HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-12 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meetin9 of February 12, 2003
February 19, 2003
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
ASSIGNMENT
JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD
1.
Call to Order.
2. Discussion: FY 2004 Revenue Update and Compensation/
Benefit Recommendations.
CONSENSUS that staff strive to meet market salaries and
benefits for employees in the next fiscal year.
3. Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and School
Board.
· There were none.
4. Adjourn.
. e . The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
1. Call to order.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
· Katurah Roell said wrong information is being communicated
concerning the closing and repair of the Advance Mills Bridge.
· Evelyn Manteris, a County resident, expressed concerns about
County police ticketing vehicles at apartment complexes on
private property.
5.2 SP-2002-016. Old Trail Golf Club (formerly Bucks Elbow Golf
Club) Amendment (Sig ns ~/~,4, 76&93).
· REMOVED from agenda.
5,3 Authorize Chairman to execute Mutual Aid Agreement between
Albemarle County and with Greene County,
· AUTHORIZED Chairman to executive agreement.
5.3a Resolution of Intent to amend Section 4.15, Sic ns of the
Zoning Ordinance.
ADOPTED Resolution of Intent.
ZMA-2002-08 South Pantops ,(Si,qns #83&84).
APPROVED ZMA-2002-08, by a vote of 6:0, as proffered, with
modification of ZMA-98-20 Application Plan and proffers (Tax
Map 78, Parcel 73A)and rezoning from PDMC to HC (Tax Map
78, Parcel 13).
7. SP-2002-013. Dennis Enterprises Expansion - Outdoor
Display (Siqn #40).
· APPROVED SP-2002-013, by a vote of 6:0, subject to eight
conditions.
Draft Statement for VDoT's Primary Road Plan Pro-allocation
Hearing.
Meeting was called to Order at 4:00 p.m., by the
Mr. Dorder and Ms. McKeel. All BOS members
present except Mr. Martin. All School Board
members were present.
County Executive and Superintendent: Proceed as
directed.
Meeting was called to Order at 6:00 p.m., by the
Chairman. All BOS members present. Also
present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne
Cilimberg and Ella Carey.
Jim Bryan: Provide update to Board on March 5~h.
Clerk: Forward to County Attorney's office after
Chairman's signatu re.
County Attorney's office: Forward signed
agreement to appropriate individuals including
Clerk.
Clerk: Forward signed resolution to County
Attorney's office and Planning. (Attachment 1)
Clerk: Set out in Attachment 2.
Clerk: Set out conditions in Attachment 2.
P!anning staff: Proceed as directed.
· Staff to incorporate suggested changes and forward to Board
members for review.
11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
· CONSENSUS of Board members to attend dinner with PVCC
Board and School Board on March 5th at 5:00 p.m.
14. Adjourn.
· At 7:15 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
/ewc
Attachment I - Resolution of Intent to Amend Zoning Ordinance
Attachment 2 - Planning Conditions of Approval
Attachment I
RESOLUTION OF .INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 4.15, Signs, of the Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations for signs; and
WHEREAS, the regulations in Section 4.15 exist to promote the general health, safety and
welfare, including the creation of an attractive and harmonious environment; protect the public investment
in the creation, maintenance, safety and appearance of its streets, highways and other areas open to the
public; improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by avoiding saturation and confusion in the field of vision
that could otherwise result if signs were not regulated as provided in Section 4.15; and to protect and
enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors as a source of economic development;
and
WHEREAS, it is desired to consider amendments to Section 4.15 pertaining to flags, advertising
vehicles, window signs, and other provisions of Section 4.15 if determined to be necessary or
appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the purposes described
herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Attachment 2
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-2002-08 ,South Pantops (Si_tins #83&84), Public hearing on a
request to rezone 24.07 acs from PD-MC to PD-MC & HC to amend a proffered plan to allow for an office
use instead of a hotel use & to allow for an expansion of Dennis Enterprises car dealership. TM 78, Ps
13 & 73A. Loc on Hanson Rd in the Giant Shopping Center at Pantops on Rt 250. (The Comp Plan
designates these properties as Regional Service. They are located in Pantops.) Rivanna Dist.
PROFFER FORM
(For South Pantops Office)
Date: 02/12/2003
ZMA # 2002-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number: 78-73A
6.96+ Acres to be rezoned from PDMC to PDMC
Pursuant to Section .33.3 of the Albemarle County. Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized
agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if
rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the
rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable
relation to the rezoning request.
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the common property
line with Carriage Gate (TMP 78-20NN) for the purposes of the possibility of extending a road
through that portion of the property for a pedod of TEN years. After such time this proffer will
expire.
Signature of All Owners , .. Pdnted Names of All Owners Date
(Signed) Charles W. Hurt, Pres. Charles W. Hurt 2-12-03
Hurt Investment Co.
PROFFER FORM
(For Dennis Enterprises)
Date: 02/12/2003
ZMA # 2002-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number: 78~13
1+ Acres to be rezoned from PDMC to HC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County. Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized
agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if
rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the
rezonin9 itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable
relation to the rezoning request.
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the common property
line with Carriage Gate (TMP 78-20NN) for the purposes of the possibility of extending a road
through that portion of the property for a period of TEN years. After such time this proffer will
expire.
Si.qnature of Alt Owners
(Signed) Dennis Minetos
Pdnted Names of All Owners
Dennis Minetos
, Date
2-12~03
Tax Map 78.73A: Modification of the ZMA 98-20 Application Plan and Proffers:
A. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment B), outlined in red, located generally
west of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated as "Hotel # 7 - 100 Rooms"on the
attached copy of the ZMA 98-20 Application Plan, is amended to allow "Office Space" instead of a
hotel. The development of this Office Space area shall be in general accord with the "Preliminary Site
Development Plans for Office at South Pantops", prepared by Rivanna Engineering, dated January 3,
2002 and revised January 7, 2003 (Attachment A).
B. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment B) outlined in blue, located generally
east of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated as "Office Space # 5 - 45,000 SQ FT", is
amended to reduce the permitted square footage of office space use from forty-five thousand
(45, 000) square feet to twenty thousand (20,000) square.
C. The tree conservation area depicted by dotted lines on the "Preliminary Site Development Plans for
Office at South Pantops", prepared by Rivanna Engineering, dated January 3, 2002 and revised
January 7, 2003 (Attachment A) may be reduced in size so that its western boundary is moved in
from the common property line with Tax Map 78 parcel 13A by up to fifty (50) feet.
D. The three modifications listed in A, B and C above are in addition to those previously approved, and
in all other respects the previously aPproved Application Plan and the modifications and requirements
reflected in the October 28, 1998 letter (Attachment C) apply.
E. The applicant shall provide the County with a mod/f/ed application plan showing the changes
authorized by the modifications, listed in A, B and C above, per section 8.5.5 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance. However, the modified application plan can be limited to the area covered by this
zoning request.
F. Accept the proffer pertaining to the 120-foot "no build zone" (Attachment D).
Tax Map 78-1,3: Rezonin.q from, PDMC to HC:
A. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment B), outlined in green, which was
added to Tax Map 78 parcel ~3, is rezoned to HC (Highway Commercial) from PDMC (Planned
Development-Mixed Commercial).
B. Accept the proffer pertaining to the 120-foot "no build zone" (Attachment D).
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2002-013. Dennis Enterprises Expansion - Outdoor Display (Slain
#40). Public hearing on a request to allow add'l vehicle display parking in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2.b of the
Zoning Ord. TM 78, P 13, contains 3.748 acs. Loc on Richmond Rd (Rt 250) approx 1 mi from the
interSec of Richmond Rd & Stony Point Rd. Znd HC & EC. Rivanna Dist.
Vehicles shall not be elevated;
Vehicles shall be displayed only in the areas indicated for display shown on the plan;
The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB, including
landscape and lighting plans;
Provide screening trees to the east, south and west of the proposed parking area to reduce the
impact of the loss of trees and to soften the appearance of the expanse of proposed pavement.
Provide a mixture of screening trees, ornamental trees, and shrubs throughout the slope of the
grading easement to the east of the site. A landscape easement will be required for off-site
planting;
Provide the planting bed with the seven (7) Eastern Red Cedars in the central portion of the
parking area as shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP 02-34) dated March 8, 2002,
revised November 4, 2002;
Rather than alternate the screening trees along the eastern property line, cluster the same
species in groups and alternate groups of screening trees to create a more informal and
naturalistic landscape;
Submit a landscape easement for off-site planting; and
Provide screening trees that wilt grow to a height that will sufficiently screen the proposed parking
area. This will require a wider planting area, which will necessitate the removal of most, if not all,
of the eleven (11) display parking spaces in the first row.
From:
Subject:
Date:
F__Jla Washington Carey, CMC~ ~
Reading fist for February 12, 2003
February 6, 2003
August 7, 2002
October 2, 2002
October 9, 2002
November 6, 2002
December I.I, 2002
Pages 18 - end - Ms. Thomas
Mr. Perldns
Mr. Martin
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Bowerman
NOTF: PLEASF RE. MEJ~BFR TO PULL YOUR MINUTFS IF YOU HAVF NOT READ THFM.
/ewc
32-
LARRY W. DAVIS
COUNTY A*FI"ORNEY
PHONE (434) 972-4067
FP~ (434) 972-4O68
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Gounty Attorney
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
DEI:~.J2Y COUNT~ ATTORNEY
GREG KAMPTHER
ANDREW H. HERR[CK
ASSZSTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS
Febmaryl3,2003
Patti Vogt
Administrative Assistant
Greene County Administrator's .Office
P.O. Box 358
Stanardsville, Virginia 22973
Re: Mutual Aid Agreement between Albemarle and Greene Counties
Dear Patti:
Please find enclosed a fully endorsed original agreemem, which was approved by
our Board of Supervisors yesterday.
Thank you for your ongoing assistance and cooperation, it's been a pleasure
working with you.
Sincerely,
Marsha A. ~Davis
Legal Services Assistant
/md
encl
cc: ~l~lla Carey
Dan Eggleston
MUTUAL AID AGREEME'~ ~
THIS AGREEMENT made this 21st day of Ju ~ ~J~ '-'~oq lg¢~~3~, 5~
and between Albemarle County, a political subdivision of the ~
hereinafter referred to as "Albemarle", and Greene County, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Greene",
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to Albemarle and Greene to enter into
an agreement concerning mutual aid with regard to fire and rescue services; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire that the terms and conditions of this Mutual Aid
Agreement be established pursuant to §§ 27-2, 27-4 and 27-23.6 of the Code of Virginia;
NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual benefits
to be derived by Albemarle and Greene from this Agreement, Albemarle and Greene hereby
covenant and agree each with the other as follows:
1. That Albemarle and Greene will endeavor to provide fire suppression, fire
prevention, rescue, hazardous materials response, and other related governmental services to the
other county within the capabilities available at the time the request for such support is made.
Such response may be by county-paid employees or by county volunteer company or department
firefighters and rescuers.
2. That nothing contained in this Agreement should in any manner be construed to
compel either county to respond to a request for services in the other county when the resources
of the county to which the request is being made are needed, or are being used, within the
boundaries of its own county, nor shall any such request compel the assisting county to continue
to provide services in the other county when its personnel, apparatus or equipment are needed
within the boundaries of its own county.
3. That each county acknowledges that it is fully capable of providing fire services,
rescue services, hazardous material response services, and other related governmental services to
adequately serve its respective county.
4. That neither county shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage to property
or personal injury or death of personnel resulting from the performance of this Agreement.
5. That each county shall indemnify and save harmless the assisting county from all
claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury which may arise out of the
activities of the assisting county resulting from the performance of this Agreement.
6. The county requesting assistance shall not be required to reimburse the assisting
county for apparatus, equipment or personnel occasioned by a response for assistance, or for
damage to such apparatus or equipment, or injuries to personnel incurred when responding in the
other county; provided, however, the county requesting assistance under the terms of this
Agreement shall pay the responding entity from the other county the actual cost of specialized
extinguishing or hazardous material mitigation agents used in rendering assistance pursuant to
this Agreement.
7. That the county requesting assistance pursuant to this Agreement shall make such
request to the emergency communications center of the assisting county, which will then contact
the appropriate county officials to determine its response.
8. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel
making such response shall not become employees of the county requesting assistance for the
purposes of the Virginia Worke~rs Compensation Act.
9. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel
manning such responding units shall remain under the command of the senior responding officer,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Mutual Aid Agreement with Greene County
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST..
BOS approval of Chairman authority to execute the
"Mutual Aid Agreement" between Albemarle County and
Greene County.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Eggleston
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
February 'J 2, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: M u t u al ~,j~Ag.~.~.n.n.mj~t--~
REVIEWED BY: ,~~/
/
Albemarle County has proposed entering into written mutual aid agreements for fire and rescue services with each of its
neighboring counties. These agreements would assure the terms under which such aid is delivered and would maximize
the statutory immunity provided by Virginia Code §§ 27-2, 27-4, and 27-23.6. A standard agreement has been prepared
and forwarded to each county for review and approval. Greene County is the 7th county to approve the proposed
agreement.
DISCUSSION:
A Mutual Aid Agreement prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney between Albemarle County and Greene County has
been approved by the Greene County Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Mutual Aid Agreement on behalf of the County.
03.022
MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 21st day of Jun~ ,200 1_~ by
and between Albemarle County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of'Virginia,
hereinai~er referred to as ;;Albemarle", and Greene County, a political subdivision o£the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Greene",
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to Albemarle and Greene to enter into
an agreement concerning mutual aid with regard to fire and rescue services; and
_ WHEREAS, the parties desire that the terms and conditions of this Mutual Aid
Agreement be established pursuant to §§ 27-2, 27-4 and 27-23.6 of the Code of Virginia;
NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual benefits
to be derived by Albemarle and Greene from this Agreement, Albemarle and Greene hereby
covenant and agree each with the other as follows:
1. That Albemarle and Greene will endeavor to provide fn'e suppression, fire
prevention, rescue, hazardous materials response, and.other related governmental services to the
other county within the capabilities available at the time the request for such support is made.
Such response may be by county-paid employees or by county volunteer company or department
firefighters and rescuers.
2. That nothing contained in this Agreement should in any manner be construed to
compel either county to respond to a request for services in the other county when the resources
of the county to which the request is being made are needed, or are being used, within the
boundaries of its own county, nor shall any such request compel the assisting county to continue '
to provide services in the other county when its personnel, apparatus or equipment are needed
within the boundaries of its own county.
3. That each county acknowledges that it is fully capable of providing fire services,
rescue services, hazardous material response services, and other related governmental services to
adequately serve its respective county.
4. That neither county shall be. liable to the other for any loss or damage to property
or personal injury or death ofpersonneI resulting from the performance of this Agreement.
5. That each county shall indemnify and save harmless the assisting county from all
claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury which may arise out of the
activities of the assisting county resulting from the performance of this Agreement.
6. The county requesting assistance shall not be required to reimburse the assisting
county for apparatus, equipment or personnel occasioned by a response for assistance, or for
damage to such apparatus or equipment, or injuries to personnel incurred when responding in the
other county; provided, however, the c6unty requesting assistance under the terms of this
Agreement shall pay the responding entity from the other county the actual cost. of specialized
extinguishing or hazardous material mitigation agents used in rendering assistance pursuant to
this Agreement.
That the county requesting assistance pursuant to this Agreement shall make such
request to the emergency communications center of the assisting county, which will then contact
the appropriate county officials to determine its response.
8. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel
making such response shall not become employees of the county requesting assistance for the
purposes of the Virginia Workers Compensation Act.
9. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel
manning such reSPonding units shall remain under the command of the senior responding officer,
and shall work as a unified company and shall not be split apart during the emergency operations
unless ordered by the senior responding officer.
10. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance and the senior
responding officer determines that the emergency operations are being conducted in an unsafe
manner, the assisting county may limit its assistance to a support service or withdraw the
assistance to ensure the safety of its personnel.
This Agreement may be modified only by the mutual written consent of both
11.
counties.
12.
This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either county giving thirty (30)
days written notice of termination to the other county.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, Albemarle's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and
Greene's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors execute this Agreement, they being authorized to
do so.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By.
Lindsay G. Don'ier, Jr., Chairman
Board of Supervisors
COUNTY OF GREENE
Kenneth W. E-a~wson, airman
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Attomeff~
Greene~'-County Attorney
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Resolution of Intent to amend Section 4.15, Signs of the February 12, 2003
Zoning Ordinance
ACTION: IN FORMATION:
S U BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: CO NS E NT AG EN DA:
Resolution of intent to amend sign regulations ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Resolutio_p of Intent
//
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, McCulley REVIEWED BY:
/
/
BACKGROUND:
Recent enforcement of the sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance have raised issues regarding the reasonableness of
regulations relating to flags, advertising vehicles, and window signs. Because these provisions and other regulations in the
Zoning Ordinance relating to signs have not been reviewed for a number of years, it is appropriate for staff and the Planning
Commission to review the sign regulations to determine if any changes are necessary or appropriate.
DISCUSSION:
The attached Resolution of Intent would initiate a review by staff and the Planning Commission of the sign regulations set forth
in the Zoning Ordinance and directs that any recommendation for amendments be brought to the Board of Supervisors at the
earliest possible date.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the adoption of the attached Resolution of Intent.
03.025
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 4.15, Signs, of the Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations for
signs; and
WHEREAS, the regulations in Section 4.15 exist to promote the general health, safety
and welfare, including the creation of an attractive and harmonious environment; protect the
public investment in the creation, maintenance, safety and appearance of its streets, highways and
other areas open to the public; improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by avoiding saturation
and coafusion in the field of vision that could otherwise result if signs were not regulated as
provided in Section 4.15; and to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and
other visitors as a source of economic development; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to consider amendments to Section 4.15 pertaining to flags,
advertising vehicles, window signs, and other provisions of Section 4.15 if determined to be
necessary or appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zonin~ g practices, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4,15 of the Zoning Ordinance
to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public
hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make
its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of a
Resolution of Intent duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a
vote of six. to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on February 12, 2003.
Aye
Mr. Bowerman X
Mr. Dorrier X
Mr. Martin X
Mr. Perkins X
Mr. Rooker X
Ms, Thomas X
Nay
Clerk, Board of Coun~ Supe~ors
To:
From:
'Date:
Subject:
COUNT~ of ALBEMARLE
Fire and Rescue
401 Mclntire Road, Suite 222 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Voice: 434.296.5833 FAX: 434.972.4123
www.ACFireRescue.org
Tom Foley
Dan Eggleston
January 2, 2003
City Contract Report for FY02/03
RECEIVED
JAN'O 3 2003
County of NlSemafle
County Executive's Office
Attached is a report that shows the FY01/02 fire and EMS responses made by the City of
Charlottesville Fire Department to the contract areas of the County. Also attached is a graph that
shows the gross and net call load per month made by the city.
The delay in getting the report is partly due to the city/county reporting mechanisms. Once the
fire dispatch services are moved to ECC, we will be able to report the city's response data sooner.
The net responses (gross responses-credits) during the FY01/02 period were 2,200, which are
200 below the 2,400 threshold. According to the contract, if net calls are over 2400, the county is
required to make an overcharge payment for each call over 2,400. If the net calls are below 2400, the
city will credit the county for each call below 2,400. Therefore, we are to receive aJcredit
(approximately $53,000) in FY02/03 for the 200 calls below 2,400.
As illustrated in the attached table and graph, the overall resPonses were reduced starting in
February 2002. The reduction is due to a change in response standards through the Computer
Automated Dispatch' (CAD) program.
It is probable that with the opening of Monticello Station 11 and with the changes made in
CAD, the total number of city response would continue to decrease in FY02/03. Starting July 2003,
the city will not respond outside the Automatic Response District (ARD) unless for a report of a
working structure fire. This will reduce the overall responses by the city, but will further increase the
responses made by the county stations.
The changes described above should decrease the overall city responses. However, a recent
change to the city's response to the eastern portion of the county may negate the decrease in gross
call load. Due to the lack of available daytime volunteers at East Rivanna Fire Company, a city
engine company has been added to all daytime responses in East Rivanna's area. It is estimated that
this would increase city responses by more. than 300 calls annually. It is anticipated that the city's
response in East Rivanna's area would continue until East Rivanna is staffed with daytime career fire
fighters. East Rivanna's board is considering asking the Board of Supervisors for daytime career-fire
fighters, but no formal decision has been made to date.
Page 1 of 1
City/County Fire Contract
"iD
0
0
,_1
250 -r
200 .- - -
150 , ....
100 ~ ' -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Gross Call Load
Net Call Load
City/County Fire Contract
Gross Call Load
Credits
County Untis Transfer to Covet, Cit
FY 01/02
July August September
County Calls to the Cit
City Dispatch mistake
City due, but not respon_~ ~
Total Credits
Net Call Load (Gross - Credits)~
208
189
10
222
Janu?..~_
224
0 0 0
17 11 4
October November December
209, 209 235
0 0 6
220
F~brua~_l. Marc_.
4
5
2
13
169
3
1631
June
Total
2316
Median
199
60
, 1~
0 2
0 3
21 116
22OO
0
0
7.5
- 191.5
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 2l 8
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 ~ 4012
January 22,2003
Katurah Roell
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE:
ZMA-02-08 South Pantops Office; Tax Map 78 Parcel 73A and 13
SDP-02-084 South Pantops Office Preliminary Site Plan; Tax Map 78, Parcel 73A
Dear Mr. Roell:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 14, 2003, by a vote of 6:0
recommended to the Board of Supervisors, approval of ZMA-02-08 South Pantops Office(TMP 78, 73A)
from PD-MC with proffers to PD-MC with proffers and Dennis Enterprises (TMP 78, 13) from PD-MC with
proffers to HC with proffers. Please note that this approval is subject to the attached proffers dated
January 7, 2003.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on February 12, 2003. Any new or additional information regarding
your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to
your scheduled hearing date.
Regarding SDP-02-084 South Pantops Office Preliminary Site Plan, the Commission noted that the plan
before the Commission was a conceptual plan and not a site plan. If the conceptual plan is approved for
the rezoning, then the site plan will go through the administrative review process.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Michael Barnes, AICP
Senior Planner
MB~cf
Co:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIlshouse
Dennis Minetos
ATTACHMENT
Date: January 7, 2003
ZMA # 2002-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s)
78-73A
6.96+
PROFFER FORM
(For South Pantops Office)
Acre to be re"zoned l~om PDMC to PDMC
Original Proffer 1/7/02__
Amended Proffer 1/7/02
(Amendment # 2
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezonmg itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezouing request.
(1)
(2)
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the common property line with
Carriage Gate (TMP 78-20NN) for the purposes of.the possibihty of extending a road through that portion
of the property for a period ofTEN years. After such time this proffer will expire.
The development on Tax Map 78Parcels 73A shall be in general accord with the plan produced by Rivauna
Engineering, dated January 3, 2002 and revised January 7, 2003, entitled "Preliminary Site Development
Plans for Office at South Pantops."
Signatures of All Owners
Printed Names of All Owners
Date
OR
S!gnature of Attorney-in-Fact Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
Date: _January 7, 2003_
ZMA # 2002,008
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) _78-13
PROFFER FORM
(For Dennis Enterprises)
Or/ginal Proffer 1/7/02
Amended Proffer 1/7/02
(Amendment # 2
1 + Acre to be rezoned from PDMC to HC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezonmg itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1)
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the common property line with
Carriage Gate (TMP 78-20NN) for the purposes of the possibility of extending a road through that port/on
of the property for a period of TEN years. After such time this proffer will expire.
Signatures of All Owners
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
Printed Names of All Owners
Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
Date
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
MICHAEL BARNES
JANUARY 14, 2003
FEBRUARY 12, 2003
ZMA 02-08 SOUTH PANTOPS OFFICE/DENNIS ENTERPRISES
SP 02-13 DENNIS ENTERPRISES -- OUTDOOR DISPLAY
SDP 02-34 DENNIS ENTERPRISES -- MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER FOR DENNIS ENTERPRISES (SDP 02-84)
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
There are two applicants associated with this rezoning request. The first applicant, the Virginia
Land Company, is requesting a rezoning amendment to the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center's
PD-MC (Planned Development - Mixed Commercial) Application Plan to allow for an office
use instead of the previously approved hotel use on Tax Map 78 Parcel 73 (see hatched area "1"
on the vicinity map - Attachment A-2). The Virginia Land Company is also requesting a
reduction from 45,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet for the office space shown in the
northeast comer of the intersection of Hansen Road and Rolkin Road on (see hatched area "2" on
the vicinity map - Attachment A-2). The second applicant, Dennis Enterprises, is requesting a
rezoning from PD-MC to HC (Highway Commercial) to allow for automobile display (see
hatched area "3" on the vicinity map - Attachment A-2).
Proffers have been offered by the two applicants (Attachment E-2).
BACKGROUND:'
The Planned Development - Shopping Center (PD-SC) zoning district that created the Rivanna
Ridge shopping center (ZMA 98~20 - Attachment B-2) is reason that these two applications are
linked together. The PD-SC district designated the area under consideration (the hatched areas 1
and 3 on Attachment A-2) for a 100-room hotel. Therefore, the owners must apply for a zoning
amendment in order to execute the requested uses.
On October 22, 2002, the Planning Commission held a pUblic hearing on the zoning amendment
request (ZMA 02-08) (Attachment C-2). At that time, the Commission was unwilling to grant
approval of the request due to the following issues raised by staff (see Attachment F-2 for the
StaffReport for the October 22nd public hearing):
1. Inability of the proposal to meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model.
2. Inability of the proposal to demonstrate an effective grading plan on either parcel or
across the two parcels.
3. Inability of the proposal to demonstrate the potential traffic impacts.
4. Lack of an Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendation on the Special Use
Permit Application.
5. Lack of an ARB recommendation on the ZMA request.
After the applications were discussed by the Commission, the applicants, the Virginia Land
Company and Dennis Enterprises, accepted deferral so that they could resolve the outstanding
issues.
At this time, the applicants have worked through all of staff concerns (except traffic) related to
the zoning amendment, the special use permit for outdoor display (SP 02-13), the minor site plan
amendment for the Dennis Enterprises' expansion (SDP 02-34), and the critical slopes waiver
South Pantops Office - 2ne Staff Report 1
request for the Dennis Enterprises' expansion. If the rezoning application is approved, the
Virginia Land Company will proceed with an administrative approval of the site plan for two
office buildings (SDP 02-84).
PETITION FOR REZONING:
The applicants have submitted a request to rezone 24.07 acres from PD-MC (Planned District-
Mixed Commercial) to PD-MC (Planned District- Mixed Commercial) and HC (Highway
Commercial) to amend a proffered plan to allow for an office use instead of a hotel use and to
allow for an expansion of Dennis Enterprises car dealership. The properties, described as Tax
Map 78 Parcel 73A and Parcel 13, are located in the Rivanna Magisterial District in Pantops on
Hansen Road in the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center at Pantops and on Route 250. The
Comprehensive Plan designates these properties as Regional Service.
ANALYSIS OF THE REZONING:
Staff does not object to the proposed uses nor were the proposed uses of concern to staff at the
previous Commission hearing. Instead, staff had five principle concerns with how the proposed
uses would affect the site and the Entrance Corridor. These concerns were:
1. Inability of the proposal to meet key principles of the Neighborhood Model.
2. Inability of the proposal to demonstrate an effective grading plan on either parcel or
across the two parcels.
3. Inability of the proposal to demonstrate the potential traffic impacts.
4. Lack of an Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendation on the Special Use
Permit Application.
5. Lack of an ARB recommendation on the ZMA request.
Since the October 22"d public hearing, the applicants have addressed these five concerns in the
following manner with the most recent submission (Attachment D-2):
The focus of the first two concerns was the previous proposal's inability to provide a suitable
frontage along Hansen Road, work with the existing grades, and provide for the future extension
of Rolkin Drive (Attachment C-2). The latest proposal (Attachment D-2) provides an
appropriate frontage along Hansen. It situates both buildings adjacent to Hansen Drive, provides
a sidewalk along Hansen, a bus stop, and relegates the parking away from the road. The latest
proposal also works better with thc existing grades. The previous proposal (Attachment C-2)
created a large 2:1 fill slope that obliterated the existing vegetation on the site. The latest
proposal retains the trees downhill from the office complex and requires considerably less fill.
The tree protection is important because they will serve to protect the Entrance Corridor by
breaking up the development on Pantops. Additionally, the Architecture Review Board (ARB)
required significant landscaping on the hill during the Dennis Enterprises minor site plan
amendment review. This required landscaping will greatly mitigate visual impact resulting from
the proposed grading. Finally, the Virginia Land Company's landscaping plan will have to
undergo ARB scrutiny during the site plan review process for the offices. Staff feels comfortable
that the ARB will be able to require additional plantings, which will further protect the Entrance
Corridor. Finally, the applicants have proffered to not build any buildings at the rear of their
properties for ten years (Attachment E-2). This will enable the extension of Rolkin Drive if the
County and VDOT decide to close the median on Route 250, expand Route 250 to six lanes, and/
or provide additional access to the rear of these property in conjunction with the Route 250
improvements (Attachment A-2), because the land acquisition costs associated with a road
paralleling Route 250 to the south will bc greatly reduced.
South Pantops Office- 2~a Staff Report 2
As for the traffic impacts, the applicant still needs to provide information that documents that the
changes resulting from a switch between a hotel use and the office uses will.be minimal. While
staff does not believe that the traffic impacts will be significant, we must wait until this
information has been provided before we can make a final analysis. Hopefully, we will have an
answer for the Commission by January 14th.
Regarding the ARB recommendations, the ARB has made a recommendation and provided a list
of conditions for the special use permit (See the following section). With respect to the rezoning
request, the ARB reviewed the application just prior to the Commission's October meeting.
While the ARB has not reviewed the latest submission, ARB staff have been closely involved
with the review of the most recent plans. Staff believes that the ARB's basic concerns with the
offices have been mitigated with the revised grading plan and the retention of the trees on the
site. Furthermore, the ARB will have an opportunity to review the site plan at a later date and
require additional modifications to the latest proposal.
CONCLUSION FOR THE REZONING ANALYSIS
For all of the reasons listed above (and with the assumption that the traffic concerns will be
resolved), staff will be in a position to recommend approval with the acceptance of the proffers
and implementation of the conditions recommended below.
nd
South Pantops Office - 2 Staff Report 3
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Below, sta£fhas provided and analysis of the special usc permit (SP 02-13) (Attachment F-2)
applicant for the Dennis Enterprises automobile expansion request (See vicinity map -.
Attachment A-2).
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to expand the existing outdoor storage and display of automobiles for
sale on Tax Map 78-13. (See Vicinity Map - Attachment A-2). The plan calls for additional 160
parking spaces for display vehicles in the rear of the parcel (See Plan - Attachment G-2)
PETITION FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
The applicant requests a special use permit to expand an existing use of outdoor storage and
display in the Entrance Corridor overlay district on 3.748 acres, in accordance with Section
30.6.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 13, zoned HC,
Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, is located in the Rivarma
Magisterial District on Richmond Road (U.S. Route 250 East). The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Regional Service in Neighborhood 3.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE NEIGHBORItOOD MODEL ANALYSIS:
Requests for special use permits in the Development Areas are assessed for conformity with the
Neighborhood Model and the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan shows this area as Regional
Service in Neighborhood 1.
The ways in which the proposed proj eot (Attachment F-2) meets the twelve principles for
development in accordance with the Neighborhood Model are provided below. Staff recognizes
many of the Neighborhood Model Principle will not apply in the Special Use Permit Requestt
because this is an existing business that existed prior to the adoption of the Neighborhood Model
and the proposed use is not significantly redevelopment. However, staff has still provided an
assessment of the principles below:
Pedestrian Orientation Other than sidewalks there is nothing else that this site presents to be pedestrian
oriented.
Neighborhood No new streets are proposed with this request.
Friendly Streets and
Paths
Interconnected Streets The applicant has proffered to keep any buildings 120 away from the rear
and Transportation property line in case the County and/or VDOT decide that an extension of
Networks Rolkin Drive to South Pantops Drive would be advisable in conjunction with ~
expansion of Route 250. This proffer will leave the door open to this possibility
for 10 years.
Parks and Open Space There are no parks or open space to consider on this site.
Neighborhood Centers This proposal does not meet the definition of a neighborhood center.
Buildings and Spaces This principle is not applicable to this proposal.
of Human Scale
Relegated Parking The new parking proposed is to the rear of the property and there will be some
landscaping installed to soften the expansion.
South Pantops Office - 2~a Staff Report 4
Mixture of Uses Currently the applicant is not envisioning a mixture of uses onsite
Mixture of Housing This principle is not applicable to this proposal.
Types and
Affordability
Redevelopment This principle is not applicable to this proposal. However, if the Rolldn Drive is
extended, the redevelopment and infill possibilities ark increased for the rear of
this property.
Site Planning that The applicant has to cut significantly into the hill in order to create the parking
Respects Terrain lot for the expansion.
Clear Boundaries with This site is located entirely within the Development Area and is not adjacent to
the Rural Areas the Rural Areas.
STAFF COMMENT ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is anticipated that the expansion of the automobile display will have no negative impact on
the surrounding uses or on the site itself, and should not propose any detriment to adjacent
properties.
Will the character of the zoning district chan~e with this use?
The primary concern with regard to the character of the district is the potential impact on the
Entrance Corridor: The ARB has expressed no objection to the proposed expansion;
however, the ARB did provide a list of conditions for a Certificate of Approval. Staff has
incorporated the ARB recommendations into the recommended conditions for Planning
Commission.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff believes the proposal is generally in keeping with the intentions of the Comprehensive
Plan and the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The proposed expansion of the use will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent property.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?
There are no additional regulatiOns for outdoor display provided in Section 5.0.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is
approved?
There is nothing unusually hazardous or objectionable about this proposal.
Architectural Review Board Review:
A submittal for review by the ARB was made in March 2002 and the item was reviewed by the
ARB on April 15, 2002 and October 7, 2002 (Attachment G-2). The Board offered no objections
nd
South Pantops Office - 2 Staff Report
to the special use permit and recommend approval with the conditions. (Seethe staff
recommend conditions at the end of this report.)
CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER FOR THE DENNIS ENTERPRISES MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing activity on critical slopes and
Section 4.2.5.2 allows the Planning Commission to waive the restriction upon finding that a strict
application of this pr6vision would not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant has submitted a waiver request and justification that address the five health, safety, and
welfare concerns set forth in the Ordinance (Attachment H-2).
Critical slopes cover approximately 1.41 acres of the site's 3.748 acres, or 38% percent of the
site area; of those slopes, approximately 1.07 acres or 75.9% percent are proposed for
disturbance. Most of the critical slopes are covered with some tree and underbrush growth.
The Planning Department's review of this request concentrates on the concern for a possible loss
of aesthetic resources. Staff recognizes that none of the critical slopes to be disturbed are
delineated on the Open Space Plan Composite Map, and that none of the other Open Space
resources recommended for protection are present in the areas where critical slopes disturbance
is proposed. The Engineering Department has addressed the remaining concerns for health,
safety, and welfare provisions of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, has found no conflict with
this request and recommends approval of the waiver (Attachment 1-2). With Planning
Commission approval of the waiver request, and Board approval of the rezoning request staff
may administratively approve the site plan amendment
RECOMMENDATIONS
Three items are before the Planning Commission: the Zoning Map Amendment 02-08, Special
Use Permit 02-13, and a critical slopes wavier for the Dennis Enterprises Minor Site Plan
Amendment SDP 02-34. Staff makes the following recommendations for action by the
Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ZMA 0~'-08)
Staff cannot recommends approval of Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 02-08) without additional
traffic information to be provided by the applicant. If the applicant can provide the necessary
information and the Engineering Department is satisfied that the impacts to traffic will be
minimal, then staff recommends approval of the ZMA application with the acceptance of the
attached proffers.
RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SP 02-43)
Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit (SP 02-13) with the following conditions:
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in the areas indicated for display shown on the plan.
3. The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB,
including landscape and lighting plans.
4. Provide screening trees to the east, south and west of the proposed parking area to reduce
the impact of the loss of trees and to soften the appearance of the expanse of proposed
pavement. Provide a mixture of screening trees, ornamental trees, and shrubs throughout
the slope of the grading easement to the east of the site. A landscape easement will be
required for off-site planting.
South Pantops Office - 2'a Staff Report 6
5. Provide the planting bed with the seven (7) Eastern Red Cedars in the central portion of
the parking area as shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP 02-34) dated March
8, 2002, revised November 4, 2002.
6. Rather than alternate the screening trees along the eastern property line, cluster the same
species in groups and alternate groups of screening trees to create a more informal and
naturalistic landscape.
7. Submit a landscape easement for off-site planting.
8. Provide screening trees that will grow to a height that will sufficiently screen the
proposed parking area. This will require a wider planting area, which will necessitate the
removal of most, if not all, of the 11 display parking spaces in the first row.
RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER;
Staff recommends approval of the request to disturb the critical slopes with the following
condition:
1. The proposed 3:1 slopes must be stabilized with low maintenance vegetative ground
cover. The vegetative cover must be a variety selected from Table 3.37-C on page III-
391 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or an equal approved by the
Engineering Department.
ATTACHMENTS
A-2
B-2
C-2
D-2
E-2
F-2
G-2
H-2
1-2
J-2
Vicinity Map
Application Plan for ZMA 98-20
Concept Plan review by the PC on October 22~d
Current Concept Plan for the offices
Proffers
Staff report for the October 22~a Planning Commission Meeting
Plan for the Minor Site Amendment
ARB Action Letter for the Special Use Permit
Critical Slopes Waiver Request
Engineering Department Analysis
South Pantops Office 2~a Staff Report 7
ATTACHMENT E-~
Date: _January 7, 2003_
ZMA # 2002-008
Tax Ma~ and Parcel Number(s)
78-73A
6.96+
PROFFER FORM
(For South Pantops Office)
Acre to be rezoned from PDMC to PDMC
Original Proffer 1/7/02
Amended Proffer 1/7/02
(Amendment # 2
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1)
(2)
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the common property line with
Carriage Gate (TMP 78-20NN) for the purposes of the possibility of extending a road through that portion
of the property for a period ofTEN years. After such time this proffer will expire.
The development on Tax Map 78Parcels 73A shall be in general accord with the plan produced by Rivanna
Engineering, dated lanuary 3, 2002 and revised January 7, 2003, enfit!ed "Preliminary Site Development
Plans for Office at South Pantops."
Signatures of All Owners
Printed Names of All Owners
Date
OR
S.ignamre of Attorney-in-Fact Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
Original Proffer 1/7/02__
Amended Proffer 1/7/02
(Amendment #__2 .. )
PROFFER
(For Dennis Enterprises)
Date: January 7, 2003
ZMA # 2002-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) __
78-13
1 + Acre to be rezoned from PDMC to HC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezonmg itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1)
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the common property line with
Carriage Gate (TMP 78-20NN) for the purposes of the possibility of extending a road through that portion
of the property for a period ofTEN years. After such time this proffer will expire.
Signatures of All Owners
Printed Names of All Owners
Date
Si~o~nature of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
}3
~S
Auto
11
3A2
76
73A1
Giant Store
Monte:
1
/12B
D
/
/
/ r / : / :
/ !
' ' t,.,' /
475 ~. ~ ~ -... ,~/ x ,/
/...-'/-- ? ...... i ............. ~ .........~ -..~ ./~ ,,' ~--~-- ..--'. ,,,,' ~-
.. ,/ _/ / ....... ~ '% ~ ~ ~ I · ,' ...' /.- ./' '~+, /
// . / .. .- .... _=.~:. ............ ~ ~ '.. %. ~ . -' x,,ck...,~~
/-
) ........... -~ \ '\
- -,' c.¢o-o- ~/.r'~- .... i ,, '
; , ---~?~- _r ~7~ ,, \ ~ ~
~ ~ ,' ..................... ~ , , /
\ ?,200 SFJFL ',~
_
= = ~__=~ ~,~,~ -- ,,
/ \ '~--- L= 200 00'
~ ~ ~5~5 ~ ~ .~/ ........¥ ...............
i //" "' \ \ ---- \
~ RNANNA ENGINEERING &
/
. ! :3-1¥3S
PROPOSe' 50 ACCESS EASE~EblT~
8, 000 ;,2F/FL ~ ~ ...... "
12,000 i~Z TO~ ~ ~ .-"'"'-"
UFE = ~25 Upper ~ J . ~'' 12.200 S~>TL
~ .... 24,400 SF. TOT,
,.,. -LFE = 525.0
UFE = 537.0
Loading Sooce
ATTACHMENT
L.. '
At,
90
PRELIMINARY SITE DBVgLOPiviENT ?L,AKS FOR
OFFICE &T SO[JTHi PANTOPS
RIVANNA DISTRICT_ALBEMAR~Er COUNTY, ~Ii~GINIA
Shee[ No:
C
82 of 2 oxc ,PZt;^r.
RIVANNA ENGINEERING .a
SURVEYING, PLC.
P.O. BOX 7603
PHONI~ (424] 984-1~99
C~L'~LOTTESV[L~ ?A, 2~906 F~(: (434) 9~4-a883
~-~iI:
ATTACHMENT
Date:' January 7, 2003
ZMA # 2002-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s)
78-73A
PROFFER FORM
(For South Pantops Office)
Original Proffer 1/7/02
Amended Proffer 1/7/02
(Amendment # 2
6.96+ Acre to be rezoned fi:om PDMC to PDMC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are
proffered as apart of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1)
(2)
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the common property line with
Carriage Gate (TMP 78-20NN) for the purposes of the possibility of extending a road through that portion
of the property for a period ofTEN years. After such time this proffer will expire.
The development on Tax Map 78Parcels 73A shall be in general accord with the plan produced by Rivanna
Engineering, dated January 3, 2002 and revised January 7, 2003, entitled "Preliminary Site Development
Plans for Office ar South Pantops."
Signatures of All Owners
Printed Names of All Owners
D ate
OR
S~gnature of Attorney-in-Fact Printed Name of Attomey-in-Fact
(Atta6h Proper Power of Attorney)
Date:_ January 7, 2003_
ZMA # 2002-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) _78-13
PROFFER FORM
(For Dennis Enterprises)
Original Proffer 1/7/02__
Amended Proffer 1/7/02
(Amendment # 2__
1 ~- Acre to be rezoned from PDMC to HC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions hsted below which shall be apphed to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are_
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (t) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1)
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the common property line with
Carriage Gate (TMP 78-20NN) for the purposes of the possibility of extending a road through that portion
of the property for a period ofTEN years. After such time this proffer will expire.
Signatures of All Owners
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
Printed Names of All Owners
Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
Date
13
ATTACHMENT
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
ZMA 02-08 SOUTH PANTOPS OFFICE/DENNIS ENTERPRISES
SP 02-13 DENNIS ENTERPRISES -- OUTDOOR DISPLAY
SDP 02-34 DENNIS ENTERPRISES -- MiNOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
SDP 02-84 SOUTH PANTOPS OFi~CE PRELIMINARY SITE pLAN
MICHAEL BARNES
OCTOBER 22, 2002
NOVEMBER 6, 2002
Applicant's Proposal:
There are two applicants associated with this rezoning request. The first applicant, the Virginia
Land Company, is requesting a rezoning amendment to the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center's
PD-MC (Planned Development- Mixed Commercial) Application Plan to allow reran office
use instead of the previously approved hotel use on Tax Map 78 Parcel 73 (see hatched area "1"
on the vicinity map - Attachment A). The Virginia Land Company is also requesting a reduction
from 45,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet for the office space shown in the northeast comer
of the intersection of Hansen Road and Rolkin Road on (see hatched area "2" on the vicinity map
Attachment A). The second applicant, Dennis Enterprises, is requesting a rezoning from ?D-
MC to HC (Highway Commercial) to allow for automobile display (see hatched area "3" on the
vicinity map - Attachment A).
No proffers have been offered to date.
Petition for Rezoninq:
The applicants have submitted a request to rezone 24.07 acres from PD-MC (Planned District-
Mixed Commercial) to PD-MC (Planned District- Mixed Commercial) and HC (Highway
Commercial) to amend a proffered plan to allow for an office use instead of a hotel use and to
allow for an expansion of Dennis Enterprises car dealership. The properties, described as Tax
Map 78 Parcel 73A and Parcel 13, are located in the Rivanna Magisterial District in Pantops on
Hansen Road in the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center at Pantops and on Route 250. The
Comprehensive Plan designates these properties as Regional Service.
Petition for Special Use Permit:
The applicant has submitted a request for special use permit to allow additional vehicle display
parking in accordance with Section 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for outdoor
storage and display. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 13, contains 3.748 acres, and
is located in the Rivauna Magisterial District on Richmond Road [Route # 250] approximately 1
mile from the intersection of Richmond Road and Stony Point Road. The property is zoned HC
(Highway Commercial), PD-MC (Planned District- Mixed Commercial) and EC (Entrance
Corridor). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service in Pantops.
Character of the Area:
Parcel 73A is the portion of land that remains undeveloped in the Rivarma Ridge Shopping
Center. It starts behind the Giant store and wraps eastward around the Giant and abutts Route
250 (Attachment A). Currently, this parcel has a large sediment trap (located immediately
adjacent to Route 250) and a cleared area next to the basin that contains a soil stockpile. The
developer intends to put the offices inthe cleared area and fill the basin in with the stockpiled
ATTACHMENT
soil so that another commercial use, potentially a bank, can be put at the comer of Route 250 and
Hansen Road. The parcel also contains a steep, wooded slope that drops down towards Parcel 13
(Dennis Enterprises) and Parcel 13A (Michael Spooners vacant parcel) (See Environmental
Constraints Map- Attachment B).
The Dennis Enterprises car dealership comprises front half of Parcel 13. The rear of the property
is a wooded, undeveloped slope.
Both properties drain towards the Brown Auto Dealership to the west and eventually under South
Pantops Drive to the Rivanna River. A large percentage of the area under rezoning consideration
contains critical slopes and will require a critical slopes waiver.
Zoning and Subdivision History:
In 1980, during the County's effort to comprehensively rezone the entire county, the County
rezoned the area that became the Rivauna Ridge Shopping Center to PD-SC. In 1998, The
Virginia Land Company submitted an Application Plan for the shopping center (ZMA 98-20 -
see Attachment C). At the time ZMA 98-20 was reviewed, staff, the Commission, and theBoard
primarily foCusedon the proposal's traffic impacts, visual impacts to Monticello, loss of tree
cover, and stormwater management issues. There is specific mention in the ZMA 98-20 staff
report that the focus of the rezoning was not the uses per se, but on the impacts caused by those
uses. For this reason, staff's review of this rezoning application has and will focus more on this
proposal's impacts and compliance with the Neighborhood Model. In short, the proposed
change in use in this ZMA is not a large concern to staff per se.
The ZMA 98~20 Application Plan was specific as to the uses and layout of the uses in and
around the Giant Shopping Center; however, the outparcels along Route 250 and the area under
consideration were left relatively vague (Attachment C). The outparcels along Route 250 call
for "high volume retail with drive thru." The hatched areas 1 and 2 on Attachment A were listed
as "100-room hotel" and "45,000 square feet of office" respectively. Area 3 on Attachment A
was not given a specified use, but was labeled as a "tree conservation area."
Last year, Area 3 on Attachment A was subdivided off from the remainder of The Virginia Land
Company's shopping center parcel (Parcel 73A) and added to the Dennis Enterprises' parcel
(Parcel 13) in a:boimdary adjustment (SUB 01- ). Area 3 is still zoned as part of the Planned
Development District (i.e., it is still considered a tree conservation area). Thus, it will need to be
rezoned to allow for the proposed expansion of Dennis Enterprises and the special use permit for
outdoor display of the cars (SDP 02-34 and SP 02-13). Staff made the proceedural
recommendation to the applicant that they propose that Area 3 should be taken out of the
Planned District and zoned HC instead of amending the Application Plan to allow for automobile
sales.
By-right Use of the Property:
Parcel 13 is zoned HC'on the front half of the property and has no restrictions on any of the by-
right uses in an HC district. However, the rear of the property remains a part of the tree
conservation area in the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center's PD-MC Application Plan. Therefore,
it has no develOpment potential.
Development on Parcel 73A is still governed by the ZMA 98,20 Application Plan. Therefore,
the areas under consideration, Areas 1 and 2 on Attachment A, have only the uses shown on the
ZMA 98-20 Application Plan, 100-room hotel and 45,000 square feet of office, respectively.
ATTACHMENT F-~-
Applicant's Justification for the Request:
The Virginia Land Company currently has a buyer that want to develop an office use on this
portion of the Planned Development. Dennis Enterprises wants to expand their business.
Recommendation:
The Applicant did not wish to defer the public hearing so that several outstanding issues with the
site's development could be resolved. As a result of the following outstanding issues, staff
cannot recommend approval of the rezoning at this time:
1. Inability of the proposal to meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model.
2. Inability of the proposal to demonstrate an effective grading plan on either parcel or
across the two parcels.
3. Inability of the proposal to demonstrate the potential traffic impacts.
4. Lack of an Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendation on the Special Use
Permit Application. (Note: the Applicant has receive a recommendation on the office
portion of the proposal, but did not have enough information to make a recommendation).
If the applicant will not accept deferral of ZMA 02-08 South Pantops Office/Dennis Enterprises
and SP 02-13 Dennis Enterprises - Outdoor Display to resolve the issues, staff's recommends
denial of applications.
Backqround On These Applications:
Two complications will make the review of this application difficult for thie Commission. The
first issue is the number of applications being reviewed. At the time The Virginia Land
Company submitted the rezoning (ZMA 02-08) and site plan (SDP 02-84) applications for the
offices three months ago, they stated that they were unaware that the portion of land that was
sold to Dennis Enterprises last year needed to be rezoned to allow for the car dealership's.
expansion. Four weeks ago, Dennis Enterprises was added to this rezoning application. Staff
supports the inclusion of Dennis Enterprises because we believe that these two properties can be
developed more effectively if planned together.
However, the applicants have not been able to deliver all the necessary materials for review the
two properties either individually or together. This has lead to a second and more difficult
complication. The only plan showing the two adjacent proposal neither has grading nor property
lines match up (Attachment D). This makes any review of the grading between the two parcels
impossible. Additionally, the applicant has provided different two sets of site plans for the office
park. Both of these plans are unacceptable to staff for various reasons. The fn-st plan shows
parking lots situated between Hansen Road and the offices (Attachment E). While this plan
provides the proposed grading, it does not meet enough of the Neighborhood Model principles.
In response to staff comments, the applicant submitted a second plan which shows one of the
offices adjacent to Hansen Road (Attachment F); however, this plan does not shoW any proposed
grading. The lack of grading on the later plan and a continued inability to meet the principles of
the Neighborhood Model are the major reasons that staffhas made the above recommendation.
Staff believes that the Commission's public heating can remain effective if applicant accepts
deferral, and the Commission focuses on the design issues related to the office complex. Staff
believes that the Applicant's primary reason for requesting the public heating is so that they can
ATTACHMENT F- ~
resolve their differences with staff over how the Neighborhood Model should be applied to the
proposed office buildings.
Proposal's Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Regional Service in Neighborhood 3 (Pantops).
The proposal for a offices and automobile sales would be consistent with the uses envisioned
under this designation.
The Comprehensive Plan does not directly address the property under consideratiOn. It does,
however, make several general recommendations for the commercial area along Route 250. The
pertainent recommendations are underlined below:
1. Development in Pantops should be designed in a manner that is sensitive to its location
within Monticello's viewshed. Unlike the remainer of the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center,
this portion of Parcel 73A is on the otherside of the hill fi:om Monticello. Dennis Enterprises
is even further down the hill. Therefore, the visual impacts to Monticello have been deemed
minimal to non-existant.
Commercial Areas along Route 250 are to be developed in a manner which limits access
points, uses internal (possibly grided) road neworks, and/or parallel roads, as well as use
alternative transportation systems. Development should have an orientation toward the
internal road system as opposed to a linear orientation towards the frontage of Route 250.
Staff is in the early stages of developing a concept of roads parallelling Route 250
(Attachment G). Part of the staff initiated concept extends the recently constructed Rolkin
Road across Hansen Road and across the portions of the properties under consideration (the
black dashed box on Attachment G). Staff views these rezoning as an opportunity to keep
the develOpment of these parcels t~om foreclosing on the possibility of the parallel road.
The extension of Rolkin Road has many difficulties. The terrain slopes steeply and would
require extensive fill. The road would also require the cooperation or condimation of several
properties. Therefore, it would be an expensive road to build.
However, the extension of Rolkin Road could also provide a significant benefit. IfRolkin
Extended were constructed as part of a Route 250 widening program, this paralell road could
reduce.the need to widen Route 250 fi:om 8-lanes down to 6-lanes. The cost savings fi:om
reducing the number of lanes needed on Route 250 could be used towards the construction of
the parallel roads. Additionally, the reduction in the number of lanes on Route 250 will keep
Richmond Road a more "neighborhood friendly street." Thus, staff recommends that the
applicants offer to either provide the necessary right-of-way in the future or promise not to
build structures in the possible right-of, way.
Staff must qualify this recommendation with a caveat. This road concepts in Attachment G
have no standing in the Comprehensive Plan or any other offical County document While
some of these concepts could prove to be useful alternative to widening of Route 250, the
concept plan is only a concept. Therefore, the County cannot compell the applicants to
reserve right-of-way and/or restrict theft development out of the areas where a parallel road
couldbe situated.
Provide landscaping along Route 250 to enhance the roadway as an Entrance Corridor. The
ARB review both of these projects for their potiential impacts to the Entrance Corridor. The
staff members, who are reviewing the rezoning and site plan applications, are working
I?
ATTACHMENT F~ ,~
closely with the ARB staff to ensure that the eventually proposed grading plans .will
compliment efforts to provide an appropriate landscaping plan. Staff's chief concern is the
large 2:1 fill slope shown on the first plan submitted for South Pantops Office. If built, as
proposed on Attachment E, staff is concerned that the slope will be unsightly and denuded.
Staff would prefer that the applicant terrace the development down the slope and incorporate
larger landscaping islands within the development. Staff believes that terracing the site and
incorporating the landscaping within the parking lots that the visual impacts resulting from
the development will be masked, especially when seen from the Entrance Corridor and points
farther down the hill.
Proposal's Compliance with the Neiqhborhood Model:
Staff has review the two projects for compliance with the Neighborhood Model.
Pedestrian The office park proposal shows sidewalks along Hansen Road and leading into
Orientation the site. These are positive attributes of the plan.
Dennis Enterprises currrently has a sidewalk across its frontage with Route 250.
Neighborhood No new streets are proposed with either proposal. Within the office
Friendly Streets development, the applicant is proposing street trees and landscaping.
and Paths
Interconnected As mentioned above, staffwould like the applicants to provide interparcel
Streets and access to the Spooner property with the development of their proposals, if
Transportation - possible. Additionally, staff would like to see the applicants reserve the right-
Networks of-way for road across the rears of their properties upon demand by the County.
Parks and 'Open The possibilities for park space is extremely limited on these sites due to the
Space slope and the nature of the proposals. Staff would like to protect as many of the
large trees on the site as is possible. The trees along the common boundary with
the Carriage Hill Apartments are the most critical to be saved because they
separate the commercial and residential development and aid in the protection of
Monticello's viewshed.
Neighborhood The Shopping Center is a neighborhood center. Staff feels strongly that the
Centers office proposal should develop the best possible streetscape along Hansen Road.
This will be especially important when future development or redevelopment is
situated across Hansen Road from the subject site.
Buildings and The ARB is review the building architecture for the offices (Attachment H).
Spaces of Human The ARB met on October 7th and provided the applicant with comments
Scale · (Attachment I). In general, the ARB was satisfied with the buildings as long as
the applicant was willing to make the suggested changes. The ARB was unable
to comment on the landscaping because they wished to see major changes in the
grading of the site.
ATTACHMENT F ~_
Relegated Parking Since all parking is shown in front of the buildings, staffbelieveS it does not
' meet this principle of the Neighborhood Model. Furthermore, staff believes that
the applicant can move the buildings adjacent to the street and terrace the
parking down the slope.
The Dennis Enterprises' proposal is in the rear of the existing business. ARB
staff has recommend that the applicant provide screening trees within the
disPlay area to break up the long parking area as seen from Route 250.
Mixture of Uses The office proposal is part of the shopping center and adjacent to Carriage Hill
Apartments. The proposed offices will compliment the these existing uses.
The Dennis Enterprises' proposal represents the expansion of an existing use
that wOuld not compliment a mixture of other uses easily.
Mixture of Housing Neither project proposed residential uses.
Types and
Affordability
RedeveloPment Not applicable.
Site Planningthat Lack of clear information on grading is one of the proposals' greatest
Respects Terrain weaknesses. Staff is unable to clearly understand how the cut proposed with the
. Dennis Enterprises proposal will relate to the fill on the South Pantops proposal.
Nor is it clear what the net effect of the proposed grading will be on the Spooner
parcel.
However, it is clear that the applicants intend to regrade most of the site
including its critical slOpes. While staffhas concluded that significant
disturbance will be required to develop these two site, we remain unconvienced
that the applicant has devised the best manner to grade the site. We strongly
recommend, the applicants provide a plan that coordinates the grading of their
two sites as well as the eventual grading Spooner property. We further
recommend that the applicants terrace the development down the slope.
Clear Boundaries Not applicable - the property doesn't border Rural Areas
with the Rural
Areas
Other Staff Comments Analysis of the Rezoning
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
The PD-MC district was established to support a broad range of commercial uses under a
unified, ~planned approach with access oriented to an internal road system. The office uses
will work well within the current PD-MC district as long as the issues of visual and traffic
impacts can be resolved and as long as the project can met the principles of the
Neighborhood model.
The HC district was establish to support commercial establishments along major highways
other than shopping center. The Dennis Enterprises car dealership meets this criteria.
ATTACHMENT
Public need and justification for the change
Staff sees no public justification for the zoning change. The applicant has not provided any
indications on the concept plan or written comments that would provide for the extension of
Rolkin Road or provide access to the Spooner Property. These improvement could aid in the
eleviation of traffic congestion along Route 250.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Water and Sewer - Public utilities already exist either on-site or nearby and capacity is
sufficient. Extending service to the site is not a serious issue.
Roads -The applicant has failed provide updated information on the traffic impacts that
result from the change in land use from the 100-room hotel to the 45,000 square feet of
office.
Stormwater management- The project site appears capable of handling stormwater
management issues.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources
No impact is expected on natural, cultural or historic resources. This includes any viewshed
impacts to Monticello.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
As eluded to above, it is unclear how the ulitmate grading plan could affect adjoining
properties.
Fiscal impact to public facilities
A fiscal impact analysis is provided as Attachment J.
SUMMARY:
There are two applicants. The Virginia Land Company is requesting permission to amend their
PD-MC Application Plan to remove a 100-room hotel and add in 45,000 square feet of office
space in the new Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center. The second applicant, Dennis Enterprises, is
seeking to remove a portion from PD-MC district, rezone it to HC, and expand their display area
for their car dealership.
The staff does not have major concerns of the proposed changes in use. However, staff feels that
the applicant must further define their impacts on traffic, to the Entrance Corridor, provide a
unified grading plan, and meet the Neighborhood Model principles in order to gain our support.
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request:
1. The uses are compatible with the area.
2. The portions of the properties farthest from Route 250 could provide for an extension of
Rolkin Road. A Rolkin Road extension could provide for a meaniful reduction in
congestion on Route 250 East.
3. The applicant is willing to provide for a public bus stop on the office site.
Staff has identified the following factors .that are unfavorable to this request:
1. The applicants have not provided a unified grading plan.
2. The office proposal does not front Hansen Road with buildings.
ATTACHMENT F- ~
Neither proposal works with the existing terrain. The applicant should terrace the project
down the hill and incorporate landscaping into the parking lots.
The applicant has not provided revisions to the traffic study requested by staff.
The Architectural Review Board has outstanding issues with both projects.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff cannot recommend approval of the rezoning (ZMA 02-08), the special use permit (SP 02-
13), the prehminary site plan (SDP 02-84), or the minor site plan amendment (SDP 02-34) at this
time as a result of too many outstanding issues. If the applicant is unwilling to accept deferral to
work out the issues with staff, then staff recommends denial of the requests.
Attachments:
A - Vicinity/Tax Map
B - Environmental Constraints Map
C - ZMA 98-20 Application Plan
D - Grading plan for both the Dennis Enterprises and South Pantops Office proposals
E Earlier Plan for South Pantops Office with grading shown.
F - Revised Plan for South Pantops without proposed grading
G- Concept plan for parallel roads in the Pantops Neighborhood
H - Building Elevations for South Pantops Office
I - ARB report for South Pantops Office
J- Fiscal Impact Statement
~,NDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ...........................
:ANOPY REOUIRFD: 0.05'fl6.902 SF = 4.345
C~OPY PRODDED: 1¢,645 ~
TOTAL CANOPY: T-3 I . ~ i 2 1/2" I - [ 8 ~ 335 si ~ 2,680 sfJ
CANOPY PRO~IDED BY SDP-02-34: 14.845
CANOPY pRO,OEO BY ~P-00-11~ 7.9~
~RA~ND CO~ ~A~ BE PERI~NKL~ AND
SH~ BE INSTATED ON A~ SLOP~ 3:1 OR
GREAt,
(r^^)
Purple
S-1 ', Azcmos. E,ergreen
,. ,VANCY 1¢. DO~YfflNO
?~I~P- 78-14A
_ ,,': :~.~.:.:.._-.. _ ~. :-. DB 420 P 155 PLAT
..... C>~ ':2 ".'--.'.'(':-'. .~ :'-. ".:'":':.
. :-. ' :L ?_-.:_- - :..f~;~:.~-. -(_-..
......... :'j: :.-':. '.,--'. "- ~' ~-?. ' ~_~,g E:,~, of ~a~s ~ ~o' s~;~o,~ s ..... ~,,~p;?
". - ' "':,~ ?.:..%:-_ ..... ..~ ~pa~'n~nt ~Ex~atlng Retaking ] ' ] [ /[os,meat ~' ;'~. co~? ~r-,
...... "'.. ~' -: % ':'. -~"R~.~'~'~ $.- ' ~ /W~II / O~ '882-J82 ' -.
~ ' - ........ . .-= ':.~.F..' -,,.a.-," .,-mm-~ \ /~ , I -,.
r .,~' "-_..' " · - '" . ~' __.~...__.,Z;' ' -I1'~ .'~-----*' J'~ · .. \ / ~ I '
-' .... ..... ',- --?-- ..... · /~ /'-----------------'~ t .~'-'~<~ -~
'..-- .... ~ .'. _....~. ~--r..',..%~. .~. ~ ~.. "--~.. ."-'._-~- -.~, ., "- ~ : _ ~ .-" '%.' ~. ,'. ~ tT'.~ T .~ .'. ~,; .-. 't t
..... ,.,x~-,~-- ----.~.._~.,-':~"-' .... ~ ~/'" '~~- ' ""*-~r~"'~,?'L",'x'"' / ~'-' -~, ! I"',,''< / 'X r-~ / , .... ,
- ' _~..I ; .~; ' .- '- 4 - ~ [¢ ..... - 4,''c'."'- "~ .... ~ ox 7. ,:<.. ,J
:. "! -' ' /_ ' ,~/j '~ /. · · . ' ' --~ ..... J ......'"'~r~,,,~,--,', %" /:'< .';: '.:~'.;c:,~,~
~ ~.;. -=,'.: .~--.-,. . -- . . _. -. . . '; ,- . , ' ~ _ .-
· ' ' -.. -\ -. :- . : - ..- ~' ,: ' $ _ ~ .~ ~ '-' "-'.::'-.- "-' ):
· ' -- · '- '. = · ~' - - ', -~ . .- -- ~ t,: ~z / ~- :~ ~ ~ -- ~ . PANt(INO
· . ~ . ~D~:-..-~-. -~ u ~ -' ~ " ':'- "":2~ ~ ,j ~J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ m ~
- --- , - ~ -,~o, - , ~ ~ ~
-.;-'-~ ~L-d<;:..x.%;~%-->., .... ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ s s ~ .~- -
. - '.. - ?:-,.:-.*~-:-: ',' .:. -. . , ,_. ..... · ."
"' ~' ': '~' - ' ~ ~' ~. ~' - . ' - ~ ~ ' '~ 3
_ '. ~" %..-.'' :~g~'..-', '- · . '. ~ · ~ ' ~
. .'.2~-_ .... ~~ - ".:: ~ [~ .... :~ ' - -~A . '~%¢!~ x%. ~ ............. L...~ ...... 8
... ~.= --%:,~.-:~ ._..~.~=~*. . .-. -:%: ;-~t-~ ~' .':_. . ~ '
.... · .. ~':'~ .......-' 4 / ' . 'm ~ - ~- - '- .
. · ._:..~.~~, ..- ,~,~.,.-, . ....
_ - ~.~ ~ ~-~'.~ . .. --,. -....~ ~ -. ,
~ ,~ ~.'~ ' , ".. ~.~ '. TMP 78-
· .~ ~;[..; ;- :..&-.: :-.. - .... .: .. ,.
SCALE; 1"
73A
~ 406
Shee[ No:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mc[ntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
ATT ACHMENT
October 10, 2002
Paul Tschiderer
Rivanna Engineering & Surveying
P O Box 7603
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ARB-2002-99: Dennis Enterprises, Tax Map 78, Parcel 13
Dear Mr. Tschiderer:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on October 7, 2002, completed a
preliminary review of a site development plan associated with a request for outdoor storage/sales/display
~n the Entrance Corridor. The Board offered no objection to the special use permit for ARB-2002-99
outdoor storage, sales, and display with the following conditions:
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in the areas indicated for display shown on the plan.
3. The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is ~ssued by the ARB, including
landscape and lighting plans.
4. Provide screening trees to the east, south and west of the proposed parking area to reduce the
impact of the loss of trees and to soften the appearance of the expanse of proposed pavement.
Provide a mixture of screening trees, ornamental trees and shrubs throughout the slope of the
grading easement to the east of the site. A landscape easement will be required for off-site planting.
5. Remove the first row of 11 spaces and replace the spaces in the asphalt with screening trees. A
wider swath of planting bed to be a m~nimum width of 15 feet shall be provided. Parallel parking can
be provided if there is appropriate width.
6. Rather than alternate the screemng trees along the eastern property fine, cluster the same species ~n
groups and alternate groups of screening trees to create a more informal and naturalistic landscape.
7. Submit a landscape easement for off-site planting.
8. Provide screening trees that will grow to a height that will sufficiently screen the proposed parking
area. This will require a wider planting area, which will necessitate the removal of most, if not all, of
the 11 display parking spaces in the first row.
The board, by a vote of 4:0, approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the site plan, pending staff
administrative approval of the following conditions:
1. Indicate on the plan that groundcover will be provided on all slopes 3:1 or greater. Include the
groundcover in the Landscape Schedule.
2. Replace 6 Eastern Redbud with a tree that has greater urban tolerance and is drought tolerant.
Indicate a 2~" caliper for the proposed tree in the Landscape Schedule.
3. Rather than alternate the screening trees along the eastern property line, cluster the same
species in groups and alternate groups of screening trees to create a more informal and
ATTACHMENT
naturalistic landscape. Provide additional screening trees around the south and west of the
perimeter of the parking area.
4. Submit a landscape easement for off-site planting.
5. Incorporate a signed tree conservation checklist into the landscape or erosion and sediment
control plan. Include the information on the plan as required by the checklist.
6. Show existing vegetation to remain on the plan. Coordinate the limits of disturbance with the
undisturbed buffer area.
7. Relocate the 2 Eastern Redbuds (along the western property line) out of the area where existing
vegetation is to remain.
8. Resolve the pipe/tree conflict in the planting island along the western property line.
9. Clearly label the screening trees in the southern comer.
10. Revise the plan to show screening trees 1,5' on-center.
11. Remove the first row of 11 spaces and replace the spaces in the asphalt with screening trees. A
wider swath of planting bed to be a minimum width of 15 feet shall be provided. Parallel parking
can be provided if there is appropriate width.
12. Correct the common name for Azalea.
13. Remove caliper from Ilex opaca and Juniperus virginiana. Indicate height rather than caliper. 6-
7' is appropriate.
14. Consider another selection for Pin Oak. Pin Oaks branch to the ground and may create a conflict
with cars.
15. Proposed mounting height of the lights shall match the 20' height of the existing pole
lights. Provide a pole detail that matches the existing poles.
If you .have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
/
SinCerely,
Janet Miller
L~n~.scape Planner
Cc: File
Post Office Box 7603
Charlottesville, VA 22906
ISl. SURVEYING, PLC
ATTACHMENT
434.984.1599
(F)434.984.8863
RESI@cstone.net
April 24,2002
Karl Guiler
Planner
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP-02-34 Dennis Enterprises
Dear Mr. Guiler:
This is to request a waiver for the requirements of Section 4.2.
The Site Development plans show there are areas with 25% or greater slopes that will
have to be graded as part of this project.
1. The proposed grading is not significant enough to require rapid or large-scale
movement of soil and rock. The material removed from this site will be used as
fill material on the Brown Auto site.
2. The drainage area for this project is less than 3 acres so excessive stormwater
run-off will not occur.
3. A sediment trap will provide erosion protection for all natural and man-made
bodies of water.
4. There are no aesthetic resources associated with this project
5. There are no septic systems or flood plains near this property.
The reasons given above demonstrate that the grading of critical slopes on this project
will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and/or welfare of the public.
Please call me if you 'have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Timothy Miller, P.E., P.L.S.
President
ATTACHMENT
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Francis MacCall, Planner (to be in SPIN)
Kim Cameron, Senior Engineer
January 7, 2003
Dennis Enterprises Minor Amendment, Critical Slope Waiver Request
The critical slope waiver request for Dennis Enterprises received on December 6, 2002
and amended on January 7, 2003 has been reviewed. The critical slope areas are located
on the south side of the site.
Critical slopes make up 1.41 acres of the site's 3.74 acres, or 37.7% of the site area. The
plan shows'75.9% of the critical slopes as being disturbed, or 1.07 acres. The disturbance
is in the form of grading for the display parking, stormwater management facility, and
constructed slopes at the edge of the display parking area, Below, each of the concerns of
Zoning Ordinance section 18-4.2 is addressed:
"movement of soil and rock"
Grading is not significant enough that rapid or large-scale movement of soil is a
concern. The material removed from this site will be used as fill material on the
Brown Auto site. Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative
stabilization will prevent any movement of soil.
"excessive stormwater runoff'
Stormwater runoff will not change significantly in this area, and runoffwill be
controlled by the stormwater management facility proposed.
"siltation"
A sediment trap will provide erosion protection. Inspection and bonding by the
County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and
maintenance will ensure long term stability.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
This site is visible from Route 250. However, the proposed grading of the critical
slopes is in the back o£the site and not readily visible from Route 250. The re-
graded critical slopes will be attractively landscaped in a similar fashion to those
of the surrounding area.
"septic effluent"
There are no existing or proposed septic systems in the vicinity of this property.
ATTACHMENT
Dermis Enterprises, Inc. Minor Amendment, SE
Critical Slope Waiver Request Comments
January 7, 2003
Page 2
Based on the review above, there are nc~ engineering concerns that prohibit the
disturbance of the critical slopes as shown. The Engineering staff recommends approval
of the request to disturb the critical slopes with the following condition:
1. The proposed 2:1 slopes must be stabilized with low maintenance vegetative
ground cover. The vegetative cover must be a variety selected from Table 3.37-C on
Page 1/1-391 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or an equal
approved by the Engineering Department.
Copy: file 1782
/~/..b//~ ~'~,(5 RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR SPECIAL USE
Plaz~Jng Commission recoau~ended approval of Special Use ?ez~it (S? 02-13) with the
following conditions:
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in the areas indicated for display shown on the plan.
3. The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB,
including landscape and lighting plans.
4. Provide screening trees to the east, south and west of the proposed [larking area to reduce the
.~ impact of the loss of trees and to soften the appearance of the expanse of proposed pavement.
Provide a mixture of screening trees, ornamental trees, and shrubs throughout the slope of the
grading easement to the east of the site. A landscape easement will be required for off-site
planting.
5. Provide the planting bed with the seven (7) Eastern Red Cedars in the central portion of the
parking area as shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP 02-34) dated March 8,
2002, revised November 4, 2002.
6~ Rather than alternate the screening trees along the eastern property line, cluster the same
species in groups and alternate groups of screening trees to create a more informal and
naturalistic landscape.
7. Submit a landscape easement for off-site planting.
8. Provide screening trees that will grow to a height that will sufficiently screen the proposed
parking area. This will require a wider planting area, which will necessitate the removal of
most, if not all, of the l 1 display parking spaces in the first row.
RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ZMA 02-08):
Tax Map 78-73A: Modification o£the ZMA 98-20 Application Plan and Proffers:
A. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment B), outlined in red, located
generally west of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated as "Hotel # 7 - 100
Rooms" on the attached copy of the ZMA 98-20 Application Plan, is amended to allow
"Office Space" instead of a hotel. The development of this Office Space area shall be in
general accord with the "Preliminary Site Development Plans for Office at South Pantops",
prepared by Rivanna Engineering, dated January 3, 2002 and revised January 7, 2003
(Attachment A).
B. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment B) outlined in blue, located
generally east of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated as "Office Space # 5 -
45, 000 SQ FT", is amended to reduce the permitted square footage of office space use from
forty-five thousand (45, 000) square feet to twenty thousand (20, 000) square.
C. The tree conservation area depicted by dotted lines on the "Preliminary Site Development
Plans for Office at South Pantops", prepared by Rivanna Engineering, dated January 3,
2002 and revised January 7, 2003 (Attachment A) may be reduced in size so that its western
boundary is moved in from the common property line with Tax Map 78 parcel 13A by up to
fifty (50)feet.
D. The three modifications listed in A, B and C above are in addition to those previously
approved, and in all other respects the previously approved Application Plan and the
modifications and requirements reflected in the October 28, 1998 letter (Attachment C)
apply.
E. The applicant shall provide the County with a modified application plan showing the
changes authorized by the modifications, listed in A, B and C above, per section 8.5.5 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. However, the modified application plan can be limited
to the area covered by this zoning request.
F. Accept the proffer pertaining to the 120-foot "no build zone" (Attachment D).
Tax Map 78-13: Rezonin~_from PDMC to HC
A. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment B), outlined in green, which
was added to Tax Map 78 parcel 13, is rezoned to HC (Highway Commercial) from PDMC
'~ (Planned Development-Mixed Commercial).
B. Accept the proffer pertaining to the 120-foot "no build zone" (Attachment D).
Attachments
A - ZMA 02-08 Application Plan
B - ZMA 98-20 Application Plan
C - The October 28, t998 Board Action letter for ZMA 98-20
D The proffers for South Pantops and Dennis Enterprises
Agenda Item #: ~ ~/)~ ~
RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR SPECIAL USE PE~lW~rl~i~ll~:n_2-4.3) ~
Planning Commission recommended approVal of Special Use Permit (SP 02-13) with the
following conditions:
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in the areas indicated for display shown on the plan.
3. The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB,
including landscape and lighting plans.
4. ProVide screening trees to the east, south and west of the proposed parking area to reduce the
~ impact of the loss of trees and to soften the appearance of the expanse of proposed pavement.
Provide a mixture of screening trees, ornamental trees, and shrubs throughout the slope of the
grading easement to the east of the site. A landscape easement will be required for off-site
planting.
5. Provide the planting bed with the seven (7) Eastern Red Cedars in the central portion of the
parking area as shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP 02-34) dated March 8,
2002, revised November 4, 2002.
6. Rather than alternate the screening trees along the eastern property line, cluster the same
species in groups and alternate groups of screening trees to create a more informal and
naturalistic landscape.
7. Submit a landscape easement for off-site planting.
8. Provide screening trees that will grow to a height that will sufficiently screen the proposed
parking area. This will require a wider planting area, which will necessitate the removal of
most, if not all, of the 11 display parking spaces in the first row.
RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ZMA 02-08):
Tax Map 78-73A: Modification of the ZMA 98-20 Application Plan and Prq_/fers:
A. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment B), outlined in red, located
generally west of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated as "Hotel # 7 - 100
Rooms" on the attached copy of the ZMA 98-20 Application Plan, is amended to allow
"Office Space" instead of a hotel. The development of this Office Space area shall be in
general accord with the "Preliminary Site Development Plans for Office at South Pantops".
prepared by Rivanna Engineering, dated January 3, 2002 and revised January 7, 2003
(Attachment A).
B~ The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment B) outlined in blue, located
generally east of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated as "Office Space # 5 -
45, 000 SQ FT", is amended to reduce the permitted square footage of office space use from
forty-five thousand (45, 000) square feet to twenty thousand (20, 000) square.
C. The two modifications listed in A and B above are in addition to those previously approved,
and in all other respects the previously approved Application Plan and the modifications and
requirements reflected in the October 28, 1998 letter (Attachment C) apply.
D. The applicant shall provide the County with a modified application plan showing the
changes authorized by the modifications, listed in A and B above, per section 8.5.5 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. However, the modified application plan can be limited
to the area covered by this zoning request.
.... , ' "(Attachment D).
E. Accept the proffer pertammg to the 120-foot "no o.ald zone
Tax Map 78-13: Rezoningfrom PDMC to HC
A. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment B), outlined in green, which
was added to Tax Map 78 parcel 13, is rezoned to HC (Highway CommerciaO from PDMC
(Planned Development-Mixed Commercial).
B. Accept the proffer pertaining to the 120-foot "no build zone" (Attachment D).
Attachments ~ - ZMA 02-08 Application Plan
B - ZMA 98-20 Application Plan
C - The October 28, 1998 Board Action letter for ZMA 98-20
D - The proffers for South Pantops and Dennis Enterprises
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MARCH 5, 2003
PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PR[MARY, AND URBAN
SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT
RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES MARCH 5, 2003
The following addresses Albemarle County' s priorities for each allocation of TEA-21 and each sub-
allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
Surface Transportation Program {STp)
Standard Projects:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds. The County supports
these projects as referenced.
1)
Undertake those Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Study-CHART (adopted
May 24, 2001) projects eligible for the primary program in the sequence as called for in the
February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City, County and University and agreed to by
VDOT. These include:
Route 29 North. The U. S. Route 29 North corridor has been the focal point of interest,
discussion and debate in the Charlottesville area for many years. Numerous and varied
transportation improvements have been proposed and/or funded over the years. Some of
these improvements have been constructed (i.e. Route 29 widening between Hydraulic
Road and Polo Grounds Road). Others remain unbuilt and the subject of great
controversy and divisiveness in the community. All the while this highly urbanized area
continues to grow and transportation system improvement needs increase. In an attempt
to finally resolve this matter, the County urges VDOT to fund a comprehensive,
context sensitive, multi-modal transportation improvement study of the Route 29
North corridor from U. S. 250 through Airport Road. This study has recently been
endorsed by the City, County and MPO as critically necessary to address transportation
needs and land use development as called for in Comprehensive Plans, and to finally
determine the nature of transportation system improvements in this area. Furthermore, an
initial analysis of the Route 29/Hydraulic, Route 250/Hydraulic, Route 29/Route 250 area
is already underway utilizing City, County, MPO and VDOT staff in anticipation of the
larger study. Future improvements in this Route 29 North corridor area should be based
on the results of the comprehensive study. The County has previously recommended re-
establishing funding for the design and ultimate construction for initial phases of
widening of Route 29 from the S. Fork Rivarma River to the N. Fork Rivanna River and
for intersection/interchange upgrades to Hydraulic, Greenbrier and Rio Road
intersections. VDOT has previously programmed construction of a Westem Bypass.
While the ultimate improvements the study will call for are obviously not known at this
time, the programming of funds for improvements the study will recommend is also
important to allow time to accrue the necessary funds to pay for these ultimately agreed
to improvements.
Bo
Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The
Parkway is the County's highest priority project after Route 29 North, and is of the
utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to
improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City.
The Parkway should be developed as follows: The first phase of this project, from the
Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road, is being funded in the County's secondary program. This
project has been approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) as a low
speed parkway in the City of Charlottesville and the County. The County asks that this
section be designed or built in accord with the County's design and alignment
recommendations developed with the assistance of an independent consultant and
endorsed by resolution of the County Board of Supervisors on June 20, 2001 (Attachment
A) and approved by the CTB on December 18, 2001. This endorsed design and
alignment emphasizes the parkway corridor's potential as a linear park and its
relationship to the development of adjacent urban land. The linear park concept is
intended to replace Mclntire Park land lost due to the project and, at the same time, link
Mclntire Park to the Rivanna Trails Foundation trail along Meadow Creek and the
County's urbanizing area along Rio Road.
Planning and design of the second phase of Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to
Route 29 North is being funded in VDOT's Six Year Secondary Road Plan for the
county. County staff has been working with VDOT staff to get the design process
underway. However, it is not possible to construct this project within a reasonable
timeframe solely with secondary funding due to the cost and dramatic impact it will have
on the timing for completion of other important secondary projects. The County believes
the Parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. The
Commonwealth Transportation Board previously decided to eliminate funding of the
Route 29 interchanges in the primary plan. If funding of the interchanges is not going to
be re-established in the plan, the County believes primary funds should be redirected to
the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate construction of subsequent
phases as a primary road, provided it will accelerate the Parkway's completion. For the
twelth consecutive year the County urges VDOT to investigate all possible funding
2
sources, particularly primary road funds, to achieve the quickest construction of this
vitally important roadway.
Co
Other projects listed in CHART in the northern study area must be actively
pursued and completed. These projects include Airport Road improvements and the
Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector. These and other Comprehensive Plan
transportation system recommendations envision future development to be served by a
transportation network that provides a complete system of urban streets and supports
walking and biking and comprehensively links all land uses.
2)
Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South from 1-64
to Mill Creek Dr. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements.
This is a curvy section of road in the County's Urban Area that serves the traffic from
Monticello High School and has experienced several accidents with fatalities_in recent years.
3)
The County acknowledges the significance of Route 29 in Virginia and the multi-phased
Corridor Study completed last year. The County continues to go on record as not supporting
a limited access design for the Albemarle County section of the corridor. The County has
provided VDOT and CTB a resolution regarding this study which repeats the access
management recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study (Attachment C).
4)
The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it be
seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations
identified in the multi-phased Route 29 Corridor Study.
5) There are three areas of emphasis the County requests be addressed on Route 250:
A) Improve Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is
covered by the joint Ivy_ Road Design Study conducted by the City, County and University of
Virginia and originally recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain
Neighborhood/University Heights (Area B) Study. Recent announcement by the University
of Virginia regarding a new basketball arena and parking facilities in this area will likely
create additional traffic demands on Ivy Road. Any plans for the improvement of this section
of Route 250 West need to be coordinated between the City, County and University.
B) The remaining portion of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) was
studied by VDOT with a local advisory committee to determine long term needs for this
road. The Board of Supervisors has rejected the study recommendations and, instead,
recommends maintaining the present two-lane configuration of the corridor with any short
term or spot improvements being as non-intrusive and consistent as possible with the special
character of this scenic by-way.
C) VDOT has completed a similar study of Rt. 250 East from Free Bridge to the Fluvanna
County line. This study's findings have been presented to the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors awaits the final study reconnnendations from VDOT.
7)
Undertake improvements to Route 240 in Crozet in accord with recommendations from the
Crozet Master Planning process, which is currently underway.
8)
9)
Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250 East to Elks Dr./Fontana
Drive. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements.
Undertake improvements of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the
improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The
County supports the recommendations identified by the Fontaine Avenue Task Force.
10) Recognize that mass transit can relieve traffic congestion and is an alternative to road
construction, particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and shift funds from road
construction into mass transit to accomplish this.
Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order:
1)
Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban
Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full road
widening/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for pedestrian
walkways: 1) Route 20 North from Route 250 East to Wilton Farm Apartments and Darden
Towe Park; 2) Route 240 in "downtown" Crozet; 3) Route 20 South from the City line to
Mill Creek Drive; 4) along Route 250 East in the Pantops area as an extension to existing
sidewalks; and 5) along Route 250 West from the City limits to the Bypass.
Of these, the walkways along Route 20 North are the most important improvement.
Pedestrian travel along this road has increased significantly with the development in that
area. Furthermore, Wilton Farms Apartments are now served by public bus service which
travels along Route 20 North and a walkway would provide additional pedestrian access to
this service. There is great concern with the safety of walking along this segment of road as
currently constructed.
4
2)
The County also has placed a high priority on pedestrian improvements in the Crozet area.
The County has chosen Crozet as the first community to be master planned based on the
County's adopted Neighborhood Model. The County previously submitted a TEA -21
Enhancement application in 2002 for downtown Crozet which included relocation and burial
of overhead utility wires, constmction of historically compatible sidewalks, and installation
of period street lighting, benches, and other streetscapes and road cross section
improvements. This application was not approved for funding, but the County continues to
believe this is an essential project.
Reconfigure intersection and install traffic signals at the Ronte 22 and Route 250
intersection.
3)
Improvements to Route 250 West along the corridor in Ivy to address existing and short-term
traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this area. Of
particular concern is the Tillman Road intersection (Route 676), which serves industrial track
traffic and has poor sight distance. These improvements should be undertaken in accordance
with recommendations approved by the Board of Supervisors in the Route 250 West Corridor
Study.
4) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet.
5)
Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and
231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic created
by large trucks along these road segments, and encourages VDOT to consider all appropriate
measures to ensure that tracks travel safely along these roadways in the future. VDOT is
considering undertaking an origin-destination study regarding track traffic on these routes as
requested by the County. Restriction of through track traffic is still considered by the County
to be potentially the most effective measure.
Enhancement Projects:
This is a valuable funding source for which several projects appear to be eligible. Unfommately
funding for new projects is not available this year. The County urges that funds be made available
for new projects. For the County, new projects, in priority order, are:
1)
Pedestrian streetscape improvements in downtown Crozet. These streetscape improvements,
which were included in an Enhancement Grant submitted in January 2002, include the
relocation and burial of overhead utility wires, and construction of historically compatible
sidewalks.
5
2) Construction of pedestrian walkways along Route 20 North.
3)
Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) and Airport
Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport- landscaping, signage,
placement of overhead utilities underground, etc.
4)
Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of
the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991).
5) Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
6) Removal of non-conforming billboards.
National Highway System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this
area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved
the NHS, which includes the existing Route 29, and the Route 29 Bypass. The County believes any
projects that are included in the NHS should reflect the recommendations that result from the
previously referenced transportation improvement study of the Route 29 North corridor area.
Conuestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area ofnon-attainment for ozone
or carbon monoxide.