Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997-11-12
1': 1 N A L 7:/)0 P.M. NOV.EMBER 12. 1997 .AU1)/TORIL;M, C()U,~TY OFF1CYi BUIi.Df'NG 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. lO. 11. 12. 13. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegmnce. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet~. PUBLIC HEARING on request to prohibit the use of through truck traffic on Rio Road, Route 63 l, from the Charlottesville City limits to Hillsdale Drive (Route 1427 ,. SP-97-41. U.S. Cellular - Red Hill (Signs#76.77&78~. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct 200 ft telecommunication tower w/associated support facilities on portion of 3 t 9 acs. Znd RA. Tax Map 88. Pals 18 & 1 SA. Located on N side of Rt 708 Red Hill Rd) approx 1 ml E of Rt 29 (Monacan Trail Rd~. Samuel Miller Dist. ,This site is not located in a designated growth area. ~ (Applicant requests deferral.) SP-97-42. Our Lady of Peace A/zheimer/Dementia Care (Sign #52). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend existing SUP-90~65 to add Alzheimer care facility to Our Lady of Peace in Branchlands PUD Complex. Znd PUD & design ited Urban Density Residential, 6.01-34 du/ac) in Comprehensive Plan. Tax Map 61Z Se: 3 pals 8 & SA. Consists of approx 7.0 acs. Located on E side of Hillsdale Drive (St Rt 1427 1694 PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to antend and reor Districts in Subsection 2.1 h known as the Hare whether to terminate, modify, or continue the DJ totaling approx 6.231 acs located on St Rts 29 S 692 (Plank Rd ~. 696 (Edge Valley Rd . 697 (Sut Gap Rd), 710 (Taylor's Gap RdL 745 (Poothous, N of inter w/Branchlands Blvd..'St Rt lain Chapter 2.1. Agricultural arid Forestal ware Agricultural/Forestal District to deride strict. Existing district consists of 49 PCS ',Monacan Trail Rd), 637 (Did< Woods ,Rd ,. rutland Rd). 708 iRed Hill Rd & Taylor s ~ Rd/& 767 ~ Rabbit Valley Rd ~ in vidnity of North Garden. The Hardware District is proposed to be continued for ten years. CPA-97-01. Mechums River Land Trust. PUBLIC HEAPdNG on a request to amend Comp Plan for Crozet Development Area to include approx 60 ass E of Lid<inghole Basin & W of Rt 240/250 inter at Mechums River. Proposal is to change d~signation of area from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Density Residential t3-6 du/ac). Tire entire area east of the Liddnghole Basin and W of the Rt 240/250 inter at Mechums Rive~ consists of approx 170 acs. White Hall Dist. (Applicant requests withdrawal.) [ Approval of Minutes: February 14. 1996; April 16 and O~tober 8. 1997. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Resolution to take roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision (SUB-92-087) into the State Secondary System of Highways. 5.2 Resolution to take Notch Berkshire Road (RiP-$6-O05) into the State Secondary System of Highways. 5.3 Appropriation: Education, $5,3,45 (Form #97032). 5~4 Appropriation: General Fund, $15,920 (Form #97033). 5.5 Proclamation proclaiming November 16 through November 22, 1997, as America Education Week. FOR INFORMATION: 5.6 Copy of Planning Commission minutes of October 14, October 21 and October 28, 1997. 5.7 Notice from the Department of Transportation of a Location and Design Public Hearing to review and discuss the preliminmT plans for the proposed replacement and widening of the bridge on Route 29 over the South Fork of the Rivanna River (Project #6029-002-121, PE-102, RW-202, C-502, B-622, B-624 [from 0.193 mi. South of South Fork Rivanna River to 0.104 mi. North of Route 643]). LAURIE'S WORK LIST FROM NOVEMBER 12. 1997 Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker. Jr.; County Attorney, Larry- W. Davis; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Ms. Nancy Hurlbrink, City resident, spoke on behalf of County resident Ms. Justice McCormick, who could not attend the meeting. Ms. Hurlbrink said that Ms. McCormick is concerned about the impact of the Meadow Creek Park~vay on her future home. She expressed concern about the impact of the road on property values on Huntington Road, the noise impacT, and the impact on the Rivarma Trails Foundation's trails along the creek.. Ms. Hurlbrink extended an invitation on behalf of Sensible Transportation Alternatives to Meadowcreek Parkway (STAMP), m attend a hike at the park at CATEC on Rio Road Sunday, November 16, 1997. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas to approve items 5.1 through 5.5b. Items 5.6 through 5.8 were accepted for information. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed unanimously. Item No. 5.1 Resolution to take roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision ISUB-92- 087) into the State Secondary System of Highways. Item No. 5.2 Resolution to take North Berkshire Road ~RIP-86-005) into the State Secondary System of Highways. Item No. 5.3 Appropriation: Education, $5,345 (Form #97032). Mrs. Humphris said this money is from private efforts on the part of the Jack Jouett Parent Teacher Organization. The group made a $5,000 donation so that Jack Jouett Middle School can purchase a copier. Yancey Elementary School received $345 in the name of Ms. Karen Pattigan toward the Parent Education Fund at Yancey Elementary School. Item No. 5.4 Appropriation: General Fund, $15,920 (Form #97033). Mrs. Humphris said the County used the proceeds of bonds to complete road and erosion control work. She asked if the amount o£the bonds covered all the costs. Mr. Tucker said yes, and the work will be completed in the spring. Mr. Bowerman asked who is responsible for the work. Mr. Tucker said the developer for the area across the street from Doubletree is responsible. Mr. Bowerman wanted to know which project the bonds were attached. Mr. Tucker said they will complete the work on the frontage road at Real Estate III. Item No. 5.5 Proclamation proclaiming November 16 through November 22, 1997, as America Education Week. Mrs. Humpkris read the proclamation. Item No. 5.5a Resolution to abandon Route 601 as a result of construction of Project #0601-002-102,C501. Item No. 5.5b Resolution to accept Coventry Lane in Coventry Subdivision (SUB- 94-118) into the State Secondary System of High~vays. Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING on request to prohibit the use o£through truck traffic on Rio Road (Route 631) from the Charlottesville City limits to Hillsdale Drive (Route 1427). Mr. Bowerman said he thought the request was mo restrictive. Mr. Perkins noted that VDoT signs say "no trucks with more than two axles" and suggested the County could use similar wording. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to defer this item until December 3, 1997 to allow time to get clarification from VDoT. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-97-41. U.S. Cellular - Red Hill (Signs#76,77&78). PUBLIC HEAR/NG on a request to construct 200 ft telecommunication tower w/associated support facilities on portion of 319 acs. Znd RA. Tax Map 88, Pcls 18 & 18A. Located on N side of Rt 708 (Red Hill Rd) approx 1 ml E of Rt 29 (Monacan Trail Rd). Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) (Applicant requests deferral.) The Board left the public heating open until February 11, 1997. Mrs. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer this item until February 11, 1997. Roll was called and the motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-42. Our Lady of Peace Alzheimer/Dementia Care (Sign #52). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend existing SUP-90-65 to add Alzheimer care facility to Our Lady of Peace in Branchlands PUD Complex. Znd PUD & designated Urban Density Residential(6.01-34 dwac) in Comprehensive Plan. Tax Map 61Z Sec 3 pcls 8 & SA. Consists of approx 7.0 acs. Located on E side of Hillsdale Drive St Rt 1427) N of inter w/ Branchlands Blvd. (St Rt 1694). Mr. Bowerman made the motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, m amend the existing Special Use Permit to add an Alzheimer care facility to the Our Lady of Peace Complex, subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Conmfission. Roll was called and the motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts in Subsection 2.1 (h) known as the Hardware AgriculturalWorestal District to decide whether to terminate, modify, or continue the District. Existing district consists of 49 PCS totaling approx 6,231 acs located on StRts 29 S (Monacan Trail Rd), 637 (Dick Woods Rd'), 692 &lank Rd), 696 (Edge Valley Rd), 697 (Sutherland Rd), 708 (Red Hill Rd & Taylor's Gap Rd), 710 (Taylor's Gap Rd), 745 t Poorhouse Rd) & 767 (Rabbit Valley Rd) in vicinity of North Garden. The Hardware District is proposed to be continued for ten years. 3 Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas to amend and reordain Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts in Subsection 2.1 (h). Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-97-01. Mechums River Land Trust. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend Comp Plan for Crozet Developmem Area to include approx 60 acs E of Lickinghole Basin & W of Rt 240/250 inter at Mechums River. Proposal is to change designation of area from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Density Residential ~3-6 du/ac). The entire area east of the Lickinghole Basin and W of the Rt 240/250 inter at Mechums River consists ofapprox 170 acs. White Hall Dist. (Applicant requests withdrawal.) Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to accept the withdrawl of the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the request for the zoning amendment. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: February 14, 1996; April 16 and October 8, 1997. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, secunded by Mr. Perkins, to approve the April 16, 1997 minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas said the Board did not receive a copy ora petition referred to in the Red Hill Cellular item, and that disturbed her. She said that people should not have to present it twice. Mr. Tucker said he would check with the Clerk the next day. Mr. Vauroijen then informed the Board that the petition was signed at the quarry, but never presented to the Planning Commission, because the quarry manager said he was going to withdraw the application. Mrs. Thomas said the Agriculture/Forestry Advisory Committee should provide advice to the Board on how to be more proactive and look at land use taxation. Mr. Bowerman asked that the Land Use Classification Appeals Board meet with the Board of Supervisors to see if there is a legitimate way to ensure that there is some agriculture/forestal activity taking place on land in the Land Use Program. Mrs. Humphris 4 asked that Agriculture/Forestal Districts and the Land Use Plan be reviewed and compared to other counties with a goal of having land use being meaningful, that there be benefit and incentives for people to be in these districts, and to market and educate the public. Mr. Bowerman asked the County Attorney m provide guidance as to what is allowable regarding the deferral process. Mrs. Humphris said the media should better cover the Development Area Initiative Study, and the consultant needs to do a better job of informing the public. Mr. Martin said it needed to be better advertised. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. Mrs. Humphris adjourned the meetin~ at 8:15 p.m. David P. Bowerrnan Rio Charlotte Y~ Humphris Scomv~e COUNTY OF ~,I REMARI F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnth'e Road Gharlottesville. Virginia (804) ~96-58~ F~ (804) L~6-5800 Waiter E Perkins Sa{l~ H. Thomas MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V, Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk~''~ November 17, 1997 Board Actions of November 12, 1997 The Board took the following actions at the November 12, 1997 meeting: Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m~, by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. All members of the Board of Supervisors were presem except Mr, Marshall. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda fi.om the PUBLIC. Ms. Nancy Hurrelbrinck City resident, spoke on behal£of County resident Ms. Justice McCormick, who could not attend the meeting. Ms. Hurrelbrinck said Ms. McCormick is concerned about the impact o£the Meadow Creek Parkway on her future home. She expressed concern about the impact of the road on property values on Huntington Road, the noise impact, and the impact on the Rivanna Trails Foundation's trails along the creek. Ms. Hurlbrink extended an invitation on behalf of Sensible Transportation Alternatives to Meadowcreek Parkway (STAMP), to participate in a hike. The hike will be held on Sunday~November 16. 1997. People are asked to park at CATEC on Rio Road. Item No. 5.1 Resolution to take roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision (SUB-92-087) into the State Secondary System of Highways, ADOPTED the attached resolution. Printed on recycled paper Memo to Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: November 14, 1997 Page: 2 (tern No~ 5,2 Resolution to take North Berkshire Road (RIP-86-005) into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached resolution, Item No, 5.3 Appropriation: Education, $5,345 (Form #97032). APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 5.4 Appropriation: General Fund, $15,920 t Form #97033). APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Bmeden. Item No. 5.5 Proclamation proclaiming November 16 through November 22, 1997. as America Education Week. Mrs. Humphris read the proclamation. ADOPTED the attached proclamation. Item No. 5.5a Resolution to abandon Route 601 as a result of construction of Project #0601-002-102,C501. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Item No. 5.5b Resolution to accept Coventry Lane in Coventry Subdivision (SUB-94-1181 into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING on request to prohibit the use of through truck traffic on Rio Road ~Route 631) from the Charlottesville City limits to Hillsdale Drive (Route 1427). DEFERRED item until December 3, 1997 to allow time to get clarification from VDoT on the type of track restriction. This item is to come back on the consent agenda for approval. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-97-41. U.S. Cellular - Red Hill fSigns#76.77&78). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct 200 ft telecommunication tower w/associated support facilities on portion of 319 acs. Znd RA. Tax Map 88, Pcls 18 & 18A. Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is not located/n a designated growth area.) (Applicant requests deferral.) DEFERRED item until February 11, 1997, leaving the public hearing open. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-42. Our Lady of Peace Alzheimer/Dementia Care (Sign #52). Memo to Robert W. Tucker. Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: November 14. 1997 Page: 3 PUBLIC HEAR/NO on a request to amend existing SUP-90-65 to add Alzheimer care facility m Our Lady of Peace in Branchlands PUD Complex. Znd PUD & designated Urban Density Residential(6.01-34 du/ac) in Comprehensive Plan. Tax Map 61Z Sec 3 pcls 8 & SA. Consists of approx 7.0 acs. APPROVED SP-97-42 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Conditions are as follows: ]?he dementia care facility shall be operated in accordance with the Treatise on the Rationale for the Development of the Our Lady of Peace Program (including a Proposed New Addition) dated May 16, 1990 and revised July 24, 1997, herein included as Attachment B; with occupancy not to exceed 24; the dementia care facility shall not be operated without approval and, where appropriate, licensing by such agencies as the Virginia Department of Welfare. the Virginia department of Health, and other such appropriate local, state and federal agencies as may have authority in a particular case; and 3. l'he dementia care facility shall comply with the conditions of ZMA-88-07. Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2~ 1, Agrictfltural and Forestal Districts in Subsection 2.1 (h) knoWn as the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District to decide whether to terminate, modify, or continue the District. Existing district consists of 49 PCS totaling approx 6,231 acs in vicinity of North Garden. The Hardware District is proposed to be continued for ten years. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-97-01. Mechams River Land Trust. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend Comp Plan for Crozet Development Area to include approx 60 acs E of Lickinghole Basin & W of Rt 240/250 inter at Mechams River. Proposal is to change designation of area from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 du/ac). The entire m'ea east of the Lickinghole Basin and W of the Rt 240/250 inter at Mechums River consists of approx 170 acs. White Hall Dist. (Applicant requests withdrawal.) ACCEPTED accept the withdrawl of the request to mnend the Comprehensive Plan and the request for the zoning amendment. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Memo to Robert W. Tucker, Jr, V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: November 14, 1997 Page: 4 Mrs. Thomas commented that the Board did not receive a copy ora petition referred to SP-97-41 for U. S. Cellular. Mr. Vanroijen said the petition was never presented to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Thomas said thc Agriculture/Forestry Advisory Committee should provide advice to the Board on how m be more proactive and look at land use taxation. Mr. Bowerman asked that the Land Use Classification Appeals Board meet with the Board of Supervisors to see if there is a legitimate way to ensure that there is some agriculture/forestal activity taking place on land in the Land Use Program, Mrs. Humpkris asked that Agriculturc/Fomstal Districts and the Land Use Plan be reviewed and compared to other counties with a goal of having land usc being meaningful, that there be benefits and incentives for people to be in these districts, and to market and educate the pnblic. The Board asked staff to develop a policy for consideration of deferral requests. Mrs. Humphris said the media needs to do a better job of covering the Development Ama Initiative Study, and the consultant needs to do a better job of inform'rog the public. Mr. Martin said the study should be better advertised. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. ADJOURNED at 8:15 p.m. /lbh Attachments: 9 cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxarme White Kevin C. Castner Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Jan Sprinkle Yadira Amari File I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Laurie Hall. Senior Deputy Clerk [~4". Appropriations Approved on November 12, 1997 November 20, 1997 Attached are the original appropriation forms for the following items which were approved by the Board at their meeting onNovember 12, 1997: 1) Jack Jouett Middle School and Yancey Elementary School - Form #97032, $5,345.00. 2j Automart Road and Soil Erosion Project, Form #97033, $15,920.00. Attachments (2) cc: Roxanne White Rick Huff Bill Mawyer Jackson Zimmerman Kevin Casmer APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR ~ 97/98 NI/MBER 97032 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TR3LNSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ~ YES NO X FUND SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF DONATIONS MADE TO JACK JOUETT AND YANCY ELEM. SCHOOLS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1225361411800101 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT $5,000.00 1221361101601300 EDUC./REC. SUPPLIES 345.00 TOTAL $5,345.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200018100181109 DONATION-JACK JOUETT $5,000.00 2200018100181109 DONTtON-YANCEY 345.00 TOTAL $5,345.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I GNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 97~98 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION NI3MBER 97033 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR AUTOMART ROAD/SOIL EROSION PROJECT. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100041000950023 AUTOMART ROAD/SOIL EROSION $15,920.00 TOTAL S15,920.00 REVENTJE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $15,920.00 TOTAL $15,920.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: ENGINEERING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE To: Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer Department of Engineering From: Laurie Hall. Senior Deputy Clerk Subiect: Road Resolutions Date: November 21, 1997 At its meeting on November I2. 1997. the Board of Supervisors adopted the following resolutions: to take roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision ¢SUB-92-087 t into the State Secondary System of Highways; (2) m take North Berkshire Road (RIP-86-005' into the State Secondary System of Highways: and 3~ to accept Coventry Lane in Coventry Subdivision · SUB-94-I 18) into the State Secondary System of Highways. Attached are the originals and four zopies of the adopted resolutions. Attachments COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF 8UPERV~i$OR$ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Superviso~ Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer~W'~ November 3, 1997 Forest Lakes South Subdivision, Thomridge (SUB-92-087) The roads serving the referenced subdivision are substantially complete and ready for VDO T acceptance. At the next opportunity, I request the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution for the roads specified in the attached VD OT SR-5(AJ form. After the adoption of the resolution, p/ease provide me with the original and four copies qf the signed and dated resolution and SR-5A. Thanks for your assistance. P/ease contact me if you have any questions. MBH/ybv Attachment File: markltl$11_3, res The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Thornridge Way from Statmon 0+50, right edge of pavemen5 of Ashwood Boulevard (State Route 1670, ~o Station 10+05.88, rear of cul-de-sac, 955.8 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 8/18/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginma, in Deed Book 1486, pages 467-476, with a right-of-way w~dth of 50 feet, for a length of 0.18 mile. Additional plats recorded 10/8/97 in Deed Book 1647, page 133. 2) Pernleaf Road from Station 0+17, left edge of pavement of Thorn- ridge Way to Station 5+72. rear of cul-de-sac, 555 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 8/t8/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virgmnma, in Deed Book 1486 pages 467-476, with a rmght-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.10 mil~. Additional plats recorded 10/8/97 in Deed Book 1647, pages 129 and 133. 3) Purple Sage Court from Station 0+10, right edge of pavement of Fernleaf Road to Station 3+76.97, rear of cul-de-sac, 366.97 lineal feet as showm on plat recorded 8/18/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Vlrginma, in Deed Book 1486, pages 467-476, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.07 mile. 4) Jasmin Terrace from Statmon 0-35, rear of cul-de-sac to Station 2+10.88, right edge of pavement of Thornridge Way, 245.88 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 8/18/95 mn the Offmce of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Vzrginma, in Deed Book 1486, pages 467-476, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.05 mile. 5) Coral Berry Place from Station 2+50, left edge of pavemen5 of Thornridge Way to Station 8+08.71, rear of cul-de-sac, 558.71 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 8/18 95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, mn Deed Book 1486, pages 467-476, with a rmght-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.11 mile. Total length - 0.5t mile. The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 12TH day of November, 1997, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the sureets in Forest Lakes South Subdivision (SUB-92-087) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 12, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, sre shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transporta- nlon has advised the Board that the streets meeu the requiremenus established by the Subdivision Snreet Recuirements of the Virginia Deparnmenu of Transportation. NOW, TKEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board o~ County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation 5o add the roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision as described on the autached Additions Form SR- 5(A} dated November 12, 1997, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Deparument's Subdivision Street Recuiremenus; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuns, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded no the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Depar~men~ of Transportation. Recorded voEe: Moved by: Mrs. Thomas. Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Thomas. Nays: None. Absent: Mr. Marshall. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkmns and A Copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, /C~C Board of County Supe~sors o -I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS 1i-06-97A'0:40 RCVD TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: _.MEMORANDUM Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer ~ November 4, 1997 North Berkshire Road Improvements (RIP-86-O05) The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDO T) has agreed to accept a section of North Berkshire Road into the State's Secondary Roadway System. The rOadway is being accepted under a different section of the Virginia Code. VDOT has required that the attached resolution be used instead of the normal format. At the next opportunity, I ask the Board of Supervisors to adopt the resolution for the road. After the adoption of the resolution, please provide me with the original and four copies of the signed and dated resolution. Here is the information needed to complete the resolution: Name: North Berkshire Road Length: 0.05 mi FrOm: Right edge of pavement on westbound Inglewood Ddve To: 250 LF north of Inglewood Drive toward Soloman Road Guaranteed Right-of-way Width: 50 feet Plat Recorded Date:10/¢9/60 Deed Book:363 Page:99 Oate:~2/9/64 Deed Book:403 Page:334 Thanks for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions. MBH/ybv Attachment The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle Count, Virginia in regular meeting on the 12th day of November, 1997, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION W}LEREAS, the street described below was established in December 20, 1962, has provided continuous public service since its establishment, is deemed no provide sufficient public service no warrens its addition as par5 of the s- econdary system of ssate highways by virtue of its connecting nwo streets already a par~ of said system; and WHEREAS, the street is shown on the plat referenced below which depicts the dedicated right-of-way and appurtenant easements associated with the strees; NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle, County, Virginia, requesss the following street be added to the secondary system of staue highways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia: Name of Streeu: North Berkshire Road Length: 0.05 miles From: ~i~ht edge of oavemenE of westbound In~lewood Drive To: 250 LF notch of Inqlewood Drive toward Solomon Road Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50 feet Piau Recorded. Date: 10/19/60 Deed Book: 363 Page: 99 Date: 12/9/64 Deed Book: 403 Page: 334 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuus fills and drainage; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of 5his resolution be forwarded co the Residenu Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mrs. Thomas. Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman. Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Mrs. ~homas. Nays: None. _~bsent: Mr. Marshall. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Copy Teste: ~la W. Carey, Clerk, /~C Board of County Superiors '~-07-97A09:43 RCV3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISOR AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation- Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of apprepdafion #97032 in the amount of $5,345.00to distribute donations made to Jack Jouett Middle School and Yancey Elementary School. STAFF CONTACTfS): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner, Breeden AGENDA DATE: November 12, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: At its meeting on October 13, 1997, the School Board approved the appropriation of donations made to Jack Jouett Middle School and Yancey Elementary School. DISCUSSION: · The Jack Jouett PTO made a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 to Jack Jouett Middle School. The money was raised from the sale of magazines and will be used toward the purchase of a copier for the school. Yancey Elementary School received $345.00 in donations to the school in the name of Karen Cadigan. These donations are to fund the parent education program at Yancey Elementary School. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriations in the amount of $5,345.00 as detailed on form #97032. 97.215 }-29-W'/ : 2: 3 BOARD OF SU?ERVISORS ALREMARLF~ COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum DATE: October 27, 1997 TO: Rober~/~ucker, Jr., County Executive FROM: Kevl~er, Dlvlslon Superintendent RE: Requ~o'~'~ Approprmat!on At its meetzng on October 13, 1997, the School Board approved the following appropriations: o Appropriation of $5,000.00 from the Jack Jouett PTO. The Jack Jouett PTO made a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 to Jack Jouett Middle School. The money was raised from the sale of magazines and will be used toward the purchase of a cop!er for the school. o Appropriation of $345.00 for Yancey Elementary School. Yancey Elementary School received donations to the school in the name of Karen Cadigan. These donations are to fund the parent education program at Yancey Elementary School Revenue: 2-2000-!~100-181109 2-2000-18100-181109 Expenditure: 1-2253-61411-800101 1-2213-61101-601300 Donation-Jack Joue~5 Donation-Yancey Machinery/Equipmen~ Ed/Rec Supplies $5,000.00 S345.00 $5,0g0.00 s345.00 It is requested that the Board of Su~ervlsors amend the ~ppropriatior ordinance ~o receive and disburse these funds as displayed above. xc: Melvin Breeden Elis Carey COUNTY OF ALBEMA °F u v o s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~o-9 "~o~: '~o ~c'~'~ AGENDA TITLE: Reappropriation - General Fund SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #97033 reappropriating $15,920.00 for the Automart road and soil erosion project. AGENDA DATE: November 12~ 1997 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden, Ms. White REVIEWED BY: / DISCUSSION: The Automart Road/Soil Erosion project was inadvertently overlooked during the review of the Engineering Department's FYE 96/97 reappropriation requests. These funds are proceeds from two performance bonds that were cashed. The money will be used to complete road and erosion control work at the Automart site on Route 29 North. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends apprOval of the appropriation in the amount of $15,920.00 as detailed on form #97033. 97.216 AMERICA EDUCATION WEEK WHEREAS. the purpose of America Education Week is to focus~ttention on the important role education plays in our counOy and its future; and today's schools are educating students who have a wide diversi~y of backgrounds and abilities; and the responsibility of providing a quali~y education to our students is a /oint responsibility of the entire community; and the theme of America Education Week is "Helping Our Children to Think and Dream ": NOW, THEREFORE, L Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the ~veek of NOVEMBER 16, 1997 THROUGH NOVEMBER 22, 1997 AMERICA EDUCATION WEEK IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY and encourages all citizens to extend their commtinent to public education and to the future of oar children by supporting our community's schools through their time and eneroC?. DATED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 CHAIR2VJAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS Dauid R Bowerman Rio Charlotte ¥ Humph~qs ~ortest P~ Marshall. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARI ,F. Office of Board of Superwsors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. Vkginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Wall~,r E Perkins Sally H. Thomas November 21, 1997 Mr. Gerald G. Utz Contract Administrator 701 VDoT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr. Utz: At its meeting on November 12, 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution to abandon a section o£Route 6010. Attached is the s~gned resolution. Sincerely, Laurel B. Hall Senior Deputy Clerk Attachment cc: Robert W. Tucker. Jr. Angela Tucker PHnted on recycled paper The Board of County Supervisors Df Albemarle County, Virginia. in a regular meeting on the 12th day of November. 1997, adopted the following: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Deparumenm uf Transportation has provided ~he Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a sketch dated November 7, 1997, depicting the abandonment required in the secondary sysuem of suaue highways as a result of the construction of pro]ecn ~0601-002-102,C501, which sketch is hereby incorporated herein by reference: and WHEREAS, the portion of the old road identified on the sketch as Section 1 5o be abandoned ls deemed no no longer serve public need; and WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as that portion of old road idenfified no be abandoned; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby abandons as paru of the secondary system of suane highways that por[lon of Route 601 identified as Section 1. a distance of 0.09 miles, pursuan£ mo Section 33.1- 155, of the Code of Virginza: and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded Eo the Resident Engineer for the Virginia DeparumenE of Transporuaulon Moved by: Mrs. Thomas. Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Thomas. Nays: None. Absent: Mr. Marshall. Mr. Perkins and A Copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CH9 / Board of 2ounty SupervisOrsI DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH VIRGINIA D[PARTMI~NT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911 November 7, 1997 --'~0-~7~ :46 ?,CVD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Route 601 Proj. 0601-002-102,C501 Albemarle County Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 Mclutire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: . Enclosed is the necessary iafomtion for the abandonment as a result of the comqaaacfion of Route 601. This project was constructed in the 1970's but this section of Route 601 was not abandoned. We recently had a request fi'om the adjacent property owner concerning the status of this section of road and since it is no longer a necessary part of the secondary system, we are requesting that it be abandoned. Please provide this infomtion to the Board and remm the signed resolution and sketch to this office when completed. Your assistance in this matter will be appreciated. Yours Truly, C~'ald G. Utz Contract Admini~rator /ggu Enclosure cc: 1Vh', E. T.'Landis. Jr. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~-l£-97P~3:Op RCVD DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors ,1 Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer ~ November 10, 1997 Coventry Subdivision (SUB-94- 7 7 8) The road serving the referenced subdivision is substantially complete and ready for VDO T acceptance. At the next opportunity, I request the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution for the road specified in the attached VDO T SR-5(A) form. After the adoption of the resolution, p/ease provide me with the original and four copies of the signed and dated resolution and SR-5A. Thanks for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions. MBH/ybv Attachment The roads described on Additions Form SR-5 A are: Coventry Lane from Station 10+10, right edge of pavement Df eastbound State Route 641 to Station 15+30, rear Df ~ul-de-sac, 520 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 5/23~ 95 in the Office Df the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1469, pages 703-704, with a rzght-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.10 mile. Total length 0.10 mile. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 -ORANGE ROAD CULPEPER, 22701-3819 October 17, 1997 BOA~'~OF SUPERVISORS _n~-c~po?_: n8 RCVD DONALD R. ASKEW DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR Route 29 Projec5: 6029-002-121, PE-102, RW-202, C-502, B-622, B-624 Federal Projects: STP-029-7(001), STP-029-7 ( ) Fr: 0.193 Mi. (.31 km) South of South Fork Rivanna River To: 0.104 Mi. (0.168 km' N. Route 643 Albemarle County Ms. Shelby J. Marshall Clerk of the Court 501 E. Jefferson Streen Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Marshall: A Location and Design Public Hearing utilizing an open forum, will be held for the above mentioned projecn on Tuesday, November 18, 1997, between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. an the Doubletree Hotel (formerly Sheraton Inn Charlottesville) in Albemarle County, Virginia. The purpose of this meeting is no provide you an opportunity, in an open forum, to review and discuss with Department personnel preliminary plans for the proposed replacement and widening of the bridge on Route 29 over the South Fork of the Rivanna River. A Copy of the public not!ce and map is enclosed. / Robert FI. Connock, Jr., P.E. Distridt Construction Engineer RHCjr:wlr enclosure pc: Ms. A. Mr. M. G. Tucker W. Coffey FILED 97 OCT 2t~ PH t2: ~ t ~F~ICE - TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ROUTE 29 I ' I Hearing,: Tuesday, November 15, 1997~* An)lime between 4:00pm and 7:00pm To be held at the Doubletree Hotel (formerly Sheraton Inn Charlottesville) located at 2350 SeminoleTrail (Route 29'north) in Albemarle County just north of the City of Charlottesvile. [ To provide you an oppo~xmity, in an open forum, torexSew and discuss withDepamneatpersonnol preliminary plan~ for the proposed replace- meat and widening ofthe bridge on Route 29 over the South Fork of the Rivanna River. Proposed construction will exmmt fxom 0.19 mile (0.31 kilometer) south of the South Fork of the Rivanna River to 0.10 mile (0.17 kilometer) north of Route 643 in Albemarle County. Review: Maps, drawings and other data pertaining to the project are available for your review in the VDOT CfilpeperDistrict office located atl601 Orange Road in the Town of Cutpet~r and at the VDOT Charlottesville Residency office located at 701 VDOT Way three tniles east ofthe City of Charlottesville. To schedule a convenient time to mvi.~ the above information, please call the Charlottesville Residency at 804-293-001L Also use this number to receive additional information or to get special assistance to attend and participate in this meeting. Device for the Hearing Impaired (TTY): 1-800-307-4630 Public Comments: Oral comments will be taken at the hearing. Written commeats and other exlfibits relativetotheproposedproject may aiaobe submitted at the public .h~_.g or to the Depa~.~-t at ~ny fi. Line w;, ?&in 10 d~ys Right of Way: IReloeati0n ass'me, fight of way acituisitioa, together with [~ntativ~ch~ and c°nsmctioa information willb*di~cus~xl. ~l]~l~ ¥irginiaDepartment of Transportation $'rP-029-7 ( ) ojeet Route 29 Bridge Widening and Replacement over South Fork Rivanna River Albemarle County From: 0-~1 kln (0.193 mC)South of South Fork Rivanna River To: 0.168 km (0.104 mi.) North of Rte. 643 Project Length: 0.70 km (0.435 mL) VDOT Proje,zt Number: 5029-002-121, PE-102, RW-202, B-622, B-624 Federal Project Number: STP..O2g-7(O01 ) STP-O2g-7(...) The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. zn regular meetzng on the 12T~ day of November, 1997, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Coventry Subdivision SUB-94-118 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5 A dated November 12, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarl~ County, Virginia: and WHERERS, the Resident Engzneer for the Virginia Deparnment of Transporta- tion has advised the Board that the stree£s meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Recs/irements of the Virginia Deparnment of Transportation. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Departmenn of Transportation to add the road in Coventry Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 12, 1997, uo the secondary system of state highways, pursuanz ~o §33.1- 229. Code of Virginia. and the Department's Subdivision StreeE Reaulrements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements drainage as described on the recorded plats; and ulear and unrestricted for cums. fills and FURTHER RESOLVED than a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded the Residen~ Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transpornamion. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mrs. Thomas. Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman. Mrs Thomas. Nays: None. Absenm: Mr. Marshall. Humphris, Mr Martin. Mr. Perkins and A Copy Teste: 0 -! BOARD OF SUPERVISORg .1-10-97A1~:50 RCVD DAVID R. GEHR COMMISS~ONEI~ COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTIV~ENI OF TRANSPORTATION ~,; ~I(~HMOND 23219~1939 ~,~ L~,; .f,,, ,,., ~ ~ , CLAUDE D. GARVER, JR. October 30, 1997 Changes in the Primary System Route: 230 Project: 1240-C Albemarle County Board of Supe~lsors County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Dear Board Members: Changes in the Primary System made necessary by the relocation and construction on Route 230, Project: 1240-C in Albemarle County were confirmed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on September 16 as shown on the attached sketch and described as follows: SECTION ABANDONED AS PROVIDED UNDER § 33.1-148 OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA: Section 1 Old location of Route 230, located east of the new location, from Station 328+00 to Station 370+00 0.71 Mi. Sincerely: ~ /r~ Claude D. Garver. Jr. Assistant Commissioner Operations CFS/cfs Attachments WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING MOVED BY Mr. Roudabush , SECONRED BY Mr. White , THAT WI~EREAS, Route 230, in Albemarle County has been altered and reconstructed as shown on the plans for Project: 12~0-C; and WHEREAS, one section of the old road is no longer necessary as a public road, the new road serving the same citizens as the old; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 33.1-148 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, old Route 230, 1997, Project: System. pursuant to Section as amended, 0.71 mile of designated as Section 1 on the plat dated August 28, 1240-C be abandoned as a parn of the State Highway MOTION Carried 10-15-97 Form. 3 7/25/86 iATTACHME?IT Ai April 29, 1997 Board of SuperVisors Meeting April 2, I99~ MS. Ella W. Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear MS. Carey: We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that w~re discussed au the April 2nd Board meeting. The Deparumenu is tentatively providing for preliminar) engineering money in the primary six year plan for the four laning of Route ~0 south to the Route 742/Avon Street Connector Road. This funding should b~ approved for fiscal year 97-98. O The Deparsmenu anticipates additional funding for,fiscal year 97-98 in the secondary six year plan that will cover the estimated cost of $180,000 to $200.000 for the West Leigh Drive rural addition/railroad crossing upgrade. We are requesting that a resolution which supports the ~ddition of this rural addition projec= be forwarded to this office immediately. A sample resolution is attached and has also been forwarded to the County Engineer's Office. For your information please find attached recent cor~espondRnce 5o Senator Emily Couric regarding clearing work along Route 20 north amd Route 29 north. Thru truck restriction signs on Georgetown Road (~oure 65g) have been installed. By copy-of this letter we are advising the COunty Police of same. The Deparsmen= is proposing a thru truck restriction based upon safety concerns for Rio Road (Route 631% from the City Llmiss 5o Hillsda].e Drive. A resolution supporting this restriction would be appreciated. A sample resolution is attached. Pleas~ share this information questions regarding the above issues, 7th Board meeting. wi~h the board members. If there are any I ~ill be prepared to discuss ~hem at the May Sincerely, AGT/smk attachments cc: Chief John Miller Jeff S. Horse Jack Kelsey A. ~. Tucker COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Through Truck Restriction on Rio Road SUBJECTJPROPOSAL/REQUEST: Support Resolution for this Request STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker,Cilimberg,Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: October 1, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes/x~ REVIEWED BY: / BACKGROUND: VDOT has requested that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution supporting through truck restriction on Rio Road from Hillsdale Road to the City limits (see Attachment A). DISCUSSION: VDOT has proposed this restriction based upon safety concerns. Rio Road in this area is a narrow, curvy, and hilly road that carries approximately 17,500 vehicles trips a day. According to the County Police Department, there have been 72 reported accidents on Rio Road in this section between January 1, 1991 to June 30, 1997. There were 31 persons injured, but no fatalities. The Police department considers this to be a higher than expected frequency of accidents. VDOT is currently conducting survey work for the installation of guardmils in a portion of this section The alternative through truck route would be Route 29 to the 250 Bypass. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors support VDOT's request to restrict through trucks on Rio Road from Hillsdale Road to the City limits with the attached resolution and set a public hearing as required by State Code §46.2-809 for November 12, 1997. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 97.181 RESOLUTZON WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, received a request from the Virginia Department of Transportation to consider the prohibition of through truck traffic on a segment of Rio Road (Route 631) as a means to address safety concerns; and WHEREAS, combinations of Route 29-SeminoleTrail and Route 29-250 Bypass are reasonable alternatives to trucks now traveling Rio Road to the Charlottesville City limits or Route 29. NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby request that the CommonwealthTransportation Board prohibit the use of through truck traffic on Rio Road (Route 631) between the Charlottesville City limits and Hillsdale Drive (Route 1427). This prohibition shall apply to any truck or truck and trailer or semi-trailer combination, except a pickup truck or panel truck; and BE :ZT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does support this request and states its intent that it will use its good offices for enforcement of the proposed prohibition by the Albemarle County Police Department and any other appropriate law enforcement agency. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify thatthe foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on November 12, :[997 Clerk, Board of County Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY LARRY W. DAVIS County Attorney SWB:ctg cc: Mr. Mark Gartley Mr. Bill Fritz ALEXANDRIA · BALTIMORE · BRUSSELS ' CHARLOTTESVILLE ' JAGKSON¥ILLE - NORFOLK ' RICHMOND ' TYSONS CORNER ' WASHINGTON. DC Z~RICH ll/IG/97 14:S4 950 2222 1/c Wo Be~c Boo M Woc s ~]001/002 NO. of Pa~s (incZ'u~ing F~x cover sheet): ?,, DATE: I~ all pages are not received, please call the Fax Op~raucr indiceS, ed below OFFZCE,COMPANY/F!R~4: Clerk, Albema?l~ County Board of Supervlsor~$ LOCATION: .... ~hsrlottesville, V~ NUMBER 296-5800 ~k~v~ W. Blaine OFFICE: ~arl~=t$sville (~em list below) OFFICE ~AX OD~-~TOR SWiTC~OA~A~A~A~A~A~A~A~A~A~D ~ ALEXAI~DR!A B~LTIMOR~ CF=%RLOTTESVILLE NORFOLK EICTD~OND TYSONS CORNER WASHINGTON BRUESEL~ ZL~ICH 415 658-4400 ~04 '977-2517 904 804 ~640-38!7 804 '775-74~6 703'712-~430 202 '8~8-2830 011(41-1} 2~ 20 00 702/789-6200 ~Z0/659-~00 804/977-2580 BO&/g40-~700 80~/778-1000 ~03/712-500Q 202/857-1700 011(S2-2] ~29 42 011[41-I) 225 20 O0 703~729-6270 4!0/659-4599 804/980'2222 904/788-8207 804./640-3~01 804/7~S-1061 703/7i2-S0~0 202/857-!737 011[41-I) 225 SENDER'S DIRECT DIAL PHO/~ NUMBEE;_804/977-2588 This Fax is intended for the ~ecipie~ indicated above. It may be confidential or from disclosure by the attorney-clien: privile~e or w~rk-product doctrine. If you have postage. Thank ~mDIoyee No.: .... llflS/OT 14:~4 '~'804 880 22~2 HC Wo BaT Boo [~1002/002 Conr~ Square Building Post Ot~ic~ Box 1288 Charlottes~iiie, Virgir. ia 22902-~88 idep~oa~/~D (804) 977-2500 · St~ e.h W. Bla~c November 10. 1997 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclv. tir~ Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 Via Facsimile: 295-5800 United State~ Cellular S.P. 97-41: Red Hill Dear Ma. Car~': This ,~11 co,mm our phone conversation in which I requested on behalf of our client. U~ited States Cellular. a defemd of the Board of Supe~.isors' action on the referettced Special Use Permit. You indicated tlmt the next a.ailable date for this ma~er to come before the Board would be on January 14. 1998. Please arrange lo move o~ request to that m~ting's agenda. Vea'y Ixaly yours, Ste~en W, Blaine SWB:ctg Mr. Mark Oartley Mr. Bill Fritz ~ !-03-g?P05:09 RC\D BOARD OF SUPERVISORS October 30, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Mark Keller c/o McKee Carson 301 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22902 SP 97-41 U.S. Cellular - Red Hill Tax Map 88, Parcels 18 and 1SA Dear Mr. Keller: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 28, 1997, unanimously recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. This petitiun was recommended for denial due to the following reasons: ' the impact on the Mountain Resource Area without findings on possible alternative sites makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance; alternative locations have not been fully explored; impact to adjacent agricultural/forestal districts. In the event that the Board should approve the special use permit, the Commission, by consensus, expressed support for the recommended conditions of approval and also unanimously approved a waiver of the requirement for a site plan and a waiver to allow a reduction in setback. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 12. 1997. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz, AtCP Senior Planner WDF/jcf / / cc: ~ia Carey Charlottesville Cellular Partners Martin Marietta Materials, Inc This report has been modified since the Planning Commission meeting to included discussion of the Natural Resources Extraction Overlay District. This site is located within the Natural Resources Extraction Overlay District and, although'verbally presented to the Planning Commission, this information was not included in the original written report provided to the Planning Commission. The modifications to the report are indicated in bold. STAFF PERSON: WILLIAM D. FRITZ, AICP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: NOVEMBER 12, 1997 SP 97-41 US CELLULAR IRED HILL1 Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 200 foot self supporting lattice tower to provide improved cellular phone coverage for southern Albemarle County. Currently US Cellular's service is available in the area. However, significant areas of weak signal or even no signal exist. The specific location and design of the proposed tower is shown on Attachment C. This tower is located on an unnamed hill located west of the quarry at Red Hill. This unnamed hill is looated south of Gibson Mountain and west of Dudley Mountain (the quarry is on the southern end of Dudley Mountain). Petition: Proposal to construct a 200 foot telecommunication tower with associated support facilities on a portion of 319 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.61 and NR, Natural Resources Extraction Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 88, Parcels3.8 and 18A is located on the north side of Route 708 (Red Hill Rd.) approximately one mile east of Route 29 (Monacan Trail Rd.) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Character of the Area: The location for the proposed tower is on an unnamed hill located between the Red Hill quarry and Route 29. This unnamed hill is at a lower elevation than Dudley Mountain. The property immediately to the west is located within an Agricultural/Forestal District. Attachment D is a topographic map that showsthe location of the proposed tower, nearby house structures, the quarry and the railroad. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approxhnately 1,000 feet ASL, Above Sea Level. The peak of the mountain is at an elevation of 1,070 feet ASL. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower, is approximately 1,000 feet (0.2 miles) distant and approximately 260 feet lower in elevation. Approximately 10 houses are located within 2,000 feet (0.6 miles) of the proposed tower. No existing towers are located in the area. The nearesl identified existing tower site is located on 1-64 at Camp Holiday Trails. This tower is owned by 360 Communications and is located approximately 4.5 miles to the north. The nearest US Cellular Facility is located on Castle Rock, 6.6 miles to the southwest. The towers on Carter's Mountain are located 7 miles to the east. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is unable to recommend approval. Planning and Zoning History: None available. Comnrehensive Plan: Staff notes that in order to construct the proposed tower clearing for access and the provision of electrical service will be required. Therefore, these impacts, in addition to the impact of the tower itself, have been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Staff can identify no provision in the Comprehensive Plan which prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communications. This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan and the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. Currently~ the Land Use Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources of the County. The resources identified in the plan and potentially affected by this application are: Entrance Corridor, Mountain Resource Area and Critical Slopes. [Staff notes that this site is not subject to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District contained in the Zoning Ordinance. All review based on impact to the Entrance Corridor is due to the content of the Open Space Plan.] The Entrance Corridor is currently addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board. Critical Slopes are addressed by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Tt/'e methods for protection and potential allowable impacts in the Mountain Resource Areas are currently being reviewed in detail by the Mountain Protection Committee. Although detailed standards for potential allowable impacts are not completed, staff has determined that protection of an identified resource, the mountain areas, is still appropriate. In an effort to provide a comparison of the impacts caused by location within the Mountain Resoume Area verses location outside of resource areas while remaining on this property, the applicant has provided a cross-section depicting the changing height of the tower. [Attachment E] Information as to the impact of locating outside of the Mountain Resource Area on another parcel is not available. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the Route 29 corridor. Route 29 is designated as an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The int~nt of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is in part "to implemant~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 and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism". The ARB has not reviewed this request so no detailed analysis on the impact of this proposal on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is available. This tower will be visible from the Entrance Corridor District, primarily from locations south of the site. Without additional information staff is unable to determine if the impacts created by an alternative site would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor. Most of the unnamed hill is designated as critical slopes in the Open Space Plan. However, the location of the proposed tower is near the crest ora ridge of the unnamed hill and no disturbance of critical slopes will occur for the construction of the tower. The provision of access to the tower will cross areas of critical slopes. The mountain resource area as identified in the Open Space Plan starts at the 800 foot contour. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 1,000 feet ASL. The Open Space Plan states that, "Mountains are a major open space system recommended for protection in the Rural and Growth Areas" (page 27). In addition the plan states "Resources associated with mountains include critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, unique soils for orchards, natural areas (including geologic features, and habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters." (page 5) Relocating the tower to a lower elevation will require the tower height to be increased to maintain the same coverage objective. Based on the information provided by the applicant, relocating the tower out of the Mountain Resource Area (while remaining on this property) will require the tower to be increased from 200 feet to 544 feet. At this height the tower would have to be lit and using a guyed tower becomes more likely. The Open Space Concept Map "is intended to serve two functions: to guide open space decision-making in the County as a whole, and to provide a starting point for the ongoing identification and protection of Rural Area open space resources" (page 2). The location ora tower in the Mountain Resource Area will permanently alter the visible appearance of the resource and, without additional guidance as to acceptable impacts in th.e Mountain Resource Area, staff opinion is that locating towers in the Mountain Resource Area is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. Staff is unable to provide comment as to the potential impacts if this tower were relocated outside of the Mountain Resource Area on a different parcel. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request in three sections: 2. 3. 4. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. [copy attached] Waiver ora site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the rieht to issue all special use hermits 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 ad_iacent property_, The proposed tower is located approximately 100 feet from the nearest property line and does not comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is on a flat area below the peak and the site is entirely wooded. These trees will provide excellent screening of the equipment at the base of the tower. Based on the applicant's information thesetrees are approximately 50 feet tall. (Staffop~mon, based on a field visit is that the trees in the area of the tower ara approximately 70 feet tall.) Based on the information from the applicant, the top of the tower will be approximately 150 feet above the tree line. this will offer opportunities for collocation in an area which has been identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staff does note that the applicant has worked with CFW Wireless to provide collocation on this tower which would eliminate the need for a second new tower in this same general area. However, this height will increase the area of visibility of the tower. The impact on reduction of the tower height on the US Cellular network is unknown at this time. The proposed tower is located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest dwelling on adjacent property. Based on staff review this tower will be visible from dwellings located to the west of Route 29 and south of the site. Lighting of the tower is unlikely as the tower is under the height standard for lighting, but staff has included a condition limiting lighting unless required by the FAA or other federal officials. This tower does not penetrate the Airport Overlay District. The visibility of the tower from residential property may be considered a detriment. However, staff is not able to determine if the detriment is substantial. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potentiai impacts. Staff is unable to determine if the impact of this proposal will create a substantial detriment to adjacent property. The applicant has not submitted evidence that the impact from this development will not be substantial. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, In detexmming the impact on the character of the district staff has taken into consideration the character of the district aS described in the Comprehensive Plan Open Space Plan. A topographic map is attached to this report which shows the location of dwellings, the railroad and the quarry. The quarry is primarily visible from Route 708 and on Route 29 south of the site. However, the sound of the quarry is audible from a considerable distance. Staff provides this comment simply to indicate that the area is already impacted by nonagricultural or forestal activity. This site is zoned NR which permits limited quarrying activity on this site by-right. In fact this site has been used as a quarry in the past as an abandoned quarry is present on the site. Use of this site for quarrying operation would be a change in the character of the area. Staff does not consider the location of a tower on this site as an obstacle or catalyst to use of this property for a permitted natural resource extraction use. The property immediately to the west is located in an Agricultural/Forestal District. Staffopinion is that approval of this request would have no adverse impact on the use of the adjacent property for either agriculture or forestry. The allowance of other users on this tower would serve to reduce the total number of towers in the area and may alleviate the need for the construction of additional towers, beyond this request. Staffhas considered this tower as a stand alone facility. This will result in a change in the appearance of the area. Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas and have not in the opinion of staff resulted in a change in the character of the Rural Areas to this point. Since the adoption of the Open Space Plan no towers have been approved within the Mountain Resource Area except Within the existing tower farm on Carter's Mountain and the recent approval for CFW on Piney Mountain. Staff opinion is that although a tower will change the appearance of the area, it will not change the character of the Rural Areas district due to limited traffic volume, limited activity for the installation of access/electricity, and no impact on this or other property for any by-fight agricultural/forestal use. In considering the character of the district staffhas considered that this request is within the mountain resource area which has a largely undeveloped character. This request would change the character of the district in that it permits development within the mountain resoume area which is not supported by the Open Space Plan. Based on the impact to the mountain resource area staff opinion is that this request does not comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment F). All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded'and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. However, this proposal may not be contributing to an attractive community because of the potential visual impact to the entrance corridor and mountain area designated in the Open Space Plan, Therefore, staff opinion is that this request does not comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in tbe district, The proposed tower will not restrict the currant uses, other by-right uses available on this site or by-right uses on any other property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance. and with the public health, safe _fy and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health and safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of enwronmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10.3.1 states: "The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. This height limitation shall not apply to any of the above designated structures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements". By the requirements of this provision the proposed tower would need to be located a minimum of 200 feet fi.om the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approximately 100 feet fi.om the closest property line. Staff opinion is that this provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent safety hazards should a tower fall. Historically, towers rewewed by the County are approved subject ~o a condition requiring approval of a tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of structural failure (snch a condition is proposed by staff for this request). This condition protects the public safety. Relocation of the tower is an option. However, relocation would result in a taller tower and the construction of the tower in an area of critical slopes. Staffhas historically supported requests for modification to allow towers to be located closer to the property line than the height of the tower when no option to relocate exists. In previous applications denial of the modification request would require relocation of the tower to areas of critical slopes or to areas which would require a substantially taller tower. In this case denial of the modification would have these negative results. Staffopinion is that the negatives of relocating the tower outweigh the waiver and therefore, staff is able to support a reduction in the setback requirement. Section 704(a)(7)(b'~(i)(IB of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The recmlation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local _eovemment or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staff opinion is that the County has no ban or policies that have the effect of banning personal wireless services or facilities and that decisions regarding the approval of facilities to provide service is done on a case-by-case basis. Staffoffers as support for this statement the following evidence. Since 1990 the Board of Supervisors has acted on 15 requests and has approved 11 of these requests. Staff does nor believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application has the effect of prohibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staffin an effort to identify any suitable location for collocation which would eliminate the need for construction ora tower. Alternate sites for the construction ora new tower have not been discussed. Potential collocation sites investigated included the existing power lines located approximately 1 mile south this site. The applicant is currently investigating the propagation patterns which would be achieved by locating on this power line. However, at the time of the preparation of this report no information is available. Staff opinion is that this collocation option on the power line to the south has not been exhausted, No other collocation options have been identified which would provide coverage in southern Albemarle. Waiver ora site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The text of Section 32.2.2 is attached. The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve tbe public interest. The site review committee has reviewed the request for a site plan waiver. Based on this review staff is unable to identify any propose which would be served by requiring the submission ora site plan. Staff recommends approval of a full site plan waiver subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; Provision of one parking space. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The tower will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. The tower will provide collocation opportunities in an area identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: This site is within the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. This impact may be considered inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinm~ce. 2. Options for alternative sites have not been exhausted. 3. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. While staff has not identified the visual impact created by the tower as a substantial detriment to the existing nearby residential area, staff does note approval of this request will introduce a new tower to an area of nearby residential development from which the tower will be visible. Staff opinion is that the impact on the mountain resource area makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore, staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request, staff has provided conditions of approval. 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 ACTION: Staff opinion is that the impact on the Mountain Resoume Area without findings on possible alternative sites makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request stuff offers the following recommended conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 200 feet. 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as m minimize visibility from the ground. Staffapproval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be prat of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes. Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Proposed Cellular Antenna Site "and initialed WDF October 16, 1997 and on untitled topographic map initialed WDF October 16, 1997. Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities. 9~ Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration &the Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts. 10. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate on the tower and site and shall provide the County, upon request, verifiable evidence of having made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence ora good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the permittee's tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with any other wireless telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or site. 11. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. report shall state the current user status of the tower. Specifically~ the report shall state if the rower is being used for wireless telecommunication service. The tower shall be of lattice type construction. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. The access road above the 800 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. Access road shall be gated. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to permit the tower as requested by the applicant: A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location of the tower approximately 100 feet from the property line. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to authorize a site plan waiver. A waiver of the drawing of a site plan has been granted in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2. subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance ora building permit; 2. Provision of one parking space. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicants Information D - Topographical Map E - Cross Section showing alternative tower site F - Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. A:\SP9741.RPT o CASTL~ SP 97-41 U.S, CELLULAR (RED HILL) TOM MOUNTAIN 80AZ MOUNTAIN \ % SP 97-41 U.S. CELLULAR (RED HILL) / / and therefore makes the loc~ 9n a reasonable clace so locate rather obscure, bu~ special commercial use. Ihe sower is proposed to be located at elevation 1000"AMSL' and stand 200 or less in height. Assuming the trees on the ridge are 50 tall and theL~ ridge is at elevation 1070 , The tops of the trees are at el'~¥atio~ 1~2d'~ just below the tower top which itself is at a lower elevation than some of the quarry operation. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:(Pleascattachadditionalin~rmation asneeded) Request to be allowed to install a wireless communications tower and antennae along with affiliated ground-based imQrovements near the top of a ridge adjacent to Route 29 South on the property owned by Martin Marietta Mat~rial$, Inc.. known as RPd Mill Quarry. The subject proper~y and adjacent lands are zoned RA. Ihe tower and associated improvements will be located on a leased tract of land roughly a quarter acre in size. The tower is proposed at 200' or slightly less in height, so be placed a minimum of it's height from any property line. The exact site ~s a remote location beMnd the old quarry and on the back side of the ridge from 29. The top of the tower will be only slightly above the mountain top to allow for clear sight lines uo and gown the corridor. JUSTIFICATION: (Please attach additional information as needed) The need for adequate cellular service in the 29 5outh corridor is evident oiven both this request and three Dreceeding applicationq put fnrfh hy £~W (inmrmmlr~t-lnn~ ~n fhe precinct. This application calls for a tower location on the same property as the active Red Hill Quarry operation: The character of the area was of utmost concern when selecting a location in tMs area. The quarry represents an existing industrial- type use which has a stronq visual presence from almost all vantage ?int~. Tt'~ activities andimpacts are present on D~dlev Mountain UD tO elevation 1250 AMql. Although the mountains in this precincz include land above the B0O' elevation and it is Felt that the quarry is already recoqnized as a compromise of the visual qn~n OFFICE USE ONLY I% '~ 3i%,~t ~v 1.0%%0b -Ob-Ob- l%b 2. - 0o- 0/%1 0 3.__ _ _ 4. 5__ 6.__ 7. . - 8________ 9.____ REQUESTED UNDEK ORDINANCE SECTION: EXISTING PROPOSED USE: HISTORY: [] SPs: [] VAs: [] ZMAs m~d Proffers: [] Letter of Authorization I:\G ENERALI.S n,,~.E~ZON INGkSTAC5~S PUS E. FRM Lasl F.¢vised 4130196 I ATTACHMENT C I jljlr.' · ~ ~ [ATTACHMI=NT CI ~.5 ~ ' QUEEN CH ARLUi ~ t: SQUARE 256 EAST HIGH STREET CI'IARLOFTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 804-979-7522 FAX: 804-977-1194 PHOTO /;/ ABOVE '\ qEE I iN£ 1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County adopted pursuam to the provisions of Title 15.1. Chapter 11. Article 4. Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 8. As set forth in section 15.1-427 of the Code. this ordinance is intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia. and to plan for the future development of communities to the end that transportation systems be carefully planned: that new community centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestai land be preserved; and that the growth of the conuunnity be consonant with the efficient and economical use of public funds, fAdded 9-9-92) Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. for the purposes of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the future development of the community, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the off icial zoning map adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. ~s designed: 1.4.1 To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood and other dangers; 1.4.2 To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets: 1.4.3 To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; 1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fh'e protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; 1.4.5 To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas: 1.4.6 To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land. undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstmctiun of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire. flood, panic or other dangers; 1.4.7 To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base: (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.8 To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestai lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; tAmended 9-9-92) 1.4.9 To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of libensed ak'pons, including United States government and military air facilities; (Added 11-1~89; Amended 9~9-92) I ATTAC~ '~ .4.10 To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards to protect surface water and groundwater defined in section 62. t44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia: and (Added 11~1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.11 To promote affordable housing, tAdded 9-9-92) 1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the exisfmg use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property, for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood pla'ms, 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, tAmended 11-1-89) 1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. it is a stated and express purpose of this zoning ordinance m create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end: development is to be encouraged in Villages, Communities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the agricultural/forestal or other rural objectives; and development is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources and where only limited delivery of public services is intended. [Amended 1 I-i-89l 10-3]-97 October 30, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. ot Planning & Community Developmem AO1 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 2966823 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS David Draper Collins & Kronstadt 1111 Spring Street Silver Spring, MD 20910 RE: SP 97-42 Our Lady of Peace Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcels 8 and 8A Dear Mr. Draper: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 28, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The dementia care facility shall be operated in accordance with the Treatise on the Rationale for the Development of the Our Lady of Peace Program (including a Proposed New Addition) dated May 16, 1990 and revised July 24, 1997, herein included as Attachment B; with occupancy not to exceed 24; The dementia care facility shall not be operated without approval and, where appropriate, licensing by such agencies as the Virginia Department of Welfare, the Virginia Department of Health, and other such appropriate local, state and federal agencies as may.have authority in a particular case." The dementia care facility shall comply with the conditions of ZMA 88-07 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 12, 1997. 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. Page 2 October 30, 1997 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Susan E. Thomas Senior Planner SET/jcf cc: Ella Carey Kurt M. Gloeckner The Catholic Diocese of Richmond STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN E. THOMAS OCTOBER 28, 1997 NOVEMBER 12, 1997 SP 97-42 OUR LADY OF PEACE ALZHEIMER/DEMENTIA CARE Applicant's Proposal: The Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond, in conjunction with three Catholic parishes in the greater Albemarle County/Charlottesville area, is requesting an amendment to SP 90-65 for a dementia care addition to an established elderly housing and nursing facility, on a parcel of approximately 7.0 acres. Our Lady of Peace currently has 64 independent living units and 52 dependent supportive assisted living accommodations, and under this proposal would add 16 dependent supportive assisted living moms with a capacity of 20 beds. A location map is included as Attachment A. Attachment B is the applicant's special use permit amendment justification. Petition: Request to amend an existing special use permit [SP 90-65] to add a 16 room (20 bed) dementia care facility [20.3.2.3] to Our Lady of Peace in the Branchlands P.U.D Complex, on the east side of Hillsdale Drive (State Route 1427). The property consists of approximately 7.0 acres and is described as Tax Map 61Z Section 3 Parcels 8 and SA. The property is zoned P.U.D., Planned Unit Development, and is designated Urban Density Residential (6.01 - 34 dwelling un/ts per acre) in the Comprehensive Plan. It is located in the Rio Magisterial District and lies within Urban Neighborhood Two. Character of the Area: To the south is the Church of the Incarnation; to the east Chapel Hill Subdivision; immediately to the west is Our Lady of Peace; and to the north is Squire Hill Apartments, Phase 2, There is a large amount of elderly housing, nursing care and other support uses in the immediate area. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of sections 31.2.4. I (criteria for approval of special use permits), and recommends approval of SP 97-42 with conditions. Planning and Zoning History_ The proposed dementia care site consists of a total of approximately 7.0 acres, currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. Under SP 90-65, this parcel was approved for use by Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) as an adult day care cemer. Subsequently, JABA chose another site inthe commercial portion of the P.U.D. on the west side of Hillsdale Drive. When it was not put to use for adult day care, the parcel reverted to the Diocese of Richmond under the terms of an agreement between JABA and the Diocese. This parcel is located in Area "A" of the Branchlands P.U.D.. approved under ZMA 88-7 for 82 dwellings or 106 low/moderate cost units. The ex/sting Our Lady of Peace elderly housing and nursmg facility was approved under SP 90-65, with a total of 116 Units (independent and assisted living, respectively). At that rune, the issue of density was examined in depth and the proposed elderly housing and nursing care facility was determined to be allowable under ZMA 88-07 and consistent with the intent of the approved P.U.D. and the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed dementia care facility lies within Urban Neighborhood Two and is designated Urban Density (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in the Land Use Plan. This Urban Density designation extends along the east side of Hillsdale Drive from Greenbriar Drive to Rio Road, and encompasses the residential portion of the Branchlands P.U.D., the Church of the Incarnation, Our Lady of Peace, and the aparunem complexes located to the north. STAFF COMMENT: Once the special use permit has been approved, a site plan will be required and may be approved administratively. Staff opinion is that certain uses such as churches, day care, and schools contribute to the well- being and moral fiber of the community. Elderly housing and, in pa~icular, specialized care such as that contemplated with this application are considered by staff to make a similar contribution to the community. Thus, staffreview is confined to issues of compliance with previous zon'mg approvals, appropriate sit'mg, and physical development while other considerations of appropriateness of the use to a given location are a matter of legislative discretion. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a findine bv the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. Staffhas visited the area and is of the opinion that negative impacts on surround'rog uses will be minimal. One issue of concern historically to the P.U.D. is traffic. Traffic from the dementia care facility is anticipated to be substantially less than that generated by the adult day care center; similarly, the day care use, now located in a commercial portion of the P.U.D., also generates less traffic than most commercial uses would. Access to the proposed facility is from Hillsdale Drive, using the existing entrance and driveway serving Our Lady of Peace. This driveway adjoins Parcel SA, and the main entrance to the dementia care stmctare will be from the west, in the direction away from residences in Chapel Hill Subdivision. Similarly, the aSsociated dementia garden would be located immediately adjacent to the proposed building, separated from the residential area to the eaSt by a solid wall approximately 16 feet in height. The wall provides a secure environment for the residents and also serves as an additional buffer [with the existing trees) between the facility and the adjacent subdivision. Because residents of this type of facility require closely supervised care, staff anticipares that virtually all activity will occur within the facility and garden and wilt not be discernible from adjacent property. that the character of tbe district will not be changed thereby, This is a specialized type of elderly housing/nursing care, and as such is consistent with the character of the Branchlands P.U.D. and Our Lady of Peace as approved under ZMA 88-07 and SP 90-65. As mentioned previously, this area is characterized by a high proportion of elderly housing and nursing care and this facility is a logical extension of those services. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1,6. Staff finds no conflict with these provisions of the ordinance. Staff notes that this request to establish a dementia care facility forwards the intent of the ordinance as stated in the following Sections: 1.4.3 "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community;" 1.5 "This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties ....and the requirements for airports, housing, schools,... ;" 3 1.6 "In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and expressed purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end: development is to be encouraged in Villages, Communities and the Urban Area: where services and utilities are available and where such developmem shall not conflict with the agriculntral/forestal or other rural objectives;..." Our Lady of Peace reports that it currently has 28 families with family members in residence, who have requested that their relatives be transferred into the new dementia care facility, The facility is expected to draw residems from other sources as well. meeting a need which appears to be increasing in the community. with the uses permitted by right in the district. The applicant has amended the Treatise of the Rationale for the Development of the Our Lady of Peace Program, previously submitted in conjunction with SP 90-65, the special use permit approved for the elderly nursing care facility. On page 2 of the Treatise, the applicant offers a comparison between the total number of residents that would be generated as a result of this amendment and [an interpretation of] the potential maximmn approved under ZMA 88-07. Staff finds this comparison to be acceptable, and believes that the density issues were essentially addressed during review of SP 90-65. Staff also would repeat the comment made earlier in this report that the relatively inactive nature of the facility further reduces the impact of this proposal on other existing uses in the district. Cumulative impacts from this proposal would be substantially less than those created by the 82 dwellings or 106 low/moderate cost units allowed in Area "A" under ZMA 88-07, primarily because these residents are relatively inactive and do not drive or own vehicles. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance. Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, of the ordinance addresses the elderly care use with the following provisions: 5.1.13 REST HOME, NURSING HOME, CONVALESCENT HOME, ORPHANAGE "Such uses shall be provided in locations where the physical surroundings are compatible to the particular area; 4 No such use shall be established in any area either by right or by special use permit until the Albemarle County fire official has determined that adequate fire protection is available to such use: Generally such uses should be located in proximity to or in short response to emergency medical and fire protection facilities. Uses for the elderly and handicapped should be convenient to shopping, social, education and cultural uses; No such use shall be operated without approval and, where appropriate, licensing by such agencies as the Virginia Department of Welfare, the Virginia Department of Health, and other such appropriate local, state and federal agencies as may have authority in a particular case." Staff finds that this application meets the provisions of 5.1.13(a) and (c). The provisions of 5.1.13(b) will be addressed at site development plan review and approval. Compliance with 5.1.13(d) is recommended as a condition of approval of this amendment. and with the public health, safety and general welfare No adverse impact on the public health, safety and general welfare of the County has been identified as a result of the proposed dementia care facility. Stafffinds that the proposed addition to Our Lady of Peace contributes to the public health, safety and general welfare of the County and the residents themselves, by providing a type and level of elderly housing and nursing care which meets the unique needs of the dementiaJAlzheimer patient, providing additional security for him/her and thereby for the general public as well. In its September 25, 1997, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) commented that the existing entrance to Our Lady of Peace meets minimum standards, noting however that the congestion in this area has been of concern to residents. (Letter included as Attachment C) Staff does not anticipate a s~gnificant increase in traffic as a result of the addition of this facility. SUMMARY: The proposed addition is appropriately located from a land use standpoint in an area designated Urban Density in the Comprehensive Plan, with similar uses adjacent to it and necessary site improvements in place. The dementia care facility meets a commumty need for specialized elderly housing and nursing care. No adverse impacts to adjacent residential uses have been identified from this amendment to the existing Our Lady of Peace special use permit. The projected occupancy appears to be well below that allowed by right under ZMA 88-07 (Branchlands P.U.D.), and because of its restricted nature, this density can be expected to result in a much lower traffic impact, of concern to the P.U.D. and area as a whole. Development factors, including buffering and drainage, will be addressed during site plan review. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SP 97-42 subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The dementia care facility shall be operated in accordance with the Treatise on the Rationale for the Development of the Our Lady of Peace Program (including a Proposed New Addition! dated May 16, 1990 and revised July 24, 1997, herein included as Attachment B; with occupancy not to exceed 24~ The dementia care facility shall not be operated without approval and, where appropriate, licensing by such agencies as the Virgima Department of Welfare. the Virgirfia Department of Health, and other such appropriate local, state and federal agencies as may have authority ~n a particular case." The dementia care facility shall comply with the conditions of ZMA 88-07. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Applicant's Justification C - July 24, 1997 Letter from VDOT I:IGENERALISHAREITHOMASIOURIMDESP ALBEMARLE COUNTY FTTACHMENT Al / / 6 SP 97-42 OUR LADY OF PEACE SECTION 62AI G CHAPEL HILLS GREENBRIER HEIGHTS SECTION ~'~ BRANCHLAND Q BRANCHLAND RETIREMENT VILLAGE 4 D,E. 560-526 D.E. 797/272 BROOKMILL CONDOMINIUMS L-I thru9 D.B.BB9/612-625 L- i0-16 D B.945/454-458 L- 17-23 D,B. IO00/359'~66 Lo )BRANCHLANOS PHASE 4. D.B. IOIg/607 ({'~'~_((~')~ BRANCHLANDS s,, CHARLOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 61Z May 16. 1990 Revised July 24, 1997 TREATISE ON THE RATIONALE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OUR LADY OF PEACE PROGRAM (INCLUDING A PROPOSED NEW ADDITION) AS CONFORMING TO THE SITE UTILIZATION SPECIFICATIONS FOR PARCEL A IN THE BRANCHLANDS PUD ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA I'ATTACHMENT B The existing Our Lady of Peace development is a multifamily housing program sponsoreo by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond in conjunction with three Catholic parishes in the greater Albemarle County/Charlottesville area: the Church of the Incarnation, Holy Comforter, and St, Thomas. The complex supports 64 independent dwelling units with 52 dependent supportive assisted-living accommodations of which 16 spaces ~rovide 30 beds of intermediate care nursing n support of the 64 independent dwelling units. This program is placed on a 7,033-acre tract Known as Parcel A of the Branchlands PUD, 1.0-10 acres of this parcel are proposed to accommodate the application of an approximately 16,000 sc, ft. Dementia Care Facility, also to be operated by the Diocese of Richmond, with appropriate access opportunities. Parcel A of the Branchlands PUD allows as a matter of right for the construction of "82 dwellings or 106 low-'moderate-cost units." The Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance of 10 December 1980 defines Dwellings as either Multifamily, Single Family, or Two Family. The Our Lady of Peace facilit~ fits within the Multifamily definition of "more than two (2) dwelling units." A Dwelling Unit is defined as: "A sin~ e unit providing complete, independent-living facilities for one (1) or more persons, including permanent prows~ons for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation." Cleady, the 64 independent apartments meet this definition as the~ are equipped with complete, indepe_ndent-livinq facilities. The other building support spaces include lobbies, lounges, solariums, craft, and administrative spaces as well as central kitchen dining, laundry, mechanical, electrical, and health care spaces including "incomplete, dependent-living facilities" for the support of the 64 independent dwelling units for those residents who age in place and can continde to be accommodated within the facility. Accordingly, the sponsor believes that these dependent health care accommodation,,, including 16 nursing home and proposec 16 Dementia Care 'corns and 26 incomplete livina spaces without full, complete kitchens, which depend on the serwce of three meals per day to occupants, place those supportive health care spaces n the same category as other programmed health support spaces for the 64 independent, complete dwelling unt~s. By providing various levels of health care. residents maintain their independence and do not deplete their financial -esources by oaying for higher levels of health care than they actually need. Treatise on the Rationale for Development of the Our Lady of Peace Program May 16, 1990. Revised July 24, 1997 page 2 As a further rationale for the program's conformance to the allowable 82-unit or 106 low-/moderate-income dwelling unit specification for Parcel A, the sponsor would like to draw comparisons as to population and traffic generation between this 64 indeoendent and complete dwelling unit program with supportive health care accommodations and an 82-or 106-unit muitifamily housing program. 82 or 106 units (normal mix of 10% 1BR, 10% 3BR, and 80% 2BR units assumrng 1~ of 1BR units occupied by single persons and '~ of 2BR and 3BR are occupied by single parents with 1 child per bedroom, and 25% of Our Lady of Peace 1BR independent units occupied by 2 persons): No. Of Studios/Rms. No. Of 1BRs No, Of 2BRs No. Of 3BRs Total Program (Occupants) (Occupants) (Occupants) {Occupants) (Occupants) 82 units 0 (0) 8 (12) 66 (165) 8 (28) (205) 106 units of Iow/moderate income 0 (0) 10 (15) 86 1215) 10 (40) (270) 64 existing independent & complete units 16 (16) 36 (45) 12 (24) 0 (0) (85) Plus existing assisted health accommodations 26 (26) 10 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) (36) Ptus existing nursing health care accommodations i 16 (30) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) (30) Plus proposed new I dementia health accommodations 16 (20) (20) L171) As this chart indicates, the 64-unit existing Ou~' Lady of Peace facility with existing and new health care accommodations would generate considerably fewer residents than either of the 82-unit or 106-unit low-/moderate-income programs. Treatise on the Rationale for Development of the Our Lady of Peace Program May 16, 1990, Revised July 24. 1997 page 3 Additionally, when the small number of likely resident drivers and the staff and visitor trips per day in the existing and qew proposed facility are combined and compared to the trips per day, t[affic generation quantities projected for 82 units or 106 low-'moderate-income units, it will be evident that considerably lesser traffic is generated at the project entrance by the Our Lady of Peace program (See Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc. Traffic Study dated June 12, 1990, to be updated). Note: A Iow- and moderate-income prowsion within the Our Lady of Peace program is addressed by the application o4 internal subsidies and the application of endowment funds by the Diocese so Optional Auxiliary Grant recipients and indigent nursing patients not fully covered ~y Medicaid. Besides the direct subsidy, the Catholic Diocese of Richmond provides for Iow- to moderate-income housing in other ways. The nonprofit sponsor will not deplete the financial resources of its residents or pu~ affordable housing out of reach by charging a large entrance or endowment fee. The sponsor allows for financial flexibility by offering month-to-month or annual leasing arrangements in the independent apartments and provides for a per-diem arrangement in the eventual nursing facility as it will in the new proposed 20- aed Dementia Care addition. Although this informal approach cannot be directly equated to the specific VHDA or HUD rent supplement programs, it offers evidence of a nonprofit sponsor's intentions to provide economic assistance to those in need'and is in harmony with the expression of interest on the part of the PUD plan for offering density credit for the application pt Iow- to moderate-income housing units. Descriptive Summary o4 New Proposed Addition to Our Lady of Peace The proposed 16-room. 20-bed Dementia Care addition to Our Lady of Peace ~s envisioned as a connected but separate and secured one-story 16.O00 sq. ft. pavilion in which 20 residents live in 4 semiprivate and 12 private room accommodations with private baths located around three sides of a large central living, dining, and activity space monitored by a 5- to 6-person care giver staff from a work station and Director's Office located near the main pavilion entry on the fourth side. The pavilion is Drooosed to be linked via an enclosed passage to 8 service corridor at the rear of the nursing station in the existing 30-bed. one-story existing nursing wing and to the ex,sting nursing wing porte-cochere and entry canopy by a connecting covered canopy. Other suppor~ spaces in the proposed new addition will include an exterior secured walking garden on the three residential sides connecting four exits and accommodating a fire area of refuge. A serving kitchen will accommodate a food delivery cart system supplying food from the central kitchen of the existing auilding for a three-meal-per-day service. An activity room. gues~ reception lobby, a music room. and a sun room frame the four corners of the pavilion and an assisted bathing and grooming center offer personal hygiene care. Treatise on the Rationale for Development of ti~e Our Lady of Peace Program May 16, 1990, Revised July 24, 1997 page 4 The addition will occupy much of the 1.0-acre tract originally designated for use as an Adult Day Care Center to be operated by the Jefferson Area Board on Aging and which later reverted back to the Diocese of Richmond when not out to that use under the terms of an agreement between JABA and the Diocese of Richmond. Page 2 September 25, 1997 Mr. Ron Keeler October Public Hearings SP-97-40 Snow's Business Park, Route 742 This property appears to be developing beyond its originat usage and our comments regarding site plan review on August 28, 1997 are attached. SP-97-41 US Cellular - Red Hill, Route 708 minimum commercial entrance and site distance will be required, $P-97-45 Charles W. Hurt, Route 643 <> A commercial entrance with adequate site distance will be required. <> A minimum right turn and taper lane of 100 feet each should be required. <> Route 643 from Route 29 to 1.5 miles East is an improved section that was done approximately 20 years ago for the traffic that existed along it at that time. There has been considerable development along this section and beyond that has increased traffic to approximately 1000 VPD in 1994 traffic count. We have found on most roads above 1000 VPD that the added traffic has maintenance impact that generally requires a better surface than the existing surface treatmen~ riding surface. <> The section of road from 1.5 miles East of Route 29 to Bentivar Subdivision is a paved surface, but is very substandard relative to geometrics and road cross-section. SP-97-42 Our Lady of Peace Alzheimer/Dementia Care, Route 1427 The existing facility has an entrance that meets minimum standards, however it is somewhat congested in this area and it is often a concern for the residents that use it. I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: ro WHOM ADDRESSED Laurie Hall, Sen/or Deputy Clerk Ordinance Adopted by Board November 25, 1997 Attached for your use is a revised copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors at its November 12, 1997 meeting. Please destroy the copy sent on November I9, 1997: An ordinunce to Amend and Reordain Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Section 2.1.4, districts described, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. (h) The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal · District" consists of the followhug described properties: Tax map 73, parcels 38, 39B, 4lA, 4lB1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48; tax map 74, parcels 26, 28; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16A. 16C. 16D, 16F, 27; tax map 87, parcels 3, 10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of 89.186 acres }; tax map 88, parcels 4, 5, 5A, 6A, 23, 24, 26B, 40, 4lA, 42, 42A; tax map 99, parcels 29, 52. This district, created on November 4, 1987 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on November 12, 1997, shall next be reviewed prior to November 12, 2007. Attachment cc: The Honorable James L. Camblos, III Rolisa Smith Melvin Breeden Robert Walters Municipal Cdde Corporation File ORDINANCE NO. 97-2.1 I2 t AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAIYrER 2. I, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.1.4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED. OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. that Chapter 2. I, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2.1-4(h), Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District. as follows: Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (h) The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 73. parcels 38. 39B, 4lA, 4lB1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44, 45, 46.48; tax map 74, parcels 26, 28; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16A, 16C. 16D. 16F. 27; tax map 87. parcels 3, 10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of 89.186 acres); tax map 88. parcels 4, 5, 5A, 6A, 23, 23E, 24, 26B, 40, 41A, 42. 42A: tax map 99. parcels 29, 52. This district, created on November 4, 1987 for'not more than ten years and last reviewed on November 12, i997, shall next be reviewed prior to November I2, 2007. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true. correct copy of an ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of five to zero on November 12, 1997. CI"~, B'~a~:d of County~rvisors DRAFT: November 12, 1997 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 2. t.4. DISTRICTS DESCRIBED, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2.1. Agricultural and Forestal Districts, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2.1-4(h), Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District. as follows: Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (h) The district Imown as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 73, parcels -24.38, 39B, 4lA, 4lB1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44~ 45, 46, 48; tax map 74, parcels 26.28; tax map 86, parcels ~ o .... ,14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16F, ~=, =3A ....... 27, mx map 87, parcels g, 3, 10, 13A. 13E (part consistin¢ of 89.186 acres); tax map 88, parcels 4, 5, 5A~ 6A, 23, 24, 26B, 40. 4lA, 42, 42A: tax map 99 parcels 29 52 This district, created on November 4, 1987 for not more than ten years_ and last reviewed on November 12. 1997, shall next be reviewed prior to November 12, 2007. HARDWARE.WPD DRAFT:November 6. 1997 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2.1. AGRICULTURAL ,MND FORESTAL DISTRICTS. SECTION 2.1.4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED. OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. Virgima. that Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts. is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2.1-Z~(hL Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District. as follows: Sec. 2.1-4 Districts described. (h) The district lmown as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 73. parcels 24. 38. 39B. 41A~ 4lB1,41B2.42.42A, 43.44.45.46.48: tax map 74, parcels 26.28: tax map 86, parcels 13, 13A. 14. 16A. 16C, 16D. 16F. 22.22A. 23, 23A, 25. 26. 27; tax map 87. parcels 2. 3. 10: 13A. [3E: tax map 88. parcels 4.5, SA, 6A, 23.24, 26B, 40.4lA, 42, 42Az tax map 99. parcels ,t_ ~ .... r: ....... : .... x~ ...... t_.. 4 ~ no, This district d on November 4. 1987 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on November 12. 1997, shall next be reviewed prior to November 12, 2007. H2kP. DWARE.WPD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-:4596 (804) 296,5823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Scala, Senior Planner Maly Joy October 30, 1997 Review of Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 28, 1997, unanimously recommended that the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District be continued for ten (I0) years. Attached please find a staffreport which details this proposal. I/you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. MJS/jcf ATTACHMENT STAFF PERSON: ADVISORY COMMITTEE: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA OCTOBER 6, 1997 OCTOBER 28, 1997 NOVEMBER 12, 1997 REVIEW OF HARDWARE AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT Purpose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal district is "to conserve and protect and to encourage the development and improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural/forestal lands for the production of foods and other agricultural and forestal products..." and" to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open space for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes." Factors to Consider: The following factors must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Advisory Committee and at any public hearing when a proposed district is being considered: The agricultural and forestal significance of land within the district and in areas adjacent thereto; The presence of any significant agricultural lands or significant forestal lands within the district and in areas adjacent thereto that are not now in active agricultural or forestal production; The nature and extent of land uses other than active farming or forestry within the district and in areas adjacent thereto; 4. Local developmental patterns and needs; 5. The Comprehensive Plan and, if applicable, the zoning regulations; The environmental benefits of retaining the lands in the district for agricultural and forestal uses; and 7. Any other matter which may be relevanT. Effects of a District: The proposed district provides a community benefit by conserving and protecting farmlands and forest; environmental resources such as watersheds, air quality, open space, wildlife habitat; and scenic and historic resources. The State Code stipulates that the landowner receive certain tax benefits*, and restrictions on public utilities and government action (such as land acquisition and local nuisance laws) to protect the agricuitural/forestal use of the land. In exchange, the landowner agrees to not develop his property to a "more intensive use" during the specified number of years the district is in effect. *Since Albemarle County currently permits all types of use value assessment, a district designation may not provide any additional real estate tax reductions. Land in a district is protected from special utility assessments or taxes. The State Code stipulates that, "Local ordinances, comprehensive plans, land use planning decisions, administrative decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land adjacent to any district shall take into account the existence of such district and the purposes of this chapter." The district may have no effect on adjacent development by right, but could restricl proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit which are determined to be in conflict with the adjacent agricultural/forestal uses. Districts must now be shown on the official Comprehensive Plan map each time it is updated. In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The property owners in the district are making a statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area to remain in the agricultural and forestal uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to cont'mue agricultural uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacem lands. Review Procedure: In conduct'rog a review, the Board shall ask for the recommendations of the local Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission in order to determine whether to terminate, modify, or continue the district. The Board may stipulate conditions to continuation of the district and may establish a period before the next review of the district, which may be different from the conditions or period established when the district was created. Any such different conditions or period must be described in a notice sent to landowners in the district, and published in a newspaper at least two weeks prior to adoption of the ord'mance continuing the district. Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board of Supervisors, the district shall continue as originally constituted, with the same conditions and period before the next review as were established when the district was created. When each district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner's discretion by filing a written notice with the Board of Supervisors at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district. All landowners in the district have been notified of the review by certified mail. To date, staffhas received one request for withdrawal. following the Planning Commission meeting, for 7.723 acres, part of Tax Map 87, Parcel 13E. ~ote: the landowner is subdividing the parcel for the farm manager to build a home. The farm manager has indicated that, after the parcel is subdivided he intends to add the parcel back into the district./ Location: The Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District surrounds the North Garden area. The district is located on State Routes 29 South/Monacan Trail Road), 637 (Dick Woods Road), 692 (Plank Road), 696 (Edge Valley Road), 697 (Sutherland Road), 708 (Red Hill Road and Taylor's Gap Road), 710 (Taylor's Gap Road), 745 (Poorhouse Road~ and 767 (Rabbit Valley Road) in the vicinity of North Garden. Acreage: The total acreage is approximately 6,246 acres in 49 parcels owned by 30 landowners. Time Period: The Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District was created on November 4, 1987 for atime period often years. A~riculmral and Forestal Significance: Land in the district is being used for hay, pasture, forestry and orchards. Significant Lands Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use value assessment program is a good indicator ofthe actual use of the properties. Approximately 2,802 acres are enrolled under agriculture; 3,033 acres are enrolled under forestry; 128 acres are enrolled under horticulture; and 39 acres are non-qualifying due to dwellings or other non-qualifying uses. Approximately 203 acres are not enrolled in the program. Land Uses Other Than A~riculture and Forestry_: There are approximately 39 dwellings in the district. The County Fair has a special use permit to operate annually on a parcel within the district. Land Developmental Patterns and Needs: The Hardware District consists of mostly large farms and a few smaller parcels. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The nearest Development Areas are Crozet and the Urban Area, a distance of 2 ½ - 3 miles in each direction. The district surrounds the North Garden area, which was eliminated as a Village Development Area from the Land Use Plan in 1996. Most of the district is zoned P_A, Rural Areas, with the exception of Tax Map 99, Parcels 29 and 52, and Tax Map 86, Parcel 27, parts which are zoned VR, Village Residential. A Comprehensive Plan Objective is, "All decisons concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development" (p.203). A Strategy is, "Actively promote and suppor~ volUntary teclmiques such as agricultural/forestal districts...." (p. 53). Environmental Benefits:. The Open Space Plan shows the Hardware Disff~ct as designated Important Farmlands and Forests. A significant portion of the district is designated for protection as Mountains. Most of the district lies within the North Fork Hardware River watershed, with a small portion in the South Fork Rivarma Reservoir water supply watershed. The district is traversed by several Ma~or Stream Valleys, including the South Branch, Middle Branch and North Fork Hardware Rivers. Route 29 South is a designated Entrance Corridor. Environmental benefits include protection of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat, open space, and critical slopes. Staff Comment: Although some property owners expressed concerns about the ten year time period atthe Advisory Committee meeting (minutes attached), no one has yet formally requested a change. Staff recommends continuation of thc Hardware District for ten years. Advisory Con~ittee Recommendation: The Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee at its meeting on October 6, 1997, recommended unanimously that the Hardware Agricultural/ Forestal District be continued for a minimum of 5 years. Pla~'lng Commission Recommendation: The Plamfing Commission at its meeting on October 28, 1997, unanimously recommended that the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District be continued for ten (10) years. i:\g\s\ascala\hwrmemo 4 HARDWARE AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT REVIEW Tax Map/ Total Use Value Taxation Owner Dwellings Parcel &crea~le ~, For Hort. Non Qual 73-24 558.9 ~205.9 352 1 -tenry C. Page, Jr. 1 73-38 143.272 7.21 135.062 I IKatharine ML Johnson 1 '3-39B 7.068 Vl[chael or Bevedy~ays 1 73-41A 11.385 ~aul D. Ra~/ 1 73-41B1 4.244 :)ale R. Ray - - - 1 73..41B2 3.501 tommy B. Ray ~ 7342 I 38 38 __ Sarah W. Magerfield 0 73-42A 75 74 ' James A. or Sarah W. Magerfield 1 73-43 264.5 151.6 112.9 Catherine M. Lewis 0 '3-44 63 63 ~/m. O. Lewis Estate and Katherine Lewis 0 73-45 2 James M. Bowlin.~. IV or Elizabeth B Bow~ 1 1 73-46 1.167 sameJ 0 73-48 2 same 0 74-26 I 13.79 ~lonte G. and Roxanne D. Crews 0 74-28 148.25 -- Jane L. Heyward i ~ 86~13 140.4 112.2 28.2 4ightep LP 0 86-13A 205.314 75:3 129.014 I ~ame 1 ~6-14 99.43 12.43 85 2 :~obert B & Frances F Roger~ ~ 86-16A 1.59 Elizabeth P. Scott 1 86-16C 23,628 5.434 18.194 ~osneath Land Trust 0 86-16Cl 42.005 __ 0 -iightop LP ~ 86-16D , 3.4 :~ceneath Land Trust 1 86-16F . 100.64 25.714 74.926 same ~ 86-22 499.15 235.1 261.05 3 =roderickW. Scott, Jr. 1 ~6-22A 4.75 ~J~htop LP 1 86-23 5_97.7 -243.4 253.3 100 ' =raderick W. Scott, Jr. 1 66-23A 2.6 2.6 same 0 86-25 125.01 87.4 35.61 2 4ightop LP ~ 36-26 26.53 24.5 2.03 same 0 86-27 458.813 300.4 157.413 1 VI.Y. Sutherland, 3r. --1 8?'-02 180 71.8 78.4 27.8 2 =rededck W. Scott, Jr. 2 ~7-03 ;469~797 258.6 209.2 2 2arpente? Place LP _ 1 87-10 316.129 190.18 123.95 2 3~ver Green Farm LLC 2 ~7-13A 30.64 29.64 1 ~,nn P. McClung __ 1 87-13E 96.909 94.909 2 ~,nne L. Walden 1 88-04 144 85 59 ::)avid H. Bass 0 88-05 460.867 283.35 173.518 4 same 3 88-05A 25.03 25.03 same 0 88-06A 10.71 9.71 1 Sara J. White and James G. White Ill 1 88-23 64.96 62.96 2 _ewis B. Johnson, Jr. and Alice T. Johnson 3 8~8-23E 32 31 ' ~ValterT. orVanessa Johnson 0 88-24 147,08 28 117.08 2 John F. Wolfe, Jr. and Joan H. Wolfe 1 88-26B 159.08 59.92 96.16 3 ~avid M. ~n__ 2 88-40 25.5 25.5 same 0 88-41A 4.5 4.5 :)avid H~ Bass ~ 88-42 76.744 76.744 -- same ~ 88-42A 19.55 19 0.55 same 0 99-29 173.136 50.122 121.014 2 ~ayf~_rd S. and Carol B, Jones 2 ~-52 142.444 102.51 37.934 2 .,had~d Betty Tress Woodson -- 1 ~onald Scott Woodson IOIAL 6246.113 2801.5 3032.71 127.8 39 38 I:\g\s\ascela\H DWR E2.WK4 AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 1997 Review of the Hardware Agricultural/Forestai District Members present were: Jacquelyne Huckle Rob Bloch Stephen Murray, Chair Bruce Hogue Bruce Woodzell Joseph Jones, Vice Chair Rosemary Dent Sherry Buttrick Waiter Perk/ns Mary Joy Scala, staffwas also present. Members of the public present were David Bass, Lewis Johnson and Fred Scott. Staffnoted that Dan Maupin intended to step down fi.om the committee and asked for suggestions for a replacement. Rosemary Dent suggested Bob Gilgus who owns Puppy Run. The Committee was askedto come up with some names. The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and asked for the staff' report. Scala presented the report. Mr. Johnson asked if his son was notified. Staff determined he was. The Chair asked for public comment. Scott: Agrees with the goals of the district, wants opinions why he should stay in the district. Murray: Two answers; see a district primarily as a landowner's agreement to keep ~n open space for X number of years. Few benefits - difference with open space easement is landowner can change mind. Buttrick: Need permanent commitment for tax break on open space easement. Perkins: Albemarle currently has land use tax, a favorable environmem. Johnson: Wish Van Roijen was here. He owns a farm in Fanquier. Like Fred, he does not see much benefit to agricultural/forestal districts, but sees that the trend of not being able to have land use is proceeding fi.om the north down this way. I have small acreage, not a farm. it would probably be taken out of land use immediately. Bloch: The reason to stay in the district is because it makes an impression on the neighbors to have a cmnmunity leader put land in a district. Jones: A benefit is that the Board can make the neighbors push back houses if the adjacent land is developed. Staff: The Board is required by state law to consider the existence of the district in all land use decisions. Scott: Not healthy to have one house per 21 acres. Not smart to have owners of raw land dispose of it in 21 acre blocks. Could develop like Seaside, FL. Murray: This is the wrong venue to discuss that topic. When the Comprehensive Plan comes up, you should discuss it then. Bass: Is RPD an option in a district? We are the three major landowners in the district: Scott, myself and Sutherland. I am unsure what to do. The ordinance should be redrafted to include RPD as an option. Ten years ago the bypass was gomg to start at North Garden. That is no longer a tbxeat. The Murray thing [decision to allow bike trails in agricultural/forestal district by Pla~'mg Commission] makes me angry.. On October 28 they are considering a cellular tower next to my agricultural district. What does an agricultural district do for me? My business mind and my wallet are not happy, but my heart has always been with the districts. Scott: I don't know the arguments why I should do what appears to be economically stupid. Bass: We should do less than a ten year term, then talk to the Board of supervisors to include RPD's in districts. Scala: That would change s~gnificantly what is permitted in a district. Although 21 acre parcels are permitted, the fact is that we have never had a 21 acre subdivision of land in a district. Not being able to use development rights acts as a deterrent to developers who want to be able to develop the property fully. If you allow a RPD, they could use all the development rights while the land is still in a district. Perkins: The Board could change quicldy and do away with land use tax. I am the only Board member with any connection to agriculture. A new Board could see the land use tax as a source of lost revenue to make up a budget deficit. Scott: It is confusing what the County wants. Our farm was in a Growth Area, then they moved the North Garden Growth Area boundaries off Scott's farm 10 years ago. Five years later they said it's not a Growth Area. I don't know how to respond anymore. Perkins: There is a limited groundwater resource in North Garden. The County doesn't want to commit to a reservoir and water plant or a water line to North Garden. Scott: We can build a dam. Bass: How can we input whether the district should be 10, 7, 5, or 4 years? Murray: The landowners decide. Scott: Would others have to get out if we do? Murray: The Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed next year or so. Bass: What about mountain protection? Let's get something done, The district should be at least 5 years. Scott: Ten years is too long. Dent: You have voiced the fears of the larger landowners in the County. The Chair asked for comments fi.om the Conunittee. Woodzell: Moved to recommend approval of the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District for a minimum of 5 years. Hague: Second The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned. a:\lOO697.min Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Va. 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville Va. 22901 10/09/97 Re: By - Right Withdrawal from Agricultural and Forestal District. Attached you will find a copy of the survey conducted by Roudabush, Gale and Associates which shows the 7.723 acres of property owned by me. I am withdrawing this part of my property to be sold to Capt. Michael Lugar for the bffdding of a home. Capt. Lugar has been a tenant and manager of my farm for over seven years. He will be living here and continuing to farm the remainder of my property. I support and wish to continue with the remainder of my property in the district. This small removal will only serve the needs of the farm better by provide Capt. Lugar with the opportunity to be here day in and day out. Sincerely, (~_o~ ~,~ ~!~ Anne L. Ueltsehi BrookField Farm Rt. 708 North Garden Va. Board of SuperVisors Albemarle County V~ 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville Va. 22901 10/09/97 Re: By - Right V~r~thdrawal from Agricultural and Forestal District. Attached you will find a copy of the survey conducted by Roudabush, Gale and Associates which shows the 7r723 acres ofpropcrry owned by me. I am withdrawing this part of my property to be sold to Capt. Michael Lugar for the building of a home. Capt. Lugar has been a tenant and manager of my farm for over seven years. He will be living here and continuing to farm the remainder of my property. I support and wish to continue with the remainder of my property in the district. This small removal wilt only serve the needs of the farm better by provide Capt. Lngar with the opportunity to be here day in and day out. Anne L. Ueltschi BrookField Farm Rt. 708 North Garden Va. Hightop LP 1801 Bundoran Drive North Garden, VA 22959 804-295-4188 To: County of Albemarle ATTN: Mary Joy Scala Planning Office Dear Ms. Scala: November 5,1997 I hope that you understand that I agree with the stated goals of the AgriculturaLtForestal Dislricts. When I asked the Advisory committee what difference it would make if our properties were withdrawn from the district and if I thereafter continued to operate my properties as I had before, the consensus answer that I heard was "None, but we hope that you will not". I'm afraid that is not a conv/ncing argument. I can see no reason that would now convince me to continue to cloud the title to my property; indeed I wonder why I did so ten years ago. The philosophical arguments are good, just nor convincing. The economic arguments to join the district seem to be non-existant. Accordingly, please withdraw all property that Hightop LP owns from the District. Yours ' cet~ily, Fre . , . General Parmer Hightop, Ag District Fred W. Scott, Jr Bundoran Farm 1801 Bundoran Drive North Garden, VA 22959 804-295-4188 To: County of Albemarle ATTN: Mary Joy Scala Planning Office Dear Ms. Scala: November 5,1997 I hope that you understand that I agree with the stated goals of the Agricukural/Forestal Districts. When I asked the Advisory committee what difference it would make if our properties were withdrawn from the distr/ct and if I thereafter continued to operate my properties as I had before, the consensus answer that I heard was "None, but we hope that you will not". I'm afraid that is not a convincing argument. I can see no reason that would now convince me to continue to cloud the title to my property; indeed I wonder why I did so ten years ago. The philosophical arguments are good, just not convincing. The economic arguments to join the district seem to be non-existant. Accordingly, please withdraw all property that I own from the District. Y ur mcerel Bundoran, Ag District To: Members. Board of Supervisors From: EllaWashing~on Carey, CMC, Clerk Subject: Reading List for October . 997 Date: November ~ 1997 February 14. 1996 - pages I $ (Item #9) - eno - Mrs, HumDnns April 6, 997 - pages.I _ 15 (Item ~!O) ,M",,. ,D^~':~, ,.,,~s- pages 5 (Item # 10) -ena - Mrs. Thomas October 8. 997 - Mr. Marshall 'ewc NOTE: THE MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1997 INCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZMA-96-17. MECHUM RIVER LAND TRUST. Meadowc~eek Parkway Route Hike Cross a farm meadow, Follow a frail by a creek. Traverse the city's largest park. the view north from Meadow Creek When: Sunday, Nov. 16 at 2 p.m. Where: Park at CATEC on Rio Rd. (across from Dunlora). Return shuttle provided. Hike Distance: 2 miles Information: 293-4976 Sponsored by STAMP (Sensible Transportation Alternatives to Meadowcreek Parkway) A Sierra Cub Re,port FAX: 804/293-7377 . MCLEAN. FAULCONER INC. Farm. Estate and Residential Brokers 503 FAULCONER DRIVE CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22903 U.S.A. November 21, 1997 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclmyre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Supervisors: In preparation for the applications for variance or rezoning by Craig Builders Inc. of the Mechums area expanded housing development proposal, scheduled for hearing and vote last week, in my capacity as a Realtor, I checked on the availability of housing for sale with an Asking Price of $90,000 or less. According to the Developer, this targeted price range, well below the price range of the units offered in Highlands ( and Cory Farms for that matter), was intended to provide affordable housing for teachers, policemen, firemen, etc.. If you are not already aware of this, I discovered that typically, between the County and the City, divided roughly evenly, there are some 200 houses, condos and townhouses available for purchase in our area (see attachments). This number of houses available would increase if one were to take into account the fact that Sellers seldom receive their asking price. Certainly, not all these Sellers are looking to remain in the area and buy in the same price range. Some are moving up, some down in price range. Some are moving out of the area, and some are Estate Sales. In conclusion, assumptions regarding the apparem demand/need for new housing should take into accoum the supply of existing housing in a given price range. New housing plans which take this existing market availability may help Sellers and may result in Sellers and/or Buyers in justifying rejuvenating investment in the existing housing stock for which public resources and services are already dedicated. Sincerely, Phil Williams, 841 Westleigh Drive Charlottesville,VA 22901 NATIONAL ASSOCLATION OF REALTORS VIRGINIA CHAPTER. NATIONAL FARM & LAND INSTITUTE AMERICAN CHAPTER. INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTATE FEDERATION EXCLUSIVE AFFILIATE OF SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REAL°DF A~ ^~ ;> NOV-12-9~ ~ED 10~44 FElL PETTIT ~tLLIa~$ F~× NO, 9775109 FELL, PETTIT ~ WILLIAMS, P.L.C. ATTOI~,NEY$ AT LAW November 12, 1997 P, 02/02 Larry W. Davis, Esq. County Attqorney 40I Mclnti re Road Charlottesx ille, VA 22902 RE: Dear Larrs As Petition fo Ba~ VIA l'AX TO: 9724O68 Mechum River Land Tmit ZMA 96-17 re discussed ~is afternoon, the applican~ hereby withdraws fl~e above ref~rer~ed Zoning Map Amondment. ~l on our discussions, the applicant will not be represented before the Board of Supervisors at this evening's meeting. Thank you for your cooperation in mis regard. Very truly yours. David H. Petdt DHPIlmh Mr. Hunter E. Craig (by facsimile) ~0V-!2-97 ~ED 19:25 MA~ F, LEEP FElL ?ETTIT ~ILLI~it8 P, 01/'02 ON,,, ~Jl BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FEIL, PETTIT & WILLIAMS, P.L.C. 530 B. M.,~N $~lz'r C~ARLOTT~SVmLE, VmGS~A 22902 P, O. BOX 229~¢ TEL~UtIONE FAX TRA.NSMITTAL M~MORA~I~ TO: Air--lC Cot~ty Boir¢ of Supsrvilori/Mt William D, .Fri~/lVlf. liul~tCt F,, Craig COMPANY: PHONl/: FAX: County of' Albemarle /DepL of Planning & /Comra. D~. 972-403§ /gun~r E. Craig Co, 973-9120 FROM: D~.vid H. PettR, I/sci. DATI~: Nov~raber 12, 1997 NUMBER. OF PAOE$: (Including als cover page) RE: EPA 97-01 / M~hum River Land Tm~t CONTEN?S: COMMENTS: T~O O~ A~ A~ION ~N ~NC~ ON T~ ~ OF ~ ~FO~$ATION, ~Y B~ ~'i~C~LY ~ED. IF YOU ~av~ ~c~ T~ ~C$~ ~ ~, P~5 N~Y US ~T~Y ~Y ~L~PHON~ .~D ~ T~ ~ F~ TO V~ AT TH~ ~VB ~ ~ ~, M~ T~ YOU. NOV~ ~-~7. TU~ b,47r-' FEIL PETTIT F~.~ t~O, ~77~J0§ P, OU02 TeL-'~om~ F_~AX TRMXIgMIT~AL MEMOR.ANDU~ TO: Mr. William D, Frit=/Ms. Ella W. Carey/Mr. Nun=mr E. C~ai~ COMPANY: Dept. of Planning & /Clerk~ goard of /~unter Community Dev. ,~upervz~ors TELEPHONE NO.: ( PAX KO.- 972-4035 / 296-5800 / 973-9120 FROM: David H. Pettit DATE: November 11, 1997 CPA 97-01 CONTENTS~ CONKIDI~NTIAI..ITY_NOTICI~: ~ COMMUNICATION CON~TALNg CONFfD~CTIAL LWMORMA~ON ~{ICH MAY ALSO NE LEGALLY ~RI~ILEOF/) AND ~ [NTiiND~D ONLY FOR T~g ADD~,~E NAMED .~OVE. L~ YOU ARE NOT T~ INT~ED P,~C~NT. Oil THE EMPLC~'W.E OE AGENT RESPON~$~LE FO~ D~'~G ~ TO THE ~ND~ ~, YOU A~ H~Y NOT~D T~T ~Y D~A~ON O~ ~OP~G OF ~ CO~i~CA~ O~ ~E T~N~ OF _~NY AC~ON ~ R~NCE ON ~ CON'~S 0F T~ LN~O~N. ~Y ~ S~C~Y PR~D. ~ YOU HAVE ~P~D ~I~ FACS~E ~ ~OK. ~ N'~ US ~D~LY ~Y T~ONM ~D ~N ~ EN~ FAC~ TO US AT ~ ~v~ ~D~g v~ u.g. ~. ~K You. NOV-!l-97 TUE l~,J ~AVID ~. ~AN~N :~tl~.. PETTIT I4ILL!~iS F~}( NO, 9775109 P, 02/02 g a ~, P, D OF SUPERVISORS t~IBIL, PETTIT W WILLhkMS, P.L.C. November 11, 1997 Willhm D. Fritz, Se~or Planner Depar~em of Pla~afittg and Commu~ty Developmem Coaty of ~1 M,In~e ~lo~svffie, VA 22901'4596 Dear Bill: Re: _CPa ~!:0!.- M,chum River Lam Trim 9724035 DHP/lrah The undersigned is a co.trus~ of tl~ M~hum Privet Land Ttmt. Thanl: you for your assist~ne~ in this regard. Very truly yours, FEIL, PETTIT & WILLIAMS; P.L.C. Davkl H. Pettit Ms. Ella W. Care2~ (by fa~) Mr. Hunter E. Craig (by fax) As we d~cussed by telephone tbi~ ~ftemoon. the applicant requests a deferral of the above refem~ed application for a Comprchemiv~ Pl~ Amendment umil Area Initiative gmdy i, completed., but ~o later than December 31, appreci~ ff ~'ou ~¢ould--tal~ ~ necessary srx'ps to communic~--l;h~ r~qu~st to tll¢ Board of Supervimr~, and o~er interested pa~ties as appropriate. To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: Alejandra Maudet SubjecE: CPA 97--01 Date: 11/11/97 Time: 3:05PM I am writing to express my grean dismay at the possibility that the land use plan may be amended Eo allow land developers Eo obtain a high density rezoning on rural property located OUTSIDE the Croze~ growth area (CPA 97-01). Although I don't live proud of the beauty that makes States. I deplore the benefit, and turn Albemarle counny into jusn another crowded, overdeveloped and unnactractive place. I realize that as our population grows housing mn that area, as a citizen of Virginia I am this one of the loveliest places in the United forces that would change it, for monetary the fact that we HAVE a land use plan, and is sufficient proof of our desire ~o beauty of our counny. the Planning Commission ~o oppose must be provided, but surely designated growth areas, accommodate growth AND maintain the I beg the Board of Surpervisors and and deny any ammendments mo CPA 97-01. Respectfully, Alejandra Maudet Assistant Director Hispanic Studies Program "Travel is fatal to prejudice." Mark Twain FROM : TRRIN&SPENCER RRCHITECTS PHONE NO, · 884 295 5122 NOV,. 12 1997 TO: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: Alicia Belozerco Subjecs: SAVE THE 250W CORRIDOR Date: 11/12/97 Time: 3:0tPM To nhe members of the Board of Supervisors: I am writing ~o you because I cannon antend tonight's meeting. want you to know that I am strongly against granting an unscrupulous business man the right mo destroy a scenic and rural area, home of many families who bought property there acnually because it was scenic and rural. Not only you would be destroying an area that is famous for its beauty, but you would be aggravating an already difficult traffic situation for all people who commune to work on Rt 250 E in the morning. This issue actually goes far beyond Mr. Craig's petition. Your resolution may affect the entire sna5e of Virginia, and the beauty for whan it is known. It may affect the lifestyle of many people who were raised in Virginia, and people who came mo Virginia attracted by what Virginia can offer. If you consider yourselves our representatives and act according Eo what your mandate suggesns, you cannoE be accessories co a deal that considers money i5s only goal and interest. Please listen [o how we, the people of the area affected, feel about the issue of preserving the scenic 250W corridor, and may your wisdom guide your actions. Sincerely, Alicia Belozerco Alicia Belozerco abSa~Virginia.edu Foreign Language Program Coordinator and Academic Advisor University of Virginia Curry School of Education Email: Phone/Voicemail: FAX: 804-924-0853 804-924-0747 405 Emmet Street Charlottesville~ VA 22903-2495 Office: # 249 Ruffner Hall To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: Jim Holladay Subjecn: CPA97-01 Date: 11/12/97 Time: To the Board: As a landowner in the Crozet area, I certainly do no5 want ~o see any high density rezoning in this area. How can this amendment keep re- surfacing after it has been denied previously by the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors? Leave well enough alone. The people have spoken and so have their spokemen. it from arising again. I wane to formally protest CPA 97-01 and keep Respectfully, James C. S. Holladay To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY2 From~ AADANN ~ SMTP (AADann@aol.com} Subject: RE: new development in Crozet Date: 11/12/97 Time: 12:15AM I would like 5o go on record as snrongly opposing the proposed developmen5 outside the growth area of Crozet. The County needs ~o abide by its comprehensive plan and keep growth in limited areas. Thank you. Audrey Dannenberg 103 Minor Rd ch'ville 22903 293-4232 To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: Michael P. Timko SubjecE: change mn land use policy Date: 11/11/97 Time: 8:44PM Dear Members of the Board, I am writing no register my strong disapproval of any change in the currenE zoning of land outside of the current Crozet growth area. Any petition Go change the zonin~ designation of land from rural ~o residential should be denied if it does no5 conform with current land use plans. To consider rezoning rural lands of this sore is surely a seep toward undermining the value of our senic areas. It is time to seep up and say no the developer who pun personal gain above public wishes. Michael P. Timko 1610 Old Ballard Road Ivy TO: ECAREY @ ACVA ("'ecarey@mail.co.albemarte.va.us'") From: Randolph, William 4-8425 Subject: cpa 97-01 Dane: 11/11/97 Time: 7:57PM I can non be ae the meeting on the 12th. However, I hereby vone "no" this proposed action. If we have a plan, we should stick with it until we are oun of land for households. Only then should we consider expanding what is available. It is interesting that a land developer would buy a farm and gamble that the plan will be changed. We owe this person nothing mn re5urn for their obvious arrogance. They gambled and will, hopefully, lose. Bill Randolph 822 Tilman Rd. C'ville 22901 To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: Patny B. DeCourcy Subject: <None> Date: 11/11/97 Time: 3:41PM To:ecarey@mail.co.albemarle.va.us Subjecu:CPA 97-01 I am writing no express my greaE dismay aE the possibility that uhe land use plan may be amended Eo allow land developers 5o obtain a high density rezoning on rural property located OUTSIDE the Crozet growth area (CPA 97-01). >>Although I don't live in that area, as a citizen of Virginia I am proud of >>the beauty that makes this one of the loveliest places in the United States. >>I deplore 5he forces that would change it, for monesary benefit, and >>Albemarle county into just another crowded, overdeveloped and >>place. t realize that as our population grows housing mush be provided, but >>surely the fact that we HAVE a land use plan, and designated growth >>sufficient proof of our desire to accommodate growth AND maintain the beauty >>of our county. >>I beg the Board of Surpervisors and the Planning Commission to oppose and >>deny any ammendments ~o CPA 97-01. >>Respectfully, Patty DeCourcy To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: Alejandra Maudet Subjecn: CPA 97-01 Date: 11/11/97 Time: 3:05PM Z am writing mo express my grean dismay am the possibility tha~ the land use plan may be amended to allow land developers to obtain a high density rezonmng on rural properny located OUTSIDE the Crozet growth (CPA 97-01) . Although I don't live in that area, as a citizen of Virginza I am proud of the beauty that makes this one of the lovetiesn places in the United States. I deplore the forces that would change it, for mone5ary benefit, and mum Albemarle counmy into just another crowded, overdeveloped and unnactractive place. I realize that as our population grows housing must be provided, but surely the fact that we HAVE a land use plan, and designated growth areas, is sufficienE proof of our desire mo accommodate growth AND maintain the beauty of our county. I beg the Board of Surpervisors and the Planning Commisszon no oppose and deny any ammendments ~o CPA 97-01. Respectfully, Alejandra Maude~ Assistant Director Hispanic Studies Program "Travel is fatal to prejudice." Mark Twain To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: Debbie McDaniel Subject: <None> Date: 11/11/97 Time: 2:30PM Subject:CPA 97-01 I am writing that mhe land use plan may be amended to allow land density rezonlng on rural property located area (CPA 97-01). >>Although I don't live in that area, as a proud of express my great dismay ac the possibility developers ~o obtain a high OUTSIDE the Crozet growth citizen of Virginia I am >>nhe beauty that makes this one of the loveliest places in the United Sta5es. >>I deplore the forces that would change it, for monenary benefit, and turn >>Albemarle county into just another crowded, overdeveloped and unnactractive >>place. I realize that as our population grows housing muss be provided, but >>surely the fact that we HAVE a land use plan, and designated growth areas, 1s >>sufficient proof of our desire 5o accommodate growth AND maintain the beauty >>of our county. >>I beg the Board of Surpervisors and the Planning Commission to oppose and >>deny any ammendments to CPA 97-01. FRO~ : TRAIN&SPENCER ARCHITECTS PHONE I~, : 804 ~-:r-j$ 5122 NOV, 22 1997 02:45PM PI Ooml~ny F A C S I M ~ L E ME$SAGF: BOARD OF SUPER¥ISORS Millin~csl Rd., Fr~ 1.111.5.o51, Va. 22~40 (804) 823-2215, Fax (804) 823-4680 Emsil: WAbbott2280aol .cern , ' November 4, 1997 TO: Mr. David Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Humphris, Mr. Charles Martin, Ms, Sally Thomas, Mr. Forrest Marshall, Mr. Walter Perkins. We are writing to adamantly protest the attempt to rezone the Mechums River Land Trust. We see this attempt as another form of indiscrimlnase decimation of the watershed areas bp rezoning for real estate development. This proposal has been turned down several times and for good reason. In addition, it would seem to us prudent for a supervisor with a son whose company would benefit from a proposal to exclude himself from voting oN;the proposal. Please inform us regarding how you intend to rose on this proposal. Sincerel Diana B. Abbott CC: Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors BOARD OF SUPERVISORS League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County 1928 Arlington Boulevard Room 105, Charlottesville VA 22903-1561 phone: 804-970-1707 http:llavenue.orgllwv Iwv~avenue. org fax: 804-970-1708 'l-0~-97A10:37 RCVD October 14, 1997 To: Albemarle County Planning Commission From: League of Women Voters Re: CPA 97-01 Mechums River Land Trust The League of Women Voters supports the staffs recommendation to deny this request to expand Crozet's growth area. We can find not one reason why this application should be approved, but many reasons for denial. Approval will strike a blow against the County's long-standing policy to protect the watersheds of our drinking water reservoirs from the urban sprawl of residential development - a policy defended by your predecessors and Boards of Supervisors, Regardless of what the applicant says, granting this request will open a Pandora's box of similar applications for land conti~o'dous tO Growth Areas. We wish to address in particular the issue of on-site stormwater control facilities vs. regmnal ones. Regardless of whether or not on-site facilities can be constructed which provide stormwater treatment as efficiently as regional ones do, they both share the problem that the staffreport discusses - the problem of inspection; monitoring and repmr. It is far more cos[ effective to monitor regional systems than dozens of on-site systems. Futhermore, a regional system will collect sediment and nutrients not only from new development but also from existing development and from agricultural and forested lands. However, the removal rates of non-point pollution for both regional and on-site devices cannot be sustained unless there is an effective monitoring and maintenance program for both. Unfortunately, this has not been the ~ase. Presently, there is no firmly established program m place for on-site sys- tems because of the County's limited staff resources. Many County residents have believed that the Runoff Control Ordinance was the znstrument that protected the watershed of our drinking water reservoirs. They are correct up to a point. The Runoff Control Ordinance applies only during construction when the County checks to see that the requked facilities are properly in place. But after construction, the responsibility for that facility lies with the property owner. '_.a rto2t-.part~sctn or~a~zatiort c[ec[icater[ to t~e JProrttotion of irtform~ar~ act~ve.particij~ation of citizer~s m go'earnragnt." Several years ago the County discovered that most people had no idea that they owned or were responsible for a stormwater facility on their property. Since the Runoff Control Ordinance was enacted about 20 years ago, dozens of them have been constructed, but only a few have been in- spected since 1992. Therefore, we do not know how many washed out years ago or how many are functioning properly today. Early this year the County developed a homeowners maintenance agreement that will go with the land, It makes clear that ifa person buys a home outside the growth area which requires stormwater control devices (ponds, berms, buffers, etc), he is responsible to report annually on any "deficiencies" he finds and make the necessary repairs or replacement at his own cost. We believe the agreement is necessay to protect our water supplies, but it needs considerable revision to be effective. However, it makes clear that the County intends to place the burden of maintaining stormwater devices on the property owner - not on the water user or County taxpayer. The County inteprets the Four- Party Resolution of 1993 (concerning the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's role in implementing the Runoff Control Ordinance) as applying only to "regional runoff control" facilities that have been approved and accepted by the Authority (letter from Mr. Tucker, August 8, 1997). There is only one such regional facility - LickingholeCreek Basin. The Natural Resources Manager is responsible for inspecting and maintaining the control facilities required for the Basin. The costs of his office are passed on to the RWSA customers throughits water rates. The Authority budget reflects that cost in a line item, "Watershed Protection" - and is budgeted for Crozet at $15,000. a year. Therefore, water users pay for support of control facilities of a regional system, but property owners pay for assuring the controls work.either individually or through their neighborhood association fee An inspecrion/maintenance program for so many on-ske controls will require budgeting for adequate staffing We believe that until such a policy is in place, k is wrong to approve development relying on on-site BMPs in the watershed of our drinking water reservoir. Mov 09 B? OB;~Sp Mar~ E. Jensen 8048237015 11 November 1~97 The Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlott~n411e, VA 22902 1/-10-97AI0:i7 RCVD B 0ARD OF SUPERVISORS RE: Mechnm's River Land Trust, CPA 9%01 Dear Superdsors, Aa Albemarle Cowry citizens livhg in the Wlfite M district, we are wrilfiag to argo you to vote against CPA 9%01 on November 12th. We r~aliz, that thoro am many issues sun~ading this proposal, but none am ~nozo important than the preservation of the Comlm~hensive Pla~. Mr. Craig has triedto steer us away from this most critical fact by offering several smoke$¢reaus--watol' mid sewer aC the site, a contiguous loeacion and "affordable" housing. But even if"affordable housing" is a r~al isgne, what will be the cost to the county? The most recent Plonning Commismon report enficipates that the C-PA 97-01 s proposed increase in hen ~ing will add 47 more stndents re oux sehoolg. At $5950 per student, that equals en additional $279,650 per year roqaired to edaeate these ck/ldrau. At oar current property tax rate, we eau afford to educate only one student per oven/ten Craig properties sold (ass~nhig a sales prien of $100,000). If tho Governor-deer has his way, mother source of education rovenuen, the personal property tax, will be eliminated. Can we trust the state to re'tmbarse those lost fends? We think not. The burden will be pla~ed on the property owners, especially those with large tracts o£1and. IJaable to pay their taxes, the developers will be there to scoop them up md the vicious circle begins again. We already have a projected deficit of milliong of dollarg--why ~hould we inerea~e the debt at the ex-pause of our citizens only to satigfy a developer's greed? b/lt. Craig's tree retentions for this county were made dear upon the pumhase of another site, "Hidden I-fills", earlier thig year. Ia that project, there is no water end sewer at the site, the plot is smack in the middle of raralland and "affordable" housing w/ll be available for those wlm can afford half ~ million dollar homes~ As a developer he is interested only ia tho profit margin, and thom ~s much money to be mad* in those ~e-zon~d feral kills. We knowthat he has akoady asked for another Conkomh~ns/v© Plan chmge (CPA 97-03) for higher density a~ "Hidden I-glls' and passage of CPA 97-01 will only strengthen that applicacio~ Other important issues also remain--the potential hazard to the watershed, in a eoanty where water may be scarce as early as the year 2003; additional traffic on aiready over~rdened toads, a perfect juacifieacion for VDOT to pave over scenic western Albemarle; volunteer fire and rescue departments who are stretching to meet carrent demands, and last bat not least, the groundswoll of ~itizen opposition to this proposaL Wedo not w/sh to see the Crozet area become a Route 29 North. The Comprehen~ve Plan was devised to ensure tha* development occurred in approp~ate places in m thoughtful manner, with a re~iew process th~ takes into account the occasional need for change or redirection. Tl~e Plane/ag Commission has consistently voted this proposal dawn. We hope that you will agree with their learned ol~io~, and just say '~no" to CPA 97-01. Sincerely, l~hry E. J~t~n Kcith F. Cheoly 6819 Jmmans Gap Road Crozet, VA 22932 11-i0-97P12:10 RCVD .~OAILD OF SUPER¥I$OI?,S No~ani~et lO. 1097 From: Frank and In;; tt~nc; TO: ECAREY @ ACVA ("'ECAREY@MAIL.CO.ALBEMARLE.VA.US'"~ From: Harem, Terri M. 4-5381 Subject: CPA 97-01 Date: 11/10/97 Time: 12:16PM Dear Board of Supervisors, I smrongley oppose CPA 97-01. Please do not aprove this proposal. I don't know why this is being considered again. The public and the Board has denied this in the pas5 and I really don't understand why it continues ~o be an ~ssue. Please continue ~o preserve and protect the scenic 250 corridor. I moved 5o Charlottesville because of it's smallness. I wanted to raise my children in a beautiful area and found C'ville ~o be the place. The more houses the builders build, the more waEer the people will use, the more congested the area will be, the more crime will increase. Please smop this and make a precedent 5o all the money hungry individuals out there! When will there be enough houses and people in C'ville? Sincerely, Terri Harem tmd3q@vlrginia.edu To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: TJKIRWAN e SMTP {Tjkirwaneaol.com} Subject: CPA 97-01 Date: 11/9/97 Time: 7:09PM Supervisors of Albemarle County: Please do not approve CPA 97-01. Abide by the Land Use Plan. Albemarle County is being ruined by developers and greed and someone needs to listen to the people who live here, not the developers. I urge you to stand firm for the land use plan. Mary Kirwan Donald K±rwan 2513 Woodhurst Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: TSCRUBY @ SMTP {Tscruby@aol.comt Subject: CPA 97-01 Date: 11/10/97 Time: 3:17PM This message zs no express my opposition to CPA 97-01. I do non wish 5o see the Crozet Developmenm Area enlarged no include approx 60 acs E of Lickinghole Basin & W o~ Rt 240,/250 inter am Mechums River. This area should remain Rural, non Neighborhood Density Residential. Sincerely Timothy M. Scruby 8153 Dick Woods Road A~ton, Va 22920 (Resident ~nd Voter) Whitehall District Albemarle Counny Virginia To: ECAREY @ ACVA {"'ECAREY@MAIL.CO.ALBEHARLE.VA.US'") From: Bagby, Katherine C. 4-5381 Subject: CROZET REZONING Date: 11/i0/97 Time: l:57PM Dear Board of Supervisors, I am writing ~o voice my opposition to the rezonlng of area Crozet from rural to high density. I live near this area hate to see further development of this beautiful counnryside. Katherine C. Bagby 1027 Amber Ridge Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 outside and would of To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: EUGENE R COUGHENOUR Subject: land use plan Date: 11/10/97 Time: 9:37PM I want to voice my objection to CPA 97-01. I am against ANY high density rezoning out side of designated growth areas. I would like to see a 10 year period before a request of this sorn could be presented to the board of supervisors after it has been refused. I am particularly concerned about what Mr. Hurt is doing in the Advanced Mills area. Over the past 10 years I have been to several board meetings concerning this area. The last one I waited for it to come to the floor for over 2 hours before it was announced that it was canceled. I still have no idea what all the digging etc. is about. E.R.Coughenour 1156 Briar Hill Earlysville To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: Lawson Drinkard Subject: CPA 97-01 D~te: 11/11/97 Time: 8:34AM ....................... [ Content-type: To Whom It May Concern: text/enriched I cannot attend the meeting of the Board of Supervisors tomorroow night. I am a resident of Albemarle County (520 Clarks Tract, Keswick) and I would like to register my <underline>strong opposition</underline> the rezoning of the Crozet property. Thanks you for getting this message to the Baord. Sincerely G. Lawson Drinkard, III G. Lawson Drinkard, Goin' Slow Ranch 520 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 III 804-977-5926 804~977-1139 fax 800-381-1594 (voice mail) To: COMe SMTP {comewriteinSal.aol} Cc: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: LINN HARRISON Subject: growth Date: 11/11/97 Time: 6:39AM As a resident of the western regmon of the counny, I'm writing to express my strong opposition to any exemption to the currently designated growth area. The zmpact of the recent development in the Crozet growth area is already apparent interms of increased traffic on 250, and replacement of nrees and fields with vas5 expanses of parkng lot for route 29 style malls. The County has very wisely attempted to make this a more rational process through restricting development mo designated areas. I strongly urge you not to comprommse that foresight with exemptions thatwill benefit an individual am the expense of the community. I would also like to express supporm for more sErzngent standards for setbacks and landscapng for shopping areas such as the one being built on 250 WEst so that the corridor in from the west does not become another version of the mindless commercial sprawl that greets people travelling mnto Charlottesville from the north. Madaline B. Harrmson 700 Mechums West Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903 To: ECAREY @ ACVA From: James Reid Subject: CPA97-01 Date: 11/11/97 (ECAREY) Time: l:45PM Dear Board Members; As a soon to be resident of Albemarle County, I am concerned that a land developer is trying to develop property outside the designated growth area. I believe that the counmy developed a land use plan which should be followed until such time the plan has been updated. My wife and I moved mo Albemarle County as, after looking through several adjoining states and many Virginia counties, we decided Albemarle was by far the most beautiful with the most to offer. To allow uncontrolled growth would be the county in the same sort of shape as that of Northern Virgmnia from which we jusm departed. In summary, high density developmenm outside the designated growth area should no~ be allowed - period!. Jim and Sue Reid Scottsville BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. and Mrs. George F. Neff ?~-J~-97P02:45 RCkl) P.O. Box 82 Free Union, V/rginia 22940 November 6th, 1997 Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris 109 Falcon Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Humphris: Thank you for understanding the full impact approval of the rezoning of the Mechums River Land Trust would have upon the county. You have showed fortitude against the constant nagging by those who wish to encroach upon our few protected areas, and by not giving in incrementally to their pleas. Protecting our watersheds is crucial. Protecting the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan is crucial. Please keep up the good work. Sincerely, c.c. Ms. Ella Carey ~ Mr. and Mrs. George F. Neff P.O. Box 82 Free Union, Virginia 22940 November 6th, 1997 Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. 2356 Scottsville Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Marshall: Thank you for your interest in affordable housing. You are correct. More affordable housing is needed in the county, but not at the expense of the protection of our watersheds, or the protection of the integrity of our Comprehensive Plan. In August 1989 the Board of Supervisors voted 5 to 1 to leave the 57 acres outside of the growth area. In 1990 the rezoning application was denied by the Board of Supervisors by 4 to 2. In 1994 and in 1997 the Planing Commission voted unanimously to deny Mechums River Land Trust's request for rezoning. Your Planning Staff reports have consistently recommended denying the rezoning request. Your County Attorney has said, "It is inadvisable to abandon the Comprehensive Plan to expand growth areas." He has also said ~approval of this request may not be in the best interest of the County." Outside of Hunter Craig, his attorney, Walter Perkins, and you, no one has spoken in favor of this plan. Hunter Craig is a developer, and his attorney is paid by Craig to help Craig meet his ends. In 1988 Mr. Perkins made ~a commitment to Mr. Craig that he [Mr. Perkins] work to get this [the 57 acres of Mechums River Land Trust] into the Crozet growth area." Since 1989 Mr. Perkins has been the main proponent of this rezoning. Is Walter Perkins representing one individual or the vast majority of his constituents? He is our representative and we think Page 2. not. You want affordable housing. Mechums River Land Trust is the short term answer to that problem. The long term impact is the incremental deterioration of our Countfs well being, Please do not support this rezoning. Sincerely. All quotes are from minutes to the April 16th. 1997, Board of Supervisors' Meeting. c.c. MS. Ella Carey Mr. and Mrs. George F. Neff P.O. Box 82 Free Union, Virg'mia 22940 November 6th, 1997 Mr. Charles S. Martin 100 Pineridge Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for questioning the wisdom of approving the rezoning of the Mechums River Land Trust. In August 1989 the Board of Supervisors voted 5 to 1 to leave the 57 acres outside of the growth area. In 1990 the rezoning application was denied by the Board of Supervisors by 4 to 2. In 1994 and in 1997 the Planing Commission voted unanimously denied Mechums River Land Trust's request for rezoning. Your Planning Staff reports have consistently recommended denying the rezoning request. Your County Attomey has said, 'It is inadvisable to abandon the Comprehensive Plan to expand growth areas,"* He has also said ~approval of this request may not be in the best interest of the County."* Outside of Hunter Craig, his attorney, and Walter Perkins no one has spoken in favor of this plan. Hunter Craig is a developer and his attorney is paid by Craig to help Craig meet his ends. In 1988 Mr. Perkins made "a commitment to Mr. Craig that he [Mr, Perkinsl work to get this [the 57 acres of Mechums River Land Trust] into the Crozet growth area."* Since that time Mr. Perkins has been the main proponent of the rezoning of Mechums River Land Trust. Is Walter Perkins representing one individual or the vast majority of his constituents? He is our representative and we think not. Please do not follow his lead. Sincerely, *from the April 16th. 1997 Board of Supervisors' Meeting minutes. c.c. Ms. Ella Carey/ Mr. and Mrs. George F. Neff P.O. Box 82 Free Union, Virginia 22940 November 6th, 1997 Mr. Walter F. Perkins 5568 St. George Avenue Crozet, VA 22932 Dear Walter: Since 1989 the 57 acres of the Mechums River Land Trust has been voted down for rezoning. Your Planning Staff and your County Attorney have strongly recommended denying the rezoning. Eight organizations have taken the time and made the effort to speak against the rezoning. Innumerable individuals, many of whom are your constituents, have spoken out against the rezoning. No one faults Hunter Craig for pushing the system. You have been the main proponent of the re, zoning of Hunter Craig's property since 1989 and the reason why is contained in the Board of Supervisors' April 16th, 1997, minutes 'Mr. Perkins said he visited this site in 1988 with Mr. Craig. Mr. Perkins told Mr. Craig that it looked like a logical place to expand the Crozet growth area, and that he would do what he could to get it into the growth area ..... He made a commitment to Mr. Craig that he work to get this into the Crozet growth area." It was a bad promise to make then. It is an even worse promise to keep today. It takes personal courage to stand up and admit making a poor decision. It takes character to tell a friend that you can no longer support that decision when it is contrary to what a majority of your constituents want done and what your staff has recommended. Everyone is watching you, taking your measure. Good luck. Sincerely, c.c. Ms. Ella Careyf/ Mr. and Mrs. George F. Neff P.O. Box 82 Free Union, Virginia 22940 November 6th, 1997 Ms. Sally H. Thomas 889 Leigh Way Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Thomas: Thank you for understanding the full impact approval of the rezoning of the Mechums River Land Trust would have upon the county. You have showed fortitude against the constant nagging by those who wish to encroach upon our few protected areas, and by not giving in incrementally to their pleas. Protecting our watersheds is crucial. Protecting the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan is crucial. Please keep up the good work. Sincerely, c.c. Ms. Ella CareyV Mechums from page 1 provided a 1994 opinion from Albemarle Commonwealth .~ Attorney Jim Camhios that states. "there is no conflict for Walter Perkins voting on matters inVOlving Craig Build- eTS." Fbe western boundary of retired architect Fred Bain- bridge's /SO-acre farm is the Mechums River. uT · wg~Ve developers;, . everythin g t hey . ant, says Bainbridge "Why 72 w_~ ~pend all this mg~e~ ~ the Comprehensive Plan ~a~ decide that a developer can ignore it?" The minutes ~f an April 16, 1997 Board of Supervisors g quest paraphrases th s Board il here is to make ComprehenSive Plan and the paraphrase, Perkins as saying he would d,o Sa, hat he could to get i~tr~aC.:?ig s tandJ into the growth "Perkins should resign he- , y, says Bainbridge: TI~e agrarian esthetic s being destroyed." yon Thelen says he has tried to "Waiter is :grite wanting in getting him to listen to his of almost all of Hunter Cra/g's developments since 198~." University of Virginia doctor agrees with Bainbridge and yon Thelen and says that Perkins admit" his son' ' g o .s e~ploymen s atus w~ h Craig ff he woh't recuse himself from voting on the Mechums Land /'rust "Walter s supposed to represent alt o~ us in White Hail." says J~nsen. "Waiter had ago. We've oeen fighting' his for nine years. If we ose this one, people'w Ii take the a itude thai money runs this group Scenic 250 plan to wage Craig's ndw request will See Mfl~BUM$, Page 6 To: COM e SMTP {comewriteinSat.aol} Cc: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: LINN HARRISON Subjecn: growth Date: 11/11/97 Time: 6:39AM As a resident of the western regzon of the counuy, I'm writing to express my strong oppcsition to any exemptzon to the currently designated growth area. The impact of the recenE developmenE in the Crozet growth area is already apparent interms of increased traffic on 250, and replacement of trees and fields with vase expanses of parkng lot for rouEe 29 style malls. The County has very wisely atEempted to make this a more rational process through areas. I strongly urge you non exempElons thatwill benefit an communlEy. restricting development no designated to compromise that foresight with individual au the expense of the I would also like 5o express supporn for more stringenn standards for setbacks and landscapng for shopping areas such as the one being built on 250 WEst so that the corridor in from the wesn does nog become another version of the mindless commercial sprawl thst greens people travelling znno Charlottesville from the north. Madaline B Harrison 700 Mechums West Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903 To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: James Reid Subject: CPA97-01 Date: 11/11/97 Time: l:45PM Dear Board Members; As a soon 5o be resident of Albemarle County, I am concerned that a land developer ms trying 5o develop property outside the designated growth area. I believe that the coun%y developed a land use plan which should be followed until such time the plan has been updated. My wife and [ moved to Albemarle County as, after looking through several adjoining states and many Virgini~ counties, we decided Albemarle was by far the mosn beautiful with the most to offer. To allow uncontrolled growth would be the county in the same sort of shape as that of Northern Virginia from which we Dust departed. In summary, high density developmenm outside the designated growth area should not be allowed period!. Jim and Sue Reid Scottsville To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECARE¥) From: EUGENE R COUGHENOUR Subject: land use plan Date: 11/10/97 Time: 9:37PM I want to voice my objection no CPA 97-01. I am againsn ANY high density rezoning oum side of designated growth areas. I would like mo see a t0 year period before a requesn of this sor~ could presented to the board of supervisors after it has been refused. I am particularly be concerned about what Mr. Hurt is doing mn the Advanced Mills area.Over the pasn 10 years I have been to several board meetings concerning this area. The last one I waited for it to come to the floor for over 2 hours before it was announced that it was canceled. I still have no idea what all the digging emc. ls about. E.R.Coughenour 1156 Briar Hill Earlysville To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY From: Lawson Drinkard Subject: CPA 97-01 Date: 11/11/97 Time: 8:34AM ....................... [ Conten~-nype: To Whom It May Concern: text/enriched ] ................ I cannot attend the meetzng of the Board of Supervisors nomorroow night. I am a resident of Albemarle County (520 Clarks TracL Keswick) and I would like no register my <underline>strong opposition</underline> the rezoning of the Crozet properly. Thanks you for getting this message Lo the Baord. Sincerely G. Lawson Drinkard, III G. Lawson Drinkard, Goin' Slow Ranch 520 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 III 804-977-5926 804-977-1139 fax 800-381-1594 (voice mail) To: ECAREY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: TSCRUBY @ SMTP {Tscruby@aol.com} Subject: CPA 97-01 Date: 11/10/97 Time: 3:tTPM This message is no express my opposition to see the Crozet Development Area enlarged to Lickinghole Basin & W of Rt 240/'250 inter an Mechums River. Rural, non Neighborhood Density Residential. Sincerely Timothy M. Scruby 8153 Dick Woods Road Afton, Va 22920 (Resident and Voter) Whitehall District Albemarle County Virgmnla to CPA 97-01. I do not wish include approx 60 acs E of This area should remain TO: ECAREY @ ACVA ("'ECAREY@MAIL.CO.ALBEMARLE.VA.US'") From: Bagby, Katherine C. 4-5381 Subject: CROZET REZONING Date: 11/10/97 Time: l:57PM Dear Board of Supervisors, I am writing to voice my opposition to the rezonlng of area outside of Crozet from rural to high density. I live near this area and would hate To see further development of this beautiful countryside. Katherine C. Bagby 1027 Amber Ridge Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 To: ECA_REY @ ACVA (ECAREY) From: TJKIRWAN @ SMTP {Tjkirwan@aol.com} Subjecn: CPA 97-01 Date: 11/9/97 Time: 7:09PM Supervisors of Albemarle County: Please do no~ approve CPA 97-01. Abide by the Land Use Plan. Albemarle County is being ruined by developers and greed and someone needs to listen to the people who live here, no~ the developers. I urge you ~o s~and firm for the land use plan. Mary Kirwan Donald Kirwan 2513 Woodhurs~ Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 11 November 1997 The Board of Supe~asors C0tmty.Office Ba/lding Charlotteswille, VA 22902 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RE: Mechum's River Land Trust, CPA 9%01 Dear Soperdsurs, As Albemarle County eitizeas living in the White Hail district, we are writing to urge you to vote ag~st CPA 97-01 on Novomber 12th~ We realize that them are many issues sarroonclhg this proposal, but ao~e aro mom importaat than the preservalio~ of the Comprcheasive Plan. Mr. Craig has ~ied to steer us away f~om this most o~cal facq by offering several smoko~emells--wator and sewer at the site, a coatiguous loeatioa and "affordable" llousing. But even if"afford,able housing" is a real issue, what will be the oo~t to the county? The most recent pltmn/ng Commission report anti~lmtes that the CPA 97-01's proposed iaerease in honsing will add 47 more students to our ~chools. At $5950 per student, that equalg aa additional 8279,650 per year required to educate these children, At oar current property tax rate, w~ can affordto educate only one stadent per every ton Craig properties sold (assumlng a sales price o£ $100,000). If the Governor-elect has his way, mother source of education reveaues, the personal property tax, will be oliminat~C[ call we tlllst tile state to t©illlburse those lo~t fllltds? We think ltot. The burden will be placed on the Property owners, especially those with large tracts of land, Unable to pay their taxes, the developers will be there to scoop them up and the vicious circle begins again. We already have a projected deficit ofm illion~ of dollar~--why should we increase the debt at the expea~e of our citizens only to satisfy a developer's greed? Ivlr. Craig' s trae/ntentions for this county were made clear open the parchase of another site, "Hiddea I-falls", earlier thi~ year. In that project, there is no water and sewer at the site, the plot is smack in the middle of raral land and "affordable" hou6-g v~l be available for thos~ who can afford half a ~,illlon dollar homes. As a developer he is interested only ia the pwfit margin, and there is much money to be made in those m-zoaed rural kills. W~ know flint he has akoady asked for aaothor Comprehensive Plan change (CPA 97-03) for higher deasity at "Hidden Iralls" and Pasgage of CPA 97-01 will only strengthen that applicati~. Other important issues also remain--the potential hazard to the watershed, in a county wtmre water my be seam, a~ early as the year 2003; additional traffic 0~t aiready overburdened reade, a perfect jaatification for VDOT to pave over scenic western Albemarle; volunteer fire and rescue departments who are stretching to meet current demands, and last but not least, the groundswell of citizen opposition to this proposal Wedo not wish to se, the Crozet ama become a Rout, 29 North. The Compr~he-~ive Plan was devised to enanre that development occurred in appropriate places in an thonglLtful manner, with a r~iew process that takes into account the oooadonal need for ch~mge or redirecfi~. The Planning Commission has consistently vot~dthis proposal dowa. We hope that you will agree with their learned opinion, and just say '~o" to CPA 97-01. Sincerely, Mary E. Jansen Koith F. Cheoly 6819 Jarmans Gap Road Crozet, VA 22932 i1/12/i9~7 11:22 804979797? RICHARD S. STRICKLER PAGE 81 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Six 8tms~t Circle Ch&rlottesville, Virginia 12901-I919 Novembe~ 12. 1997 Mr. Charles Martin Supervisor County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesvills, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Martin: I ~m writing to urge you to vo~e again~ st CPA 97-01 which wou~d~ .. result in a zezoning of rural laud t~ p~r~it high density development ot~s~ae the Crazet ~rowth area. Re Comprehensive Plal~ must not be comproi~dsed by giving in t~ special As I am sure you appreciate, the decim'ons you make today will Albemarle County for decades to come. My £a_,~ ily moved to this beautiful area six years ago from a higBly developed area in the Northeast. I convinced tha$ many who have lived here ail their lives do not fully what county is or appre te how quicker it can .be dee For exo~nple, ~raffic has ~creased dr-matically in the short time we'vei ~ve~ here. We ~o not have t~le ~oad system or natural resources to support development that is noS pl-nned and well.thought out. The notion of gl'owth areas is a good one. Changes to growth areas, however, should be addressed i~ the context of a~ overall review of the ~omprehensiYe PI~. The intentions ~f tim Comprehensive Plan should not be subverted by the ~eed of ~ndividual developers. I urge you to vote ~to~ght ~o m~i~t~in the integrity of the County's Comprehensive Plan anc~to suppert the recommendation of the Coun~*'s pJsnnin~ Department. Sincerely yours, Diana H. Stricld~ Fae~nile~ (~4) S 7~-7577 11/i2/19~7 11:22 804979?977 RZCHARD S, STRICKLER PAGE 01 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~h&rlotte~ill2~ ¥irginia ~901-19~0 November 12, 1997 Mr. Charle~ Martin Sup~wi~r County of Albemarle 401 Mcluth-e Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dem' M~. Martin: I am writing to urg~ you to vote a~ainst CPA 97-01 which wou~d . result in a rezo~ing o~,rural land to psrmit high density development o-,~.tzide the Crozet growth area, The Comprehensive Pla~ must not be compro~iased by g~ving in tv special interests. As I _s.m sure you appreciate, the decisions you make ~oday will Albemarle County for decades to come. My fm~iiy moved to this beauii~;ul area six years ago from a highly.developed area in the Northeast. I a~ convinced that many who have lived here all their lives do not fully rea!ize what an aiset this county is or appreciate how quickly it ca .be des .t~[~,d. For example, traffic has increased dramatically in the short time we'vei ttvea here. We do not have the road system or natural resources to support deYelopment that is not p]_snned alld well-thought out. The notiOll of areas is a good one. Changes to growth areas, however, should be add~,a~as~d in the context of tm overall review of the Comprehensive Pllm. The intentions of the Comprehensive Plan should not be subverted by the ~.~ed of individual developers, I ut~ you ~o vote tonight to maintain l~he inte~ity of the County's Comprehensive Plan and to support the recommendation of the County's Flsnninfl Department. Sincerely yours, Diana H. St~lder TelepJ~ne~ (504) 971~94S1~ Faezhnile~ (~94) ~ 1~-7977 ~ !1/i2/19~7 1I:25 8849797~7~ RiO2HARD S. STRIOKLER PAGE 0i BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~oodbine' Six Sunset Ci~l~ Charlottesville, Virginia ~2901-19~0 November 12~ 1997 1V/~. David l~owe~an Supervizo~ County o~Albemarle 401 Mcln_ti~e Road Charlott~ville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Bow~rman: I am writing to urge you to vot~ against CPA 97-01 which would result in a re~oni~g of rural la~d to permit high density d~velopment out!dde the Crozet growth area, The Comprehensive Plan must not be comp~Omized by givlng in to spe~_' _~.! imere~s. ~ f~m;ly moved ~ beau!iful Albemarle County from a ~lburb c~ New York City six yearz ago. I o.m convinced that mauy who have lived l~,~re ali their lives do not realize what an a~set this county ~ or apl~r~iat~ how quickly it can be d~oye& For example, traffic has m~reased dramalically in the short time we've lived here. You have beea a linchpin i~ ihe Board ~f Supervisors' effox~s ~,) ~em ~~le developm~S. I ~e you ~ yom ~$ ~ m*in~m ~e mm~ ~ ~e Co~s C~p~he~ve PI~ ~d ~ suppm~ ~e ~~fion ~ ~e Counts Pl~n~i~g D~t. Diana H. Strickler Faodmil~ (~) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ---12-9SP0~ :21 tCVD P-O~ DATE: TO: FROM: RE~ ORANDUM November 11. 1997 ~AROLO ~ OL~N~ER, 247 ~ Hillvi~ CouP, C'v~lle~ 22902 Agenda Nov. 12.1997- CPA~T-01 With its fields and forests Albemarle County has enormous scenic beauty which contributes To a renowned pastoral lifestyie which we all enjoy and wish to preserve The vote on rszoning outside the Crozet Growth Area may have a sign~cant long ~encJe effect on the entire county i have no new facts, nor a personal interest or emotion, on this particular sits. But I do have a great concern about the constant proliferation cf strip development in the rural ames of the county, The nJral roads cf the county are rapidly being lined with houses, This greatty lessens the Deau~y of our county. But of far greater importance, this type of development Severely ~mpacts the future of farming and forestry. Suburban homeowners frequently (~bject to st, anda~ farming and forestry practices adjacent to their homes even though they went the pastoral scene down the Icad. As you know, new arrivals do ~,ot hesitate to demancJ that they be orotected from whet they considst objectionable even though it is a pre-existing c~ndition or prac~cs, They will then request illogical exceptions to the land use plan zoning requests er changes To the comprehensive plan. The solution to this dilemma is the welt.established practice of concentrating housingin ti~e designated villages or growth areas. If rapid po~ulaticn growth overwhelms the available ho~sing, the Board of Supervisors may need to atlow exceptions to t.he lend use plan in order to concentrate development, respect that some of the neighbors don't want more development near Crezet But this site ts in an inevitabJe grOWth area- whicil the next comprehensive platt shouJd reflect- aha it would be far more desirable to concentrate these houses than ~o have them scattered alen~ the reads an¢ mountains of ~,fhite Hall district. recommene approval of CPA97~01 Nov-Il-97 10:48A RAFISEY NARTIN 804 970 2079 P.O1 Board of Supervisors Albemarle Courtly Ramsey Martin PO Box 285 Va. 22r)45 J'l-~ ~-97P02:35 RCVD BOARD CF SUPERViSORS [')ear I .adies and Gentlemen: 1 cannot be at the meeting, but ! want to express my concern that CPA 97-0 be passed: the county has a plan in place to provide some controls over housing developments, and you should adhere to it 1 wonder why ~'he applicant can t~ aga2n, given that the proposal has been turned down before Sincerely, November 1 l. 1997 il il¸ I1-]2-97P03:01 RCVD November 12t~, 1997; Wednesday Ms. Ellen Carey Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 401 Mctntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Ref, Mechums River Land Trust & Board Meeting November 12, 1997 Dear Ms. Carey; We respectfully wish that you convey to '[he Board of Supervtsors~ and particularly to Mr. Walter Perkins, we are strongly o~l~osed to the Boarcl granting a change ~n zoning status to Mechums River Land Trust at tonight's meeting, and for any subsequent meetings. Our concern is for water quality in the county, as well as maintaining the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan. We work hard to maintain our properb. J, to follow best agricultural practices and to insure good water quality. We also believe there is a practical conflict of interest in Mr. Perkins voting on this issue if it is true that a member of als immediate family is employed by the parry requssting the zoning change. Thank you kindly, Larry & Ethel deNeveu BOARD OF $UPBR¥I$OR$ Thomas J. Goodrich 3680 Country Lane Charlottesville, VA., 22903 November 9, 1997 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Dear Supervisors: I am writing to inform the Board of Supervisors of my opposition to amending the zoning designation for the land described in CPA 97-01, requested by Meehums River Land Trust and already denied by your Planning Commission. The existing designated growth boundaries in the western part of the county have not yet been fully developed. To permit additional higher density areas that have not been planned for is to invite disaster with the management of traffic flow, allocation of emergency services, impact on environmental resources and schools and overall quality of life for the existing residents living off Route 240 and 250W who chose tgat area for its tranquil and rural setting. The numbers are clea~, instead of 30 homes on 60 acres as currently zoned PA, we could have from 180 to 360 homes as proposed. Without the addition of sm~-eient job oppommities and shopping in the Crozet area these 180 or more families wffi be required to make daily commutes to Charlottesville affecting those that live east of Crozet. The impact I have seen in 5 years by addifoual housing in this area has already had an adverse affect on traffic on 250W and has caused headaches for the residents that live on the north side of 250W and must make left hand turns from Owensville and Broomley Rd. For the people living off of Owensville Road their is no relief in sight. With the reduced visibility preventing a traffic light and the cost of widening the CSX RR Bridge in Ivy prohibitive and not planned by VDOT, any increase in traffic must be weighed againA the fact that 250W will remain one lane in each direction at the bridge for a long time. Continued growth in Crozet will eventually disrupt the tranquil and scenic nature of 250W through Ivy and ff finding becomes available to widen 250W the rural nature of the area will be lost forex~' along with my desire to reside here. Please confider my comments in any discussion you have regarding this proposal, Dole: 11J12J?7 Time: 14:3/,.'0/:, Statement By David Bowerman I would like to make a statement regarding my participation in ~ T'onigh¢ CPA for Mechums River Land Trust. Most of you know that I excused myself from voting on the zoning request in March, citing both the appearance and the potential cfa conflict of interest, in spite cfa ruling from the Commonwealtl/Attorney that I dtd not have a t~mal confl~t under th[ statue. I stated that I had contract to provide approximately. $20000 in fitness equipment to the Highlands, another of Mr. Craigs Developments which was invoieed in Septe~nber of 1996 and the transaction was completed this past April.. Further, I anticipated an additional $5000 to $20000 in new business during the balance of this year. The original contract is now 14 months past and I do not anticipate doing any additional significate amount of business with Mr. Craig in the future. Further, I intend to deeline to do business with any developer or organization whieh I ha~e reason to believe may have business before this Board within a period of t 8 months of the transaction. Additionally, on this specific issue tonight, I have an additional reason to hear and vote on itbecause it has broad policy implications which ~xtend beyond the 60 acres in this CPA and the decision';' would affect tar more individuals and organ~zations than this applicant alone. 2[ Dt~&j}q6,a,~at /~S**/~fl -F/i~ ~ta~Wl~'s t~7~-°~:y 10-~i-97A09:!5 R~VD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4S96 (804) 996-5823 October 17, 1997 Hunter E. Craig Mechums River Land Trust P. O. Box 6156 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: CPA-97-01 - Mechums River Land Trust Dear Mr. Craig: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, al its meeting on October 14, 1997, unanimously recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 12, 1997. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz, AICP Senior Planner WDFfolb cc: ~a Carey I:IGENERALISHAREIBARBARAICPA9701.ACT STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ, AICP OCTOBER 14, 1997 NOVEMBER 12, 1997 REQUEST: CPA 97-01 Meehums River~Land Trust - Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the Crezet Development Area to include land east of Lickinghole Basin and west of the Route 240/Route 250 intersection at Mechums River. The proposal is to change the designation of the area from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Density Residential (3,to 6 dwelling units per acre). The area requested for review by the applicant includes approximately 60 acres. The entire area east of the Lickinghole Basin and west of the Route 240/Route 250 intersection at Mechums River consists of approximately 170 acres, This area is in the White Hall Magisterial District. BACKGROUND: During the 1995/1996 review and update of the Land Use Plan, the Commission considered this area as a possible expansion to the Crozet Community. The Commission did not recommend expanding the Community in this area due to locution within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed and outside of the Lickinghole Creek detention basin drainage area and due to the amount of undeveloped land still available in the Crozet area. In the adoption of the Land Use Ptan the Board of Supervisom did not approve any expansions of the Development Areas. The Board indicated that consideration for expanding the Develqpment Areas should take place after efforts were undertaken to':hchieve higher quality infill development Within areas currently designated as Development Areas and after evaluation of the Rural Areas policies. The approximately 60 acres which is being ~6quested for inclusion in the Crozet development area has been the subject of 4 prior rezoning requests. These requests were to rezone the property to either R-4 or R-2. The area has not been rezoned due to its location outside of the development area. SUMMARY OF STAFF FINDINGS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff opinion is that this request is not consistent with the Growth Management Policy of the Comprehensive Plan to limit development within the watarsupply watershed. Further it is not consistent with a prior Board decision not to expand the Development Areas until further analysis of the methods of developing the Development Areas was completed. Any decision to modify development area boundaries should be delayed until the work of the Development Areas Initiatives Study and review of the Rural Areas ts completed. Staff opinion is that CPA 97-01 should be denied. STAFF ANALYSIS: Site Suitability: The entire triangular area consists of a total of 170 acres. Approximately 87 acres of this area is developable. [In calculating developable area those areas identified in the Open Space Plan as critical slopes, floodplain or sensitive soils were excluded.] The parcels within the triangular area contain two areas which are greater than 5¢acres and under single ownership. Several small parcels are also in this area. Access for these lots is to. both Roue 240 and Route 250. Slopes: Isolated areas of critical slopes are present on site, these areas present limited reduction in the potentially developable acreage. Floodplain: Floodplain areas are located adjacent to Lickinghole Creek and present limited reduction in the potentially developable acreage. Toooeranhv: This site lies in the drainage ar~a of Liekinghole Creek which drains into the Mechums River and the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. No portion of this area drains to the Lickinghole Creek Basin. Soils: Soils generally consist of Haysville Loam, Haysville Clay Loam, Ashe Loam, Riverview- Chewacla complex and Toccoa f'me sandy loam. With the exception of those soils prone to flooding or seasonally high water tables few limitations for development exist. Existing Land Uses: The area is predominately wooded with a few dwellings. The water treatment facility is partially located in the area outside of the Lickinghole Creek Basin. Utilities: Water and sewer service is available in this area with amendment of the jurisdictional boundary. The Crozet interceptor traverses this area. Roads: Development ofthe 57 acres proposed for development by the applicant could generate 1,010 vehicle trips per day based on the plans submitted during prior reviews. Neighborhood Density development of this acreage could result in 1,710 to 3,420 vehicle trips per day. Development of the entire 87 acres of deyelopable land at Neighborhood Density could result in 2,610 to 5,220 vehicle trips pei; day. Any trips generated in this area would be in addition to what will already have to be accommodated from the current Development Area. Based on staff information Route 240 curregt,!y carries 5,900 vehicle trips per day and Route 250 carries 1 !,000 vehicle trips per day. These volumes are higher than the design capacity for the two roads. The Department of Transportation has prepared functional improvement plans for Route 240. The improvements call for improving the horizontal and vertical curvature of the roadway to increase traffic volumes. No improvements to Route 240 are programmed in VDOT's Six Year Primary Road Plan. Based on this information the roads in this area do not have surplus capacity to accommodate the proposed increased density. Communit~ Facilities: Police - The Community Facilities Plan notes that Crozet has a high level of demand and that response times in the sector in which the subject property is located are above the 10 minute response time desired by the County. Fire and Rescue - This area is served by the Crozet Fire company and the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad. The area under review is located within the five minute response area for the Crozel Fire company and the four minute response area for the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad. These response times are consistent with the service objectives for Development Areas. Parks - The area under review is just beyond the service area of the recreational amenities provided by the Coramunity Parks at the Crozet and Brownsville Elementary schools. This area is with the service areas provided by the District Parks at Henley and Murray schools and Western Albemarle High School. This area ~s within the service area of Mint Springs and 2 Beaver Creek Parks in addition Claudius Crozet Park provides additional recreational services. Based on the service objectives of the Community Facilities plan, this area receives adequate District Park and County Park services. However, the site is beyond the Community Park service area. Library - The Crozet Branch of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library is located in downtown Crozet and would provide service to this site. System wide the library does not currently meet the desired service level. No particular recommendations are contained in the Facilities Plan which address the Crozet area. However, the Jefferson/Madison Regional Library recognizes that the need to expand library facilities in Crozet exists. Sehools- This site is located on the border of the Crozet and Brownsville Elementary School district boundaries (the existing Highlands development is in the Brownsville district), the Henley Middle School district and the Western Albemarle High School. Currently only Western Albemarle High School is over capacity and this will be relieved with the cOnstruction of Monticello High School. Current Capacity and projected enrollments for the various schools are: School Canacitv Projected t997 Proiected 2001 Enrollment Enrollment Crozet Elem. 396 366 395 Brownsville Elem. 330 264 272 Henley M.S. 750 631 644 Western Alb. H.S. 1,044 1,367 1,013 Based on student multipliers used by the County development of the 87 acres of developable land within the triangle could result in the following enrolment: Elementary - 60 to t20 students Middle - 29 to 57 students High - 34 to 102 students Open Space Plan Analysis: The Open Space Plan indicates Lickinghole Creek as a Major Stream Valley with associated critical slopes. Some soils near Lickinghole Creek are considered sensitive due to seasonally high water table, wetlands or other characteristics which make development of the area undesirable. Small areas of critical slopes are also present outside of thc stream valley. The area is largely wooded. The Open Space Plan indicates surveyed historic sites along Route 250. Other than the Lickinghole Creek Stream Valley area and sensitive soils adjacent the stream an analysis of the Open Space Plan indicates few conditions present which would present an obstacle to.development. CONSISTENCY WITH TItlE COMPREHENSIVE PL32q: This applicants proposal would add approximately 60 acres to the development area. Based on the review prepared for ZMA 96-17 this area would permit approximately 101 lots at an R-4 density. The entire triangular grea consists ora total of 170 acres. Approximately 87 acres of this area is developable. This could result in an additional 261 to 522 dwellings at Neighborhood Density with a potential population of 657 to 1,315. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following information regarding Total Developable Acres within the existing Development Area: Developable Developable Developable Residential Residential Residential Acreage Acreage Acreage [ N-Hood Urban Total Added Added Development Density Density Dwelling Population Units (Capacity) · (Capacity) Crozet 640 154 794 2,846-6,920 7,114-17,300 Based on the above table, adequate area for residential development is currently available in the Crozet Development Area and no increase in the development area is needed, Comnrehensive Plan Amendment Criteria - Staff will review this request for compliance with the adopted criteria for the review of Comprehensive Plan amendments. For ease of reference staffhas ~neluded the language of the rewew criteria in the report. The applicant has submitted information which addresses each criteria. [Attachment BI Criteria A - The Comprehensive Plan provides a long-range guide for direction and context of the decision-making process for piiblic and private land uses. The Comprehensive Plan is ~eneral in nature rather than attemntin~ to identify specific geographic locations. The Land Use Man of the Comprehensive Plan suggests the relationship of recommended uses to ~eneral areas. proposed amendments to the Land Use Map should be reviewed for compliance with the general plan rather than area-sneeific or parcel-specific requests for a change in the recommended use. The purpose for the Land Use Map is to provide and nlan for a balance of land uses, equipped with adeuuate utilities and facilities, in a comprehensive, harmonious manner. Any proposed chan~e in the Land Use Map will be evaluated for protection of the health, safely, and welfare of the ~eneral public rather than the proprietary interests of an individual. The applicant states that this proposal is a logical extension of the development area and that much of the existing development area is undevelopable due to floodplain and critical slopes concerns or lack of access. In addition the applicant contends that the "myriad of owners" in the larger Crozet Development Area makes much of the land uneconomical to develop. Staff is aware that much of the designated Development Area is in relatively small lots with a range of property owners. However, the review of Comprehensive Plan amendments clearly states that the proprietary interests of an individual is not a factor for review. Currently the Comprehensive Plan calculates the developable acreage within Crozet, (see table above). In determining the developable acreage staffutilizes the Open Space Plan to remove from the calculation those areas which are in floodplain, stream valleys or severely restricted by critical slopes. Based on the calculations of staff a total of 794 acres of developable residential area exist m Crozet. While the number of small lots and variety of lot ownerships does present obstacles m large Planned Developments, it does not present an overwhelming obstacle to development at densities recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff does nol agree with the applicant that the expansion of 4 the development area is necessary to relieve development pressure on the Rural Areas at this time. Staff opinion is that sufficient developable acreage exists within the Crozet Development area and other development areas to accommodate additian~l residential development needs. This was the finding of the Board of Supervisors in adopting the 1996 Land Use Plan. In order to insure that the Development Areas are able to accommodate additional residential development in realistic densities the County has established the Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee. The goal of this Committee is m establish a planning process to develop an overall wsion for the character/dasign of the Development Areas. This study will consider the difficulties of developing areas which are under a variety of ownerships, of a variety of sizes and with potential development obstacles such as access, floodplain or critical slope concerns. Staff opinion is that expanding the development area would potentially undermine the development potential of land ' currently within the development area. Reducing the development potential of existing development areas would, in the opinion of staff, be inconsistent with the Development Areas Initiatives. Therefore, no action should take place to extend the boundaries of this or any development area until the results of the Development Areas Initiatives Study has been completed. Criteria B - The merit of Comprehensive Plan amendment requests shall be largely determined by the fulfillment of support to the "Goals and Objectives" specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan and Crozet Community Study contain no specific comments addressing the area currently under review. The Comprehensive Plan does contain a "new emphasis on intelligent use of Development Areas, public facilities and ~esources." As stated previously it is the opinion of staff that sufficient developable land exists in Crozet to accommodate future growth. The applicant states that the proposed amendment would provide for affordable housing. Staff notes that the applicant's proposal does not meet the affordable housing definition contained in the zoning ordinance. No assurance is provided as to the affordability of any units constructed in this area. Criteria C- A orima _fy pumose of the Comomhensive Plan and Land Use Map is to faeilitate the coordination of improvements to the transportation network mad the expansion of public utilities in an economical, efficient and judicious manner. Comnrehensive Plan amendments which direct growth away form designated ~rowth areas shall be discouraged unless adequam justification is provided. Amendments to the boundaries of growth areas may be considered aooronriate if the request is comorehensive, proposes to follow a logical topographic or man- made feature and is suonorted by adequate justification. No Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be considered in areas where r6ads are non-tolerable or utilities are inadequate unless the improvement of those facilities is included in the Comprehensive Plan amendment pronosal. The area under review for inclusion in the Crozet Development area can be served by public utilities and is based on a logical man-made feature, Route 240 and Route 250. However, the current boundary is based on the drainage area for the Lickinghol~ Creek Sedimentation Basin and creates a boundary which is consistent with the County's policy to limit development within water supply watemheds. Routes 240 and 250 are both currently experiencing traffic volumes in excess of the design capacity. The Comprehensive Plan does contain recommendation for the improvement of Route 240, however no similar recommendation for Route 250 exists. [Staff does note that work has begun on the evaluation of potential improvements to Route 250.] No improvements to either roadway are programmed in YDOT's Six Year Primary Road Plan. The applicant states that during the review of rezoning and subdivision request that improvoments could be required. Staff opinion is that any improvements required or proffered during these reviews would be limited to the immediate area of the proposal and would have little impact on the overall design, capacity of either roadway. The location of entrances are reviewed during subdivision plat review and use of existing internal roadways could be required, thus eliminating the need for additional entrances onto the existing public roads. Criteria D- Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be evaluated for general compliance with adopted County olans, policies, studies and ordinances and to determine if corres~ondin~ chan~es are necessary. The eastern boundary of the Crozet development area is based on the drainage area of the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin. This basin serves as a water detention facility providing water quality improvement measures for a significant portion oftheCrozet Development area. The addition of area not draining to the basin would necessitate the use of on-site detention facilities to provide water quality improvement measures. Staff concedes that on-site facilities can be constructed which provide for water treatment equal to or greater than-that provided by the Lickinghole Basin. This statement was made by the Water Resoume Manager during the review of ZMA 96-17. The full comments of the W0ter Resource Manager are included as Attachment D. The argumant that the provision of on-site tr&atment of water is a measure to support urban scale de;~elopment can be made for any property located within the reservoir watershed. The Water Resoume Manager stated in his comments "We must realize, however, that BMP's are designed to treat some of the pollutants some of the time. In this regard BMP's even those of the most advanced design: are no substitute for the proper land uses and zoning in the drinking water watershed. We can think of land uses and zoning as source reduction, while BMP'S are a form of end-of-pipe treatment." This statement from the Water Resource Manager indicates that urban zoning designation within the reservoir watershed is inappropriate. The County has designated Crozet as a development area and has attempted to minimize the adverse impact of the urban scale development of the area by treating water in a publicly owned and maintained facility. Staff's opinion rs that on-site facilities are not intended to be used in the drinking water supply watershed to allow urban development. A primary concern of the use of on-site facilities as opposed to public regional facilities is the issue of maintenance. While maintenance agreements are required for on-site facilities, limited staffresources are available to insure that maintenance does occur. In addition, the cost of maintenance is frequently passed to the homeowners' association which may be unaware of the responsibility and unable to afford the cost of maintenance. It should be noted that approval of this request could set a precedent for other requests for urban zoning in drinking water supply watersheds outside of currantly designated development areas that cite the provision of on-site facilities as a justification for approval. Staff notes that while the southern development area boundary of Crozet generally follows Roue 250, the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin watershed drainage divide meanders slightly north and south of Route 250 in the same area. Thus, a small amount of the land within the development area does not drain to the Lickinghole Regional Sedimentation Basin and a similar area of land not within the development area does drain to the basin. The Crozet Boundary, extensively discussed during the last revision of the Land Use Plan, represents that area deemed necessary to accommodate urban scale 6 growth in the Crozet area and generally follows definable physical boundaries along Route 240 (norther boundary) and Route 250 (southern boundary), rather than explicit drainage divides (i.e. the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin). However, the eastern boundary represents only that area that naturally drains to the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin. Criteria E- Except as otherwise provided, the following conditions may be considered in the evaluation of a reo_uest to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Change in circumstance had occurred; or Updated information is available: or Subsequem portions of the Comprehensive Plan have been adopted or developed; or A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible: or The preparation of the Plan as required by Article 15.1-477 of the Code of Virginia was incomplete or incorrect information was employed. Staff is unable to identify and change in circumstance or errors in previous review of the Comprehensive Plan which would tend to indicate that the current boundary of the Crozet development area is inappropriate. No updated information is cun'ently available. As stated previously, it is anticipated that additional information may be available wheii the Development Areas Initiatives Study is completed. Conclusions: Based on the review of the criteria for amen~ilnent of the Plan staff is unable to find sufficient support for this application. A factor supporting approval of this request includes the fact that Route 240 and Route 250 do provide for a physical boundary. However, staff opinion is that the existing boundary, as defined as the drainage area for the Lickinghole Basin, is a more significant boundary due to the site being within the reservoir watershed. It is recognized that on-site water treatment facilities could be constructed which would provide a water quality treatment equal to or greater than the Lickinghole Basin. However, these facilities would be privately maintained and would be turned over to the homeowner's association m some point. While the County can require maintenance agreements and specify standards of operation of any water treatment facility, insurance that these requirements are met requires continued monitoring by staff and enforcement may be difficult. Another factor supporting approval of this request is that the area is adequately served by public services based on the review of the Communi .ty Facilities Plan. Staff can identify no improvements which would be required solely due to inclusion of this area within the Community of Crozet. Staff does note that additional development within Crozet would continue to exacerbate current deficiencies in the provismn of police services, and continue to increase pressure on capacities for other facilities, including schools. Based on the analysis of developable land remmnmg within the Crozet Community, a large area of undeveloped land has been designated for residential use. Any expansion of the Development Areas would be inconsistent with the Board's action with the adoption of the Land Use Plan in June 1996. 7 Any approval of a Plan amendment which increases the size of a development area prior to the completion of the work of the Development Areas Initiatives Study and review of the Rural Areas development policy would appear to be premature. The roadways that serve Crozet (Route 240 and Route 250) are currently above their design capacity. In the future these roads will have to accommodate traffic generated from development of the existing Development Area. Expansion along these roads will further exacerbate the problem. Based on the location of this site within the reservoir watershed and outside of the drainage area of the Lickinghole Basin and the ongoing work of the Development Areas Initiatives Study, staff recommends denial of this application to amend the Crozet development area. ATTACHMENTS: A - Current Land Use Map B - Applicant's Request C - Applicant's conceptual plan of development as submitted during prior reviews D -Water Resource Manager Comment 8 RECEIVE© COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Application for a D~ ; Resolution of Intent to Amend the Comprehens~ Dept. APPLICANT SECTION Name: ,'~/~,~f ~/e~ ~o ~ Phone: ¢~ Addre~: .¢¢. ~ ~/¢~ CO-APPUCANT OR AGENT, (IF AN~ SECTION Name: Phone: Address: AN AMENDMENT OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE - PLAN, 1982-2002 IS HEREBY REQUESTED WITH REGARD TO: [-~ A'. Goals and Objectives, Standards [] B. Community Development Plan ['-¢r'c. Land Use Maps [] D. Transportation Plan ~'] E. Scenic Roads. Rivers, Vistas [] F. Facilities and Utilities Plan ~ G. Other (Please Specify) PROPERTY LOCATION: -cZ/: ~,,~,~,~_.~-,r~./ TAX MAP(S) - PARCEL NUMBER(S): '7",~, 5:?.x/ BRIEFLY STATE AMENDMENT REQUESTED: ~ ~'7 FOR STAFF USE ONLY: RESOLUTION OF INTENT ADOPTED: []YES E} NO DATE OF ACTION: RECE VE JUL 3 0 1997 This paper includes the response to the Criteria for the review of Comprehensivep~Plad Dept. Applications as required by the Albemarle County Planning Department to illustrate that the petition to rezone Tax Map 57 Parcel 29 fxom RA to R4 is a viable and feasible extension to the Cmzct Community Development Area. The petiuon to rezone TM57/29 is a logical extension of the Development Area based on current development trends. Currently, all of the development in the Crozet community has occurred east of Rte. 240. Although a large land area, much of the Development Area is bisected by streams and floodplain and/or 25% slopes or is owned by a myriad of owners rendering much of the land uneconomical to develop. This fact is easily overlooked when calculating the "inventories" available in Development Areas. The area contained in TM57/29 is, however, largely a flat area with few streams, which is economical to develop. Furthermore, much of the area in the Development Area is not available for development. Access and traffic considerations to landlocked parcels for large residential developments renders many parcels undevelopable. This petition also protects the health, safety and welfare of the general public by providing adequate water and sewer utility services and facilities, transportation services {see item C-below'), and a balance of land uses. By this logical extension of the Development Area to the east, 'tther rural areas my be protected. This request for Highlands Section III would allow for 148 homes and recreation facilities to be built on approximately 75 acres. By-right, 50 homes could be built on 18.2 acres already zoned R-4 and 7 by-right homes on the 57 acres zoned RA. This would allow 57 total by-right homes to be built. The difference is 91 homes. If these 91 homes are not built here, they will be built in rural areas on 21 acre lots. This could ultimately compromise 1911 a~r~s of rural Albemarle County land. 91 homes in a higher density subdivision, with public utilities and services and recreation areas built and bonded as required by the runoff control ordinance, better serves the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan than 91 lots on 1911 acres of lost farmland without stringent environmental and development controls? The 57 acres being petitioned for rezoning, will be utilized and built upon before much of the land in the Development Area becomes available and is developed. It is good planning to make this as high a density as possible with affordable housing to protect the environment and help stimulate the growing Crozet/Albemarle communities and economies. There is a concern that adding the petitioned 57 acres to the Development Area would set a precedent for other lands contiguous to Development Areas. This is not the case with this petition. As detailed later in this document, this site is very unique in that utilities are available and it is relatively flat compared to other contiguous areas. In fact, the triangular area south of Rte. 240, North of Rte. 250, East of Lickinghole Creek Basin has a total acreage of approximately 170 acres of which only 88 are developable (52%)(See Attachment A). The rezoning of the 57 acres in Highlands Section m would encompass approxinaately 65 percent of the total developable land in this triangular area The other 35 percent is significantly limited in development by critical slopes, streams and floodplains, or restrictive property lines which would render a majority of it uneconomical to develop. The rezoning of Highlands Section III would not set a precedent for development outside of desigua~ed growth areas because: (i) adjoining properties are esseaflatly undevelopable, (ii) water and sewer are at the site, (iii) the site is contiguous [o the current growth area and to the existing Highlands subdivision and is a natural parr thereof, (iv) historically, Rte. 240 has been used as the northern boundary and Rte. 2513 as the southern boundary of the Development Area B) This petition effectively fulfills the Comprehensive Plan's "Goals and Objectives" by protecting and efficiently utilizing the Count.~ resources for the betterment of the community by: (i) protecting the general welfare, health and safety of the pubhc; (ii) providing affordable housing so that citizens raised in Albemarle County may bye in Albemarle, and stimulating the Crozet and local economies. c) This comprehensive plan amendment is viable based on the availability and adequacy of public utilities and the transportation network. Public water and sewer are available to the site from existing lines at the Highlands at Meehums River residential development. The site hes directly behind the existing water treatment plant insuring adequate supply and pressure. The connection to the existing sewer line helps defray the cost of the interceptor. The primary road relevant to this request is Rte. 240. This road was previously categorized as non-tolerable by the Virginia Department of Transportation. VDOT has since reduced the posted speed limit along Rte. 240 to 45 MPH from 55 MPH. The Crozet Community Study lists as a priority to correct the horizontal and vertical alignment along Three Notch'd Road and Crozet Avenue. These nnprovemeats will be more critical as the Development Area is developed." The approval of this comprehensive plan amendment and subsequent rezoning and development of this site to another 91 homes would require improvements along Rte. 240; making this section of Rte. 240 tolerable and adding a second entrance to Highlands at Mechums River subdivision. However, if this site is developed by-right, the possibility of ever making Rte. 240 tolerable is slim if even possible. Furthermore, a second entrance along Rte. 240 and road network which would tie into the existing road system at Highlands at Meehums River would be uneconomical to build. This request therefore, better serves and protects the needs, safety and welfare of the Crozet community. D) The only necessary change to Albemarle County policies would be the use ofon- s~[e storm detention facilities in lieu of the regional basin. It is acknowledged that on-site facilities remove as much if not more pollutants from runoff than a regional basin. A memorandum from David Hirschman to Bill Fritz dated January 22, 1997 states: "The argument can be made and supported technically that on-site stormwater practices can be built that would equal or surpass the treatment provided by the Lickinghole Basin. Given the right siting and design parameters, this is certainly true, especially with the new generation of BMP designs that are now available". The issue of water quality and the runoff control ordinance requirements of water quality is strictly a technical question and through proper design is achievable. The issue of mainteaance of on~site storm detention facilities has been a focus of discussions concerning the use of this property. The County of Albemarle has a double ncr system to protect the public good and safety from deficient maintenance of on-sire facilities. The first is tho fact that Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and the Albemarle County Service Authority entered an agreement called the Buck Mountain Agreement. This agreement states: "The periodic inspection and maintenance of the devices required by the County's Runoff Control Ordinance will be performed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as the agent of Albemarle County, and the cost of same shall be borne by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority through its water rates..." If required, the public in the urban areas would pay, through the assessment of water rates, for the protection of the public drinking water supply by maintenance of"on- site" measures as required by th6 Albemarle County Runoff Control Ordinance. (Fair and equitable) Secondly, in addition to the Buck Mountain Agreement, the Engineering Department requires, before granting approval of design plans and issuance ora runoff control permit, the recordation of the "Stormwater ManagementfBMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement". This ~_agrecment requires that any on-site structures be maintained by the landowner o~':homeowners association, with property liens to enforce performance. If they are delinquent, the County may be reimbursed for any cost incurred in correcting this problem. This mechanism alone should be sufficient to ensure appropriate maintenance. Thirdly, the adopted Comprehensive plan lists as a priority in the action agenda for public utilities/water supply on page 192 to "identify groundwater recharge areas throughout the County. Develop procedures to protect these areas to ensure quality groundwater'~. In general, an extensive pond network (or in this case on-site detention facilities) will provide more groundwater recharge and less environmental impacts than large regional basins. E) Based on recent history of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan in the Crozct Community, this is an appropriate amendment request. Cases in point include the approval of the Cory Farm residential development along Rte. 250 (item 1 below) and the rezoning for the Alhemade County Service Authority (item 2 below). 1) SAM Enterprises (Cory Farm) petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 82 acres (Tax Map 56 Parcel 96 and 108) from R1 to R4. The rezoning was contingent upon development being limited to a maxunum of 190 single family attached, detached and townhouse units. Ofthe 82 acres rezoned, approXUnately 17 acres (21%) is not within the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basins natural watershed. Albemarle County policy states that the Comprehensive Plan limits "new development and expansion of the Development Areas to those areas which drain to the Lickinghole Basin". This policy was not considered in the review of Cory Farm, sett'mg the precedent. On-site runoff control measures were deemed acceptable at Cory Farm in lieu of the regional basin. The Albemarle County Service Authority requested rezoning on Tax Map 57 Parcel 29B from Rural Areas (RAE) to Light Industrial (LIE). Of the approximate four acres petitioned to be rezoned, approximately 0.85 acres (21%) not does lie in the natural drmnage area of the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation basin. R appears that the CourtW of Albemarle is adopting a reasonable approach to application of the Crozet Growth Area boundary by allowing the ACSA rezonmg and the Cory Farm rezoning, both of which have portions that lie outside of the Lickinghole Creek basin's natural drainage area. In summary, the petition to rezone TM57 parcel 29 is a viable and feasible extension to the Crozet Communi!y Development Area and is consistent with past actions by the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, rezoning this parcel from RA to R4, as it has been proven in this document, projects public health and safety and is in the best interest of the Crozet Community and Albemarle County. RECEIVED JUt. 3 O 1991 Planning Der}t. Land Use Analysis For Addition to Crozet Growth Area Scale: l" -= 501}' Sources of Information: Flood Plain Data Topographical Data Property Line Data Flood Hazard Boundary Map (Panel 510006 0185B & 510006 0195B) -United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey; Crozet Quadrangle Plat as prepared by Roger Ray & Associates Albemarle County Tax Maps (l" = 600') Flood Plain Zone Descriptions: -~ Designates areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determiner[. Designates areas betw6en limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood; or certain areas snbjeci/to 100-year flood with average depths less than one (1) foot or where contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood. Zone C Designates areas of minimal flooding. .J Landnse Snmmar)' Description Ac,-ealle % of Total Total Acreage 169 , 100% 25°~ Slopos~ 43.5 ': .26% Flood Plain Zone B 5.15 3% Developable Land 87.85 52% 4601 l~e¢~fish ~ap Tnpk. Charlottesville, Z2903 ~eptember 30. 1997 County Planning Commission County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County c/o William D. Fritz, AICP 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 ..I~E: CPA 97-01 ME£ttUMS I:IVEi~ LAND TRUST-l{equest to amend the Comprehensive Plan Dear Ladles and ~entlemen, I oppose any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to cl~ange designation from rural to a higher dwelling density for the following reasons: 1) The Crozet Development Area already l~as a surplus of land designated for development as Neighborhood Density l~esidential. There is no need to add mere to the area until these parcels have been developed. 2) The above mentioned parcels might be developed at any time, drawing on area resources such as water. 3) While the Crozet area water supply appears adequate for present needs, questions have been raised as to whether there would be enough to meet the needs of [urther development(even before this summer's drought). 4) Much of the land under consideration impacts the Mechum's River watershed_ Requests for development have been denied ~everal times for this reason. 5) Rural designation along 250 should be protected to maintain the scenic qualities of western Albemarle county. In fact, I would request that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors declare a moratorium on all requests for change to the Comprehensive Plan and request an in-depth study on the actual costs in services and county resources involved in Neighborhood Density F. esidential Development_ The short-term benefits of an increased tax base should be weighed against the long-term increased demands for services (e.g. roads, schools, recreation, etc.) and impact of increased population and land use on tl~e county's natural resources_ I l~elieve such a study would show the Neighl~orhood Density l:esidentiaI designation to be a very expensive use of land and resources, costing the County more than it generates_ As the County continues to develop and grow, I ~eel Jt is imperative that tl~ose makin~ decisions know t~ae true costs of each type of land use designation. Thank or your attentio J~ Ann T. Stanley COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM JAN 2 2 1997 Planning Oept, TO: Bill Fritz, Senior Planner FROM: David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager~)~/-~ Glenn Brooks, Civil Engineer DATE: RE: January 22, 1997 ZMA - Highlands Rezoning '~tA qfo- 7.'/ With regard to this rezoning application, questions concerning watershed issues and stormwater runoff have been addressed previously for similar applications. For background, please see a 4/16/90 memo from Peyton Robertson to Richard Tarbell and a 6/29/94 memo from Jack Kelsey to Bill Fritz (both attached). At this point, [ would like to elaborate,on the information in these memos. Since the time of these previous discussions, the Lickinghole Basin has been completed, and the area of land that drains naturally to this facility can be pinned down on the land. The argument can be made and supported technically that on-site stormwater practices can be built that would equal or surpass the treatment provided by the Lickinghole Basin. Given the right siting and design parameters, this is certainly true, especially with the new generation of BMP designs that are now available. We must realize, however, that BMPs are designed to treat some of the pollutants in runoff some of the time. In this regard, BMPs, even those of the most advanced design, are no substitute for the proper land uses and zoning in the drinking water watershed. We can think of land uses and zoning as source reduction, while BMPs are a form of end-of-pipe treatmem. This holds trne for the Lickinghole Basin al~d for any on-site facilities that may be constructed on the property in question. The Lickinghole Basin was conceived as a way to reconcile the presence of an existing community and developmem area (Crozet) within the drinking water watershed when all other developmem areas were removed from that watershed in the Comprehensive Plan This does not mean that this approach (structural stormwater treatment, or end-of-pipe) should be MEMORANDUM ZMA - Highlands Rezoning January 22, 1997 Page Two generalized to the remainder of the drinking water watershed. In other words, the land use/zoning approach should prevail as the primary means of protecting the water supplies, and well-conceived structural measures used to complement and reinforce the land use approach (as with our current runoff control permit program). If given the opportunity, we should nol allow end-of-pipe treatment to be a substitute for source reduction. Many considerations went into the designation of a development area in Crozet, and natural drainage into the Lickinghole Basin is a reasonable method for determining the development area boundary. In this reggrd, this Department supports the policy of not expanding the development area and/or attendant zoning classifications to land that drains downstream from the Lickinghole dam. We recommend the following conditions if the rezoning is granted: With the exception of road crossings, 100 foot building setbacks (as required by the Runoff Control Ordinance) should be treated using the management guidelines for Resource Protection Area buffers (see Section 8(b) of the Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance). The purpose of this would be to maintain the vegetation in these setback areas. BMPs should be designed to capture and treat the first half-inch of runoff from a drainage basin's ultimate impervious cover and to protect downstream channels h-om 2- year storm velocities. Advanced BMP design elements, such as forebays and aquatic benches should be incorporated. BMP designs should he approved by the Engineering Deparnnent. These measures would be in addition to any requirements that may apply if a Runoff Control Permit is required for the development. Some runoff treatmem should be provided for the lots and roadway surfaces on the east side of the property for which no runoff treatment is shown on the application plan. DJH/ybv Attach'ments Copy: Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering File: Davldtlughland Albemarle County Planning Commission Mr. Benosh Thomas J. Goodrich 3680 Country Lane Charlottesville, VA., 22903 October 5, 1997 Dear Sir: I am writ'rog to inform the Planning Commission of my-opposition to amending the zoning designation of the land described in CPA 97-01 as published in the Daily Progress Legals on September 29, 1997. As you informed me by telephone their are existing growth areas in the western part of the county that have not been fully developed. To permit additional higher density areas that have not been planned for is inviting disaster with the management of traffic flow, allocation of emergency services, impact on environmental resources and schools and overall quality of life for the existing residents offRoute 240 and 250W. The nambers are clear: instead of 30 homes on 60 acres as currently zoned RA we could have from 180 to 360 homes as proposed. Without the addition of job oppodunities and shopping in the Crozet area these 180 or more families will be required to make daily commutes to Charlottesville by the most direct mute which is 250W The hnpact I have seen in 5 years by additional housing in this area has already had an adverse affect on traffic on 250W and has caused headaches for the residents that live on the north side of 250W and must make left hand turns from Owensville and Broomley Rd. For the people living off of Owensville Road their is no relief in sight. With the reduced visibility prevenfmg a traffic light and the cost ot~ widening the CSX RR Bridge in Ivy prohibitive and not planned by VDOT any increase in traffic must be weighed against the fact that 250W will remain one lane in each direction at the bridge for a long time. Please consider my comments in any discussion you have regarding this proposal. Respectfully, Thomas J. G6odrich 804-979-4764 eague of Women Voters 10-2"/-97 '~ ~ 1N o! Charlottosvill~ and ^lbemarl, County 1928 AHington Boulevard Room 105, Charlottesville VA 22903-1561 phone: 504-070-1707 http:llavenue.orgllwv Iwv~avenue.org fax: 804-970-1708 October 14, 1997 To: Albemarle County Planning Commission From: League of Women Voters Re: CPA 97-01 Mechums River Land Trust The League of Women Voters supports the staffs recommendation to deny this request to expand Crozet's growth area. We can find not one reason why this application should be approved, but many reasons for denial Approval will strike a blow against the County's long-standing policy to protect the watersheds of our drinking water reservoirs from the urban sprawl of residential development ~ a policy defended by your predecessors and Boards of Supervisors, Regardless of what the applicant says, granting this request will open a Pandora's box of similar applications for land contiguous to Growth Areas. We wish to address in particular the issue of on-site stormwater control facilities vs. regional ones. Regardless of whether or not on-site facilities can be constructed which provide stormwater treatment as efficiently as regional ones do, they both share the problem that the staff report discusses - the problem of inspection, mordtonng and repair. It is far more cost effective to monitor regional systems than dozens of on-site systems. Futhermore, a regional system will collect sediment and nutrients not only from new development but also from existing development and from agricultural and forested lands. However, the removal rates of non-point pollution for both regional and on-ske devices cannot be sustained unless there is an effective monitoring and maintenance program for both. Unfortunately; .this has not been the case. Presently, there is no firmly established program in place for on-site sys- tems because of the County's limited staff resources. Many County residents have believed that the Runoff Control Ordinance was the instrument that protected the watershed of our drinking water reservoirs. They are correct up to a point. The RunOff Control Ordinance applies only during construction when the County checks to see that the required facilities are properly in place. But after construction, the respons~ility for that facility lies with the property owner. "...ct non~artisan or~cmization cfecFicat~cf to tFt~ yrornotion of ~nforraeaf ancf acti~vej~artic~.pcttf~n of citlze~ in go~ernrnent." Several years ago the County discovered.that most people had no idea that they owned or were responsible for a stormwater facility on their property. Since the Runoff Control Ordinance was enacted about 20 years ago, dozens of them have been constructed, but only a few have been in- spected since 1992~ Therefore. we do not know how many washed out years ago or how many are functioning properly today. Early this year the County developed a homeowners maimenance agreement that will go with the land. It makes clear that if a person buys a home outside the growth area which requires stormwater comrol, devices (ponds, berms, buffers, etc), he is responsible to report annually on any "deficiencies" he finds and make the necessary repairs or replacement at his own cost. We believe the a~eement is necessay to protect our water supplies, but it needs considerable revision to be effective. However, it makes clear that the County intends to place the burden of maintaining stormwater devices on the property owner - not on the water user or County taxpayer. The County inteprets the Four- Party Resolution of 1993 (concerning the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's role in implementing the Runoff Control Ordinance) as applying only to "regional runoff comrul" facilities that have been approved and accepted by the Authority (letter from Mr. Tucker,. August 8, 1997), There is only one such regional facility - Lickinghole Creek Basin. The Natural Resources Manager is responsible for inspecting and maintaining the control facilities required for the Basin. The costs of his office are passed on t0 the RWSA customers through its water rates. The Authority budget reflects that cost in a line item, "Watershed Protection" - and is budgeted for Crozet at $15,000. a year. Therefore, water users pay for support of control facilities of a regional system, but property owners pay for assuring the controls work,either individually or throu'gh their neighborhood association fee. An inspection/maintenance program for so many on-site controls will require budgeting for adequate staffing. We believe that until such a policy is in place, n is wrong to approve development relying on on-site BMPs in the watershed of our drinking water reservoir. October 13, 1997 RE: CPA 9%01 Mechums River Land Trust Dear Planning Commission Members and Sta~ I live with my hmily at 4382 Mechmns School Hill near the intersection of Routes 240 and 250. From this vantage point, I have a dear view of the proposed change in the land use from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Density [3~6 dwellings). Due to the proximity of my property, it could be subject to the same change in land use designation. I am opposed to this request for several reasons. The Crozet Community Study points out that growth areas in the Comprehensive Plan are designated for residerrtial and non-residential development while rural areas are reserved ['or resource protection and bona fide agrieultural/forestal uses." The rural area development goal is based on the decision to give highest priority to agricultural activities., and firmly establish these activities as the primary land use, rather than residential development." [t seems logical and appropriate to follow these guidelines. The staffreport notes that there are over 794 acres in Crozet of developable land in the growth area which has not been developed. With this inventory available, there is no need to go outside of the growth areas to develop in rural areas. It is also clear from the Staffreport that the ability of an area to accommodate additional residential development is of primary concern and under review by the "In-Fill Committee". This request would put further pressure on roadways which are already dangerous. Traffic and the potential for increased accidents is a major conceru~ Routes 240 and 250 are heavily used at all times but partieularl?-dufing morning drive time. The intersection of these roadways has been the sight of an increasing number of accidents since August. I cannot imagine several hundred more people trying to use an already overburdened roadway. The staffreport notes that there are no improvements to Rt. 240 in the VDOT's Six Year Primary Road Plan. Clearly, adding more people to this situation is certainly unsafe and unwise The impact on the ability of police to provide protection and safety is also of concern. The Crozet Community Study states that Police response time for Crozet which was 16 minutes in 1992 in the Sector b, Beat 2 is far beyond the 10- minutes or less for emergency calls. This request which would add many'more people to the area will further strain and exacerbate this problem. Thank you for your attention and careful consideration of these matters. Si¢~e%ely, /7-~ '~_ /, ~ cff l T. r ke (804)823-8213 Piedmont Environmental Council Statement on CPA 97-01, Mechums River Land Trust Delivered to the Planning Commission on April 14, 1997 The Piedmont Environmental Council strongly supports the Comprehensive Plan's fundamental premise that growth should be directed into designated growth areas and away from rural areas. Hence the PEC urges you to stand by the current land use plan adopted just sixteen months ago and leave the 57 acres in question designated for rural use for the following reasons: 1. It lies outside the drainage basin of the Lickinghole Creek [mpotmdment. The drainage basin of the Lickinghole Creek Impoundment determines the eastern boundary of Crozet's growth area. The Impoundment is designed to treat runoff from development before it reaches the South Fork Reservoir. l'he 57 acres in question lie outside the boundary of the impoundment, but inside the watershed of the reservoir4 2. It violates the County's long-term policy of protecting the watershed of the reservoir. The applicant claims that the private, on-site facilities he will build as part of this development will treat runoff more thoroughly.th, an the regional basin can, But what about maintenance? If the County's long-standing policy of protecting its watershed falls, just how extensive and costly would the maintenance program need to be to maintain a host of individual stormwater detention basins? 3, To amend the Comprehensive Plan at this point would undermine the Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee, an expensive consultant and County citizens who are working together to improve development in'the growth areas, Adding new land to the growth areas undermines this effort by reducing the impetus to develop land already planned and zoned for growth. 4. It will pave the way for other rezonings in the rural area. Planning staff has identified 169 acres lying between this 57-acre parcel and the intersection of Routes 240 and 250 would could .become part of the Crozet growth area if this comprehensive plan amendment is approved. FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: Dana Hubbard FROM: Janice Farrar CO Daily Progress CO Albemarle County DEPTClassified PHONE# 296-5823 FAX# 978-7223 Fax# 972-4035 $CLAS S,MonAd,Planning Commission, The Albemarle County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, October 14, 1997, 7:00 p.m.; Meeting Room #24t, Second Ffloor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider the following:\qlr/k/ SP 97-40 Snow's Business Park (Si, g~l'#51) - Proposal to establish Outdoor Storage and Display in the Entrance Corridor District [30.6,,2~b]. This site consists of 5.8 acres zoned Light Industry and EC. This proposal is intended to co~/gefexist'mg zoning violations and will permit additional construction and activity on the site. The proper~escribed asTM 90, P35X, is located north of Snow's Nursery on the east side of Avon Street in the So6'ttsville Mag Dist. This site is located in Neighborhood 4 and is recommended for Industrial Service. A preliminary site plan is currently under review.'xqlr\ CPA 97-01 Mechums River Land Trust ~ Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the Croze1 Development Area to include land east of Lickinghole Basin and west of the Route 240/Route 250 intersection at Mechums River. The proposal is to change the designation of the area from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre). The area requested for review by the applicant includes approximately 60 acres. The entire area east of the Lickinghole Basin and west of the Route 240/Route 250 intersection at Mechums River consists of approximately 170 acres. This area is in the White Hall Magisterial District. \qlr\ Anyone desiring further information about the above-petitions, please contact the County Department of Planning & Community. Developmem, Second Floor, County Office Building, or telephone 296-5823. Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities, if mquested.\qlr\ PURCHASE ORDER/lA- 1044 Phone 296-5823 Please note that tear sheets are required. ~ate: September 24, 1997 ~' ~J~t~ R~/;~eptember-2~ 1~ ~d 6~t~ber 6: i9~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 3hda~', Sep~embe{"29. 1997 Legals . I., '~' '