also continues to recommend denial of the portion of the application within the existing Development Area boundary_ due to the need for additional information, 'including additional traffic study information, and a plan of development that addresses Comprehensive Plan issues. ATTACHMENTS: A - Tax Map B - Land Use Plan C - Topo Map D - VDOT Letters dated 08-17-99, and 09-07-99 E - Planning, Fire/Rescue, Service Authority comments F - Letter from Muncaster Engineering dated October 12, 1999 I:\...~ZMA99002ValueAmrevised.doc STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA OCTOBER 19, 1999 NOVEMBER 17, 1999 ZMA 99-003 VALUE AMERICA, INC. Staff Report Revised October 12, 1999 'Background: The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on August 24, 1999, deferred action on the rezoning applications of ZMA 99-02 Value America, Inc. and ZMA 99-03 Value America, Inc. to October 19, 1999. Commissioners agreed with staffthat additional information was needed, including a traffic study and plan of development for the existing Development Area addressing issues of transportation, utilities, stormwater, open space, public facilities, and areas appropriate for development. Simultaneously, the Commission adopted a resolution of intent to consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment to review whether or not the area included in the rezoning applications should be included in the Development Area. Within that analysis, the Commission requested staffs recommendation whether or not the Development Area boundaries should be expanded or adjusted. See CPA 99-02. Applicant's proposal: The applicant and owner of land, Next Generation Land Trust, proposes to rezone a parcel of land containing approximately 17.21 acres, from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industrial to accomodate the offices of Value America, Inc. No proffers have been submitted as of 10-12-99. Petition: Request to rezone 17.21 acres from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industry to allow a 100,000 sq. ft. office building. The property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcel 15, part thereof, and Parcel 16, part thereof, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the east side of Seminole Trail (Route 29 North) approximately one-half mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (See Attachment A - Tax Map) (See Attachment B .- Land Use Plan) (See Attachment C- Topo Map and Development Area bounda~_ ) Applicant's justification: This rezoning will allow an existing, successful operation, founded in Albemarle County, to consolidate local offices that are currently in seven different locations. There is no single location large enough to house the facilities under one roof with ample parking and provide the amenities the company desires to provide for the environment and their employees. Value America provides employment and training opportunities for local people resulting in higher level and better paying jobs. Character of the Area: Most of the surrounding, area east of Route 29 is rural in character and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. There are approximately 91 acres zoned PRD in 1977, to the north of the site. The N.G.I.C. office building site zoned LI, Light Industry in 1996, is currently under construction. Several existing industrial uses zoned LI, Light Industry and HI, Heavy Industry, are located on'Route 29, abutting the North Fork Rivanna River. The GE-Fanuc complex is located on the west side of Route 29, zoned LI. Also on the west side of Route 29 are the Briarwood Subdivision zoned PRD and C-l, and Camelot Subdivision, zoned R-4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this application for conformance with the provisions of Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Article 7 of the Code of Virginia, and Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of the Albemarle Cpunty Zoning Ordinance, and the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, and recommends denial' because the property is not located within an existing Development Area, and due to the recommendation not. to expand or adjust the Development Area bounda~_ contained in CPA 99-02. NOTE: The applicant has submitted applications to rezone two sites for Value America, Inc. One site is partly within the Piney Mountain Development Area; the other site is outside the Development Area in the Rural Area. The applicant has stated in a recent letter dated October 12, 1999 that Value America, Inc. will utilize one or the other site, but not both. This is a change_from the previous sta_ff report. At this point in the review process, staff has requested and is awaiting additional information, specifically a traffic study and plan of development for the existing Development Area. A plan of development would allow issues of transportation, utilties and stormwater, open space, public facilities and areas appropriate for development to be addressed. The applicant has also been informed that approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be necessary before a rezoning of the site outside the Development Area could be considered. This staff report has been written with all available information, but is not complete. Until the additional information is received and reviewed, staff cannot recommend approval of either application. Staff has suggested that the applicant request deferral, but the applicant has stated that he does not wish to defer the applications at this time because he would like to have 'an opportunity to discuss the proposal ~vith the Planning Commission. Therefore, staff has recommended denial of both applications. The applicant stated at the August 24 Planning Commission meeting that he was willing to defer the application !f necessa~_ : A plan of development was receivedAugust 16, 1999, which was forwarded to the Site Review Committee for comments. The applicant submitted a letter to increase the acreage qf ZMA 99-02 on August 31, t 999, and submitted a plat o_f the new acreage on September 24, 1999. The Site Review Committee met on September 9, 1999. Written site review comments from Planning and Community Development, VDOT, Building, Fire/Rescue, Service Authori~_ , and E-911 Mapping were hand delivered to the applicant at a site visit on October 1, 1999. (See ATTACHMENT E- Planning. Fire/Rescue, Service Authority comments) Revisions were requested bY October 11, 1999. Requested revisions have not been received to date. The applicant submitted revisions not requested on October 12, 1999. (See ATTACHMENT F - letter from Muncaster Engineering dated October 12, .1999) Planning and Zoning History_: CPA 92-01 Amendment to the Land Use Plan, Piney Mountain - February 19, 1992 - Approximately 250 acres of Industrial Service designation added east of Route 29. ZMA 94-12 River Heights Associates - April 11, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved a request to rezone approximately 28.88 acres bom Rural Areas to Light Industry with proffers for the N.G.I.C. office building. SP 99-35 N.G.I.C. Access Road - Approved with conditions by Plannning Commission on August 3, 1999; Board of Supervisors date August 18, 1999. Comprehensive Plan: This site is located approximately 1500 feet outside the Piney Mountain Development Area. This area is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The LI, Light Industry zoning district is not consistent with this designation. The Open Space Plan recognizes stream buffers along the North Fork Rivanna River and the pond area. A recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish a grcenway along thc North Fork Rivanna River. Staff Comment: The applicant has discussed with staff the possibility that he will apply in the future for an amendment to expand the Piney Mountain Development Area Land Use Plan with mixed uses. Because the Board of Supervisors has made thc decision not to expand any Development Areas until the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC) has made its recommendations, staff has reviewed this application under thc assumption that the existing Development Area will continue to develop as an Industrial Service area with office or manufacturing uses, and that this site is not a part of that Development Area; The LI, Light Industry zoning district specifically allows "Business and professional office buildings" by right. Both the N.G.I.C. site and this site are proposed for office buildings. The nearby NGIC site was rezoned in 1996 with proffers which affect this development proposal. The Value America web site contains this self-description: "Since 1996, a dedicated community of entrepreneurs, business executives, technical engineers, creative artists, and customer service professionals have been working together to build the world's largest Internet store .... At Value America, we want to be your Internet source for the best products, from the best brands, at the 'best prices. And that doesn't mean only computers and office products. We're talking housewares, home electronics, sporting goods, jewelry, home and garden equipment, and much, much more." Transportation: The Virginia Department of Transportation has requested a Master Plan and Traffic Study (See Attachment D - VDOT letters dated 08-17-99 and 09-07-99). A study was submitted to VDOT on 08-13-99, which the August 17 letter addresses. N.G.I.C. proffers # 3', 5 and 6 affect transportation issues for this development proposal (See Attachment E - N. G.I. C. action letter with proffers dated 04-17-99). Utilities: Although public water and sewer services are located in the. general area (See staff report for ZMA 99-002), this site cannot be included in the ACSA jurisdictional area because it is not in a designated Development Area. Public Facilities: Police, fire and rescue and library services do not meet the service standards established in the Community Facilities Plan. The impact of this proposed development on public facilities which serve the entire Hollymead/Piney Mountain Development Area should be considered. One of the purposes of requiring a plan of development is to ensure that public facility needs are addessed, even though development may occur piecemeal, one parcel.at a time. Two existing proffers address public facilities in the Hollymead/Piney Mountain Development Area: Under ZMA 95-04 UVA Real Estate Foundation [North Fork Research Park], a proffer for up to a maximum of five acres for a fire station, and funding for hazardous materials training was approved. Under ZMA 91-04 Forest Lakes Association [Forest Lakes South], a proffer for a five acre parcel for such public use facilities as the County may select was approved. The Fire Official has commented that the fire department that serves the area is Earlysville, located on Route 660. Response time would be 8-10 minutes, depending on the time of day. There is a proffered site for a County-fire station at the Airport Road side of the new UVA project (North Fork Research Park). If permitted, funds could be proffered to develop the UVA site. That site would increase response times to these areas to 3-5 minutes. Additional stations may be needed if they are proposing additional development on the east side of Route 29. SUMMARY: Section 33.9 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a proposed Zoning Map Amendment shall be reviewed in regards to Sections 1.4 Purpose and Intent, 1.5 Relation to Environment, and 1.6 Relation to Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent on August 24, 1999, to review the existing Development Area boundary_ for possible expansion or adiustment. See CPA .99-02. No expansion or adjustment is recommended. Factors favorable to the application: 1. Public utilities are available nearby. 2. Value America is a local business which provides employment oppommity. Factors not favorable to the application: 1. Location is outside a Development Area and the staff recommendation regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is no expansion or adjustment. 2. The location is not eligible to be included in the ACSA jurisdictional area. 3. The requested LI, Light Industry zoning district is not consistent with the Rural Area Comprehensive Plan designation for this area. 4. No proffers have been submitted. 5. The applicant did not submit a plan of development which addresses Comprehensive Plan issues, nor a complete traffic study, therefore the staff report is incomplete. 6. The Comprehensive Plan recommends two access points on Route 29. Factors about which there is not suffificent information to comment: 1. The plan of development does not address open space recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan (stream buffers along North Fork Rivanna River and ponds; greenway along North Fork Rivarma River). 2. The need for public facilities to serve this proposed development has not been addressed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends denial because the property is not located within an existing Development Area, and due to the recommendation not to expand or adiust the Development Area boundary_ contained in CPA 99-02. ATTACHMENTS: A -'Tax Map B - Land Use Plan C - Topo Map D - VDOT Letters dated 08-1%99, and 09-07-99 E - Planning, Fire/Rescue, ServiCe Authority_ comments F - Letter from Muncaster Engineering dated October 12, 1999 I:\...XZMA99003ValueAmrevised.doc AE~EMARLE COUNTY 21 IO .J 7 Value America Value America / / 19 65 RIVANNA DISTRIGT ATTACHMENT A SEE 49 30A 24 '~ ~6 SECTION L ke "~' ATTACHMENT B % / LOF TL~ND OR," ," :.~:~. ZMA'-'99-002 ZMA-99-O03 PREPARED BY DEPARTMENT OF PI, ANN[NO AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MA F COMMUN[ TIES OF HOLLYMEAD AND PINEY MOUNTAIN A ZMA 99-02 ATTACHMENT C /Jt~. i , ZMA 99 03. .,..-' 'x ~ '/", ~ //I/',~', - '. -~-"/ r' ., --..~.~.,, .... ...- ~,. ~ ' ' ,//-'"'~ ,'/'C;-~ : ..... X/~ff ~ , ...,... /.,' / .' ./ ~ ',,,,,/,, ,- ".-,'~. Piney Moun rain Communi~ Development Area'- ..... Comprehensive Plan.bounda~ ..- ~;- Area east of Route 29 designated Indnstrial Service DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMON ,VEAL H of VIRQ. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 70; VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911 August 17. 1999 ATTACHMENT D PAGE 1 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Value America 29 N Albemarle Mary Joy Scala Albemarle County, Department of Planning And Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mao' Joy: On August 13 the applicant submitted a "Preliminary Traffic Analysis" for the Value America rezoning requests ZMA-9902 and ZMA-9903. This study included a AM/PM peak hour capacity analysis of the US 29 /NGIC road intersection for NG IC with/without Value America traffic (100.000 sf office) for the opening year (2000) and I0 year period (2010). This intersection analysis is a portion of the traffic study requested when we met with the applicant on August 4, [999. Based on this intersection analysis, we would like to make a few interim comments: · Value America is requesting to rezone two parcels (approx. 29 acres) from Rural Areas to Light Industrial, with each allowing 100.O00 sfoffice building space. Single Tenant Office use (ITE 715) generates 90% and 75% more traffic than Light Industrial (ITE 1 I0) in the AM and PM peak periods respectively. · The NGIC and Value America together are about 300,000 sf of Single Tenant Office (ITE #715) use. The intersection analysis indicates that double left turn lanes along westbound NGIC road at US 29 are required to achieve LOS-C in the year 2000. It appears that this intersection will drop to LOS-D in the PM peak hour. by about 2004. · This intersection analysis.did not consider the ~ezoning of both parcels. It appears that this intersection cannot acco rnmodate the rezoning of both parcels with a LOS-C or better at a'single entranc-e along US 29. · There is 150-200 acres currently designated Light Industrial in this vicinity. It appears that NGIC and Value America alone, which comprises about 25% or less of this Light industrial area, will overload the NGIC ." US 29 intersection in the near future without consideration of the proposed Briarwood development across US 29. We continue to recommend a more comprehi~nsive traffic study for this area. Please advise if you have any questions. Regard~ Robert P. Ball Transportation Planner TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of V RG N A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CIflA R~.OTTESVJJ. LF~ A2~911 ~epmmDer /, l~y ATTACHMENT D PAGE 2 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Site Review Meeting September 9, 1999 Ms. Mary Joy Scala Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Scala: Following are our comments: ZMA 99-002 and ZMA 99-003 Value America. Inc., Route 29 N We know little about the applicant's recently submitted development plan (dated Aug 12, 1999) for Piney Mountain Village East, which includes the two proposed Value America sites. At this time, following are our comments regarding this plan. · Piney Mountain Village East development plan should indicate all existing crossovers and entrances along both sides of US 29. Planning of future site entrances along US 29 must consider existing entrance and crossover locations; this plan appears to show entrances offset from existing Austin Drive crossover. NGIC entrance crossovers along internal roadway should also be indicated on plan. · Development plan should indicate boundary of 250 acres +/- that is currently designated light industrial by Albemarle County. · Development plan shows proposed frontage road east of US29 intersecting main NGIC entrance road about 400 feet from US 29, which is only 200 feet east &the NGIC entrance crossover. A crossover at 400 feet from US 29 will not allow adequate room for turning movement storage at US 29 and the proposed frontage road intersections. This frontage road must utilize NGIC entrance crossover, which is proposed at about 600 feet of US 29. · Development plan should indicate both proposed Value America sites and proposed entrance locations along internal roadway network. · Access management techniques should be included in the planning for Value America and the remainder of the site. Of particular importance are the design and location of entrances along US 29. a potential frontage road system along US 29. and planning for inter-parcel roadway corridors to properties adjacent to the applicant's whole site. · Traffic analysis should be conducted for overall 1.000 +/- acre site. the 250 acre +/- area currently designated light industrial use. and both current Value America rezoning requests. We feel that development of this siteshouid occur with a planned roadway network, which can accommodate overall site traffic. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY PAGE 3 ATTACHMENT D In order to expedite this study for the Value America review period, we would like to off'er'the applicant our recommendations for the scope of these traffic analyses (see attachment). Upon review of this traffic analysis, we can provide additional specific comments regarding the Value America rezoning requests. If you should have concerns with these comments, please discuss with our office prior to sharing with the applicant. Sincerely, R.P. Ball Transportation Planner Attachment CC: Glenn Brooks,'Albemarle County Karen Kilby J.H. Kesterson ATTACHMENT D September 7. 1999 Recommended Traffic Analysis Value America / Piney Mountain Village East PAGE 4 The applicant has recently shown a master plan for the whole site (I,000 +/- acres),, which includes office, commercial and residential land use. The NGIC site and the two proposed rezonings for Value America. while significant traffic generators in themselves, comprise a relatively small portion of the overall site. Additionally, ali or a portion &each &these three sites are outside of the County's designated growth area for industrial service. In order to insure that various transportation needs are provided as pieces of. the site are developed, we would like to see a traffic study for the whole 1,000 +/- site east of US 29 and Briarwood to the west at this time. In line with the preliminary nature of the current overall master plan, and recognizing that much of this area is currently outside of the d.esignated growth area, this overall site traffic study can be preliminary in nature while fulfilling our goal of indicating future transportation needs, The portion of the overall site within the currently designated industrial service should be analyzed to indicate transportation impacts related to this 250 +/- acre portion of the site. Finally, the traffic study we received for one Value America site should be expanded to include both sites that are currently being requested for rezoning. 1. Total Piney Mountain Village East (1000 acres +/-) plus Briarwood Land Use/Trip Generation - Submit overall plan map showing land uses and roadway network. with estimated residential units and commercial acreage w/FAR and sq. ff. by area / bubble. Land use assumptions should reflect realistic densities of office, light industrial, highway commercial, re~onal commercial, neighborhood commercial, and Iow / high density residential. As an example, office density, should probably be similar to current NGIC and Value America sites. Perform daily / AM pk hr / PM pk hr trip generation (w/ITE Trip Generation 6th Edition) calculations by area/bubble. Include land use and trip generation calculations for whole Briarwood area west of US 29. External and internal (within site) trip levels by land use category, should be estimated. Traffic Assiznment - Estimate directional distribution (NB and SB alongUS 29, NB and SB along Route 600. to/from Briarwood. internal, etc., and inbound vs. outbound during AM/PM) by land use catego~. Ca}culate overall daily / AM / PM turning movements onto US 29 and Route 600. Estimate overall daily and peak hour turning movements along US 29 and Route 600. Analysis - As there is no specific time frame or background traffic included at this time. this analysis can be based on site related daily traffic and peak hour turning volumes. Evaluate general traffic impacts to adjacent roadway network and likely related improvements, including accommodation of turning movements at entrances along US 29. internal roadway needs, and project traffic along Route 600. 2. Piney Mountain Village East in designated growth area.(250 +/-acres) plus Briarwood The portion of the overall site which lies' within the County's designated growth area. as well as those portions of'NGIC and proposed Value America sites, outside of the growth area. should be indicated on the development plan and included in this traffic analysis. PAGE 5 ATTACHMENT D Land Use/Trip Generation - Prepare master plan map showing roadway network and office / other commercial land uses within the County's light industrial designation, with estimated sq. ft. and acreage w/FAR by area / bubble. Land use assumptions should reflect land use densities similar to existing NGIC / VA (FAR = 16.6%, 406.000 sf/56 acres). At this FAR. there would be about I.$ million sfoffice in 250 acres. With these land uses, internal and pass-by trips would be likely be minimal. Perform daily / AM pk hr / PM pk hr trip generation (w/ITE Trip Generation 6th Edition) calculations by area/bubble. Include land use and trip calculations for Briarwood area west of US 29. Roadway Network / Background Traffic - The applicant should estimate time frame for full buildout of 250 +/- acre site; we suggegt a 20 year buildout period for this analysis.' We also recommend 2.5% annual traffic growth rate for background traffic and 3 through lanes in each direction along US 29. The study should include one roadway network scenario with full movement entrances only at existing crossovers along US 29, with an optional right in / right out entrance between each crossover. The applicant can also analyze additional entrance configuration scenarios. Traffic Assienment - Estimate directional distribution (NB and SB along US 29, to/from Briarwood. etc., and inbound/outbound during AM/PM) by land use category. Assign all traffic, including Briarwood, to internal roadway network and US 29 entrances from each area / bubble. Calculate daily traffic levels along adjacent and internal roadway network. Calculate AM / PM turning movements at all proposed US 29 entrances and at major internal intersections. Analysis - Perform AM and PM capacity analyses with Highway Capacity Software (recommend version 3) at US 29 entrances and major internal intersections. Recommend roadway network requirements for US 29 intersections and internal roadway system, such as number of lanes, intersection configurations, potential traffic signal locations, and other roadway improvements. 3. NGIC and Value America sites only We have received AM and PM peak hour capacity analysis for NGIC road / US 29 intersection with NGIC and One Value America s~te (200,000 sfNGIC plus 100,000 sfVA = 300.~)00 sf office) for 2000 and 2010. This study should be expanded to include both Value America sites which are being requested for rezoning, for a total of 400,000 sfoffice. Analysis.target years should be estimated year of completion for both sites and 2010. with annual 2.5% annual growth rate for background traffic. The analysis should include comparison of four lanes and six lanes along US 29 in 2010, and evaluation of when a second entrance is needed along US 29 with current four lane configuration. Future traffic volumes along the internal roadway network and site entrances should also be analyzed for internal roadway network needs, as internal entrances and intersections will require adequate spacing and improvements such as turn lanes and signalization. Recommended traffic analyses assumptions Historic Route 29 traffic counts: 1991 = 23.000 (Rte 1510 to Rte 33) 1992 = 24,000 (Rte 15t0 to Rte 33) 1996 = 27.000 (Alb Cry line to Rte 33) 1997 = 27.000 (Alb Cty line to Rte 33), 10% heavy vehicles PAGE 6 ATTACHMENT D · US 29 background traffic should be projected with 2.5% annual growtl~ rate (actual growxh rate has been about 2.7% since 1991 ), with opening year of Value America office building and 2009 as future target years. 1997 data shows 10% heavy vehicles along US 29 for HCS analysis. · Yellow and all red should be 5 seconds in HCS analysis. · Maximum 120 second cycle length should be assumed for signal along US 29. · Lane widths in capacity analysis should reflect existing or proposed lane widths. · AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak period traffic counts should be performed along US 29 for existing background traffic levels. Alte.rnately, previously used volumes based on 1994 peak hour volumes PlUS 2.5% annual growth rate can be utilized. · AM and PM peak hour capacity analysis, with and without both Va}ue America projects, should be performed for anticipated opening year of both Value America sites and 2009 (10 years). · In 250 acre and NGIC/Value America analyses, site traffic must be added to background US 29 traffic. It is not appropriate to assume any "pass-by" trips to office land use from US 29. When evaluating 1,000 +/- mixed use site, some internal trips should be assumed. · The LBII study for NGIC assumed 80% trips from. south and 20% trips from north along US 29, which seems reasonable for near term. For 20 year period, a 70/30 split should be assumed (not including Briarwood and internal residential). COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 40! McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 804/296-5823, ext. 3386 FAX 804/972-4012 ATTACHMENT E PAGE TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Wendell W. Wood Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner/e~/~ September 30, 1999 Site Review Comments - Development Plan for Piney Mountain Industrial Service Area 1. The Comprehensive Plan states, "Consider development proposal for the Industrial Service Area east of Route 29 under a planned development approach to allow for the coordination of public utilities and facilities, road access and necessary internalized support services." The development plan that would satis~ this statement should be similar to the general aplication plan described in the Zoning Ordinance, Planned Devleopment Districts - Generally, in Section 8.5.1.j. (See attached Section 8.5.1 .j for application plan contents.} Please address each of these items, or explain why you have not. 2. The plan of development is intended to comprise the existing Development Area east of Route 29 that is designated for Industrial Service, approximately 250 acres. Show and label Development Area boundary and label area as "Industrial Service" designation. (See attached sketch) 3. The Comprehensive Plan staies," An undisturbed buffer along Herring Branch should be maintained/ provided to reduce the visual impact of development of the Industrial Service Area east of Route 29. Also. maintain natural buffers on the perimeter of this site, along steep slopes and stream valleys." Therefore, the plan should show buffer areas (100 feet either side of stream or wetlands area) and 100 year floodplain limits on Herring Branch and North Fork Rivanna River. Label names of watercourses. 4. Identify areas of critical slopes on the development plan. 5, The "open space greenway" you show does not reflect the Comprehensive Plan. Show open space along the stream valleys and a greenway along the North Fork Rivanna River. 6. The Comprehensive Plan states, "Access to Route 29 for the Industrial Service area east of Route 29 shall be limited to.the existing crossover south of the Briarwood/G.E. Fanuc crossover. A second access to the site for emergency purpo.ses should be considered durring the development review process." Therefore, please designate two entrances on Route 29. 7. Please submit any proffers. 8. Show both proposed Value America sites that you are requesting for rezoning on the development plan. 9. Please submit a revised plat for the additional acreage requested for ZMA 99-002. (If the road between the 11.61 acre site and the 29.471 acre site is intended to be deleted, then that acreage must be included in the plat.) 10.' A request must be made to amend the jurisdicitional area boundaries for public water and sewer prior to appr6val ora site plan. I 1. Please provide more specific information for the proposed use of the sites requested for rezoning, including the proposed number of employees and anticipated maximum water use. 12. See other agency comments. -~. ATTACHMENT E PAGE 2 An accurate boundars.' su~'e,, or. the tract or Dian iimtt sho,.vino_ tt,,~ Iocauon an,.: :,,:-c o: bounaaQ' evidence: Existing roads, easements, and utilities: watercourses and their nanleS: present use or' adjoimng tracts, and location or` residentlal structures on adiomm,z :rac:s. d. Location. type and size of ingress and egress to the site: Existing topography accurately shown with a mammum of five (51 toot contour intervals at a scale of not less than one hundred (100) feet to the inch. Other inrerx'al and. or scale mak be required or pet;mined by the director of planning where topographic considerations warrant: t: Flood plain limits ~vhich shall be established by current soil survey. Corns or' survey, and~or engineering methods: g. Connection to existing and proposed Virginia Department of Highways construction ant proposed comprehensive plan thoroughfares when necessar?': h. A minimum of txvo (2) data references for elevations to be used on plans and profiles and correlated, where practical, to U.S. Geological Survey data: A report identifying all property, owners within the proposed district and giving evidence of unified control of its entire area. The report shall state agreement of all present pro~e.'~.' owners rd: Proceed xvith the proposed development according to regulations cresting when the ma~ amendment creating the PD district is approved, with such modifications as are set by the board of supervisors and agreed to by the applicant at the time of amendment: Provide bonds, dedica, ions, guarantees, agreements, contracts, and deed restr~c:Ions acceptable to the board of supervisors for completion of such development accordin,, to approved plans, and for continuing operauon and maintenance of such areas, r`aciiities and functions as are not to be provided, operated or maintained at general pubiic expense: and such dedications, contributions or guarantees as are required for provision or' ne,~aed public facilities or services: and 3. Bind their successors in title to any commitments made under [ or 2 above: An application plan showing general road alignments and proposed rights-or'-way: ge.".erat alignment or'sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian ways: general water, sewer and storm drainage lay-out: general parking and loading areas and circulation aisles: location or'' recreation Facilities: existing wooded areas and areas to remain wooded: summary, or. land uses inctuamg dwelling types ~nd densities and gross floor areas tbr commercial and industrial uses. preliminary, lot lay-out and proposed topography with a maximum of' five (5) rbot contour intervals. (Amended 9-9-92~ 8.5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES On applications for PD districts, the commission shall proceed in general as for other rezonmg applications but shall give special consideration to the following matters and shall allow changes in onginat applications as indicated below. 18-8-3 Mar? lo~t Scala From: Sent: To: Subject: Bruce Crow Friday, August 13, 1999 12:17 PM Mary Joy Scala RE: Z2vlA 99-002 nad ZMA 99-003 Value America, Inc. ATTACHMENT E PAGE 3 Ok, the fire department that serves that area is Eartyville located on Rt. 660. Response time would be something in the area of 8 to 10 min. depending on time of day. We have proffered land for a County station at the Airport Rd. side of the ,new UVa. Project. I don't know the law but can the County possibly require proffer of fund to be used to develop the UVa site. The site would increase response times to these to area to 3 to 5 minutes. Additional stations may be needed if they are proposing additional development on that side of the road. I see the UVa development having the greatest impact on :his site currently though. Hope this was better. ---Original Message--- From: Mary Joy Scala Sent: Fdclay, August 13, 1999 10:28 AM To: Bruce Crow Subject: RE: ZMA 99-002 nad 7_MA 99-003 Value America, Inc. This is still in the rezoning stage, so I guess what I was looking for was more general comments, such as the proximity of fire service, the response time, the need for additional fire station in this area.., do you have any thoughts along those lines? mscala@albemarle, org Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 804-296-5823, extension 3386 FAX 804-972-4012 ---Original Messag= From: Bruce Crow Sent: Friday, August 13. 1999 10:23 AM To: Mary Joy Scala Subject:RE: ZMA 99-002 nacl ZJVIA 99-003 Value Amedca. Inc. Mary Joy, I believe both will need protecte.d with sprinkler system, but just in case they are not fire flow might be an ~ssue, access to the building i.e.., fire lanes 18' wide. If the building is a high-rise, 3 floors or more, I would be looking for a note about the building being equipped with a fire department standpipe system or I would require close access to allow for our hoses to reach the top floors. Fire hydrants with in 400' of the building, dumpster location, 15' from building and lot lines. That about all I can comment on with the current info. Hope this helps. ----Original Messagem From: Mary Joy Scala Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 4:25 PM To: Bruce Crow Subject: ZMA 99-002 nacl ZMA 99-003 Value America, Inc. I would like to make a formal request for comment on these two proposed rezonings, ASAP. ZMA 99-002 is 11.91 acres adjacent to the NGIC site in the Piney Mountain Development Area, proposed to be rezoned from RA to LI for a 100,000 sq ft office building. ZMA 99-003 is 17.21 acres just south Of the other site, overlooking the North Fork Rivanna River, but outside the Development Area, also proposed to be rezoned from IRA to LI for a 100,000 sq fi office building. I need general comments on the availability of fire protection for both sites. Let me know if you need more information. mscalat¢)albemarle.org Mary Joy Scaia. Senior Planner County. of Albemarle Department or' Planning and CommuniW Development ALBt::.MAB/I:: OOUNTY ATTACHMENTE SERVICE Au I PAGE 4 HO ITY FROM: DA-E MEMO Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner Peter C. Gotham, Senior Civil Engineer~~bL September 9, 1999 Site Plan Technical Review for: Piney Mtn. Development Area The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is not within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service 2. A inch waterline is located approximately distant. 3.Fire flow from nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan,'is gpm ± at 20 psi residual. 4. A inch sewer line is located distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7. and plans are currently under review. @. and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approyal prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final 'site plan may/may not be signed. · 12. RWSA approval for water and/or sewer connections. Comments: Provide estimates of water and sewer needs at build out before we can evaluate impact on water and sewer availability. Reqional water and sewer master plan needs to be developed for entire Piney Min./north Hollvmead area. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations waterline locations sewer line locations easements waterline size sewer line size expected wastewater flows expected water demands Muncaster Engineering 1740 Iambs l~oad Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Phone: (804) 978-78V9 Fax: (804) 973-0249 e-mail: Tmuncaster~aol. eom ATTACHMENT F October 12, 1999 Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planne} Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: ZMA 99-001 and ZMA 99-00;} Value America, Inc, Dear Ms. Scala: AJ~ached are 7 full size copies mad one 1 lxlT" reduction of the plan revised in accordance with your September 30, 1999 comments. The applicant lms advised me th~ the development plan provided and the Higgins pl~ go beyond whst was requested m our meeting of August 4, 1999 and it is not approprmte to provide information for a planned development a~ this time. According to the ~plicant there are no cr/tica~ slopes on this portion of the site, a school site has been proffered with conditions to the school bosrd and the revised plst you requested in item #9 has already been submiUed. The applicant says th~ proposed rezoning is for office facilities for 800 employees. The request is for one Value America site, or the other, not both. Whichever site is approved will be ufili?ed. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, w. Thorn~ Muncast~, Jr., P.E. RECEtVEO pLANNtNG NqD GOMMUN%'t'Y DEVELOPMENT Scala 10-12-99 November 10, 1999 To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors The undersigned represent a range of citizens of northern Albemarle County, largely residing in the so-called Piney Mountain Community. We are writing to express our joint opposition to three proposals before the Board at its November I0 meeting. These include consideration of two petitions to rezone property from rural to light industrial so as to allow construction of office facilities intended for Value America (ZMA 99-02 and 99-03). Further there is a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Piney Mountain Community to expand or adjust the ~development area boundary, presumably to accommodate the two referenced petitions. We strongly support the recommendation of the County Planning Commission that these petitions be denied. Our opposition is clear regardless of proffers now or to be stipulated by the developer. We would initially like to address concerns about the Growth Area designation. While we oppose any amendments that would accommodate the subject petitions, we certainly would support revising the designation in its entirety, toward the end of REDUCING the 250 acres already on the books. It is our hope that this matter might be addressed by the DISC Committee or in some other appropriate forum. We believe such a reduction is in order bemuse of the following: According to various sources, there are already upwards of 2,000 acres of properly zoned parcels in the County available for the proposed type of use. The subject 250 acres in Piney Mountain would appear to be an odd configuration. It intrudes into the area east of 29 rather than following a more logical strip for commercial and industrial development along the highway, or clustered with other like property west of 29. It is understood that the original designation in 1992 was largely a matter of historic happenstance, rather than logical planning. We have been led to believe that the 250 acres originally were intended to accommodate a project some years back which never materialized. Revisiting the designation seemingly would be consistent with standards incorporated in the Albemarle County Land Use Plan calling for commercial and industrial sites to be concentrated and clustered under a planned approach, effectively buffered, and located adjacent to compatible uses as opposed to residential, agricultural, or other sensitive areas. In summary, we respectfully request that the Growth Area not be expanded, but that serious consideration be given to re configuring and lessening the overall acreage to that parallel to US 29. We certainly would be interested in participating in such a process. On the matter of the two petitions to rezone property to accommodate the proposed Value America project, we have some overall as well as specific concerns. As mentioned above, there already is substantial land available in the County with the required zoning to incorporate any number of projects. Also, existing office park settings would be another alternative to increasing sprawl. Such alternatives would certainly capture the employment and tax base represented by Value America, while not requiring rezoning or infringing on other land uses. We also are concerned that the proposals are ill-defined, lacking in detail and changing in their characteristics--making evaluation difficult at best. For example, it seems that ZMA 99-02 represents 43 acres rather than the 11.6 initially considered. Certainly there must be technical or procedural requirements that must, that a properly zoned site owned by the same developer has been selected near the' airport, intended to accommodate the Value America project. It is unclear as to why three sites need to be considered for one client. It would appear to us unlikely that a company purportedly interested in consolidating operations would require multiple sites. It also is unclear and confusing as to why the three possible sits are of such varying size and configuration- -let alone the rationale for such low density develOpment given that the footprint for the proposed multistory building would approximate only half an acre. If the two sites incorporated in petitions before the Board are not to be used for the Value America headquarters, then the developer should be required to resubmit his requests to the County, with necessary supporting documentation, stipulating the proposed alternative use. Additionally, we believe any decision on possible rezoning should be at least deferred until a complete plan can be examined for developing whatever area ultimately is designated for growth. Such a plan should take into account such factors as environmental impact, infrastructure, requirements, buffering, and traffic patterns. (Certainly SR 600 in its present configuration as a two lane road wandering through a rural setting bordered by farms, residences and open spaces is not able to accommodate significant additional traffic). As a final note, we believe that regardless of the potential merits of any proposal to be subsequently detailed, such a proposal should only be viewed in the context of commercial vs. light industrial zoning (unless such zoning already exists). As county citizens, we do not intend that our comments, concerns and objections be construed as anti-growth. WE believe that development should occur in an intelligent, managed fashion--while maintaining the ambiance and quality of life in Albemarle County. We appreciate your consideration. Attached Signature List in Formation: NAME :5~'~,~ P~.¥~ 1!~.. ~, '~' ADDRESS ~ ' ~ """~ ~" " ' '" -'? z' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-$825 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner ~)~ October 25, 1999 CPA-99-02 Piney Mountain Community Industrial Service Area The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 19, 1999, unanimously approved a motion to dissolve the consideration of the above-noted comprehensive plan amendment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. MJS/jcf COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST: CPA 99-02 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL SERVICE AREA STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA OCTOBER 19, 1999 NOVEMBER 17, 1999 Proposal: CPA 99-02 Piney Mountain Community Industrial Service Area - Consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan for Piney Mountain CommtmJty in that area east of Seminole Trail (Route 29 North), west of Watts Passage (Route 600), and north of the North Fork Rivanna River to expand or adjust the Development Area boundary, meaning the Land Use Plan designation may change from Rural Area to Industrial Service and from Industrial Service to Rural Area. Background: The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on August 24, 1999, adopted a resolution of intent to consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment to review whether or not the area included in the rezoning applications of ZMA 99-02 Value America, Inc. and ZMA 99-03 Value America, Inc. should be included in the Development Area. Within that analysis, the Commission requested staffs recommendation whether or not the Development Area boundaries should be expanded or adjusted. This Comprehensive Plan amendment considers only a limited area adjacent to the two properties proposed for LI, Light Industry zoning for Value America, Inc. One property straddles the Development Area boundary and one is located outside the Development Area. The question is whether the Development Area boundary is currently drawn in a logical and reasonable location, or whether it should be adjusted to accommodate the proposed rezonings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this amendment under the established Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria, and has considered the Board of Supervisors' directive not to expand the Development Areas at this time, and recommends that the Piney Mountain Development Area boundary should not be expanded nor adjusted. The existing boundary is reasonable and logical in its current location, and there is no compelling reason to go outside the boundary, or to adjust the boundary. Planning and Zoning History: CPA 92-01 Amendment to the Land Use Plan, Piney Mountain - February 19, 1992 - Approximately 250 acres of Industrial Service designation added east of Route 29. At that time, staff was asked to evaluate an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to designate a site for Industrial Service use to accommodate an unnamed industry. The industry was interested in acquiring 100 acres for a one million square foot building with 700 employees. Staff recommended against the request. The Planning Commission adopted a "motion of support" for the unidentified industry, and recommended deferral for six months. The Board of Supervisors approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment, adopting Map 1 and amending the Comprehensive Plan text (See ATTACHMENT A - CPA 92-01 Piney Mountain). In establishing the Industrial Service boundary in 1992, staff assumed that a 100 acre site would be located in the center of a designated area, and drew logical boundaries around it. The acreage drawn on Map 1 was estimated to be approximately 250 acres when measured by planimeter. ZMA 94-12 River Heights Associates - April 11, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved a request to rezone approximately 28.88 acres from Rural Areas to Light Industry with proffers for the N.G.I.C. office building. Comprehensive Plan Review - Land Use Plan - Adopted June 5, 1996. Piney Mountain Development Area was changed from a Village to a Community. The Industrial Service designation east of Route 29 was expanded to include existing industrial uses and zoning located just north of the North Fork Rivanna River and along Route 29. (See ATTACHMENTB - Community.of Piney Mountain Land Use Plan) SP 99-33 N.G.I:C. Access Road - Special use permit was approved with conditions by Planning Commission on August 3, 1999; Board of Supervisors date August 18, 1999. ZMA 99-02 Value America, Inc. - A request was made to rezone 11.61 acres from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industry on the Development Area boundary. This request was deferred by the Planning Commission on August 24, 1999 to October 19, 1999, and was subsequently increased in acreage by the applicant to 43.009 acres. ZMA 99-03 Value America, Inc. - A request was made to rezone 17. 21 acres outside the Development Area boundary. This request was deferred by the Planning Commission on August · 24, 1999 to October 19, 1999. Existing Piney Mountain Development Area Boundary In establishing the Industrial Service boundary in 1992, staff assumed that a 100 acre site would be located in the center of a designated area, and drew logical boundaries around it. The eastern boundary followed a stream valley. The northern boundary reflected the applicant's property ownership and allowed for two entrances on Route 29. The northern boundary also stopped short of Watts Passage (Route 600), which was not adequate to carry Development Area traffic. The southern boundary was drawn to include the existing farm road entrance on Route 29. It followed the road around a curve, then was extended to meet the stream valley. The original boundary excluded an area along Herring Branch. The acreage was estimated to be approximately 250 acres when measured by planimeter. In June, 1996, the Land Use Plan was adopted, expanding the Piney Mountain Industrial Service designation boundary east of Route 29 to include existing industrial uses and zoning located just north of the North Fork Rivanna River and along Route 29 (Badger Fire Protection, International Auto, Oakwood Homes mobile home sales). (See ATTACHMENT C - topographic map of Piney Mountain Community Development Area and Study Area for CPA 99-02). 2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with adopted criteria for the review of Comprehensive plan amendments. For ease of reference, staff has included the language of the review criteria in the report: A. The Comprehensive Plan provides a long-range guide for direction and context of the decision- making process for public and private land uses. The Comprehensive Plan is general in nature rather than attempting to identify specific geographic locations. The Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan suggests the relatiqnship of recommended uses to general areas. Proposed amendments to the Land Use Map should be reviewed for compliance with the general plan rather than area-specific or parcel-specific requests for a change in the recommended use. The purpose of the Land Use Map is to provide and plan for a balance of land uses, equipped with adequate utilities and facilities, in a comprehensive, harmonious manner. Any proposed change in the Land Use Map will be evaluated for protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the general public rather than the proprietary interest of an individual. The proposal is to expand or adjust the. Development area boundary to accommodate two proposed rezoning requests. Incremental changes to Development Area boundaries are not recommended because they result in piecemeal expansions that do not look at the big picture. Designating these two areas as Industrial Service at this time may preclude more suitable uses should a more comprehensive expansion of this Development Area ever be undertaken in the future. There is no more logical adjustment to the boundary which would allow these sites to be included within the Development Area boundary. The northern boundary provides for a logical location for a second access to Route 29. The eastern boundary is a well-defined, identifiable boundary along a stream. The southern boundary now follows the fiver and the N.G.I.C. property to a stream. The western boundary is along Route 29. The "best area" in terms of topography has already been defined. It is located along a ridge which is indicated on ATTACHMENT C in the area of a "future road." Therefore, boundary adjustments would not improve the quality of the deve. lopable acreage designated for development. In addition, expanding a Development Area to accommodate.an individual development plan is contrary to the stated criteria and may set a precedent for future approvals. B. The merit of Comprehensive Plan requests shah be largely determined by the fulfillment of support to the "Goals and Objectives" specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal does not support the County's Growth Management goal that directs development into designated Development Areas and conserves the balance for Rural Area and resource protection. It does not support the Infill Development Objective to facilitate infill development within existing Development Areas. Instead, the proposal seeks to replace land in the Rural Area for developmefit purposes. Sufficient land (approximately 221 acres) is akeady designated Industrial Service within the Piney Mountain Development Area to provide locations for this use. When this acreage was first designated as Industrial Service, it was determined to be suitable for at least approximately one hundred acres of industrial development. It does not sufficiently address the Non-Residential Land Use Designation Obiective to establish a mix of commercial, industrial, open space and public land uses in designated Development Areas. 3 The applicant has indicated verbally that an area abutting the 17 acre site will be left in open space (a golf course), however, the plan of development does not indicate that. In addition, a golf course may not be considered to be beneficial to the infill goal. Theplan of development does not recognize open space areas discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. The impact of the proposal on public uses has not been addressed. The proposal supports part (1) but not part (2) of the Economic Development goal. There has been no analysis of part (3), impacts on the regional economy. The goal states: "Maintain a strong and sustainable ecbnomy: (1) benefiting County citizens and existing businesses and providing diversified economic oppommities; (2) supportive of the County's Growth Management Policy and consistent with the other Comprehensive Plan goals; and (3) taking into consideration regional (including the City of Charlottesville, and Greene, Louisa, Fluvanna, and Nelson Counties) economic development efforts." C. A primary purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map is to facilitate the coordination of improvements to the transportation network and the expansion of public utilities in an economical, efficient and judicious manner. Comprehensive Plan amendments which direct growth away from designated Development Areas shall be discouraged unless adequate justification is provided. Amendments to the boundaries of Development Areas may be considered appropriate if the request is comprehensive, proposes to follow a logical topographic or man-made feature and is supported by adequate justification. No Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be considered in areas where roads are non-tolerable or utilities are inadequate unless the improvement of those facilities is included in the Comprehensive plan amendment proposal. The proposal would require improvements to the transportation network and expansion of public utiliti6s, including an amendment to the Jurisdictional Area to allow for expansion of the water and sewer lines. Expansion of public utilities and the transportation network in this area is possible, since existing facilities are in close proximity. However, transportation improvements and utility improvements have not been adequately addressed. D. Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be evaluated for general compliance with. adopted County plans, policies, studies and ordinances and to determine if corresponding changes are necessary. The Board of Supervisors has indicated that it does not want to expand Development Area boundaries until the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC) has made its recommendations. E. Except as otherwise provided, the following conditions may be considered in the evaluation of a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan. 1. Change in circumstance had occurred; or 2. Updated information is available; or 3. Subsequent portions of the Comprehensive Plan have been adopted or developed; or 4. A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible; or 5. The preparation of the Plan as required by Article 15.2- 2224 of the Code of Virginia was incomplete, or incorrect information was employed. 4 This criteria would allow the Board of Supervisors to amend the boundary if it feels that it was incorrectly drawn, or it is not feasible. Prior information provided in this report indicates that this is not the case. SUMMARY: Staff has reviewed the Piney Mountain Community Development Area boundary for the Industrial Service designation east of Route 29 to determine if it is currently drawn in a logical and reasonable location, or whether it should be adjusted to accommodate the proposed rezonings. The proposed acreage is not superior to or more suitable than the currently designated acreage. Also, there is no flaw in the existing boundary that would be improved by a new boundary. Factors favorable to expansion are: 1. The expansion area needed for the proposed rezoning requests is located near to the existing Development Area. 2. The requested zoning is consistent with the existing Industrial Service designation in the nearby Development Area. 3. Public utilities and a primary highway are located in close proximity. Factors unfavorable to expansion are: 1. The Board of Supervisors does not want to expand Development Area boundaries until the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC) has made its recommendations. 2. Incremental changes to Development Area boundaries are not recommended because they result in piecemeal expansions that do not look at the big picture. 3. Designating these two areas as Industrial Service at this time may preclude more suitable uses should a more comprehensive expansion of this Development Area ever.be undertaken in the future. 4. There is already a large amount of designated Industrial Service property available within this Development Area. 5. Expanding a Development Area to accommodate an individual's development plan is contrary to the stated criteria and may set a precedent for future approvals. 6. Improvements to the transportation network' and utilities have not been addressed. 7. The proposal is' not in compliance with goals and objects of the Comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Piney Mountain Development Area boundary should not be expanded or adjusted. The existing boundary is reasonable and logical in its current location, and there is no compelling 'reason to go outside the boundary or to adjust the boundary. ATTACHMENTS A - ATTACHMENT A - CPA 92-01 Piney Mountain B - ATTACHMENT B - Community of Piney Mountain Land Use Plan C - ATTACHMENT C - topographic map of Piney Mountain Community Development Area and Study area for CPA 99-02 I:\...\CPA9902PineyMt.doc I, ~p 1:' V;~;ge°f--P;ney~a°unta'n'&nd Use'//~ Advance Mills ATTACHMENT A PAGE 1 !/ Pines Industrial ~ Industrial Ben,ce L~ V~lage Service ~'~ Crc~__~_ver ~provement Scale In Fee~ ..J i 0 1000 2000 4000 · ~glLLAGE OF PINEY MOUNTAIN LOCATION .Piney Mountain is located north of the City of Charlottesville on Route 29 North. The Piney Moun- tain Village is bounded on the east by Route 29 North ;and h an unnamed..tributary of the North Fork of the Rivanna,' on the north by Route 763 and on thc west by Rou~c 606. The southern bounda~ iT formed by the. ficxxl:p!ain.of thc North Fork Of the Rivanna River. EXISTING DkND USE The 1985 estimated poPulation of Piney Mountain was 600. Piney Mountain c6nsists of thc Camelot and Briarwood rcsiclcntial subdivisions and the General Electric plant. No commercial uses serve this Village, and the closest commercial retail outlets are located in the Community of Hollymead. The Camelot subdivision and Briarwood PUD ac- count for all residential land use in Piney Mountain. Of the 224 existing dwelling units in Piney Mountain, 106 are singlofamily detached units and 118 are single-family attached units. Distribution Of land area by land use in 1985 con- sisted of 39 developed residential acres and 56 developed industrial acres. There also exists industrially zoned acreage cast of Route 29 North, across from Piney Mountain, and just north of the North Fork Rivanna River. This area is in- tended only to be developed to current zoning and is not considered as part of any Growth Area. Service de. siqnated'land exists east of --Route ENVIRONMENTAL CtIARACTERISTICS The Village lies within tile watershed of the North Fork of the Rivanna River. It is comprised of two ridges, one draining to the south and west and directly to the North Fork and a second draining to a tributary of Herring Branch, which flows south to the North Fork. This tributary separates the Village into two areas of different character--residential and industrial uses. The soils in the Piney Mountain Village are classified in the Elioak-Hazel-Glenelg Association. Limitations for development activities are moderately permeable subsoil, clayey subsoil, and shallow depth to bedrock. ATTACHMENT A PAGE 2 ity. Water is provided from the North Fork Rivanna sys- tem and is readily available in the Village. ROADS Route 29 is the primary route to the Village and has the same limitations as mentioned for Hollymead. Route 606 is considered non-tolerable by the Virginia Department of Transportation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Two areas of environmental sensitivity exist. One is the area of steep slopes on the western boundary of the Village and a second is the tributary stream valley separating the industrial portion of the Vil- lage from the residential section. These areas are not to be disturbed during development. The North Fork Rivanna River floodplain is designated open space. · Piney MoUntain, by its mixture and scale of land use types, functions as a small community. Its proximity to Hollymead and the Urban Area pro- rides a variety of services that are fairly convenient. -The village service area is intended to support commercial needs in the Village's low and medium density residential areas. · Thc North Rivanna Water Treatment Plant west of Route 29 North and the Camelot Sewage Treat- ment Plant east of Route 29 North are indicated on thc map. While both systems currently provide adequate service to the Village, they will need to be evaluated in the utilities master plan as they re- late to regional needs. This is fully discussed in the Hollymead profile. · Future land development along Route 29 North, as with areas to the south along the corridor, are to have controlled access to the roadway. This can be accomplished through joint entrances, frontage roads, and side street access. Development plans along Route 29 North are to be sensitive to its sta- tus as an entry corridor to the Village, Hollymead, and the Urban Area. · To provide alternative access and circulation through the Village, a connector road is intended through the Briarwood development from Route 29 North to Route 606. · PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER The Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant serves the Village and is being expanded to 300,000 GPD capac- An area east of Route 29 and west of the unnamed tributary of the North Fork of the Rivanna River is desiqnated for industrial service. No development of properties above what is allowable under current zoninq will take place until water and sewer services are provided to the area consistent with the Rivanna Water and Sewer'Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority planninq for the provisiom of service to this area. Consider development proposal for the industrial area east of Route 29 under a planned development approach to allow for the coordination of public utilities and facilities~ road access and necessary internalized support servfces. Access to Route 29 for the industrial service area east of Route 29 shall be limited to the existinq crossover south of the Briarwood/G.E. Fanuc crossover. A second access to the site for emerqency purposes should be considered durinq the development review process. Route 29 is a desiqnated Entrance Corridor rouge. Due to the elevation of the industrial area east of Route 29 and its potential visibility from Route as well as potential visibility from Route 600 and surroundinq areap~. development of this area will be subject for review for such visual impact. An undisturbed buffer area alonq Herrinq Branch should be provided to reduce the visual impact alonq Route 29. Maintain natural buffers on the perimeter of the site alonq steep slopes and stream valley~, TABLE 58 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL VILLAGE OF PINEY MOUNTAIN · DE'VELOPABLI DWELLING ACREAGE UNITS Low Density Residential 5 5 - 20 Medium Density Residential 138 553 - 1380 RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTAL 143 558 - 1400 Neighborhood Service · lO Industrial Service 2 6 1 NON-RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTAL 2 71' UNDEVELOPED LAND TOTAL I 41-,~: ' Source: Albemarle County Department of Planning and Cornrnuni~/ Development; 1989 ATTACHMENT A PAGE 3 LOF?LAND O~~ ATTACHMENT B ZMA-99-002 /? ZMA-99-003 PREPARED BY DEPARTMENT 0F PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MA F COMMUNITIES OF HOLLYMEAD AND PINEY MOUNTAIN A ~E£~ 15C0 / / ! / !: ATTACHMENT~ "[ '; ........ ?1 '---' ' ZMA 99-02 : (~5 ZMA 99-03 "~ ri Piney Mountain Community Development Area'~ Comprehensive Plan boundary Area east of Route 29 designated Industrial Service an d Study Area for CPA 99-02 2000-2001 Budget Development For Compensation Near-Term Vs Long-Term Long-term: Strategic 5-year plan. Proactive approach to Total Rewards Near-term: 1-year plan to maintain the competitiveness of our current programs while assessing any changes suggested in the strategic planning process. Four Issues To Balance In The Near-Term ~ External Equity, i.e. Competitiveness in a Tight Labor Market }> Internal Equity, i.e. Relationship to other positions, pay progression and compression ~ Viability of The Pay-For-Performance (Merit) Program ~ Affordability External Equity v' Select 'core' benchmarks for comparison each year v' Select the competitive market (both geographic and organization) v' Results in recommendations for structure/scale adjustments Internal Eauity v' Relationship to other positions v' Pay Progression v' Compression Viabilil;y of Meril; v' Relationship to pay progression - impact on compression v' Impact in motivating or rewarding for performance in absence of other incentives Affordability Balancing competitiveness & progression with available resources BACKGROUND TO THE COMPENSATION REPORT BY SLABAUGH MORGAN WHITE 1996- 1997 Budget Preparations (Hendricks & Associates Salary Study) Structure Chanqes v' Changed classified scale from 41 grades to 25 grades v' Changed the width of each pay range from 41% to 60% between minimum and maximum v' Changed from a step-structure to an open-range structure v' Changed the merit formula for classified employees to focus on midpoint of the range and added an accelerator/decelerator factor v' Changed the teacher pay scale from 15 steps to 30 steps v' Changed from a Career Ladder program for teachers to an Academic Leadership Program v~ Increased Advanced Degree Stipend for teachers by $1,000 Market Competitiveness v' Surveyed 48 cities, counties, public or private organizations Virginia North Carolina Counties 11 2 Cities 5 5 School Divisions 20 2 Private companies 4 0 University 1 0 Total 41 9 Surveyed the markets for 101 separate positions, of which approximately 55 were classified/administrator core benchmark positions Surveyed the markets for teacher positions at the bachelor and masters level 1997-1998 Budget Preparations Structure Changes v,' No structure adjustment to the scale for classified/administrator v' 3.5% merit pool for performance and to address pay progression on a pay range v' 2.00% scale adjustment for the teacher scale (3.5% with the step increase) Market Comr~etitiveness v' No extemal survey of benchmark positions conducted based on Henddcks recommendation to conduct every two years 1998-1999 Budget Preparations Structure Changes v' 1% structure adjustment to the classified/administrator scale v' 2.75% merit pool funded for classified/administrator employees v' 1.17% scale adjustment to the teacher scale (2.75% with the step increase) Market Competitiveness v' Staff surveyed local jurisdictions on projected scale adjustments 1999-2000 Budget Preparations (Aon Consulting reviewed salary structure competitiveness and made recommendations for scale adjustments and merit program) Structure Changes v' Recommended a 3% adjustment to the classified/administrator and teacher pay scales v' Recommended an across-the-board 3% increase to all classified/administrator employees plus a 1% merit pool ,/ Implemented a 3% structure adjustment and distributed all monies through a 4%merit pool Market Competitiveness ," Surveyed government, sChools and private sectors from multiple geographic areas · / Surveyed the markets for 25 classified/administrator benchmark positions and also teachers 2000-2001 Budget Preparations Summary of changes to the salary structures and merit programs since 1996-1997 Classified/Administrator Teacher (~ T15 Fiscal Year Scale Adjustment ** Merit Pool Scale Adjustment Scale + Step '96-'97 Now open ranges 4.50% New 30-step scale New 30-stop scale '97-'98 -0- 3.50% 2,00% 3.50% '98-'99 1.00% 2.75% 1.t7% 2.75% '99-'00 3.00% 4.00% 2.36% 4.00% Competitiveness Of The Teacher Pay Scale Ranking of Albemarle County Teacher Pay Scale In Virginia (133 Divisions) Bachelor Degree Teacher ~ Various Years Of Experience Fiscal Year 0 10 20 30 Maximum '95.'96 ** 52 12 28 96 10t '96.'97 56 20 34 42 46 '97-'68 50 22 34 41 47 '98-'99 58 27 34 46 48 '99.'00 70 30 38 46 57 Slabaugh Morgan White recommendations Structure Changes v' Recommends a 4% structure adjustment to the classified/administrator pay scale ," Recommends a 4% merit pool for classified/administrator employees ,/ Recommends a 5.7% scale adjustment for teachers · " Recommends a 2% annual salary pool to address classified/administrator shortfalls of structural issues through the strategic plan process Market Competitiveness v' Surveyed the same Virginia counties and cities as in the Hendricks study v' Used national, regional, and Virginia data for non-teacher positions just as with ^on Consulting ,/ Surveyed a similar number of core benchmark positions as in the Hendricks study but with some changes v' Surveyed 'hot skill' positions in addition to benchmark positions Anrlual Budget Issues; · v' The need to maintain a competitive pay structure for classified staff and teachers v' The need to maintain a viable merit program for classified employees as long as pay progression is based on performance v' Consideration of the impact of pay structure changes pay progression and possible compression ,/ Affordability The County of Albemarle Competitive Compensation Analysis: Annual Update Findings and Recommendations - November 1999 1.'~l&lltill~l~ I I MORGAN --',~lllllf -- 9020 Stony Point Parkway, Suite 200 P.O. Box 35746 Richmond, Virginia 23235 (804) 267-3204 L Today's Agenda Competitive Analysis...Review Count's base pay competitiveness relative to ~ external markets for talent Base Salary Structure Adjustment...Discuss recommendations .Merit Pool Recommendation...Discuss recommendations J Summary of Findings & Recommendations · Albemarle County's base pay structure and average pay levels fall below the markets in which the County competes for employee talent · To create a competitive base pay structure, Slabaugh Morgan recommends the County implement a 4% classified salmy structure adjustment mad a 5.7% teacher pay scale adjustment. · In order to be competitive with the market, Slabaugh Morgan recommends the County provide a classified employee merit pool of 4%, distfibnted based on performance and position in salary range. · Slabangh Morgan recommends the County establish a 2% salary pool for each of the next five years to provide resources to address Classified employee competitive shortfall and structural issues through the long-term strategic planning process. 3 ~ Competitive Market A n alysis Hiring staff is and will continue to be difficult in Charlottesville area for all employers Charlottesville unemployment rate of 1.4% is below regional and national levels - Virginia unemployment rate is 2.8% - United States unemployment rate is 4.5% - Data effective July 1999. Source: Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) Press Release (8/27/99) Charlottesville MSA employment (demand for labor) is projected to continue to increase relative to population (supply of labor) over the next twenty-five years - Source: NPA DataServiceslnc. Reference: Exhibit I FindingsandRecommendations Snpplement Competitive Market Analysis County will face serious challenges in attempting to maintain desired staffing levels in county government and schools Hiring new staff in "hot areas" that are difficult to fill internally and externally - Teachers & Administrators/IT Positions/Emergency Services Hiring new staff to accommodate growth and replacement needs is projected to result in over 28,000 job openings in Charlottesville MSA from 1996 to 2006 - Source: VEC Reference: Exhibit 2 Findings and Recommendations Supplement 5 Competitive Market Analysis County will face intensified competition from traditional (other regional localities) and non-traditional (non-regional localities/regional private sector) Competitors for labor ~ ~ ~ - Number of localities recruiting on regional and national levels to hire teachers and other individuals with hot skills will increase · Private sector will become more of a direct competitor for labor as demand for labor increases at a faster rate than supply of labor · Higher than average cost of living in Charlottesville could make other areas/employers ' more attractive to existing and potential employees Reference: F~chibit $ Findings andRecommendations Supplement 6 Competitive Market Analysis The foundation of the County's plans to compete far talent, are competitive base pay and merit opportunities relative to the markets in which it competes for employees · Recognize and plan for current and projected labor environments. · Recognize that opportunities for employees exist in both public and private sectors. · Develop desired pay philosophy to address short- and long-term issues, proactively manage the pay process, and most effectively utilize taxpayer dollars. Competitive Market Analysis Approach Info rmation~ Gathering / I Analysis > I Assessment~b ] Rec°mmendati°n I Select Benchmarkll I DefineMarkct,Competitive I t Def'me Desired PaY I Positioning Analyze Manet Pay- Benchmark salaries, merit and structure movement [ OtherAdjuslmcnts } 4 Competitive Market Analysis Albemarle County strives to maintain a competitive total compensation and benefits package for employees, anchored by competitive (within an appropriate range of market median) base salaries relative to the markets in which the County competes for talent Competitive Markets for Employee Talent Comparatore · Top Mgt · Professional · Supervisory · Support Geographic Sco~e · Top Mg~ Mgt · Professional · Supereisory · Support Gov't National Southeast U.S., Virginia Virginia · Surrounding Counfes · Sun'ounding Counties Schools · National Southeast U.S., Virginia · So~he~ U.S., Virginia · Gev't · Gov'l · General IndusTry · General Industry · C~eral hdustr~ · National · Southeast U.S., Virginia · Virginia I · Surrounding Counties · Surmundlng Counties 9 ~ , o Competitive Market Analysis Based on our review of over sixty Count~ of Albemarle positions representing alii levels and functions of the organization, we have identified two issues related to the competitiveness of the County's base pay system: Pay Structure: The County's classified and teacher pay scales require movement in order to be competitive for the 2000-2001 fiscal year. Pay Progression: Albemarle's low actual salary to midpoint ratios for Classified employees results in below market actual pay for Classified employees. In order to compete in increasingly competitive labor markets, a plan should be developed to commit resources to bring actual pay to more appropriate levels within the pay structure. Reference: Exhibits 4 & 5 Findings and Recommendations Supplement 10 5 Competitive Market Analysis Pay Structure Structural Employee Group Average ~alary Grade Midpoint ( Market Classified (County Gov't and Schools) (4.0%) Teachers (5.7%) Tinting Short-term (1 year) !ompared to I Reference: ,Exhibit 6 Findings andRecommendations Supplement 11 Competitive Market Analysis Pay Progression (Actual Pay) Issue ~ Progression Employee Group Average Ac ual Base Salary Compai ed to Market Classified (County Gov't and Schools) (9.4%) Teachers NA ~ Long-term (5 years) Timing Reference: Exhibit 6 FindingsandRecommendationsSupplement 12 6 Salary Structure Adjustments and Merit Pool Recommendation I Classified (County Gev't/Schools} i I Teachers 13 · 4.0% (Actual incumbent adjustments provided to I I ' those below new range ruinimum) I I t. · 4% merit pool distributed based on pe~ormance and 1 position in salary range I · Additional 2% of salary for each of the next five yea~s Il to address, longer-term, competitive shortfall, I progression, and structural issues i · $18,677 Gov't adjustments to minimum; $637,428 merit pool; $318,714 annual set aside · $65,569 School adjustments to minimum; $730,058 merit pool; $365,029 annual set aside 5.7% (Actual incumbent adjustments provided based 1 on current service and education steps) I · $2,450,810 (includes both structure ($1,938,760) and step increases ($512,050)) Total Increase Budget Recommendations I county Government i Merit $ 637,428 Adjustments $18,677 Total Merit & Adj. $656,105 Percent of Payroll 4.12% Total Payroll (472 ecs) $15,935,706 Additional Pool (2%) $318,714 Total $974,819 Percent of Payroll 6.12% Schools Non-Teaching Merit $ 730,058 Non-Teaching Adjustments $ 65,569 Total Non-Teaching Merit & Adj. $795,627 Percent of Payroll 4.36% Total Non-Teaching Payroll (1,089 ecs) $18,251,442 Additional Non-Tanching Pool (2%) $365;029 Total Non-Teaching $1,160,656 Percent of Non-Teaching Payroll 6.36% Teaching Step Increases & Adjustments $2,450,810 Percent of Payroll 7.32% Total Teaching Payroll (969 ees) $33,501,282 Total Teaching & Non-Teaching $3,611,466 Percent of Payroll 6.98% Total Teaching & Non-Teaching Payroll $51,752,724 14 7 Glossary Benchmark Jobs. Key jobs used in competitive analysis and selected for the range and diversity of work to be evaluated. These jobs are representative of the organization and its entire salary structure. Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical.4rea (MSA). The area in and around Charlottesville, Virginia, including Albermarle County, Charlottesville City, Fluvanna County, and Greene County. Competitive ,4nalysis. The process ofessessing competitiveness of pay structures using the average rate of pay for incumbents in ~ in relation to competitive data'for benchmark jobs in pre-determined competitive markets. The external worth ora givan job. Competitive Markets. The public and private sector industries that the County competes with for labor. Competitive markets vary by position, qualifications, and skill level. Growth (Pertaining to Job Openings). New positions created by industrial expansion. Incumbent. An individual employed by an organization; an active, full-time or full-time equivalent employee. Merit Pool. Funds available to reward employees for past work behaviors. Merit pay typically is paid as a lump-sum award or as increments to base pay. Merit pay provides organizations with a mechanism to recognize and reward different levels ofperformanco among employees. Replacement (Pertaining to dob Openings). New positions created when existing positions are vacated by incumbent employees leaving the workforca. Salary (or Pay) Progression, An incumbent's movement through his or her designated pay range as determined by the organization's salary structure. Salary (or Pay) Structures/Scales. An array of pay rates for different jobs within an organization. Use of salary structures or scales are widespread in public and private sectors and provide organizations with a process to manage pay. The County of Albemarle Competitive Compensation ' ~is: Annual Update Findings & Recommendations Supplement MORGAN illlll 9020 Stony Point Parkway, Suite 200 P.O. Box 35746 Richmond, Virginia 23235 (804) 267-3204 Contents · The exhibits and data contained in this document are intended to supplement information provided in the report entitled "Findings and Recommendations - November 1999". Exhibit 1. Regional Employment & Population Projections Exhibit 2. Charlottesville MSA Projected Job Openings, 1996-2006 Exhibit 3. Charlottesville Cost of Living& Labor Comparison Exhibit 4. Benchmark Positions used in the Competitive Analysis Exhibit 5. Methodology used in the Competitive Analysis Exhibit 6: Benchmark Competitive Market Data Comparisons 2 ~ Exhibit 1. Regional Employment & Population Projections Total employment as a percentage of population is projected to increase for both Albermarle County and Charlottesville and the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statlstical.drea. 1009 80~ 60~ 40~ Employment as a % of Population Projections Albemarle County + CharloCk% ~% 74% .... 71% 73·/· 72% $t% 1970 1980 1990 1997 2000 2005 2015 2025 Year Implications · Hiring pressures will continue to intensify for all employers. · Employment opportunities will continue to increase. · Applicants will select employers that provide the most attractive total rewards packages. Source: NP.4 Dala Services, Inc., Regional Economic Projections Series: Economic Gron~ in the United ~tates: Projeeltons for 1998-2025. Volumes 1-2. Exhibit 2. Charlottesville MSA Projected Job Openings, 1996-200 o Projected job openings for selected positions in County Government and Schools range from 19% to 95% of 1996 staffing levels, including openings caused by growth attd separation from labor force. Projected Job Openings in Charlottesville MSA, 1996-2006 Job Openings as a % of f996 Emplo~ent Levels Source: VECreport, fflndt~y and Oeeupagonal £mployment Projections: 1996-200(~ ' MORGAN 2 Exhibit 3. Charlottesville Cost of Living & Labor Comparison Charlottesville's higher than average cost of living could offset other area attributes and impair the County's ability to recruit regionally and nationally Cost of Living & Cost of £abor Comparison Charlottesville, E4 vs. National ~4 verag e 120% 110% 100~.~ 9O% 8O% I = Co~t of Labor = Cost of Living I I I I I $24,000 $48,000 Salary Level Charlottesville's cost of living exceeds national average I NationalAverage I Charlottesville's cost of labor trails national average Exhibit 4. Benchmark Positions used in Competitive Analysis Benchmark positions represent all levels and functional areas of the CounO,. Serve as anchor points for determining competitiveness of the County 'spay structure 3 Exhibit 5. Methodology used in the Competitive.4nalysis Competitive market analysis is the process of determining the "competitive ram" in relevant labor markets for a representative sample of positions having similar functions and comparable scope of responsibility as those within a given organization (benchmarks) The competitive rate represents the competitive pay for a hypothetical seasoned incumbent. Individual pay will vary above or below the competitive rate based on tenure, experience end performence. Base salary levels for Albemarle's benchmark positions were determined by using national and local salary surveys to reflect the market for talent for each benchmark job. ECS Geographic Report on Office Personnel Compensation ECS Industry Report on Supervisory Management Compensation ECS Industry Report on Middle Management Compensation ECS Industry Report on Professional & Scientific Personnel Compensation ECS Indust~ Report on Technician & Skilled Trades Personnel Compensation Economic Research In~ttate Salary Assessor Economic Research Institute Geographic Assessor Virginia Chamber of Commerce Compensation Survey U.S. Depamnent of Labor, Bureau of Labor Slatistics National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages 1999 Albemarle County Custom Survey of Surrounding County Government end School System Compensation. VEA Salary Schedules for Teachers 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 preliminary 7 ~ Exhibit 5. Continued. Where local data were unavailable, national data were adjusted to the appropriate geographic market (Virginia or Charlottesville) by applying a geographic cost of iabor differential. Surrounding County data includes: Augusta, Greene, Hanover, Hem/co, Louisa, Prince William, City Roanoke, Roanoke County, Rockingham County, Spotsylvania County, Montgomery County Nelson County, Loudoun County, Augusta County Schools, Chesterfield County Schools, Greene County Schools, Louisa County Schools, Lynchburg City Schools, Roanoke City Schools, Stafford County Schools, Spotsylvania County Schools. Teacher pay data were gathered from National and Virginia Economic Research Institute Statistics, the Richmond Metropolitan Public Schools Teacher Salary Survey (Caroline, Chesapeake, Chesterfield, Colonial Heights, Danville, Dinwiddie, Fauquier, Gloucester, Gooclfland, Hampton, Hanover, Harrisonburg, Henrico, Hopewell, Loudon, Louisa, Montgomery, New Kent, Newport News, Norfolk, Petersburg, Portsmouth, Powhatan, Prince George, Richmond, Roanoke, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Williamsburg/James City, Virginia Beach, York), and the VEA Research Salary Schedules. Market average salary data are used as competitive reference points. 4 Exhibit 5. Continued. All salary data are adjusted to July 1, 2000 to provide consistent point in time comparisons for 2000- 2001 budget planning. - Data are aged at an annual rate of 4% for Classified positions, representing the 1999 average actual salasy increase for Government positions nationwide. - Data are aged at an annual rate of 2.4% representing the average actual increase in teacher pay scales in Virginia for the 1998-1999 year (most recent data available). Core job duties and responsibilities for Albemarle's positions are matched to similar jobs in the external market based on Albemarle's job descriptions. Salary structure movement and total increase data were assessed using national and local survey sources - American Compensation Association Report on the 1999-2000 Total Salary Increase Budget Survey - William M. Mercer 1999/2000 Compensation Planning Survey. - VF~A 1998-1999 Salary Schedules for Teachers Exhibit 6. Benchmark Base Salary Comparisons County Government Management and Supervisory Benchmarks (Base Salary $000 's) Incumbent % of Market 10 5 Exhibit 6. Continued. County Government Professional Benchmarks (Base Salary $000 's) Exhibit 6. Continued. County Government Support Benchmarks (Base Salary $000 12 Albemade Average Incumbent 6 Exhibit 6. Continued. County Schools Non-Teacher Management and Supervisory Benchmarks (Base Salary $O00's) 13 t00 08% 96% 112% · Albem a~le Grade Minimum Exhibit 6. Continued. County Schools Professional and Support Benchmarks (Base Salary $O00's) 7 Exhibit 6. Continued. County Teacher Pay Scales Base Salary ($O00's) Albemarle MA * Albemarle BA Market Average MA ~ Market Average BA Years of Experience From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors Ella Wasl~in~on Carey, CMC, CI~ Reading IJst. for November I O, 1999 November 5, 1999 June ,t, ~997 - Mr. Perldns Sel~tem~r 15, 1999 - Mr. Bowerman /ewc