Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-10 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors' Meeting of December 10, 2003 December 11,2003 ?5.2. AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 1. Call to Order. · Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, David Benish and Ella Carey. 4. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. · Tom Loach said proposed improvements to Jarmans Gap Road have been delayed until 2008. There are currently several developments approved that are predicated on those road improvements. He asked the Board to not allow the connection between Route 250 and Jarmans Gap Road until the proposed improvements on Jarmans Gap Road are approved or built. o Dennis Rooker asked for a report back on the advisability of not allowing the connection. Paul Grady said he signed up forthe County's A- mail but has not received notices of the December meetings. Adopt resolution to reaffirm Route 22/231 through truck restriction in Albemarle County. ADOPTED the attached resolution to reaffirm the restriction of through trucks on Route 22/231. 5.3. Adopt Resolution of Intent to bring Rural Preservation Developments Ordinance requirements into conformance with Virginia Code. · ADOPTED the attached resolution. 5.4. Authorize County Executive to sign Interagency Agreement with the Department of Environmental Quality for Red Hill Water System Study. · AUTHORIZED the County Executive to sign the Interagency Agreement with DEQ and AUTHORIZED the allocation of $97,700 for the project to be reimbursed in full by DEQ. 5a. Presentation on ACSA, RWSA and City Cost Shadng Agreement, Bill Brent. ,~ EXPRESSED agreement with the Cost Shadng Agreement developed by the Albemarle County Service Authority, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Charlottesville City Council. '5b..ZMA2003-003. Eckerd BrU,q Store (Si.cln (Deferred from December t0, 2003) APPROVED ZMA-2003-003, by a vote of 5:1, as proffered dated 12/8/03, and signed by the applicant. 5c. S. p-2003-047, Eckerd Druq Store (si.qn #73). (Deferred from December t 0, 2003) * APPROVED SP-2003-047, by a vote of 5:1. rr 6' ZM.A-2003-09. Ma'rshall Prom~rtv .-Ain3ort Road ASSIGNMENT Tom Foley: Bring back information to Board on January Clerk's office: Follow-up on agenda notifications. Clerk: Forward resolution to Juan Wade to distribute to appropriate individuals. (Attachment 1) C!er.k.: Forward resolution to Wayne Cilimberg. (Attachment 2) David Hirschman: Obtain County Executive's signature on agreement. Provide Clerk with copy of signed agreement. (Attachment 3) Clerk: Forward letter to Bill Brent indicating agreement. Clerk: Set out proffers in Attachment 4. Clerk: Set out proffers.in Attachment 4.. ParkinQ Lot (SiQn #79). · APPROVED ZMA-2003-009, by a vote of 6:0, as set out in amended proffers dated 09-09-2003, and signed by the applicant on 09-15-2003. 7. SP-2003-061, Marshall Property ~ Airport Road parkin.q Lot (SiQn #5). · APPROVED SP-2003-06J, by a vote of 6:0, subJect to two conditions. 8. ,8p-2003-062. Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Addition (SiQn #82}. · APPROVED SP-2003-062, by a vote of 5:1, subject to six conditions. 9. SP-2003-063. Chestnut Grove BaPtist Church Pre- school Amendment (Si,qn #86). · APPROVED SP-2003-063, by a vote of 6:0, subject to four conditions. 10. $.P,2003-065. Frances Jacob, LLC - Tennis Buildin¢~ {Siens #8&t$). · APPROVED SP-2003-065, by a vote of 6:0, subject to four conditions. 11. SP-2003-066. Canodv CAIItel} (Sic~n #38). · APPROVED SP-2003-066, by a vote of 6:0, subject .... to twenty-one conditions. 14. CPA-2003-04. Crozet Master Plan~ Boundary Adjustment. · APPROVED CPA-2003-04, by a vote of 6:0, to amend the existing boundary of the Community of Crozet as recommended by the proposed Crozet Master Plan. This includes adding the northern boundary as recommended in staff's November 11, 2003 staff report, that runs right along Parrot Creek and then along the school's eastern property line and the elimination of the southeastern quadrant from the development area. t5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · AUTHORIZED the County Executive to sign rental rate agreement in order to satisfy bonus density requirements per Section 14.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance and AUTHORIZED the County Executive to enter the County into and sign future rental rate agreements, DIRECTED future agreements be put on the consent agenda for information. Mr..perkins: · Commented that the annual meeting this past year at VACo was a good one. Mentioned that there is a place for counties to display their banners. Suggested that in the future Albemarle County put up its banner. · ADOPTED a resolution to support the Monticello Mu,~t.. angs in the State Championship game.. 16. Adjourn to December 18, 2003 for Joint Meeting with Legislators. · At 9:05 p.m., the Board adjourned its meeting until December 18t". Clerk: Set out conditions of approval in Attachment 4. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval in Attachment 4. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval in Attachment 4, Clerk: Set out conditions of approval in Attachment 4. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval in Attachment 4. County Attorney's office.: After signatures have been obtained, provide Clerk's office with fully executed copy of agreement. /ewc Attachment I - Route 22/231 Resolution. Attachment 2 - Rural Preservation Development Resolution of Intent Attachment 3 - Intemgency Agreement with the DEQ for Red Hill Water System Study Attachment 4 - Planning Conditions of Approval Attachment 5 - Rental Rate Agreement RESOLUTION Attachment I WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, received a request from a group of citizens/residents along Routes 231/22 to consider restricting through tractor-trailer traffic on these routes as means to address vadous traffic concerns: WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on June 7, 1995, to receive comments from citizens on this request. WHEREAS, the Board adopted a resolution on June 7, 1995 requesting from the Virginia Department of Transportation a restriction on through-traveling tractor-trailers on Routes 231 and 22. WHEREAS, the rural character of Routes 231/22 consists of blind curves, hills, narrow pavements with no shoulders serving local commuting traffic and farms, WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia was amended in 1995 and 1996 to increase the size of tractor~ trailers that may travel any road in the State from 60 to 65 feet long and from 8 to 8 % feet. WHEREAS, the geometric design and construction of the road combined with a travelway of only 9 feet creates an incompatible and unsafe situation between tractor-trailers and others vehicles on the roadway. WHEREAS, the presence of tractor-trailers on Routes 231/22 creates an unsafe road for the traveling public. WHEREAS, Route 231 was listed by Scenic America at the top of its list of the Ten Most Scenic Roads i.n Amedca. WHEREAS, County and State Law Enforcement officials have stated that safe and effective enforcement of commercial vehicle regulations is impossible to conduct once tractor-trailers are traveling on Routes 231/22. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby renews their request to the Commonwealth Transportation Board to restrict through tractor trailer traffic on Routes 231/22 in accordance with Section 45.1-171.2 of the Code of Virginia; and FURTHER RESOLVES that because U.S. Route 15 between Gordonsville and 1-64 is a Federal Highway, is inCluded within the STAA Truck Routing System, and is the chosen location for several high volume truck-dependent businesses, it is therefore a reasonable alternative route to tractor-trailers now traveling Routes 231/22. Attachment 2 RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance §§ 10.2.2, 10.3.3.3 and 10.5.2.1 allow rural preservation developments having more than twenty development lots by special use permit, rural preservation developments having twenty or fewer development lots by right, and all rural preservation, developments as a cluster form of development; WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2004, Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(12)will prohibit localities from authorizing duster developments by special use permit, and instead will require that localities allow cluster developments by right, subject to standards, conditions and criteria established by the locality; provided, however, Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(12) also grandfathers local regulations adopted before January 1, 2002 that allow duster developments by right; WHEREAS, the rural areas element of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan is currently under development, and it is not practical for the County to develop and adopt standards, conditions and criteda for rural duster developments by July 1, 2004 to implement regulations to allow rural preservation developments having more than twenty development lots by right; and WHEREAS, in order to timely comply with Virginia Cede § 15.2-2286(A)(12), it is desired to repeal those regulations of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance that allow rural preservation developments having more than twenty development lots by special use permit. 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 the Zoning Ordinance as described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. Attachment 3 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ALBERMARLE COUNTY INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT THE RED HILL GROUND WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY This lnteragency Agreement is for conducting a ground water feasibility study in the Red Hill area outside of Charlottesville. Because of petroleum contamination in the Red Hill area the study is necessary to identify potential locations where the ground water resource could support development of alternative water supplies. There are nine petroleum contaminated residential drinking water wells in the Red Hill area and a potential that additional wells could become impacted in the future, A ground water feasibility study is the first step in evaluating the practicability of providing an uncontaminated drinking water supply to these impacted residences. In addition, other citizens in the vicinity with Iow yielding wells (uncontaminated with petroleum) are also interested in this project. This agreement is made by and between the Department of Environmental Quality (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") and Albemarle County (hereinafter referred to as the "Provider'3. The parties to this agreement, in consideration of the mutual covenants and stipulations set out herein, agree as follows: AGREEMENT DESCRIPTION: The Provider shall perform services as set forth in the Agreement Documents. The Project covers all necessary services to conduct a phased approach for evaluating the feasibility of using ground water in the Red Hill area. Phase I - Preliminary Area Ground Water Investigation will include collection and analysis of available data to assess the feasibility of developing new ground water supplies, identification of favorable areas for test wells, and evaluation of the feasibility of various water system configurations. Phase !1 - Detailed Investigation of Potential Targets will include geophysical exploration of favorable areas, the drilling of test wells, and a preliminary hydrogeologic and engineering analysis. This analysis will include probable construction costs for various potential water system configurations. PROJECT PERIOD: The Project shall commence on or around December 15, 2003 and shall terminate no more than twelve (12) months following the date this contract is executed and the initial payment is received from the Department. PAYMENTS: The Department shall pay the Provider actual cost (estimated at $97,700.00) for the work as described in the attached Project Description as provided by Albemarle County. Total payments will not exceed the estimated cost. The Provider shall notify the Department of any changes to the Scope of Work, The said estimated cost shall include ali expenses of lfle agreement. Payments shall be made as follows: Cost of Phase I ($31,900.00) upon execution of this Interagency Agreement and the balance of the actual cost (estimated at a grand total of $97,700.00) upon satisfactory completion of the project. Project Reporting Requirements: (1) A monthly progress report shall be submitted to the DEQ. (2) Phase reports as described in the Golder Associates, Inc. Proposal and Cost Estimate. Project Agreement Documents shall cOnsist of: (1) This Signed Form (2) Golder Associates, Inc. Proposal and Cost Estimate dated November 6, 2003 (attached). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Attachment 4 Agenda Item No. 5b. ZMA-2003-003. Eckerd Druc~ Store (SiQn #73), (Deferred from December 10, 2003) Eckerd Pharmacy ZMA-03-03 and SP-03-47 Tax Map 78 Parcels 12, 12B and 55A4 Proffer Statement The following parcels are subject to rezoning application ZMA 03-03 and SP 03-47 and thus to this proffer statement: Tax Map 78 Parcels 12, 12B and 55A4 ("the Property"). The owner ofthe Property is North Pantops Townhouses, LLC, its successors and assigns, For purposes of this proffer statement-North Pantops Townhouses, LLC, its successors and assigns is herein referred to as the "Owner'. The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to rezone the Property, which contains 76,368 square feet from R-15-EC toC1-EC, the Owner shall develop the Property in accord with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges 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. 3. 4, 5. Access to the Property from Route 250 shall be limited to one (1) entrance. There shall be no exit from the Property onto Route 250. This access may be in addition to the two points of access on Route 250 proffered in ZMA 94-06, a copy of that proffer being attached hereto. Access to the Property from North Rolldn Road shall be as shown on the Application Plan for Eckerd Pharmacy prepared by Rivanna Engineering dated April 25, 2003, revised November 18, 2003 (#C), hereinafter referred to as the "Plan". Any ddve thru window shall be located on the north side of the building and it shall be open for use whenever the building is open to the public for use. Not more than a single row of parking spaces and one (1) two-way travel aisle shall be lOcated between the building and Route 250. The area identified on the Plan as the ~iandscaped area" at the intersection of Rolkin Road and Route 250 shall contain no impervious surfaces. The Owner shall construct the extension of North Rolkin Road from its intersection with Route 250 to its intersection with Sarah's Lane, and the extension shall be completed before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Property. Construction shall be deemed complete when the improvements are accepted by the appropriate public entity or are bonded for the entity's acceptance. The extension shall be constructed, Subject to final approval from the appropriate public entity, as shown on Sheet A 2 of the Plan. In conjunction with the extension of North Rolkin Road, the Owner shall: A. Increase the left turn storage on the Route 250 eastbound approach to the signal at Route 250 and Rolkin Road by modifying the existing median within the public right- Of-way, in accordance with plans to be approved by VDOT; and B. Upon the request of the County of Albemarle, make a cash contribution of Six Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($6,000.00) to the County for upgrading the signal controller for the signal at Route 250 and Rolkin Road so that it may function as the master controller for a coordinated signal network along this portion of Route 250. If the signal controller is not upgraded by December 3, 2013, all unexpended funds shall be returned to the Owner. The Owner shall construct an offsite storm water management facility in accordance with plans entitled North Pantops Commercial Area, Preliminary Site Plans, dated October 2, 2003, subject to the approval by the Albemarle County Department of Engineering and Public Works, and the facility shall be completed and approved by the Department before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Property. Construction shall be deemed complete when the improvements are accepted by the appropriate public entity or are bonded for the entity's acceptance. The Owner shall construct a dght turn lane from Route 250 westbound onto North Rolkin Road. The right turn lane shall provide a minimum of 250 feet of right turn storage and have a 100 foot taper at the right-in entrance; final plans shall be subject to VDOT approval. The dght turn lane and taper shall be constructed within the VDOT right-of-way in accordance with VDOT standards. The construction of the right turn lane and taper shall be completed before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Property. Construction shall be deemed complete when the improvements are accepted by VDOT or are bonded for VDOT's acceptance. The only by right permitted uses on the property shall be those set forth in Subsection 22.2.1 ,_By Right, of Chapter 18, Zoning, Section 22, Commercial-C-1 of the Albemarle County Code in subparts (a.) 4, 5, 6 as modified on the attachment,10, 11, 12 and (b.) 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14 as modified on the attachment, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 23= and uses accessory thereto, as those uses exist in the Code on December 10, 2003, a copy of which is attached. The only building, other than appropriate accessory buildings, for the pdmary use shall be a one story building of a size and location substantially in compliance with the building area footprint as shown on the Plan. WITNESS the following signature: North Pantops Townhouses, LLC By: (Signed). . Charles W. Hurt, Member Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-2003-09. Marshall Pror~ertv - Airport Road Parkin.q Lot l$iQn #79). Public hearing on a request to amend the proffers of ZMA-1996-018 to allow for stand alone parking & allow a separate entrance onto Airport Rd. TM 32 Ps 20D&20E. 1.336 acs, Znd HC. Loc on Airport Rd (Rt 649) approx .1 mis from intersec of Seminole Trail (Rt 29N) & Airport Rd. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Regional Service in the Hollymead Community.) Rio Dist. PROFFER FORM Date: 09-09-2003 ZMA #2003-009 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) .03200-00-00-020D0 and .Q20E.0. 1.33 Acres to be rezoned from HC 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 rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. (1) Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 11, 1996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto (on file): 24.2.1 (2) Automobile, Truck Repair Shops (35) Electric, gas,.. (36) Public uses... (37) Temporary Construction uses and in effect February 5, 2003, a copy of the section being attached hereto: 24.2.2 (12) Stand Alone Parking and parking structures , (Sianed) W. A. Marshall. Jr. W.A. Marshall, Jr. Signature of All Owners Pdnted Names of All Owners 09-15-2.003 Date (Si.qned) Rachel K. Marshall Rachel K. Marshall, 09-~15-2003 Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2003-061. Marshall Property - AirPort Road Parkin,q Lot (Sian #5). Public hearing on a request to allow stand alone parking in accord w/Sec 24.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32 Ps 20D,20E&40. 1.336 acs. Znd HC. Loc on Airport Rd (Rt 649), approx .1 mis from intersec of Seminole 'Frail (Rt 29N) and Airport Rd. Rio Dist. A final site plan shall be submitted for approval which: a. shall be in general accord with both the plan dated 9/03/03 and the Supplement #1 to Drawing C-2 dated 9/12/03, b. shall include the closure of the entrance on parcel 20D, the closure of the eastern entrance on parcel 20F, the completion of the sidewalk, curbing, street shrubs, and street trees along the frontage of Airport Road on parcels 20D, 20E, and c. shall include the joint entrance for parcels 20D, 20E, 20Fi and At least one sign shall be posted in the parking area that identifies the use as parking for the adjacent automobile repair center only (Tax Map 32 Parcel 40), with size and location of the sign to be determined and approved by staff. Agenda Item No. 8. sp-2003-062.,Chestnut Grove ,Baptist Church Addition ($i.qn #82). Public hearing on a request to allow an 11,964 sq ff addition to an existing church in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 19, P 17, contains 10,7 acs. Znd PA. Loc on Buck Mountain Rd (Rt 664) at the Rt 664/663 intersec. White Hall Dist. The church's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled ~Addition & Remodeling Chestnut Grove Baptist Church" revised 9-26-03; The area of assembly within the fellowship hall shall be limited to three hundred twenty (320) seats under this special use permit, or the limit approved by the Health Department, whichever is less; Commercial setback standards (50'- building, 20'-parking) as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or other Rural Area zoned properties; Construction of the church, as shown on the plan, shall commence within five (5) years of the date of the approval of this special use permit or this special use permit shall expire; Health Department approval of a well and septic systems shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit; and Conservation of the natural vegetation within fifty (50) foot building setback buffer along the north property line shall be required. Agenda Item No. 9. Sp.2003-063. Chestnut Grove Baptist ..Church Pm, school Amendment (SiQn #86). Public hearing on a request to amend SP-1993-024 to allow the increase of an existing church pre-school to 50 students and 5 teachers in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ord. TM 19, P 17, contains 10.7 acs. Znd PA. Loc on Buck Mountain Rd (Rt 664) at the Rt 664~663 intersec. White Hall Dist. The outside play area activities shall be limited to take place dudng daylight hours. Lighting of the play area shall not be permitted; Enrollment shall be limited to 50 children, or the limit approved by the Health Department, whichever is less; The hours of operation shall be limited to 9 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. The days of operation shall be limited to five days per week (Monday- Friday), unless or the limit approved by the Health Department, whichever is less; and The entrance onto Route 664 shall be improved to current standards for sight distance or closed except for emergency purposes. VDOT approval of the entrance on Route 664 shall be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Notwithstanding this requirement, if the entrance is not approved to these standards, enrollment may still be up to twenty (20) children, or the limit approved by the Health Department, whichever is less. Agenda Item No. 10. SP~2.0034)65. F. rances Jacob, U_C.-. Tennis B. uildinQ (.Si.qns #8&15). Public hearing on a request to allow private tennis building in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.4) of the Zoning Ord. TM 99 P 108B, contains 7.265 acs. Znd PA. Loc on Old Lynchburg Rd (Rt 631) approx 400 ft N of intersec of Rt 631 & Rt 712. Samuel Miller Dist. The site plan shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "Proposed Private Tennis Building for Boyd Tinsley," revised October 17, 2003, and prepared by Melvin R. Taylor;, This facility shall be used only by the property owners and their guests, and shall not be used as a commercial tennis facility or private tennis club; The applicants shall secure a permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation before beginning any work in the right-of-way; and The applicant shall secure Engineering Department approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Stormwater Management Plan before receiving a grading permit for this use. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2003,066. Canodv (AIItel) (SiQn #38), Public hearing on a request to allow the construction of a personal wireless service fac w/90 ff tall monopole as its mounting structure in accord w/Sec (10.2.2.6) of the Zoning Ord which allows for microwave & radio-wave transmission & relay towers in the PA. TM 89, P 4, contains 6.363 acs. Loc on the north-bound lane of Monacan Trail Rd (Rt 29S) & W of the railroad, approx % mi S of the 1-64 overpass~ Znd PA & EC Overlay District. Samuel Mitler Dist. The facility sba. Ii be de~.qned, constructed and maintained as follows: With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the construction plans entitled, "Alltei - Moore's Creek Site", last revised October 20, 2003 and provided herein, with Attachment A; The calCUlation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-exiSting, natural ground elevation; The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed four (4) feet above the top of twenty (20)-inch diameter Poplar tree identified as number 195 on Sheet C6 of the construction plans. In no case shall the pole exceed ninety (90) feet in total height at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit; The monopole shall be painted a natural brown that is consistent with the colOr of the trees surrounding the site; The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and ali equipment attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application plans; 11. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches; No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one (1)-inch in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole; No guy wires shall be permitted; No lighting shall be permiffed on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply; and The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. Pdor to the issuance of a.building permit, the followin~l requirements shall be met: 12. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground equipment shall be included in the construction plan package; 13. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator; 14. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arbodst shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except forthe tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad on its property except for those trees subject to existing recorded easements; 15. The tree conservation plan required by condition 14 Shall include special consideration for the preserving the health of the twenty (20)-inch, ninety-eight (98)-foot tall tree identified as number 187 on page C6 of the constructions plans to its current state of health; and 16. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the completion of the p01e installationr and prior to the issuance of a C..ertificate of Occupancy or to any facility ooeration, the following shall be met: 17. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator; 18.' Certification confirming that the grounding rod: a) height does not exceed two (2) feet above the tower; and b) width does not exceed a diameter of one (1)~inch, shall bo provided to the Zoning Administrator;, and 19, No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. After the issuance Of a .Certificate of Occupancy, the .followir~l requirements, shall be met: 20. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the fadlity, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July I of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service 21. provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider; and All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. Attachment 5 RENTAL RATE AGR. EEMEN .T. (Albemarle County Code, Chapter t8, Zoning, Section t4.4.3(c)) THIS AGREEMENT is made this .. day of ~ ,2003, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the 'COUNTY,~ and CHRISTOPHER L. DAVIS, hereinafter referred to as the 'OWNER." WHEREAS, the OWNER is the owner of that certain property (hereinafter, the "property'~ located in Albemarle County, Virginia described as: Alt that certain parcel or tract of land situated in the White Hall Magisterial Distdct of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, containing 0.890 acres, more or less, and shown and designated on the plat of Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., dated May 20, 2002, revised July 11, 2002, which plat is recorded immediately pdor hereto. The property is also identifted in the COUNTY's tax maps, pdor to subdivision, as Tax Map 56A1, Section 1, Parcel 90, which is the same land acquired by the OWNER by a deed recorded in the land records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book . , Page .. WHEREAS, the property will be developed to provide Iow or moderate cost rental housing units as provided in Section 14.4.3 of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, which allows a thirty (30) percent increase in density for Such housing; and WHEREAS, as a condition of the thirty (30) percent increase in density, the OWNER and the COUNTY are required by Section 14.4.3(c) of Chapter 18,, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, to enter into an.agreement restricting the rental rates of the Iow or moderate cost units for a period of five (5) years or until the units are sold as Iow or moderate cost units, whichever comes first, WITNESS: IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated in this Agreement, the COUNTY and the OWNER agree as follows: PROPERTY AND,DWELLING UNITS SUBJECT TO THIS AGREEMEN~ 1.1 The OWNER represents that the property will be developed with two-bedroom dwelling units. 1.2 The terms of this Agreement shall apply to each two-bedroom or largerdwelling unit established on the property for the period provided in section 2.2. 1.3 if the OWNER hereafter desires to establish one-bedroom or studio-style dwelling units on the property, this Agreement shall be amended as provided in section 9.1 to establish low or moderate cost rental rates for those units. ARTICLE 2: RENTAL RATES 2.1 The gross rent for each two-bedroom dwelling unit on the property in 2003 shall not exceed seven hundred sixty-twO dollars ($762) per month; the net rent for each two-bedroom dwelling unit in 2003 shall not exceed six hundred twenty-five dollars ($625). In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly gross rent or net rent for each two-bedroom dwelling unit may be increased up to two and one-half percent (2.5%). For purposes of this Agreement, the term "gross rent" means that the rent includes the payment of all utilities; the term ~net rent" means that the utilities are not included in the rent and are paid separately by the tenant. 2.2 The maximum rents established in section 2.1 shall apply for a period of five (5) years following the date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the COUNTY for the two-bedroom dwelling unit to which the rental rates apply, or until the units are sold as Iow or moderate cost units within the meaning of Section 14.4.3 of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, whichever comes first. ARTICLE 3: CONVEYANCE OF INTEREST 3.1 Ali deeds conveying any interest in the property during the term of this Agreement shall contain language reciting that the property is subject to this Agreement. 3~2 All contracts pertaining to a conveyance of the property, or any part thereof, during the term of this Agreement, shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by this Agreement. 3.3 At least thirty (30) days prior to the OWNER's conveyance of any interest in the property during the term of this Agreement, the OWNER shall notify the COUNTY in writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of sections 3.1 and 3.2 have been satisfied. ARTICLE 4: ,REPORTING RENTAL RATES 4.1 During the term of this Agreement, within thirty (30) days of each rental or lease term for each dwelling unit, the OWNER shall provide to the COUNTY a copy of the rental or lease agreement for the dwelling unit rented that shows the rental rate for that dwelling unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement. 4.2 During the term of this Agreement, the OWNER shall provide to the COUNTY, if requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as the COUNTY may reasonably require. ARTICLE $: ENFORCEMENT BY THE COUNTY 5.1 If the COUNTY determines that the OWNER has violated any term of this Agreement, or is attempting to violate any term of this Agreement, the COUNTY may enforce this Agreement by proceeding at law or in equity against the OWNER, either to restrain the violation or attempted violation, or to recover damages for the breach hereof, including attomey's fees and the costs of collection. 5.2 No remedy conferred in the COUNTY is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy, but each and every such remedy is cumulative of any other remedy existing at law or in equity. 5.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein is intended to confer on the COUNTY the right to invalidate a conveyance made in violation of sections 3,1 or 3.2. ARTICLE 6: OWNER NOT EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF COUNT~ 6.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to designate the OWNER, or any of his employees, as an employee or agent of the COUNTY, ARTICLE 7: NOTICE 7. t Any notice, request, report or other communication to either party by the other concerning the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed given only: (i) ]4 7.2 8.1 8.2 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 when actually received by the addressee; or (ii) sent postage prepaid, by certified or registered United States mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: COUNT~.: OWNER Ronnie L. White Chief of Housing County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Christopher L. Davis The person and the place to which notices are to be mailed to either party may be changed from time to time by notice given in accordance with the provisions of this article. ARTICLE: BINDING EFFECT AND RELEASE The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon the OWNER, and his heirs, successors and assigns. Five (5) years following the date the last certificate of occupancy is issued by the COUNTY for the property, or after the units are sold as Iow or moderate cost units within the meaning of Section 14.4.3 of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, whichever comes first, the OWNER may request that the COUNTY record a release of this Agreement. /~RTICLE 9:, GENERAL Modifications: This Agreement or any part thereof may not be modified, except by written agreement of the parties signed by the duly authorized officers of the parties. No waiver: Omission or delay by either party to this Agreement at any time to enforce any dght or remedy reserved to it, or to require performance of any of the terms of this Agreement, shall not be a waiver of any right or remedy to which either party is entitled, and shall not in any way affect the right of either party to enforce the provisions thereafter. However, this section shall not be construed to be a waiver or a tolling of an applicable statute of limitations, or to prevent either party from raising the statute of limitations as a defense in any proceeding. Applicable law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The parties agree that proper venue, in the event of litigation concerning this matter, shall be in Albemarle County, Virginia. Severability: If any provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity of ali other provisions hereof shall in no way be affected thereby. Successor and assignees: Neither party shall assign or transfer this Agreement or any of its respective rights hereunder without the prior written permission of the other party. Entire agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all previous agreements and understandings relating to the work to be performed under this Agreement. WITNESS the following signatures and seals in agreement with the above terms: OWNER By: Christopher L. Davis COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: Title: -Page 16- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Route 22/231 Through Truck Restriction SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Board of Supervisor reaffirmation to restrict through trucks on Route 22 and 231 in Albemarle County STAFF CONTACT(S),: Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: December 10, 2003 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on June 7, 1995 to restrict through trucks on Routes 22 and 23t. The Board heard public comments and endorsed a resolution requesting VDOT to restrict through trucks on these routes (Attachment A). VDOT has not acted on this request. Due to many requests from citizens and local governments to prohibit through trucks on Routes 22/231 and other adjacent primary roads, the Culpeper District Commonwealth Transportation Board member, Butch Davies, held a public hearing on November 18, 2003 with all representing state delegates and senators to hear concerns. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2.1 protect and/or preserve the County's rural character :Goal 3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. DISCUSSION: As a result of the November 18, 2003 meeting, Mr. Davies believes there is support to move forward with the County's request. The previous resolution is close to nine years old. It would be prudent to re-affirm the resolution to indicate to all of the Commonwealth Transportation Board members that this remains a County priority. Please find attached an updated resolution (Attachment A). It essentially contains the same information the Board of Supervisors noted in their 1995 resolution. VDOT has established a new process and guidelines that localities must follow to restrict through trucks. The main change in the process: · The Commonwealth Transportation Board has given the authority to approve through truck restriction requests to the Commissioner, but they have reserved the rig ht approve restrictions on primary roads, such as Routes 22 and 231. The new guidelines are: Reasonable altemate routing is provided. The alternate route will be evaluated for traffic and safety related im pacts. To be considered "reasonable", the alternate route(s) must be engineered to a standard sufficient for truck travel, and must be judged at least as appropriate for truck traffic as the requested truck restriction route. If an alternate route must be upgraded, the improvement shall be completed before the truck restriction can be implemented. The termini of the proposed restriction must be identical to the alternate routing to allow a time and distance comparison to be conducted between the two routings. Also, the alternate routing must not create an undue hardship for trucks in reaching their destination. The character and/or frequency of the truck traffic on the route proposed for restriction is not compatible with the affected area. Evaluation will include safety issues, accident history, engineering of the roadway, vehicle composition, and other traffic engineering related issues. 03-12-03A10:40 RCYD AGENDA TITLE: Route 22/231 Through Truck Restriction December 10, 2003 Page 2 of 2 In addition to meeting the first two criteria, the proposed restriction must meet either the third or the fourth criteria in order to be approved. 3. The roadway is residential in nature. Typically, the roadway will be judged to be residential if there are at least 12 dwellings combined on both sides within 150' of the existing or proposed roadway center line per 1,000 feet of roadway. 4. The roadway must be functionally classified as either a local or collector. Failure to satisfy criteria 1 and 2, and either cdteria 3 or 4, will normally result in rejection of the requested restriction. The County has already provided information with the previous request to satisfy criteria 1 and 2. It is staff's position the request meets criterion 3. Although the routes may not meet the density for this criterion, the routes are residential in nature. RECOMMENDATION: Staff still supports this request and recommends for the Board of Supervisor to re-affirm the modified attached resolution -Attachment A. 03.162 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, received a request from a group of citizens/residents along Routes 231/22 to consider restricting through tractor-trailer traffic on these routes as means to address vadous traffic concerns: WHEREAS, the Board held a public headng on June 7, 1995, to receive comments from citizens on this request. WHEREAS, the Board adopted a resolution on June 7, 1995 requesting from the Virginia Department of Transportation a restriction on through-traveling tractor-trailers on Routes 231 and 22. WHEREAS, the rural character of Routes 231/22 consists of blind curves, hills, narrow pavements with no shoulders serving local commuting traffic and farms, WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia was amended in 1995 and 1996 to increase the size of tractor- trailers that may travel any road in the state from 60 to 65 feet long and from 8 to 8 % feet. WHEREAS, the geometric design and construction of the road combined with a travelway of only 9 feet creates an incompatible and unsafe situation between tractor-trailers and others vehicles on the roadway. WHEREAS, the presence of tractor-trailers on Routes 231122 creates an unsafe road for the traveling public. WHEREAS., Route 231 was listed by Scenic America at the top of its list of the .Ten Most Scenic Roads in Amedca. WHEREAS, County and State Law Enforcement officials have stated that safe and effective enforcement of commercial vehicle regulations is impossible to conduct once tractor-trailers are traveling on Routes 231/22. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby renews their request to the Commonwealth Transportation Board to restrict through tractor trailer traffic on Routes 231122 in accordance with Section 45.1-171.2 of the Code of Virginia; and FURTHER RESOLVES that because U.S. Route 15 between Gordonsville and 1-64 is a Federal Highway, is included Within the STAA Truck Routing System, and is the chosen location for several high volume truck-dependent businesses, it is therefore a reasonable alternative route to tractor-trailers now traveling Routes 231/22. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a meeting held on December 10,. 2003. t~/~~ '-~l/3~Board of Cou"~ty Supervisq~ Aye Mr. Bowerman X Mr. Dorder X Mr. Martin X Mr. Perkins X Mr. Rooker X Ms. Thomas X Nay COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Rural Preservation Development Resolution of Intent SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A Resolution of Intent to bring Rural Preservation Developments ordinance requirements into conformance with Virginia Code STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: December 10, 2003 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Resolution of Intent BACKGROUND: The Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance requires that Rural Preservation Developments (RPD's) of more than 20 lots obtain special use .permit approval. Effective July 1, 2004, the Virginia Code will prohibit localities from authorizing cluster developments (including Rural Preservation Developments in Albemarle County's case) by special use permit. Standards, conditions, and cdteria regulating cluster developments (Rural Preservation Developments) may be established by localities. RPD's are an integral part of the draft Rural Areas element of the Comprehensive Plan currently under review by the Planning Commission. As iris unlikely that the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent Ordinance revisions pertaining to RPD's will be implemented prior to the effective date of the Virginia Code allowing all RPD's by-right, a Resolution of Intent has been prepared to repeal the conflicting Albemarle Zoning Ordinance regulation. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2.1 Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character. DISCUSSION: The draft Rural Areas element of the Comprehensive Plan contains policies and strategies for RPD's that would utilize less land for the residential lots and larger preservation lots. Although the draft Rural Areas element is under review at this time, the timing for bringing any RPD Zoning Ordinance changes based on the adopted Rural Areas element into compliance with the Virginia Code regulations would probably extend beyond the July 1 effective date. Therefore, staff believes that it is prudent at this time to proceed with a Resolution of Intent to repeal Albemarle's regulation allowing RPD's of more than 20 lots by Special Use Permit. The repeal of this Ordinance regulation would not affect the allowance of RPD's of 20 lots or less by-right or the requirement for RPD's to adhere to criteria and standards for these types of developments that are already established in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the allowance of RPD's of more than 20 lots would no longer exist. As noted above, it is anticipated that further changes to the RPD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will be made after the adoption of the Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan element. To date, staff has not had any recent discussion with developers or landowners regarding potential RPD developments of more than 20 lots. Since 1990 when the RPD ordinance provisions were enacted, the County has approved eight Rural Preservation Developments of more than 20 lots out of a total of 13 approved RPD's. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Intent. 03.163 03-12-03A10:40 RCVD RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance §§ 10.2.2, 10.3.3.3 and t0.5.2.1 allow rural preservation developments having more than twenty development lots by special use permit, rural preservation developments having twenty or fewer development lots by dght, and all rural preservation developments as a cluster form of development; WHEREAS, effective July 1,2004, Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(12) will prohibit localities from authorizing cluster developments by special use permit, and instead will require that localities allow cluster developments by right, subject to standards, conditions and criteria established by the locality; provided, however, Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(12) also grandfathers lOCal regulations adopted before January 1, 2002 that allow cluster developments by dght; WHEREAS, the rural areas element of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan is currently under development, and it is not practical for the County to develop and adopt standards, conditions and criteda for rural cluster developments by July 1, 2004 to implement regulations to allow rural preservation developments having more than twenty development lots by right; and WHEREAS, in order to timely comply with Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(12), it is desired to repeal those regulations of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance that allow rural preservation developments having more than twenty development lots by special use permit. 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 the Zoning Ordinance as described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at the eadiest possible date. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution of Intent duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Al bemade County, Virginia, by vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting h~d~,. December 10.~2003. C e~rk, Board of County Supervisor~ Aye Mr. Bowerman X Mr. Dorder X Mr. Martin X Mr. Perkins X Mr. Rooker X Ms. Thomas X Nay COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Interagency Agreement for Red Hill Water System Study SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize the County Executive to sign an Interagency Agree ment with the Department of Environmental Quality so that work can proceed on the Red Hill water system study. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Graham, Hirschman BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: December 10, 2003 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: At its meeting on Mamh 5, 2003, the Board authorized the Department of Engineering to work with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) "to facilitate a long-term solution to the Red Hill contamination problem. This will entail County staff working with DEQ on landowner contact, community meetings, and the evaluation of various long-term alternatives, including the establishment of a central' water supply." The Red Hill study is needed due to a major groundwater contamination incident originating at the Trading Post on Route 29. So far, 11 wells have had petroleum products detected, and 7 have had carbon filtration units (cfu's) installed, some for many years. DEQ has a ready expended significant funds on investigations and pump and treat systems, and the plume is far from contained. The March 5 action allowed County staff to proceed working with DEQ to develop an RFP for the water system study and undertake a consultant selection process, After a corn petitive process (9 proposals were received and 4 consultants were interviewed), Golder Associates was selected as the successful consultant. Golder has produced a scope of work and fee proposal that are agreeable to DEQ and County staff. According to the Interagency Agreement, DEQ will reimburse the County for all costs associated with managing the contract with Golder. DEQ and the County held a public meeting on the topic at Red Hill School on April 22, 2003. A follow-up letter was sent by DEQ to all meeting participants on October 23 updating them on the progress of the study. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3.1: Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play DISCUSSION: The project involves evaluating the feasibility of vadous water supply configurations: individual replacement wells, shared wells, or a community water supply. The work is divided into two phases. Phase 1 is a preliminary groundwater investigation, and Phase 2 involves more detailed geologic and engineering work to analyze particular water supply options. The project also involves two public meetings in the Red Hill area. The total fee for both phases is $97,700. In the event that a community water supply is recommended, the County and DEQ would have to work with ACSA or another appropriate management entity to operate such a system. Mr. Bill Brent from ACSA sat on the consultant selection committee and is aware of the project. If a community system is recommended, then a work session will be scheduled with the Board early in the process so that staff can receive direction on the policy implications of such an action. This will be done prior to any broader public discussions about setting up a community system in the Red Hill area. OJ-12-O3AlO:40 t~CVD AGENDA TITLE: Interagency Agreement for Red Hill Water System Study December 10, 2003 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the County Executive to sign the Interagency Agreement with DEQ after appropriate legal review. Authorize the allocation of $97,700 for the project to be reimbursed in full by DEQ. 03.161 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ALBERMARLE COUNTY INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT THE RED HILL GROUND WATER FEASIBIUTY STUDY This Interagency Agreement is for conducting a ground water feasibility study in the Red Hill area outside of Charlottesville. Because of petroleum contamination in the Red Hill area the study is necessary to identify potential locations where the ground water resource could support development of alternative water supplies. There are nine petroleum contaminated residential drinking water wells in the Red Hill area and a potential that additional wells could become impacted in the future. A ground water feasibility study is the f;st step in evaluating the practicability of providing an uncontaminated drinking water supply to these impacted residences. In addition, other citizens in the vicinity with Iow yielding wells (uncontaminated with petroleum) are also interested in this project. This agreement is made by and between the Department of Environmental Quality (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") and Albemarle County (hereinafter referred to as the "Provider"). The parties to this agreement, in consideration of the mutual covenants and stipulations set out herein, agree as follows: AGREEMENT DESCRIPTION: The Provider shall perform services as set forth in the Agreement Documents. The Project covers all necessary services to conduct a phased approach for evaluating the feasibility of using ground water in the Red Hill area. Phase I -~ Preliminary Area Ground Water Investigation will include collection and analysis of available data to assess the feasibility of developing new ground water supplies, identification of favorable areas for test wells, and evaluation of the feasibility of various water system configurations. Phase II - Detailed Investigation of Potential Targets will include geophysical exploration of favorable areas, the drilling of test wells, and a preliminary hydrogeologic and engineering analysis. This analysis will include probable construction costs for various potential water system configurations. PROJECT PERIOD: The Project shall commence on or around December 15, 2003 and shall terminate no more than twelve (12) months following the date this contract is executed and the initial payment is received from the Department. PAYMENTS: The Department shall pay the Provider actual cost (estimated at $97,700.00) for the work as described in the attached Project Description as provided by Albemarle County. Total payments will not exceed the estimated cost, The Provider shall notify the Department of any changes to the'Scope of Work. The said estimated cost shall include all expenses of the agreement. Payments shall be made as follows: Cost of Phase I ($31,900.00) upon execution of this Interagency Agreement and the balance of the actual cost (estimated at a grand total of $97,700.00) upon satisfactory completion of the project. Project Reporting Requirements: (1) A monthly progress report shall be submitted to the DEO. (2) Phase reports as described in the Golder Associates, Inc. Proposal and Cost Estimate. Project Agreement Documents shall consist of: (1) This Signed Form (2) Golder Associates, Inc. Proposal and Cost Estimate dated November 6, 2003 (attached). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby, DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FID #541661753 PROVIDER: Albemarle County FIN #546001102 Richard F. Weeks DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS Robert W. Tucker COUNTY EXECUTIVE , REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION FORM DATE BATCH iEXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR DEQ RED HILL WATER SYSTEM STUDY. i' ' ' " . ' SU-.u.. LEDGER" GENERAL Lt:uu~:y,~----- ' ~TYPE FUND r DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 'cODE I~MOUNT ..... .DEB~"' ' CREDIT !, 2 9010 33000 330630 DEQ-RED HILL STUDY J 2 97,700.00 ~ J i ..... J ...... i J ..... ~ 9010 0501 EST REVENUE J 48,623.00 ~' 0701 APPROPRIATION. . J ...... 48,623.00 ~ j J J J J J J J i ........ J J J J J J tOTAL ~ 195,400.00 48,623.00 48,623.00 i PREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN DATE: ' ' I ' 1=15/03 APPROVED BY: ELLA W. CARE"r DATE: - 12/15/2003 .... FAX (434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 TTD I434) 972-4012 November 24, 2003 Brian S. Ray 1717-1B Allied Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 84, Parcel 62 (Property of Earl Raymond or Debra H. Hackett) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Ray: The county Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 84, Parcel 62 is comprised of three separate parcels of record as they are described in Deed Book 613, page 504 and shown on the attached plat. (A) The parcel containing approximately 15 acres has five (5) development rights. (B) The parcel containing approximately 16 acres has five (5) development rights. (C) The parcel containing approximately 0.5 acres has one (1) development right. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows. Our records indicate Tax Map 84, Parcel 62 contains 31.604 acres and one dwelling. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1906, page 1. The most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed Book 613, page 504. This deed, dated October 28, 1976, conveyed three tracts of land from Jesse L. Barksdale and Nina Anna Barksdale to Annie Josephine Craig. The tracts are described, in part, as follows: FIRST: All that certain tract or parcel containing 15 acres and being the same property conveyed by deed dated July 1, 1943 and recorded in Deed Book 257, page 311. SECOND: All that certain tract or parcel adjoining the tract hereinabove described and containing 16 acres, more or less, and being all of a tract of 22 1/2 acres and a tract of ~ acre conveyed by a deed dated April 12, 1934 and recorded in Deed Book 223, page I:\DEP'PtBCZS\Determin of Parcel\84-62 Hackett. doc Hackett November 24, 2003 Page 2 1, with the exception, however, of a 7-acre parcel conveyed by deed dated January 20; 1954 and recorded in Deed Book 343, page 297. On the basis of this deed it is determined that Parcel 62 is comprised of three (3) separate parcels of record as provided in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance. Deed Book 861, page 509, dated November 26, 1985, conveyed a power line easement from Annie Josephine Craig to Central Virginia Electric Cooperative. This transaction had no effect on the status of the parcels or development rights. Deed Book 1256, page 216 contains a certificate of plat, dated February 12, 1992. it shows a revised boundary line between Parcels 62, 62A and 63. As a result of this revision, Parcel 62 increased by 0.355 acres. This plat had no effect on the status of the parcels or development rights. Deed Book 1906, page 1, dated March 31,2000, conveyed 31.604 acres from Annie Josephine Craig to Earl Raymond Hackett and Debra H. Hackett. The parcel is more particularly described on a plat of survey by Jerry L. Sheffer and Associates, dated March 15, 2000. The plat is made part of the deed, The land is further described as being the same real estate that was conveyed by the deed recorded in Deed Book 613, page 504. The plat includes broken lines that indicate the location of the three tracts that are referenced in Deed Book 613, page 504. There have been no off conveyances since this transaction. Based on this history, Tax Map 84, Parcel 62 is determined to be comprised of three (3) separate parcels; one containing 15 acres with five (5) development rights, one containing 16.364 and the other containing 6.25 acres with three (3) development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty-one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, one parcel containing a minimum of twenty-one acres may be created, if all other applicable regulations can be met. A chart showing. the development potential of these parcels is enclosed. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator I:~DEPT~CZS~Determin of Parcel~4-62 Hackett.doc Hackett November 24, 2003 Page 3 and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: G.~.y Carver, Real Estate Department, .Ella Can/, Clerk for Board of Supervisors Earl Raymond or Debra H. Hackett 2506 Craig's Store Road Affon Va 22920 Reading File I:\DEPT~CZS\Determin of Parcel~84-62 Hackett. doc ./ .' I' / / David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsa~ G. Dorrier, ~Jr. $coP. sville Charles S. Martin Rivanna couNTy OF ALBEMARLE OffiCe of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FA~ (434) 296-5800 December 10, 2003 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack ~ouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. J. W. Brent Executive Director Albemarle County Service Authority PO Box 2738 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Brent: At its meeting on December 10, 2003, the Board of Supervisors expressed its agreement for the Albemarle County Service Authority, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Charlottesville City Council Cost Sharing Agreement. ]ewc Sincerely, Printed on recycled paper imposed by RWSA. Paragraph 4 means just what it says. Any future project in the urban system which does not increase system capacity will be paid for based on this cost split. Examples of "non-capacity expansion related" projects are the repainting of water storage tanks, dam repairs, a new roof on an office building, etc. Mr. Martin is mistaken in his statement in the first full paragraph on page 4 of his letter where he references "a non-water treatment capacity expansion project". Nowhere in the proposed agreement is such a term used. Paragraph 4 of the proposed agreement refers to "non-capacity related projects". He raises great concern about the need for and cost of dredging of the South Rivanna Reservoir. The water supply plan calls for "maintenance" dredging of the reservoir. Maintenance dredging is not intended to restore the original volume of the reservoir but to maintain it at is current volume. RWSA is treating this as an operating cost rather than a capital cost. RWSA's current budget includes $250,000 for future maintenance dredging. It is expected that this amount will continue to be budgeted. Mr. Martin says that he has raised a semantical curtain exposing a fatal contradiction in the proposed agreement. He questions why different cost sharing percentages apply to dredging and installation of the bladder. I stated previously that "maintenance" dredging is budgeted to maintain the capacity we now have. Both the City and ACSA need additional supply to meet future water needs. The City only needs an additional 1.89 million gallons per day (mgd) while ACSA will need much more to meet its 2020 projections. The bladder will add 7 mgd to our water supply of which the City only needs 27% and ACSA will take the remaining 73%. Irregardless of what means we adopt of providing new water, whether it be by raising the existing reservoir level, performing restoration dredging, or building a new reservoir, it is unreasonable to think the City is going to pay to develop water supply it does not need. Finally, Mr. Martin urges that the matter-of-fact approach used in arriving at this cost- sharing proposal be rejected and the issue be redefined as a political one. I have mustered the strength not to respond to this. As I have told you before, the fact that ACSA will bear the heavier burden in paying for future water supply comes as no surprise. It is no accident that ACSA has positioned itself to meet the financial requirements of providing the water supply. The proposed agreement under consideration is equitable toall parties and its costs will be manageable. Very truly yours, J.W. Brent Executive Director JWB/slrb CC: Board of Directors Robert W. Tucker, Jr James M. Bowling, IV Judith Mueller Lonnie Wood Jim Kister Paul Shoop John Martin Larry Davis 2 This Agreement made for purposes of identification this 1st day of December, 2003, by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, Virginia, a municipal corporation (the "City"), the ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate (the "ACSA") and the RIVANNA WATER and SEWER AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate (the "RWSA"). WITNESSETH: Background and Intent. A. RWSA owns and/or operates facilities for the receipt and treatment of potable water pursuant to the terms of a Four Party Agreement dated June 12, 1973, among the City, the RWSA, the ACSA, and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Four Party Agreement") and several supplementary agreements. B. Pursuant to Section 4.3 of the Four Party Agreement, the City and the ACSA have agreed upon a project, not contemplated by their previous agreements, for the expansion of the South Rivalma Reservoir to increase safe yield of RWSA's urban water system (the "Urban Water System"). The Urban Water System consists of all water related facilities within or serving the City of Charlottesville and the urban growth area of Albemarle County surrounding the City of Charlottesville, including water plants and all reservoirs, pipelines, pumping stations, storage tanks and other appurtenances connected to water plants and operated by RWSA. C. The ACSA and the City also have reached an agreement concerning the allocation of existing water plant capacity and sharing of costs thereof for the existing Observatory Water Treatment Plant, South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant, and North Rivanna Water Treatment Plant (the "Urban Water System Plants"), including the 1999 expansion of the South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant, and future improvements of these water plants. D. These agreements are based on the terms of a Comprehensive Review of Costs Allocation Methodology Re: Water System Facilities - Final Report August 18, 2003 - Vincent J. Bryne, Utility Consultant, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the City, ACSA and RWSA agree as follows: Urban Water System Plants' Capacity Allocation. 1. Prior to 1999, RWSA's Urban Water System Plants had a capacity of 17.7 million gallons per day ("mgd") of potable water. In 1999, RWSA, at the request of the City and the ACSA, increased capacity at the South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant by 4.0 mgd, increasing total plant capacity in the Urban Water System Plants to 21.7 mgd. 2. At that time, RWSA used the then existing cost sharing prOvisions of the Four Party Agreement to collect the cost of the 4.0 mgd expansion from the City and the ACSA. Based on current projections, the City can meet its maximum day demand through the year 2020 without acquiring any of the 4.0 mgd capacity added to the South Rivanna plant. ACSA and the City have therefore agreed that the additional 4.0 mgd capacity is required by ACSA, and that the entire cost for that expansion of capacity should be allocated to ACSA. 3. ACSA agrees to pay all of the 1999 4.0 mgd South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant expansion cost. As a result, the ACSA will be entitled to all of the 4.0 mgd plant capacity expansion. Concurrently with the expansion of the treatment capacity at the South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant, RWSA made operational improvements and changes to this plant. The total cost of the plant capacity expansion and operational improvements and changes was $7,869,251.00. RWSA, ACSA, and the City agree that $2,718,660.00 of this cost was for capacity expansion and $5,150,591.00 was for operational improvements and changes. ACSA and the City have been paying the annual debt service on the bonds sold by RWSA to fund this project through RWSA's urban water rate. ACSA agrees to reimburse the City for debt service the City has paid on the capacity expansion component of the total debt service. This amount will be calculated by RWSA as of December 31, 2003 and will be paid by January 31, 2004. From January 1, 2004 forward ACSA will pay 100% of the debt service on the capacity expansion component for the 1999 4.0 mgd plant capacity expansion of the South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant. 4. ACSA and the City agree that RWSA's current Urban Water System Plants' capacity of 21.7 mgd will be allocated 48% to the City (10.4 mgd) and 3 52% to ACSA (11.3 mgd); and each shall pay these respective percentages of all non-capacity expansion related charges imposed by RWSA, including future non- capacity related projects for the Urban Water System. 5. If any improvements increase capacity in the Urban Water System Plants, the City and ACSA will negotiate a new cost sharing and capacity allocation agreement as a result of the increased capacity. If the current 21.7 mgd capacity in the Urban Water System Plants decreases, the ACSA and the City shall continue to own plant capacity proportionally according to the 48/52% allocation set forth herein. Safe Yield Allocation and South Rivanna Reservoir Safe Yield Expansion. 6. Based on the amount contributed by the City and ACSA for total facilities in RWSA's Urban Water System over the twenty-year period 1983-2002, the City has contributed 65% of the total costs and the ACSA has contributed 35% of the total costs of the Urban Water System. Applying the above methodology, the City is allocated 7.80 mgd and the ACSA is allocated 4.20 mgd of the existing 12.0 mgd of safe yield supply in RWSA's Urban Water System. 7. The City, ACSA, and RWSA have agreed to increase the safe yield provided by RWSA's Urban Water System elevation of the South Rivanna Reservoir. supply reservoirs by raising the The parties propose to increase elevation at the South Rivanna Reservoir to raise the Urban Water System's safe yield at least 7.0 mgd to 19.0 mgd. This 19.0 mgd shall be allocated as follows: 4 (a). Based on current projections, both the City and ACSA will require a portion of the 7.0 mgd increase in safe yield to ensure an adequate potable water supply to meet future needs. additional 7.0 mgd safe yield ACSA and the City hereby agree that of the achieved from the proposed South Rivanna Reservoir expansion, the City will acquire and be entitled to 1.89 mgd, and the ACSA will acquire and be entitled to 5.11 mgd. (b). After the expansion of the South Rivanna Reservoir, RWSA's Urban Water System should have a safe yield of 19.0 mgd. Of this safe yield, the City will own 9.69 mgd. ACSA will own 9.31 mgd. (c). If the work undertaken to raise the elevation of the South Rivanna Reservoir provides an expansion of the safe yield of the South Rivanna Reservoir less than 7.0 mgd, the City's and the ACSA's share of the safe yield of RWSA's urban water system will decrease proportionally. If the safe yield increases the City and ACSA will negotiate the allocation of the increased amount and cost. 8. The cost of the expansion of the South Rivanna Reservoir, including engineering, legal, permitting, and construction costs, shall be allocated to and paid by the City and the ACSA as follows: 27% to the City and 73% to ACSA. Other Matters. 9. RWSA shall be responsible for all aspects of the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the South Rivanna Reservoir expansion. 10. The City and ACSA will continue to pay for routine labor, chemicals, supplies, power, and other operational costs associated with water production in the Urban Water System on the basis of their respective, percentage volume use as set Out in the Four Party Agreement, as supplemented by (i) Joint Resolution adopted in January 1983 (as such resolution was clarified by Resolution of the Albemarle County Service Authority dated March 17, 1983, and by Resolution of the Charlottesville City Council dated May 2, 1983, and modified by Joint Resolution adopted in December, 1983), (ii) Working Agreement on Urban Area Wholesale Flow Allocations and Billing Methodology dated January 24, 1983; and (iii) Agreement dated October 26, 1987, relating to the operation of the RWSA's Urban Water System and the division of RWSA's operational costs between the City and the ACSA. Witness the following duly authorized signatures and seals: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE By: Mawr ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY By: Chairman RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY By: Chairman STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,2O03, by day of Notary Public My commission expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,2003, by day of My commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ ,2003, by My commission expires: acsa.city,agree(nrg56) Notary Public day of 7 lbemarle County . ervice AuthOrity Serving & Conserving RECEIVED DEC 0 ~ 2003 Oounty of All,emetic November 25, 2003 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ACSA, RWSA, and City Cost Sharing Agreement Dear Bob: The Board of Supervisors requested to see a copy of the final draft of this agreement. Attached is what I hope is the final draft, minus the exhibit which was previously provided. The Board of Directors will hold a public hearing on this proposed agreement at 9:00 am on December 11, 2003. City Council will also hold a public hearing in December. Please let me know if you or the Board have any questions. Very tru/l~/yours, J.W. Brent Executive Director JWB/slrb cc: Board of Directors 168 Spotnap Road · P.O. Box 2738 · Charloltesville, VA 22902 · Tel (434) 977-45] 1 · Fax (434) 979-0698 www. acsanet.com Eckerd Pharmacy ZMA 03-03 SP 03-47 Eckerd Pharmacy ZMA-03-03 and SP-03-47 Tax Map 78 Parcels 12, 12B and 55A4 Proffer Statement The following parcels are subject to rezoning application ZMA 03-03 and SP 03- 47 and thus to this proffer statement: Tax Map 78 Parcels 12, 12B and 55A4 ("the Property"). The owner of the Property is North Pantops Townhouses, LLC, its successors and assigns. For purposes of this proffer statement-North Pantops Townhouses, LLC, its successors and assigns is herein referred to as the "Owner". The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to rezone the Property, which contains 76,368 square feet l~om R-15-EC toC1-EC, the Owner shall develop the Property in accord with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County. Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily proffered as part ofthe requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges that (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such donditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. o o Access to the Property from Route 250 shall be limited to one (1) entrance. There shall be no exit from the Property onto Route 250. This access may be in addition to the two points of access on Route 250 proffered in ZMA 94-06, a copy of that proffer being attached hereto. Access to the Property from North Rolkin Road shall be as shown on the Application Plan for Eckerd Pharmacy prepared by Rivanna Engineering dated April 25, 2003, revised November 18, 2003 (#C), hereinafter referred to as the "Plan". Any drive thru window shall be located on the north side of the building and it shall be open for use whenever the building is open to the public for use. Not more than a single row of parking spaces and one (1) two-way travel aisle shall be located between the building and Route 250. The area identified on the Phn as the ,landscaped area" at the intersection of Rolkin Road and Route 250 shall contain no impervious surfaces. The Owner shall construct the extension of North Rolkin Road from its intersection with Route 250 to its intersection with Sarah's Lane, and the extension shall be completed before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Property. Construction shall be deemed complete when the improvements are accepted by the appropriate public entity or are bonded for the entity's acceptance. The extension shall be constructed, subject to final approval from the appropriate public entity, as shown on Sheet A 2 ofthe Plan. In conjunction with the extension ofNorth Rolkin Road, the Owner shall: 12/8/03 Ecl~erd Pharmacy ZMA 03-03 SP 03-47 WITNESS the following signature: North Pantops Townhouses~ LLC Charles W. Hurt, MemDer 12/8/03 3 08 03 08:08~ MID*BTLBMTIC RLTY ?17 B~-BO~B .4L~E~,~£ COUNTY CO~E 13. 14. 15. I7. p.S 08:08m MID~RTLRMTIC RLTY ?17 G48-BOSG ALBEM,4,1~ECO~NTYCODE 22.3 ADDITIONAL RigQUll~EMENTS ~ addition to the requ/rement~ conmirted here/a, th~ r~quircments of s~crio~ 21.0~ 'commercial distric-,~, generally, shall apply w/thin all C- l district. (Amended Eckerd Pharmacy ZMA 03-03 SP 03-47 Eckerd Pharmacy ZMA-03-03 and SP-03-47 Tax Map 78 Parcels 12, 12B and 55A4 Proffer Statement The following parcels are subject to rezoning application ZMA 03-03 and SP 03- 47 and thus to this proffer statement: Tax Map 78 Parcels 12, 12B and 55A4 ("the Property"). The owner of the Property is North Pantops Townhouses, LLC, its successors and assigns. For purposes of this proffer statement-North Pantops Townhouses, LLC, its successors and assigns is herein referred to as -he Owner. The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to rezone the Property, which contains 76,368 square feet from R-15-EC toC1-EC, the Owner shall develop the Property in accord with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges 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. o Access to the Property from Route 250 shall he limited to one (1) entrance. There shall he no exit from the Property onto Route 250. This access may he in addition to the two points of access on Route 250 proffered in ZMA 94-06, a copy of that profferbeing attached hereto. Access to the Property from North Rolkin Road shall be as shown on the Application Plan for Eckerd Pharmacy prepared by Rivanna Engineering dated April 25, 2003, revised November 18, 2003 (#C), hereinafter referred to as the "Plan". Any drive thru window shall be located on the north side of the building and it shall be open for use whenever the building is open to the public for use. Not more than a single row of parking spaces and one (I) two-way travel aisle shall be located between the building and Route 250. The area identified on the Plan as the "landscaped area" at the intersection of Rolkin Road and Route 250 shall contain no impervious surfaces. The Owner shall construct the extension ofNorth Rolkin Road from its intersection with Route 250 to its intersection with Sarah's Lane, and the extension shall be completed before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Property. Construction shall he deemed complete when the improvements are accepted by the appropriate public entity or are bonded for the entity's acceptance. The extension shall be constructed, subject to final approval from the appropriate public entity, as shown on Sheet A 2 of the Plan. In conjunction with the extension of North Rolkin Road, the Owner shall: 12/8/03 Eckerd Pharmacy ZMA 03-03 SP 03-47 A. Increase the left mm storage on the Route 250 eastbound approach to the signal at Route 250 and Rolkin Road by modifying the existing median within the public right-of-way, in accordance with plans to be approved by VDOT; and B. Upon the request of the County of Albemarle, make a cash contribution of Six Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($6,000.00) to the County for upgrading the signal controller for the signal at Route 250 and Rolkin Road so that it may function as the master controller for a coordinated signal network along this portion of Route 250. If the signal controller is not upgraded by December 3, 2013, all unexpended funds shall be returned to the Owner. The Owner shall construct an offsite storm water management facility in accordance with plans entitled North Pantops Commercial Area, Pre 'luninary Site Plans, dated October 2, 2003, subject to the approval by the Albemarle County Department of Engineering and Public Works, and the facility shall be completed and approved by the Department before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Property. Construction shall be deemed complete when the improvements are accepted by the appropriate public entity or are bonded for the entity's acceptance. The Owner shall construct a right turn lane fi:om Route 250 westbound onto North Rolkin Road. The right turn lane shall provide a minimum of 250 feet of right turn storage and have a 100 foot taper at the right-in entrance; final plans shall be subject to VDOT approval. The right turn lane and taper shall be constructed within the VDOT right-of-way in accordance with VDOT standards. The construction of the right mm lane and taper shall be completed before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Property. Construction shall be deemed complete when the improvements are accepted by VDOT or are bonded for VDOT's acceptance. The only by right permitted uses on the property shall be those set forth in Subsection 22.2.1,_By Right, of Chapter 18, Zoning, Section 22, Commercial-C-1 of the Albemarle County Code in subparts (a.) 4, 5, 6 as modified on the attachment, 10, 11, 12 and (b.) 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14 as modified on the attachment, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 23, and uses accessory thereto, as those uses exist in the Code on December 10, 2003, a copy of which is attached. The only building, other than appropriate accessory buildings, for the primary use shall be a one story building ora size and location substantially in compliance with the building area footprint as shown on the Plan. Signature on the following page Eci~erd Pharmacy ZMA 03-03 SP 05M7 WITNESS the following signature: North Pantops Townhouses, LLC Charles W. Hurt, Mem~r 12/8/03 3 ]]eo 08 03 MIB*RTLRMTIC RLTY ?19 642-9028 p.5 CHAPTER ZONL~G SECTION COMMERCIAL- C-I 22, I 22.2 22.2, 22.2.2 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES' BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PER1VffY ADDITiONAl, REQUIRE~S 22.1 INTEN'r~ ~ PERMHTED C-! distric~ are hereby ~ a~d may her~fler be establ/shed by ame~Imem to th~ zor~g map to pcrmk selemd ~tsil salca, $crvice and public use estsblisl~erd.s which at~ pr/~a/Sly or/etlt~xl to cenlra] business conc~nlrafions. I/i~ illtended th~ C-I d/.~riets b~ cstabl/shed only wJflli~ the urban area, ¢ommunitie$ a~d villages in the compreh~ive plm. (Amended 9-9-92) 22.2 PERMITTED USES 12.Z. BY RIGWr The following m~ a~all be 'pcrm~ in any C-I district subject to the r~quiremc~ts and limilafions of~'se re~Jatfoal. Thc zoli/llE ad~n/~tratm', iffier consultatioa with the d/r~'~or of plan~i~g and oiher appwpria~ o/~i~Is, may permit ss a m~ ~ fi~ a ~ not spe~fic~ly ~d m~e ~ly, ~U~ ~ ~ of lo~fi~ ~~, ~t;o~I c~fi~, v~ ~ct ~d ~c ~fion. ~ ~'~ ~ ~Mi~s ~i~ ~1 bc ~ g~ncr~ ~ ~ s~on ~t,O. The followillg retail sales and sex'v/cc cstabli.shmeats: ~<~ AntiqUe, ~ifl,.j~lry, notion and ~afl shops. Clothing, appam! and shoe ~hops. D~pa~lm~nt slor~. Drug st~, phzrmacy. $. Florist. F~--~- ~,,;~0'~,~;;~ ~:?_'a'-~, ;::;L spccial~ shops a~ bakery, candy, milk d/spen~ary a~d w/nv and cheese shops. Furniture and home appliances (~ales and service), 18-22-I 08 03 MII]*FITLFIMTIC RLTY ?17 842-B028 ~c 08 03 MID*RTLSMTIC RLTY 717 642-9026 ALBEMAP. ZECOUN~¢ODE p.? Public uses and building~ including temporary or mobile facilitie~ such m office, p~ p~y~ and r~ds ~d~ owned or opera~d by local, fe~c~ agencies (refer~ncr 31 ~.5); p~l~ w~r and sew~ ~m~s~n. ma~ or ~ line~ ~e~ent ~ciiiti~, pump~g atafious and ~¢ likm own~ ~Oor opcrm~ by th~ ~v~n W~r ~d Sew~ Au~ (r~emnce 3 t .2,5; 5,]. 12). (~end~ ~ Temporary constraction uses (reference 5. I. 1), 20. Dwellings (reference .~. Medical cent, ~ Amomobii~ truck repak shnp excluding body shop. (Added &I-gl; Am~ded %9-92) 23. Temporary nonresidqntial mobile homes (reference ~ Indoor athletic facilities. (Added ./2~Farmer~' market (rc£~.-rence 5.1.36). (Added 10-1 i-93) 22.2..2 BY SPECIAL USE Commercial m~raation astablisllm~nrs including bm nm limited to amusa~luent callt~-s. bowling alleys, pool hails and dance haIl~ [.4mcndad l-l-g3) -2. 3. Hospilab. 4. Fast food re~tauran{. 5. Veterinary office and hospital (r~fe. ren~e 5. [.l I). Unless such u~ea are otherwise provided in this section, uses penaitmd in section IS.o, resideatiaJ. R=l§, in compliance with regulations set forth there/n, and such condifion~ as may be imposed gmmmnt to ser. xi0n 31.2.4. 7. Homla, mm~la and inns. · 8. Motor vehlel~ sal~s md rental in eommunilies and the urban area as de~igrmted in the comprehensive plan. (Added 6-1 9. Parking s~ruc~s lo~ated wholly or partly above grad~. (Add~l ! I-7-4) 10. Drive. in windowa a. erving or a~socim~_d wi~ll p~Taitted usa. (Addc~ 11-7-~4; Amend~l 9-9- 92) 11. Use~ l~rmi~d by right, not sea~t~[ ~y p~lia w~. ~l~g W~r ~on~tion cxcecd~g fO~ h~ (400) 8al~ p~ zi~ a~e p~ ~y. Uses p~d by d~L not s~ by pub/ie ~w~, ~vo~g ~i~md di~e of scw~e o~cr ~ ~m~c w~. (Added 12. Body shop. (Added g.9-92) 18-22-3 MID*RTLRMTIC RLTY ?17 642-9026 AI.B£MA~,I..£COUNI'rCODE p.8 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS In addition to ~e requbrements contai~ted herein, ~he r~qutrame~ts of section 21.O,'commetciai districts, generally, shall apply within all C-I districtS. (Amended 3-17-82; 7,10-85) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 2003-061 Marshall Property Stand-Alone Parking SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Section 24.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow stand~alone parking STAFF CONTACT(S): Francis H. MacCall AGENDA DATE: December 10, 2003 CONSENT.AGENDA: No ACTION: Yes ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: VWC BACKGROUND: The properties, described as Tax Map 32 Parcels 20D & 20E are 1.336 acres, and are zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. The properties are located on l'0cated Airport Road [Route # 649], approximately. 1 mile from the intersection of Seminole Trail [Route 29N] and Airport Road, in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service in the Hollymead Community. DISCUSSION: The-Planning Commission discussion of the applications regarded the need for the right-in right-out access to the parking lot from Airport Road on parcel 20D. The applicant had recently purchased parcel 20F and at the November 4, 2003 Planning Commission meeting provided an alternative access point for the parking lot. The proposal was for joint access between parcels 20D and 20F (Attachment A). The Commission believed that this proposal might be feasible. The Commission reco,mmended the applica, tions with conditions as submitted, but stated that if staffcould work with the applicant and have VDOT and the Engineering Depdrtm~nt approve'the .p~:oposed entrance shift then they would accept a change to the conditions without having to see the applications again. Staff believes that the joint 'entrance solution promotes the objectives that have been set out in the Comprehensive Plan regarding limiting access to Airport ;~,-4~oad. VDOT and the Engineering Department also have stated-that the entrance would be a solution to all concerns. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recOmmends approval of the request with the ..new condition that would replace the original recommended condition #1 for the Special Use Permit as follows: A final site plan shall be submitted for approval which: · shall be in general accord w/th both the plan dated 9/03/03 and the Supplement #1 to Drawing C-2 dated 9/12/03; and, · shall include the closure of the entrance on parcel 20D, the closure of the eastern entrance on parcel 20F, the completion of the sidewalk, curbing, street shrubs, and street trees along the frontage of Airport Road on parcels 20D, 20E; and, · shall include the joint entrance for parcels 20D, 20E, 20F. Attachments: A. Site Plan of proposed entrance Supplement #1 to Drawing C-2 dated 9/12/03 B. Engineering Department AnalYsis C. VDOT approval 03-12-03A09:03 RCVD ATTACItMENT B ATTACHMENT B COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date received: Date of Comment: The application information for a special use permit for the Marshall Property received on 17 September 2003'and 06 November 2003 has been reviewed. The' special use permit is to allow stand~alone parking in accordance with Section' 24.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Francis MacCall, Planner Allan Schuck, Engineer SP-2003-061, Marshall Property Stand Alone Parking 17 September 2003 (plan dated 12 September 2003) 06 November 2003 (Supplement #1 to drawing C-2 dated i2 September 2003) 14 November 2003 The Engineering Department recommends approval of this special use penni'with the submitted concept plan dated 12 September 2003 which includes Supplement #1 to drawing C-2. Please contact me at (434) 296.5861 Ext. 3069 with any'comments or questions. Copy: file 2501 Francis MacCall File: SP-2003-061, Marshall Property [2501](3) ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C Francis MacCall From: Proctor, Charles C. [Charles.Proctor@VirginiaDOT.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:41 AM To: 'Musxit@aol.com'; Francis MacCall Subject: RE: Marshall Property - Stand Alone Parking Francis, This solution appears feasible and may be in our long term best interest from the stand point of access management. The details need to be finalized with the pr. operty ownership, ~nd p!aB~ ..showing the combined entrance and the elimination of the other entrances, but in concept it is acceptable. IF you have any question please contact me at the residency. Thank you, Chuck Charles C. Proctor III Assistant Resident Engineer Charlottesville Residency ..... Original Message .... - From: Musxit@aol.com [mailto:Musxit@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:11 AM To: FMACCALL@albemarle, org Cc: charles.proctor@virginiadot.org; rodney@charlottesvillepress.com Subject: Marshall Property - Stand Alone Parking Francis - As you know, the staff report does not suppOrt the proposed commercial-entrance (located at the existing residential entrance) to' serve this parking lot. After taking a look at the entire Airport Rd plan along the length of this property and to the West and having a discussion with Chuck Proctor, there is a possible win-win solution. To move this forward and hopefully gain the support of the PC, The applicant is willing to su ggest/accept as a condition On the Final Site Plan, the entrance location be shifted to the West to straddle theprope'rty line with the next parcel (Maupin). This is a compromise that will serve the need of Mr. Marshall. It will also achieve a VDOT/County goal to do away with entrances by consolidation of locations. At the location straddling the property line, traffic using this entrance will be served by a turn lane. If you refer to the site plan, the next parcel is shown as Janet Maupin's. Mr. Marshall has just purchased this property within the past few weeks. It is the last parcel between this parking lot and the road to serve North Fork Office Park. It is currently served by 2 residential entrances. After discussion with Chuck Proctor regarding the Airport Rd project and the potential future issues, as a solution - the eastern residential entrance on Mau pin and the existing residential on the subject parcel would be consolidated to 1 entrance straddling the property line. [At such time as any change to the.Maupin propertyis proposed, the western residential entrance Could not be expanded due to its proximity to the North Fork Rd. As a comer parcel is would share the entrance with this parking lot which is the maximum distance from the NF Rd as possible and VDOT would allow access to the NF Rd. Therefore, it makes sense considering all'the factors involved. ] By copy of this email to Chuck Proctor, ! am requesting that he confirm that VDOT is ok with this so you wi//have the information you need IF the PC will consider this as an option. 1 ~./17/2003 November 13, 2003 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of' Planning & Communi [y Development 401 Mclntire Road; Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 . (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 13-11-03P04:41 RCVD Jo Hig.gins 2463 Browns Gap Turnpike Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA-03-09 Marshall Property- Airport Road Parking Lot SP.03-61 Marshall Property - Airport Road Parking Lot SDP-2003-058 Marshal Property Preliminary Site Plan Tax Map 32, Parcels 20D & 20E Dear Ms. Higgins: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 4, 2003, by a vote of 5:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: · ZMA.03-09 Marshall Property - Airport Road Parking Lot - Approved subject to proffers. SP-03-61 Marshall Property - Airport Road Parking Lot - Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A final site plan shall be submitted .for approval which shall be in general-accord with the plan dated 9/03t03 and shall include the closure.of the western entrance, the completion of the sidewalk, street shrubs, and street trees in the area of where the entrance was shown. 2. At least one sign shall be posted in the parking area that identifies the use as parking for the adjacent automobile repair Center only (Tax Map 32 Parcel 40), with size and location of the sign to be determined and approved by staff. SDP-2003-058 Marshal Pro perty Preliminary Site Plan - Approved the preliminary site plan request. including the critical slopes and buffer waivers with the following conditions: Planning 1. The entrance to the parking'lot to parcel 20D shall be closed. 2. Two (2) copies of a landscape plan' shall be submitted for approval: Zoning 1, Show the location.of alt outdoor lighting on the plan. .. - 2 Provide'a description and photograph or diagram and show the, location of each type of outdoor. ..~: luminairethat emits, 3:00O. or'more initial ,lumens?' Rlease'be aware'that installation:, of such,duminoi~res ~- in the future, that are'not-shown-on this plarrsclatl rec~uire an amendment to this plan, 3, - !:-c:~d~5 a'c-hotOmetr, c planon the s~te. plan.demonstrating that'parking area luminaires-are ,,(.,r. ,,.. ...... ',v,,r./- ' 4;bi.)-. ........ " 4. The' final plan- app.m~aHs'su'bjeb~;-to:.the issuance- o.f...a ce~ificate~of Appropriateness. from the- Architectural Review-Board. ' 5.. Once approved~refereqce'alt cori'~itJoa.S_a,nd;proffe~,s;4e~,SP-'03-061 and' ZM~-03~0rl9 respectively. Page 2 November 13, 2003 Engineering 1. The plans provide notes stating that storm water quality and detention are to be provided by'the VDOT facilities. The applicant shall provide supplemental background information verifying that this site and the corresponding impervious areas were considered when the VDOT stormwater facility and downstream lines were designed. [32.5.6k] (a) The applicant needs to submit the required stormwater management calculations as stated in the applicant's response letter dated 10 September 2003. (b) The Engineering Department needs to see verification from VDOT that this site has permission to use the stormwater facilities on the VDOT property, 2. The EngIneering Department recommends that the layout for the stand-alone parking include the seven parking spaces along State Route 649 not the western (2nd proposed) entrance to State Route 649. [DSM, Section 607 BI 3. Please show the locations of the corresponding traffic signs on the final site plan. Service Authority 1, Show the proposed relocation of RWSA's 12" water main as designed by PHR&A for the Airport Road Widening project. Until such time as revised plans are approved this is the expected location of the new water main, 2. RWSA approval of the retaining wall constructed over top of their existing 12" water line. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review ZMA-03-09 and SP-03-61 and receive public comment at their meeting on December 10, 2003. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk, of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823, Sincerely, Francis MacCall Planner FM/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey W. A. & Rachel K Marshall Amelia McCulley Steve AIIshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: FRANCIS H MACCALL NOVEMBER 4, 2003 DECEMBER 10, 2003 ZMA 2003-009 Marshall Proper .ty Amendment SP 2003-061 Marshall Proper .ty Stand-Alone Parkin~ SDP 2003-058 Marshall Property Preliminary Site Plan Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to build a stand-alone parking lot, to serve the Airport Road Auto Center, on two (2) parcels adjacent to the parcel where the Airport Road Auto Center is located. The proffers ofZMA, 1996-018 need to be amended to allow the Special Use Permit and site plan. (Attachment A) Petition: The petition is for approval to amend the proffers of ZMA-1996-018 to allow for stand-alone parking and a separate entrance to the parking from Airport Road, and for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Section 24.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow stand-alone parking, and for approval of a preliminary site plan. (Attachments A, D & E) The properties, described as Tax Map 32 Parcels 20D & 20E is 1.336 acres, and are zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The properties are located on located Airport Road [Route # 649], approximately. 1 mile from the intersection of Seminole Trail [Route 29N] and Airport Road, in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service in the Hollymead Community. (Attachments B & C.) Character of the Area: The property is located on Airport Road near the intersection of US Route 29. The residential subdivision known as Airport Acres abuts this development to the north. There is an automobile repair center, thrift store, and a bank across Airport Road. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the zoning map amendment, the special use permit with conditions, and the preliminary site plan with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: The history of the parcel is as follows: 1981: Site Plan approval for Marshall's Garage. 1989: A site plan amendment is approved to add an additional building of service bays. VIO-1996-148, VIO-1998-100, VIO-2002-005, & VIO-2002-007: These violations have all been in relation to where the owner of the automobile repair business has parked vehicles that are associated with that business. The vehicles were being parked on multiple parcels other than the parcel that was approved with the site plan. Most of the violations were corrected with exception ofVIO-2002-007, which is still pending the outcome of the above applications. ZMA-1996-018: Parcels 20D & 20E of Tax Map 32 were rezoned from R-1 to HC, Highway Commercial to allow the use of the property for automobile, truck repair shop. Proffer 3 allowed the applicant to amend the proffers if it were deemed necessary or appropriate as a result of the Airport Road improvements. (Attachment D) Comprehensive Plan and The Neighborhood Model: Requests for zoning map amendments and 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. With the current automobile repair center located in the Hollymead Community, the proposed use of a stand-alone parking lot for that business would not be a departure from the current land use and character of the area. The Comprehensive Plan does recommend that access to Airport Road "be controlled and minimized to the greatest extent possible." The ways in which the proposed project meets the twelve principles for development in accordance with the Neighborhood Model are provided below: Pedestrian Orientation - There will be sidewalks provided along Airport Road and this development will provide a pedestrian access to that sidewalk. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths - Not applicable. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks - The parking lot would be connected to the adjacent automobile repair center to the east, and is showing a future connection to the parcel to the west. Parks and Open Space- Not applicable. Neighborhood Centers - Not applicable. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale -Not applicable. Relegated Parking - Stand-alone parking is one of the ways outlined in the Comprehensive Plan as a possibility to relegate parking, provided there is heavy landscaping. The plan does show the parcels to be landscaped to meet current ARB Guidelines. This parking will also be off to the side of the business that will be utilizing it. Mixture of Uses - Not applicable. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability - Not applicable. Redevelopment Rather than Abandonment - Not applicable. Site Planning that Respects Terrain - The slopes at the rear of the property will be graded at 3 to 1. The slopes will also be the location of the buffer between the residential and commercial property. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas - Not applicable Engineering Analysis: The County's Engineering staff has reviewed this request for engineering issues related to health, safety, and welfare requirements. The Engineering Department is recommending approval with final engineering comments being addressed with a final site plan. STAFF COMMENT: There is one issue that has arisen that relates to the three apphcations, which is the western entrance shown from Airport Road to the new parking lot, on Parcel 20D. (Attachment A) This issue relates to the rezoning as a proffer change/controlled access issue, the special use permit as a controlled access issue, and the site plan as both an access and landscaping issue. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: Recent Zoning Ordinance changes have required the applicant to amend the proffers of ZMA-1996-018 to allow stand alone parking as a use permitted by special use permit. The approval of ZMA-1996-018 had intended that parcels 20D & 20E be used as off site parking for the adjacent automobile repair center on parcel 40. (Attachments J & K) Also, this proposal is to amend the proffers of ZMA-1996-018 to remove Proffer 2 and 3 to allow for an entrance onto Airport Road through the existing entrance on parcel 20D. (Attachments A, D, & I) There has been concern raised as to the necessity of the proposed entrance to the parking lot from Airport Road. As the Comprehensive Plan states there is a recommendation to minimize to the greatest extent possible access to Airport Road by using joint access. There is an existing residential entrance at this location that the applicant would prefer not be closed, but improved to a commercial standard. The Virginia Department of Transportation's road plans currently does not show this entrance closed. The applicant believes that the turn and taper shown on the road plans supports the western entrance. The Engineering Department and the Virginia Department of Transportation do not support this entrance. (Attachments G & H) The original intent was to have interparcel access as was provided in Proffer 2 with the knowledge that the design of the road improvements had not been finalized at the time of approval of ZMA-1996-018. Staff does not agree with the applicant that there is an overriding necessity to have the western entrance. By not having the entrance there will be fewer friction points along the portion of Airport Road impacting traffic flow and there would be the ability to provide for additional landscaping to further mitigate the view of multiple vehicles. 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 adiacent property? There will not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties. The ARB has raised concerns of this being an appropriate use along the Entrance Corridor. These concerns were alluded to in the original Planning Commission discussion of the proposal in 1996. (Attachment J) Those concerns seemed to have been satisfied by knowing that there would be adequate landscaping along the corridor to screen the use. The ARB will still need to issue a certificate of appropriateness prior to approval of the site plan. This can be done with the final site plan. (Attachment F) Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The character of the zoning district will not change with this use. Will the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The purpose and intent of the HC, Highway Commercial zoning district is stated as follows in.the ordinance;~-~ "HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to permit development of commercial estabhshments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations rather than to central business concentrations .... It is further intended that this district shall be for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip commercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to permit controlled access to public streets." The applicant is proposing to use an adjacent property to expand his current well-established business instead of trying to fmd new property to possibly rezone and build upon. Staffbelieves that ingress and egress will be controlled with the Airport Road improvements and would not necessitate the need for an additional entrance onto Airport Road. The improvements will align the entrance on parcel 40 with an entrance across the road and be at a crossover. Staff believes that the use will be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? The proposed use will not restrict permitted uses on surrounding properties. It will actually bring the adjacent use that it serves into compliance with the ordinance with respect to using the all of the subject parcels without an approved site plan and the improper storage of vehicles related to the business on parcels not zoned for such use. Staff also believes that this use will be in harmony.with the other uses permitted in the district. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? The additional regulations provided in Section 5.1.41 require a site plan be approved for the use. There is a preliminary site plan that staffis recommending for approval with conditions. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures that uses approved by special use .permit are appropriate in the location requested. SITE PLAN: Staff recommends that the entrance to the parking lot on parcel 20D be closed and that the area shown for the entrance be filled in to complete the appropriate curb, sidewalk, street shrubs, and street trees to be approved by the ARB. By not having the entrance, the site can accommodate seven (7) additional parking spaces. The site review committee has reviewed the preliminary site plan and has recommended approval of the plan pending the approval of the rezoning and special use permit. There are also two items that the Planning Commission must decide upon for approval of the site plan. The plan proposes to disturb all of the critical slopes on the site and at the same time disturb the required buffer between this commercial property and the residential property in the Airport Acres subdivision to the north. Critical Slopes Waiver: 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 provision would not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicanthas submitted a waiver request and justification that address the five health, safety, and welfare concerns set forth in the Ordinance (Attachment I). Critical slopes make up 0.083 acres of the sites's 1.336 acres, or less than 1% of the site area. Of those critical slopes, 100.0% percent are proposed for disturbance. The disturbance will take place to allow the grading necessary for the parking lot. The critical slopes 'are covered with grass and an old house that will be removed. (Attachment A) The Planning Department's review of this request concentrates on the concern for a possible loss of aesthetic resources. These slopes are of no aesthetic importance with relation to any adjacent property. The slopes are man made. Staff finds 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 G). Buffer Waiver: Section 21.7.3 states, Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. Except, the commission may waive this requirement in a particular case where it has been demonstrated that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design, provided that: a. Minimum screening requirements are met; and b. Existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored. There currently are five (5) trees scattered within the twenty (20) foot buffer. Three (3) of those trees are proposed to be removed. There is no actual landscaped buffer on the site now. The plan proposes to provide a buffer of trees fifteen (15) feet on center. Staff has suggested that the buffer be a mix of clustered groups of conifers of the same species with alternating clusters. Staff also recommended that there should be one (1) or two (2) different conifers in between the clusters to offset the rigidity of the pattern. Staff would look for this at the fmal site plan stage. (Attachment A) Staff recommends approval of the requests to disturb the critical slopes and buffer. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. Provisions for appropriate landscaping have been provided. Staffhas identified the following factor, which is unfavorable to this request: 1. The applicant continues to pursue the secondary western entrance to the parking. The applicant is looking to have a commercial entrance to the parking lot as well as the entrance shown to the business on Parcel 40. Staff is recommending the closure. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: Staff recommends approval of the zoning map amendment request with proffers. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit request to allow stand- alone parking with the following conditions: 1. A final site plan shall be submitted for approval which shall be in general accord with the plan dated 9/03/03 and shall include the closure of the western entrance, the completion of the sidewalk, street shrubs, and street trees'in the area of where the entrance was shown. 2. Signs shall be provided onsite to identify the use as parking for the adjacent automobile repair center only (Tax Map 32 Parcel 40) with number, size and location of the signs to be determined and approved by staff. SITE PLAN: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site plan request, including the critical slopes and buffer waivers with the following conditions: Planning 1. The entrance to the parking lot to parcel 20D shall be closed. 2. Two (2) copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted for approval. Zoning 1. Show the location of all outdoor lighting on the plan. 2. Provide a description and photograph or diagram and show the location of each type of outdoor luminaire that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens. Please be aware that installation of such luminaires in the future that are not shown on this plan shall require an amendment to this~ plan. 3. Include a photometric plan on the site plan demonstrating that parking area luminaires are in compliance with 4.17.4 b. 4. The final plan approval is subject to the issuance ora Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board. 5. Once approved reference all conditions and proffers for SP 03-061 and ZMA 03-019 respectively. Engineering 1. The plans provide notes stating that storm water quality and detention are to be provided by the VDOT facilities. The applicant shall provide supplemental background information verifying that this site and the corresponding impervious areas were.considered when the VDOT stormwater facility and downstream lines were designed. [32.5.6k] (a) The applicant needs to submit the required stormwater management calculations as stated in the applicant's response letter dated 10 September 2003. (b) The Engineering Department needs to see verification from VDOT that this site has permission to use the stormwater facilities on the VDOT property. 2. The Engineering Department recommends that the layout for the stand-alone parking include the seven parking spaces along State Route 649 not the western (2nd proposed) entrance to State Route 649. [DSM, Section 607 B] 3. Please show the locations of the corresponding traffic signs on the final site plan. Service Authority 1. Show the proposed relocation of RWSA's 12" water main as designed by PHR&A for the Airport Road Widening project. Until such time as revised plans are approved this is the expected location of the new water main. 2. RWSA approval of the retaining wall constructed over top of their existing 12" water line. ATTACHMENTS: A - Site plan B - Detail Map C - Location Map D - Original Proffers E - Amended Proffers F - ARB Comments G - Engineering Analysis H - VDOT comments I - Applicants Justifications J ~ PC Minutes December 3, 1996 K - Board Minutes December 11, 1996 7 PROJECT NO. 0649--00~--158~- ~ PARCEL 32-40 ARE .' WW ASSOCIATES BI' VDOT --- iNLY, THiS PORTION OF tiDED TO SHOW EXISTING · iMPACT TO ADJACENT ) OR A~ANDONED CEDAR ATTACHMEr~'t LO/ 'I,I?LOCK R_ -CLOYER5 AIRPORT ~C:RE$ r /' ' ~0~ O~g. 1597 P&Sg5 · LOT 5. BL~K ~ ~ [~ISTINO' 'SLOPE /./ '~' . - , ~ O~g - // oas --s~o ............... , EXCEED ........... : ZO'EDHC'.- 'ERRY~ . "" .'" /fi.- '"'. " '~" / " '- - .--' -'"~ - o_/' I:--' ~_---- ' .' t-"' : - 1,' i i,'"'" · .~o' ~-. : j -' · _ ~ -':5~,~.,, , ~L s~ ' J " ~ ~ ~ c /' %-: ~ " '../ . ~ .... ~-~=~528 ~0.'15~... : ........ ~-- ,: .......... -. .................. - ..... < .......... IF THIS DRAWIN~ S A .............. ~,.[L~ .~"[i .................... GRAPNIC SCALE MUST BE ~D ., , . ' .' dJL '' ' :m~ · ~ . ! ) I / , '~O NOIl~JOd SIHJ_ 'A'INO S2SOd~Rc~ 9VNOI£¥fl~JOJN ~OJ SI (]NY A I t/ / ; ~ ~ · ON ... ..? , - ~... ~ ..- .. '.,'.- x.. x, ~ ...- .'~- s.- .,..~ x y ..... ..' -~'%~H ~ ..' ./ ~ X / ~ ~ a~ ,~ ............ / ". c ~od '~o5~ ) x~ ,z ~ .... V~_, ~.~ i-~' V ,LN~tlA~HDV.L,LV 20' 7 SPACES MAY EX/STING NOTES: FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A c,o,.~, · .... .~,'~ l.ALL EXISTING FEATURES SHOWN ON TAX MAP PARCEL 32--40 ARE TAKEN FROM NFORMATION PROVIDED TO WW ASSOCIATES BY VOOT. THIS"DRAWING 'iS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT INTE~OED TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONST"UcTION PURPO ~'~p~E~kS~J~2~D PROPOSED ENTICES AND OVER~[~ ..... ' ~y THJS DRAWING IS A REDUCTION ~- .u ~u~Au~r AIRPORT AUTO CENTER.: T~ MAP PARCEL 32-40 GR.~HiC SC~E MUST BE USED * ..... """ · AIRPORT lOAD PARK~qG L to ....... o~7 ..... ALBEMA=E CO~TY, VIRG~IA _...;_,~::_... NOIJ, DfI~IJ. SNOD aOS iON 3&tVlq/l~I~I~td ~1" / :2;/ / =S310N joponicum"/ Kqtsura Tree rubrum "/Autumn Flame cerosifero'/Purple L~of Plum Pine 4' Le¥1ond Cypress Redcedor Cypress gro~difloro" EdwGrd Goucner I I I I I AR~A TO BE LANDSCAPED PARKING LANDSCAPE STANDARDS SCREENING OF PARKING AREA COMMERC~L USE AT BOUNDARY W/RESIDENT~L CANOPY SP CIFIC AREA CODE FRONTAGE or TOTAL QTY TOTAL Q~ COMMENTS __ REQUIR[MENT AREA REQUIRED PRO~DED RIDOG PR PER~ LINE 1 Lg shode [ree t 7 TREES i TOT~ OF l& Shode tre~ must ~GS AO~RNT TO Ioc~ted 35"o c ~ N T ROAD plunted peroilel 7 Lg sherle Trees be 3.5' cefiper o[  gENT TO necesso~ to mlnlmiz 7 L Shode Trees requirements met w~th / ~etcli Soroqe ,, iEEE D~.2254 f? T,~iS DRA~INO tS A REDUCTION CRAPH:C SCALE MUST BE USED OfficPrepared by Albemarle County e of Geographic Data Servlces(GDS). ~J~ap. created October 2003. r~l~?.edal Imagery ©2002 Commonwealth of Virginia ~l~vote: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and ~nstre~; or used as a ,egal de$cription.~ TM 32 Parcels; 20D, 20E, 40 ZMA-2003-009 Marshall Property Proffer Amendment, SP-2003-061 Marshall Property Stand Alone Parking SDP-2003-058 Marshall Property Preliminary Site Plan 0 740 1,480 2,220 I 032-20E / / 032-40 Prepared by Albemar/e County Office of Geographic Data Services(GDS). Map created October 2003. Aedal ImageG' @ 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia Note: The map elements depiatad are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. ZMA-2003-009 Marshall Property Proffer Amendment, SP-2003-061 Marshall Property Stand Alone Parking SDP-2003-058 Marshall Property Preliminary Site Plan 0 1 oo 200 300 I IIII Feet Date: PROFFER FORM 1996' --.,ZMA # 96-18 Tax Map Parcel(s) # ATTACHMENT D 03200-00-00-020D0 03200-00-00-020E0 1.63 Acres to be rezoned from ed. to HC Pursuant to Secf. ion 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duty authorized agent, hereby volunf, arily 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 [he need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning re(~uested. (t) (3) Permitted uses of the property, andJor uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 11, 1996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto : 24.2.1 (2) Automobile, Truck Kepair Shops (35) Electric, gas... (36) Public uses... (37) Temporary Construction uses Access to the propmW for commercial use will be through the entrances on adjacent Tax Map Parcel 32-40. as shown on the attached drawing. Owner resm-:es the rigJxt to request amendment(s) to the above proffers in the future which may be necessary or appropriate resulting from the planned improvements to A i_.rpon~ Road. Si,~tures of All Owners Printed Names of Ail OWners Data OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM.WPD Rev; Deceruber 1994 Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact 1996. 24.1 INTE~Vf' , WHERE ~ERMITTED 24.2 24.2.1 ATTACHMENT D HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to permit development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to .highway locations rather than to central business concentrations. It is intended that HC districts be established'on major highways within the urban area and communities in the comprehensive plan. It is further intended that this d%strict shall be for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip commercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to permit controlled access to public streets. PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT The following uses shall, be permitted in any HC district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not~ specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar'to uses permitted by right in general character, and~ more specifically, similar in terms of lOCational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generauion. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. 1. Automobile laundries. Automobile, truck repair shops. Automobile servlce stations (reference 5.1.20). 4. Buiidlnc mater~a's sales. 5. Churches, cemeteries. Clubs. ioSucs, c:;"~c, fraterna!, patriotic reference 5.1.2). 7. ' Convenience szoros. 8. Educaticnal, ~ecnnlcal and trade schools. 9~ i0. Factor%- outlet sales = clothing and fabric. Feed an~ seed stores (reference 5.1.22). -150- 11. Financial institutions''.~ ................. '"'"~ ................. '"'"'"n ~'-~'~-~ ~ 12. ~Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service. 13. Fire and rescue squad~stations (reference 5.1.9). 14. Funeral homes2 15. Furniture stores. 16. Food and grocery stores including s~ch specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. 17. Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance services. 18. Hardware. 19. (Repealed 6-3-81) 20. Hotels, motels and inns. 21. Light-warehousing. 22. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental. ~ 23. Mobile home and trailer sales and service. 24. Modular building sales. 25. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental. 26. New automotive parts sales. 27. Newspaper pub!ishlng. 2S. Administrative, buslness and professional offices. 29. Office and bus,ness machines sales and service. 30. Eating estabi~s~ment: fast food restaurants. 31. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. 32. Sale of major recrea~ionak equipment and vehicles. 33. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19). · 34. Wholesale distribution. -151- (Supp.-~3, 6-3-81) tower structures =.and includin~ poles, lines, transformers, ~i~, me~rs and related facilities for distribution of iooal service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage, collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) ATTACHMENT D ....... · ~'"'-~ ,,.., r ...... / __---'"i-' ...... -'--",.'-~ ................... ~ac~£ r~-res exc f'd-d~ng Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmis- sion, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 38. Indoor theaters. 39. Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20). 40. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 41. 42. Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of section 22.1, commercial, C-1. (Added 6-19-91; Amended 9-9-92) Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) 43. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95) 24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance ha'lls. (Amended 1-!-83) 2. Septic tank sales and related service. 3. Livestock sales. 4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11). Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.8). Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping ~tations and appurtenances; unmanned~telephone exchange centers, micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). -152- (Supp. #80, 10-1!-95} PROFFER FORM D te: ,2003 ZMA # 2003 - 009 "9 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 0o-00 - 00- 00 - 020D0 anc 020E0 Original Proffer I Amended Proffer Ij.'~' (Amendment ATTACHMENT E 1.33 Acres to be rezoned from to HC Pursuant to Sechon 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, ihe oWner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffem the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property,, ifr~zoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezonmg itsetf gives r/se to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. (1) Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 11, 1996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto: 24.2.1 (2) Automobile, Truck Repair Shops (35) Electric, gas... (36) Public uses... (37) Temporary Construction uses and in effect Febur~. 5, 2003, a copy of the section being attached hereto: 24.2.2 (12) Stand .~one Parking and parking structures Signatures of All Owners W. A. Marshall Jr Printed Names of All Owners Rachel K. Marshall P~nted Name of Attorney-in-Fact Si~_onarure of Atto _m. ey-in-Fact (A~ach Proper Power of Attorney) Date ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT E CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 24 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - HC Sections: 24.1 24.2 24.2.1 24.2.2 24.3 24.4 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT MINIMUM FRONTAGE, SHAPE OF DISTRICT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 24.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to permit development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations rather than to central business concentrations. It is intended that HC districts be established on major highways within the urban area and communities in the comprehensive plan. It is further intended that this district shall be for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip cOmmercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to permit controlled access to public streets. 24.2 PERMITTED USES 24.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any HC district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in se6tion 34.0. Automobile laundries. 2o Automobile, track repair shops. 3. Automobile service stations (reference 5.I.20). 4. Building materials sales. 5. Churches, cemeteries. 6. Clubs, Iodges,-civic, fraternal, patriotic(reference 5.1.2). 7. Convenience stores. 18-24-1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 8. Educational, technical and trade schools. 9. Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric. 10. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22). 11. Financial institutions. 12. Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service. 13. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 14. Funeral homes. 15. Furniture stores. 16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. 17. Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance services. 18. Hardware. 19. (Repealed 6-3-81) 20. Hotels, motels and inns. 21. Light warehousing. 22. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental. 23° Mobile home and trailer sales and service. 24. Modular building sales. 25. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental. 26. New automotive parts sales. 27. Newspaper publishing. 28. Administrative, business and professional offices. 29. Office and business machines sales and service. 30. Eating establishment; fast food restaurants. 31. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. 32. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles. 33. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19). 34. Wholesale distribution. ATTACHMENT E 18-24-2 ATTACHMENT E ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 35. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems tn conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) 36 Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or mink lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) 37. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 38. IndOor theaters. 39. Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20). 40. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 41o Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of section 22.1, commercial, C-1. (Added 6-19-91; Amended 9-9-92) 42. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added9-15-93) 43. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95) 44. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-02) 24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 1. Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83) 2~ Septic tank sales and related service. 3~ Livestock sales. 4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11). 5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.08). Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, macro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and. appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Hospitals, nursing home~, convalescent homes (reference 5. I. 13). Contractors' office and equipment storage yard. 18-24-3 ZoningSupplement #25, 2-5-03 2 2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT E 9. Auction houses. 10. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4, 11. Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11). (Added 1- 1-83) 12. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41). (Added 11-7-84; Amended 2-5-03) 13. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9- 92) 14. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) 15. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.2.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) 16. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99) 243 MINIMUM FRONTAGE, SHAPE OF DISTRICT Minimum frontage required on a public street for the establishment of an HC district shall be one hundred and fifty (150) feet. Frontage of an HC district shall not exceed depth. This section shall not apply to HC districts established at the adoption of the zoning map. 24;4 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS In addition ro the requirements contained herein, the requirements of section 21.0, commercial districts, generally, shall apply within all HC districts. 18-24-4 Zoning Supplement #25, 2-5-03 23 Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comment Architectural Review Board sP ATTACHMENT S P-2003-061 Marshall Property- Airport Road Parking Lot revision 2 reviewer received reviewe decision Margaret Maliszewski 8/6/2003 9/2/2003 reqUested changes September 11,2003 Jo Higgins Project Development Limited, LC 2463 Browns Gap Turnpike Charlottesville VA 22901 RE: ARB-2003-112: Marshall Property- Airport Road Parking Lot - (Tax Map 32, Parcels 20D and 20E) Dear Ms. Higgins: On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, the Albemarle County ArchiteCtural Review Board reviewed the above noted proposal to establish a parking lot for Airport Road Auto Center. The Board took the following actions: Regarding the Special Use Permit: The Board voted unanimously to forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: Based on a strict interpretation of the ARB Guidelines, the ARB cannot support the request for the special use permit because the resulting development does not reflect the traditional architecture of the area. The Board further noted their understanding that mitigating circumstances may exist and, should the Planning Commission choose to recommend support for the proposal, the ARB recommends the following conditions of approval: 1o Reduce the impact of the proposed parking on the EC by reducing the number of parking spaces. 2. Provide additional landscaping along the east and west property lines, specifically to the west of the future road connection and to the east of the angled parking area, outside the easement. 3. Provide conifers in the planting island between the second row of parking and the angled parking. 4. Limit lighting to the satisfaction of the ARB. Regarding the Zoning Map Amendment: The Board forwarded the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: The ARB has no objection to the revised proffer for the Zoning Map Amendment.[3 Regarding the Preliminary Site Plan: The ARB offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal: 1. Reduce the impact of the proposed parking on the EC by reducing the number of parking spaces. 2. Provide additional landscaping along the east and west property lines, specifically to the west of the future road connection and to the east of the angled parking area, outside the easement. 3. Provide conifers in the planting island between the second' row of parking and the angled parking. 4. Limit lighting to the satisfaction of the ARB. Submit a lighting plan illustrating the lighting proposal. The proposed lighting should not increase impacts on the EC. 5. Use a dark color for the wall and screen the wall with evergreen shrubs. 10/28/2003 09:23 AM Page 1 of 2 Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comment Architectural Review Board ATTACHMENT F S P-2003-061 Marshall Pro perty- Airport Road Parking Lot SP revision 2 reviewer received reviewe decision Margaret Maliszewski 8/6/2003 9/2/2003 requested changes 6. Label the plants on the planting plan. 7. Provide shade trees 35' on center along the EC. ntersperse the ornamental trees under the shade trees. You may submit an application for ARB review of your final site plan at your convenience. Please remember that ARB approval is required prior to final site plan approval. Applications, checklists, and schedules are available on line at www. albemarle.org. If you have any questions about this action, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Janet Miller Landscape Planner Cc; Francis MacCali[] [] ARB-2003-' 12 File 10/28/2003 09:23 AM Page 2 of 2 25 Albemarle County Development Departments S P-2003-0b-~ ATTACHMENT G SPIN Submission and Comment Marsh all Property - Airport Road Parking Lot Engineering Special Use Permit revision 2 reviewer received reviewe Allan Schuck 9/17/2003 10/3/2003 decision approved with conditions The application information for a special use permit, zoning map amendment, and preliminary site plan for the Marshall Property received on 17 September 2003 has been' reviewed. The special use permit is to allow stand-alone parking in accordance with Section 24.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Engineering Department recommends approval of this special use permit, zoning map amendment and preliminary site plan with th e following conditions to be addressed with the final site plan: 1. The plans provide notes stating that storm water quality and detention are to be provided by the VDOT facilities. The applicant shall provide supplemental background information verifying that this site and the corresponding impervious areas were considered when the VDOT stormwater facility and downstream lines were designed. [32.5.6k] (a) The applicant needs to submit the required stormwater management calculations as stated in the applicant's response letter dated 10 September 2003. (b) The Engineering Department needs to see verification from VDOT that this site has permission to ~,,,.u,~ the stormwater facilities on the VDOT property. // 2.il'he Engineering Department recommends that the layout for the stand-alone parking include the ~,,,~.v~en parking spaces ~long State Route 649 not the western (2nd proposed) entrance to State Route 649. [DSM, Section 607 B] 3. Please show the locations of the corresponding traffic signs on the final site plan. The following additional items must be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department before the final site plan can be recommended for approval. A completed submittal form and application, available at the Engineering Department, must accompany all submittals. The required number of copies and the required fees are indicated on the form and application. 1. An erosion control plan, narrative, computations, completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. [14-311, 17-203, and 17-303] 2. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and detention routing for the 2yr and 10yr storms. [17-304] 3. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [17-323] 4. Drainage computations. [14-512, 14-304, Policy] VDOT approval will be required for final site plans that affect right-of-way. Please contact me at (434) 296.5861 Ext. 3069 with any comments or questions. 10/28/2003 08:38 AM Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT G COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM To.' From: Subject: Date received: Date of Comment: Francis MacCall, Planner Allan Schuck, Engineer SDP-2003-058, ZMA-2003-009, SP-2003-061, Marshall Property, Critical Slope Waiver Request 17 September 2003 03 October 2003 The request for a waiver to develop on areas of critical slope for stand-along parking on TMP-32-20D & E was received on 17 September 2003. These critical slopes are shown on the preliminary site plan on sheet 3 of 9, drawing number C-i, dated 12 September 2003. The request has been reviewed. Critical slope make up approximately 0.083 acres or less than one (1) percent of the 1.336-acres involved with this request. The plan shows 100% of the critical slope being disturbed. The disturbance is in the form of constructing the parking lot. The critical slope is located in the middle of TMP-32-20D around the existing structure. Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 184.2 is addressed: 1. "movement of soil and rock": The engineering department concurs~with W&W Associates' statement about controlling the movement of soil and rock with approved erosion control measures within the standards of Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations. 2. "excessive stormwater run-off'': Stormwater runoff will be controlled by the drainage / stormwater management plan proposed for this site. 3. "siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water": Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. No existing natural or man-made bodies of water are located adjacent to this site. 4. "loss of aesthetic resource": This issue was not addressed by the applicant. After a site visit, it appears that no aesthetic features will be lost due to the disturbance of critical slopes on the sxte. An existing house and several trees currently located around the critical slopes are to be removed during construction. 5. "septic effluent": No septic systems or drainfields are proposed in this project. This site does not drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supPly for Albemarle County. Also, this site is located in Zone C, outside the 100-year flood plain area according to FEMA Map 510006 0125B dated 16 December 1980. Based on the above review, there are no engineering concerns that prohibit the disturbance of the critical slopes. Copy: file 2501 File: SDP-2003-058, ZMA-2003-009, SP-2003-061 Marshall Property [2501 ](1) ZMA-2003-011, SP,2003,061,.SDP-2003-058; Marshall Property Stand Alone Parking Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT H Francis MacCall From: 'Grimes, Matthew C. [Matthew. Grimes@VirginiaDOT.°rg] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:01 PM To: Francis MacCall (E-mail); Kim Cameron (E,mail); Glenn Brooks (E-mail) Subject: ZMA-2003-011, SP-2003-061, SDP-2003-058; Marshall Property Stand Alone Parking Francis, Our previous comments regarding the entrance closure have not been addressed. I offer the following additional comments and information for clarification. VDOT staff in the Culpeper District Right-of-Way division have filed a certificate for condemnation on this parcel to obtain necessary right-of-way, and VDOT now owns this right-of-way in fee simple. A resolution or settlement on the compensation for this Condemnation has not yet been reached, and a court date has not yet been set. To date, VDOTAirport Road plans show the entrance to TMP 32-20D as a private entrance (a driveway to serve the existing dwelling). In light of recent discussion with Culpeper Right-of-Way staff, my comments on the ZMA, SP and SDP are that parcels 32-20D, 32-20E and 3240 should be combined, and that the entrance on what is now TMP 32-20Dmust be eliminated, with access to the parking lot being across what is now TMP 32-20E and TMP 3240 at the . crossover that will be constructed with the VDOT airport road project. Should a different arrangement or settlement be reached between the applicant and VDOT Right-of-Way personnel, adjustments to plans that accommodate the parking lot entrance can be made during construction. The stormwater calculations need to be submitted to the Charlottesville Residency. Matt Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434.293.0011 ext 19 10/27/2003 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS ASSOCIATES _AT_T_ACI-IMENT!-~ September !2, 2003 Albemarle County Planning Commission 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Marshall Property - Airport Road Parking Lot Critical Slopes Waiver- SDP-2003-058 · WW Associates Project # 203071 Dear Commissioners: We request a Critical Slopes Wavier for the Marshall Property Airport Road Parking Lot shown on the affached plans. We understand the implementation of the comprehensive plan, and offer the following conditions in response to your concerns: 1) Rapid and~or large-scale movement of soil and'rock: All slopes will be seeded and protected.with erosion control measures in order to prevent soil erosion until full grass growth has been established in .accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations. 2) Excessive stormwater mn-off: The proposed site has multiple stormwater control measures that diverts runoff into the proposed VDOT stormwater management system for S.R. 649 construction. 3) Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water: All runoff from this site is diverted into storm sewer pipes, and there are no' adjoining natural or man-made bodies of water for this site. 4) Public Drinking Water Supply: This site does not drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County. We do not believe this site would cause contamination'to a public drinking water supply. 5) Septic System: No septic systems or drak}',fields are being utilized in this project. 6) Flood Plains: This site is located in Zone C outside the 100-year flood plain area accoi:ding to FEMA Map 510006 0125B dated 12/16/80. The critical slopes shown on this site plan were created from basement foundation backfill for the existing-house on Parcel 20D. Therefore, the critical slopes disturbance 'On this site i~lan is 'essentially regrading a previously graded area. 147 Mill Ridge Road ~.Lynchburg, Virginia 24502 Telephone (434) 582-6175 · Fax (434)582-6179 We trust this information meets with your approval. Should you have any questions regarding this request, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Project Engineer - WW Associates cc: Jo Higgins, Project Development Limited L.C. Wilham A. Marshall, Jr. _ ATT CHMENT I~ 147 Mill Ridge Road * Lynchburg, Virginia 24502 Telephone (434) 582-6175 * Fax (434) 582-6179 3O Project Development Limited LC 2463 Browns Gap Tnpk, Charlottesville, Va. 22901 (434) 823- 1224 Fax (434) 823- 1720 ATTACHMENT I DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Matthew C. Grimes, VDOT Fax # CC: Kim Cameron, Glenn Brooks, Jack Kelsey Francis MacCall FROM:' Jo Higgins RE: Marshall Property - Airport Road Parking Lot Attached is a copy of the VDOT comments for the referenced project. I have broken the list down into 3 items. The use ofVDOT stormwater management facilities (serving the Airport Road prqiect) - As you are aware, the Airport Road expansion project has been on the books for sometime. At present, it is scheduled for bid December 2003. Since this parcel is included in the drainage area for the proposed stormwater management basin and the basin is to be located on the property ~at was (due to the "take" filed by VDOT Mr. Marshall no longer owns the rear section of his adjacent parcel) owned by Mr. Marshall, we have been working with Mr. Jim Filson with respect to the technical aspects of using the VDOT basin for storm water management purposes. Calculations were submitted with the anticipation that if it was physically possible then the VDOT right of way staff could advise of how to negotiate approval of this arrangement. Since VDOT has legal representation, it will be referred as appropriate. This was not intended to circumvent the local residency in any fashion. Several years ago when the Airport Road project was being transferred to VDOT from the Airport Authority, I was referred by the Charlottesville Residency to Jim Filson in Culpeper as the appropriate contact person. Technically, the storm pipes are adequate and it may only involve a minor modification to the existing design to incorporate the needed capacity. Since this parcel was already zoned for commercial use and the proposed impervious area (< 66%) is less than typically anticipated, the basin design should have been designed to handle the water quantity and the water quality aspect just needs to be addressed. We do understand that it will require VDOT's approval to use the basin to meet County requirements. At the same time, it makes sense and is consistent with County policy to rely more on a regional approach and participate based upon proportional contribution. We are asking that County staff provide assistance in the way of favorable support with this goal to coordinate with VDOT. "The proposed right-in/right out entrance should be closed." - Per our telephone conversation of today, I wanted to. confirm that there was no physical reason once the Airport Road project was built that this entrance is a problem. We do understand that at present there is not adequate sight distance and crossing over a two lane road that is already congested does pose a Safety problem. You.are aware.that the Airport Road plans 31 do show the existing entrance to stay at its current location. (nor a commercial entrance), You also confirmed that there would not be a sight distance problem once the road project has been completed. There will also be a concrete median that will prevent a left turn movement at this location. As I understand it, your comment that it should be closed was based solely upon access management policy that recommends closing of all entrances when possible. From Mr. Marshall's perspective, he "gave a~ay" the entrance as a temporary measure through a proffer because as he understood it a 55 mph.speed limit creates a significant sight distance problem but he reserved the privilege of requesting that the entrance be allowed once the road expansion is done. R is my understanding that the posted speed limit will be 35mph. Although not clearly protecting this potential request, there is an additional proffer worded" Owner reserves the right to request amendment(s) to the above proffers in the future which may be necessary or appropriate resulting from the planned improvements to Airport Road." There is a new entrance shown on the Airport Rd plans to serve Airport Road Auto Center that lines up with a median crossover. This new entrance is West of the existing two entrances into the Auto Center that are to be closed. The goal when this location was. designed was to move it West to line up with the property line between two parcels (one is Tom's Auto Center) on the opposite side of the road. (It may be noted that is was not shifted to line up with the property line between Mr. Marshall's parcels.) This shift to the West is not advantageous to Mr. Marshall. To require vehicles from the new parking lot that will exit and go West to come back into the auto center parcel is an unnecessary traffic pattern is will cause more conflict at an already constricted location. The constriction is caused by the right of way "Take" which shifts the property line approx. 40ft into the Auto Center parcel. 3. Last item about obtaining a permit from VDOT for work within the right of way is understood to be required whenever this occurs. As we discussed, this is to request that we sit down with VDOT and County staff to discuss the extenuating circumstances with respect to issues that are outside of what is typically reviewed when access management is considered. Due to hardship issues and impact on the adjacent business, we ask for VDOT to comment that there are no other physical issues preventing safe and convenient access if the entrance is allowed conditioned upon the Airport Road expansion completion and let the Planning Commission decide if this is a case for leniency. Cc: Mr. Jack Marshall I Project Development Limited LC 2463 Browns Gap Tnpk, Charlottesville, Va. 22901 (434) 823- 1224 Fax. (434) 823 - 1720 ATTACHMENT I DATE: October 13, 2003 TO: Francis MacCall FROM: Jo Higgins RE: Marshall Pr, operty app!ications Dear Francis: Per our recent meeting, there are a couple items to confirm. 1. On the Final site plan approval, we will include a sign to direct vehicles entering the Airport Road Auto Center to the lef~ to indicate "customer parking" in the new parking lot as we discussed in our meeting. This is intended to minimize vehicles driven by customers using the travelways and parking spaces on the Airport Rd Auto Center parcel. 2. The number of parking spaces has been supported to the satisfaction oftl~ Zoning Administrator. The parking space schedule will be revised to not includ ~ff_~ l.oading spaces and show the count per Keith's comments. Per our recent meeting, it was agreed th~itsince this: was a minor adjustment that this could be done at Final site plan submittal. 3. A new Special Use application with references the "use" on the adjacent parcel has been signed and submitted to Amelia. (See Amelia's comment #2) 4. I have attached a copy of the email from Jim Filson, VDOT drainage guy. We have not gotten the confirmation as yet but the technical review is needed fn'st. 5. With respect to the waterline that is to be relocated by the VDOT road expansion project, the waterline can be established along the road frontage with a minor adjustment to assure that the landscaping is adequately accommodated. There is already a 15ft set back to the parking to allow for landscaping across the front rather than 1 Oft. If staff prefers, this may be increased by 5ft to accommodate all features. (Your fwst comment under "For the Site Plan") 6. With respect to the zoning buffer along the property line, the landscaping plan can be revised as you described in you second comment under "For the Site Plan" provided ARB staff is in agreement with the buffer changes. There is an existing buffer strip behind this parcel composed of 4 rows of white pines. The property owner to the rear has been provided a site plan and landscaping plan and has verbally ackno.wledge he is ok with the design. We hope to get a written confirmation of this. The resubmittal reflects a substantial change to the landscaping to respond to the ARB comments. Our intent is to satisfy the concerns for both ARB and Planning. With respect to the right-in/right-out only enwance issue, ~ wanted to add to my previous memo on this issue: 1. The entrance shown as part of the Airport Rd expansion plans to serve Airport Road Auto Center does not have a turn lane and taper as does the entrance into this new parking tot. The entrance intO the new parking lot would be a commercial entrance at the same location as the existing residential entrance IF allowed it is served by a mm lane and taper as included in'the VDOT design plans This provides safe and convenient access to the.new parking lot. 2. The entrance as included in the VDOT design plans for the existing Airport Rd Auto Center parcel does not provide a separatiOn between the road' and interior tmvelway which does not meet VDOT standards as does the proposed entrance to the new parking lot. [our favorable support and assistance is appreciated. If you have any questions, please advise. Thanks! 12-3-96- I December 3, 1996 ATTACHMEN3"...~' The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 3, 1996, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Bahs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee-Washington; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; and Mr. David Tice. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Eric Morissette, Planner; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Ms. Claudia Paine, Senior Planner; Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Nitchmann and Finley. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of November 19,1996, were unanimously approved as submitted. SP-96-041 Forest Springs Mobile Home Sales Lot - Petition to amend SP-95-31 to allow Mobile Homes Sales in addition to existing auto sales. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 43, zoned PA, Rural Areas, HC, Highway Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor, and Parcel 43A, zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, is located approximately 114 mile (.5 km) south of Rt. 649 on the west side of Rt. 29 North in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Hoilymead Community. The applicant had requested deferral to January 7, 1997. Public comment was invited. None was offered. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 96-041 be deferred to January 7, 1997. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 96-18 William A. Marshall, Jr. - Petition to rezone approximately 1.63 acres from R-1 Residential, to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 20D and 20E, is located on the north side of Rt. 649 approximately ~2 mile west of Rt. 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. Ms. Paine presented the-staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers and subject to 'the County Attorney's and Zoning Administrator's approval of the proffers. [Ms. Paine said the proffers were received very recently so the County Attorney and the Zoning Administrator have not had time to review them thoroughly.] Staff also recommended approval of a modification of Section 4.12.3.2 to allow off-site parking. 12-3-96- - ATTACHMENT j Mr. Dotson summarized there were two actions before the Commission-the zoning map amendment request and a request for a modification of Section 4.12.3.2. On the issue of the status of Airport Road, Mr. Dotson described it as a "moving target which the applicant has addressed through his proffers." in response to Mr. Tice's request, Ms. Paine again reviewed the requirements for buffering between properties. She said buffering is required between commercial districtsand residential or rural area districts. A 20-foot undisturbed buffer is required. Also, between commercial and industrial uses adjacent to residential or rural area uses, screening is required. Often a 20-foot vegetated strip is required, but fencing or some type of opaque barrier can also be required. Ms. Huckle asked about screening between this use and the road. Ms. Paine said the applicant will be required to meet Certain landscape requirements at the time of site plan review. However, screening, such as a fence, is not required along the road side of the property. Ms. Paine said she thought such screening might be more appropriate in the rural areas. Ms. Huckle said she understood this road is going to be designated as an Entrance Corridor. She wondered when this designation is going to take place. Ms. Paine said a Resolution of Intent could be. adopted by the Planning Commission which would enable staff to begin researching this possibility to determine if Rt. 649 (Airport Road)is eligible for Entrance Corddor status. Ms. Paine said after the improvements to the road are complete, it might be that the road will be able to meet the Entrance Corridor criteria !at that time. Mr. Keeler added that the ultimate design for Airport Road is not final ati'this time, but construction is supposed to begin in 1998. Ms. Paine said right- of-way,has been reserved on this property to accommodate road improvements. (Mr. Keelerlater suggested that the Commission may wish to go ahead and adopt a Resolution of Intent; If, after the design of the road has been finalized, it is determined that it will not meet Entrance CorridOr criteria, then the Resolution can be withdrawn.) Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the fact that the entrance for this property is so close to Rt. 29. She envisioned much greater usage of this road after the Mobile Home Park is compete and the UREF Research Park is underway. She feared it would become a similar situation to what presently exists at the intersection, of Rt. 29 and Hydraulic Road (in the'City) where cars are backed up into the. intersection as cars are turning intothe BlOckbuster-Video store on Hydraulic ROad. She said she did not want to be responsible for creating another such hazard. She wondered if:any turn lanes are planned. Mr. Keeler responded: "When VDOT improves a road they will not install turn laneson entrances: that don't have turn lanes, at least'l~ve never seen a project where' they've done that." Ms. Huckle asked if that means property owners must install the turn lanes themselves. Mr. Keeler explained how-businesses on Rt. 29 installed full frontage-improvements along.their properties, and then VDOT, when improving_Rt. 29 had "connected" these turn lanes to form a continuous outer lane which serVes as a 3'5 12-3-96- 3 ATTACHMENT J turn lane. If, in the road improvement process, VDOT "extinguishes" a turn lane, they may reconstruct a new one. Mr. Keeler said the existing entrance is over 500 feet from Rt. 29, which is "generally adequate for a median break." He said he thinks traffic backs up if cars are trying to make a left turn (across oncoming traffic). That will not happen at this property because the traffic coming from Rt. 29 will be turning right into this site. (Ms. Huckle noted that traffic backs up at Hydraulic Road even though cars are making a right turn into the Blockbuster site.) On the question of screening, Mr. Keeler said there are provisions in the Ordinance which allow features which the Commission finds objeCtionable to be screened from public roads. (Section 32.9.7.8 refers to "storage yards.") Mr. Kamptner quoted from the Ordinance: "A screen shall consist of a planting strip, existing vegetation, a slightly opaque wall or fence, or a combination thereof." He pointed out that screening would be addressed at the site plan stage.) Mr. Dotson pointed out that the proffers limit this use to "automobile, truck and repair shops," which, in general, are Iow traffic generators. He also noted that another proffer limits the entrance to the existing entrance, so no new entrances can be created. Ms. Paine confirmed the accuracy of both these statements. Mr. Kamptner said he and the Zoning Administrator have looked at the proffers and offer the following suggestions: Proffer 1 - Typographical error needs to be corrected. Proffer 2 - Substance is acceptable, but the language needs to be clarified. He proposed: "Access to the property for commercial use will be only through the entrances on adjacent parcel 40 as shown on the attached drawing." The words "current" and "existing" should be deleted so the access points are more clearly fixed. This also clarifies these will be the only entrance or access points for the commercial usage. The applicant was represented by Mr. William Marshall. He said he had no objection to the wording changes proposed by Mr. Kamptner. On the question of entrances, he said he has approached VDOT to try to move the entrances farther away from Rt. 29 (to the west), "to serve both these pieces of property." On the issue of constructing a fence between the road and the property, he said he did not think there would be a need for a fence- because "they can beautify it without hiding it." (Ms. Huckle indicated she found the visibility of many cars on the site objectionable.) Ms. Huckle asked whether the site will be graded. Mr. Marshall said the existing dwelling on the site will be removed and the site will be leveled. Public comment was invited. 36 12-3-96- 4 Mr. Osterhill, owner of adjoining properties (in Airport Acres), addressed the ___ATTACHMENT J Commission. He did not object to the rezoning, but he asked that a substantial tree buffer and fence be required between his properties and the applicant's property. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle asked if any body work takes place at this location. Mr. Marshall said no body work (or painting) takes place at this facility. He has no plans to ever do body work. Also, no work is performed on large trucks. (Mr. Kamptner said body shops are defined separately in the Ordinance. ) Responding to Mr. Osterhill's comments, Mr. Marshall said he will satisfy Mr. Osterhiil's concerns, including a fence between the properties. (He noted, however, he was not offedng to put a fence along the road.) Ms. Huckle said she did not feel it was necessary to put a fence between the building and the road, but she did' think a fence should be used everywhere automobiles can be seen. In addition to the two actions described at the beginning of the hearing, Mr. Dotson added the following two possible actions which were identified' dudng discussion: -The requirement for a buffer at the time of site plan review. -A Resolution of Intent to consider Entrance Corridor designation for Airport Road. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that ZMA 96-18 for William A. Marshall be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, with the understanding the proffers will be clarified, as proposed by Mr. Kamptner and agreed to by the applicant, prior to Board hearing. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that a modification of Section 4.12.3.2, to allow off-site parking, be granted for William A. Marshall, in connection with ZMA 96-18. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that buffering.be required between the subject property and residential properties and also along Airport Road, at the time of site plan review, and that the. Planning Commission review 'the site plan. The motion passed unanimouslY. 37 December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) O~ _ATTAr_ license year. The refund shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. An amou/%t of less than two dollars ($2.00) shall not be refunded nor applied to any other fee, tax or amount due the County of Albemarle. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-96-51 (SP-94-28). Mt. Amos Baptist Church. Public Hearing on a request to extend the approval period of a request to add a fellowship hall to an existing building. Property of 1.12 ac zoned P3% is located on E sd of Rt 601 about ~ mi S of Free Union. TM29, P46. White Hall Dist. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1996.) Mr. cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 10, 1996, recommended approval of SP-96-51, subject to four conditions. He said there were a couple of typos in the staff's report. The word ~exists" in Condition ~3 should be ~eXits-, and in Condition %4, at the end of the sentence it should have the words "a copy of which is attached." The public hearing was opened at this time. Rev. Mary Carey was present to speak. She said they request a two-year extension to their present special use permit that will expire on December 15, 1996. Within the past two years, they have had the property surveyed, architectural plans have been .drawn, have takel%bids from various contractors, and undertaken fundraising activities. At the present time, they are in the process of obtaining a loan from a bank. They need the extension in order to do legal work after the loan is obtained from the bank, do a title search, allow for inclement weather situations, and secure a-building permit. They ask that the request be approved so they can continue with their plans for the church. WSth no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-96-51 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES NAYS Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Fir. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Church expansion limited to not more than 1,200 square feet; Usage of the church to be limited to worship and related service onlyo Use of the church for noncongregational activities shall warrant amendment of this special use permit; The eastern entrance shall be used only as an entrance onto the property from Route 601, and a sign prohibiting exits from the property onto Route 601 shall be posted and main- tained a~ the eastern entrance; This special use permit shall expire on December 14, 1998, in accordance with Section 31.2.4.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as it exists on December 3, 1996 (a copy of which is attached). Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-96-18. William A. Marshall, Jr (Sign Public Hearing on a requesn to rezone approx 1463 ac from R-1 to HC on N sd of Rt 649 approx 0.2 mi W of Rt 29. TM32, P20D & P20E. (Site is recommended for Regional Service in Community of Holiymead by the Comprehensive Plan.) Rivanna Dist~ (Public Hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is 'on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He sai~the final proffer was given to the Board members tonight, and it was only to correct a spelling error in Proffer.l, and to clarify the second sentence of that proffer. It does not change the substance at all. It has been reviewed by the County Attorney. klMENT ~ December Il, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page !0) ATTACHMENT K He said the proposal is to rezone approximately 1.63 acres to HC to allow for off-site parking to serve the adjacent A/rport Road Auto Center on TMP 32, P40, which is also owned by the applicant. At some future time the applicant may erect a building on these parcels to serve his current business. Mr. cilimberg said the Comprehensive Plan speaks to Airport Road in specifics. It suggests that access to the road should be minimized to the greatest extent possible through the use of joint entrances. The applicant has proffered to use his existing entrance for these two parcels. The HC district is generally consistent with the Land Use designation of Regional Service. However, certain HC uses may not be appropriate at this location due to their relationship to this corridor of access to the Airport and the adjacent residential areas. For that reason, the applicant has proffered just for the automobile, truck repair use, and certain other public uses which are allowed on this rezoned property. The Architectural Review Board has pressed an interest in designating Airport Road as an Entrance Corridor. The Planning Commission, at it meeting last week, adopted a resolution of intent to pursue such designation if the road qualifies. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 3, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of ZM3%-96-1S subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Ms. Humphris said in the staff report it is noted in two places "The applicant has expressed an intent to return to this access issue after improvements to Route 649 have been completed. This will necessitate further amendment to zoning at that time." Ms. Humphris said she believes it should say "this will necessitate consideration of further amendment .... " She thinks the language makes it seem that it is nec~ssa_ry to do the amendment. Mr. Cilimberg said by law the applicant would have to resUbmit a new applica- tion. Ms. Humphris said she understands the intent, but that is not what it says. She would prefer that it say "... consideration of further amendment At this time, the pUblic hearing was opened. The aDl~licant was present, but did not wish to speak, With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve ZMA-96-18 subject to the applicant's proffers as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded VOte: MS. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, MS. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: The proffers are set out in full below.) PROFFER FOP34 Date: Dec. 11. 1996 ZS{A~ 96-18 Tax Map Parcel(s) ~ . .~ -0:-0.' -.: , ,03200-00-00-020E0 1.63Acres to be rescued from R~ to ~ 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 rezonzng 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 uo the rezoning requested. Permitted uses of the property~ and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following sec- tions of the ~Llbemarle County Zoning Ordir~ance ~n effect on December !1, 1996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto: (2) Automobile, Truck Repair Shops (35) Electric, gas ... (36) Public uses ... AYES: NAYS: 'December I1, Z996 (Page Z1) (3) (Regular Night Meeting) (37) Temporary Construction uses ATTACHMENT K Access to the property for co~ercial use will be through the entrances on adjacent Tax Map Parcel 32-40, as shown on the attached drawing. Owner reserves the right to request amendment(s) to the above proffers in the future which may be necessary or appropriate resulting from the planned improvements ko Airport Road. W, ~, Marshall, Jr. (Si~ned) W. A. Marshall. Jr, 12-6-96 Signatures of Ail Owners Rachel K. Marshall (Signed) Printed Names of All Owners Date Rachel K. Marshall 12-6-~6 (Note: The following two items were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-96-2'0. Kenneth J. Newell (applicant), CCAT2/ University Limited Liability Company {Owner) {Sign #2). Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers for University Vitlage Development (ZMA-87-08) to allow dvlop of assisted living facility on portion of property immediately E of main residential bldg which was previously designated as townhouse-style residences & open space. Property on N sd of Rt 601 (Old Ivy Rd) just E of Rts 29/250 Bypass. Property, zoned R-10 with proffers, is designated as High Density Residential in Neighborhood 7 by the Comprehensive Plan. TM60B2, Pl. Jack Jouett Dist. (Public Bearing advertised in the Daily Progress on Noveraber 27 a~d December 4, 1996.) Agenda Item No. 12. SP-96-42. Kenneth J. Newelt (applicant), CCAT2/- University Limited Liability Company (Owner) (Sign ~2). Public Hearing on a request to establish assisted-living facility (nursing home or similar institution) on portion of University Village property described under ZMA-96- 20 above. (Public Bearing advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1996.) Mr. Ciiimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk.'s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He brought the Board's attention to the signed and current proffer provided to the Board today. It was simply to make final adjustment to date references, it i~cludes all the substantive language of the prior proffers as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal tonight is to amend the proffers for the University Village property so that an area previously designated for residen- tial townhouse and landscape area can be used for development of an assisted- living facility. It will be a three-story building providing approximately 1!0 beds to be constructed in the area east of the main residential building. Mr. Cilimberg said he had given the Board members a copy of the site plan which is currently being reviewed and is subject to approval under site plan provisions once the ZMA and SP are approved. The intent of the current proffers involves the amount of occupant loading on this property and the general location of facilities and landscap- ing to address buffering from adjoining uses. The main concern for occupant loading relates ko the traffic capacity of Old Ivy Road. The applicant has determined, through the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual what the level of traffic will be and has adjusted downward the residential unit allowances on the property to allow the same traffic genera- tion. For that reason, the potential number of residential units has been lowered from the current 260 to 204 total units that could be constructed as part of the development. Mr. Cilimberg said with respect to the general location of facilities and landscaping to address buffering from adjoining uses, substantial vegeta- tion exists along the eastern side of the site which will serve to buffer the use from the Ivy Gardens apartments and the University Real Estate Foundation 'office building. Staff has~ determined that the a!~lowan-ces meet the intent of the original review. Date: PROFFER FORM D~:::---..':I:i; 1996'. -..,ZMA # 96-18 Tax Map Parcel(s) # ATTACHMENT D 03200'00-00-020D0 03200-00-00-020E0 1.63 Acres to be rezoned from P,z 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 rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning reauested. (2) (3) Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 11, t996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto: 24.2. t (2) Automobile, Truck Repair Shops (35) Electr:,c, gas... (36) Public uses... (37) Temporary Construction uses Access to the property for commercial use will be througJa the entrances on adjacent Tax Map Parcel 32-40, as shown on the attached drawing. Owner rose,wes the rigJxt to request amendment(s) to the above proffers in the future which may be necessary or appropriate resulting from the planned improvements to gi_rpor~ Roa& Si,g~tures of All Owners / Printed Names of All Owners Date OR Sig nature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM.WPD Rev. December 1994 Pdnted Name of Attorney-in-Fact 24.1 24.2 24.2.1 ATTACHMENT D HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to permit development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations rather than to central business concentrations. It is intended that HC districts be established on major highways within the urban area and communities in the comprehensive plan. It is further intended that this dlstrict shall be for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip commercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to permit controlled access to public streets. PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT The following uses shall, be permitted in any HC district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar'to uses permitted by right in general character, and'~-- more specifically, similar in terms of locational ~/ requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. 1. Automoozle iaundries. Automobile, truck repair shops. Automobile servlce suations (reference 5.1.20). 4. Buiidlnc ma:er:als sales. 5. Churches, come:cries. Clubs, '~=es, c:'.'ic, franerna!, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). 7.' Convenience 8. Educa~icnal, ~ecnnical and trade schools. 9. Factor}' outlet sales - clothing and fabric. t0. Feed an{ seed sto~es (reference-5.1.22). -150- F~nancial institutions. ~ . 12..,Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). Funeral homes. Furniture stores. Food and grocery stores including s~ch specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance services. Hardware. -(Repealed 6-3-81) Hotels, motels and inns. Light warehousing. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental. Mobile home and trailer sales and service. Modular building sales. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental. New automotive parts sales. Newspaper publishing. Administrative, business and professional offices. Office and bus,ness machines sales and service. Eatlng estabi~s.kment; fast food restaurants. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19). Wholesale distribution. -251- 20. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 32. 33. 34. (Supp. $3, 6-3-81) ATTACHMENT D tower strUctures :.and includi~ poles, lines, transformers, pip~s, meters and related f&cilitiQ~ for diut=£bu~ion service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage.=ollection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, =entral water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter ~0 of the Code of Albemarle and ail other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmis- sion, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 38. Indoor theaters. 39. HeatLng oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.h0). 40. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 41. 42. Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of section 22.1, commercial, C-1. (Added 6-19-91; Amended 9-9-92) Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) 43. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95) 24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance ha'lls. (Amended 1-1-83) 2. Septic tank sales and related service. 3. Livestock sales. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11). Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.8). o Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping s~ations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). (Supp. #80, 10-11-95) PROFFER FORM ZMA # 2003 - 009 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 03200 - 00- 00 - 020D0 anc 020E0 Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # __) ATTACHMENT E Acres to be rezoned from to HC Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, ihe owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffem 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 r/se to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. (1) Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shah include only the following sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance m effect on December 11, 1996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto: 24.2.1 (2) Automobile, Track Repair Shops (35) ElecWic, gas... (36) Public uses... (37) Temporary Construction uses and in effect Feburary 5, 2003, a copy of the section being attached hereto: 24.2.2 (12) Stand Alone Parking and parking structures Signatures of All Owners Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Anach Proper Power of Attomey) W. A. Marshall Jr Printed Names of All Owners Rachel K. Marshall Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact D ate ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT E CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 24 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - HC Sections: 24.1 24,2 24.2.1 24.2.2 24.3 24.4 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT MINIMUM FRONTAGE, SHAPE OF DISTRICT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 24.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to permit development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations rather than to central business concentrations. It is intended that HC districts be established on major highways within the urban area and communities in the comprehensive:plan. It is further intended that this district shall be for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip commercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to · permit controlled access to public streets. 24~2 PERMITTED USES 24.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any HC district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in sedtion 34.0, 1. Automobile laundries. 2. Automobile, track repair shops. 3. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20). 4. Building materials sales. 5o Churches, cemeteries. 6. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2)B Convenience stores. 18-24-1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT E 8. Educational, technical and trade schools. 9. Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric. 10. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22). t 1~ Financial institutions. 12. Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service. 13. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 14. Funeral homes. 15. Furniture stores. 16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. 17. Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance services. 18. Hardware. 19. (Repealed 6-3-81) 20. Hotels, motels and inns. 21. Light warehousing. 22. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental. 23. Mobile home and trailer sales and service. 24. Modular building sales. 25. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental. 26. New automotive parts sales. 27. Newspaper publishing. 28. Administrative, business and professional offices. 29. Office and business machines sales and service. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Wholesale distribution. Eating establishment; fast food restaurants. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19). 18-24-2 ATTACHMENT E ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 35. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) 36. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or mink lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 3 t .2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) 37. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 38. IndOor theaters. 39. Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20). 40. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 41. Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of section 22.1, commercial, C-1. (Added 6-19-91; Amended 9-9-92) 42. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) 43. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95) 44. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-02) 24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: t. Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83) 2. Septic tank sales and related service. 3. Livestock sales. 4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11). 5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.08). 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and. appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13). 8. Contractors' office and equipment storage yard. 18-24-3 ALBEMARLE CO UNTY CODE ATTACHMENT E 9. Auction houses. 10. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, residential - R~15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. 11. Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5. I. 11 ). (Added 1- 1-83) 12. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41 ). (Added 11-7-84; Amended 2-5-03) 13. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9- 92) 14. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) 15, Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.2.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6-t 9-91) 16. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99) 24.3 MINIMUM FRONTAGE, SHAPE OF DISTRICT Minimum frontage required on a public street for the establishment of an HC district shall be one hundred and fifty (150) feet. Frontage of an HC district shall not exceed depth. This section shall not apply to HC districts established at the adoption of the zoning map. 24.4 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS In addition ro the requirements contained herein, the requirements of section 21.0, commercial districts, generally, shall apply within all HC district~. 18-24-4 Zoning Supplement #25. 2-5-03 2¸3 Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comment ArchiteCtural Review Board SP S P-2003-061 Marshall Property - Airport Road Parking Lot revision 2 reviewer received reviewe decision Margaret Maliszewski 8/6/2003 9/212003 requested changes September 11,2003 Jo Higgins Project Development Limited, LC 2463 Browns Gap Turnpike Charlottesville VA 22901 RE: ARB-2003-112: Marshall Property- Airport Road Parking Lot - (Tax Map 32, Parcels 20D and 20E) Dear Ms. Higgins: On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted proposal to establish a parking lot for Airport Road Auto Center. The Board took the following actions: Regarding the Special Use Permit: The Board voted unanimously to forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: Based on a strict interpretation of the ARB Guidelines, the ARB cannot support the request for the special use permit because the resulting development does not reflect the traditional architectUre of the area. The Board further noted their understanding that mitigating circumstances may exist and, should the Planning Commission choose to recommend support for the proposal, the ARB recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. Reduce the impact of the proposed parking on the EC by reducing the number of parking spaces. 2. Provide additional landscaping along the east and west property lines, specifically to the west of the future road connection and. to the east of the angled parking area, outside the easement. 3. Provide conifers in the planting island between the second row of parking and the angled parking. 4. Limit lighting to the satisfaction of the ARB. Regarding the Zoning MaP Amendment: The Board forwarded the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: The ARB has no objection to the revised proffer for the Zoning Map Amendment. E] Regarding the Preliminary Site Plan: The ARB offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal: 1. Reduce the impact of the proposed parking on the EC by reducing the number of parking spaces. 2. Provide additional landscaping along the east and west property lines, specifically to the west of the future road connection and to the east of the angled parking area, outside the easement. 3. Provide conifers in the planting island between the second row of parking and the angled parking. 4. Limit lighting to the satisfaction of the ARB. Submit a lighting plan illustrating the lighting proposal. The proposed lighting should not increase impacts on the EC. 5. Use a dark color for the wall and screen the wall with evergreen shrubs. 10/28/2003 09:23 AM Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT F Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comment Architectural Review Board SP S P-2003-061 Marshall Property ~ Airport Road Parking Lot revision 2 reviewer received reviewe decision Margaret Maliszewski 8/6/2003 9/2/2003 requested changes 6. Label the plants on the planting plan. 7. Provide shade trees 35' on center along the EC. Intersperse the ornamental trees under the shade trees. You may submit an application for ARB review of your final site plan at your convenience. Please remember that ARB approval is required prior to final site plan approval. Applications, checklists, and schedules are available on line at www.albemarle.org. If you have any questions about this action, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Janet Miller Landscape Planner Cc: Francis MacCall [] [] ARB-2003-112 File 10/28/2003 09:23 AM Page 2 of 2 Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comment Engineering S P-2003-0b] ATTACHMENT G Marshall Property - AirPort Road Parking Lot Special Use Permit revision2 reviewer received . reviewe decision Allan Schuck 9/17/2003 10/3/2003 approved with conditions The application information for a special use permit, zoning map amendment, and preliminary site plan for the Marshall Property received on 17 September 2003 has been reviewed. The special use permit is to allow stand-alone parking in acCordance with Section 24.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Engineering Department recommends approval of this special use permit, zoning map amendment and preliminary site plan with the following conditions to be addressed with the final site plan: 1. The plans provide notes stating that storm water quality and detention are to be provided by the VDOT facilities. The applicant shall provide supPlemental background information verifying that this site and the corresponding impervious areas were considered when the VDOT stormwater facility and downstream lines were designed. [32.5.6k] (a) The applicant needs to submit the required stormwater management calculations as stated in the applicant's response letter dated 10 September 2003. (b) The Engineering Department needs to see verification from VDOT that this site has permission to ~ ,ve~ethe stormwater facilities on the VDOT property. he Engineering Department recommends that the layout for the stand-alone parking include the n parking spaces Along State Route 649 not the western (2nd proposed) entrance to State Route 649. [DSM, SectiOn 607 B] 3. Please show the locations of the corresponding traffic signs on the final site plan. The following additional items must be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department before the final site plan can be recommended for approval. A completed submittal form and application, available at the Engineering Department, must accompany all submittals. The required number of copies and the required fees are indicated on the form and application. 1. An erosion control plan, narrative, computations, completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. [14-311, 17-203, and 17-303] 2. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and detention routing for the 2yr and 10yr storms. [17-304] 3. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [17-323] 4. Drainage computations. [14-512, 14-304, Policy] VDOT approval will be required for final site plans that affect right-of-way. Please contact me at (434) 296.5861 Ext. 3069 with any comments or questions. 10/28/2003 08:38 AM Page 1 of 1 2,6 ATTACHMENT G COUNTY OF ALBENLARLE Department of Eng/neering & Public Works MEMORANDUM To.' From: Subject: Date received: Date of Comment: Francis MacCall, Planner Allan Schuck, Engineer SDP-2003-058, ZMA-2003-009, SP-2003-061, Marshall Property, Critical Slope Waiver Request 17 September 2003 03 October 2003 The request for a waiver to develop on areas of critical slope for stand-along parking on TMP-32-20D & E was received on 17 September 2003. These critical slopes are shown on the preliminary site plan on sheet 3 o£9, drawing number C-i, dated 12 September 2003. The request has been reviewed. Critical slope make up approximately 0.083 acres or less than one (1) percent of the 1.336-acres involved with this request. The plan shows 100% of the critical slope being disturbed. The disturbance is in the form of constructing the parking lot. The critical slope is located in the middle of TMP-32-20D around the existing structure. Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18-4.2 is addressed: 1. "movement of soil and rock": The engineering department concurs with W&W Associates' statement about controlling the movement of soil and rock with approved erosion control measures within the standards of Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations. 2. "excessive stormwater run-off": Stormwater runoff will be controlled by the drainage / stormwater management plan proposed for this site. 3. "siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water": Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. No existing natural or man-made bodies of water are located adjacent to this site. 4. "loss of aesthetic resource": This issue was not addressed by the applicant. After a site visit, it appears that no aesthetic features will be lost due to the disturbance of critical slopes on the site. An existing house and several trees currently located around the critical slopes are to be removed during construction. 5. "septic effluent": No septic systems or drainfields are proposed in this project. This site does not drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County. Also, this site is located in Zone C, outside the 100-year flood plain area according to FEMA Map 510006 0125B dated 16 December 1980. Based on the above review,.there are no engineering concerns that prohibit the disturbance of the critical slopes. Copy: file 2501 File: SDP-2003-058, ZMA-2003-009, SP-2003-061 Marshall Property [2501](l) 27 ZMA-2003-011, SP,2003-061,.SDP-2003-058; Marshall Property Stand Alone Parking Page t of 1 ATTACHMENT H Francis MacCall From: Grimes, Matthew C. [Matthew. Grimes@VirginiaDOT. org] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:01 PM To: Francis MacCall (E-mail); Klm Cameron (E-mail); Glenn Brooks (E-mail) Subject: ZMA-2003-011, SP-2003-061, SDP-2003-058; Marshall Property Stand Alone Parking Francis, Our previous comments regarding the entrance closure have not been addressed. I offer the following additional comments and information for clarification. VDOT staff in the Culpeper District Right-of-Way division have filed a certificate for condemnation on this parcel to obtain necessary right-of-way, and VDOT now owns this right-of-way in fee simple. A resolution or settlement on the compensation for this condemnation has not yet been reached, and a court date has not yet been set. To date, VDOT Airport Road plans show the entrance to TMP 32-20D as a private entrance (a driveway to serve the existing dwelling). In light of recent discussion with Culpeper Right-of-Way staff, my comments on the ZMA, SP and SDP are that parcels 32-20D, 32-20E and 32-40 should be combined, and that the entrance on what is now TMP 32-20D must be eliminated, with access to the parking lot being across what is now TMP 32-20E and TMP 32-40 at the crossover that will be constructed with the VDOT airport road project. Should a different arrangement or settlement be reached between the applicant and VDOT Right-of-Way personnel, adjustments to plans that accommodate the parking lot entrance can be made during construction. The stormwater calculations need to be submitted to the Charlottesville Residency. Matt Grimes, EIT Transportation Plann/ng Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434.293.0011 ext 19 10/27/2003 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS ASSOCIATES AT_T_ACHMENT. L - September 12, 2003 Albemarle County Planning Commission 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Marshall Property - Airport Road Parking Lot Critical Slopes Waiver- SDP-2003-058 · WW Associates Project # 203071 Dear Commissioners: We request a Critical Slopes Wavier for the Marshall Property Airport Road Parking Lot shown on the affached plans. We understand the implementation of the comprehensive plan, and offer the following conditions in response to your concerns: 1) Rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and'rock: All slopes will be seeded and protected_ with erosion control measures in order to prevent soil erosion until full grass growth has been established in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations. 2) Excessive ~tormwater m-off: The proposed site has multiple stormwater control measures that diverts runoff into the proposed VDOT stormwater management system for S.R. 649 construction. 3) Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water: All runoff from this site is diverted into storm sewer pipes, and there are no adjoining natural or man-made bodies of water for this' site. 4) Public Drinking Water Supply: This site does not dra/n into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County. We do not believe this site would cause contamination 'to a public drinking water supply. 5) Septic System: No septic systems or drain~fields are being utilized in this project. 6) Flood Plains: This site is located in Zone C outside the 100-year flood plain area according to FEMA Map 510006 0125B dated 12/16/80. The critical slopes shown on this site plan were created from basement foundation backfill for Ce existing-house on Parcel 20D. Therefore, the critical slopes disturbance on this site i~lan is essentially regrading a previously graded area. 147 Mill Ridge Road ~ ~Lynchburg, Virginia 24502 Telephone (434) 582-6175 · Fax (434) 582-6179 We trust this information meets with your approval. regarding this request, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Project Engineer- WW Associates cc: Jo Higgins, Project Development Limited L.C. William A. Marshall, Jr. Should you have any questions _ AT_T~ACRME_N_T_ ~ 147 Mill Ridge Road * Lynchburg, Virginia 24502 Telephone (434) 582-6175 · Fax (434) 582-6179 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmerlt of' Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 1:5-11-0~P04:41 RCVD November 13, 2003 Jo Higgins 2463 Browns Gap Turnpike Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA-03-09 Marshall Property- Airport Road Parking Lot SP-03-61 Marshall Property- Airport Road Parking Lot SDP-2003-058 Marshal Property Preliminary Site Plan Tax MaP 32, Parcels 20D & 20E Dear Ms. Higgins: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 4, 2003, by a vote of 5:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: · ZMA-03-09 Marshall Property - Airport Road Parking Lot - Approved subject to.proffers. SP-03-61 Marshall Property - Airport Road Parking Lot - Approved subject to the following conditions: ]. A final site plan shall be submitted for approval which shall be'in general accord with the plan dated 9/03/03 and shall include the closure of the western entrance, the completion of the sidewalk, street shrubs, and street trees in the area of where the entrance was shown. 2. At least one sign shall be posted in the parking area that identifies the use as parking for the adjacent automobile repair center only (Tax Map 32 Parcel 40), with size and location of the sign to be determined and approved by staff. SDP-2003-058 Marshal Property Preliminary Site Plan - Approved the preliminary site plan request. including the critical slopes .and buffer waivers with the following conditions: Planning 1. The entrance to the parking lot to parcel 20D shall be closed. 2 Two (2)copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted for approval, zoning 1. Show the location of ail outdoor lighting on the plan. 2. Providea description and photograph or diagram and show the location of each type of outdoor luminaire tha~ emits~3~000 or more initiat lumens., Please be aware tha~ instalia~on.ofsuch luminaires~ in the,future that are not shown on this plan shall requi~e an amendment to-this plan. 3;. Include a photometric plan on the site plan demonstrating that parking area luminaires are in compliance with 4.17.4 b. The fina plan approval is sucject to the issuance ora certificate of AppropriateneSS fi-°~n:'the '~- Architectural Review Board. ' Once approved reference all conditions and proffers, for SP 03-061 and ZMA 03-0,1:9, respectively: Page 2 November 13, 2003 Engineering ~1. The plans provide notes stating that storm water quality and detention are to be provided by the VDOT facilities. The applicant shall provide supplemental background information verifying that this site and the corresponding ~mpervious areas were considered when the VDOT stormwater facility and downstream lines were designed. [32.5.6k] (a) The applicant needs to submit the required stormwater management calculations as stated in the applicant's response letter dated 10 September 2003. (b) The Engineering Department needs to see verification from VDOT that this site has permission to use the stormwater facilities on the VDOT property. 2. The Engineering Department recommends that the layout for the stand-alone parking include the seven parking spaces along State Route 649 not the western (2nd proposed) entrance to State Route 649. [DSM, Section 607 B] 3. Please show the locations of the corresponding traffic signs on the final site plan. Service Authority 1. Show the proposed relocation of RWSA's 12" water main as designed by PHR&A for the Airport Road Widening project. Until such time as revised plans are approved this is the expected location of the new water main. 2. RWSA approval of the retaining wall constructed over top of their existing 12" water line. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review ZMA-03-09 and SP-03-61 and receive public comment at their meeting on December 10, 2003. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerkof the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, Francis MacCall Planner FM/jcf Cc: Ella Carey / Jack Kelsey W. A. & Rachel K Marshall Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntir¢ Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 14-11-03P05:28 RCVD November 13, 2003 Dex Sanders Hamilton & Associates 400 Preston Avenue, Suite 202 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP 2003-062 Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Addition (Sign # 82) SP 2003-063 Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Pre-school Amendment (Sign #86) Tax Map 19, Parcel 17 Dear Mr. sanders: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 4, 2003, by a vote of 5:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: SP 2003-062 Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Addition: 1. The church's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Addition & Remodeling Chestnut Grove Baptist Church" revised 9-26-03. 2. The area of assembly within.the fellowship hall shall be limited to 320 seats under this special use permit, o~' the limit approved by the Health Department, whichever is less. 3. Commercial setback standards (50'- building, 20'-parking) as set forth in Section 21~7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or other Rural Area zoned properties. Construction of the church, as shown on the plan, shall commence within five years of the date of the approval of this special use permit or this special use permit shall expire. 5. The entrance onto Route 664 shall be improved to current standards for sight distance or closed except for emergency purposes. VDOT approval of the entrance on Route 664 shall be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Health Department approval of a well and septic systems shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. Conservation of the natural vegetation within 50'building setback buffer along the north property line shall be required SP 2003-063 Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Pre-school Amendment: The outside play area activities shall be limited to take place during daylight hours. Lighting of the play area shall-not be permitted. 2. Enrollment shall be limited to 50 children, or the limit approved by the Health Department, whichever is less~ 3. The hours of operation shall be limited to 9 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. The days of operation shall be limited to five days per week (Monday- Friday), unless or the limit approved by the Health Department, whichever is less. 4o The entrance onto Route 664 shall be improved to current standards for sight distance or closed except for emergency purposes. VDOT approval of the entrance on Route 664 shall be required prior to the ~ssuance of a certificate of occupancy. Page 2 November 13, 2003 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on December 10, 2003. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, Joan McDowell Principal Planner JMD/jcf ~ Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Chestnut Grove Church STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Joan D. McDowell November 4, 2003 December 10, 2003 SP 03.62 Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Addition SP 03-63 Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Pre-school Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has requested approval of two special use permits: SP 03-62 - A two-story (plus basement and connector) 12,612 square foot expansion to the existing 12,078 square foot (two floors and basement) Chestnut Grove Baptist Church on an 10.7 acre parcel. Existing Building Proposed Addition Lower lever 4,576 S.F. Lower level 534 S.F. First floor 4,750 S.F. First floor 5,892 S.F. Second floor 2,752 S.F. Second floor 5,718 S.F. Connector 648 S.F. Total 12,0')8 S .F. Total 12,612 S.F. Proposed addition interior spaces: Connector -- stairway, elevator, mechanical room, passageway Main Building -- 11 classrooms, 9 bathrooms, 3,168 S.F. fellowship hall/dining/stage, and kitchen Parking: Existing -- 70 spaces Proposed -- no additional spaces proposed Required -- 58 spaces Maximum Allowed (58 spaces + 20%) 70 spaces Church Activities: A list of activities taking place on the church site is attached for reference (Attachment D). SP 03-62, 63 1 Chestnut Grove Baptist addit and pre-school SP 03-63 The applicant has requested this special use permit to amend SP 93-24, a special use permit for a day care operation. The SP 93-24 approval limited the enrollment to 20 children or "such lesser number as may be approved by the Health Department." The approval letter, with conditions, is attached for reference (Attachment F). In a letter dated September 21, 1993, the Health Department approved a pre-school operation for three mornings per week and for no more than 16 children. SP 03-63 is a request to increase the enrollment to 50 children and 5 teachers. No other changes from the original approval conditions have been requested. Petitions: SP 03-62 - Request for special use permit to allow for an 11,964 square foot addition to an existing church in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for churches. The property, described as Tax Map 19, Parcel 17, contains 10.7 acres, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is located on Buck Mountain Road (Route 664), at the Route 664/663 intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas. SP 03-63 - Request to amend special use permit 1993-024 to allow for the increase of an existing church pre-school to 50 students and 5 teachers in accordance with Section 10.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordihance which allows for private schools. The property, described as Tax Map 19, Parcel 17, contains 10.7 acres, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is located on Buck Mountain Road (Route 664), at the Route 664/663 intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas. Character of the Area: The church property is situated at the "Y" intersection of Simmons Gap Road (Route 663) and Buck Mountain Road (Route 664). The triangular shaped property contains the church, parsonage, a picnic pavilion, as well as a basketball and a volleyball court. The property to the rear of these facilities is densely wooded. The area contains a mixture of residential dwellings, agricultural uses, and wooded areas. An aerial of the subject property and the surrounding area is attached as reference (Attachment H). SP 03-62, 63 2 Chestnut Grove Baptist addit and pre-school Planning and Zonin~ History: SP 93-24: Approval for a day care for 20 children or the number permitted by the Health Department. The Health Department limited the number of children to 16, three times a week. The hours of operation were limited to 9 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. and access to Route 663 was prohibited during school hours. Staff recommended denial of the special use permit, because the both of the existing entrances did not have adequate sight distance. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approved the application with an added condition that would require the driveway on Route 663 to be closed during school hours. SDP 99-149: Request for a Site Plan Waiver to construct 35 additional parking spaces and to relocate an existing entrance on Route 663 (Simmons Gap Road), in order to obtain better sight distance. The relocated entrance achieved 450' sight distance and 33 parking spaces were added to the east side of the church building. SDP 03-85: The applicant has submitted a preliminary site plan application for the building proposed with SP 03-62, the application under consideration. Comprehensive Plan: The site is within the Rural Areas land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan does not address churches specifically, churches have traditionally played a major role in rural areas, not only through support of its members but for the community as well. The Historic Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan does not separately list this church. However, the Department of Historic Resources has survey information on file that indicates the existing church is over 50 years old. The resource has not been evaluated by DHR for eligibility for listing in the National Register. The file notes that the building houses the oldest Baptist congregation in Albemarle County, having been organized in 1773. Although not separately listed in the Historic Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan, the existing church was constructed in 1879 and is considered a historic building. SP O3-62, 63 3 Chestnut Grove Baptist addit and pre-school The proposed addition is a very large one, particularly as compared to the historic church in size and scale. However, the large addition is located behind the historic church and it is separated from it by a connecting corridor. The siting of the addition is appropriate because it limits impacts to the fabric of the historic structure. Although detailed architectural drawings have not been submitted, the applicant has indicated that the style and materials of the addition would complement the existing building. Continuing the historic use of the property is a positive factor. The church use would not conflict with the provisions and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the zoning ordinance and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of SP 03-62 and approval of SP 03-63, subject to conditions of approval. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits _flor uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a_finding bv the Board Supervisors that such use will not be qf substantial detriment to ad/acent properS_. The additional noise generated from the numbers of people attending the fellowship hall events and from the additional children attending the pre- school is of concern. The proposed building would be separated from adjacent residential and agricultural properties on the south, east and west by Route 663 and Route 664 and the residential and agricultural property to the north is separated from the church building and its outdoor activity areas by a densely wooded area. A portion of the wooded area to the rear of the basketball and volleyball courts may need to be cleared for a new drainfield, according to the preliminary site plan under review. However, to mitigate the potential noise impact from the adjacent properties to the north, a SP 03-62, 63 4 Chestnut Grove Baptist addit and pre-school condition of approval has been offered to require that the 50' building setback area within this natural buffer remain undisturbed between the church activity areas and the adjacent properties. The 50' buffer area is shown on the concept plan (Attachment C) and that is described with the note, "50' bldg. setback line." The additional traffic .due to the increased pre-school enrollment and from those attending meetings or dinners at the fellowship hall is also a concern. This issue is discussed in gre. ater detail below under the heading "and with the public health, safety and general welfare." that the character qf the district will not be changed thereby, A church was established on this site in 1773 with the existing church constructed in 1879. Although the proposed strUcture would nearly double the size of the church building, it would be located to the rear of the existing building and separated by a connecting structure leaving the existing historic building the dominant feature of the site. The size of the sanctuary would not be increased. The proposed fellowship hall would serve as a meeting room for both community and church groups. A pre-school has been operating at this site since 1993 with an enrollment approved by the County for 20 children, but subject to the number approved by the Health Department. Subsequently, the Health Department limited the actual enrollment to 16 children. The pre-school is a mission of this church. No additional outdoor activity areas have been proposed with this application. The existing outdoor play areas are separated from residential dwellings by wooded areas or by roads. The character of the district would not be affected by the church expansion or by the additional children attending the pre-school. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent o_f this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, relation to the environment, and relation to the Comprehensive Plan as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, and has found these applications to be in harmony with these sections. SP 03-62, 63 Chestnut Grove Baptist addit and pre-school with the uses permitted by-right in the district, The church expansion and the additional children attending the pre-school would not cause negative impacts on the uses permitted by-right in the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance does not contain regulations pertaining to churChes or private schools. and with the public health, safe~_ and general welfare. Health Department. As stated earlier, the proposed fellowship hall could seat 320 people at meetings or 264 people for dining, according to the applicant. The hall would be used for both church and community events. The applicant has also requested that the enrollment for the pre-school be increased from 16 children to 50 children. However, the Feasibility Study for Drain FieM Site (Attachment G), conducted for the applicant by Gooch Engineering & Testing, has indicated that the new drainfield capacity proposed with the preliminary site plan (SDP 03-85) would be between 250 and 300 persons for the fellowship hall and that the capacity for the pre- school would be for no more than 50 children three days per week. The applicant is pursuing obtaining a Health Department permit, at this time. Conditions of approval are offered that would restrict both applications to the limitations placed by the Health Department. Traffic and Access. Using the Development Area parking requirement for churches of 3 people per vehicle as a model and the maximum number of people indicated by the Feasibility Study for Drain FieM Site (300 people), each capacity meeting event would generate 200 vehicle trips (one arriving and one leaving). The existing 175-seat sanctuary would generate 116 vehicle trips for each service on Sunday. In 2002, traffic counts indicated a range between 1,800 and 2,000 vehicle trips per day for this area. VDOT has determined that the entrance onto Route 664 must be improved to current standards for sight distance or closed. Gated access for emergency purposes will be considered by VDOT staff. SP 03-62, 63 6 Chestnut Grove Baptist addit and pre:school VDOT staffmet on site with the applicants on October 14, 2003, and he observed that the entrance can be shifted to mitigate VDOT's safety concerns. This would require a sight distance easement across an adjacent landowner. This individual is a congregant and is willing to give the easement. At this meeting, the applicant requested a speed study to determine the exact distance that the entrance needs to be moved and the dimensions of the sight distance easement. The speed study is due to be conducted around the first week in November. Based on the study, VDOT will know the specifics of the entrance modifications and sight distance easement. The County Engineering Department provided the following comment regarding the entrance on Route 664: The existing western entrance off State Route 664 does not appear to have the minimum required sight distance. VDOT review and approval of this entrance is required. The sight distance issue was raised in 1993 when the applicant requested a day care for 20 children. The Board approved a condition that would require the driveway on Route 663 to be closed during school hours. That driveway was improved in 1999 by the applicant. The sight distance problem on Route 664 has never been corrected. This application to significantly increase the vehicles using the entrance would intensify an existing safety problem. Therefore, a condition of approval has been offered that would require VDOT approval of the entrance on Route 664 prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Parking. Parking spaces have been calculated using the fixed seating within the sanctuary. The sanctuary contains 175 seats. The requirement for parking spaces for 175 seats is 58 spaces; a 20% increase (70 spaces) in the required spaces would be allowed, according to the Zoning Department. The applicant has indicated that they have met the Zoning Department parking requirement, as they have 70 existing parking spaces. Although the maximum number of parking spaces allowed has been met, the applicant responded to staff's concern regarding the number of potential vehicles for fellowship hall events by providing a sketch showing areas on the property for an additional 34 parking spaces where congregates traditionally have parked for large events or sermces. These unpaved areas for overflow parking are not uncommon for rural area churches and they SP O3-62, 63 7 Chestnut Grove Baptist addit and pre-school would provide additional parking spaces that may be needed 'for large events (Attachment I). SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to these applications: 1. The continuation of a historic church use on this property. The impact to the existing historic structure would be mitigated by the expansion siting and method of connecting the proposed expansion and the existing structure by a corridor. 2. The building expansion would not dominate the existing church, as it would be located to the rear of the existing historic structure. 3. The proposed fellowship hall and pre-school would provide services to rural area citizens. Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application: 1. The proposed uses would create additional traffic on rural roads. 2. The entrance onto Route 664 does not have adequate sight distance. 3. The proposed fellowship hall could increase traffic significantly in the area. 4. The proposed increase in the pre-school enrollment would increase traffic during the time the children arrive and depart. 5. The noise and traffic could cause negative impacts on the area. WAIVER: The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 31.2.4.4 to be allowed five years from the date of the approval of this special use permit to commence construction. Staff has no objections to this request. Condition 4 under SP 03-62 would permit the requested time extension for this special use permit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. SP 03-62, Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Addition: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 03- 62, Chestnut Grove Baptist Church addition, subject to the following conditions: SP 03-62, 63 8 Chestnut Grove Baptist addit and pre-school 1. The church's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Addition & Remodeling Chestnut Grove Baptist Church" revised 9-26-03. 2. The area of assembly within the fellowship hall shall be limited to 320 seats under this special use permit, or the limit approved by the Health Department, whichever is less. 3. Commercial setback standards (50'- building, 20'-parking) as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or other Rural Area zoned properties. 4. Construction of the church, as shown on the plan, shall commence within five years of the date of the approval of this special use permit or this special use permit shall expire. 5. The entrance onto Route 664 shall be improved to current standards for sight distance or closed except for emergency purposes. VDOT approval of the entrance on Route 664 shall be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Health Department approval of a well and septic systems shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. Conservation of the natural vegetation within 50 'building setback buffer along the north property line shall be required. II. SP 03-63, Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Pre-school:: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 03- 63, Chestnut Grove Baptist Church pre-school, subject to the following conditions: 1. The outside play area activities shall be limited to take place during daylight hours. Lighting of the play area shall not be permitted. 2. Enrollment shall be limited to 50 children, or the limit approved by the Health Department, whichever is less. 3. The hours of operation shall be limited to 9 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. The days of operation shall be limited to five days per week (Monday- Friday), unless or the limit approved by the Health Department, whichever is less. 4. The entrance onto Route 664 shall be improved to current standards for sight distance or closed except for emergency purposes. VDOT approval of the entrance on Route 664 shall be required prior to the issuance of a certificate' of occupancy. SP 03-62, 63 9 Chestnut Grove Baptist addit and pre-school Attachments: A B C D E F G H I SP 03-62 Application SP 03-63 Application Concept Plan entitled, "Addition & Remodeling Chestnut Grove Baptist Church" dated 9-26-03 revised Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Typical Week (7/03) Location Maps (2) SP 93-24 approval letter, dated September 24, 1993 Feasibility Study for Drain Field Site, Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Addition, prepared by Gooch Engineering &Testing, Inc., dated August 25, 2003, Aerial map of the subject site and surrounding area Sketch of overflow parking areas SP 03-62, 63 10 Chestnut Grove Baptist addit and pre-school Application for Special Use Permit 1-'7 Please Se~ the List at fl~e bottom of page'4 for the Appropriate Fee p~ject N~me (ho~ ~ho~ld w~ refer to th~ ~pplJ~l~): ~ ' Zo,ing District: ~ Zonbg Ordinance S~tion numar requited; ~' lO' Z,i' '~ /~ Address Daytime Does ~¢ ow~r or--ii p~pcrty own (or have ~ o~enhip ~nm~e~ in) ~y abu~ing ~o~7 If yes, please 1i~ ~ t~ map ~d p~cel ~ Z~s ~ ProtOn: Coun~ o~ Albemarle Depa~me~t of Building Code & Zoning Se~ices 401 M~uti~ Road Chsrloff~e, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 29~5~2 ~ax: (434) 972-4~6 12/1/02 Pag= 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of superv~rs hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue a.ll special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use lX'nnirs for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors th~ such use will not be of substamtial detriment to adjacent property, that ~¢ character of the district will n~ be changed thereby and that such use will be in tmrmony with the purpose and intent of this ordiv.~nce, with the uses permitted by right in the district, wilh additional regulations provided in section 50 or,his ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare." The items that follow will be reviewed by the st~f in their analysis of your request. Please ccrr, plete this form and provide additional information which vfill assist the County in its review of you req~. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? ~ow will ~e proposed speci~ ase ~ect the chm~ter of~e disPel(s) s~o~d~g ~e prope~? How is ~ ~ in h~ony ~ ~ p~s~ ~4 in}en~ of~e.Zo~in~ce7 What Mditioml reg~a~o~s promded ~ Section 5.0 of~e Zo~ng Ord~ce apply to ~is use~ Hqw wil,l thJ~ us~,promot~ ~e pu, bliq health, safety, and general wel(~e ot~ the commry~ry? ^/-- . . j- -j - , · . I __ , 12 Describeyour request in detail and include all pertinent informa~tior~ sutch the u~e, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: ~ ATTACItMENTS REQUIRED - provide two (2) copies of each vii. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no ---'~recorded plat or botmdary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a rezoning for a portion of the property, iT needs to be de.~cribed or delineation on a copy of the plat or ,urveyed drawing. ~o ~a/6wnership information - Il'ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or rganization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If thc applicant is the agent of thc owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the ag~cy. El 4, Additional Information, if any. Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that I own ~e subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also ce~fy that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true, and correct to the Mst of my knowledge. Sign&tuf(of Owner, Contract Purchaser, Agent Prim Name Date 540.8 Zq-2 ?a> Daytime phone number of Signatory 12/t/02 Page 3 of 4 13 FEES Rata] are~ division for the purpose of "family division" where ~l orii~ 1~80 d~e]cpme~t dgh~ have ~ ~a~ted ~der "f~i~ division', ~ defm~ ~ section 1 ~I06 (15) of ~e ~vision ord~ce = 5220 Ru~ ~ea div~ions = $1,240 Comme~ use ~ ~980 h~st~ ~ = S1,020 · p~v~e =lub/recr~fion~ f~ili~ = $1,020 Mobile home p~k or subdi~sion = $9~0 ~b~c u~lifi{~ = $1,020 ~ in ~e ~d plain - Mi~r ~¢n~em ~ v{lid ~i~ use ~R or a ~peci~ ~e pe~it m ~low minor exp~sJon ora non-confo~g use = $110 E~ding sp~i{{ use p~ - $70 Home O~upadon-Cl~s B - $440 For &y care c~ters - six (6) m n~¢ (9) chil~ m $490 For d~y care c~{e~ - I~ (10) or more chil~¢n = $980 All o~er uses except si~s = $980 12ll/02 Page 4 of 4 4B 10 20 :.:JLTJP4_ & FC,'?,EST~,L D s'rr~CT 47~ \ 31 WHITE HALL AND RIO DISTRICTS / ,"',o/ i 29C 20 SECTION 19 ~ · OFFICE U 0 .o0.01-'7oo Application for Special Use Permit Please See the List at the bottom of page 4 for the Appropriate Fee 0iaffwill assist you with thi~ item) ('staffwi~l assist you with this Numar ofacr~ to be covered by Special Use Permit (if Is this an amen~ent to aa e~s6ng Special Use Permit? ~S ~ NO Are you submi~n~ a prellmina~ site plan with this applica~on? ~ YES ~O Address City State _. . Zip __ Daytime Phone L_.--_) Fax # E-mail Location of property (landmarks, ~n,¢tsecfions, or other): ~ (~ '~ Does ~h¢ owner of this prolxrty own (or have any ownership lnttre~ i~) say abutting property? If yea, please li~t those tax map and parcel ~umbcrs OFFICli US ~ -~ ..... ~' ~ ' Corem r~icw 0f Site Development PI~? ~ ~5 ~ NO Coun~ of Albemarle Depa~ment of Building Code & Zoning 401 MeIntire Road Charlotlesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 29~5~2 gax: (434) 972-4~6 12/1/02 Page I of 4 ATTACHMENT B Section 31~2.4..I of thc Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserecs unto ils~lftho right to issue all special usc permks permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may b~ issaed upon a finding by the board of supcrvisors that such ~c will not b~ of substantial dctriment to adjacent property, that thc charactcr of thc district will not bc changed thereby and that such usc will bc in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with thc uses permitted: by right in thc district, with additional regulations provided in section $.0 of this Ordinance, and with thc public health, safety and general welfare." Tho itsms that follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Plea.so complete this form and provide additional information which will a~sist the County in its review of you request If you need assi~anct filling out'thcs~ items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? proposed special usc at, cc, adj~ent properPff? ~i~. "~ How will the ' ' - ; , ' ' How t~,ill th'e propos~ifspeciitl use affect the character of the district(s) surrounding th~ property? · - - . How is ~e ~e in h~ony ~ ae p~o~ ~ intenI of~e Zoning 9rdi~c=? , tto,~ is the use in harmony with the uses permiu~d by fight in the district? .:, ..... What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning OrdNance apply to this use? How, will this u~e pr~mot~ the pu]~lic health, s~ep/, and general welfare~of the community?.. 12/1/02 l~ag¢ 2 of 4 Describe your request in detail and include all p~rtincnt information such as the number of persons involved in thc usc, operating hours, and any unique features of the uae: ATTACITMENTS REQUIRED - provide two (2) copies of each ~ 1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the properly and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: ffyou are requesting a rezoning for a portion of thc property, it needs to he described or delineation on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. _.)' 2. Ownership information -If ownership of the property is in the name of any type legal entity or of organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name ora trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a documer~t acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope ofthe agency. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Ci 4, Additional Information, if any. Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify ~at I own the subj eot property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided on fltis application and accompanying information is accurate, true, and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Owner, Con~zact Purchaser, Agent Print Name Date Daytime phone number of Signatory 12/I/02 Page 3 of 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Ptannin~ & Communily D~v~lopmenl 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596 (8O4) 296-5823 Sept:ember 24, 1993 Demmie C. Maine 455 Mallard Lake Drive Earlysville, VA 22936 SP-93-24 Demmie Maine (applicant), Chestnut Grove Baptist Church (owner) Dear Ms. Maine: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on September 15, 1993, approved the above-noted request to operate a day care for up to twenty (20) children in the existing Chestnut Grove Baptist Church.. Please note that this approval is subject to ~he following conditions. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance: No use shall operate without required licenses. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of any required licenses (or proof of exemption from licensure) and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to promptlY admit the Fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance wit~ t~e provisions of this ordinance; and These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of' the Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state or federal agency. Demmie Maine Page 2 September 24, 1993 Maximum enrollment shall not exceed twenty (20) students or such lesser number as may be approved by the Health Department. 3. Hours of operation limited to 9:00 a~m. tQ 12:30 p.m.; Prohibition of access to Route 663 during school hours. Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning Department will 'issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further information, Dlease call Babette Thorpe at 296-5975. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above- note~ action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, " cc: Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Development / / ./ ~-. ~.~.I3 U . ~ WHITE ~LL AND ~10 DISTRICTS 29G2 Z6 SEGTION 19 2O 21 / I I / / / /- \ \ \ I I / / I pLAYGR(~J~,D \ \ ~, I' +731 I \ I \ \ \ ~lTR DATA T/O( MAP - 19 PARCEL 17 SITE AREA - 8 ACRES APPROX. REVISIONS DRA~] ......................... DAS ~ECKED SITE PLAN Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Typical Week (-//o~) Sunday Morning Average Attendance 200*~ 8:45am Worship Service 10:00am Sunday School 1 l:00am Worship Service **Because of 2 worship services, the maximum number of people here at one time is 150 Sunday Evening 6:30pm 6:30pm 6:30pm Youth Group Children's Activities Music Group Practice Average Attendance 70 Monday Night 5:30pm (during school year only) Handbell Practice Average Attendance 25 Wednesday Night 5:30pm 6:30pm 7:30pm (during school year only) Catered Meal Bible Studies & Children's choir Adult Choir (all year long) Average Attendance 80 Preschool (September - May only) 9:00am- 12:20 Tuesday, Thursday, & Friday Average Attendance 22 (includes teachers) During the 2002-2003 school year, we also had three scout troops that used our fellowship hall. Each group met twice during the month with an average attendance of 10-12~ Our picnic shelter is used of'ten during the summer and fall months by church members for family-reunions and by local civic groups for cookouts and gatherings. We have about 3 church-wide events on the grounds to celebrate Homecoming and other events in the life of the church. They are usually held at our picnic shelter and if a meal is involved, it is covered dish. Attendance can range from 75 - 200. Community Service: We participate in the adopt-a-highway program. We make our facilities available for scouts and other civic groups free of charge We have monthly mission collections for local food banks, day care centers, and social agencies. Various groups are also involved in many mission activities throughout the year. ATTACHMENT D ~1-.0 >m I-- LLI 'r' 0 ATTACHMENT E COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. or' Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntlre Road Charlottesville, Viralnia 22902.4596 (80~) 296-5823 Septeaber 24, 1993 Demmie C. Maine 455 Mallard Lake Drive Earlysville, VA 22936 RE: SP-93-24 Demmie Maine (applicant), Chestnut Grove Baptist Church (owner) Dear Ms. Maine: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on September 15, 1993, approved the above-noted request to operate a day care for up to twenty (20) children in the existing Chestnut Grove Baptist Church.. Please note that this approval is subject tO the following conditions. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance: No u~e ~hall operate without recuired !icense~. !~ shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of any required licenses (or proof of exemption from licensure) and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of Such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the Fire official for ~uch inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance wit~ the provisions of this ordinance; and These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state or federal agency. ATTACHMENT F Demmie Maine Page 2 september 24, 1993 Maximum enrollment shall not exceed twenty (20) students or such lesser number as may be approved by the Health Department. 3. Hours of operation limited to 9:00 a,m. to 12:30 p.m.; ~. Prohibition of access to Route 663 during school hours. Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning D~partment will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further information, please call Babette Thorpe at 296-5975. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above- noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, " cc: Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Chestnut Grove Baptist Church 9.7 Dex A, Sanders Architect 16102 Raccoon Ford Rd. Culpcpor, VA 22701 t 540.829.25D0 t ,540.829.259 ] proiecf name: proiect ff' RE: attention: TRANSMffl'A1 10/1410.3 Chestnut Grove Baptist Church - Addition 0220 Bill Craun - Health Deparfrnent Joan McDowell - Albemarle Planning via. oxigress moil rnessertger j fax toro pages r~sort as requested roi' Opprovol in formation ~ignatutc. comments j no e~ceplfons Joken ~i~ct~j copies: (1] J comments: Feasibility Study for Drain Field Site JGooch has located a drain field site w/100% backup reserve tar 12,,OOgpd. This site is indicated on the preJiminaw site development plan submitted to the County yesterday. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions or need additional information_ ;Dex A. Sanders. AIA ATTACHMENT G Oct 14 03 11:40~ Dex R Sanders Rrchiseos 540-829-8591 p.2 John E Gooch, Phone (434) 293-7449 ~ ~:h. Gooch, C. P G./A. O.S.E. ting. Inc_ (434) 293-5137 1821 Broadway Stre:et Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 wwmgooch-eng, com August 25, 2003 Ch es tnut Grove Baptist Church c/o Kem~y Williams 4801 Jacobs Run Earlysville. Virginia 22936 Re: Feasibility Study for Drain Fl:Id Sit, Education rind Fellowship Hall Building Chestnut Grove Baptist Chumh Albemarle Comity Dear Mr. Williams: As requested we have completed a soils study at the referenced site. The purpose of the study was to determine the suitability of the soils ibr the disposal of sewage by means of a septic tank drainfield system. The i~vestigation has consisted of drilling a series of tlxirtee~ (13) hand auger test holes to determine soil profiles in a potential drain field area west of the existing basketball court. A log of each test hole is shown t>n thc individual enclosed sell profile sheets. The ~:es'~ holes have been marked with pink wire flags and orm~ge ribbon. The approximate location oI: the drain field site is shown on the enclosed topographic map of the property. Also enclosed is a soil in'tbmaation smnmary sheet containing information pertinent to the design of the proposed drain field, W.c understand that the fellowship hall will have a seating capacity el: 250-3(10 and float a pre-school will use the building at le~rst three (3) clays a week~ Wc also tmderstand ti'mt the em:olmenl R~r thc prc-~chool will noI exceed 50 clxildrc~. Based on our investigation., we offer thc following comments regarding a potential d rain field site for tlxe proposed Educational m~d Fellowship Hall Building: 1) Area investigated in approximately 150 it. by t50 ft. This area wilt support at leas't 15 lines 75 if, ]ox~g (primary drain f~eld) wi~h ~ 100% reserve area. 2) Using an estimated percolation rate of 55 minutes/hmb at a depth of 54 incttes below the existing ground suri'ace, ~he l)rimary drain i'i~ld w',uld be capable of dispersh~g approximately 1200 gallons per day. Ocs 1~ 03 ll:40a Oex R Sanders Rrchitect 540-B2S-2591 p.3 Our opinion is based on soil and topographic conditions as obsel~ed on August 19, 2003. The contents of this report reflect our opinion as to the suitability of the soils in the area investigated to support a septic tank/drainfield system under the current Health Department regulations. Final approvai and design of the drain field rests with the Charlottesville-Albemarle Healtl~ Department. We hope this is the information you need. if you have m'ty questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Gooch Engineering and Testing, Inc. S ~eve Gooch Encl. Oct 14 03 iI:40a Dex R Sanders Rrchitect 540-829-259! Soil Profile Proposed Drain Field Area Education emd Fellowship Hall Bldg. Chestnut (}rove Baptist Church Albemarle Coutny Hole 4 Depth (in.) 0-3 3~10 10-34 34-53 53-84 0-3 3-9 9-34 34-49 49-66 66-84 0-3 3-11 11-40 4.O-6O 60-84 0-3 3-8 8-48 48-66 66-84 0-4 4-11 11-37 37-84 IIofizon A BE Bt Bt2 C A BE Bt BC CI C2 A Bt BC C A BE Bt BC C A BE Bt BC Material Description Dark gray (10YR 4/1) loam Reddish brown (tYR 5/4) clay loam Rod (10R 4/6) silty clay loam Red (2.5YR 5/8) clay loam Yellowish red (tYR 5/8) sandy loam Soil Texture Group Dark gray (10YR 4/1 ) loam Reddish broxam (tYt~ 5/4) clay h~m Red (10R 4/6) silty clay loam Red (2.tYR 5/8) clay loman and yellowish red (tYR 5/8) sandy loam Yellowish red (tYR 5/8) sturdy loam Light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4) loamy sand 2 3 3/2 2 1 Dark gray (10YR 4/1) loam Reddish bro~m~ (5YR 5/4) clay lo'-max Red (10R 4/6) silty clay lmm.~ Red (2,tYR 5/8) clay lomx~ ~-md yellowish red (tYR 5/8) sandy loam Reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/8) sandy loam 2 3 3/2 Dark gray (I 0YR 4/1) loam Reddish brown (tYR 5/4) clay loam Red (1 OR 4/6) silty clay loam Red (2,5YR. 5/8) clay Iomn and yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sturdy Iom~ Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy loam 2 3 3 3/2 2 Dark gray (10YR 4/1) lnmn Reddish brown (5YR 5/4) clay loam Red (1 OR 4/6) silty clay loam Red (2.5YR 5/8) clay loarr, and dark ycllowiah brow,, (I 0YR 4/6) sandy loam 2 3 3 3/2 Oc~ 14 03 ll:40m Oex R Sanderm Rrohi~eo~ 540-889-8591 6 10 12 13 0-3 3-11 11-54, 54-84 0-4 4-10 10-48 48-84 0-4 4-10 i0-36 36-84 0-4 4.-10 10~44 44-84 0-3 3~10 I O-46 46-66 66-84 0-3 310 10-50 50-67 67-84 0-2 2~7 7-84 0-3 3-9 9-30 30-63 63 ~84 A BE Bt2 A BE Bt C A BE Bt Bt2 A BE Bt BC A BE Bt C1 C2 A BE Bt C. 1 A BE Bt A BE Bt C1 C2 Dark gray (10YR 4/1) loam Reddish brown (5YR 5/4) clay loam Red (1 OR 4/6) Mliy clay loam Red (2.SYR 5/8) clay loam D~k gray (10YR 4/1) loam Reddisk brown (SYR 5/4) clay loam lied (10P,. 4/fi) silty clay loam Yellowish red (SYR 5/8) sandy loam Dark gray (10YK 4/1) loam Reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/8) clay loam Red (10R. 4/6) silty clay loam Red (2.5YR 5/8) clay loam Dark gray (10YR ~1/1 ) loam Brown (10YR 5/3) clay loam Red (2.SYR 4/6) silty, clay loam Red (Z5YR 5/8) clay lo,mx and yellowish red (SYlt 5/8) sturdy loam Dark gray (10YR 4/1) lomrt Reddish brown (SYR 5/4) clay loam Red (2.SYR 4/6) silty clay loam Yellowish red (SYR 5/8) sandy loam Yellowish brown (IOYR 5/8) loamy sm~d 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3/2 2 3 Dark gray (10YR 4/1) loam 2 Reddish brown (SYR 5/4) clay loam 3 Red (2.5YR 4/6) silty clay loam 3 Yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sandy loam 2 Light olive brovn~ (2.5Y 5/6) loam, 10% d~eply weathered 2 schist Dark gray (10YR 4/1) loam Reddish brown (5YR 5/4) clay loam Red (10R 4/6) silty clay loam Dark gray (10YR 4/1) loam Brown (10YR 5/3) clay loam Red (2.5YR 4/6) silty clay loam Yellawish red (5YR 5/8) sandy lomn Yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) loamy sand 2 3 3 2 1 Oc~ 14 03 ll:41a 5~0-829-~5~i Soil Infomlation Summary Proposed []rain Field At'ca Education mid Fellowship Hall Bldg. Chestmlt C-xov¢ Baptist Church Albemarle Comity 1) Position on slope intb~:mation - Position satisfactory, side slope 2) Slope 3) Depfla to rock/impervious strata- 84 h~ches+ 4) Depth to seasonal water table - 84 inches+ 5) Free water present - No 6) Soil percolation rate estimated- 55 (-¢ 54" .'t.'3 / / / t.716 1 14 \ \ \\ 1 1 718 ]]ex I=l 1 / / / I tDENSEI.Y i WOODED 1 172.2 1 S~ndep$ 8pchi~ec~ ! / ! 540-829-2591 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / 1 I I I I P.7 72,4 \ \ \ \ \ I \ 72,5~ \ \ \ \ DENSELY WOODED 0¢~ 14 03 11~41a 731 .?'::: .r' '., ~'731 .','~;ff ~" rh4E R Sanders I_~ - ~_~ HICk'OEY I ';~, '(:.'M PAVtLLION REI OCATED ,.,,,, .)T~.tFRS .- +/3 ~ B" RED ()AK -. W~LL:' NE.W FDU ATTACHMENT H PAVILION / NEW EDL HVA J / \ ~ EXISTING CHURCH MAPLE 2 STORY / WELLo \ / x \ / I / \' \ ~ / ) ~. .~ / (37 SrACESt lg' WHI~E OAK / ...... .~" WHr~ OA~ ~, 3~' H~CKO~r ~ ~X:~ 1B WH.E OAK ~18" HICKORY ~ ~ ~1~ ,/ ~ ~ ~ RED OAK POW ER I ~ / :~ ~' .~, POLE Ia, ROCK ~/LOCUST SAPPLIN~ ~"~ 4" PINE I / I 'x \ X \ x, \ \ \ \ -\ '1 \ \ ,,, \ o RAS~, I I / / / / / / / t / / / I~" OAK 'x '-- X x, X \\ \ \ \ \ X \ X 18" OAK / / / / 1 LOC UST 7OO \_\ \\' ,,\\\ ,,, \ \ \ ! EXISTI TREI 24" Ot / COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 November 13, 2003 Getty Rothenberg 5709 Broomley Lane Richmond, VA 23236 RE: SP-2003-065 Frances Jacob, LLC - Tennis Building (Sign #8, 15) SDP-03-077 Francis Jacob - Tennis Building Site Plan Waiver Tax Map 99, Parcel 108B Dear Mr. Rothenberg: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 4, 2003, by a vote of 5:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: SP-2003-065 Frances Jacob, LLC - Tennis Building: 1. The site plan shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "Proposed Private Tennis Building for Boyd Tinsley," revised October 17 2003, and prepared by Melvin R. Taylor. 2. This facility shall be used only by the property owners and their guests, and shall not be used as a commercial tennis facility or private tennis club. 3. The applicants shall secure a permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation before beginning any work in the right-of-way. 4. The applicant shall secure Engineering Department approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Stormwater Management Plan before receiving a grading permit for this use. SDP-03-077 Francis Jacob - Tennis Building Site Plan Waiver - Approved the request for a waiver of Section 32 which requires the drawing of a site plan to create a new entrance onto an existing public road. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review SP-2003-065 and receive public comment at their meeting on December 10, 2003. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Planner SC/jcl Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Frances Jacob, LLC Staff Contact: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Scott Clark November 4, 2003 December 10, 2003 SP 03-065 Frances Jacob Tennis Building SDP 03--077 Private Tennis Building for France Jacob LLC (Site Plan Waiver) APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL Request for special use permit to allow a private tennis building in accordance with Section 10.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facihties. This would normally be an accessory use to a private dwelling and would not require a special use permit. However, since it is not located on the same parcel as the owner's dwelling, a special use permit is required. The applicants are also requesting a waiver of the site plan requirement for this use. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The property, described as Tax Map 99 Parcel 108B, contains 7.265 acres, and is zoned RA Rural Areas. The proposal is located on Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631), approximately 400 feet north of the intersection of Route 631 and Route 712 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3. HISTORY In 2000, a preliminary plat was submitted to divide this parcel into 3 lots. Another preliminary plat request was submitted in 2002, but not completed. No final plats have been submitted or approved. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property is zoned RA Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQEST This is a private recreational facility. The applicant states that it will not be used for commercial purposes, and that only the property owner and his guests will use the facility. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of SP 03-065 with conditions. Staff recommends approval of the site plan waiver request. STAFF COMMENT (Special Use Permit) Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: 1 The Board of Supervisorshereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, This use will be contained within a building and would meet required setbacks. No significant impacts on neighboring properties are expected. A condition recommended below would ensure that this would remain a non-commercial use. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, This use is in character with other residential and private recreational uses found in the Rural Areas. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The design of this site is intended to maintain the character of the area and avoid reductions in public safety. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use would typically be permitted by right as an accessory use to a dwelling. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance, The supplemental regulations in Section 5.0 relate to commercial and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The applicants have revised their plan to improve Sight distance at their driveway in accord with VDOT's request. A condition recommended below would ensure that an appropriate entrance would be built. STAFF COMMENT (Site Plan Waiver) Reason For Planning Commission Review Pursuant to Section 32.2.2, only the commission may waive the drawing of a site plan. However, staff normally places these items on the commission's consent agenda. In this case, the waiver request accompanies a special use permit on the same agenda. Section 32, Site Plan Pursuant to Section 32.2.2, the commission may waive the drawing of a site plan in a particular case upon a finding that the requirement of such plan would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest. The Site Review Committee reviewed the submittal materials and recommends approval of the waiver request. The only issues that would need to be addressed in a site plan for this small--scale use would be creation of a new entrance, and appropriate control of erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater. The condition on the special use permit for a VDOT entrance permit will ensure that an appropriate entrance is created. The applicants 2 will be required to address erosion and stormwater issues in their erosion and sedimentation plan and stormwater management plan before beginning construction. Therefore, staff finds that the drawing of a site plan, in this case, would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest. SUMMARY This is a small-scale use that would typically be allowed by right if located on the same parcel as a dwelling. Approval of this special use permit is not expected to create impacts beyond those created by a similar by-right use. The only site-plan issues of interest in this case--the new entrance and runoff issues--will be covered by the VDOT entrance permit and the required Erosion and Sedimentation Plan and Stormwater Management Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the site plan waiver request. Staff also recommends approval of SP 03-065 with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "Proposed Private Tennis Building for Boyd Tinsley," revised October 17, 2003, and prepared by Melvin R. Taylor. 2. This facility shall be used only by the property owners and their guests, and shall not be used as a commercial tennis facility or private tennis club. 3. The applicants shall secure a permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation before beginning any work in the right of way. 4. The applicant shall secure Engineering Department approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Stormwater Management Plan before receiv/ng a grading permit for this use. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Site Map C. Conceptual Plan for SP 03-065 3 0 5 / / / / COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmerlt of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road. Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 19-11-03P05:24 RCVD November 13, 2003 M. E. Gibson Trembley & Smith, LLP P. O. Box 1585 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP 2003-066 Canody (AIItel) (Sign #38); Tax Map 89, Parcel 4 Dear Mr. Gibson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 4, 2003, by a vote of 5:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The facility shalt be deSigned, constructed and maintained as follows: With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the construction plans entitled, "Alltel - · Moore's Creek Site", last revised October 20, 2003 and provided herein, with Attachment A. The calculation of pole height shall )nclude any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed four (4) feet above the tod of 20-inch diameter Poplar tree identified as number 195 on Sheet C6 of the construction plans. In no case shall the pole exceed 90 feet in total height at the time of installation without pdor approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit. The monopole shall be painted a natural brown that is consistent with the color of the trees surrounding the site. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application plans. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch in diameter,and twelve (12) inches in height, shall'be located above the top of the pole. No guy w~res shall be permitted. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest Page 2 November 13, 2003 11. part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area Shall not be permitted. Prior to the issuance, of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met: 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground equipment shall be included in the construction plan package. The applicant shall provide written comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation confirming that there are no safety concerns with the proposed monopole's location in relationship to the right-of-way. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on tr~e site ~ both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad on its property except for those trees subject to existing recorded easements. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The tree conservation plan required by condition 13 shall include special consideration for the preserving the health of the 20oinch, 98-foot tall tree identified as number 187 on page C6 of the constructions plans to its current state of health. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation the following shall be met: 18. 19. 20. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Certification confirming that the grounding rod: a) height does not exceed two feet above the tower; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls; revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met: 21. 22. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July I of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider. Al equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be dlscon[;nued. '"Fie enure mommy sna~ oe o~sassef..~uied and .removed TrorT~ ~.ne 3~,:e '..Vt[i~h'~ ..qlne[v Page 3 November 13, 2003 (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. PleaSe-be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on December '10, 2003. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, Stephen Waller Senior Planner sw/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse John & Anita Canody Church Hill Development Company, LLC STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN B. WALLER, AICP NOVEMBER 4, 2003 DECEMBER 10, 2003 SP 03-066 CANODY (ALLTEL) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility, which would include a steel monopole, approximately 90 feet in total height, and with a top elevation that is approximately 753.5 feet Above Mean Sea Level (Attachment A). This Would result in a monopole with a top height that is actually 5.5 feet lower in elevation AMSL than the 98-foot tall tree, identified as number 187; 4 feet higher than the tree identified as number 195; and, 3.5 feet higher than the tree identified as number 191. The monopole would be equipped with one array of three 7.9-foot long by 8. i-inch wide, flush-mounted panel antennas at its top and supporting ground equipment would be contained within two 5.5-foot tail by 4.5-foot wide cabinets (Attachment B). The proposed site for the facility is a 1200 square-foot lease area located on property, described as Tax Map 89 - Parcel 4, containing 6.363. This parcel is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the east side Monacan Trail Road [U.S Route 29 South], approximately 1 mile south of the 1-64 overpass (Attachment C). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District and designated as Rural Area 3 by the Comprehensive Plan. Petition: The applicant, Alltel Communication, is currently in the process of expanding its services along the southern corridor of U.S. Route 29 in Albemarle County. This request is for a special use permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service facility in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers and their appurtenances in the Rural Areas, by special use permit. Planning and Zoning History: Staff has recognized no existing Planning or Zoning history items that are relevant to this request. Character of the Area: This site of this proposed facility is located nearly 1 mile south of Interstate Route 64 between the northbound lane of Route 29 and the Norfolk Southern Railroad. The site is accessed fi:om an existing driveway road that serves the existing dwelling on the property. The nearest dwelling to this site that is not located on the subject property is approximately feet south of the of the proposed facility site. Although all of the nearby properties are zoned Rural Areas, staff recognizes that various uses are located within the nearby area, including a church and nursery that are on adjacent parcels and a country store and insulation manufacturer within a mile to the north and south respectively. The site is located in a level wooded area that contains trees of varying heights and species (several of which are mapped on page 6 the construction plans), and extends across the boundary line that is shared with the right-of-way for U.S. Route 29. There are several trees that have similar heights to that of the proposed monopole within 25 feet of the facility. This includes a 98-foot tall tree, which would assist in providing additional camouflaging of the shorter monopole. During a field visit, staff observed that the two balloons floated at the height of the proposed monopole were only Visible for a short distance after passing the site while travelhng south on Route 29, and looking upward. On the other hand, because of the lease area is at a higher elevation than the road and there is a line of relatively tall trees between the site and the road, the balloons could not be located at all while travelling in the northbound lane. While observing the test from a static point on a property located on the opposite side of Route 29, the balloons appeared to extend slightly above the treetops, leading to the conclusion that the tallest portion of the monopole would be "skylighted" from at least one angle. In order to address this issue the apphcant's representatives moved the balloons approximately six (6) feet north of the originally surveyed site, taking advantage of the backdrop provided by the tallest tree near the site. When this was done, the balloon appeared to situated in such a manner that both Architectural Review and Planning staff could support, because the monopole would now blend more with its natural surroundings. Staff notes that the revised construction plans included in this staff report reflect the newly surveyed location for the monopole after the balloons were moved, and the test photos also show the before and after balloon locations (Attachment D). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposed facility would take access from a short extension off of the driveway serving the house on the subject parcel and the applicant is proposing to gravel the area within the lease site that surrounds the monopole and ground equipment. Therefore, staff has taken consideration for the clearing and disturbance, as well as the resulting visual impact ofmonopole and ground equipment in their respective locations within site in reviewing this request for comphance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy is the component of the Comprehensive Plan that provides specific guidelines for the siting and review of wireless facilities. Both the Open Space Plan and Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provide staff with guidance for managing the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and for the preservation and conservation of those resources in order to protect the environment for future use. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy: The guidelines set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy are focused largely on reducing the visual impacts of wireless facilities from surrounding properties and roadways. The Wireless Policy recommends the implementation of a three-tiered approval system to address criteria related to the siting and design of new facilities. The first tier sets a preference for the development of "stealth" facilities that can either be completely concealed within existing structures, or attached to existing conforming structures. Tier Two calls for sites that can designed to blend in with the natural surroundings in a manner that mitigates their visual impacts. This proposal qualifies as a Tier Two facility. The standard conditions of approval for Tier Two wireless facilities require the use of brown, treetop monopoles that are no more than 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, and related ground equipment that is painted brown. When existing structures are not available, the recommendations set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy favor the practice of locating new facilities in forested areas where monopoles and ground equipment can be designed to blend in with the natural surroundings. This includes the preference for using structures that are no taller than the natural tree canopy so that they are not "skylighted" against the horizon so as to alter ridgelines. As a result of the hmited amount of disturbance that would be necessary for the installation of this facility, it is staff's opinion that approval of this proposal would not greatly impact the naturally forested state of the subject parcel, or any of the neighboring properties within the area. Additionally, the applicant has already followed through on the standard condition of approval for wireless facilities requiring the establishment of a tree conservation plan by a certified arborist, which has been submitted prior to approval of the special use permit. Open Space Plan and Chapter 2: Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provides guidance for protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and sets the goals for preservation and management of those resources and the environment for future use. The Open Space Plan Concept Map provides an inventory that assists with identifying the areas where critical resources are present throughout the County. Some of the resources that have been identified as having the potential for being impacted by this request are the entrance corridor overlay district for U.S. Route 29 adjacent to the proposed facility. The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is, in part, "to implement the Comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources, including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose," and, "to protect the County's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the County from tourism." The Architectural Review Board addresses the aesthetic impact of all development within the Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts. At it's October 20, 2003 meeting, the ARB has rev/ewed this proposal and recommends approval with the conditions provided in the attached action memo (Attachment E). RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Qrdinance and recommends approval with the standard conditions of approval for personal wireless service facilities, and some additional language to address the uniqueness of this site. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request in four sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and, Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(lI) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent property, The site of this proposed facility is located nearly 32 feet east of the nearest property line, which is shared with the right-of-way for U.S. Route 29. Based on the observation of the balloon test, the proposed facility would be largely screened and camouflaged from adjacent parcels and roadways by a combination of trees located on the subject parcel and within the right-of-way. However, the top of the monopole for the facility would be visible through opening in the trees surrounding the site from a very .limited number of vantage points, being one the eastern side of Route 29. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility employing a monopole at the requested height would not draw additional attention to the facility sites that already exist. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the natural, scenic and historic resources are recognized as some key purposes that have been set for the Rural Areas zoning district. Uses that are allowed by right in the district are either residential, or those related to agricultural and forestal activities, while those uses that are allowed by special use permit in the Rural Areas district are most often services related to by-right activities. Staff recognizes that support of locating facilities that comply with the Wireless Policy in the Rural Areas zoning district is not uncommon. This is because the key purpose of the County's Wireless Design Policy is to site tower facilities in locations where there is a very minimal potential for intrusion upon on the surrounding areas. Once the facility has been constructed and is fully operational, staff does not expect that the scheduled site visits would create a significant increase in activity or traffic within the area. Alltel has confirmed that the proposed facility would be unmanned and that service personnel would only have to travel to the site once a month for routine maintenance visits. This would result in an average of two (2) vehicular trips per month, when counting trips to and from the property. It is also anticipated that some unscheduled visits will be necessary, but only on occasions if electrical power to the site has been interrupted by weather or other unexpected occurrences. Therefore, staff does not expect this schedule of infrequent site visits to create a significant increase in activity or traffic within the area. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, and with further reference to Section 1.5. Section 1.4.3 states, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community," as an intent of the Ordinance. As evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use, mobile telephones clearly provide a public service, and the establishment of wireless servSce facilities expands the availability of communications opportunities and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. In the event of emergencies, the increased access to wireless communication opportunities is clearly consistent w/th the accepted principles of public health, safety and general welfare. Although wireless facilities are not often credited for enhancing the visual appearance of the surrounding areas, the guidelines of the Wireless Policy are intended to ensure that equipment for those facilities are not responsible for intruding upon the important resources that promote the attractiveness of the community. Section 1.5 (Relation to Environment) states in part that the "ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in a like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use, and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various use...; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the County." When personal wireless service facilities can be designed and sited properly, it has not been demonstrated that these types of uses create any conflict with the agricultural and forestal objectives that have been set forth for the Rural Areas. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Aside from restrictions on tree cutting within a certain distance of the facility, approval of this proposal would not act to restrict any of the current uses on the subject parcel, or by-right uses allowed on any other properties within the Rural Areas district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Section 5.1.12a of the Zoning Ordinance contains regulations for locating public utility structures in a manner which "will not endanger the health and safety of workers and/or residents in the community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the development oft he same." The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations set forth in the Telecommunications act address the most significant concerns for public health and safety regarding personal wireless services. Staff has attempted to address the concerns for possible impacts upon neighboring properties within the area throughout this staff report and in the recommended conditions. The Ordinance also contains section 5.1.40, which sets the requirements for the submittal, review and approval of applications for personal wireless service facilities. When those regulation are combined with the standard conditions of approval that are applied to personal wireless service facilities, it is staff's opinion that this special use permit can be issued in compliance with the provisions for public health, safety and general welfare. Section 5.1.40b(2) authorizes the Director of Planning and Community Development to allow a facility to be constructed closer to any lot line than the height of its mounting structure if the applicant procure an easement from the owner of the property that lies within the facility's "fall zone". However, in this case the boundary line where the fall zone encroachment would be a concern is shared with the VDOT fight-of-way, as opposed to privately owned property. Therefore, staff recommends that an additional condition that would require the applicant to obtain written approval from VDOT from the proposed monopole location to the standard conditions of approval (Attachment F). 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentali _ty thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The Telecommunications Act addresses concerns for environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or insmunentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. These requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. However, both do implement policies and regulations for the siting and design of personal wireless facilities. The applicant has not provided any information regarding the availability, or lack thereof, of alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered with the new antennas at this site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the denial of this application would not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communication services. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: The trees in the proposed lease area would assist in camouflaging the facility fromseveral points of view when travelling on U.S. Route 29. When viewing a balloon test at the proposed height of the monopole, in it's revised location the two balloons only appeared to be minor features against the background provided by the natural surroundings; This site is accessed from an existing driveway that would be extended across a mostly grassed area that requires minimal grading; and, The facility would not restrict any of the permitted uses on adjacent properties. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: o There are reasonable by-right uses that could be established on the subject property; and, This "fall zone" for the monopole proposed with this site extends across the boundary line shared with the right-of-way for Route 29 and into the northbound lane. The 200-foot tree conservation area surrounding the improvements for this facility extends beyond the boundaries of the subject parcel. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended conditions of approval: The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: 11. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the construction plans entitled, "Alltel - Moore,s Creek Site", last revised October 20, 2003 and provided herein, with Attachment A. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed four (4) feet above the top of 20-inch diameter Poplar tree identified as number 195 on Sheet C6 of the construction plans. In no case shall the pole exceed 90 feet in total height at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit. The monopole shall be painted a natural brown that is consistent with the color of the trees surrounding the site. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application plans. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole. No guy wires shall be permitted. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting ora lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met: 12. 13. 14. 15. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground equipment shall be included in the construction plan package. The apphcant shall provide written comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation confirming that there are no safety concerns with the proposed monopole's location in relationship to the right-of-way. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified 7 16. 17. arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The tree conservation plan required by condition 13 shall include special consideration for the preserving the health of the 20-inch, 98-foot tall tree identified as number 187 on page C6 of the constructions plans to its current state of health. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation, the following shall be met: 18. 19. 20. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Certification confirming that the grounding rod: a) height does not exceed two feet above the tower; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met: 21. 22. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: B- C- D- E- F- Application, Construction Plans and Additional Information Antenna and Equipment Cabinet Specifications Parcel, Location and Aerial Maps Balloon Test Photos ARB Action Memo Zoning Department Comments and Recommendation (see page 2) 9 OFFICE USE ONLY . '- ~n# ~C~ Magisterial District: ATTACHMENT A Application for Special Use Permit Please See the List at the bottom of page 4 for the Appropriate Fee (staff will assist you with this item) Project Name (how should we refer to this application?): ALLTEL/Moo re ' s Creek *Existing Use: Residential/ * Zoning District: RA (*staff will assist you with this item) Rural Proposed Use: Wireless Communications Zoning Ordinance Section number requested: Faci Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit (if a portion it must be delineated on a plat): 6 · 3 6 3 acre s Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? Are you submitting a preliminary site plan with this application? [] YES [] NO ~] YES [] NO Contact Person (Who should we call/write concerning this project?): Tremblay& Smith, LLP Address PO _BOX 1585 Daytime Phone ~ 3 4 ) 9 7 7 - 4 4 5 5 OwnerofRecord John & Anita Address 1633 Monacan Trail Daytime Phone (L3_4_) c) 7 Q- 1 5 (3 (3 Fax # CityCharlo%tesv~ll~m~ VA Zip ~q(32 F~#-~~maild~k.~b~nn~tremblaysmith.com Canody Ci~ Charln~v!!l~t. ate VA E-mail zip ~?.j?~_O 3 Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing'?. Who is requesting the rezoning?): ALI, TEL Commun i ~ a tn i cm ~q c~ ~= Va .. Nc~ _ City State Zip __ Address C/O contact person Daytime Phone (__) Fax # Tax map and parcel: 8 9-4 E-mail Physical Street Address (if assigned): 1633 Mnnaean Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other): Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers NO. OFFICE U, ONLY ,- . Keceipt # tLC ~, _,~ By: History: ,9 [21 Special Use Permits: t-'1 ZMAs & Proffers: Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? [--J'YEs [] NO County of Albemarle Department of Building Code & Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 12/1/02 Page l of 4 ity 1, Inc 10 ATTACH MENT A Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use pernuts permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district wilt not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare." The items that follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of you request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Rh How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? The proposed facJ. 1 i tlr will have no effect on adjacent property because the exSsting trees and veqetation will screen the facility from view. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district(s) surrounding the property? In compliance with the County Tower Policy, this facility is designed so only the top 10 feet of the tower is potentially. visible, and therefore its effect will be minimal, if anything. Howistheuseinharmow with thepurpose ~dintentof~eZoningOr~n~ce? The proposed facility is deslgn~d in ~oonr~no~ ~th Section 5.1.40 and with the County's Tower Policy which the ordinance is intended to implement. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? This proposal is consistent with by right us~_s such a~q ~.ric and telephone poles. More importantly, %he facSl~ky ~s designed to blend not only with other uses bu~ wi~.h khm nm~.nr~l .~k~.~nq of the area. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? Section 5.1.40 How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? via 911 12/I/02 page 2 of 4 11 ATTACHMENT A Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the number of persons ~nvolved ~n the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two (2) copies of each 1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a rezoning for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineation on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. 2. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name ora trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: 3. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. 4. Additional Information, if any. Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. [ also certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true, and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of gent Date Peter J. Caraman~s PrintName Attorney for Applicant 434-977-4455 DaytimephonenumberofSignato~ 1271/02 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT A JOHN K. TAGGART, III M.E. GmSON. JR. TttoMt~S E. ALBRO Pt, TRIC~ D. MCGRt,W R. Lr~ LIVINGSTON R&Ch'EL L RUST LAW OFFICES TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP P.O. Box 1585 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-1585 105-109 E. I-hGH STREET TELEPHONE (434) 977-4455 FACSIMILE I434) 979,1221 Tm~CE¥ C. HOPPER PETER J. C,~o~dms E. GERALD TRE~L~Y 1922 - 2003 LLOYD T. SMIT[-I, JR. Via Hand Delivery October 24, 2003 Stephen B. Waller, Planner County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ALLTEL/Moore's Creek (Canody Property) SP 2003-066 Dear Stephen: I received your memorandum dated October' 14, 2003 in which.you identify items needing to be addressed pdor to the Planning Commission hearing. Please find attached a revised site plan which addresses most of those items, There are a few items on your list about which I have concern and/or objection. First, Item 2 requires the heights above sea level to be listed for the tower and the tallest tree within 25 feet. We have no problem listing the height for the tower as required by Section 5.1.40.a(4.a) of the zoning ordinance. We also will provide the height for the tallest tree (AMSL). as requested. However, the tree height will be provided under protest of any intent to use these heights in relation to the "treetop tower" height requirement under the County's Wireless Policy, That Policy simply defines a "treetop tower" as "a mount for personal wireless service facilities no more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet of the proposed mount." There is no mention of AMSL measurement for this purpose. Furthermore, in past tower applications which were approved and successfully coexist in harmony with their surroundings now, this was not the standard used, but rather a simple measurement of heights from ground level. As you know, ALLTEL is not trying to take advantage of the standard height measurement, and has, in fact, proposed a 90' tower when the tallest tree within 25' is 98'. The ordinance would suggest an allowable height of 108'. By my rough calculations, based on AMSL, the tower will still be 5' below the relative height of the tallest tree within 25', but ALLTEL is interested in ensuring the ordinance is uniformly applied between carriers and over time, and therefore disputes the use of AMSL as the standard by which "Treetop Towers" are measured. The AMSL heights are not included on the attached plan, but I will have revised sheets indicating those heights for you by the Planning Commission hearing. 13 ATTACHMENT A TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP Stephen B. Waller, Planner October 24, 2003 Page 2 Second, Item 9 requires a conservation area 200 feet in diameter, which as you acknowledge, would involve off-site property. This requirement is unreasonable and unduly burdensome, and potentially has the effect of prohibiting wireless services in the area. It is unreasonable to require ALLTEL to control the property of others simply because trees on those properties may shield the facility from view. As you know, there is no indication that any trees in this area are likely to be removed by an adjoining property owner in the immediate future. It is a rural area without much development or planned development, and Route 29 is capable of handli, ng the capacity at this section of road, thereby eliminating any imminent plans for widening the roadway. It is also unlikely that any neighboring homeowner would cut down trees thereby increasing his/her view of the facility. ALLTEL is willing to accommodate the County in all reasonable manners within the subject parcel to minimize the visibility of its site, and has indicated that willingness by moving the proposed tower location, using cabinets instead of a shelter, decreasing the footprint of the facility, eliminating and/or reducing the height of the proposed fence, and agreeing to plant trees and shrubs to further screen the property. However, requiring ALLTEL to control what other surrounding landowners may choose to do on their property is unfair and unreasonable. At the recent ARB meeting on this project, the ARB recommended a conservation easement of 200 feet, but only so long as that radius remained within the property lines. In other words, if the property line was closer than 200 feet from the tower, the conservation area only extended to the property line in that direction. Specifically, the ARB made clear the conservation easement should not impact VDOT's right of way or the VEPCO easement crossing the property, and that ALLTEL should not have to get any approvals from those entities with respect to this project. You will see this recommendation from the ARB in their advisory opimon to the Planning Commission. ALLTEL believes the ARB's recommendation is an acceptable compromise on this issue. Finally, you have recommended that the proposed fence be eliminated, and the attached site plan has eliminated the fence. The ARB, however, recognized the secudty concerns and potential insurance impacts on ALLTEL n requiring the fence to be eliminated. They allow ALLTEL the option of eliminating the fence or decreasing it in height, using a dark green or black color and adding landscaping to screen it. I would appreciate if you would also support such an option. If you have any questions about our position on these matters, please let me know. Very truly yours, CC: M.E, Gibson, Jr. Larry Bickings Janet Hunter O $ 4 2003 14 RACY C" LET+ 1CAL TOWER NAD 83)tl NAD iNAVD I~SVILLE, \ND 1-64, S TO SITE IE /ER AND VEWAY OF qlVEWAY TO - BEFORE THE TRAIL .~, VA 22.90.~ AC) BY BVC I PROJECT NAME: MOORE'S CREEK SITE VICINITY MAP 1"=2000' COPYRIGHT ADC THE MAP PEOPLE PERMITTED USE NO. 20393659 SAMUEL MILLER MAGISTERI'AL DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINI~ SIGNATURES DATE: .1ULY 23, 2003 TAX MAP #: 89A-4 ~.PPL[CANT / ALLTEL: CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: LESSOR: DATE: DATE: DATE: SHEET INDEX NO. TIMMONS GROUP TI COVER SHEET C1 LOCATION MAP C2 SURVEY C3 SITE L~YI~UT !. C4 GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN CS EROSION CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS C6 TREE SURVEY & LANDSCAPE PLAN C7 TOWER ELEVATION & DETAILS ~'1 ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PRO] ECT NAME: MOORE'S CREEK SITE 1633 MONACAN TRAIL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA COVER SHEET TIMMONS GROUP "" site Development J Residential J Infrastructure J Technology Your V~SmN Acm~v~o ~OU~H OU~S. VIRGINIA J NORTH CAROLINA J WEST VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PR~NCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 Crossings Blvd J Prince George, VA 23875 TEL 804.541.6600 FAX 804.75Z.0798 www.timmons.com DATE:7-23-03 SCALE: NONE DRAWN BY:B. CRUTCHFIELD CHECKED BY: D. JOHNSON 09 BYH3 lOON .,~E] ['O'd d \ / / / / V~ :Q3NOZm J qqVHS~V~ 'H VINIO~IA/ z \ ¥0[-69 · I )ESCRIPTION CREEK SITE 20, 200~ 1 piece or parcel of land located in the Samuel Miller Virginia and being more particularly described as follows; ted on the Eastern right of way of U.S. Route 29 ,tersecUon of U.S. Route 29 and Gleco Mills Lane. said ~LACE OF COMMENCEMENT. thence along said right of way Is East a distance of 25.80 feet to the intersection of the md the centedine of a proposed 20 foot access & utility the following courses: nds East a distance of 97.47 feet to a point. nds East e distance of 89.85 feet to a point, ~ds West a distance of 74.58 feet to a point, f said centerline and the Eastern line of a proposed AIItel South 47 degrees 5.3 minutes 4.3 seconds West a )oint being THE TRUE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; g courses: ~ds West a distance of 50.00 feet to a point, ids East a distance of 40,00 feet to a point, ~ds East a distance of .30.00 feet to a point, ~ds West a distance of 40.00 feet to a point, .ACE OF BEGINNING and containing 1,200.00 square feet :ON. FD /120. 86' L DUDLEY tiM. 89-5 / J HAGAN 59,5, PG. 5O0 T.M. 89-5 I N/F JOHN C. & ANITA L. CANODY D.B, 531, PG, 17 T. IVl. 89-4 ZONED: RA ./ L5 L6 L7 LINE TABLE DIRECTION DISTANCE N57'50'59"E 97.47' N49'52'59"E 89.85' N42'O6'16"W 74..38' S47'55'45"W 20.00' N42'06'16"W 50.00' N47'55'44"E 40.00' S42'06'16"E 50.00' S47'55'45"W 40.00' GENERAL NOTES: BEARIN(; DATUM SHOWN ON PROPOSED LEASE AREA BASED OFF OF A (;PS OBSERVATION ON 5-29-2005. · HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 85 VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 · DEED REFERENCE: D,B. 1196 PGo 128 · PROPERTY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE COMPILED AND DO NOT REPRESENT A COMPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY. PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS & RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE BINDER. ALLTEL COMN UNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME: MOORE'S CREEK SITE 1633 MONACAN TRAIL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SURVEY TIMMONS GROUP "" Site Development I Residential I Infrastructure I Technology YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. VIRGINIA I NORTH CAROLINA WEST VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 Crossings Blvd J- Prince George, VA 23875 TEL 804.54;I.,5600 FAX 804,75:[.0798 www,timmons.com DATE:7-23-03 SCALE:i"=IO0' i C2 DRAWN BY:B. CRUTCHFIELD CHECKED BY: D. ]OHNR~N IS H:19qV L~['O~ld )~IA ±33J NI 39¥0S 0 / / / ,.' V8 :O:~NOZ ,' f?-68 'W'l ZT 'gd %££ 'g'O AQONV3 '7 Vl ZNV ~ '3 NHO[ :t/N I / /.~ / / / / / ...."~; ~..-' / ,o~ ,6 ~ - · ~3NISVO Odd ~ ~ ~ l ~OdONOW VgNV ~SVg7 7~ 77V ~/ ,0~ X .OT O~SOdONd .I .~l~j _qo IHOlH ONIISIX3 t SiN3WWOO AiNDOD NOS¥~tU £O-Og-Ol I iLVa SNOISIA~ 3HO ~ ~ ltd /g I '1 GRADE TIC MARKER ..ual t.~r~ / ' ,'MONO~O~ / ":" "' :. / ," ,/ I 663.50 / ..."-' ~-%,,, ¢¢~-' ,, EG ~ . .. ~,s,~".- -"' ~" " ;:~ ' / ~,,.. ////,/'~t~, ,; : ,. / / 66J. id' . .%~% 'X ,/~_EX. / EDGE /, ;J OF WO0%.,~-- - ,i'" / B.M. ELEV.=664.58 ........ CLEARING / LIMITS \ \ ........... 664 .......... / ,/ JOHN C. & A~ITA L. CANOD~ D.B. 5'31, PG. 17 T.N., 89-4 :" ZONED-:, RA '/... t / / "'-... // / × EX/STING~ / RIGHT OF WAY ~ 1 / / ?/ /-,. / / lEG -' / .. "~s? .... .,'_ ...... z/_ ..... - / o / 20 SCALE IN FEET 40 EROSION CONTROL S( S( S~X X X SILT FENCE (~ "'": ' '"'<:'" '":'::":.:' -':' CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ~. 05 J. 02 VIRGINIA EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK SPEC/F/CA T/ON NUMBER ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME: MOORE'S CREEK SITE U.S. ROUTE 29 ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN VIRGINIA J NORTH CAROLINA [ WEST VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PR~NCE GEORGE OFFTCE 4260 Crossings Blvd [ Prince George, VA 23875 TEL 804.54:1.6600 FAX 804.751.0798 www.timmons.corr SCALE: 1"=20' TIMMONS GROUP.--';,'--. Site Development I Residential Infrastructure Technology ~'~ YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OUI~, ~ ~ C] :Ag a::DID::iHD il:JO 'Et:AB NM"~:Ia E: 0 -E:~:-,': E].J,.¥C] 10g~'Tt, q't~08 'F:II JJSSOJ~ 09~'~ SI~i VINIDI:IIA )ldldI.L ION ;Ohl::l t00 O~COl~ld sa¥oa gNU. SIX3 ~ TWHS ~IOJ. OV~J. LNO0 L-~O'[' ~66l "(]3 (]~£ ',MOOE]ONYH qO~JtNOD IN31ql(]3S (]NY NOISO~J3 VINI0~IA :3O'NI-IOS 'NOLL¥~EidO $$3~0R ONV SS':I~ONI ...40 ]-LLOIM '"nfld o~x'~/Sfll~l . '~F°j~/~ ONl'JOaO I~ ON,,S~x~ \ ~LVgRh~OV ~- 3SaflO0 ~# J. OOA 'S3~LL ~ 1V dn-O"llflE] '1105 .-I0 ':I:IN~ ONIISIX3 H':~ClN TIVHS ~OIOVa. LNOO :3~LON HLO"IO U3.L'II.J '-N \ IN3143AVd ONl'lOaO OI~ILSIX3 .J ~-- 9NLLglX~ ~-§0'~' :31V-la '(]3 (]~J~ '['66L 'HOOSONVH ']0~1300 I33~t O3S {]NY N01S083 ¥1NIO~JIA :3O~OS ]-tVOS ON (l~lOddnS~,.~,~.~.~T3~llM L.~IFIOHIIM)r/I ~ (~ (].3J. OVdRO0 GNV ~lOS CI-'J-LVAVOX3 'NIIq ,cs = HION39 1SOd '1221S UO 2NVIS O. LNI 11 ON':IIX':I ~ SISOd ~0 S':I)tYJ.S 0£ Ola8V-I ~I3..L'llA HOVIIV SS300gd NOIJORNISNO3 .7gAN3 3HZ ON/gAO S301A20 70NINO0 IN3PIICI3S ONV NO~SON3 ANVWINd 3HI SV 34N3S 77M4 NOHOglOEd 137NI lgi47DO ONV 30N33 171S g312/XIg3d 'Og137df~OO 3HV SNO~Yg3dO ONIOYgO HODOg g21~V SAVE (Z) N:i43S N/HiM SNO~ VTD03g 31VIE Ol ONIOgOOOV 03033E 38 Ol 3NV SV3gV E3773~ VgOND 77V 'E3H IA~IOV ONIEVgO ONV DNIgV37D 311S ~OIHd 3OV7d NI 38 Ol 3NV S_FglTSV3141 '70HINOD NOISOg3 'EEgOOgd NOll 3Hl 1170HOAONHI 03NIVINIVIIV 33 771~ SNg3ilVd 3DVNIVgO ONIIEIX3 '311S SIHI SS320V Ol E3ZI711D 38 77//1,/ 6~ 'O'S OINO 30NVNIN3 ONIISIX3 NV '~01 _40 3d07S 30Vg3AV NV 1V 1SV3 Ol IS31H YVOg3 S3d07S 311S 3t-I1 'S3111AIIOV ONIOVgO QNV ONIgV370 3E1'77031 771111,1 30NVggDISIO ENV7 3141 '3.ZIg Ell-il gOODO 77144 gONVEg[~ISIO ONV7 30 S3NOV ZO'O 1731VWIXOgddV 'V3HY 3SV37 73AVEO ONV 'EVOg SS3OOV 73AVNO 'g31 73HS iN3f~dlO03 'N3/HOJ SNO/IVOIN~WO33731 30 NO~ODgSISNO0 3Hi 30 SIS/ENOO 103?ONd S/Hi 3AZIVEEVN 70HINO0 NOISOE3 PROPOSED TOWER HEIGHT B_A, SED ! 9N TALLEST TREE WITHIN 25 OF I rile PROPOSED MOUNT (TREE ~157)~ REVISIONS ~TE J '2n-os REASON COUNTY COMMENTS I I I I EX. FIBER k-OP TI C MARKER i 141 I,~7139 . I .~'-~ .-' " . / " " ,'" , .,,. ,~,~_ . /' ¢ 109 ~  / .... [."" ,'- ,/",/ PLANT MA TERIALS LIST SIZE OF MA TERIAL ROOT ~,581 ,.' ." -' / 15'5 a' / ~' ~9/ / ~1~7. CLEARING L/M/TS (TYP)/ / / / / / / / - ~-'6" TALL LEYLAND/% ; .~il~i/ ~;~'$? Il' .101 _7' ,'CYPRESS (TYP)/ ; .... ~,os .y - / / J~!iit ,: ..... ' 7 ,./ .': ¢~:, .,'~/i/ ~' 5¢ "~F' WOOD~V'- .~..-. .... % ~...:.. , ~._%;'t~;..- X, ;_ -Z :':d'-:.-~.,' ::.?' .,"" I --" / . -" ........ - " / "" / B,Wl/~LEV.=664.58 / .... . ...... / .-- / ....... .. ,,~ ,, / ?.:',EL J'~-'t/~ 'x,.,/ . ' -/ 0 20 / /',, './ / / . ' // SCALE tN FEET / / 40 ALLTEL COMMUN[CAT'fONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUfTE 100 V]~RGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAIVlE: NOORE'S CREEK SITE U.S, ROUTE 29 ALBEMARLE COUNTY, V]RG~NIA TREE SURVEY & LANDSCAPE PLAN TIMMONS GROUP "" Site Development J Residential J InfraStructure J Tech.olog~f VIRGINIA J NORTH CAROLINA J WEST VIRGINIA · THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PR/NCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 Crossings Bird I Prince George, VA 23875 TEL 804.54L6600 FAX 804,75L0798 www.timmons.com DATE:7-23-03 SCALE: 1"=20' DRAWN BY.' B,CRUTCHFfELD , C6 CHECKEDBY: D. JOHNSON ID :A~t CFI>IS)qHD O_L tlYHD )I IO01A! D::l['O~d ~JlA $2 N3t'V~O~ AJ N/?03 £O-OU-O l SNOISI^ilB .06t ~01335//~mmT~¥ L.ot£ H.t. FI~IZ ? 'SN¥3~ /~Odd~S 39B¥0 J 9VIX¥OO ON¥ 'SINflO~ YNN3ZN¥ '3dAi 83M0/ ~40 3H_L HIIM 31VNIO~OOO 99VH$ ~OIO¥~INOO 3Hi 'AqNO 3~lVN NI OI±VH~HOS Si NMOHS 3~FLLO~NI$ NOI±V^~'I~ '¥ia ,,g'Og=3SV8 IV/ NOISN3~Ia 83~01 I ;~90O NINMOBB 3B OJ. ~I3MOi (NMO~B aRLNIYd) (9) SYNNRLN¥ 93NYd O3iNflO~ ALIqlBISIA MO1 ATTACHMENT Mechanical specifications Length 2405 mm 94.7 in Width 205 mm 8.1 in Depth 145 mm 5.7 in Weight 10.4 kg 23.0 lbs Wind Area Front 0.49 m2 5.30 ~ Side 0.35 m2 3.75 ~ Rated Wind Velocity (Safety factor 2.0) >323 kmthr >201 mph Wind load @" 100 mph (161 kin/hr) Front 793 N 178~4 lbs Side 591 N !32.9 lbs MoUnting Through two pair of damps to pipe diameter 050- 160 mm: (2.0-6.3 in), or by U-clamps to a 2" Pipe. Antenna consisting of aluminum alloy with brass feedlines covered by a UV safe fiberglass radome. Mounting'Bracketi ~6210002 DOwntiit Bracket: #36114003 cifications 806-900 MHz* Impedance 50Q 3) Connector N, NE, DIN, E-DIN ' VSWR _<1.4:1 Polar'L~ation Slant + 45° Iso atiOn BetWeen, Ports >30 dB W 9 ? , 0] 7° 0o 5% Direct Ground Antel sales director for more information. Power Rating limited by connector only. NE indicates an elongated N Connector. E-DIN indicates an elongated DIN Connect. or. Iraproveme.ts to mechanical and/w elecbFcal per~onaa.ce of t~e a.tenna .~ be made wltlamt notice. Radiation-parterre) BXA-80090/8CF When ordering, replace ' _' with connector type, Horizontal 180 20 15 10 5 0 t70 150 3D Vertical Radiation patterns for all Antel antennas are measured with the antenna mounted on a fiberglass pole. Mounting on a metal pole will typ- ically improve the Front-to-Back Ratio. Antel's Exclusive 3T (True Transmission Line Technology) Antenna Design: Single-piece, watercut brass feedline assembly for consistent performance, ® Unique single-piece feedline design elimi- nates the need for solder joints in the signal path. ® A non-~.ollinear system with access to every radiating element for broad band- width and superior performance. ® Air as insulation for virtually no internal signal Ioss~ Every Antel antenna is under a five-year limited warranty for repair or replacement° Antenna available with center-fed connector only. CF Denotes a Center-Fed Connector. o N 1300 Capital Drive Rockford, IL 61109 Toll-Free (8881 417-9562 Tel. (815) 399-0001 Fax. (8!5) 399-0156 Email: antel@antelinc.com www.antelinc.com ATTACHMENT B Power Cabinet Figure 1-7: Power Cabinet Site Preparation - continued Heat Exchanger The Heat Exchanger provides cooling to the internal compartment of the RF Cabinet. The fan speed of the heat exchangers adjusts automatically with temperature. The Heat Exchanger is located in the primary front door of the RF Cabinet. Figure 1-7 illustrates the Power Cabinet design. GFCI Outlet Cover ~ Battery Door Rear [/O Door Main Door Rear DC Conduit Panel Rear AC Conduit Panel FW00193 JanUary 2000 V02.03 SCm 4812ET RF and Power Cabinet Hardware Installation Manual 25 ATTACHMENT B Site Preparation - continued Power Cabinet Internal Fi[Us Figure 1-8 shows the location of the Internal Field Replaceable Units, The FRUs are described in the following paragraphs. Figure 1-8: Power Cabinet with Batteries Installed (Doors Removed for Clarity) Batteries (Battery Heaters located under battedes) NOTE Punch Block is not visible in this view. Rectifier Alarm Module Temperature Control Module Rectifier Shelves AC Outlet Cover DC Cimuil Breakers AC Load Center FRONT VIEW POWER CABINET FW00164 Batteries The batteries provide a +24V DC backup to the RF Cabinet should AC Power be lost. The Power Cabinet can accommodate a total of 24 t2V batteries, configured in 12 strings of 2 batteries each. The time duration of backup provided depends on system configuration. Battery Heater The battery heaters provide heating to the batteries in the Power Cabinet. A separate heater is required for each string of batteries. The heater is a pad the batteries sit on located top of each battery shelf. The number of heaters is dependent on system configuration. ·., continued on next page 26 SCTM 4812ET RF and Power Cabinet Hardware Installation Manual January 2000 V02.03 '2,5 ATTACHMENT B ! Enclosure Dimensions Site Preparation - continued Battery Compartment Fan The battery compartment fan provides air circulation for the two battery compartments. It is located on the inside of the battery compartment door. Heat Exchanger The Heat Exchanger provides cooling to the rectifier compartment of the Power Cabinet. The Heat Exchanger is located in the primary front door of the Power Cabinet. Rectifiers The +27V rectifiers convert the AC power supplied to the Power Cabinet to +27V DC to power the RF Cabinet and maintain the charge of the batteries. AC Load Center (ACLC) The ACLC is thc point of entry for AC Power to the Power Cabinet. It incorporates AC power distribution and surge protection. Punch Block The Punch Block is the interface for the alarm signalling between the Power Cabinet and the RF Cabinet. Table 1-5 show the dimensions for the SC 4812ET RF and Power Cabinet enclosures. 1 Height Width Table 1-5: Cabinet Dimensions Item Depth Weight (Max) 1677 mm (66") 1677 mm (66") 1423 mm (56") 1423 mm (56") SC4812ET RF Cabinet Power Cabinet 915 mm 680kg (36") (1500 lbs) 965 mm 1590 kg (38") (3500 lbs) NOTE The primary front door of the RF Cabinet and both front doors of the Power Cabinet are removable. The depth of the cabinets with the door(s) removed is 711 mm (28"). January 2000 V02.03 SCTM 4812ET RF and Power Cabinet Hardware Installation Manual 27 ATTACHMENT B Site Preparation - continued Enclosure Clearances Figure 1-9 and Figure 1-10 show the clearances for the SC 4812ET RF and Power Cabinet enclosures. Figure 1-9: Minimum Cabinet Clearances for Door Openings and Mounting Brackets Omm (0") [- I 660mm (26")----'-~ 1372mm (54")-~'~ 1651mm (65-) 2515mm__ L_ (99") omm (o") 510mm (2o") 1220mrr (48") 1421mm (5¢ '3 2363m t__ (93") 0mm (o") 130mm 1550mm (61 ") Power Cabinet 255mm (10") RF Cabinet , / / 1676mm (66") 1880mm (74") NOTE Not To Scale 18o3mm (71") FWO0104 ... continued on next page 28 SCTM 4812ET RF and Power Cabinet Hardware Installation Manual January 2000 V02.03 ATTACHMENT B ! Site Preparation - continued Figure 1-10: Minimum Site Clearances for SC 4812ET Cabinets 130 mm (53 1143 (45") ... / / / Power Cabinet 660 mm I 330 - 610 mm (13* -24") '-i \ \ 'x 1143 mm (45") I / /,, 2515 mm (99") RF Cabinet 130 mm (5') 660 mm (26') FW00105 3430- 3710 mm (135 - 146' NOTE: (1) 24' IS RECOMMENDED BETWEEN CAB[NETS TO ALLOW SIMULTANEOUS OPENING OF CABINET DOORS (2} BASED ON FIGURE 1-10 MOTOROLA RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM PAD (OR PEDESTAL) SIZE OF 2515 MM (99") BY 3710 MM (146") January 2000 V02.03 SCT~a 4812ET RF and Power Cabinet Hardware Installation Manual 29 A, TTACH~rcNT C ATTACHMENT C ...\General\steve.dgn 10/27/2003 03:37:31 PM 31 ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D 3~ ATTACHMENT D ATTACHmEnT [~ ATTACHMENT D 3~ ATTACHMENT D 3~ ATTACHMENT E Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and C°mment S P-2003-066 Canody (Alltel) PWSF Zoning Treetop tower SP revision 2 reviewer received reviewe decision .ian sprinkle 9/30/2003 10/9/2003 Section 5~l~,~0J.a~p~rt 4(b) re_quires plans and supporting drawings the show the design, type, location, size,~eig~an_dconfiguratio~all proposed antennas and other equipment. The plans submitted with this SP state that the panel antennas will be flush mounted, but do not show details. We need to know how many panels, their sizes and mounting distances. In addition, part 4(g) requires the location of any residential structures within 2000 feet of the facility. We will also want details that demonstrate compliance with all of section 5.1.40, such as the fall zone within VDOT's right-of-way for Rt. 29. It appears that the tower could conceiveably fall into the travel lanes of Rt. 29. We will not require an easement from VDOT but will need their written comments noting that they approve the tower location. 10/28/2003 04:59 PM Page 1 of '1 38 ATTACHMENT F ARB ACTION MEMO Date: 10-20-03 "'""~Time: 1:30 PM Meeting Room: #214 Members: M. Kirk Train, AIA, Chairman: Present Marcia Joseph, ASLA, AICP, Vice-Chairman: Present Katie Hobbs: Present Candace M.P. Smith, A.I.A.: Present Charles T. Lebo: Present Staff: Margaret Maliszewski: Present Janet L. Miller: Present CALL TO ORDER Mr. Train called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS ARB-2003-138: Gentle Solz - Renovations- Preliminary Review of a Building Permit- (Tax Map 61, Parcel 25) Proposal: To receive approval for the addition of a window that was installed without a permit. Motion: Ms. Smith moved for approval of the proposal, with the following conditions to be administratively approved by staff: 1. Create a window of the same size and location at the other end of the center bay of the building and install matching green "bubble" awnings over both windows. The top elevation of new awnings should match the top elevation of the existing awnings. 2. The windows should have additional mullions added to match the vertical proportion of the other openings in the ~ building. Second: Ms. Hobbs. Vote: The motion carried unanimously (5:0). ARB-2003-138: Gentle Solz, Inc. - Certificate of Appropriateness for a Sign - (Tax Map 61, Parcel 25) Proposal: To receive approval for two non-illuminated sign panels as part of a comprehensive sign review for the business center. Comprehensive Si.qn Review Motion: Ms. Smith made a motion to adopt the following conditions for the comprehensive sign review. North wall siqns: 1. All signs shall be located to either side of the entrance and shall be of a size that fits comfortably within the available wall area. 2. The background of the sign panel shall be white. 3. The text shall be green, blue or black with a thin dark border. 4. Simple Iogos incorporated into the design of the sign are appropriate. 5. Signs shall be non-illuminated. West wall signs: Signs shall be non-illuminated, have a white background with text in either green, blue or black and a thin (1/8" wide) dark border. 2. The Iogos shall be simple in design and coordinated with the text. 3. The size ofthe sign panel shall be 10" high X 6'-8' long with decorative corners 4. No s~gns shall be located below the brick band. Signs shall not be stacked any higher than the height of the 4 signs currently installed on the building. Freestanding Sign: 1. The text on the freestanding sign shall be dark green. 2. When the freestanding sign is altered next, appropriate landscaping shall be added around the base. Second: Mr. Lebo. /"~,.Vote: The motion carried unanimously (5:0). ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 1 ACTION MEMO 10-20-03 39 ATTACHMENT F Mr. Train clarified that the ARB approved the west,wall sign for Gentle Solz as it stands, but the north wall sign/entrance sign must be resubmitted for administrative approval and must fit within the Comprehensive Sign Review. Staff pointed out that the Gentle Solz sign above the window in the picture should be moved to the wall behind the arcade. Also, only the Republic Business Center sign shall be located on the face of the arcade. ARB-2003-136: Canod¥ (AIItell) - Preliminary Review of a Building Permit and Advisory Review of a Special Use Permit - (Tax Map 089, Parcel 4) Proposal: To construct a personal wireless facility consisting of a 90-foot monopole. Regarding the Special Use Permit: Motion: Ms. Smith made a motion to forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: The ARB expresses no objection to the special use permit for a 90-foot monopole, subject to the following conditions: 1. Clarify on the plan the removal or retention of trees #165, 175, 193 and 199. 2. Show the tree line to remain and indicate the 200-foot no-tree-cutting radius, respecting any existing easements (i.e. the overhead line) and omitting areas beyond the property line. Easement documentation must be provided for the 200-foot radius. 3. Revise the proposed grading to ensure the health of tree #187. 4. Revise the plan to show grading held outside the drip line of all trees to remain. 5. The chain link fence should be modified to minimize the fenced area, the fence height, and the scale; to specify a dark finish; and to be screened with additional screening shrubs. 6. Revise the plan to show two small equipment cabinets instead of an equipment shelter. 7. Locate the two cabinets to maintain as many trees as possible. 8. Include in the plan details of the other ground equipment, including elevation drawings, to clarify size and appearance. 9. Indicate a brown finish for the cabinet and other ground equipment. 10. Include a detail in the plan that clearly shows all exact dimensions of the antennas. 11. Shift the pole north/west to take better advantage of the screening ability of trees #191 and 195. 12. Add a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees along the west property line, south of the pole, to improve on-site screening, to the satisfaction of the ARB. 13. Indicate on the plan all proposed lighting. Indicate that proposed lighting is intended for temporary maintenance use only. Second: Ms. Hobbs. Vote: The motion carried unanimously (5:0). Regarding the Building Permit: Motion: Ms. Smith moved for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposal, with the following conditions to be administratively approved by staff: 1. Clarify on the plan the removal or retention of trees #165, 175, 193 and 199. 2. Show the tree line to remain and indicate the 200-foot no-tree-cutting radius, respecting any existing easements (i.e. the overhead line) and omitting areas beyond the property line. Easement documentation must be provided for the 200-foot radius. 3. Revise the proposed grading to ensure the health of tree #187. 4. Revise the plan to show grading held outside the drip line of all trees to remain. 5. The chain link fence should be modified to minimize the fenced area, the fence height, and the scale; to specify a dark finish; and to be screened with additional screening shrubs. 6. Revise the plan to show two small equipment cabinets instead of an equipment shelter. 7. Locate the two cabinets to maintain as many trees as possible. 8. Include in the plan details of the other ground equipment, including elevation drawings, to clarify size and appearance. 9. Indicate a brown finish for the cabinet and other ground equipment. 10. Include a detail in the plan that clearly shows all exact dimensions of the antennas. 11. Shift the pole north/west to take better advantage of the screening ability of trees #191 and 195. 12. Add a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees along the west property line, south of the pole, to improve on-site screening, to the satisfaction of the ARB. 13. Indicate on the plan all proposed lighting. Indicate that proposed lighting is intended for temporary maintenance use only. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 2 ACTION MEMO I0-20-03 40 ATTACHMENT F Second: Ms. Hobbs. Vote: The motion carried unanimously (5:0). OTHER BUSINESS Pittsburg Paints Sign: Comprehensive Sign Review. It was the consensus of the Board that a Comprehensive Sign Review should be completed for the shopping center prior to the review of the individual sign application. ARB-2003-149 Covesville Country Store: Parking addition. Motion: Ms, Hobbs moved to allow staff administrative approval of ARB-2003-149: Covesville Country Store parking addition, Second: Ms. Joseph. Vote: The motion carried unanimously (5:0). Next ARB meeting: November 3, 2003. Training Session: Saturday, November 8, 2003, 8:30 am - 1:30 p.m. Placing Time Limitations on Speakers: It was the consensus of the Board to set specific time limitations on applicants speaking at a public meeting. The Board asked staff to advise the public of the following restrictions: · Each applicant shall be allowed to make a presentation not to exceed fifteen minutes. · Each other person speaking on a matter shall be allowed one appearance not to exceed three minutes. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:58 p.m. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 3 ACTION MEMO 10-20-03 41 Route 250 West Task Force County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 TO: FROM: DATE: REF: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Route 250 West Task Force ,~ December 10, 2003 Crozet Master Plan Boundary Amendment, Southeastern Quadrant The Route 250 West Task Force supports the Department of Planning and Community Development's proposal to amend the existing boundary of the Community of Crozet as recommended by the proposed Crozet Master Plan. This amendment, as noted in staff report, would remove the southeastern quadrant of the Community, generally encompassing the property located south of Lickinghole Creek and Lickinghole Basin extending from the eastern boundary of the Development Area to a point on the north side of the Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West) east of the Clover Lawn development. The amendment would add a portion of the historic Crozet downtown area located north of Three Notched Road (Route 240) and Railroad Avenue (Route 788) to the Development Area. This proposal is consistent with the Task Force charge to preserve the rural scenic nature of the corridor. The Task Force believes the southeastern quadrant is not suited for high-density development: in many places along this portion of Route 250 there is poor sight distance; in addition, there is poor access to Route 64, a viable alternative route between Crozet and Charlottesville. Finally, lower-density development would reduce the number of vehicle trips, thereby making Route 250 safer. The Task Force supports and commends staff for their evaluation and recommendation to remove this environmentally sensitive area fi:om the Crozet Development area. The Task Force appreciates this opportunity to provide its input on this very important decision. Please contact Juan Wade, the Task Force staff person, if you have any questions or need additional information. PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Promoting and protecting the Piedmonf s rural economy; natural resources, history and beauty Statement to the Albemarle COunty Board of Supervisors CPA 2003-04 Crozet Master Plan Growth Area Boundary Amendment December 10, 2003 The PEC was created in 1972 to protect the rural landscape of the Piedmont. For the last 30 years we have worked to keep Albemarle a beautiful county and part of that effort has included a direct role in the develoPment of the Neighborhood Model. The PEC OfferS conditional support for this CPA. Historically, the PEC has vigorously opposed any suggestion to expand the Growth Area but this one has circumstances that make it unique--and problematic. There appear to be merits to the CPA including the recommendation to reduce the Growth Area elsewhere. The proposed expansion area is viewed by many as an integral part of "downtown" Crozet. It is the result of the community's Master Planning process and therefore is supported by valid planning. On the other hand, altering the Growth Area sets the stage for "expansions" and "contractions" elsewhere. The County cannot ignore this concern and must therefore set the bar extremely high in the discussion and ultimate decision on this CPA. The PEC recommends support for this CPA with the following conditions: a) Recognition that the proposed Growth Area expansion is the restflt of the Crozet community's involvement in, and development of, its Master Plan per the Neighborhood Model. This links the CPA to a valid planning process and purpose; b) The proposed Growth Area expansion indicates the County's commitment to the Crozet Master Plan and as such the future land uses within this zone should be consi stent with that Plan; and c) The proposed Growth Area expansion should only be approved with a corresponding reduction of the Growth Area elsewhere within Crozet's current Growth Area boundary. Thank you. Headqtlarters P.(). Ih}x l-(,(I ~\';IFl'cni, ,;1. V.'\ 20 l ~ t(i 3-1.-' 233.1 I'Jx :q4-0 .:~'~9 9003 Albemarle I111 R<,,c, Ilili ~ harlot'.csx 80.'1.977 2033 Clarke 30 I.L~s~ \4al'; M:-cci B,','r~xi!ic. V.\ ~..2t~l I I,t~ 5~0 9S3 901(I Orange 130 W. ,\l,!in qt...';,c..?(1(, IU,). Ih}x (h ,mlW. V.X 3;0072 [)Ill Fax 540 t)72 0205 Rappahannock 12'. 17 Lee Highway W, Mfington~ VA 22747 I',:x ~q 14) 6)87 9 1.3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesx, ille, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Susan Thomas, Senior Planner / November 20, 2003 / CPA 2003-04 Crozet Master Plan, Boundary Amendment The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 11, 2002, by a vote of 3:2, recommended approval of the above-noted request to amend the existing boundary of the Community of Crozet as recommended by the proposed Crozet Master Plan. This approval is conditioned upon the northern boundary as recommended in the staff report of 11/11/03, which ran right along Parrot Creek and then along the schools eastern property line and that the southeastern quadrant would remain n the development area. The AI.bemarle County Board of Supervisors is schedulec~ to review this request and receive public comment at their meeting on December 10. 2003. Attached you will find a staff report which outlines this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. SET/jcf Cc: Ella Carey 24-1t-05fi~ -:SX i~CVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mctntire Road. Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W; Tucker, Ir., County Executive Susan Thomas, Senior Planner ~¢~' November 20, 2003 / CPA 2003-04 Crozet Master Plan, Boundary Amendment The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 11, 2002, by a vote of 3:2, recommended approval of the above-noted request to amend the existing boundary of the Community of Crozet as recommended by the proposed Crozet Master Plan. This approval is conditioned upon the northern boundary as recommended in the staff report of 11/11/03, which ran right along Parrot Creek and then along the schools eastern property line and that the southeastern quadrant would remain in the development area. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review this request and receive public comment at their meeting on December 10, 2003 Attached you will find a staff report which outlines this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. SET/jcf Cc: Ella Carey STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN THOMAS, AICP NOVEMBER 11, 2003 DECEMBER 10, 2003 CPA 2003-04, CROZET MASTER PLAN BOUNDARY AMENDMENT CPA 2003-04, Crozet Master Plan Boundary Amendment- Proposal to amend the existing boundary of the Community of Crozet as recommended by the proposed Crozet Master Plan. This amendment would remove the southeastern quadrant of the Community, generally encompassing the property located south of Lickinghole Creek and Lickinghole Basin extending from the eastern boundary of the Development Area to a point on the north side of the Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West) east of the Clover Lawn development. The amendment would add a portion of the historic Crozet downtown area located north of Three Notched Road (Route 240) and Railroad Avenue (Route 788) to the Development Area. Background The Neighborhood Model, an adopted part of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, includes a provision that master plans be prepared for the County's designated Development Areas. On October 17,2001, the Board of Supervisors selected the Community of Crozet as the first Development Area to be master planned. The Renaissance Planning Group and Nelson-Byrd Landscape Architects were retained as planning consultants for the project, and an extensive public involvement program was conducted with the assistance, of Christensen and Associates. On July 9, 2003, the consultants presented their final report, the Crozet Development Area Master Plan (the "Crozet Master Plan"), to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meeting in joint session. At that meeting, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, by adopting the Crozet Master Plan, and directed the Planning Commission to review the Plan and forward its recommendation to the Board at the earliest possible date. During the months of August, September and October, the Planning Commission held a series of 5 informational work sessions. In November and December, it will commence the editorial phase of its review, and it is anticipated that the Commission will forward its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in December or January. At the meeting of September 9, the Commission discussed initiating discussion of and action on one of the Master Plan's recommendations, the amendment of the Crozet Development Area boundary. This recommendation, although related to the land use, programmatic and implementation recommendations in the Plan, is more of a"stand-alone item. than the- '~ ~ ' ' others. If adopted,~this amendment would, add a portion of the 'fold downtown", to the Development Area and remove a portion of the southeastern quadrant of existing Development:Area. At the meeting of September 30, the Commission adopted a Resolution.of Intent to hold a public hearing on the boundary amendment recommendation: ...... · ...... :~. Description of the Areas to be Added and/or Removed: Draft of revised location description for Community Profile section of the Comprehensive Plan: The Community of Crozet is located west of the City of Charlottesville off of Route 250 ~ generally lying between Three Notch'd Road (Route 240) and the Rockfish Gap Turnpik (Ro t) dary ......... e . ute 250 Wes . The southern boun extends west from the Lickinghole Basin dam along the south side of Licldnghole Basin and Creek, intersecting the Rockfish Gap Turnpike east of the Clover Lawn development, and continuing west along the north side of the highway from there. The entire Development Area is within the Lickinghole Creek watershed, with the exception of a small northern strip containing portions of the old downtown commercial and residential area. The eastern boundary is the ridgeline for two streams, which flow into the Lickinghote Creek sedimentation basin. The boundary follows this stream system north Thr e Not h d n,,oa ~,,,.,, 249 d~ ...... "~ a~Po~e-FdM., crosses it and from a point opposite the Acme property heads north to Parrot Branch. From there it continues west, taming north along parrot Branch to the eastern boundary of the new Crozet ElementalW School parcel to its north property line, then angling west to the south side of Old Ballard Road. At that point it continues in a westerly direction through Weston subdivision across Buck Road (Route 789) to take in the water tank, then south to Raikoad Avenue. This northern boundarg to the Development Area is defined as containing the area draining to a series of proposed stormwater facilities located along Parrot Branch. The western boundary runs along Route 684 to its intersection with Route 691. At this point, it tums eastward and follows a stream system until it reaches Rou~2-51~re~ the Rockfish Gap Turnpike. A Justification/explanation for addition of north Downtown: The present boundary of the Community of Crozet boundary corresponds to the area lying within the watershed of Lickinghole Basin, a man-made structure intended to capture sediment and thereby improve water quality downstream of Crozet in the Mechums' River and, ultimately, in the South Fork Rivanna ReServoir. The basin does not capture mn-off from'north downtown because Three Notch'~d Road essentially. interferes; the road follows the ridge dividing the Lickinghole and Beaver Creek watersheds and thusit has served as the northern boundary of the Development Area. Land.use.POlicy decisions, have been problematic in north downtown because although it tee ghly develo h "~;~ is~' ~¢altyoutsid¢':theDe~elopment Area,.it is a,hi ped area wit..,'nUmcr°us :~ ' :' ~- . residential areas, public fa~lities:and C0mmercia[establ slSmentsin w ~ich. ik¢ an3.' older 3;<fNer fh~r~ ~r,-n'~;b;od~ ~Y*,~nq{~,~ ..... I ... ; .... , '"" .... ""'i': w':.':."!L::'T}lOl'C, the drains to Crozet's own water supply - Beaver Creek Reservoir - and yet there has been uncertainty about expending public funds on a solution because, again, this district is not technically part of the Development Area. The proposed boundary amendment actually would more consistently reflect County policy than the existing condition, because it would facilitate the correction of long-standing negative environmental impacts to the community's drinking water supply. The boundary amendment is a major recommendation of the proposed Crozet Master Plan, which is currently under review by the Planning Commission. For the residents of the "old downtown" area located north of the railroad tracks and Three Notch'd Road (Route 240), however, this boundary amendment simply acknowledges an existing settlement pattern that developed over the years as Crozet grew. If approved, the amendment would officially add the majority of the northern downtown area to the designated Development Area. Most parcels within the northern area are akeady developed, with 'houses, commercial or other non-residential buildings served by public water and sewer, and this amendment would not change that condition. The change to the boundary becomes significant when new development or redevelopment of a property were proposed; a much broader range of development/redevelopment opportunities is available in a Development Area versus the Rural Areas, and this would be a major advantage for the continued viability of downtown. The change would also be significant in terms of investment in public facilities, since the County's policy is to direct capital spending to the designated Development Areas where it can serve the most residents. A number of public services are located on the north side of Three Notch'd Road and along Crozet Avenue (Route 810) - fire, rescue, existing library, old and new elementary schools - so the amendment also expands future options for these community facilities. In the interim period before final action is taken on the Crozet Master Plan by the Board of Supervisors, land use decisions would be based on existing zoning with the Crozet Master Plan providing additional guidance. Justification~explanation for removal of Southeastern Quadrant: The boundary amendment recommended by the Crozet Master Plan would remove the southeastern quadrant of the currently designated Development Area, resulting in a new boundary following the south side of Lickinghole Basin and Lickinghole Creek to a point on the north side of Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West)juSt east of the Clover Lawn development. This is an environmentally sensitive area characterized by steep slopes and floodplains and high visibility from the Entrance Corridor/scenic highway (Rockfish Gap Turnpike/Route 250 West) which forms its southern boundary. It is located farthest from Downtown, making it difficult to connect to the rest of the Community of Crozet without solely relying on Rockfish Gap Turnpike, in contradiction to County policy concerning'this corridor. Road connections across the Lickinghole Creek system woul6be difficult and' expensive to achieve, andin general the, area is. not easily integrated within other areas within the Development Area. If the area were removed from the Development Area,. land use recommendations would follow Rural Areas policy and development would take place based on existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process: A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) is first forwarded to the Planning Commission for a determination as to whether or not a public purpose would be served by considering the request. In this case, that determination was made on July 9, 2003when the Commission was directed by the Board of Supervisors to review the proposed Master Plan and forward its recommendation to the Board. As noted, after several meetings, the Commission felt that it could move forward to public heating on one recommendation - the boundary amendment - while continuing to review the numerous other elements of the Plan, and adopted the Resolution of Intent. It is the responsibility of the applicant to justify the CPA request under criteria first adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 4/17/85 and amended 12/11/91, effective April 1, 1992. A proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan should be reviewed for compliance w/th the general plan rather than area-specific or parcel-specific requests for a change in use (see discussion under 'A' below). Similarly, any amendment request must support the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan (see discussion under 'B' below). CPA's which direct growth away from designated Development Areas without adequate justification are discouraged, and no amendment request shall be considered where roads and utilities are inadequate unless the improvement of those facilities is part of the proposal ('C' below). Amendment requests also must comply with all other adopted County plans, policies, studies, Ordinances, and related documents ('D' below). Finally, the following conditions must be considered in evaluating a CPA request, discussed under 'E' below: 1. Change in circumstance has occurred; or 2. Updated information is available; or 3. Subsequent portion of the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted or developed; or 4. A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible; or 5. The preparation of the Plan as required by Article 15.1-447 of the Code of Virginia was incomplete or incorrect information was employed. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: A. Compliance with the General Plan The Comprehensive Plan directs growth to designated Development Areas ~and away from the Rural Areas. This amendment, if approved, would result in a Development Area boundary that more cl6Sely reflects existing and' anticipated future development and redevelOpment patterns, and the availability of supporting public services. It woUld concentrate development more centrally, and discourage it in edge locations where it would be more likely to impact the Rural Areas. The addition of the northern downtown area to the designated Development Area would allow public investment in stormwater . . ~. _. management facilities designed to mitigate negative water quality impacts to Beaver Creek Reservoir which have resulted from development which oCCurred before the " Lickinghole Basin was constructed, and thus lies outside of its drainage. Because the addition of area to the north is balanced with the removal of the southeastern quadrant, the change in area essentially balances and the Development Area is not expanded, in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Fulfdlment of goals and obiectives of the Comprehensive Plan Albemarle County has long sought to maintain its Development Area boundaries and avoid expanding further into the Rural Areas. The adopted Neighborhood Model sets forth 12 principles intended to encourage a more compact, walkable neighborhood form accompanied by amenities such as parks and sidewalks, as well as supporting neighborhood goods and services in the form of mixed-use development. This amendment would concentrate future growth more centrally, and discourage high density development in a location - thc southeastern quadrant - where it is difficult to link it to existing neighborhoods or downtown. Because the southeastern quadrant does not connect easily to other parts of the Development Area, residents would be forced to rely on Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West) exclusively as access to and from their neighborhoods. This reliance in turn would increase visual and traffic impacts to Route 250 West, a designated Entrance Corridor and Scenic Highway, a situation which would conflict With established County policy that supports maintaining the road in its current condition by minimizing new development along its boundary and promoting alternatives to its use. C. Availability/Condition of Public Utilities and Facilities Both public utilities and facilities already serve the downtown area, and indeed were installed there to serve residential, commercial and institutional development Whichbin many cases first relied on older private systems. Downtown infill and redevelopment projects would benefit from this availability. Much of the southeastern quadrant is served by public water and sewer, although thc steep topography and changing grades make actual sewer service problematic in places. It would be much more difficult to provide convenient access to public facilities such as schools and library, or the downtown commercial core, from this area. It does have good access to Lickinghole Basin, which may become a county park, and to the greenway system which will eventually lead to other parts of the Community. D. General Compliance with Adopted County Plans, Policies, Studies and Ordinances; Determine if Corresponding Changes are Necessary In staff's opinion, an amended Crozet boundary that draws in thc heavily populated, developed northern downtown area and concentrates population more centrally comptics more closely with the Neighborhood Model and the historic growth management policy of directing development away from the Rural Areas. E. Conditions for Evaluation of Request Change in circumstance has occurred. The completion of the Crozet Master Plan represents a change in circumstance. The Plan provides a comprehensive vision for development of existing and new neighborhoods based on a series of 7 Guiding Principles identified by the residents as well as several themes that emerged from public input during the planning process. These principles and themes are: The first principle and a major theme throughout the process was the continued importance of downtown as the heart of Crozet, and the need to make it accessible from all parts of the Community. From a planning and design standpoint, this principle is reflected in the linkages between downtown and a series of proposed Hamlets and Neighborhoods, through new roads like Main Street and Western and Eastern Avenues, and pedestrian access via sidewalks and the greenway trails. Despite these recommended linkages, the southeastern quadrant does not connect well to downtown, and it would and its location complicates another of the Plan's themes, that of protecting the Scenic Corridors of 250 and 240. Updated information is available. In this case, updated information is available in the form of the Crozet Master Plan, as discussed above. Subsequent portions of the Comprehensive Plan have been adopted or developed; Since the current Crozet boundary was adopted in 1980, several significantpolicy changes have occurred. The Neighborhood Model was adOpted by the Board of Supervisors on May 16, 2001, and offers a very different, specific approach to build- out of the growth areas. It encourages a development form that is compact and walkable, offers variety in housing as well as amenities such as parks, sidewalks, and public facilities accessible via sidewalks and trails, and advocates a clear boundary with the Rural Areas. It would be difficult to implement the Neighborhood Model in the southeastern quadrant of the Community, because of its broken topography, extensive areas of floodplain, and location remote from other neighborhoods, existing or new centers, and downtown. In fact, one of the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model, Site Planning that Respects Terrain, advocates for careful treatment of and/or even reduced developed in environmentally sensitive areas like this one. Residents of the southeastern quadrant would have to rely on Rockfish Gap Turnpike for all access - a conflict with County policy toward the corridor- and commercial areas located on the fringe of the Development Area instead of either downtown or other more embedded centers. Development in this area also would put pressure on the adjacent Rural Areas, and the ability to achieve a clear boundary is problematic. ,4 portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible; or In staffs opinion~ this criterion is not applicable to this project. The:preparation of the Plan as required by Article 15.1-44 7 of the Code of Virginia was incomplete or' incorrect information was employed. In staffs opinion, this criterion is not applicable to this project. DISCUSSION ~When the Framework Plan - the mid-point product of the Master Plan - was presented in December 2002, one of the residents' first comments was that it neglected to provide an appropriate level of detail for downtown, and didn't address the portion north of Three Notch'd Road at all. The County's consultants explained that the first part of the planning process intentionally focused on the area technically inside the Development Area (DA) boundary, but it was obvious to them and staff that the neighbors view it as one area. Although there are many physical barriers between north and south downtown, it seems apparent that policy is not or should not be one of them. Changes are anticipated to several non-residential downtown properties in the near term, in terms of transfers in ownership and/or occupancy, or redevelopment, and a policy refinement that would allow the County and community to work cooperatively and pro-actively with these owners seems appropriate. Furthermore, the eastern end of downtown currently is becoming active. The upcoming move of Music Today to the southern part of the ConAgra complex may also trigger changes to the northern properties lying outside the existing DA boundary. The impending ConAgra reSidue Neighborhood Model District rezoning application just to the south contributes to the increased activity level at the eastern end. In the near future, there may be a need to develop a more detailed plan for this portion of downtown, much of which is technically outside of the DA. The amendment would remedy an existing water quality problem, and remove an inconsistency with long-standing a County policy of water supply protection. The situation in the southeastern quadrant of the community is entirely different. The former Monclair property, originally proposed for 240 residential un/ts with associated commercial, was sold and the current owner is developing it under R-1 Residential by-right zoning as the Fox Chase subdivision. The property's 107 acres are being marketed as 52 high end estate-type lots, a low density pattern that results in part from the extensive steep slopes and floodplains which characterize this portion of the Development Area. The owners of the property just to the west of Fox Chase have indicated that they do not intend to develop their land, and they have discussed dedicating a conservation easement. Under the proposed amendment to the Development Area, this property would be located immediately outside (east of) the new boundary. Staff has been contacted by owners in the eastern part of the area, one of whom is interested in a New Urbanist form of development and another who favors preservation of the existing rural character. The northern area proposed for addition to the Development Area contains approximately 344.63 acres, with 297.504 acres already developed and' 39:47acres undevelOped, fora total of 293 existing parcels. The residential areas, largely built-out, are zoned R-2. Existing commercial areas to the north are zoned C-l, and the ConAgra property is LI, Light Industry. Undeveloped areas Within the expanded boundary are mainly RA, Rural Areas, ~-with the exception of undeveloped portions of the old elementary school property and a few other parcels. Alternatives for the boundary of the new northern area were explored and established by Nelson-Byrd Landscape Architects, based on their analysis of the watershed draining to a location along Parrot Branch which was first identified by County Engineering as a candidate for a regional stormwater management (SWM) facility. The Water Resources Manager later looked at the SWM alternatives in more detail, and recommends that a series of facilities including a constructed wetland may more effectively remedy existing water quality problems emanating from the northern part of downtown. These facilities could be located along Parrot Branch, from the new elementary school property at the west to a breached farm pond just downstream of Parkview Road at the east. The existing water quality problems will only become more significant with added population, and the closer integration of Beaver Creek into the County-wide water supply system. In the interim before adoption of the full Master Plan, land use decisions in this northern area would occur under existing zoning with the guidance of the proposed Plan. The southeastern quadrant proposed for removal from the Development Area contains 324.72 acres, with 208.68 acres developed and 116.04 acres undeveloped, for a total of 29 parcels. (It should be noted that in the database query performed by the Geographic Data Services division, a parcel is considered to be developed if it has improvements valued at more than $20,000. In the case of the southeastern quadrant, the query may have produced an exaggerated picture of the level of development. For example, the density/intensity would actually be very low with one rural residence, even though the query would show it as developed, suggesting residential development.) The development potential or holding capacity of this area is probably much less than the same acreage would be with a flatter topography and absence of surface water, but there are upland areas, that if subdivided would be sought after for residential use because of their spectacular views. Development consistent with the Neighborhood Model would be difficult here because, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the topography and edge location make this area hard to connect even to adjacent neighborhoods, and even more problematic in terms of access to community facilities and other services. Similarly, its edge location does not seem to make it a good choice for the scale of neighborhood center that would really meet residents' need in terms of goods and services. Negative impacts to the scenic corridor-Route 250 West- would be anticipated with intensive development of either a residential or non-residential nature. If removed from the Development Area, property owners in this area could still develop their land under either rural development rights or existing zoning. There are areas orR-1 and RA zoning in this quadrant. RECOMMENDATION The following factors are favorable to the proposed boundary amendment. The addition of the northern area to the Development Area is. one step in the process of correcting a long-standing Water quality problem resulting from unmanaged stormWater :~:: ' draining directly into Beaver creek Reservoir, a drinking water supply, lt'would be followed by the design and construction of public improvements in the form of SWM facilities along Parrot Branch.. ~ .... downtown, an area that has been developed for many years and which the residents consider an important part of their community's center. By incorporating northern downtown into the Development Area, the County would be able to work more collaboratively with the private sector on development and redevelopment projects in a location where they are most needed and best sited. The boundary amendment to the north would eliminate what many residents see as an artificial division of the historic center of the community, and promote more integrated planning for the entire area. The boundary amendment balances addition to the DA of a historically developed area with removal of a largely rural, environmentally sensitive area, thus essentially maintaining the County's policy of holding the growth area boundaries. The boundary amendment focuses attention and resources on downtown, the residents' first priority as expressed in the Master Plan, consistent with the principles of the Neighborhood Model. The removal of the southeastern quadrant from the Development Area would reduce the potential for visual and transportation impacts to Route 250 West, an Entrance Corridor and Scenic Highway, consistent with County policy. · The southeastern quadrant is rural in character and topography, and more closely conforms to the Rural Area district. The boundary amendment would give it a designation most appropriate for its natural features. · The southeastern quadrant would be very difficult to develop under Neighborhood Model principles and such development would be likely to create negative environmental impacts. Adding it to the Rural Areas protects natural resources that are _ highly visible and valued by the community, while still allowing by-fight development. The following factors are not favorable to this request. If approved, the Development Area boundary would extend beyond the Lickinghole Basin watershed which was established to protect the South Rivarma Reservoir water supply. The County may lose some holding capacity in the DA by removing the southeastern quadrant which is largely undeveloped. · Property owners' development options may be limited by removing the southeastern quadrant from the Development Area. * Slightly more area is being added than removed. Staff recommends approval of the proposed boundary amendment as a first step in the implementation of the proposed Master Plan; -Attachments: - A - Comprehensive Plan map of the Community of Crozet indicating boundary amendment ~B- Draft revisions to Comrnunity Pro£fle (Land Use Plan, Comprehensive Plan) also show the.proposed amended boundary. ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B Crozet Community Location The Community of Crozet is located west of the City of Charlottesville off cf Re'ate 250 ~rest- generally ly/ng between Three Notch'd Road (Route 240) and the Rockfish Gap pike (R ut t) undary ......... ~.. ~-. o^.,.~ '~n xxr~. Turn o e 250 Wes , The southern bo ....... r:,---j ..... ~ .............. extends west from the Lickinghole Basin dam along the south side of Lickinghole Basin and Creek, intersecting the Rockfish Gap Turnpike east of the Clover Lawn development, and continuing west along the north side of the highway fi.om there. The entire Development Area is within the Lickinghole Creek watershed, with the exception of a small northern strip containing portions of the old downtown commercial and residential area. The eastern boundary is the ridgeline for two streams which flow into the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin. The boundary follows this stream system north to Three Notch'd Road ~>""*~ -,an ~-.~..... ........ :.. +.. ,h~ ,'. ~,. r~ o ~;~ ........ ~ .... 1~..~ .:+. te-A-oate-tg4, crosses it and from a point opposite the Acme property heads north to Parrot Branch. From there it continues west, turning north along Parrot Branch to the eastern boundary of the new Crozet Elementary School parcel to its north property line, then angling west to the south side of Old Ballard Road. At that point it continues in a westerly direction through Weston subdivision across Buck Road (Route 789) to take in the water tank, then south to Railroad Avenue. This northern boundary to the Development Area is' defined as containing the area draining to a series of proposed stormwater facilities located along Parrot Creek. The western boundary runs along Route 684 to its intersection with Route 691. At this point, it tm'ns eastward and follows a stream system until it reaches~..~.~..~>~"'+~ -,v"ca West the Rockfish Gap Turnpike. . ^. o.~.~....~..°;~";c; .... Existing Land Use Downtown- The heart of the Crozet Community is the downtown area. The downtown consists of a number of businesses, offices, a retirement community, a library, a fire and rescue squad, and a post office. The building styles, age, and location of some structures make downtown Crozet a unique and special place. Most businesses and offices are located close together and near the roadway. The buildings that service the downtown area are generally no taller than 3 stories in height with the exception of the Wind. am Rctiremem Cc,~ur2ty Mountainside Senior Living, which is 7 stories in height.. Other than a limited area around ~*'~ nr;...m.,~ D~,; ..... , r- ...... ;*-' Mountainside, there is no unifying design theme, such as tree plantings, lighting, street furniture, etc., downtOwn. There' are limited pedestrian linkages that exist between the surrounding residential area. There are a few small trees planted throughout the downtown and some vegetation exists along the railroad track. Residential- The Crozet Community (Development Area) contains an estimated 846 dwelling units and a population of 2,224 people. Seventy two percent (610) of the housing units in the NeighborhoOd are single-family attached; twelve percent (105) of the housing units are either townhouses, single family attached or duplexes; six percent (46) of the housing units are multifamily; and ten percent (85) are mobile homes (July 1996). Large residential areas in Community include the Crozet Mobile Home Park, Parkview, Brookwood, Highlands at Mechum River, Orchard Acres, x, Vin~,~ham Re~remer~~ ........... ,, Mountmns]de, Western Ridge, Cor~ Farm. Grawock Orchard, Wayland's Grant, and Crozet Crossing. Commercial and Office - Most uses are located along Route 240 (Crozet Avenue and Three Notch'd Road). Larger retail uses include The Square (13,427 square feet); Crozet Shopping Center (29,502 square feet-adjacent to the Development Area); and Blue Ridge Building Supply Company (Route 250 West-48,030 square feet). Industrial- There are two large industrial uses in the Community. They are Con Agra (464,821 square feet) and Acme Visible (286,187 square feet). Both of these industries are located on Route 240 (Crozet Avenue). Other Land Uses - The Crozet Development Area contains a post office. Environmental Characteristics The topography of the Crozet area varies from gently rolling to steeply rolling terrain. The Crozet Development Area drains into Lickinghole Creek which is located entirely within the South Fork Rivanna River water supply watershed. The Lickinghole Creek Sedimentation Basin was constructed to reduce nonpoint discharge from Crozet. The basin serves as an erosion, sedimentation and runoff control device for development in the Crozet Development Area. Similar water quality protection measures are to be put in place along Parrot Branch and within its watershed, to minimize impacts to the Beaver Creek Reservoir from the existing north downtown area. Critical slopes occur in a scattered fashion in the southern portion of the Development Area. Wooded areas are present throughout the Community. One-hundred year flood plain designations occur along Powell's Creek, Lickinghole Creek and Slabtown Branch. Transportation Route 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike) and Route 240 (Crozet Avenue and Three Notch'd Road) are the primary roads serving the Development Area. All significant secondary roads within the Community are currently considered "non-tolerable" by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Accessibility to portions of the Development Area south of Three Notch'd Road and east of Crozet Avenue is restricted due to lack of public roads in these areas. In the central portion of the Development Area, alignment and sight distance pose problems along both Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue, especially in the downtown area. In the western section of Crozet, Route 684 (Jarman's Gap Road) is considered a "non-tolerable" road. The existing walkway system is not interconnected and some portions are .in need of maintenance. There are no bicycle facilities or greenways in the Community; however, the construction of these facilities are possible in conjunction with road projects and new development projects. 13¸ Water and Sewer Water supply in Crozet is provided by the Beaver Creek Reservoir. Safe Yield of the reservoir is 2.0 million gallons a day (mgd) and is adequate to handle ultimate growth in Crozet based on the current Land Use Plan. Current water demand in Crozet is 0.661 mgd (1995). The capacity of the treatment plant is 1 mgd. The water treatment plant is not designed to handle the ultimate growth of the area and expansion of the plant is currently under design. Wastewater service is currently being provided through the Crozet Interceptor and Moores Creek Treatment Plant. A 12" water line was recently installed between Jarman's Gap Road and Route 250 at Henley Middle School. The addition of this line improved fire protection to the schools and provides water service to the large undeveloped portion of the Community north of the school complex, south of Jarman's Gap and west of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue). Some looping and upsizing of this water line will be.necessary to meet future growth requirements in the area east of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue). Public Facilities The Crozet Community Development Area, along with the surrounding area, contains two elementary schools, a middle school, a high school, a library, a fire and rescue station, and a Community Park (Claudius Crozet) with a pool. Also, the old Crozet Elementary School currently houses a private school. Two other parks/recreation areas (Mint Springs and Beaver Creek) are located nearby. Park service and fire/rescue service is adequate to this area. However, there is a need to improve other public facilities in the area. A police substation is needed to reduce response times to Crozet and the western portion of the County. The Jefferson Madison Re~onal Library has outgrown its existing site at the old train station and is in need of additional space. The post office does not have adequate parking, and the current traffic circulation/parking pattern is unsafe. Also, the pool at Crozet Park is scheduled for repairs. Community Study A neighborhood study for the Crozet Community was prepared.by the Department of Planning and Community Development under the direction of a 13-member committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of this study was to assist the County in establishing policy to help guide public and private activities as they relate to land use and resource utilization within Crozet. As such, the recommendations of this study should 'be considered when establishing policy and reviewing development proposals for the Crozet area. This studv makes recommendations~i,n regards to public facilities, dOwntown development, .the economy, housing,.design, .and historic and sociaUssues 14 Recommendations Limit the amount of new development that will occur in the Parrot Branch watershed to the existing zoning, because it is a tributary to the Beaver Creek water supply reservoir. The boundary for the Crozet Development Area is generally based on the drainage area for the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin; exceptions are the addition of the old portion of the downtown area to the Development Area, and the exclusion of the far southeastern quadrant which is environmentally sensitive and located along the 250 West corridor, a scenic highway. The portion of the Development Area lying within the Parrot Branch watershed shall be served by water quality measures intended to reduce the impact to the Beaver Creek water supply from existing development and/or redevelopment in this area. No intensification of development should take place until such water quality measure are in place. Strengthen the downtown as a shopping area, and the focal point of the Crozet Community by encouraging all new commercial uses to locate in the downtown instead of on Route 250. Limit commercial development on Route 250 to existing commercial land only. Unless such a downtown commercial element is encouraged, pressure will increase for a suburban- type shopping center located outside of the Community. Improve the environment of the downtown area through landscaping, street furniture and pedestrian ways. Encourage new commercial development in the downtown through redevelopment, reuse ofexisting structures and infill development. New development should occur in a style, scale and setback in keeping with traditional buildings. Designate the area along Tabor Street for Neighborhood Service. Any new commercial development along Tabor Street and Carter S,treet: should be physically and architecturally compatible and at the same scale as the existing residential units located in the ama. · Utihze the recommendations of the Crozet Study and Master Plan as a guide for future development of the area. north of Three Notch'd Road and Railroad Avenue shall be based on existing zoning and refer to the Crozet Master Plan for additional guidance. The Crozet Master Plan shall provide guidance for development that impacts the 250 West corridor. · Transportation improvements include: Establish a road system in the eastern portion of the Community which connects existing and new residential areas to each other and to other areas in Crozet. This road may ultimately link Route 250 (Rockfish Gap Road) and Route 240 (Three Notch'd Road). To the extent feasible, the design of this road shall be in keeping with the residential character of the area (i.e. two lanes, limited through traffic, no track traffic, low speed limit). More specifically the intent is to: better integrate new and existing residential areas located east of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue); better distribute traffic to all roads, thereby reducing the ultimate design of any one road; proVide an alternative route and to relieve traffic on Routes 240 (Crozet Avenue and Three Notch'd Road), particularly to downtown. Provide better access, particularly emergency access to those residents living east of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue). Correct the horizontal and alignment problems along both Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue. These improvements will become more critical as the Development Area is developed. Reconstruct Jarman's Gap Road from Route 240 to Route 684 to improve horizontal and vertical alignment and provide adequate sight distance at intersections. Bike facilities and walkways are recommended to be constructed in conj unction with the up~ade of this road. Provide centralized parkingin the downtown area. Once provided, reduce parking requirements for new construction or redevelopment in downtown. · In the long term, consider constructing a permanem park and ride facility to the serve th~ community. In the short term, expt0re.:the ~ possibility, of a joint-use .... park and ride .lot. Implement the recommendations of the Crozet Study for the construction of walkways, street lights and greenways. Utility improvements include: Expand the water treatment plant as needed. Provide sewer service to those areas that were deleted fi.om the original construction project, (nine separate lines were not completed). Upgrade the lower reach of the Crozet interceptors and upgrade the pump station as needed to provide adequate sewer service to the Community. Construct water quality measures on Parrot Branch to address/control erosion, sedimentation, and run-off from the existing development in the old downtown area. Public Facility Improvements include: Conduct a feasibility study on providing public services (police, social services, health, library, etc.) at a centralized facility in the Crozet Community. Include in this study a recommended site for the facility. Maintain the old Crozet Elementary School as a public building for use as a school or other public uses as necessary. Locate a new post office building in the Crozet Community, preferably in the downtown area, that allows for a more efficient and safer pedestrian and traffic circulation. Close the railroad crossing at The Square by constructing a fence along the northern portion of The Square's parking lot. Extend the fence to a point east of the library. The existing lumber yard located just south of Three Notch'd Road is desig-nated Industrial Service to reflect the present use of the property. If this use is discontinued, a change in land use designation to CommunitY Service Is recommended to allow for commercial uses, ConSider the ~ecommendations of the Crozet Community Study to serve as a. guide for development in this community. 17 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depar~meqt of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclnfire Road. Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Susan Thomas,'Senior Planner ~Z~:~ / November 20, 2003 ~ CPA 2003~04 Crozet Master Plan, Boundary Amendment The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at.its meeting on November 11~ 2002, by a vote of 3:2, recommended approval of the above-noted request to amend the existing boundary of the Community of Crozet as recommended by the proposed Crozet Master Plan. This approval is conditioned upon the northern boundary as recommended in the staff report of 11/11/03, which ran right along Parrot Creek anc~ then along the schools eastern property line and that the southeastern quadrant would remain in the development area. The Albemarle County Board of .Supervisors is scheduled to review this request and receive public comment at their meeting on December 10, 2003. Attached you will find a staff report which outlines this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. SET/jcf Cc: Ella Carey STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN THOMAS, AICP NOVEMBER 11, 2003 DECEMBER 10, 2003 CPA 2003-04i CROZET'MASTER PLAN BOUNDARY AMENDMENT CPA 2003-04~ Crozet Master Plan Boundary Amendment- Proposal to amend the existing boundary of the Community of Crozct as recommended by the proposed Crozet Master Plan. This amendment would remove the southeastern quadrant of the Community, generally encompassing the property located south of Lickinghole Creek and Lickinghole Basin extending from the eastern boundary of the Development Area to a point on the north side of the Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West) east of the Clover Lawn development. The amendment would add a portion of the historic Crozet downtown area located north of Three Notched Road (Route 240) and Railroad Avenue (Route 788) to the Development Area. Background The Neighborhood Model, an adopted part of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan,- includes a provision that master plans be prepared for the'County's designated Development Areas. On October 17, 2001, the Board of Supervisors selected the Community of Crozet as the first Development Area to be master planned. The Renaissance Planning Group and Nelson-Byrd Landscape Architects were retained as planrdng consultants for the project, and an extensive public involvement program was conducted with the assistance of Christensen and Associates. On July 9, 2003, the consultants presented their £mal report, the Crozet Development Area Master Plan (the "Crozet Master Plan"), to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meeting in joint session. At that meeting, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, by adopting the Crozet Master Plan, and directed the Planning Commission to review the Plan and forward its recommendation to the Board at the earliest possible date. During the months of August, September and October, the Planning Commission held a series of 5 informational work sessions. In November and December, it will commence the editorial phase of its review, and it is anticipated that the Commission will forward its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in December or January. At the meeting of September 9, the Commission discussed initiating discussion of and aCtion on one of the Master Plan's recommendations, the amendment of the CroZet Development Area boundary. This recommendation, although related to the land use, programmatic and implementation recommendations in the Plan, is more of a stand-alone item than the others. If adopted, this amendment would add a portion of the "old downtown" to the Development Area and remove a portion of the southeastern quadrant of existing Development Area. At the meeting of September 30, the Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to hold a public hearing on the boundary amendment recommendation. Description oLthe Areas to be Added and/or Removed: Draft of revised location 'description for Community Profile section of the Comprehensive Plan: The Community of Crozet is located west of the City'of Charlottesville off cf P. ov. te 250 ~ generally lying between Three Notch'd Road (Route 240) and the Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West) The southern boundary :-a~ ..... '~1.. extends west from the Lickinghole Basin dam along the south side of Lickinghole Basin and Creek, intersecting the Rockfish Gap Turnpike east of the Clover Lawn development, and continUing west along the north side of the highway from there. The-. entire Development Area is within the Lickinghole Creek watershed, with the exception of a small northern strip containing portions of the old downtown commercial and residential area. The eastern boundary is the ridgeline for two streams, which flow int° the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin. The boundary follows this stream system north Thre Notch d Road'r'^''*~ ~n ~ it ~P~m~-684, crosses it and from a point opposite the Acme property heads north to Parrot Branch. From there it continues west, turning north along Parrot Branch to the eastern boundary of the new Crozet Elementary School parcel to its north property line, then angling west to the south side of Old Ballard Road. At that point it cOntinues in a westerly direction through Weston subdivision across Buck Road (Route 789) to take in the water tank, then south to Railroad Avenue. This northern boundary to the Development Area is defined as containing the area draining to a series of proposed stormwater facilities located along Parrot Branch. The western boundary runs along Route 684 to its intersection with Route 691. At this point, it tums eastward and follows a it reaches ......... xxr~,+ the Rockfish Gap Turnpike. stream system until ' ~,,,~ .~n ......... Justification/explanation for addition of north Downtown: The present boundary of the Community of Crozet boundary corresponds to the area lying within the watershed of Lickinghole Basin, a man-made structure intended to capture sediment and thereby improve water quality downstream of Crozet in the Mechums River and, ultimately, in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The basin does not. capture run,off from north downtown because Three Notch'd Road essentially interferes; the road follows the ridge dividing the Lickinghole and Beaver Creek watersheds and thus it has served as the northern boundary of the Development Area. Land use policy decisions have been problematic in north downtown because although it is technically outside the Development Area, it is a highly developed area with numerous residential areas, public facilities and commercial establishments in which,, like any older district, there are periodic expansion and redevelopment needs. Furthermore, the area drains to Crozet's own water supply- Beaver Creek Reservoir - and yet there has been uncertainty about expending public funds on a sOlution because, again, this district is not technically part of the Development Area. The proposed boundary amendment actually would more consistently reflect County policy than the existing condition, because it would facilitate the correction of long-standing negative environmental impacts to the community's drinking water supply. The boundary amendment is a major recommendation of the proposed Crozet Master Plan, which is currently under review by the Planning CommissiOn. For the residents of the "old downtown" area located north of the raikoad tracks and Three Notch'd Road (Route 240), however, this boundary amendment simply acknowledges an existing settlement pattern that developed over the years as Crozet grew. If approved, the amendment would officially add the majority of the nOrthern downtown area to the designated Development Area. Most parcels within the northern area are already developed, with houses, commercial or other non-residential buildings served by public water and sewer, and this amendment would not change that condition. The change to the boundary becomes significant when new development or redevelopment of a property were proposed; a much broader range of development/redevelopment oppommities is available in a Development Area versus the Rural Areas, and this would be a major advantage for the continued viability of downtown. The change would also be significant in terms of investment in public facilities, since the County's policy is to direct capital spending to the designated Development Areas where it can serve the most residents. A number of public services are located on the north side of Three Notch'd Road and along Crozet Avenue (Route 810) - fire, rescue, existing library, old and new elementary schools - so the amendment also expands future options for these community facilities. In the interim period before final action is taken on the Crozet Master Plan by the Board of Supervisors, land use decisions would be based on existing zoning with the Crozet Master Plan. providing additional guidance. Justification/explanation for removal of Southeastern Quadrant: The boundary amendment recommended by the Crozet Master Plan would remove the southeastern quadrant of the currently designated Development Area, resulting in a new boundary following the south side of Lickinghole Basin and Lickinghole Creek to a point on the north side of Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West) just east of the Clover Lawn development. This is an environmentally sensitive area characterized by steep slopes and floodplains and high visibility fi:om the Entrance Corridor/scenic highway (Rockfish Gap Turnpike/Route 250 West) which forms its southern boundary. It is located farthest fi:om Downtown, making it difficult to connect to the rest of the Community of Crozet without solely relying on Rockfish Gap Turnpike, in contradiction to County policy concerning this corridor. Road connections across the Lickinghole Creek system would be difficult and expensive to achieve, and in general the area is not easily integrated within other areas within the Development Area. If the area were removed from the Development Area, land use recommendations 'would follow Rural Areas policy and development would take place based on existing zoning and development rights. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process: A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) is first forwarded to the Planning Commission for a determination as to whether or not a public purpose would be served by cOnsidering the request. In this case, that determination was made on July 9, 2003when the Commission was directed by the Board of Supervisors to review the proposed Master Plan and forward its recommendation to the Board. As noted, after several meetings, the Commission felt that it could move forward to public hearing on one recommendation - the boundary amendment - while continuing to review the numerous other elements of the Plan, and adopted the Resolution of Intent. It is the responsibility of the applicant to justify the CPA request under criteria first adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 4/17/85 and amended 12/11/91, effective April 1, 1992. A proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan should be reviewed for compliance with the general plan rather than area-specific or parcel-specific requests for a change in use (see discUssion under 'A' below). Similarly, any amendment request must support the goalS and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan (see discussion under 'B' below). CPA's which direct growth away from designated Development Areas without adequate justification are discouraged, and no amendment request shall be considered where roads and utilitieS are inadequate unless the improvement of those facilities is part of the proposal ('C' below). Amendment requests also must comply with all other adopted County plans, policies, studies, ordinances, and related documents ('D' below). Finally, the following conditions must be considered in evaluating a CPA request, discussed under 'E' below: 1. Change in circumstance has occurred; or 2. Updated information is available; or 3. Subsequent portion of the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted or developed; or 4. A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible; or 5. The preparation of the Plan as required by Article 15.1-447 of the Code of Virginia was incomplete or incorrect information was employed. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: A. Compliance with the General Plan The Comprehensive Plan directs growth to designated Development Areas and away from the Rural Areas. This amendment, if approved, would result in a Development Area boundary that more closely reflects existing and anticipated future development and redevelopment patterns, and the availability of supporting public services. It would concentrate development more Centrally and discourage it in edge locations where it would be more likely to impact the Rural Areas. The addition of the northern downtown area to the designated Development Area would allow publiC investment in stormwater management facilities designed to mitigate negative water quality impacts to Beaver Creek Reservoir which have resulted from development which occurred before the Lickinghole Basin was constructed, and thus lies outside of its drainage. Because the addition of area to the north is balanced with the removal of the southeastern .quadrant, the change in area essentially balances and the Development Area is not expanded, in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. B~ Fulfillment of goals and obiectives of the ComPrehensive Plan Albemarle County has long sought to maintain its DevelOpment Area. boundaries and avoid expanding further into the Rural Areas. Thc adopted Neighborhood Model sets forth 12 principles intended to encourage a mom compact, walkable neighborhood form accompanied by amenities such as parks and sidewalks, as well as supporting neighborhood goods and services in thc form of mixed-use development. This. amendment would'concentrate future growth more centrally, and discourage high density development in alocation - the southeastern quadrant - where it is difficult to link it to existing neighborhoods or downtown. Bccausethe southeastern quadrant does not connect easily to other parts of the Development Area, residents would be forced to rely on Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West) exclusively as access to and from their neighborhoods. This reliance in turn would increase visual and traffic impacts t° Route 250 West, a designated Entrance Corridor and Scenic Highway, a situation which would conflict with established County policy that supports maintaining thc road in its current condition by minimizing new development along its boundary and promoting alternatives to its use. C. Availability/Condition of Public Utilities and Facilities Both public utilities and facilities already serve the downtown area, and indeed were installed there to serve residential, commercial and institutional development which in many cases first relied on older private systems. Downtown infill and redevelopment projects would benefit from this availability. Much of the southeastern quadrant is served by public water and sewer, although the steep topography and changing grades make actual sewer service problematic in places. It would be much more .difficult to provide convenient access to public facilities such as schools and library, or the downtown commercial-core, from this area. It does have good access to Lickinghole Basin, which may become a county park, and to' the greenway system which will eventually lead to other parts of the Community. D. General ComPliance with Adopted County Plans, Policies, Studies and 'Ordinances; Determine if Corresponding Changes are Necessary In staff's opinion, an amended Crozet boundary that draws in' the heavily populated, developed northern downtown area and concentrates population more centrally complies more closely with the Neighborhood Model and thc historic growth management policy of directing development away from the Rural Areas. E. Conditions for Evaluation of Request Change in circumstance has occurred. The completion of the Crozet Master Plan represents a change in circumstance. The Plan provides .a comprehensive vision for development of existing and new neighborhoods based on a series of 7 Guiding Principles identified by the residents as well as several themes that emerged from public input during thc-planning process. These principles and themes are: The first principle and a major theme throUghout the process was the continued importance of downtown as the heart of Crozet, and the need to. make it accessible from all parts of the Community. From a planning and design standpoint, this principle is refleCted in the linkages between downtown and a series of proposed Hamlets and Neighborhoods, through new roads like Main Street andWestem and Eastern Avenues, and pedestrian access via sidewalks and the greenway trails. Despite these recOmmended linkages, the southeastern quadrant does not connect well to downtown, and it would and its location complicates another of the Plan's themes, that of protecting the Scenic Corridors of 250 and 240. Updated information is available. In this case, updated information is available in the form of the Crozet Master Plan, as discussed above. Subsequent portions of the Comprehensive Plan have been adopted or developed; Since the current Crozet boundary was adopted in 1980, several significant policy changes have occurred. The Neighborhood Model was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 16, 2001, and offers a very different, specific approach to build- out of the growth areas. It encourages a development form that is compact and walkable, offers variety in housing as well as amenities such as parks, sidewalks, and public facilities accessible Via sidewalks and trails, and advocates a clear'boundary with the Rural Areas. It would be difficult to implement the Neighborhood. Model in the southeastern quadrant of the CommUnity, beCause of its broken topography, extensive areas of floodplain, and location remote from other neighborhoods, existing or new centers, and downtown. In fact, one of the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model, Site Planning that Respects Terrain, advocates for careful treatment of and/or even reduced developed in environmentally sensitive areas like this one. Residents of the southeastern quadrant would have to rely on Rockfish Gap Turnpike for all access - a conflict with County policy toward the corridor- and commercial areas located on the fringe oft he Development Area instead of either downtown or other'more embedded.centers. Development in this area also would put pressure on the adjacent Rural Areas, and the ability to achieve a clear boundary is problematic. A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible; or In staff's opinion, this criterion is not applicable to this project. The preparation of the Plan as required by Article 15.1-447 of the Code of Virginia was incomplete or incorrect information was employed. In staffs opinion, this criterion is not applicable to this project. DISCUSSION When the Framework Plan -'the mid-point product of the Master Plan- was presented in December 2002, one of the residents' first comments was that it neglected to provide an appropriate level of detail for downtown, and didn't address the portion north of Three Notch'd Road at all. The County's consultants explained that the first part of the planning process intentionally focused on the area technically inside the Development Area (DA) boundary, but it was obvious to them and staffthat the neighbors view it as one area. Although there are many physical barriers between north and south downtown, it seems apparent that policy is not or should not be one of them. Changes are anticipated to several non-residential downtown properties in the near term, in terms of transfers in ownership and/or occupancy, or redevelopment, and a policy refinement that would allow the County and community to work cooperatively and pro-actively with these owners seems appropriate. Furthermore, the eastern end of downtown currently is becoming active. The upcoming mo~ve of Music Today to the southern part of the ConAgra complex may also trigger changes to the northern properties lying outside the existing DA boundary. The impending ConAgra residue Neighborhood Model District rezoning application just to the south contributes to the increased activity level at the eastern end. In the near future, there may be a need to develop a more detailed plan for this portion of downtown, much of which is technically oUtside of the DA. The amendment would remedy an existing water.quality problem, and remOve an inconsistency with long-standing a County policy of water supply protection. The situation in the southeastern quadrant of the community is entirely different. The former Monclair property, originally proposed for 240 residential units with associated commercial, was sold and the current owner is developing it under R- 1 Residential by-right zoning as the Fox Chase subdivision. The property's 107 acres are being marketed as 52 high end estate-type lots, a low density pattern that results in part from the extensive steep slopes and floodplains which characterize this portion of the Development Area. The owners of the property just to the west of Fox Chase have indicated that they do not intend to develop their land, and they have discussed dedicating a conservation easement. Under the proposed amendment to the Development Area, this property would be located immediately outside (east of) the new boundary. Staff has been contacted by owners in the eastern part of the area, one of whom is interested in a New Urbanist form of development and another who favors preservation of the existing rural character. The northern area proposed for addition to the Development Area contains approximately 344.63 acres, with 297.504 acres akeady developed and 39.47acres undeveloped, for a total of 293 existing Parcels. The residential areas, largely built-out, are zoned R-2. Existing commercial areas to the north are zoned C-I, and the ConAgra property is LI, Light Industry. Undeveloped areas within the expanded boundary are mainly PA, Rural Areas, with the exception of undeveloped portions of the old elementary school property and a few other parcels. Alternatives for the boundary of the new northern area were explored and established by Nelson-Byrd Landscape Architects, based on their analysis of the watershed draining to a location along Parrot Branch which was first identified by County Engineering as a candidate for a regional stormwater management (SWM) facility. The Water Resources Manager later looked at the SWM alternatives in more detail, and recommends that a.series of facilities including a constructed wetland may more effectively remedy existing water quality problems emanating from the northern part of downtown. These facilities could be located along Parrot Branch, from'the new elementary school property at the west to a breached farm pond just downstream of Parkview Road at the east. The existing water quality problems will only become more significant with added population, and the closer integration of Beaver Creek into the County~wide water supply system. In the interim before adoption of the full Master Plan, land use decisions in this northern area would occur under existing.zoning with the guidance of the proposed Plan. The southeastern quadrant proposed for removal from the Development Area contains 324.72 acres, with 208.68 acres developed and 116.04 acres undeveloped, for a total of 29 parcels. (It should be noted that in the database query performed by the Geographic Data Services division, a parcel is considered to be developed'if it has improvements valued at more than $20,000. In the case of the southeastern quadrant, the query may have produced an exaggerated picture.of the level of development. For example, the density/intensity- would actually be very low with-one rural residence, even though the query would show it as developed, suggesting residential development.) The development potential or holding capacity of this area is probably much less than the same acreage would be with a flatter topography and absence of sm'face water, but there are upland areas that if subdivided would be sought after for residential use because of their spectacular Views. Development consistent with the Neighborhood'Model would be difficult here because, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the topography and edge location make this area hard to connect even to adjacent neighborhoods, and even more problematic in terms of access to community facilities and other services. Similarly, its edge location does not seem to make it a good choice for the scale of neighborhood' center that would really meet residents.' need in terms of goods and services. Negative impacts to the scenic corridor - Route 250 West ~ would be anticipated with intensive development of either a residential or non-residential nature. If removed from the Development Area, property owners in this area could still develop their land under either rural development rights or existing zoning. There are areas of R-1 and RA zoning in this quadrant. RECOMMENDATION The following factors are favorable to the proposed boundary amendment. The addition of the northern area to the Development Area is one step in the process of correcting a long-standing water quality problem resulting from managed stormwater draining directly into' Beaver Creek Reservoir, a drinking water supply. It would be follOwed by the design and construction of public improvements in the form of SWM facilities along Parrot Branch. The addition of the northern area to the Development Area would allow CoUnty investment in public facilities and other community improvements in northern downtown, an area that has been developed for many years and which the residents consider an important part of their community's center. By incorporating northern downtown into the Development Area, the County would be able to work more collaboratively with the private sector on development and redevelopment projects in a location where they are most needed-and best sited. The boundary amendment to the north would eliminate what many residents see as an artificial division of the historic center of the community, and promote more integrated planning for the entire area. · The boundary amendment balances addition to the DA of a historically developed area with removal of a largely rural, environmentally sensitive area, thus essentially maintaining the County's policy of holding the growth area boundaries. · The bOundary amendment focuses attention and resources on downtOwn, the residents' fh-st priority as expressed in the Master Plan, consistent with the principles of the Neighborhood Mode[ · The removal of the southeastern quadrant fi:om the Development Area would reduce the potential for visual and transportation impacts to Route 250 West, an Entrance Corridor and Scenic Highway, consistent with County policy. · The southeastern qUadrant is rural in character and topography, and more closely conforms to the Rural Area district. The boundary amendment Would give it a designation most appropriate for its natural features. · The southeastern quadrant would be very difficult to develop under Neighborhood Model principles and such development would be likely to create negative environmental impacts. Adding it to the Rural Areas protects natural resources that are highly visible and valued by the community, while still allowing by-right development. The following factors are not favorable to this request. · If approved, the Development Area boundary would extend beyond the Lickinghole Basin watershed which was established to protect the South RiVauna Reservoir water supply. · The County may lose some holding capacity in the DA by removing the southeastern quadrant which is largely undeveloped. · Property owners' development options may be limited by removing the southeastern quadrant from the Development Area. · Slightly more area is being added than removed. Staff recommends approval of the proposed boundary amendment as a first step in the implementation of the proposed Master Plan. Attachments: A - Comprehensive Plan map of the Community of Crozet indicating boundary amendment B - Draft revisions to Community Profile (Land Use Plan; Comprehensive Plan) Note: All four of the Crozet Master Plan maps also show the proposed amended boundary. ATTACHMENT A .,; ATTACHMENT Et Crozet Community Location The Community of Crozet is located west of the City of Charlottesville ~*'*' ~'~' ~,gest- generally lying between Three Notch'd Road (Route 240) and the Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West). The southern boundary ........ o---v~lvll~]fifl~ l~V$[~d11*d extends west from the Lickinghole Basin dam along the south side of Lickinghole Basin and Creek, intersecting the Rockfish Gap Turnpike east of the Clover Lawn development, and continuing west along the north side of the highway from there. The entire Development Area is within the .Lickinghole Creek waterShed, with the exception of a small northern strip containing portions of the old downtown commercial and residential area. The eastern boundary is the ridgeline for two streams which flow into the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin. The boundary follows this stream system north te--R, ou~4, crosses it and from a point opposite the Acme property heads north to Parrot Branch. From there it continues west, mining north along Parrot Branch to the eastern boundm t of the new Crozet Elementary School parcel to its north property_ line, then angling west to the south side of Old Ballard Road. At.that pointit continues in a westerly direction through Weston subdivision across Buck Road (Route 789) to take in the water tank, then south to Railroad Avenue. This northern boundary to the Development Area is defined as containing the area draining to a series of proposed stormwater facilities located along Parrot Creek. The western boundary runs along Route 684 to its intersection with Route 691. At this point, it roms eastward and follows a stream system until it reaches[--~.[~Ofill{fi J;~O~n lXr~*,l ''~'' '''Vth'~ Rockfish Gap Turnpike. A 11 Existing Land Use Downtown. The heart of the Crozet Community is the downtown area. The downtown` consists of a number of businesses, offices, a retirement community, a library, a fire and rescue squad; and a post office. The building styles, age, and location of some structures make downtown Crozet a unique, and special place. Most businesses and offices are located close together and near the roadway. The buildings that service the downtown area are generally no taller than 3 stories in height with the exception of ~.¢ Wind.karo ~,,,~,~,,,,,,,~ ~,~ ..... , r,^..,~,,.~;,.,j Mountalnmde' .... Senior Llwng, which is 7 stories in height.. Other than a limited area around **'~ xxr;~.~h.,~., r,~,; ..... . r, ...... ;,.. · · .................................... j Mountmns~de, there is no unifying design theme, such as tree plantings, lighting, street furniture, etc'., downtown. There are limited pedestrian linkages that eXist between the surrounding residential area. There are 'a few small trees planted throughout the downtown and some vegetation exists along the railroad track. Residential - The Crozet Community (Development Area) contains an estimated 846 dwelling units and a population of 2,224 people. Seventy two percent (610) of the housing units in the Neighborhood are single-family attached; twelve percent (105) of the housing units are either townhouses, single family attached or duplexes; six percent (46) of the housing units are multifamily; and ten percent (85) are mobile homes (July 1996). Large residential areas in Community include the Crozet Mobile Home Park, Parkview, Brookwood, Highlands ~at Mechum River, Orchard Acres, W;~'?..?~m Retirement ........... ., Mountmnmde, Western Ridge, Cory Farm, Grayrock Orchard, Wayland's Grant, .and Crozet Crossing. Commercial and Office - Most uses are located along Route 240 (Crozet Avenue and Three Notch'd Road). Larger retail uses include The Square (13,427 square feet); Cmzet Shopping Center (29,502 square feet-adjacent to the Development Area); and Blue Ridge Building Supply Company (Route 250.West-48,030 square feet). Industrial- There are two large industrial uses in the Community. They are Con Agra (464,821 square feet) and Acme Visible (286,187 square feet). Both of these industries are located on Route 240 (Crozet Avenue). Other Land Uses - The Crozet Development Area contains a post office. 12 Environmental Characteristics The topography of the Crozet area varies from gentlY rolling to steeply rOlling terrain. The Crozet Development Area drains into Lickinghole Creek which is located entirely within the South Fork Rivanna River water supply watershed. The Lickinghole Creek Sedimentation Basin was constructed to reduce nonpoint discharge from Crozet. The basin serves as an erosion, sedimentation and runoff control device for development in the Crozet Development Area. Similar water quality protection measures are to be put in place along Parrot Branch and within its watershed, to minimize impacts to-the Beaver Creek Reservoir from the existing north downtown area. Critical slopes occur in a scattered fashion in the southern portion of the Development Area. Wooded areas are present throughout the Community. One-hundred year flood plain designations occur along Powell's Creek, Lickinghole Creek and Slabtown Branch. Transportation Route 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike) and Route 240 (Crozet Avenue and Three Notch'd Road) are the primary roads serving the Development Area. All significant secondary roads within the Community are currently considered "non-tolerable" by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Accessibility to portions of the Development Area south of Three Notch'd Road and east of Crozet Avenue is restricted due to lack of public roads in these areas. In the central portion of the Development Area, alignment and sight distance pose problems along both Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue, especially in the downtown area. In the western section of Crozet, Route 684 (Jarman's Gap Road) is considered a "non-tolerable" road. The existing walkway system is not interconnected and some portions are in need of maintenance. There are no bicycle facilities or greenways in the Community; however, the construction of these facilities are possible in conjunction with road projects and new development projects. 13 Water and Sewer Water supply in Crozet is provided by the Beaver Creek Reservoir. Safe Yield of the reservoir is 2.0 million gallons' a day (mgd) and is adequate to handle ultimate growth in Crozet based on the current Land Use Plan. Current water demand in Crozet is 0.661 mgd (1995). The capacity of the treatment plant is 1 mgd. The water treatment plant is not designed to handle the Ultimate growth of the area and expansion ofthe plant is currently under design. Wastewater service is currently being provided through the Crozet Interceptor and Moores Creek Treatment Plant. A 12" water line was .recently installed between Jarman's Gap Road and Route 250 at Henley Middle School. The addition of this line improved fire protection to the schools and provides water service to the large undeveloped portion of the Community north of the school complex, south of Jarman's Gap and west. of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue). Some looping and upsizing of this water line will be necessary to meet future growth requirements in the area east of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue). Public Facilities The Crozet Community Development Area, along with the surrounding area, contains two elementary schools, a middle school, a high school, a library, a fire and rescue station, and a Community Park (Claudius Crozet) with a pool. Also, the old Crozet Elementary School currently houses a private school. Two other parks/recreation areas (Mint Springs and Beaver Creek) are located nearby. Park service and fn'e/rescue service is adequate to this area. However, there is a need to improve other public facilities in the area. A police substation is needed to reduce response times to Crozet and the western portion of the County. The Jefferson Madison Regional Library has outgrown its existing site at the old train station and is in need of additional space. The post office does not have adequate parking, and the current traffic circulation/parking pattern is unsafe. Also, the pool at Crozet Park is scheduled for repairs. Community. Study A neighborhood study for the Crozet Community was prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development under the direction of a 13-member committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of this study was to assist the County in establishing policy to help guide public and private activities as they relate to. land use and resource utilization within Crozet. As such, the recommendations of this study should be considered when establishing policy and reviewing development proposals for the Crozet area. This study makes recommendations in regards to public facilities, downtown development, the economy, housing, design, and historic and social issues. 14 Recommendations Limit the amount of new development that will occur in the Parrot Branch watershed to the existing zoning, because it is a tributary to the Beaver Creek water supply reservoir. The boundary for the Crozet Development Ama is generally based on the drainage area for the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin; exceptions are the addition of the old portion of the doWntown area to the Development Area, and the exclusion of the far sOutheastern quadrant which is environmentally sensitive and located along the 250 West corridor, a scenic highway. The portion of the Development Area lying within the Parrot Branch watershed shall be served by. water quality measures intended to reduce the impact to the Beaver Creek water supply from existing development and/or redevelopment in this area. No intensification of development should take place until such water quality measure are in place. Strengthen the doWntown as a shopping area, and the focal point of the Crozet Community by. encouraging all new commercial uses to locate in the downtown instead of on Route 250. Limit commercial development on Route 250 to existing commercial land only. Unless such a downtown commercial element is encouraged, pressure wilt increase for a suburban- type shopping center located outside of the Community. Improve the environment of the downtown area through landscaping, street furniture and pedestrian ways. Encourage new commercial development in the downtown through redevelopment, reuse of existing structures and infill development. New development should occur in a style, scale and setback in keeping with traditional buildings. · Designate the area along Tabor Street for Neighborhood Service. Any new commercial development along Tabor Street and Carter Street should be physically and architecturally compatible and at the same scale as the existing residential units located in the area. Utilize the recommendations of the Crozet Study and Master Plan as a guide for future development of the area. Land use decisions in the portion of the Crozet Development Area lOcated 1.5 north of Three Notch'd Road and Railroad AVenue shall be based on existing zoning and refer to the Crozet Master Plan for additional guidance. The Crozet Master Plan shall provide guidance for development that' impacts the 250 West corridor. Transportation improvements include: Establish a road system in the eastem portion of the Community which connects existing and new residential areas to each other and to other areas in Crozet. This road may ultimately link Route 250 (Rockfish Gap Road) and Route 240 (Three Notch'd Road). To the extent feasible, the design of this road shall be in keeping with the residential character of the area (i.e. two lanes, limited through traffic, no track traffic, low speed limi0. More specifically the intent is to: better integrate .new and existing residential areas located east of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue); better distribute traffic to all roads, thereby reducing the ultimate design of any one road; provide an alternative route and to relieve traffic on Routes 240 (Crozet Avenue and Three' Notch'd Road), particularly to downtown. Provide better access, particularly emergency access to those residents living east of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue). Correct the horizontal and alignment problems along both Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue. These improvements will become more critical as the Development Area is developed. Reconstruct Jarman's Gap Road from Route 240 to Route 684 to improve horizontal and vertical alignment and provide adequate sight distance at intersections. Bike facilities and walkways are recommended to be constructed in conjunction with the upgrade of this road. Provide centralized parking in the downtown area. Once provided, reduce parking requirements for new construction or redevelopment in downtown. In the long term, consider constructing a permanent park and ride facility to the serve the community. In the short term, explore the possibility of a joint-use park and ride lot. 16 Implement the recommendations of the Crozet Study for the construction ofwalkways, street lights and greenways. Utility improvements include: Expand the water treatment plant as needed. Provide sewer service to those areas that were deleted from the original construction project, (nine separate lines were not completed). Upgrade the lower reach of the Crozet interceptors and upgrade the pump station as needed to provide adequate sewer service to the Community. Construct water quality measures 'on Parrot Branch to address/control erosion, sedimentation, and run-off from the existing development in the old downtown area. Public Facility Improvements include: Conduct a feasibility study on providing public services (police, social services, health, library, etc.) at.a centralized facility in the CroZet Community. Include.in this study a recommended site for the facility. Maintain the old Crozet Elementary School as a public building for use as a school or other public uses as necessary. Locate a new post office building in the Crozet Community, preferably in the downtown area, that allows for a more efficient and safer pedestrian and traffic circulation. Close the railroad crossing at The Square by constructing a fence along the northern portion of The Square's parking lot. Extend the fence to a point east of the library. The existing lumber yard located just south of Three Notch'd Road is designated Industrial Service to reflect the present use of the property. If this use is discontinued, a change in land use designation to Community Service Is recommended to allow for commercial uses. Consider the recommendations of the Crozet Community Study to serve as a guide for development in this community. 17