Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-182. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. FINAL 7:00 P.M. FEBRUARY 18, 1998 ROOM 241, SECOND FLOOR Call to Order. Pledge o2 Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on n~xt sheet). PUBLIC HEARING on the FY 1998/1999-2002/2003 Capital Improvement Program. PUBLIC HEARING on the FY 1998/1999-2003/2004 SLx Year Secondary Road Plan. ZMA-97 01 Still M d (Sig 63&64) Dist. (Applicant requests deferral to March 4, 1998.) ZMA-97-12. Fried (Grayrock) (Signs 18&19). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone approx 53.02 acs from PRE) to R-4. Loc on N side of Rt 691 (/arman's Gap Rd) approx 1.3 mls W of Crozet. TM55, Pals 65&6SA (portion). Access to the property from Rt 691. [The property is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6.01o34 du/ac) in the Community of Crozet in the Comprehensive Plan.] White Hall Dist. Approval of Minutes: February 7, 1996 and September 17, 1997. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. F~xecutive Session: Legal Matters. Certify Executive Session. Adjourn. CC.)NSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Appropriation: Education Grants, $2,700 (Form #97047). FOR INFORMATION; 5.2 Albemarle County Neighborhood Leadership Conference - "Neighborhood Connections ,98~,. 5.3 1997 Fottrth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Commtmity Development. 5.4 1997 Year End Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning mad Community Development. 5.5 Copy of letter dated February 10, 1998, from Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, to Ms. Anna Rugo concerning the status of Route 605, Dttrrett Ridge Road. 5.6 Memorandum dated February 4, 1998, from Susan Thomas, Senior Planner, to Robert W. Tucker, }~r., County Executive, re; Stone Robinson Elementary School - Compliance with the Coa~aprehensive Plan. 5.7 Copy of an application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Virginia Electric and Power Company to revise its fuel factor pursuant to Va. Code §56-249.6 (Case No. PUE970904). 5.8 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 3, 1998. 5.9 Copy of minutes of the Rivamaa Water &. Sewer Authority Board of Directors meeting for December 16. 1997. 5.10 November 1997 Financial Report. David P Bowerman Rio Charloli~ xZ Humphris Forrest R. Iv~al,shall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of S~l:~SOrs 401 Mclrflire Road Charlottesville. V~jinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. M~r tin Rivanna Wali~r E Ferkins Sail!/H. Thoma~ 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 February 20. 1998 Board Actions of February 18, 1998 Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. All members ofthe Board of Supervisors were present. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There was no one present to speak. Agenda Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Education Grants, $2,700 (Form #97047L APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Agenda Item No. 5.2. Albemarle County Neighborhood Leadership Conference - ~Neighborhood Connections '98". Mrs. Humphris informed thc Board the conference will be held March 21, 1998. She encouraged the public to attend, Agenda Item No. 5.6. Memorandarn dated February 4, 1998, from Susan Thomas, Senior Planner, to Robett W. Tucker, Jr.. County Executive, re; Stone Robinson Elementary School - Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Printed on recycled paper Memo to Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg February 20, 1998 Page 2 Mrs. Humpttr/s asked that Mr. Tucker express appreciation to anyone who might have provided assistance on this project concerned with the potential expansion of the Stone Robinson Elementary School property. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on the FY 1998/1999-2002/2003 Capital Improvement Program. Mrs. Roxaune White, Assistant County Executive gave a presentation on the proposed FY 1998/1999 - 20002/2003 Capital Improvement Program. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on the FY 1998/1999-2003/2004 Six Year Secondary Road Plan. APPROVED the Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-97-01. Still Meadows (Signs 63&64). CONTIN[IED the public hearing onZMA-97-01 until March 4, 1998. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-97-12. Fried (Grayrock) (Signs 18&19). DEFERRED ZMA-97z12 m~til June 17, 1998 to allow time for the developer to discuss design options with the community. Agenda Item No. l 1. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Martin thanked staff for their work on the Technology Plan. He added that he would appreciate the opportunity to be able to ask questions, and suggested this item be placed on the March 4, 1998 agenda. Mrs. Thomas asked that the Board adopt a resolution to support an increase in the state funding ofplauning district commissions. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Mrs. Thomas asked Mr. Tucker to look into improving the lighting system at the Monticello High School Stadium. She suggested Mr. Phil Iauna, from the University of Astronomy Department, as a possible resource. Memo to RobegW. TackeL Jr, V. Wayne Cilknberg Febmary20,1998 Page 3 Mr. Tucker belatedly presented plaques to Messrs. Bowerman and Perkins to recognize their service as former chairmen of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 12. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 10:53 p,m., the Board went into Executive Session. Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Executive Session. At 11:12 p.m., the Board reconvened. Agenda Item No. 14~ Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 11:12 p.m: /lbh Attachments CCl Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Kevin C. Castner Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Brace Woodzell Richard Wood Jan Sprinkle Yadira Amari Sharon Taylor File I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk Appropriations Approved on February 18, 1998 Febmary 20, 1998 Attached is the original appropriation form for the following item which was approved by the Board at its meeting on February 18, 1998: 1) Education Grants, $2,700 (Form #97047). Attachment cc: Roxanne White R/chard E. Huff, II Kevin Casmer Jackson Zimmerman APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 97 ~98 NI/MBER 97047 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TR3LNSFE~ NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FUND: GP3~NT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF THE ARTS GRANTS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 3104 60211 312500 PROF. SER. INSTRUSTION $150.00 1 3104 60211 60130C INSTR. MATERIALS 1,950.00 1 3104 60207 601300 INSTR. MATERIALS 300.03 I 3104 60216 601300 INSTR. MATERIALS 300.00 TOTAL $2,700.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 3104 24000 240319 COMM. OF THE /LRTS $2,100.00 2 3104 24000 240318 COMM. OF THE ARTS 300.00 2 3104 24000 240321 COMM. OF THE ARTS 300.00 TOTAL S2,700.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE / / OF SIjPER¥I$OR$ COUNTY OF ALBEMARt2,EP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education Grants SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation 97047 in the amount of $2,700.00 for the Virginia Commission of the Arts Grants. STAFF .CONTACT,S;: Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden AGENDA DATE: February 18, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND: At its meeting on February 9, 1998, the School Board approved an appropriation of $2,700.00 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. DISCUSSION: The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made Teacher incentive Grant awards to several teachers in the Albemarle County Public Schools. The awards made were to Christine Abidin, Roxanne Breadbent, Lucy Burnette, Marshall Chase, Jamie Endahl, A. Faith, and Elaine Richardson, Stony Point Elementary School, in the amount of $300.00 each; Dawn Hudgins, V. L. Murray Elementary School, in the amount of $300.00. and Donna Nash, Red Hill Elementary School, in the amount of $300.00. The Teacher Incentive Grant Program helps to strengthen the quality of education in and through the arts in elementary and secondary schools and to encourage innovative projects which integrates the arts into non-arts curricula. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriation, in the amount of $2,700.00, as detailed on appropriation form #97047. 98.024 AI.REMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC Memorandum OF SUPERVISORS DATE: February 10, 1998 ?0: Ro~ W. Tucker, Jr., County E×ecutive FROM: _~astner, Division Superintendent RE: Request for Appropriation At its meeting on February 9, the School Board approved the following appropriation: o Appropriation of $2,700.00 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made Teacher Incentive Grant awards to several teachers in the Albemarle County Public Schools. The awards made were to Christine Abidin, Roxanne Broadbent, Lucy Burnette, Marshall Chase, Jamie Endahl, A. Faith, and Elaine Richardson, stony Point Elementary School, in the amount of $300.00 each; Dawn Hudgins, V.L. Murray Elementary School, in the amount of $300.00; and Donna Wash Red Hill Elementary School, in the amoann of $300.00. The Teacher Incentive Grant Program helps to strengthen the quality of education in and through the arts in elementary and secondary schools and to encourage innovative projects which integrates the arts into non-arts curricula. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance to receive and disburse these funds as follows: 2-3104-24000-240319 Va. Comm. for the Arts 2-3104-24000-240318 Va. Comm. For the Arts 2-3104-24000-240321 Va. Comm. For the Arts E~p~ndi~ures 1-3104-60211-312500 1-3104-60211-601300 1-3104-60207-601300 1-3104-60216-601300 $2,100.00 S 300.00 ~ 300.00 $2,700.00 Prof. Set. Instr. $ 150.00 Instr. Materials $1,950.00 Instr. Materials s 300.00 Instr. Materials $ 300.pQ s2,700.00 xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey COUNTY OF SUMMARY ' · EXECUTIVE AGENDA TITLE: Neighborhood Leadership Conference - "Neighborhood Connections '98" SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Information on proposed Neighborhood Leadership Conference STAFF CONTACT,S): Messrs. Tucker, Ms. White, Ms. Catlin AGENDA DATE: February 18, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Community Toolkit booklet., conference flyer and preliminary list of works/b~p topi_~_~._.~ REVIEWED BY: .?/,~//~/if / BACKGROUND: Albemarle County has enjoyed a steady succession of dedicated community leaders and concerned, involved citizens. They sustain the county's long-standing traditions of active neighborhoods, participating citizens and lively cooperation between government and the community. The Neighborhood Leadership Conference, "Neighborhood Connections '98", is an interactive educational experience that will help individuals understand and participate in the dynamic process of making Albemarle County a better place to live. Participants will gain insight into Albemade's government processes and the innerworkings of its neighborhoods as well as gain specific hands-on skills in community organizing and leadership. DISCUSSION: Albemarle County's Neighborhood Team has developed a number of initiatives aimed at working with and supporting neighborhoods. As we have developed working relationships with county neighborhoods and community groups, a common theme we have heard is that residents are interested in opportunities to learn leadership and organizing skills, to network with each other, to meet county staff, and to learn about the resources that are available to assist neighborhoods in problem-solving and programming. The Neighborhood Team, which includes representatives from county departments including Social Services, Parks and Recreation, Housing, Police, Planning and Community Development, Community Resources~ Zoning, Community Education and the County Executive's Office along with MACAA. JABA and AHIP, has developed a morning-long conference as a first step in meeting those needs. "Neighborhood Connections '98" has four objectives: · to broaden the participants' understanding of the Albemarle County community to encourage and assist the establishment of networks among neighborhoods and their leaders · to enhance the ability of neighborhoods to resolve problems and/or initiate activities on their own or in cooperation with other neighborhoods · to expand the pool of skilled, trained neighborhood leaders The conference will be held Saturday morning, March 21 from 8:00 am until 11:45 am in the County Office Building. The conference is free and open to county residents and will include a general opening session led by Selena Cuffee-Glen of the City of PJchmond's Neighborhood Services Office as well as a number of smaller workshops on specific topics, a preliminary list of which is attached. Participants will be able to choose from among the topics offered those workshops that are of particular interest to them personally. AGENDA TITLE: Neighborhood Leadership Conference - UNeighborhood Connections '98" February 18, 1998 Page 2 The target audiences for this conference are neighborhood residents who are interested in forming a association or strengthening an existing group as well as those neighborhood leaders who head already established groups that may need more information on specific topics or who want to share their experiences/network with their peers. RECOMMENDATION: Members of the Board of Supervisors are cordially invited to attend ail or a portion of the conference and are encouraged to publicize the conference among their constituents. Any names of potential attendees should be forwarded to the Community Resources Office. 98.025 Albemarle County Neighborhood Connections '98 A community-based conference where you and your neighbors can [earn the keys to a healthy, safe and self- su~cient neighborhood. Attend this free, fun and fact- filled conference to find out more information about... a Neighborhood Safety and Crime Prevention [] Starting and Nurturing Your Neighborhood Association [] Leadership Training [] Organizing Your Neighborhood Project [] How County Government Can Work With Your Neighborhood ... And much more that will help you be an effective leader and advocate for your neighborhood. Date: March 21, 1998 Time: 8:00 am - 11:45 am Your choice of small group seminars following a general opening session Location: County Office Building Room 241 401 McIntire Road You should attend if you are an Albemarle County resident or business owner who would like to meet County officials and learn basic, hands-on tools to improve your neighborhood. For more information or for a registration packet please call the Albemarle County Community Resources Office at (80zD 296-5841. Sponsored by the Albemarle Coun-t-y Nei~hborhooc~ Team List of possible workshop topics: · The Basics of Building Community - starting and nurturing a neighborhood association · Neighborhood Safety and Security - inside your home and out · Successful Meetings - agenda, ground roles, leading the meeting, conflict resolution · Effective Leadership - leading, coaching and facilitating your group Organizing Your Neighborhood Project - from initial plan through publicity all the way to a successful conclusion · Behind the Scenes of County Government - who does what, how things get done Puffing County Government to Work for Your Neighborhood - information and resources for neighborhoods ommunitj,, Toolkit Tools for Building Strong, Healthy Albemarle County Neighborhoods Published by the Albemarle County Neighborhood Team (804) 296-5841 February, 1998 1997 FOURTH QUARTER BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 INDEX I, Companson of New Residential Dwelling Units by. Month (Charts A & B) IL Companson of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C & D) IlL Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart E) IV. Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F - H) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC Single-Family (includes modular) Single-Family Attached Single-Family Townhouse Duplex Multi-Family Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) Accessory Apartment BOARD OF SUPERVIsoRs -2- Dudng the fourth quarter of 1997, 174 permi~ were issued for 327 dwelling uni~. In ad~fion. 7 permi~ were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange va~ue of $2.50~, Mr a total of $17.500 i. COMPARISON OF NE3N RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Un~s by Moth JAN 93 56 64 183 49 190 50 26 54 I FE~ I 172 68 31 72 56 53 43 44 44 MAIl', I 61 92 57 64 5S 72 47 61 57 !i~APR' 49 82 62 72 76 69 46 71 75 MAY 69 75 ~4 62 45 60 44 03 146 220 85 54 48 79 70 62 41 89 _ 57 42 58 62 81 156 51 57 59 AUG 74 87 58 126 416 49 44 105 34 SEP_ 72 90 55 48 45 47 56 64 48 OCT NOV DEC TOTAL 56 48 39 43 68 51 42 186 216 301 37 42 49 65 60 66 43 49 55~ 42 50 37 67 32 48 44 62 1309 804 614 866 805 939 596 835 905 Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Un/ts by Month 220 z_ ~ 6o 20 0 IChart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by Month~ JAN FEB MAR APR MAy JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 1995 m1996 ~19971 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning & Community Development -3- 4th Quarter, 1997 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS DISTRICTSFA sP .I ouP I [MHC R,O i 5 oi o{ o, ~ol o JACK JOUETT 4 0 0 0 0 0 RiVANNA 64 4 7 0 0 0 SAMUEL MILLER [ 26 8 0 0 0 1 TOTAL [ ' t40 12 7 0 160 6 4 1%I 75 23% Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Un~ by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 CROZET COMMUNITY HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY PINEY MOUNTAIN ViLLAGE GRO~NTH AREA SUBTOTAL RURAL AREA ~ RURAL AREA 2 RURAL AREA 3 0 DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL UNITS 0 0 0 13 0 20 I 28 327 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning & Community Development 4th Quarter, 1997 SCHOOL ~ DWELLING UNiT TYpE TOTAL PERCENT DJSTRICT SF SFA D,U. TOTAL D.U. Agnor-Hud~ J 6 0 O 9 8.57% Prepared by Albemarle County Planning & Community Development -5- 4th Quarter, 1997 ~V. CERTIFICATE~ OF OCCUPANCY [c~of~lued) C~rt G. Bmakdov~ of CO'S for Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial Dislri~ and DWelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYpE TOTAL CK JOUETT 2 0 0 0 0 0 0[ 2 RrVANNA 27 2 5 00 0 0 34 SAMUEL MILLER I t 1 0 0 204 0i 12 BCO3TSVILLE 10 2 0 0 2 38 WHrTE HALL $ 0 0 0 0 0 7 Chart H. Breakdmm of CO's for Residential Dwelling UnJts by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dweiting Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 O 0 0 0 12 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 6 0 3 O 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UREAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 8 2 0 0 24 0 0 34 UREAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 [ 4 I 0 0 0 0 0 5 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 2 O 0 0 0 0 0 2 UREg~N NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNFFY' 2 0 0 0 0 0 I 3 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 10 P," MOVHTA,.VI ' 0 RIVANNA VILLAGE5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 GROW~TH~ AREA BUBTOTAL 5 0 1 81 I RURALAREA 1 0 0 0 0 0 RURAL AREA 3 . 0 0 0 ~ 0 6 RURAL AREA 4 0 0 0 0 6 _ RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 0 1 O 0 0 24 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning & Community Development YEAR END 1 997 REPORT County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 INDEX Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month(Charts A & B) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C & D) III. Comparison of All Building Permits {Chart E) IV, Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F - H) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF Single Family (includes Mcuu~r) SFA Single Family Attached SF/TH Stogie Family Townhouse DUP Duplex MF Multi-Family Resider. ce MHC Mobile Homes in County AA Accessory Apa~ments -2- During the year of 1997, 707 permits were issued for 905 dwelling units. In addition, 29 pernfits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2.500, for a total of $72,500. r. COMPARISON OF NEVV RESIDENTIAL DVVELLING UNITS BY MONTH Cha~t A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month MO~NTH~ 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 JAN 93 56 64 183 49 190 50 26 FEB I 172 68 31 72 56 53 43 44 49 82 62 72 76 69 46 71 MAY ~9 75 44 62 45 60 41 63 JUN 220 85 54 48 79 70 - 62 41 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL 1997 54 44 57 75 118 89 67 42 58 62 81 186 51 87 59 74 87 56 126 116 49 44 105 34 72 90 55 48 45 47 56 64 48 56 48 39 43 68 51 42 186 216 301 37 42 49 65 60 66 43 49 55 42 50 37 67 32 48 44 62 1309 604 614 ~66 805 939 596 835 905 Chart S. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month Chart B: Three Year Co--mpadson of New Residential D.U. by Month~ 24O 220 -- [60 f 120 2O JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ocr NOV DEC MONTH t995 · 1996 ~ 1997 Prepared oy Albemarle County Planning & Community Development -3- YEARLY TOTALS, 1997 Ih COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL RIO 25 0 0 0 208 0 0 2 26% JAC,K JOUETT 20 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 2% WHITE HALL 100 10 0 0 B I 116 1 13% Chart D. SmakdOwn of New Residential Dwelrhg Un~s by Comprehensive Plan A~ea and Dv,.elling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD t URBAN i"~-"IGHBORHOOD 2 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 CROZET COMMUNITY HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY PINEY MOUNTAIN VILLAGE RIVANNA VILLAGE GROWTH AREA SUBTOTAL RUBAL AREA 1 RURAL AREA 2 TOTAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE 0 0 0 0 0 0I 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 TOTAL UNITS 0J 48 234 5 48 36 5 0 77 46 01 66 83 272 9O5 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning & Community Development YEARLY TOTALS, 1997 Iff COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS RIO 36 10,2, 90 833,424 14 33,557,100 81 6,116,326 221 50,755,895, JOUE~ 201 5,311,900 54 1,262,07f 6 7,591,001 23 1,~75,100 J 103 15,340,072 RIVANNA 3t5 4B,022,811 226 3,529,421 28 4,651,050 ~6 2,641,175 635 BB,~,'~O I S. MILLER 102 16,990,511 173 5,980,640 e 13,364,943/ 30 3,83~,924 313J 40,172,018 = I SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYpE TOTAL PERCENT I' StoadusWood/Sutherland I 00 0 0 0] 0 0.17% I Broadus V'~o~/Jouett 12 O 0 0 ~t 2 0 14 2.44% Brcna~svtIle 17 0~ 0 0 I i 0 18 3. t4% Hollymead / 16 B 0 0 0 0 0 24 4, t8% Stony Po[~/Burley 6 O 0 Prepared by Albemarle County P ann ng & Community Developmenl YEARLY TOTALS, 1997 IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (continued) Cha~t G. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwetling Units by Mag~tedal Dist~ and Dwelling Un~: Type I MAGISTER [~{. DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL D STR CT SB SFA I DUP Mp -- RIO 7 [3 0 0 50 0 0 57 JACK JOUE'Cr 5 Oi 0 0 0 0 0 5 RIVANNA t538 24 0 0 0 0 185 SAMUEL MILLER 47 10 0 0 0 t 0 58 SCOTrSVILLE 58 0 0 142 4 0 207 WHrTE HALL 52 (~ 0 0 2 I 62 TOTAL 322 21~ 24 0 192 7 I 574 cl~art H. BreakdOwn of CO's for Resipentlal Dwelling Un~ by Comprehensive plan Area and Dwetling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELUNG UNIT TYPE TOTAL OF I SFA DUP MF MHC AA UNITS RB EIGHBORHOOD 1 {3 0 0 0 24 0 0 24 I URBAN NE,GHBORHOOD 2 37 0 10 0 26 0 0 73 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 35 3 0 0 142 0 rJ ,80 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 12 1{3 0 0 0 0 0 22 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 O 4 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 31 7 B {3 0 {3 I 39; HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 40 6 14 0 0 0 0 60 PINEY MOUNTAIN VILLAGE --0 2 0 0 O 0 0 2 R]VANNA VILLAGE43 O 0 {3 0 0 0 43 TOTAL, ~ ~ I {3°1 °o '1 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning & Community Development BOARD OF SUPERVISORS February 10, 1998 Route 605 From: Greene Co. Line To: 0.8 Mi. N. Greene Co. Line Albemarle County Ms. Anna Rugo 1018 Durrett Ridge Road Earlysville, VA. 22936 Dear Ms. Rugo: Your letter of January 17, 1998, to the Board of Supervisors concerning the status of Route 605 has been referred to VDOT for a response. Durrett Ridge Road is in the proposed 1998-99 through 2003-04 Six-Year Plan with an advertisement date ofFebrua~ 1999. This will include only the section of road as described above (0.8 miles) that has donated fight of way available. The proposed construction will probably utilize an 18-20 foot surface treated (paved) roadway with 2-foot shoulders. The projected cost is estimated in the $300,000 range. We realize that the maintenance on gravel roads is more costly than on paved roads, but Albemarle County has over 200 miles of gravel roads and very limited funds for gravel road improvements. We will continue to maintain Route 605, and hopefully the proposed construction in early 1999 will eliminate some of the problems you are now encountmSng. Your interest in. transportation matters is appreciated and if you have further questions, please [et us know. Yours Truly, Gerald G. Utz Contract Administrator /ggu cc: Mr. V, Wayne Cilimberg Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk Albemarle County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. oi Planning & CommuniW l~velopmenr 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville Virginia 22902-4896 (8O4) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Coumy Executive Susan Thomas, Senior Planner ~ ~ / February 4, 1998 Stone Robinson Elementary School - Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 3, 1998, unanimously found this request to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan with the understanding that the Engineering Department will conduct a review and develop a plan to address erosion and storm water issues for the entire portion of the property which will be County property. Attached please find a staff report which outlines this request. If you lmve any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. SET/jcl cc: Ella Carey A:\STONROB.LTR BOARD 0_~ SU~ ERVISOR,~ STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: Susan Thomas February 3,1998 Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan ~15.2-2232 Review): Stone Robinson Elementary School Additions ~ACKGROUND As per Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, the Planning Commission is responsible for rewewmg for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan a proposal to provide a soccer field in an area not previously used for school purposes. The proposed field is part ora larger project which also includes expansion of classrooms, library, parking, and play areas at Stone Robinson Elementary School. The school is owned by the County of Albemarle School Division and operated by the same. Under this proposal, the existing soccer field would be improved and enlarged, extending into [new] property currently owned by Luck Stone Corporation and historically in quarry use. The property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcels 22, 23A, 23D (portion of), and 23E110A, is located on the west side of State Route 729 (North Milton Road), approximately 300 feet south of Route 250 East (Richmond Road) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a development area (located in Rural Area 4), but is adjacent to the Rivanna Village. A location map is included as Attachment A; the proposed site plan is included as Attachment B. A request to allow grading on critical slopes has also been submitted and a separate report (attached) has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION The proposed improvements to Stone Robinson Elementary School are included in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) FY 1997/98 - 2001/02, which was approved by the Albemarle County School Board on August 12, 1996; revised January 13, 1997; and, approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 16, 1997. If the project were not completed, the school would be forced to lease additional mobile classrooms to accommodate the projected enrollment increases and community recreational needs would go unmet. (Attachment C is the Executive Summary from the CIP) This project addresses a number of Service Objectives set forth in the Community Facilities section of the Land Use Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan, described below: Schools (page 141 of the Land Use Plan): "A primary objective of the Community Facilities Plan is to provide adequate parks and recreation facilities through the utilization of school facilities. This objective results in the non-duplication of many recreation facilities, saves the County money on costs associated with providing land and recreation facilities, and provides for the more effective use of existing public facilities. Therefore, it is anportant that school sites are adequately sized to function effectively as Community and District Parks." Service Objectives (.page 142): 3. Design elementary and middle schools in a similar manner throughout the County m ensure parity, cost savings and more fmaely consmacfion. 4. Provide adequate classroom space and facilities to serve school enrollment. In addition, provide adequate recreational space and facilities on school sites to serve the student sand provide Community and District park level services. Parks and Recreation ~age 147): ·.. Outlying development areas, such as Communities and Villages, as well as existing school sites, will serve as park service centers for portions of the County located in the Rural Area." Service Objectives (.page 148): 2. Preserve and provide access to and within areas identified in the Albemarle County Open Space Plan for public use. 3. Utilize County school facilities as an integral part of providing recreational opportunities to County residents. 5. Upgrade facilities in Albemarle County that do not meet the standards outlined in this Plan to provide a full range of recreational opportunities to their service area in a complementary and non-duplicative fashion. Greenwa¥ The draft greenway plan, discussed by the Planning Commission but not yet adopted, recommends the establishment of greenways along major fiver and stream corridors throughout the county. The Rivanna Scenic River Atlas, published by the Virginia Canals and Navigations Society in 1992, identifies the Shadwell area as the former site of Thomas Jefferson's canal and mill works. The proposed school site development plan allows for future dedication and establishment of the greenway, and does not encroach into the riparian area. The fiver lies approximately 500 feet beyond (east of) the edge of the proposed soccer field. The combination of Neighborhood Park at the school and greenway adjacent to it provide a desirable recreational opportunity for residents of Rural Area 4 and other users. The following principles, strategies and recommendations are also addressed through the opportunities created by this feature of the project: Protect the County's natural, scenic, and historic resources in the Rural and Growth Areas (Goal, p. 73. I989 Comprehensive Plan). Promote non-regulatory preservation of natural and scenic areas through voluntary measures such as agricultural/forestal districts, conservation easements, and financial incentives (Strategy, p. 89, 1989 Comprehensive Plan). Establish a County-wide network of greenway trails for transportation, recreation, conservation and education throughout Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville (Strategy, p. 5, [draft] Greenways section, Comprehensive Plan update). RECOMMENDATION The Board has approved the funding request for the proposed improvements at Stone Robinson Elementary School. This Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Review focuses on the appropriateness of the use of the property, specifically the addition of new property to the school site, as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan. This project meets the intent of several of the Comprehensive Plan's general principles, strategies and recommendations. It provides a unique opportunity to meet the needs of public education and recreation, while reserving a river corridor area Ibr future greanway establishment. No concerns have been expressed by adjacent property owners or members of the public, and pending approval of this Compliance review and the waiver of critical slopes, the site development plan may be approved administratively. Luck Stone Corporation has indicated a willingness to help satisfy county needs as described in the Comprehensive Plan by contributing property it no longer needs for its quarry operations. For these reasons, staff believes that this project complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and recommends favorable action by the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Proposed Site Plan C - Executive summary, CIP, April 16, 1997 LqGENERALISHAREITHOMASISTONROB 456 78 ALBEMARLE / COU~iT¥ .... IA~AC"ME"~'T~:l ' SDP 97-144 Stone Rol~nson Elen~ntary ? ?B ***^~,, ,cu~.~,~,~,., & ~-ar~-s>.,- ~,s'~.,;'~' RIVANNA AND ,.~,::~.~ ........ ,,~ ", SCOTTSVILLE DISTRIOTS SECTION 79 "~ Il ROUDABUSH, GALE · ASSOC.. ~NC. " OVERVIEW SHEET Stone Robinson Addition I P roje~ Conta~ A1Reaser I ] CIP Staff ~n~g. meering) Assistance Req.? Yes Project Dates: 7/98 - 9/00 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X ] Mandated Projec~? ~, I DocumentedProject/Need? X ~ Other Cmty. Need/~erv, iee? Proiect Descr(otion: Addition to the school would consist of 6 regular classrooms, library, cafeteria, special education/resource, work rooms and additional parking, minor office renovations end play field expension. The total addition would be 14,800 SF. The rated capacity of the school would be 616. project Changes/Reasons for Revisions: Double digit inflation in cons,auction costs has dictated a major revision in this project, The success of the Bright Stars program end the increased support from thc state level for preschool programs led us to the conclnsion that preschool rooms should be added to our buildings when construction occurs. Two prsschoolrooms were addedto this project~ 1,100SF each, The addition and the additional parking will takepart of the existing play fields. Therefore, new play fields will be deveinped a year early. We have begun negotiations with Luck Stone for additional lend adjacent to the school. If the evaluation of the Bright Stare Program is not positive end/or the Board does not want to provide this space, it can be removed from the project during design, which beg'ma in 1997. The project is being moved forward one year to accomodate antidputed growth in the area. Project JastiFtcation: The projected enrollment for this school exceeded the current capacity of 484 students. The Long Range planning Committee recommends ~ addition to mptm the projected growth for the Pentops end Glenmore areas, which is not captured in the historical am for Stone Robinsom The other major consideration is that all other elementary schools that could serve parts of this ~ea are presently near capacity. Additionally, the method of calculating school capacity was changed to reflect our current student t~ classroom teacher ratio of 22 to 1 end each elementary school's capacity was l~luced by three classrooms to provide for amdlla~y spaces, This space will be nsed fur Art, Music, Computer Labs, etc., depending on the school's needs. Relationshiv to Plat{; Consistent with Goal #9, Objectives 5 & 7 of the Comprehensive Plen. Imp_act !t'Peoiect Not Completed: It will be neces~'y to lease additional mobile classrooms to accommodate'the projected eurollment hcreases. Without this project, it would be neceasary to maintain overcrowded and substandard library, cafeteria and auxiliary spaces. ~"x Location/Site Status: Stone Robinson Elementary Route 13, Box 25 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Overatin~ Cost Breakdown: $20,000 - Custodian $14,800 - Utilities Land Acquisition 0 AreJ~'~ng~eer/ng 250,000 Construction 2,225,000 Other 189.000 Tota/Project Cost 2,664,OO0 Less: Fees 0 &ss: Revenues !l bl~ County Cost 2,664,000 Operating Costs 34,800 0 0 0 25O,000 0 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 250,0OO 0 0 0 0 2,225,OO0 189.000 2.414,000 0 2,414,OO0 Wot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,800 0 Fy o2 ~ TI~ ! O! 0 0 i 25O,0OO 0 2,225,000 0 189.000 o] 0 0 ] 0 34,80O'"- 33 1~ FVIRI2D Capital Improvement Program FY 97/98 - 01/02 BOARD OF SUPER¥1$ORS Pox,OfficeBox 26666 Richmond Virgi~ ia 23261 C2_~5-9~!2:;5 ~CV~ 0 February 4, 1998 VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUE970904 APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO REVISE ITS FUEL FACTOR PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE § 56-249.6 To: Local Govemmem Officials Pursuant to ordering paragraph no. 4 of the State Corporation Comrmss~on s Order o January 28, 1998, Virginia Power is providing you a copy of that Order. Please take notice of its contents. A complete copy of Virginia Power's Application in Case No. PUE970904 may be obtained from Virginia Power at no cost by written request to Pamela Johnson, Virginia Power, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261. Karen L. Bell Counsel Enclosure COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 9 g 01 ATR/CHMOND, JANUARY 28, 1998 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY To revise its fuel factor pursuant to Va, Code ~ 56-249.6 CASE NO. ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION PUE970904 JAN 30 LEGAL SERVICES On January 23, 1998, the Staff of the State Corporation Commission filed a motion requesting a continuance for this maurer. In supporu of its motion, Staff stated that on January 15, 1998, the Company filed with the Commission a major revision uo its application which requesus an additional reduction of more than S38 million in Virginia Power's projected system fuel system expenses through November 30, 1998 and a corresponding reduction in the proposed fuel factor for that period. This matter is currently scheduled ~o be heard on February 9, 1998. The Commission, upon consideration of this matter, is of the opinion and finds that Staff's motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The date for Staff to file its testimony is extended from January 26, 1998 to March 27, 1998. (2) The date for Virginia Power ~o file its rebuttal 1998 no April 2, tesuimony is extended from February 2, 1998. (3) The hearing date for this mat~er is continued from February 9, 1998 to April 9, 1998. (4) Virginia-Power shall forthwith serve a copy of this order on the County Attorney and Chairman of the Board o~ Supervisors (or equivalent offisiats in counties having alnernane forms of government) mn which the Company offers service, and on the mayor or manager of every city and town (or on equivalent officials of cities and towns having alternate forms of government) in which the Company offers service. Service shall be made by either personal delivery or by first-class mail to the customary place of business or the residence of the person served. AN ATTESTED COPY of this order shall be senn by the Clerk of the Commission to: Pamela Johnson, Esquire, Virginia Electric and Power Company, P.O. Box 26666, Virginia 23261; Thomas B. Attorney.General, Attorney General, Karen L. Nicholson, Senior Division of Consumer Counsel, 900 East Main Street, Richmond, Bell, Esqulre, Virginia Electric Richmond, Assistant Office o~ Virginia 23219; and Power Company, One James River Plaza, P.O. Box 26666, Richmondj Virginia 23261; William S. Bilenky, Esquire, 8133 Forest Hill Avenue, Suite 101, Richmond, Virginia 23235; R. Peter Lalor, Commonwealth Power Corporation, 3 Koger Center, Suite 213, Norfolk, Virginia 23502; Edward L. Petrini, Esquire, Christian & Barton, 909 East Main Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia. 23219-3095; Kenneth G. Hurwitz, Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP, 1201 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3917; Jean Ann Fox, 114 Coachman Drive, Yorktown, Virginia 23693; Donald A. Fickenscher, Virginia Natural Gas, Inc., 5100 East Virginia Beach Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23502-3488; Jeffrey M. Gteason, Street, Hebert, Street, Southern Environmental Law Center, 201 West Main Suite 14, Charlottesville, Virgmnma 22902; Marc C. Esquire, Enron Capital and Trade Resource, 2000 K N.W. Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20006-1872; David B. Kearney, Esquire, Office of the City Attorney, 900 East Broad Street, Suite 300, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Frann G. Francis, Esquire, Apartment and Office Building Association, 1050~17th Street, N~W.,--Suite 300,. ~ashington, D.C. 20936; Kerri L. Boyer, Esquire, Multitrade of Pittsylvania, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20015; Dennis R. Bates, Esquire, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Fairfax County, 12000 Government CenEer Parkway, Suite 549, Fairfax, Virginia ~2035-0064~ Jon L. Praed, Esquire, Latham & Watkins, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washingson, D.C. 20004; Robert L. Daileader, Jr., Esquire, Ogden Martin Syssems of Alexandria, One Thomas Circle, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005-5802; John H. Bucy, II, Coalition for Equitable Rates, 106 Eas~ Sixth Street, Suite 900, Austin, Texas 78701; Johnson Kanady, III, Esquire, VHM, Inc., 100 Shockoe Slip, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4140; Frederick H. Ritts, Esquire, Philip Morris USA, 1025 Thomas Jefferson Strees, Washingson, D.C. 20007; Donald R. Hayes, Esquire, Washington Gas Light Company, 1100 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20080; Kenworth E. L1on, Jr. Esquire, Jackson, Pickus & Associates, 2201 West Broad Street, Suite 100, Richmond, Virginia 23220; Michael Quinan, Esquire, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, P.L.C., 823 East Main Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219; John Pirko, Esquire, Virginia, Maryland & Delaware Association, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite~200,- Glen Allen, ~irginia 23060; Stanley W. Balis, Esquire, Miller, Balis & O'Neil, P.C., 1140 19th Street, N.W. Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036; Archibald Wallace, III, Esquire, Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, P.O. Box 1998, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1998; Charles E~ Wall, Esquire an~ Robert F. Riley, Esquire, Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins, 1575 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20D05; Louis R. Monacell, Esquire and John F. Dudley, Esquire, Christian & Barton, L.L.P.~ Suite 1200, 909 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-3095; and the Commission's Division of Energy Regulation, Economics and Finance and Public Utility Accounting. BOARD OF SUPER¥1$ORS RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY RWSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Minutes of Regular Meeting December 16, 1997 A regular meeting of the Rivarma Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Board of Directors was called to order on Tuesday, December 16, 1997, at 2:02 p.m. by Dr. John Marshall, Chairman. in the Conference Room of the Administrative Offices, 200 Franklin Street, Charlottesville, Virginia. Board Members Present: Dr. John Marshall, presiding, Mrs. Judith Mueller, Mr. Robert Tucker, and Mr. William Brent Board Member Absent: Mr. Gary O'Connell Authority staff present: Mr. Arthur Petrini, Mr. Eugene Potter. Mr, William Sessoms, and Ms. Carol Wiles Also present: Mr. Fred Landess, Mr. David Hirschman, public, and the media~ 2.0 3.0 Minutes of Previous Meeting Upon motion by Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mrs. Mueller, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the regular meeting datedNoy_ember 24 1997. Items from the public The~;e were no items from the public. 4.0 Consent Agenda Regarding Item d) Future Urban Water Supply, Dr. Marshall stated that he was pleased with the VHB monthly report. He would like to see the big picture on the progress in this area. Mr. Petrini stated that there are two parts ofth.e project, to date, that are significant. One was developing the needs analysis, which was a sttmmary of the Supply and Demand reports, and the second is the alternatives analysis. The needs analysis is about a month behind due to input and discussion that was not originally anticipated. Dr. Marshall asked that VHB add a statement to their report stating the timeline. Dr. Marshall also brought up the League of Women Voters request to schedule another meeting and invite the City and County officials and commissioners. Mr'. Petrihi said he thought that/t would be appropriate to wait until there is more information to offer which could be in approximately 6 months. Upon motion by Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mrs. Mueller, the Board unanimously voted to approve items a), b), c), d), and e), on the Consent Agenda with one change of the December 28, 1.998 Board meeting date to December 22, 1998. Shared IBoard/WSA~minutes/December 1 fi, 1997 minutes 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 a) StaffReport on Finance b) StaffReport on Operations c) StaffReport of Ongoing Prq/ecrs d) Future Urban Water Supply e) 1998 Board of Directors Meetings Other Business Dr. Marshall said that the Board had advertised to the community for members of the Citizens Advisory Committee. He stated that the County had many applicants but the other categories were limited. He said he expected the cununittee to be formed by the next meeting. Other items from Board/Staff not on agenda There were no items from the Board/Staff. Executive Session There were no need for an Executive Session Items from the public not on agenda There were no Items from the public. Adjournment A motion for adjournment was made by Mr. Tucker and seconded by Mrs. Mueller. The meeting was adjourned at 2:09.p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Rol~ert W. Tucker, J~. ~'~ //'' Secretary - Treasurer Shared/Board/WSAJminutes/December 16. ] 997 minutes COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Novembe~ 1997 Financial Repo[t SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: November 1997 Financial Report for the General, School, and Cap'~al Funds STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. White, Messrs. Tucker, Braeden, Waiters AGENDA DATE: February 18.1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: HEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: Attached are the November 30, 1997 Monthly Financial Reports for the General, School, and Capital Funds. General Fund revenue proje~ons were last revised as of September 30, 1997. Preliminary estimates indicate that General Property Tax collections will be approximately $l.8 million less than budgeted. Revenue projections will be revised with the December financial report. General Fund expenditure projections have not been revised w'rth this report. They will be revised with the December financial report. Education revenue projections have not been revised with this roport. Education expenditure projections have been revised to reflect a 7.5% hotdback, net compensation adjustment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the November 1997 Financial Report. 98.002 ~'-. ,- co o'i cq oi zO~ X 0 Z LU 0 Z o o o O0~zw~o ~ ~<0~0~ LU Z ,"1 Z ::3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FYI 998/99 - FY19902/03 Proposed Capital Improvement Program Public Hearing SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST Public hearing on the proposed FY1998-99 - FY2002/03 Capital Improvement Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: Februar~ 18, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X BACKGROUND: The Board approved a proposed FY1998/99 - FY2002/03 Capital Improvement Program of $47,546,847 at the February 4 meeting to be brought to the public heating on March 18th'. DISCUSSION: Attached for the FY98/99 - FY2002/03 Capital Improvement Program public hearing is a handout listing all the proposed general government and school division projects, their costs and the fiscal years in which the project will be completed. Also listed at the end of each division are the expanded projects that would restore funding back to the level originally recommended by the ClP Technical Committee. The Board's proposed FY98/99 - FY2002/03 Capital Improvement Program totals $47,546,847. The fully restored CIP budget would total $54,857,223 if additional projects of $7,310,376 were fully funded. Additional revenues of $877,000 would be required in FY99 to restore these projects. RECOMMENDATION: This information is provided for the public hearing and does not require any action at this time. CAP ITAL I M P ROVEM E NT PROGRAM FY - Board of Supervisors Proposed $47,5460847 Expanded Projects $7,310,376 Proposed Expenditures $47,546,847 Proposed Expenditures: FY 98/99 - 02/03 Storr~ ater <1% 61% Gen. Govt. 38% Tourism 1% Proposed Revenues ;46,847 Proposed Revenues: FY 98/99 - 02/03 Toudsm Fund 3% VPSA Bonds 50% CiP Transfer 33% Other Local 5% 8% Administration & Court Projects · Computer Upgrade Fund · Facility Maint,/Repair Fund · Court Facilities Maint./Repair Total $1,000,000 FY99-03 $2,010,500 FY99-03 $6t8.750 FY99-03 $3,629,250 Public Safety Projects · Fire/Rescue Bldg/Equip Fund · Police NCIC Upgrade · Police LAN Upgrade · Public Safety Facility Study · Police Transport Vehicle · 800MHz Communication Sys. · Juvenile Detention Facility Total $1,624,216 FY99'03 $15,000 FY99 $165,000 FY03 $30,000 FY01 $40~000 FY02 $2,926,623 FY99 $1,644~792 FY99'00 $6,445,631 Highway/Transportation Projects · Highway Revenue Sha~ng · Meadow Creek Bike/Ped. Path · Greenbrier Dr. Ext. Bike/Ped Path · Greenbrier/Hydrau. Streetlights · Airport Road Sidewalk · Georgetown Rd. Sidewalk · Sidewalk Construction Program · Neighborhood Plan Program Total $1,980,000 FY99-03 $20,000 FY99 $75,000 FY01 $19,250 FY99-00 $39,600 FY00 $60,000 FY00 $250,000 FY99-03 $242.825 FY99-03 $2,686,675 Library Projects · Library Computer Upgrade · Maintenance/Repair Total $100,000 FY99 $_99,500 FY99-03 $199,500 Parks and Recreation Projects Walnut Creek Improvement· Scottsville Community Ctr. Crozet Park Athletic Fields South. Albemarle Org. Park Athletic Field Development PVCC Softball Field Lighting Athletic Field Irrigation Towe Park Irrigation Monticello HS Recreation Facilities Stone Robinson Playfield Chris Greene Lake Property Ivy Landfill Recreation Access Maintenance/Repair Projects $51,025 FY00-0~ $172,580 FY99-02 $544,000 FY99-03 $100,000 FY99-0t $580,720 FY99-03 $166,000 FY02-03 $136,500 FY02-03 $20,000 FY02 $68,500 FY99+01 $200,000 FY99 $1f3,400 FYO0 $330,000 FY99-00 $2327630 FY99-03 $2,715,355 Utility/Stormwater/ Tourism Projects ·Keene Landfill Closure · Master Drainage Program · Drainage/Erosion Correction · Route 250-Rte.616 Turn Lane · Iv~ Road Bike Lanes · Rivanna Greenway $372,937 FY00-03 $120,000 FY99+01 $100,000 FY99+01 $100,000 FY99 $237,000 FY99-00 $233,000 FY99-03 SChool Division Projects · Burley Library Addition · Brownsville Addition $2~177,506 FY03 $1 ~210,000 FY03 · Southern Elementary $30,000 FY03 · Cale Addition/Alterations $880,000 FY02 · CATEC Cosmetology Lab $38,234 FY03 · Crazet Kitchen Serving Line $65,000 FY02 s H.S. Technology Labs $344,000 FY99 · Monticello HS Addition $330,000 FYO3 · Vehicular Maint. Facility $143,000 FY99 · AHS- Phase II & III $649,000 FY02 · Murray High Renovation $864,000 FY02 · Administrative Technology $330,000 FY99-03 School .Division Projects (cont.) · Instructional Technology · Henley Addition · WAHS Bldg. Renovations · Northern Area Elementary · Red Hill Expansion · Stone Robinson Addition · Walton Renovation · Jouett Addition · Northern Elem. Recreation . Chiller Replacement · ADA Structural Changes · Maintenance/Repair Total $1,980~045 FY99-03 $628.000 FY99 $1,244,000 FY99+02 $8,4t4,000 FY99-01 $1,260,000 FY02-03 $2,4t4,000 FY99 $121,650 FY03 $166,650 FY03 $500,000 FY00-01 $633,200 FY99+02 $30,000 FY00 $4,1t2.82Q FY99-03 $28,565,099 Expanded Expenditures $7,310,376 Addition;~l Expenditures: FY98/99 -02/03 Adminis,a'ation 9% Public Safety Hwy. & Trans. 7% Parks & Recreation 2% 81% Expanded Revenues $7,310,376 Additional Revenuos: FY 98199 - 02/03 CJP Transfer - Gen Govt 19% $1,377,000 (FY99 $427,000) 66% C~PTransfer Schools 15% $1.118.592 Expanded General Government Projects · County Computer UPgrade · Facility Maintenance/Repair · Court Facility Maint./Repair · Fire/Rescue Bldg./Equip · Highway Revenue Sharing · Sidewalk Construction · Mint Springs Concession Stand Total $80,000 FY99-03 $353,307 FY99-03 $222,500 FY99-03 $47,t16 FY00 $520,000 FY99-03 $21,077 FY99 $45,000 FY03 $1,289,000 7 Expanded School Projects · Jack Jouett Addition · Walton Addition · Greer HVAC · Walton HVAC · WAHS Window Replacement · Hollymead Gym/Restrooms · Henley Office/Classrooms · Monticello Addition · ADA Improvements $641,850 $483,350 $284,000 $370,000 $230,000 $805,500 $440,000 $981,083 $2t5,000 Maintenance/Repair Projects $t.482.593 $5,933,376 FYO0-01 FYO0-01 FY99 FYO0-01 FY02-03 FY02 FY03 FY03 FY99-03 FY99-03 The End i )A'I'I~, A(iI',2',I)A I'l'l.t~t 1~). ^('il."~l )A i 'i'! ]s,~l FO rnl..~ 7/25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMAREE EXECUTIVE SUMMAR' AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing.on proposed County priorities for road improvements and VDOT's Draft Six Year Secondary Road Plan STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: February 18,1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGEND~ ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes X BACKGROUND: The Six Year Secondary Road Construction Plan is VDOT's Plan for the allocation of road construction funds for a six year period, it consists of a priority list of projects and a financial implementation plan. The VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Plan is based on local priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors (the County Priority List of Road Improvements). The Board must hold a public hearing and adopt a priority list of projects to be included in VDOT's Six Year Secondary Road Plan. At the January 7 Board meeting, staff presented the Planning Commission's recommended pdority list of road improvements (Attachment A] and VDOT's Draft Six Year Construction Plan (attachment B) based on those recommendations. DISCUSSION: Staff has identified, in the list below, several changes and new projects in VDOT's proposed 1998-2004 Secondary System Construction Plan. The new projects in VDOT's proposed 1998-2004 Secondary System Construction Plan ara consistent with Commission's-recommended pdority list of improvements. VDOT Pro~ect ~ 1 2 3 4 7 9 10 24 25 26 Comments New, $300,000 - funding for traffic calming pilot program. The cost of operating the Hatton Ferry has doubled to $120,000. *New, $27,600 - re-stripe Hydraulic Road, from Route 29 to Route 1455. *New, $66,000 - install a guardreil on Rio Road, near Agnese Street. Airport Road, cost increased $500,000 for total of $3.5 million, and new Estimated Adve~semant Date (EAD) of 12/1999. Georgetown Road, cost increased by $500,000 for total of $900,000. Old, Ivy Road, moved up in priority from #22 to #10, and new EAD of 812001. New, $1,200,000 - Dickerson Road, spot improvement. New, $350,000 - James Monroe Parkway, spot improvement. New, $1.5 million - Polo Grounds Road, spot improvement. 'Six ¥~e. ar Secondary Road Plan January 7, 1998 Page 2 Project # 37 38 39 n/a Comments New, $300,000 - Gilbert Station Road., unpaved mad. New, $300,000 - Heard's Mtn. Road, unpaved mad. New, $1.0 million - Dickerson Road,unpaved road. Route 712 road paving project, lowered in County's Priority List due to unsuccessful attempts at obtaining donated R-O-W (no longer ~n VDOT Construction Plan). Both of these projects have been endorsed by the Board of Supervisors by prior action.] Additional Information: Hatton Ferry_ (Priority #2 in both County List and VDOT Plan) - At the January 7 work session, the Board asked VDOT to provide information on the level of use of the Hatton Ferry. To this point, VDOT has provided ddership information for last season. In 1997 the Ferry was open from Apdl 18 to October 12. During that period a total of 376 vehicles and 1,271 walkers used the Ferry. VDOT and staff hope to provide further information and comment at the Public Hearing. Also, as requested, we have asked the Toudsm Bureau to consider marketing the Hatton Ferry further. Revenue Sharino - At. its meeting on February 4, the Board discussed whether the County should continue participation in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program, and requested staff provide information on the impact of not participating in the Program after the fiscal year 1998199. Attachment C is a table provided by VDOT which indicates the impact to the Six Year Secondary Road Planwithout revenue shadng funds included beyond FY 98199. The affect is a one to two and one-half year delay for projects 12 through 19, and seven projects would be deleted from this Six Year Plan due to insufficient funds. The construction of the seven deleted projects would likely be delayed by two and one-half years or more. It should be noted that the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Plan assumes $1.0 million per year in Revenue Sharing funds. Since 1990, the County's has averaged $884,180 annually in Revenue Sharing funds Catterton Road (Route 667~ Road Paving Project (Priority #56, County List and #341 VDOT Plan) - The Commission discussed extending this project to include an additional one-half mile unpaved section west of the current limit of of the project. VDOT indicated that this section was not included with the current project due to insufficient dght of Way. The Commission recommended not expanding the project at this time and evaluating the project dudng next year's review of the Plan. There were several residents who spoke in opposition to expanding the project at the Commission meeting. We have received a letter from or~ resident in opposition to extending the project (attachment D); Itis our understanding that you will be receiving a petition from property ewr~ers in the area in favor of paving this additional one-half mile section. This is provided as background in anticipation ef public comments at the public headng. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the recommended County Priority List of Road Improvements and VDOT's Draft Six Year Secondary Plan. co: Angela Tucker = o o ~ o ~ ~ o W m 0 o~ · ~ o o o~ ~ ~ o o~ o- - - o o o o ~ ~ o~ o~ o ~ ~ o~ o o o E ~' ~ -. ~§~o.o~ ~o~ 000000~0~00 o~ ~bb~bbb~b ~o~ 8~°°°°°°°°° 000000000 0 =~= _. =m~ m m m m ~ - o o o Ra 0 r~l 0 oo °° §g °° oo : g~ °° ,o:~ o§o~§ oo o §§ g§§§ oo g g g 2o,,o, ooo~ ~§~. oo VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1998 SPRING PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE. PRIMARY, AND URBAN SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES The following addresses Albemarle County's priorities for each allocation of the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and each sub-allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Standard Pro_i ects: The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside. The County supports these projects as referenced. 1) Undertake those CharlottesvilleArea TransportationStudy (CATS) projects eligible for the primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City, County and University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to Route 29 improvements already underway, construct Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's next highest priority project, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. The firsl phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's secondaryprogram. In an effort to further this project, the County also is receiving funding within its Secondary Priority Plan for planning and design of the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North. However, it is not possible to construct this projec~ solely with secondary funding due to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for completion of other important secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. With the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the County believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staffto evaluate construction of subsequent phases as a primary road, provided ix will accelerate the Parkway's completion. VDOT is urged to investigate all possible funding sourcesto achievethe quickestconstructionofthis vitallyimportant roadway. Otherprojec~s listed in CATS in the northern study area also should be actively pursued. These projects include the Airport Road improvements and the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Connector Road. 2) The County is closely following the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Route 29 North Corridor Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board last year with the County's endorsement. The recommendations emphasized use of an access management approach in lieu of a limited hccess road design (recommendations provided as Attachment A). [1 is hoped that the Commonwealth Transportation Board will act favorably on these recommendations and implement them in developing plans for the third phase of the Route 29 widening project from the South Fork of the Rivauna River to the Airport/ProffitRoad intersection The Route 29 South Corridor Study is in the early stages, with a consultant now hired and the first Steering Committee meeting recently held ~n Lynchburg. It is desired that high priority once again be established for public input in this study's process, including public heatings in Albemarle County. It is also hoped that the study will be truly multi-modal in scope and give particular consideration to the benefits of rail service to the corridor. In this regard, the County is supportive of the proposed rail service between Bristol, Va. and Washington, D.C. 3) The County support the Bristol-Washington D.C. Rail Road Study, as multi-modal considerations are recommended in the Route 29 North Corridor Study. 4) Undertake the widening of Route 20 south from 1-64 to the Route 20/742 connector road that will serve the traffic from Monticello High School. 5) Construct sidewalks and bike lane facilities on both sides of Route 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road (Route 649). Undertake road projects parallel to the Route 29 North Corridor which will relieve tr',dfic on Route 29. 7) Widen Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is covered by a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study should be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The remmning portion of Rt. 250 West m Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) is now under study by VDOT to determine long term needs for this road. VDOT will also conduct a similar study of Rt. 250 East from Free Bridge to the Fluvarma County line. The County supports and appreciatesthis effort and encourages public participation and consideration of recommendations. 8~ Present the recommendations of the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in Crozet (pending completion) to the County and improve Route 240 in accord with County recommendations regarding this study. 9) Undertake improvements of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The County supports the recommendations identified by the Fontaine Avenue Task Force. 10) Undertake improvementsto the Bellair/Route 250 intersection as generally proposed at the VDOT Location and Design Public Heating. Safety_ Improvements: Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order: 1) Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban Neighborhoods, in particular: 1 ) Route 20 north from Route 250 to Wilton Farm Apartments and Darden Towe Park; 2) Route 20 south from the City line to the new Route 20/742 connector road; 3) along Route 250 east in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks; and, 4) along Route 250 west from City to Bypass (as part of the overall improvements to this road). Of these, the walkways along Route 20 north are the most important improvement. Pedestrian travel along this road has increased significantly with the development of the Wilton Farm Apartments. Residents have raised concerns with the safety of walking along this segment of road as currently constructed. 2) Installationoftraffic signals at the 1-64 interchange of Route 250 east; at Route 22 and Route 250; Route 729 and Route 250 east; and the 1-64 interchange at Fifth Street. 3) Improvements to Route 250 west along the business corridor in Ivy (from just east of the intersection of Route 637 to just west of the intersection of Route 678) to address existing and short-tenntraffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this area. The Route 250 West Corridor Study currently underway should address these safety improvements. 4) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet. 5) Functional plans for Route 20 North and South for alignment improvements. 6) Functionalplans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and 231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic created by large trucks along these road segments, and encourages all appropriate measures be considered to ensure that tracks travel safely along these roadways in the future. Restriction of through truck traffic is still considered the most effective measure by the County. Enhancement Projects: Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order: 1) Construction of pedestrian waikways. (see #1, Safety Improvements above). 2) Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20. 29 and Route 250) and Airport Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/AlbemarleAirport - landscaping, signage, placement of overhead utilities underground. 3 3) Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of Charlottesv/lle and Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 199D. 4) Development of portions of the Rivarma River Greenway path system. 5) Removal of non-conforming billboards. National Highway System (NHSI The Charlottesville-AlbemarleMPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved the NHS which includes the existing Route 29 and the Route 29 Bypass. The County's higt~es~ priority project in the proposedNHS is the completion of the widening of Route 29 North from the Corporate limits of Charlottesville to Airport Road. The County desires to continue active participation in Route 29 Corridor studies, including the Route 29 Corridor Study south of Charlottesville which is currently underway. The County will monitor the progress and recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Studies which are part of the NHS (additional information is provided under Standard Projects #2). Congestion Mitigation and Air Ouality Improvement Program This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area ofnon-atta'mmenl for ozone or carbon monoxide. 4 David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphrls Forrezt R. Mamhall. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBF_.MA~I F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlot~-ville, Virg'mia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 March 24, t998 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally I-L Thomas The Honorable Emily Couric Senator PO Box 5462 Charlottesville. VA 22905 Dear Senator Couric: Enclosed please find a copy of the Statement of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors which will be presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on April 2, 1998, at the Preatlocati0n Hearing on Interstate and Primary Systems. Also. please find enclosed a copy of Albemarle County's recommended priorities. As always, the Board appredates your support and hopes that you will be able to accompany them to Culpeper. Sincerely, Clerk / /ewc Attachments (2) PHnted on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Chadot~e Y. Hm'nl~h~ Formst R. Ma~hall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfim Road CharlottesMlle, '¢aginia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (8041 296-5800 March 24, 1998 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. ~om~ The Honorable Paul C. Harris Delegate 100 Court Square Annex, Suite B PO Box 1276 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dea~r Delegate Harris: Enclosed please find a copy of the Statement of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors which will be presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on April 2, 1998. at the Preallocation Hearing on Interstate and Primary Systems. Also: please find enclosed a copy of Albemarle County's recommended priorities. As always, the Board appreciates your support and hopes that you will be able to accompany them to Culpeper. Sincerdy, Ella W. Carey, CMG/ Clerk /ewc Attachments (2) Printed on recycled paper David P. Bovamnan 930 Charlotte Y. Humph~ Forte. st R. Mamha]I, &. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, 'v'n'ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-584,3 FAX (804) 296-5800 March 24, 1998 Charles S. Martin Walter F, Perkins Sally H. Thomas The Honorable Mitch VanYahres Delegate 223 West Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Delegate VanYahres: Endosed please £md a copy of the Statement of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors which will be presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on April 2, 1998. at the Preallocation Hearing on Interstate and Primary Systems. Also, please find enclosed a copy of Albemarle County's recommended priorities. As always. the Board appreciates your support and hopes that you will be able to accompany them to Culpeper. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, CM~¢~ Clerk /ewc Attachments (2) Printed on recycled paper EMILY COURIC 2ErH SENATORIAL DISTRICT CITY OF CHARLO~ESVILLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SENATE March 11, 1998 TO: FROM: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville City Council Greene County Board of Supervisors Madison County Board of Supervisors Madison Town Council Orange County Board of Supervisors Orange Town Council Scottsville Town Council Stanardsville T~ouncil Emily Cou~~ ~a.~' ~ Virginia Department of Transportation Pre-Allocation Hearing The Virginia Department of Transportation will hold a public meeting for the Culpeper District on Thursday, April 2, at 9:00 a.m. I will be attending the meeting to speak on your behalf to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Please let me know your funding priorities with regard to the allocation of fiscal year 1998-99 monies. You may also want to share with me any comments or suggestions concerning the Six-Year Improvement Program for interstate, primary, and urban roads. I would appreciate hearing from you by March 27. Thank you for your time in prepanng your remarks. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 -ORANGE ROAD CULPEPER, 22701-3819 February24,1998 DONALD R. ASKEW The Honorable Emily Couric Virginia State Senate Post Office Box 5462 Charlottesville, Virginia 22905 Dear Senator Couric: The Culpeper Dis~ct preallocation hearing will be held on Thursday, April 2, at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing isto solicit input on the allocation of fiscal year 1998-99 funds and on updating the Six-Year Improvement Program for the interstate, primary, and urban systems. Speaking order will be as follows: Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, Rappahannock, Albemarle, Culpeper, and Fauquier. Towns and cities will fall under the appropriate county. The site of the Culpeper hearing is the auditorium in the VDOT District Office complex at 1601 Orange Road in Culpeper. Parking is avaitablcto the le~ of the forked en~.~ce, in what is called '~he pines." The most convenient building access is in the rear, across from the parking area. We look forward to seeing you on April 2. Sincerely, :wlr Donald R. Askew District Administrator TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY STATEMENT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD PRE-ALLOCATION HEARING ON INTERSTATE AND PRIMARY SYSTEMS CULPEPER DISTRICT (APRIL 2, 1998) GOOD MORNING, I AM FORREST MARSHALL, CHAIRMAN OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS ABOUT OUR PRIMARY ROAD NEEDS ON BEHALF OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY MY COMMENTS FOCUS ON THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIORITIES SUBMITTED TO YOU LAST YEAR. THEY ARE FOUNDED ON THE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY ICATS) AND ON THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGARDING THE PHASING OF THESE AND OTHER ROAD PROJECTS. ADHERENCE TO THESE PLANS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO ADDRESSING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM THERE ARE SEVERAL IMPROVEIVlENTS THAT WE OFFER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THESE ARE MORE DEFINITIVELY ADDRESSED 1N A REPORT WE WILL LEAVE WITH YOUR STAFF. THEY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) PROJECTS: STANDARD PROJECTS INCLUDE: UNDERTAKING CATS PROJECTS AS OUTLINED IN OUR MUTUAL AGREEMENT, WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY. 1N ADDITION TO THE COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO ROUTE 29 FROM HYDRAULIC ROAD TO AIRPORT ROAD, THE PARKWAY IS THE COUNTY'S HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECT. WITH THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD'S DECISION NOT TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERCHANGES ON ROUTE 29, THE NEED FOR THE PARKWAY WILL BECOME EVEN MORE CRITICAL TO MAINTAINING AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF SERVICE ON ROUTE 29. THE COUNTY HAS REQUESTED CONSIDERATION OF THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY FOR PRIMARY FUNDING FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS. THE COUNTY WILL ALSO FOLLOW WITH GREAT INTEREST THE ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR STUDIES. IT IS THE BOARD'S HOPE THAT THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD WILL ACT FAVORABLY ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROUTE 29 NORTH CORRIDOR STUDY. IT IS ALSO THE BOARD'S HOPE THAT THE ROUTE 29 SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY WiLL CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE PUBLIC INPUT IN THE STUDY PROCESS. AND, FURTHER, THAT THE STUDY WILL BE TRULY MULTI-MODAL IN SCOPE AND GIVE PARTICLAR CONSIDERATION TO THE BENEFITS OF RAIL SERVICE TO TI-EE CORRIDOR. IN THIS REGARD, THE COUNTY SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED RAIL SERVICE BETWEEN BRISTOL, VA. AND WASHINGTON D.C. UNDERTAKING THE WIDENING OF ROUTE 20 SOUTH FROM 1-'64 TO THE PROPOSED ROUTE 742/20 CONNECTOR ROAD THAT WILL SERVE TRAFFIC FROM THE NEW MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL. Sm CONSTRUCTING SIDEWALK AND BIKELANE FACILITIES ON BOTH SIDES OF ROUTE 29 FROM THE SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER TO ROUTE 649 (AIRPORT/PROFFIT ROAD). 4 UNDERTAKING PROJECTS PARALLEL TO ROUTE 29 WHICH RELIEVE TRAFFIC ON ROUTE 29, SUCH AS THE GREENBRIER/SEMINOLE SQUARE CONNECTOR. WIDENING ROUTE 250 WEST FROM EMMET STREET TO ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS. THIS SECTION IS COVERED BY A JOINT CITY, COUNTY, AND UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA APPROVED DESIGN STUDY, THE IVY ROAD DESIGN STUDY. THIS STUDY SHOULD BE USED AS A GUIDE IN THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT. PRESENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROUTE 240 FUNCTIONAL STUDY IN CROZET ONCE COMPLETE. UNDERTAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO FONTAINE AVENUE FROM JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE TO THE IMPROVEMENT ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT. THESE IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD REFLECT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FONTAINE AVENUE TASK FORCE. 10. UNDERTAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BELLAIR/ROUTE 250 WEST INTERSECTION. SAFETY PROJECTS INCLUDE: 1 CONSTRUCTING SIDEWALKS ALONG VARIOUS PRIMARY ROUTES WITHIN THE COUNTY'S URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY ALONG ROUTE 20 NORTH FROM ROUTE 250 TO WILTON FARM APARTMENTS AND DARDEN TOWE PARK. INSTALLING TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT 1-64 INTERCHANGE OF ROUTE 250 EAST; AT ROUTE 22 AND ROUTE 250; ROUTE 729 AND ROUTE 250 EAST; AND, THE 1-64 INTERCHANGE AT FIFTH STREET. IMPROVING ROUTE 250 WEST ALONG THE BUSINESS CORRIDOR IN IVY IN ACCORD WITH THE ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROUTE 250 WEST CORRIDOR STUDY CURRENTLY UNDERWAY. 4. IMPROVING THE ROUTE 240 UNDERPASS AT THE CSX RAILROAD IN CROZET. DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL PLANS FOR ROUTE 20 NORTH AND SOUTH, AND ROUTES 22 AND 231, FOR ALIGNMENT AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. ENttA NCEMEN T PROJECTS INCLUDE: ~ COUNTY SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS; WALKWAYS AL(~NGS PRIMARY ROADS, BEAUTIFICATION OF ENTRANCE CORRIDORS, CONSTRUCTING BIKEWAY FACILITIES, DEVELOPING GREENWAY PATH SYSTEM, AND REMOVING NON-CONFORMING BILLBOARDS. NATIONAL HIGHWAY $ YS TEM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE MPO POLICY BOARD APPROVED THE NHS AS PROPOSED BY VDOT IN THIS AREA EXCLUDING THE ROUTE 29 BYPASS. THE FHWA HAS APPROVED AN NHS WHICH INCLUDES THE EXISTING ROUTE 29 AND THE ROUTE 29 BYPASS. THE COUNTY'S HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECT IN THE PROPOSED NHS IS THE WIDENING OF ROUTE 29 NORTH FROM THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF cHARLOTTESVILLE TO AIRPORT ROAD. THE COUNTY DESIRES TO CONTINUE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR STUDIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROUTE 29 }NORTH CORRIDOR STUDY. WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THESE ISSUES AND IF QUESTIONS ARISE, OF IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED REGARDING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT ME OR A MEMBER OF OUR COUNTY STAFF. I:\GENERAL~SHAREUUANkSPEECH.WP JOHN COLLIER MARTIN ~U~ CATTERTON ROAD (8O4) 975-2S72 February 9, 1998 RECE VE p nni ,n Dept Mr. David Benish, Chief, Community Development Department of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 rATTAC H MENT D1 Re: Paving of Catterton Road from Route 776 to Route 601 Dear Mr. Benish: By letter dated February 3, 1998, Fir. Lee Waibel, a Catterton Road property owner, has asked me to deed a portion of my property to provide addit{onal right of way for the paving of Catterton Road from Route 776 to Route 601. The purpose of this letter is to state my position with respect to this matter. Please be advised that I am strongly opposed to the paving of this portion of Catterton Road and I will not dedicate any of my property for this purpose. Paving of this portion of Catterton Road would irreparably damage the natural beauty of this forested roadway, and it would irreparably damage the beauty and value of my own property. Catterton Road is not now, nor will it ever be, a necessary thoroughfare for County traffic, and I can see no justification or excuse for spending tax funds on this project. By separate letters, I am informing Mr. Waibel and Mr. Gerald Utz, Virginia Department of Transportation, of my position with respect to this matter. I am also informed that the Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the FY 1998-99/2003-2004 Six Year Secondary Road Plan on February 18, 1998, and that said plan does not include a proposal for paving of the portion of Catterton Road from Route 776 to Route 601. The objections to such paving contained herein, therefore, may be premature. Nevertheless, I have decided to make my position known at this point in the event that the paving of Catterton Road from Route 776 to Route 601 is raised in the discussion before the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on February 18. Your cooperation is appreciated. S~nc~rely ,~ f SAUNDERS KARP & M~GRUE,. LP. 667 Madisoa Argue New Yozk, NY Telephone: (21.2) 303..6606 Facsimile:. (2~.) 755-1624 DATE: - Febr~.ry 18,1998 TO: Mr. Forrest R. MarshaH~ Jr., Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FAX NO: 804-296-5800 FROM: From Tom Saunders Direct tel no. 21.2-303-6606 PAGES INCLUDING COVER PAGE: · ~ Thomas A~ Saundem, III Mr. Da,q. ti Benish, Chid I~pa~ Lment o~ Plannh~ and Community Developmem County o£ Albemarle 401 Mc:Intire Road Charlo~e, VA 22906-i596 Catterton Road wedneSday, 7:00 pan. Coun~ Office, 401 McIntire Road - Room 241 I am vT/ting this letter to inform you of my opposition to the paving of Catterton Road that fronts property that my wife and I have recently acquired in the Free Urdon area. Our two properties, which consist of a house and property known as Mariah and the Bailey Farm tract, have approximately one (I) mile of frontage on Catterton Road beg/nning at the terminus of the pawd portion of Catterton Road at the northeast comer of lVlariah extending northwesterly past the intersection o/776 and ending at the northwest comer of the Bailey tract. Given the extent of our road/rontage we may be more directly affected by the paving of Catterton Road than anyone along the stretch of Catterton Road that the Board o//Supervisors will I~ considering for the six-year plan. I"ne widenh!g and paving of Cattenon Road will lead to the desi~naction of trees and natural habitat detracting from the rural character and natural beauty which attracted Mrs. Saunders and me to the Free Un/on area. Paving and straightening the road will bring increased traffic flow resulting h~ more noise, higher speeds, more pollution and introduce safety concerns for all of us who share the unpaved sections of Catter~bn. Ultiznately it will encourage development wh/ch will tale away from the seen/c beauty and rural setting which males northwest Albemarle County unique and so attractive to all who have chosen to make it their home. Page 2 Mr. David Benish I urge the Board of Supe~wi~o~ to rep ~y peti~ioa for the pavi~g of C~ton ROad and-to leave it as an unpaved, country road preserving the rural/farm land character of those portion~ of Catterton under consideraiior~ Given lite amotmt of frontage we ow'~ on the unpaved portion of Cattercon Road, we hope you will give our reques~ appropriate consideration ia your deliberations~ PAGE 3/3 Forrest P~ Marshall, Ir., Cllairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisor~ Charlotte Y. Humphris, Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Comraunity Developraen~ 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville Virg}nia 229024596 1504) 296-5823 February10,1998 Ms. Anna Rugo 1018 Durrett Ridge Road Earlysville, VA 22936 Dear Ms. Rugo: Thank you very much for your letter concerning the paving of Durrett Ridge Road (Route 605). This road is currently in the County's Proposed Six Year Secondary Road Priority List. The Six Year Secondary Road Priority List is a list of the County's secondary road improvements. Secondary roads are roads with route numbers of 600 or above. Durrett Ridge Road is scheduled to be paved from approximately one mile fi'om the Greene County line to Greene County with an estimated completion date of June 2003. The County has received several letters in support of paving this road. The Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the Proposed Secondary Priority List on February 18, 1998 at 7:00 PM at the County Office Building in Room 241. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Again, thank you for your concern. Sincerely, Juandiego R. Wade Senior Transportation Planner cc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 13 FEB '98 19:59 FROM ML INTL P.0~/02 13 Febmz~ 1998 TO 900180497~5 County of Albemarle Department of Planning and l~evelopment 401 Me,tire Road Charlottesville, VA' 22902-4596 Atto: Ivlt. David Banish, Chief of Community Development Dear Mr. Benlsh: I am writing to voice my opposition to the potential paving of a portion of Catte~ou Road ia Free Union and to any attempts to hzve the six year plan amended m include the remainder of Cattestou Road. I understand that the six year plan for secondary road pavement includes the portion of Catterton Road from whore the untrrent paving ends at "Mar|ah" west to Rt. 776, I also understand that the plan contemplates commencing work on C, atterlun Road around the year 2002. It has come to my att~ntiou that efforts ara being made to amend that plan xo include the remainder of Catierton Road, west io Rt. §01. Reeendy, I have learaefl that a pafition may have bo:n put together tO submit to the planning board in favour of paving, I was not made aware of this and I am certain that if necessary we oould come up with as many names as ae~ssary to counter it, As a home owner on Catterton Road (between Rt. 776 and Rt. 601) wlth'maSonably substantial road t~'ontage and a house that is vet close to the road, I feel that paving the road would very negatively impa~ my l~oporty a~d the increasingly rare bucolic country road environment, There are numerous reasons why I believe the paving should not go ahead, la the following paragraphs I detail two of them. First, it seems to me an inapproprla~e use of scarce funds by both VDOT and Albemarle Coumy. Thee funds could be applied to other needed projects where they would be much more appreeiamd. I know ~rom surveyir~$ my neigkbours that there is substantial opposition to both the current six year plan and to any amendliaents that might include further paving. Why force thc issue when it is does not get overwhelming support? This is after all not n6eess'ary. It also appea~ that the prima.'3' support for the paving comes from a relatively small ~oup of people who seem to have a greate~ interest in their capital return than may resulting environmental problems. Second. a paved road will bring with it mote traffic travelling at faste~ speeds and Causing further pollution and accidents. Currently commuters avoid it in favour of the easier paved roads. Mom of the truffle coming South oR 601 would us6 it to cut across to Earlysville, completely changing the lOCal feel. There are also numerous blind spots which at speeds normally travclle~l on parcel roads ~ould easily ~ause serious traffic accidents and difficulty foi walkcr~. Please would you review these issues and take measures to stop any plans for tlde paving of Catterton Road. Would you also look into Mr. Finley's role in this issue. I feet that ha has a serious conflict of lot!rest and I and others are very uocomfermbio with his cfforts to date. He is both a member of a'committee advising the planning board and a property owner On Catt~rton Road pushing hard for its paving for his own financial gain and the resolution of ah awlo~ard land sale. He seems to be serving himself more than the community in that capacity and may have already given Substantiil. partial mad iuappropriate advise on this matter, As he was appointed by Mr. Perkins. Planning Board Supervisor, I am even m6re Cone, creed about the impact of his necessarily partial advice. Thanks you for your attention to this manor. $in,erei, y, ~'// Tiofothy A. ~ould ~45 CatteRon Road F~ Union, VA 22940 FRO~ : HQ TUCKER DMM PHONE NO. : ?03 ~72 ~918 F~b. 18 1998 05:53P~ Pi David R Bo~errnan Chado~e Y. Humphfis Forn~t R. Mamh~. Jr. COUNTY OF Al F~EMff~I E Office of Board of Sut~r~isors 401 Mdn~m Road (~) Z9~5~ F~ (~) 296-5~ February 12. 1998 Charles $. Martin Walter E Perkim Sally H. Thom~ Wildon Grove Baptist Church C/o Shirley Chapman PO Box 448 Kaswick, VA 22947 Dear Ms. Chapman: Thank you for your recent petition concerning the paving of Routes 645 and 646. Your petition has been forwardedto the members of the Board of Supervisors and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Route 645 is currently in the County's proposed Six Year Secondary Road Priority List; however there are thirteen projects in VDOT's current construction plan ahead of this road. Those thirteen projects take construction out to the year 2006. based on available funds. Route 646 is not listed in the Cmmty's priority list. It is the County's understandingthat right-of-way is unavailable to permit the widening of Route 645. Based on County policy, the necessary right-of-waywould need to be donated by adjacent property owners before the project could be pursued. For your information,the Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the proposed Secondary Priority List on February 18, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium of the County Office Building. Some of the residents who travel that road, or you. may wish to a~and this public hearing to express your concerns. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC / /ewo cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg David Benish Angela Tucker PHnted on recycled paper Albemarle County Board Of Sapervism % Ms. Ella Carey- Clerk 40t Mc Inhre Rd. Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Wildon Grove Baptist Church % Shirley Chapman P.O. Box 448 Keswick, VA. 22947 Dear Ms. Carey. lifts is the petition that we d/scuss on the phone on February 5, 1998 about '10:06 A. M. and you msm~ct me to send it to you for consideration by the ~mrd members. Please inform us what we need to do. ~j~cere~y, ~ PETITION We the undersigned petitioners makes this request to the Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors to put on their priority of road repair route 645, in the Eastern part of Albemarle to continue the paving of the unfinished section of this road. We also request that route 646 should be included for paving. The reason for this request is that these roads has become routes that.are be'rug used more frequently and are'not safe for the volume of traffic. The travelers and worshipers of the Wildon Grove Church needs the safety as taxpayers and citizens. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. PETITION We the undersigned petitioners makes this request to the Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors to put on their priority of r~l~~ repair route 645, in the Eastern part of Albe~le ~ continue the paving of the unfinished sestion ~this road. We also request that route 646 ggguld be included for paving. The reason for thig r. equest is that these roads has become routes that are being used more frequently and are not safe for the volume of traffic. The travelers and worshipers of the Wildon Grove Church needs the safety as taxpayers and citizens. Lee Waibel 1082 Blackburn Bluff Charlottesville, VA 22901 February 14, 1998 Virginia Department of Transportation 701VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Attn: Angela G. Tucker Resident Engineer BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~2-'1 ~-9 ~,~ - :55 Sub: RIGHT OF WAY DEEDS AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR CATTERTON ROAD FROM 776 To 601 You will find enclosed for your recordation, four (4) each executed Right of Way Deeds (Forms RW-72 for Tax Map 47, Parcels: 25C, 25B2, 25B1, 25E, 22B and 35L) from landowners along that portion of Catterton Road as referenced above. With the submittal of these documents you will note that the VDOT has been deeded a 50 foot wide Right of Way along the entire referenced portion of Catterton Road. There is no longer any Right of Way "bottleneck" along this section. You will also find that most of the critical Temporary Construction Easements have been obtained. Of particular note, the two landowners most affected by the realignment of the hairpin curve have deeded the necessary right of way as well as the easements. For those areas where the Temporary Construction Easements may not be available, due to reluctance or unresponsiveness on the part of the landowner, it may be possible to move the road away from these areas. I have talked to many of the land owners who would be affected by such action and their response is favorable. Additional survey work will be required To determine the exact change to the affected landowners with the intent to minimize the impact. It is possible that actual field conditions may reveal creative ways to reduce the current anticipated easements. But that issue can be addressed just prior to the performance of the work. Please review the enclosed forms for completeness and advise me at your earliest convenience at 975-2244 if any additional information is needed. Thank you for your help in this matter. Respectfully yours, Lee Waib~l Encl: 4 EA: R/W-72 Forms w/notarization for 6 parcels cc: Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Chmn, Albemarle Board of Supervisors (w/o encl) Walter Perkins, Board of Supervisors (w/o encl) David Benish, Chief of Community DevelOpment (w/o encl) Lee Waibel ~082 Blackburn Bluff Charlottesville, VA 22901 February 14, 1998 Albemarle Oounty Board of Supervisors 40! McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: M~. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chai~nnan, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Sub: ROAD IMPROVt~ENTS TO C~±'i'E~'I~DN ROAD FROM 776 TO 601 On behalf of many landowners on Catterton Road and other concerned citizens of Albemarle County, I am submitting the enclosed petition (six pages of originals) for your consideration. As the petition states ~e are requesting that t_he entire unimproved portion of Catterton Road be included on the Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads. To explain how the enclosed petition relates to the overall length of Catterten Road let me, the purpose of discusien, break the road into three sections of work. Section I is that portion of Catterton Road which is paved from the intersection of 665 to its current terminus point. Section I was improved and paved in the 1970's. Section II is that portion of Catterton Road from the current terminus point and continuing to the intersection of 776. Section II is planned for inR0rovement and currently c~ the Six Year Plan for Second~-Road~. Section III is that portion of Catterton Road from~ the intersection of 776 ~the planned termination point of Section II improvements) and continues to the' intersection~ of 601. It is SectiOn III that is the subject of this letter and tbe enclosed petition. There are many reasons for the petitioners request for the improvement of Section III of Catterton Road and making it part of the current Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads: 1) Safety - ~ its current condition the unimproved portion of Section III is uoo narrow in man5~,~ places to allow traffic to pass one another safely and presents a hazard to the traveling public. Additionally, Section III contains a hair-pin curve situated in a ravine that is~ dangerous to the safe passage of school buses, farm equipment, ~delivery trucks (all related to the daily activities of the landowners) as well ~s general traffic; particularly during inclea~nt winterI conditions. 2) Commerce All counuy roads are constructed with commerce in m~nd. Farming, business and com~ter traffic as well as everyday personal business of the traveling public make up the cc~merce of our community. The current condition of Section III does not adequately promote cow~erce in this area of the County. Every homeowner on Catterton Road should be afforded the benefits of an improved road to carry out their personal business. 3) Maintenance - Maintaining a gravel road throughout the year is an expensive as well as a t~l'and resottrce consn~ning way of providing a 'riding ~ surface to the traveling public. ~rading, dust control, washout and pothole repairs are eliminated with paved surfaces that provide the benefit of spacing the maintenance intervals out to several years. Additionally, the landowners are not satisfied with the We, the undersigned, petition the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to improve Catterton Road (667) frcm the intersection of Catterton Road and 776 a~ proceeding northwestwazd to the intersection of Catterton Road and 601. ~he improvements would incln~ widening, paving and any other work as required by VDC~ to meet their current road staod~rds for such work. Additionally, we request that this ~rk beccme a of and performed at the same time as planned improvements for Catt~rton Road (from the intersection of Catterton Road end 776 end proceding southeastward to the current tenminus of the paved portion of Catterton Ruad) as currently listed ou the County Six Year Plan for Secc~ry Po aSq LANEOWNER ON CA', 'l'~T(lq ROAD Yes or No) NO.OF YEARS LANDOWNER 0N C~r ,-~a~fON ROAD? We, the undersigned, petition the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to improve Catterton Road (667) frcm the intersection of Catterton Road and 776 and proceeding northwestward to the intersection of Catterton Road and 601. The improvements would include widening, paving and any other work as required by VDCT to meet their current road standards for such work. Additionally, we request that this work become a part of and performed at the same time as planned ~mprovements for Catterten Road (from the intersection of Catterton Road and 776 and proceding southeastward to the current terminus of the paved portion of Catterton Road) as currently listed on the County Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads. LANDfTWNER CN NO .OF YEARS NAME ADDRESS CATI'~TflN ROAD ~ ON (Yes or No) CA'fi'~fON ROAD? We, the undersigned, petition the Albemarle county Board of Supervisors to improve Catterton Road (667) from the intersection of Catter~c~ Road and 776 and proceeding northwestward to the intersection of Catterton Road and 601. The improv~ents would include widening, paving and any other work as required by VDOT to m~et their curren~ road standards for such work. Additionally, we request that this work become a part of and performed at the same time as planned ~mprovements for Cattertcn Road (from the intersec%ion of Catterton t%~ad and 776 and proceding southeastward to the current nerminus of the paved portion of Catterton Road) as currently listed on the County Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads. LANDOWNER ON NO.OF YEARS NAME ADDRESS QA'I'I'~'ICN ROAD LANDOWNER ON (Yes or No) Q~'±'I'~ION ROAD? ' We, the undersigned, petition the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to improve Catterton Road (667) frc~ the intersection of Catterton Road and 776 and proceeding northwestward to the intersection of Catterton Road and 601. The improvements would include widening, paving and any other work as required by VDCrf to meet their current road standards for such work. Additionally, we request that this work beceme a part of and performed at the same time as planned improvements for Cattertce Road (from the intersection of Catterton Road and 776 and proceding southeastward to the current terminus of the paved portion of Catterton Road) as currently listed on the County Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads. LANDOWNER CN C2~'±'I'k~<TON ROAD (Yes or No) NO.OF YEARS LANDCWNER ON C~'±'±'klKTON ROAD? We, the undersigned, ~etition the Albemarle County B~rd of Sup~_rvisors to zmprove Catterton Road (667) frcm the intersection of Catterton Road and 776 and proceeding northwestward to the intersection of Catterton Road and 601. 5he mmprovements would include widening, paving and any other work as required by VDOT to meet their current road standards for such work. Additionally, we request that this work becc~e a par~ of and performed at the same time as planned improvements for Catterton Road (from the intersection oi Catterton Road and 776 end proceding southeastward to the current terminus of the paved portion of Catte~ton Road) as currently listed on the County Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads. NAME ADDRESS LANDOWNER GN CA'£'I'E~TGN ROAD (Yes or No) NO.OF YEARS ~'±'±'~R~i~ ROAD? We, the undersigned, petition the Albermmrle County Board of Supervisors to improve Cattertca Road (667) frcm the intersection of Cattertc~ Road and 776 and proceeding northwestwa~fl to the intersection of Catterton Road and 601. ~he zmprovaments ~ould include widening, paving and any other work as required by VDOT to meet their current road standards for such work. Additionally, we request that this work become a part of and performed at the same time as planned improvements for Catterton Road (from the ~ntersection oi Catterton Road and 776 and proceding southeastward to the current terminus of the paved portion of Cattertcm Road) as currently listed c~ the County SLx Year Plan for Seccadary Roads. NAME ADDRESS LANDOWNER CN CA'±'I'~TON ROAD (Yes or No) NO. OF YEARS LANDOWNER ON C~'±'Eh~TON ROAD? McCammWooDs BaT-n. &Bo Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-1288 Telephoae/TDD (804) 977-2500 · Fax (804 980-2222 Steven W. Blaine 804/977-2588 March 4, 1998 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ZMA-97-12: Fried Companies. Inc. Dear Ms. Carey: I received Wayne Cilimberg's letter to me of March 2 on to the Gray Rock rezoning. At Wayne's suggestion, this is to request a copy of the draft minutes from the Board's Meeting of February 18. If the minutes are not immediately available, please provide a copy of the tape of the meeting. Please advise if there will be any costs of making a copy. Very truly yours, Steven W. Blaine SWB:ctg cc: Mrs. Barbara J. Fried STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Ron Keeler February 3, 1998 February 18, 1998 ZMA- 97- 12 FRIED COMPANIES, INC. (GRAYROCK) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone 53 acres to allow construction of 131 single family detached dwellings. The development would be served by public roads with access to Rte. 691 (Jarmans Gap Road) and would contain areas of open space around two existing ponds as well as preservation areas and other measures to buffer the development from adjoining lands and from the public road. This petition is accompanied by several proffers addressing developmental issues (Attachment C: Applicant's proffers and Conceptual Plan). The following is a paraphrased summary of the proffers: I. DENSITY: would limit development to a maximum of 131 single-family detached dwellings. II._ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS: provides for: --- dedication of 30 feet from centerline and temporary construction easements along Rte. 691 to accommodate Six Year Road Plan improvement; --- cash contribution of $500® per platted lot for Rte. 691 improvement (maximum of $ 65,50000); -~- construction of 100 foot taper/100 foot:right mm lane into site from Rte. 691; --- restriction that all lots shall have access only to internal public roads; --- emergency access to Rte. 691 to be replaced by emergency access to Rte. 684; --- roadway connection to undeveloped Wayland's Grant property to the east including dedication and construction. III. RECREATIONAL AND BUFFER AREAS: provides for: --- establishment of open space areas around ponds to be shared with townhouse area including management of ponds and establishment of passive recreation/ picnic areas; --- a 50 foot wide preservation area on lots along western boundary adjacent to Jarman Gap Estates; --- maintenance/replacement of a row of apple trees as well as construction/maintenance of a split rail or 3-board fence along Rte. 691; --- installation of all utilities underground. IV OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS: would establish design standards, fixed standards and guidelines governing development within the property as well as responsibilities for maintenance of landscaping, open space and common areas. These provisions would not be enforced by the County. REZONING APPLICATION AND ILLUSTRATIONS: establishes the extent to which the Conceptual Plan is binding as a proffer and the circumstances under which the plan may change. Petition: Request to rezone approximately 53 acres from PPG), Planned Residential Development, to R-4 Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcels 65 and 65 A (portion), islocated on the north side of Route 691 (Jarmans Gap Road) approximately 1.3 miles west of Rte. 240 in Crozet in the White Hall Magisterial District. The property is recommended for Urban Density Residential 6.01 - 34.0 dwelling units per acre) in the Community of Crozet in the Comprehensive Plan. Character of the Area: Jarman Gap Estates (PRD; 0.72 dus/acre) is to the west. Orchard Acres subdivision (R-2 Residential; 2 dus/acre) is to the northeast. On the east, the Wayland's Grant developmem was approved for subdivision, but the plat has expired (R-6 Residential; 2.6 dus/acre). Properties across Rte. 691 are R-1 Residential and are considered undeveloped or underdeveloped to the zoning density. This site has about 1700 feet of frontage along Rte. 691. Two lakes have been constructed on a branch of Powell Creek which runs through the property in an west-east fashion and separates the 53 acres requested for rezoning from the 21 acres of the property which was previously approved for 70 townhouse units. Much of this site is in orchard use and open meadow with wooded areas on the perimeter. Except for areas around the lakes, slopes are flat to moderate with slopes of less than seven (7%1) percent predominating. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this petition for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive including guidelines of the Crozet Community Study and the Open Space Plan. Staff recommends approval and acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Planning and Zoning History_: In November, 1978, 17.5 acres of the property were zoned from A-1 Agriculture to RS-1 Residential Suburban (ZMA-78-18 Walter H. Withers, Jr.). Following rezoning, Foothill Village preliminary plat (14 lots) was approved but final plat was not pursued. In July, 1979, the entire 74 acre tract (including the RS-1 area) was rezoned to RPN/RS-1 for development of 47 lots. In 1985, the County reviewed ZMA-84-29 Grayrock which proposed 294 townhouse units to be developed under a planned development approach. The orchard area south of the lakes was being replanted and staff commented thal "the applicant intends to permit the orchard to mature before development of that area, (if at all), therefore, staff would anticipate about 70 units by 1990." Later in the report, staff stated that "initial development would involve [the northern are] served by Rte. 684. Timing of development beyond these phases would depend on the commercial success of the replanted apple orchard? Given this background as well as developmental concerns addressed in the following section of the staff report, the area north of the lakes was approved for 70 townhouse units, while the area subject to the current rezohing remained under prior plan allowing 37 single-family detached dwellings. Changes since Prior Rezoning: This section of the staff report will explore changes which have occurred since review of ZMA- 84- 29 in 1985. Among other things, concerns were expressed during prior rezoning review about the following: --- the size of the development, particularly in an untested market for townhouses: This portion of the site was previously requested for 224 dwellings while the current request is for 131 dwellings. Unit type has been changed from townhouse to single-family detached dwellings. --- the lack of adequate fire flow: At time of prior rezoning, water service to the area was from a 6-inch line. Recently, the Albemarle County Service Authority completed an improvement project which upgrades service to this area and properties between this site and Brownsville Elementary ~ It is not staff's intent to suggest that these comments were pivotal to the f'mal zoning decision. These considerations did provide framework for the applicant to revise the proposal which was subsequently approved. School. Currently a 12~inch water line is located on-site adjacem to Rte. 691. Available fire flow is 1,100 gpm which will allow for 10 foot side yards under zoning regulations. ~-- the lack ofpublic sewer: The prior staffreport observed that planning for the Crozet sewer collection system was in preliminary stages with completion of construction projected in mid- 1986. Since that time, the sewer imerceptor/collection system to serve the Crozet area has been constructed and public sewer service is available to this property. --- the condition of Rte. 691: Rte. 691 was listed as a non-tolerable road and there were no plans for improvements. Staff noted that in "the Urban Area of the County, future transportation needs have been identified through extensive study (CATS and MPO)" while study for the Crozet area had not been as extensive. Rte. 691 is now in the State Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads and scheduled for completion in 2002. More discussion of Rte. 691 is provided later in this report. This section has dealt primarily with infrastructure improvements which have been made or are scheduled which were directly related to the discussion of the Grayrock proposal in 1985. Other public facility/utility projects which have been completed or are funded include a public library, new fire house, new Crozet Elementary School, improvements to Henley Middle School and Western Albemarle High School, improvements to Claudius Crozet Park, improvements to the Beaver Creek water treatment plant and construction of the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin. Comprehensive Plan Issues related to the policies, principles, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan are presented in three parts: 1) Density recommendations for the site over the several Comprehensive plan revisions. 2) Specific analysis of the proposed rezoning by the applicant (Attachment D) and the staff (Attachment E) for consistency with the current Comprehensive Plan regarding: --- General Principles for Land Use in Designated Development areas; --- General Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas; --- Specific Standards: Residential Land Use; and --- Land Use Designations: Residential Land Use. 3) Recommendations of the 1995 Crozet Community Study Density_: At time of review of this property under prior zoning petition in 1985, the Comprehensive Plan recommended a tow density designation from 1-4 dwellings per acre. The subsequent 1989 Comprehensive Plan recommended a medium density range from 4.01-10 dwellings per acre. The 1995 Crozet Community Study recommended deletion of the vast majority of undeveloped medium density residential designation in Crozet including this site and replacement with Iow density residential. The 1996 Land Use Plan recommends this property for Urban Density with a density range from 6.01-34 dwelling units per acre. Based on objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed rezoning represents too low a density (See Attachment E10-E11 ). However, "infill' development strategies and~standards remain under development and therefore, strict adherence to "minimum" density proposals of the Comprehensive Plan may not be appropriate at this time. At a proposed density of 2.5 dwellings per acre, the rezoning is consistent with density recommendations of the Crozet Community Study. It is also similar in density to the new/ proposed developments of Highlands at the Mechums, Western Ridge, Cory Farms and the adjoining Wayland's Grant property. The applicant has stated that the density is market responsive. Situated between Jarman Gap Estates, Orchard Acres and Waytand's Grant, the requested density is viewed as consistent with surrounding development. Principals and Standards of the Comprehensive Plan account for more than 30 considerations which have been addressed on an individual basis by the applicant (Attachment D) and staff (Attachment E). To summarize staff analysis, staff finds the proposal to be substantially consistent with vast majority of these principals and standards. Crozet Community_ Study; In the summary portion of the report for ZMA-84-29 staff stated that "A task force of Crozet citizens was involved in development of the 1980 Land Use Plan for Crozet (Revised January, 1984). Review of[the Grayrock] rezuning has amplified the need for additional planning for the Crozet Community. In the upcoming Comprehensive Plan review, emphasis should be placed on refinement of other plans necessary to implement the Land Use Plan .... " The Crozet Community Study was prepared by a Board-appointed 13 member committee and has been incorporated into the June, 1996 Land Use Plan as a guideline for review. Staff has auempted to identify matters relative to this rezoning. 1. Schools (p. 12) There are currentlyfour schools serving the needs of the Crozet Area Brownsville Elementary and Henley Middle School are within the Growth Area, and Crozet Elementary and Western Albemarle High School are adjacent to the Growth Area boundaries. Increasing residentiat pressures in the Crozet Growth Area are a cause of concern. Close attention must be given to the growing population in order to plan effectively for new schooi services that will more than likely be needed in the near future. Once Highlands at Mechums River, Crozet Crossing and White Oak,~' are completed an additional 183 (K-5), 67 (6-8) and39 (9-12; school aged children may reside in the Crozet Community. Comment: The applicant has provided the following comment (Attachment D p.2, #8): The public school system will be able to accommodate students attributable to the proposed project. Using the County's Fiscal Impact methodology, school enrollment may be increased by up to 23 elementary, 11 middle school, and 13 high school students, (based upon an increase of 100 residential units over the existing zoning). A portion of the Crozet Elementary School district has been redistricted into the Merriwether- Lewis and Murray districts effective in Fall, 1998. This allows additonal growth capacity within the Crozet district. Opening of Monticello High School will likewsie reduce enrollment m Western Albemarle. Classroom additions at Henley have increased middlie school capacity. All schools can accommodate additional enrollments from this development. 2. Roads(p. IS),Sidewalks (p. 51) and bikeways: In addition to future improvements to Three Noteh'd Road and Crozet Avenue, a number of road improvements for the Crozet Area are recommended in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Some of these projects are scheduled for funding in VDOT's Secondary Road Plan. These include (see Map L): darman's Gap Road (Route 69I), from Route 684 to Route 240, will be the site of major reconstruction. Hazardous curves will be reshaped in order to provide safer sight distances. This project is in VDOT's Six Year Secondary Plan and is expected to receive funding. Construction on this project is scheduled to begin in 2000. Police reports indicate that their have been 24 automobile accidents within the past 5 years at this road's intersection with Crozet Avenue, including 6personal injury accidents. Construct a sidewalk on the north side of ,larmans Gap Road from Route 684 to Blue Ridge Avenue. This will provide residents living along,larmans Gap Road in darmans Gap Estates and Orchard Acres safe and direct access into the downtown. Construct a separated bicycle facility such as a bike lane or bicycle path along Jarmans Gap Road in conjunction with the planned road upgrade. Comment: The applicant has submitted a traffic study which has been reviewed by VDOT (Attachment F). Basically, existing traffic volumes warrant an increase in pavement width from the approximate 18 foot existing width to a 20 foot width. The addition of traffic from the proposed development would not increase the 20 foot width requirement. VDOT has stated that the actual improvement will likely be to a width of 22-24 feet to accommodate futura traffic ~ncrease. Again, the applicant is proffering dedication of 30 feet from the center line as well as a cash contribution of $500® per lot for road improvements. 3. Land Use Designations (p. 40) Objectives Vacant land is to be developed in a manner consistent with the overlaying Comprehensive Plan land use designation. New development should only occur when adequate infrastructure is planned for and can be provided Those areas with a zoning designation inconsistent with the overlaying Comprehensive Plan land use designation should be encouraged to rezone and develop the property in a manner consistent with the land use designation. Comment: The issue of Comprehensive Plan recommended density compared to the requested density has previously been discussed. Infrastructure improvements have been made or are scheduled which would support this developmem. (NOTE: The Crozet Community Study recommended that density for this property be reduced to a low density designation. The requested density is consistent with that recommendation). Residential Development Goal Statement Develop Residential Neighborhoods that preserve the rural environment, provide a variety of housing types andprice ranges, are developed at a human scale, andprovide internalized amenities. Objectives Employ innovative housing design and site planning techniques in housing development that minimizes the amount of impervious surfaces. * Provide open space andprotect natural features. Provide neighborhood activity centers within convenient walking distance to new housing. 7 Comment: In subdivision design, impervious coverage is generally represented by homes, driveways and roads. R-4 building setback is a minimum of 25 feet, which allows a minimum length driveway for off-street parking. Generally, residential developers seek to reduce roadway length/cross-section and associated costs. Open space ts provided around the ponds and proffers include mechanism for pond maintenance. The Open Space Plan does not identify any "Significant Areas" on this property. Walking distance to the downtown area is over a mile. Other pedestrian attractors such as schools are remote from this site. Development Impact to Public Facilities At the request of the Board of Supervisors, the planning staff reviews rezoning requests for their fiscal impact on public and transportation facilities. This analysis is limited to those rezonings that have some affect on facilities that are identified in our CIP or Six Year Road Plans and have a cost associated with them. The analysis will be based on a fair share determination of a particular development's impact to affected facilities. It must be pointed out that this analysis is cursory, due to lack of information on revenues and the amount attributable to this development. The costs outlined by staff only indicate the proportionate share ofconstrnction cost for the additional development generated by the rezoning over by-right development. Facility Improvement and Impacts: The following are those facilities which will be affected by the rezoning request: A. Transportation - Rte. 691 (Jarmans Gap Road) is scheduled for improvement in the Six Year Seconadry Road Plan for 2002. Traffic generated by increased density for the rezoning was distributed in accord with the applicant's traffic study and compared to 1994 VDOT counts together with a 2% average increase and applied to the segment of roadway between Orchard Acres and Route 240, since existing volumes on that segment warrant improvement. B. Schools - Schools affected by this proposal are Crozet Elementary, Henley Middle and Western Albemarle High schools with student increases of 23, 22, and 13 respectively. C. Parks and Recreation - Claudius Crozet Park is considered a County scale park and therefore, though situated convenient to this site, would provide a more regional service. D. Libraries - The Library Computer Upgrade would integrate all branches including Crozet. Library Maintenance/Replacement Projects also include expenditures in Crozet. 8 · Library Computer Upgrade - $300,000 · Library Maintenance/Replacement Projects - $118,500 Summa~_ of fiscal impacts: Prolects Total Cost Proposed Share Cost/DU Rte. 691 $1,825,000® $ 426, 685® $ 4, 539® Improvement Claudius Crozet $ 544,000® $1,801® $14® Park I Library Computer $ 418,50000 $ 5,336® $ 41® Upgrade & Maintenance/ Replacement Projects Crozet Elementary $ 65,000® $ 3,640® $ 28® Henley Middle $ 670, 00000 $ 8, 250® $ 63® Western Albemarle High $1,244, 70000 $13, 692® $105® Total $ 4, 767, 200oo $ 459, 404oo $ 4, 78900 Because of the very general nature of this analysis, staff is not recommending any action based on these estimates. They are presented for the Commission and Board's information concerning the fair share determination ora particular development's impact on facilities based on the cost of the proposed improvements and without regard to revenue sources and proportionate share of revenues generated by the development. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this petition: 1. Significant.improvements supportive of development have occurred sinee prior rezoning review. 2. Proposed density is consistent with the recommendations of the Crozet Community Study and viewed as compatible to surrounding developmem. The proposal substantially complies with the following Comprehensive Plan provisions: --~ General Principles for Land Use in Designated Development Areas; --- General Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas; -- Specific Standards; Residential Land Use. 4. The proposal satisfies concerns of the Crozet Community study that supporting infrasmmture be in place or planned before development approval. 5. Traffic generated from the development would not create need for a more extensive road improvement than currently exists. Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this petition: 1. The proposed density is too low under the guidelines setforth by Land Use Designations: Residential Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan for areas designated as Urban Density, 2. Some developmental issues remain unresloved, however, these matters are subject to the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. From experience, staff prefers that areas of sensitivity/restriction (i.e.-buffering) be incorporated into open space subject to regulation by one entity (i.e.- homeowners association as open space) as opposed to being incorporated into several ownerships (i.e.- lots), 4. While planned improvements exist for Rte. 691, additional traffic would further aggravate roadway conditions until improvements are made. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is reluctant m support a request which can be viewed as contrary m the Comprehensive Plan (i.e.-minimum density of 6 dwellings per acre), however, in~plementation measures of higher densities remain under study. Based on density and character of surrounding development as well as demonstrated market demand, the proposed density of 2.5 dwellings per acre is recommended for approval. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-97-12 and acceptance of the applicant's proffers. I0 ATTACHMENTS A- Location Map B- Tax Map C- Applicant's Proffers & Conceptual Plan D- Applicant's anatysis of various Comprehensive Plan provisions E- Staff analysis of various Comprehensive Plan provisons F- VDOT correspondence 11 :J ZMA 97-12 Fried (Grayrock) o BOAZ MOUNTAIN % \ \ % TOP ROCK ALBEMARLE GOUN1 , i ATTACHMENT B i ZMA 97-12 Fried (Grayrock) r 8O SAMUEL MILLER AND SECTION 55 WHITE HALL DISTRIOTS 1VIcGUIREWOODS BATT) .~ &Bo~ ~ Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1288 Telephone/H)l)(804)977-2500 . ~:'axi804)9804222 I ATTACHHENT C'I Stereo W. Blaine Writer's Direct Dial 804/977-2588 January 28, 1998 Mr. Ron Keeler Albemarle County Planning Commission Office 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 BY HAND Fried Companies. Inc.: Gray Rock Re~,oning Dear Rom Enclosed please find the revised proffers for the Gray Rock rezoning. Also enclosed is a black-lined version reflecting changes from the January 20 draft sent to you previously. The proffer plan is attached. Please let me know if you need additional copies of the plan to accomany your staff report. I also have enclosed a corrected outline of the General Principles and Residential Guidelines from the Comprehensive Plan. I appreciated your comments on the earlier draft. / ~teyen w. t~talne SWB:ctg cc: Ms. Barbara J. Fried Larry W. Davis, Jr., Esq. (w/encl.) Mr. Tom Muncaster ALEXANDRIA - BALTIMORE · BRHSSELS · CRAHLOT1ESVII,LE - JACHSONVILL£ - NORFOLK · RICHMOND · TYSONS CORNER · WASHINGTON, DC ' ZURICH A TTI.~VPD Page PROFFER STATEMENT FRIED COMPANIES. INC. REZONING APPLICATION: #ZMA-97-12 Final: February 12, 1998 FRIED COMPANIES. INC. (the "Applicant") is the contract purchaser, and ROBERT S. SAVAGE and ANN S. SAVAGE are the fee simple owners of that certain property described in rezoning application #ZMA-97-12 as a portion of Tax Map Reference 55, Parcels 65 and 65A. The property subject to the rezoning application is only the 53.02 acres of the total 74 acres contained in Tax Map Parcels 5.% 65 and 65A, and at the time of the filing of the application was zoned PRD under ZMA-84-29, also referred to as Jarman Gap Estates II, PRD (the "Property"). The Applicant. Robert S., and Ann S. Savage hereby voluntarily proffer that if the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board") to the R-4 Residential District ("R-4"), development of the Property shall be in accordance with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). If Applicant's Rezoning Application is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. All of these proffers are offered voluntarily pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. The proffers herein shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to apply lesser standards than those contained in any: (i) state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards. or ~ ii) County ordinance or regulation, including the Ordinance. These proffers shall supersede all other proffers made prior hereto, including those proffers made by Applicant in ZMA-84-29. but only to the extent that such prior proffers affect the Property. I. DENSITY No more than 131 single family, detached dwellings will be constructed on the Property. II. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 Dedication. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision. Applicant shall dedicate along the entire southern boundary of the Property, an area of land for widening State Route 691 (Jarmans Gap Road) not to exceed 30' to the centerline of the existing pavement. Applicant shall grant easements for temporary construction of improvements to State Route 691, as needed 2.2 Road Improvements. Access shall be restricted to an internal public road network to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards in effect at the time of subdivision plat approval. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision. Applicant shall construct as a single improvement, a 100 foot right turn lane and 100 foot raper for westbound right turn movement into the Property on State Route 691. As a condition of plat approval for the section of the subdivision containing proposed Lot 122, and until such time as the property subject to ZMA-84-29 t"Townhouse Property") is developed, Applicant shall provide an emergency access easement to State Route 691 on Lot 122, in the area shown on the attached Conceptual Plan dated September 11, 1997, last revised February 9. 1998 prepared by Muncaster Engineering (the "Conceptual Plan"). At such time as the Townhouse Property is developed, Applicant. or the developer of the Townhouse Property, will provide a gated access (gravel drive) for emergency vehicles through the Townhouse Property to State Route 684. A TT I,~VPD Page 2 2.3 Disposition of Dedicated Properw. In the event any of the property dedicated pursuant to proffer 2.1 is not used for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken within twenty (20) years of receipt of the property by the County. then the property shall be conveyed as common open space to the Association cdefined in 4.5(a) below). 2.4 State Route 691 Contributions. The Applicant shall participate in the improvement of State Route 691 by paying to the County a sum calculated at the rate of $500.00 per residential building lot platted within the Property after the date of the rezoning in accordance with the ZMA 97-12 application. The $500.00 payment shall be made at the time of recordation of the record plat or plats, for each lot for the subdivision, or phases of the subdivision to be developed on the Property. In the event that the $500.00 contributions, after they are received by the County, are not used, within 20 years after recordation of a plat of the 131st lot, then the contributions may be used by the County for any other road improvements serving the Crozet area, deemed by the Board as at least in part being necessary by the proposed development on the Property. 2.5 Inter-Parcel Access. The Applicant shall reserve a 50 foot right-of-way for a furore street to provide inter-parcel access to the adjoining parcel to the east of the Property, known as the Bargamin tract (Tax Map 55, Parcels 66. and 66A). The location of the reserved area for inter-parcel connection shall be Lot 63. as shown on the Conceptual Plan. At such time as the Bargamin tract is developed with a connecting road to Lot 63, Applicant will construct and dedicate the street on Applicant's Property, and the remaining acreage within Lot 63 shall accrue to the adjoining lots. In the event that the area reserved for a street is not used for the purpose for which it is hereby proffered within seven (7) years from the date of approval of ZMA-97-12, then such reservation shall be released and the Applicant then may use Lot 63 for a building lot. III. RECREATIONAL AND BUFFER AREAS 3.1 Recreational. Areas: Walking/Jogging Trails. Applicant, or the Association. (defined in 4.5(a) below) shall manage the ponds, and shall establish and maintain recreational improvements and picnic areas in in the open space areas adjacent to the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. for use by homeowners within the Property. Except as specifically set forth herein, the recreational and picnic improvements to be constructed within the open space areas shall be constructed as a condition of the platting of each section of the subdivision that either contains such open space or. is located immediately adjacent to such recreational or picmc improvemem. Applicant shall construct a tot lot and basketball court in the areas indicated on the Conceptual Plan. The tot lot shall contain the equipment required by Section 4.16.2.1 of the Ordinance. The basketball court shall conform to the specifications of Section 4.16.2.2 of the Ordinance. Applicant shall establish a walking/jogging trail through the wooded area and along the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. The surface of the walking/jogging trail shall consist of wood chips, and tree clearing shall be kept re a minimum. Applicant shall construct a picnic shelter in the area shown on the Conceptual Plan. The open space, tot lot, basketball court, picnic shelter and walking trail located in the area of the ponds as shown on the attached Conceptual Plan shall also be for the mutual benefit of the residents in the development on the Townhouse Property. In order to provide access to the open space and recreation areas, Applicant shall install at least one (1) pedestrian access at a grade of not greater than 10%. 3.2 Buffer Area Easement. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall establish a 50' Buffer Area easement along the western boundary of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Plan. The 50' Buffer Area shall be maintained by the owners of the lots encumbered by the easement in a natural state, and shall not be disturbed other than to: i) construct fences or wails, approved A TT'LWPD Page 3 bymhe Association. ii) remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping trees for screening. The 50' Buffer Area easement shall mn to the benefit of the Association and shall be enforced by the Association. as provided by the Declaration. 3.3 Landscaping; Utilities. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision. Applicant, or the Association shall maintain and replace as necessary, outside the 30' area to be dedicated for improvements to Jarmans Gap Road, (State Route 691) tree screening along Jarmans Gap Road for the length of the subdivision ~except for the entrance area). Such screening shall consist of double staggered rows of evergreen trees planted fifteen { 15) feet on-center, in accordance with Section 32.7.9.8.4 of the Ordinance and shall be located within a permanent open space area 20' in width {measured from the edged of the State Route 691 dedication). The 20' open space area along State Route 691 shall be maintained by the Association. and may include stormwater management BMPs. Applicant also shall plant street trees along the internal road system, at 100 foot intervals. [on both sides of the roads) as sections of the subdivision are platted. Street trees shall be maintained and replaced as necessary, by the Applicant, or the Association and shall be from species approved by the County in accordance with applicable Ordinances. All utilities installed within the Property shall be underground. 3.4 Walking Trail; Greenwa¥ Corridor. Applicant shall install a walking trail along the internal loop road (and connecting to the interior road and cul de sacs, as shown on the Conceptual Plan). The surface of the internal walking trail shall consist of asphalt, and shall be maintained by the Association. The internal walking trail shall be a minimum of 4' in width and may be located within the area dedicated for internal streets. The internal walking trail shall be installed as each section of the subdivision containing that portion of the internal walking trail is platted. At such time as the Board of Supervisors approves of a plan for a greenway, or hiking/biking system connecting Jarmans Gap Estates. Gray Rock, Orchard Acres and downtown Crozet. Applicant shall dedicate the walking/jogging trail along the area of the ponds, described in 3.1 above for use within such a trail system or greenway. 3.5 Stormwater Management Plan. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision. Applicant shall develop a stormwater management plan which incorporates best management practices that. to the extent practicable with the lot and street layout, minimizes pollution to the tributary of Powell's Creek and to Lickinghole Creek. Such plan shall be approved by the Department of Engineering and may include utilizing the existing ponds in their present, natural state, retaining open space, and grass-lined swales along interior streets. This proffer is in addition to the required contribution for the regional stormwater retention under the Ordinance. IV OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 4. ] Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property, a Declaration of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration"]. The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and development of the Property in a unified and consistent manner. The Declaration shall set forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by homeowners within the Property. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County of Albemarle will have no rights, or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or Albemarle County regulatory or mmimum code standards, except as allowed by the regulations of the Ordinance. A TTI.t~PD Page 4 4.2 Design Standards. The Declaration shall impose design and architectural guidelines for each residential lot within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas (the "Design Guidelines" I will ensure high quality architectural and landscape design and a harmonious residential community. 4.3 Fixed Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be referenced in the Declaration: (i) Types of materials to be used in construction of dwellings; (ii) Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Property, lot/building ratios, height restrictions: and (iii) Types of materials to be used and standards for landscaping. 4.4 Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines also shall: (a) Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are implemented: (b) Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee. [The County of Albemarle will not participate on such Design Review Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); (c) Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project; and (d) Include requirements for builders to install water low flow showers and toilets as water conservation techniques. 4.5 Maintenance of Landscaping, Open Space and Common Areas. The Declaration shall provide a mechauism for establishing and maintaining landscaping, open space, (includ'mg open space, and landscaping required by these proffers) and common areas within the Property, including the following: (a) The Applicant shall organize a Home Owners Association (the "Association") as a non-stock organization under the laws of Virginia for the care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such association (the "Common Areas"). (b) The Association shall be bound by the Declaration's covenants, conditions and restrictions mun'mg with the land. The Applicant or such Association shall be responsible for the perpetuation, maintenance and function of all Common Areas. ATT1.V~PD Page 5 (c~ (~ (e) The Applicant or such Association shall provide a means for identifying Common Areas as to location, size. use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. The Declaration's method of identifying Common Areas shall not supersede any applicable requirements to identify common areas in a site development plan or subdivision plat. The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a period of not less than twenty-five (25) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years unless terminated in a manner set forth in the Declaration. The Association shall cont'mue in effect so as to control the availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Association shall not be dissolved nor shall such Association dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except m successor organizations conceived and organized under the same standards and principles set forth hereixt for the Association to own and ma'mtain the Common Areas. V. REZONING APPLICATION AND ILLUSTRATIONS 5.1 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant presented as part of its Rezoning Application, an initial conceptual plan. Except for the Conceptual Plan attached to these proffers, any plan submitted as part of Applicant's rezonmg application, or as part of the rezoning process shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plan shall not be deemed a proffer. 5.2 Conceptual Plan Exhibit. These proffers refer to the Conceptual Plan which is being used to illustrate certain proffers, and to show the general lot and internal street configuration. Subject to adjustments for final engineering and m comply with the requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards, the final layout and configuration of lots and road improvements shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan. VI. MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 Certificate. The undersigned, Robert S. Savage, and Ann S. Savage certify that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 6.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to the 'Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its mean'rog, and shall be bind'mg upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. FRIED COMPANIES, INC. By: ATT'I.I~VP'~) Pa~e 6 Title: ROBERTS. SAVAGE ANNS. SAVAGE A TT4. W~PD Page~ PROFFER STATEMENT FRIED COMPANIES. INC. REZONING APPLICATION: #ZMA-97-12 [Draft:] [Final:l February {10} [12|, 1998 FRIED COMPANIES, INC. (the "Applicant") is the contract purchaser, and ROBERT S. SAVAGE and ANN S. SAVAGE are the fee simple owners of that certain property described in rezoning application #ZMA-97-12 as a portion of Tax Map Reference 55. Parcels 65 and 65A. The property subject to the rezoning application is only the 53.02 acres of the total 74 acres contained in {tax} [Taxl Map Parcels 55- 65 and 65A, and at the time of the filing of the application was zoned PRD under ZMA-84-29. also referred to as Jarman Gap Estates II, PRD (the "Property"). The Applicant, Robert S.. and Ann S. Savage hereby Voluntarily proffer that if the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board"'~ to the R-4 Residential District CR-4"), development of the Property shall be in accordance with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the 1950 Code of Vkginia. as amended (the "Code"), and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance [the "Ordinance"). If Applicant's Rezoning Application is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. All of these proffers are offered voluntarily pursuant rd the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. The proffers herein shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to apply lesser standards than those contained in any: (i) state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards. or (ii) County ordinance or regulation, including the Ordinance. These proffers shall supersede all other proffers made prior hereto, including those proffers made by Applicant in ZMA-84-29. but only to the extent that such prior proffers affect the Property. I. DENSITY No more than 131 single fhmily, detached dwellings will be constructed on the Property. II. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 Dedication. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision. Applicant shall dedicate along the entire southern boundary of the Property, an area of land for widening State Route 691 (Jarmans Gap Road) not to exceed 30' to the centerline of the existing pavement. Applicant shall grant easements for temporary construction of hnprovements rd State Route 691. as needed. 2.2 Road Improvemems. Access shah be restricted to an internal public road network to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Deparmaem of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards in effect at the time of subdivision plat appr, oval. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision. Applicant shall construct as a single improvement, a 100 foot right turn lane and 100 foot taper for westbound right turn movement into the Property on State Route 691. As a condition of plat approval for the section of the subdivision containing proposed Lot 122. and until such time as the property subject to ZMA-84-29 ("Townhouse Property") is developed, Applicant shall provide an emergency access easement to State Route 691 on Lot 122, in the area shown on the attached Conceptual Plan dated September 11, 1997, last revised February. 9. 1998 prepared by Muncaster Engineering (the "Conceptual Plan'q. At such time as the Townhouse Property is developed, Applicant. or the developer of the Towrthouse Property, will provide a gated access (gravel drive) for emergency vehicles through the Towuhouse Property to State Route 684. A TT4, V~PD Page 2 2.3 Disposition of Dedicated Property. Irt the event any of the property dedicated pursuant m proffer 2.1 is not used for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken within twenty (20) years of receipt of the property by the County. then the property shall be {ded/eatedCr ]conveyed] as common open space to the Association ~ defined in 4.5~a) below). 2.4 State Route 691 Contributions. The Applicant shall participate in the improvement of State Route 691 by paying m the County a stun calculated at the rate of 5500.00 per residential building lot platted within the Property after the date of the rezoning in accordance with the ZMA 97-12 application. The $500.00 payment shall be made at the time of recordation of the record plat or plats, for each lot for the subdivision, or phases of the subdivision to be developed on the Property. In the event that the 5500.00 contributions, after they are received by the Cotmty, are not used, within 20 years after recordation of a plat of the 131st lot, then the contributions may be used by the County for any other road improvements serving the Crozet area, deemed by the Board as at least in part being necessary by the proposed development on the Property. 2.5 Inter-Parcel Access. The Applicant shall reserve a 50 foot right-of-way for a future street to provide inter-parcel access to the adjoining parcel to the east of the Property, known as the Bargamin tract (Tax Map 55. Parcels 66, and 66A). The location of the reserved area for inter-parcel connection shall be Lot 63. as shown on the Conceptual Plan. At such time as the Bargamin tract is developed with a connecting road to Lot 63. Applicant will construct and dedicate the street on Applicant's Property, and the remaining acreage within Lot 63 shall accrue to the adjoining lots. In the event that the area reserved for a street is not used for the purpose for which it is hereby proffered within seven (7) years from the date of approval of ZMA-97-12. then such reservation shall be released and the Applicant then may use Lot 63 for a building lot. III. RECREATIONAL AND BUFFER AREAS 3.1 Recreational Areas; Walking/Jogging Trails. Applicant, or the Association, (defined in 4.5[a~ below/shall manage the ponds, and shall establish and maintain recreational improvements and picmc areas in in the open space areas adjacent to the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, for use by homeowners within the Property, Except as specifically set forth herein, the recreational and picnic improvements to be constructed within the open space areas shall be -[esmbt4shed-a~[constructed as a condition of the platting ~ each section of the subdivision ~:~ -~ .... ~ [that] either ~ .....:-:-~ ' ~ ....... 6] [contamsl such open space or. [~ locatedl immediately adjacent to such [recreational or picnic] improvement. Applicant shall construct a Cdr lot and basketball court in the areas indicated on the Conceptual Plan. The tot lot shall contain the equipment required by Section 4.16.2.1 of the Ordinance. The basketball court shall conform to the specifications of Section 4.16.2.2 of the Ordinance. Applicant shall establish a walking/jogging trail through the wooded area and along the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. The surface of the walking/jogging trail shall consist of wood chips~ and tree clearing shall be kept to a minimum. Applicant shall construct a picnic shelter in the area shown on the Conceptual Plan. The open space, tot lot. basketball court, picnic shelter and walking trail located in the area of the ponds as shown on the attached Conceptual Plan shall also be for the mutual benefit of the residents in the development on the Townhouse Property. In order to provide access to the open space and recreation areas, Applicant shall install at least one (1) pedestrian access at a grade of not greater than 10%. 3.2 Buffer Area Easement. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision. Applicant shall establish a 50' Buffer Area easement along the western boundary of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Plan. The 50' Buffer Area shall be maintained by the owners of the lots encumbered by A TT4. W'PD Page 3 the'easement in a natural state, and shall not be disturbed other than to: i/construct fences or walls, approved by the Association, ii) remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping trees for screening. The 50' Buffer Area easemem shall run to the benefit of the Association and shall be enforced by the Association. as provided by the Declaration. 3.3 Landscaping; Utilities. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision. Applicant, or the Association shall maintain and replace as necessary., outside the 30' area to be dedicated for nnprovements to Jarmans Gap Road, (State Route 69D tree screening along Jarmans Gap Road for the length of the subdivision (except for the entrance areal. Such screening shall consist of double staggered rows of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on-center, m accordance with Section 32.7.9.8.4 of the Ordinance and shall be located within a permanent open space area 20' in width ~ measured from the edged of the State Route 691 dedicatior/). The 20' open space area along State Route 691 shall be maintained by the Association. and may includeto,,,~,,,,~ .......... ,,~j~ [stormwater] management BMPs. Applicant also shall plant street trees along the internal road system, at 100 foot intervals, (on both sides of the roads'} as sections of the subdivision are platted. Street trees shall be maintained [and replaced as necessary,] by the Applicant. or the Association and shall be from species approved by the County in accordance with applicable Ordinances. All utilities installed within the Property shall be underground. 3.4 Walking Trail: Greenwa¥ Corridor. Applicant shall install a walking trail along the internal loop road (and connecting to the interior road and cul de sacs. as shown on the Conceptual plan). The surface of the internal walking trail shall consist of asphalt, and shall be maintained by the Association. The internal walking trail shall be a minimum of 4' in width and may be located within the area dedicated for internal streets. The internal walking trail shall be installed as each section of the subdivision containing that portion of the internal walking trail is platted. At such time as the Board of Supervisors approves of a plan for a greenway, or hiking/biking system connecting Jarmans Gap Estates. Gray Rock. Orchard Acres and downtown Crozet. Applicant shall dedicate the walking/jogging trail along the area of the ponds, described in 3.1 above for use within such a trail system or greenway. 3.5 Stormwater Management Plan. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision. Applicant shall develop a stormwater management plan which incorporates best management practices that. to the extent practicable with the lot and street layout, minimizes pollution to the tributary of Powell's Creek and to Lickinghole Creek. Such plan shall be approved by the Department of Engineering and may include utilizing the existing ponds in their present, natural state, retaining open space, and grass-lined swales along interior streets. This proffer is in addition to the required contribution for the regional stormwater retention under the Ordinance. IV OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 4. l Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property, a Declaration of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration"). The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and development of the Property in a unified and consistent manner. The Declaration shall set forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by homeowners within the Property. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County of Albemarle will have no rights or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or Albemarle County regulatory or minimum code standards, except as allowed by the regulations of the Ordinance. A TT4, WPD Page 4 4.2 Design Standards. The Declaration shall knpose design and architectural guidelines for each residential lot within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas [the "Design Guidelines"/will ensure high quality architectural and landscape design and a harmonious residential community. 4.3 Fixed Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be referenced in the Declaration: (i) Types of materials to be used in construction of dwellings; (ii) Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Property, lot/building ratios, height restrictions: and (iii) Types of materials to be used and standards for landscaping. 4.4 Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines also shall: (a) Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are maplemented: (b) Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee. (The County of Albemarle will not pmticipate on such Design Review Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project: and (d) Include requirements for builders to install water low flow showers and toilets as water conservation techniques. 4.5 Maintenance of Landscapint, Open Space and Common Areas. The Declaration shall provide a mechanism for establishing and maintaining landscaping, open space, (including open space, and landscaping required by these proffers) and common areas within the Property, including the following: (a) The Applicant shall organize a Home Owners Association (the "Association"'} as a non-stock organization under the laws of Virginia for the care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such association (the "Common Areas"). The Association shall be bound by the Declaration's covenants, conditions and restrictions running with the land. The Applicant or such Association shall be responsible for the perpetuation, ma'mtenance and function of all Common Areas. A TT4. WPD Page 5 (c) The Applicant or such Association shall provide a means for identifying Common Areas as to location, size, use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. The Declaration's method of identifying Common Areas shall not supersede any applicable requirements to identify common areas m a site development plan or subdivision plat. The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a period of not less than twenty-five (25) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years unless terminated in a manner set forth in the Declaration. The Association shall continue in effect so as to control the availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Association shall not be dissolved nor shall such Association dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except to successor organizations conceived and organized under the same standards and principles set forth herein for the Association to own and maintain the Common Areas. V. REZONING APPLICATION AND ILLUSTRATIONS 5.1 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant presented as part of its Rezoning Application. an initial conceptual plan. Except for the Conceptual Plan attached to these proffers, any plan submitted as part of Applicant's rezoning application, or as part of the rezonmg process shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plan shal[ not be deemed a proffer. 5.2 Conceptual Plan Exhibit. These proffers refer to the Conceptual Plan which is being used ro illustrate certain proffers, and to show the general lot and internal street configuration. Subject to adjustments for final engineerin.g and to comply with the requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards. the final layout and configuration of lots and road improvements shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan. VI. MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 Certificate. The undersigned, Robert S. Savage, and Ann S. Savage certify that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 6.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include with'm its meaffmg, and shall be bind'rog upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. FRIED COMPANIES, INC. A TT4. WPD Page 6 By: Title: ROBERT S. SAVAGE ANN S. SAVAGE AI__Bf::MABLE COUNTY P,O E~OX 1OO9 168 SPOTNAP F~D CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902. 504~ 977-4511 -AX (804) 979-O698 Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning and Community Development County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia February 11, 1998 Re: Grayrock Dear Wayne: I have been informed that at recent public meetings concerning the proposed Grayrock development in Crozet some residents in this vicinity voiced concern that such a development would adversely affect their water pressure Their fears are unfounded. In 1995 the Service Authority undertook a major capital project to improve fire flow on Jarman's Gap Road and to accommodate future development in the western Crozet growth area. At locations along Jarman's Gap Road where fire flows were less than 400 gallons per minute at 20 p.s.i before the pipeline installation they now exceed 1,300 gallons per minute. Some people complained about water pressure at these public meetings. The elevation of the customer's dwelling in relation to the water storage tank on Buck's Elbow Mountain determines their water pressure. Simply put, the people on top of the hill have less water pressure than those at the bottom. The new pipelines could not and did not affect water pressure. The State Waterworks Regulations require that a minimum pressure of 20 p.s.i, be provided at the customer's water meter. This week we took pressure readings at the three highest houses in Jarman Gap Estates. The pressures were 27 p.s.i., 29 p.s.i., and 42 p.s.i. Since the houses were higher than the meters the pressure at the meters would have been greater. The proposed Grayrock development will not affect the water pressure of customers in this vicinity. If you need any additional information concerning water service in Crozet please let me know. Very trfily yours, J.W. Brent Executive Director JWB/lbt c.c: Paul Shoop Pete Gorham A TT3. WPD Page '1 PROFFER STATEMENT FRIED COMPANIES. INC. REZONING APPLICATION: #ZMA-97-12 Draft: [January 27] [February 10], 1998 FRIED COMPANIES, INC. (the "Applicant") is the contract purchaser, and ROBERT S. SAVAGE and ANN S. SAVAGE are the fee simple owners of that certain property described in rezonlng application #ZMA-97-12 as a portion of Tax Map Reference 55. Parcels 65 and 65A. The property subject to the rezoning application is only the 53 02 acres of the total 74 acres contained in tax Map Parcels 55- 65 and 65A, and at the time of the filing of the application was zoned PRD under ZMA-84-29. also referred to as Jarman Gap Estates II, PRD (the "Property"). The Applicant. Robert S.. and Ann S. Savage hereby voluntarily proffer that if the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board") to the R4 Residential District CR-4"), development of the Property shall be in accordance with the following proffers pursuant to Section [15.1 491.2: i~ ~ of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended tthe "Code"), and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ord~inance"). If Applicant's Rezoning Application is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. All of these proffers are offered voluntarily pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. The proffers herein shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to apply lesser standards than those contained in any: (i) state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards. or (ii) County ordinance or regulation, including the Ordinance. These proffers shall supersede all other proffers made prior hereto, including those proffers made by Applicant in ZMA-84-29. but only to the extent that such prior proffers affect the Property. I. DENSITY No more than 131 single family, detached dwellings will be constructed on the Property. II. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 Dedication. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall dedicate along the entire southern boundary of the Property, an area of land for widening State Route 691 (Jarmans Gap Road) not m exceed [25'} [30'] to the centerline of the existing pavement. Applicant shall grant easements for temporary, construction of improvemems to State Route 691. as needed. 2.2 Road Improvements. Access shall be restricted to an internal public road network to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards in effect at the time of subdivision plat approval. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall construct as a single improvement, a 100 foot right turn lane and 100 foot taper for westbound right turn movement into the Property on State Route 691. As a condition of plat approval for the section of the subdivision containing proposed Lot [50} [!22], and until such time as the property subject to ZMA-84-29 ("Townhouse Property") is developed, Applicant shall provide an emergency access easement to State Route 691 on Lot {50} [122], in the area shown on the attached Conceptual Plan dated September 11, I997, [last revised February 9, 19981 prepared by Muncaster Eugineering (the "Conceptual Plan"). At such time as the Townhouse Property is developed, Applicant, or the developer of the Townhouse Property, will provide a gated access/gravel drive} for emergency vehicles through the Townhouse Property to State Route 684. A TT3. WPD Page 2 2.3 Disposition of Dedicated Property. In the event any of the property dedicated pursuant m proffer 2.1 is not used for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken with'm twenty (20) years of receipt of the property by the County.. then the property shall be dedicated as common open space to the Association (defined in 4.5(a~ below). 2.4 State Route 691 Contributions. The Applicant shall participate in the improvement of State Route 691 by paying to the County a sum calculated at the rate of $500.00 per residential building lot platted within the Property after the date of the rezoning in accordance with the ZMA 97-12 application. The $500.00 payment shall be made at the tune of recordation of the record plat or plats, for each lot for the subdivision, or phases of the subdivision to be developed on the Property. In the event that the $500.00 contributions, after they are received by the County, are not used, within 20 years after recordation of a plat of the 131st lot, then the contributions may be used by the County for any other road improvements serving the Crozet area. deemed by the Board as at least in part being necessary by the proposed development on the Property. 2.5 Inter-Parcel Access. The Applicant slmll reserve a 50 foot right-of-way for a furore street ro provide inter-parcel access to the adjoining parcel to the east of the Property, known as the Bargamin tract (Tax Map 55. Parcels 66. and 66A,. The location of the reserved area for inter-parcel connection shall be Lot [10] [631, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. At such tune as the Bargamin tract is developed with a connecting road to Lot {10] [63], Applicant will construct and dedicate the street on Applicant's Property, and the remaining acreage within Lot [10] [63] shall accrue to the adjoining lots. In the event that the area reserved for a street is not used for the purpose for which it is hereby proffered within seven (7) years from the date of approval of ZMA-97-12, then such reservation shall be released and the Applicant then may use Lot [10} [631 for a building lot. III. RECREATIONAL AND BUFFER AREAS 3.1 Recreational Areas[: Walkim,/Joeelne Trailsl. Applicant. or the Association. tdefined in 4.5(a) below) shall manage the ponds, and shall ' ' ' ~ .... ~ .......... :~ estabhsh and maintain tN ................. ~ [recreational hnprovements] and picnic areas in in the open space areas adjacent to the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. for use by homeowners within the Property. fc,~^_~ [Except as specifically set forth herein, the recreational and picnic improvements to be constructed within the open] space areas shall be established as each section of the subdivision 18 platted [either] containing such open space[, r~,~__., .......... '~e*~ o~,~* ~ [or, immediately adjacent to such improvement. Applicant shall construct a tot lot and basketball court in the areas indicated on the Conceptual Plan. The tot lot shall contain the equipment required by Section 4.16.2.1 of the Ordinance. The basketball court shall conform to the specifications of Section 4.16.2.2 of the Ordinance. Applicant shall establish a walldng/]ogging trail through the wooded area and aion~ the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. The sm'face of the walking/logging trail shall consist of wood chips, and tree clearing shall be kept to a minimum. Applicant shall construct a picnic shelter in the area shown on the Conceptual Plan. The open space, tot lot, basketball court, picnic shelter and walking trail] located in the area of the ponds as shown on the attached Conceptual Plan shall also be for tire mutual benefit of the residents in the development on the Townhouse Property. ]In order to provide access to the open space and recreation areas, Applicant shall install at least one (D pedestrian access at a grade of not greater than 10%. 3.2 Buffer Area Easement] ~ ~ .~c~ ^ ~ t ............. ~. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall establish t~' ............ ~ ....... t~ ........... n ca ....... } a 50' Buffer Area [easement] A TT3. WPD Page 3 alohg the western boundary of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Plan. The 50' Buffer Area shall be maintained by the owners of the lots encumbered by the easement in a natural state, and shall not be disturbed other than to: i/construct fences or walls, approved by the Association, iD remove underbrush, or Buffer Area t .............~ easemem shall run to the iii~ plant landscaping trees for screening. The 50' ~ ......... ~ benefit ofJ~]- [the Association] and shall be enforced by-[-,]- the Association, as provided by the Declaration. 3.3 Landscaping; Utilities. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant. or the Association shall maintain and replace as necessary, outside the [25'] [30'] area to be dedicated for improvements to Jarmans Gap Road, (State Route 691)t~ ....... ~v,, v.~ ~,~o~^~:~ ..... ~v~ ...... ~o~ [tree screenin~l along Jarmans Gap Road for the length of the subdivision (except for the entrance areal [in.. safigfact:.cn cf ] [. Such screening shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on-center, in accordance with] Section 32.7.9.8.4 of the Ordinance [and shall be located witlfin a permanent open space area 20' in width (measured from the edged of the State Route 691 dedication). The 20' open space area along State Route 691 shall be maintained by the Association, and may include stromwater management BMPs]. Applicant also shall plant street trees along the internal road system, at 100 foot intervals. [an~] [(on both sides of the roads)[ as sections of the subdivision are platted. Street trees shall be maintained by the Applicant, or the Association and shall be fi'om species approved by the C ounty in accordance with applicable Ordinances. t~{ ^~o ..... - ~,,~,~-~-,~--~:*:~ ,~ v,~ .......... ~ ~"~ ~ All utilities installed within the Property shall be underground. [3.4 Walking Trail; Greenwa¥ Corridor, Applicant shall install a walking trail along the internal loop road (and connecting to the interior road and cni de sacs, as shown on the Conceptual Plan). The surface of the internal walking trail shall consist of asphalt, and shall be maintained by the Association. The internal walking trail shall be a minimum of 4' in width and may be located within the area dedicated for internal streets. The internal walking trail shall be installed as each section of the subdivision containing that portion of the internal walking trail is platted. At such time as the Board of Supervisors approves of a plan for a greenway, or hiking/biking system com~ecting $armans Gap Estates. Gray Rock, Orchard Acres and dovattown Crozet, Applicant shall dedicate the walking/jogging trail along the area of the ponds, described in 3.1 above for use within such a trail system or greenway. 3.5 Stormwater Management Plan. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision. Applicant shall develop a stormwater management plan which incorporates best management practices that. to the extent practicable with the lot and street layout, minimizes pollution to the tributary of Powell's Creek and to Lickinghole Creek. Such plan shall be reviewed by the Department of Engineering and may include utilizing the existing ponds in their present, natural state. retaining open space, and grass-lined swales along interior streets. This proffer is in addition to the required contribution for the regional stormwater retention under the Ordinance.] IV OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATIOI~- OF COVENANTS. CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 4.1 Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property, a Declaration of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration"). The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and development of the Property in a unified and consistent manner. The Declaration shall set forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by homeowners within the Property. A TT3. WPD Page4 Thb clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County of Albemarle will have no rights or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or Albemarle County regulatory or rmnimum code standards, except as allowed by the regulations of the Ordinance. 4.2 Design Standards. The Declaration shall impose design and architectural guidelines for each residential lot within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas (the "Design Guidelines") will ensure high quality architectural and landscape design and a harmonious residential community. 4.3 Fixed Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be referenced in the Declaration: Types of materials to be used in construction of dwellings; (ii) Required setbacks fzom properties adjacent to the Property, lot/build'rog ratios. height restrictions; and (iii) Types of materials to be used and standards for landscaping. 4.4 Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines also shall: (a) Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are implemented: (b) Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee. (The County of Albemarle will not participate on such Design Review Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); (c) Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project: and (d) Include requirements for builders to install water low flow showers and toilets as water conservation techniques. 4.5 Maintenance of Landscaping. Open Space and Common Areas. The Declaration shall provide a mechanism for establish'mg and maintaining landscaping, open space, (inchid'mg open space, and landscaping required by these proffers) and common areas within the Property, including the following: (a) The Applicant shall organize a Home Owners Association (the "Association"l as a non-stock organization under the laws of Virginia for the care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such association tthe "Common Areas "). ATT3.WPD Page 5 ~) (c) The Association shall be bound by the Declaration's covenants, conditions and restrictions rmming with the land. The Applicant or such Association shall be responsible for the perpetuation, maintenance and function of all Common Areas. The Applicant or such Association shall provide a means for identifying Common Areas as to location, size, use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set fo~h the method of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. The Declaration's method of identifying Common Areas shall not supersede any applicable requiremems to identify common areas in a site development plan or subdivision plat. The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a period of not less than twenty-five (25) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years unless term'mated in a manner set forth in the Declaration. The Association shall cont'mue in effect so as to control the availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Association shall not be dissolved nor shall such Association dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except m successor organizations conceived and organized under the same standards and principles set forth herein for the Association to own and maintain the Common Areas. V. REZONING APPLICATION AND ILLUSTRATIONS 5.1 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant presented as part of its Rezoning Application, an/nitial conceptual plan. Except for the Conceptual Plan attached to these proffers, any plan submitted as part of Applicant's rezoffmg application, or as part of the rezon'mg process shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plan shall no! be deemed a proffer. 5.2 Conceptual Plan Exhibit. These proffers refer to the Conceptual Plan which is being used to illustrate certain proffers, and to show the general lot and internal street configuration. Subject to adjusunents for final engineering and m comply with the requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards, the final layout and configuration of lots and road improvements shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan. VI. MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 Certificate. The undersigned, Robert S. Savage, and Ann S. Savage certify that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 6.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. AT~.WPD Page 6 FRIED COMPANIES, INC. By: Tide: ROBERT S. SAVAGE ANN S. SAVAGE February 4, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. ot Planning & Communily Devetopmem 401 Mclnt,re Road Charlottesville_ Virginia 22902-4596 {804) 296-5823 Steve Blaine c/o McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, LLP P O Box 1288 418 East Jefferson St Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA-97-12 Fried Companies, tnc (Grayrock) Tax Map 55, Parcels 65 and 65A Dear Mr. Blaine: The Albemarle County Plmlning Commission, at its meeting on February 3, 1998, forwarded this petition to the Board of Supervisors with no recommendation. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on February 18, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior m 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, Rouald S. Keeler Chief of Planning RSK/jcf cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey PROFFER STATEMENT FRIED COMPANIES, INC. REZONING APPLICATION: #ZMA-97-12 Draft: January 27, 1998 FRIED COMPANIES, INC. (the "Applicant") is the contract purchaser, and ROBERT S. SAVAGE and ANN S. SAVAGE are the fee simple owners of that certain property described in rezon'tng application #ZMA-97-12 as a portion of Tax Map Reference 55, Parcels 65 and 65A. The property subject to the rezonmg application is only the 53.02 acres of the total 74 acres contained in tax Map Parcels 55- 65 and 65A, and at the time of the filing of the application was zoned PRD under ZMA-84-29, also referred to as Jarman Gap Estates II, PRD (the "Property"). The Applicant, Robert S., and Ann S. Savage hereby voluntarily proffer that if the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board") to the R-4 Residential District ("R-4"), development of the Property shall be in accordance with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.1-491.2:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). If Applicant's Rezonlng Application is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. All of these proffers are offered voluntarily pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. The proffers here'm shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to apply lesser standards than those contained in any: (i) state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards, or (ii) County ordinance or regulation, including the Ordinance. These proffers shall supersede all other proffers made prior hereto, including those proffers made by Applicant in ZMA-84-29, but only to the extent that such prior proffers affect the Property. I. DENSITY No more than 131 single family, detached dwellings will be constructed on the Property. II. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 Dedication. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall dedicate along the entire southern boundary of the Property, an area of land for widening State Route 691 (Jarmans Gap Road) not to exceed 25' to the centerline of the existing pavemem. Applicant shall grant easements for temporary construction of improvements to State Route 691, as needed. 2.2 Road Improvements. Access shall be restricted to an internal public road network to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards in effect at the time of subdivision plat approval. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall construct as a single improvement, a 100 foot right turn lane and 100 foot taper for westbound right turn movement into the Property on State Route 691. As a condition of plat approval for the section of the subdivision containing proposed Lot 50, and until such time as the property subject to ZMA-84-29 I"Townhouse Property") is developed, Applicant shall provide an emergency access easement m State Route 691 on Lot 50, in the area shown on the attached Conceptual Plan dated September 11, 1997, prepared by Muncaster Engineering (the "Conceptual Plan"). At such time as the Townhouse Property is developed, Applicant, or the developer of the Townhouse Property, will provide a gated access (gravel drive) for emergency vehicles through the Townhouse Property to State Route 684. 2.3 Disposition of Dedicated Property.. In the evem any of the property dedicated pursuant to proffer 2.1 is not used for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken within twenty (20) years of receipt of the property by the County, then the property shall be dedicated as common open space to the Association (defined in 4.5(a) below). 2.4 State Route 691 Contributions. The Applicant shall participate in the improvement of State Route 691 by paying to the County a sum calculated at the rate of $500.00 per residential building lot platted within the Property after the date of the rezoning in accordance with the ZMA 97-12 application. The $500.00 payment shall be made at the time of recordation of the record plat or plats, for each lot for the subdivision, or phases of the subdivision to be developed on the Property. In the event that the $500.00 contributions, after they are received by the County, are not used, within 20 years after recordation of a plat of the 131st lot, then the contributions may be used by the County for any other road improvements serving the Crozet area, deemed by the Board as at least in part being necessary by the proposed development on the Property. 2.5 Inter-Parcel Access. The Applicant shall reserve a 50 foot right-of-way for a furore street to provide inter-parcel access to the adjoining parcel to the east of the Property, known as the Bargamin tract (Tax Map 55, Pamels 66, and 66A). The location of the reserved area for inter-parcel connection shall be Lot 10, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. At such time as the Bargamm tract is developed with a connecting road to Lot 10, Applicant will construct and dedicate the street on Applicant's Property, and the remaining acreage within Lot 10 shall accrue to the adjoining lots. In the event that the area reserved for a street is not used for the purpose for which it is hereby proffered within seven (7) years from the date of approval of ZMA-97-12, then such reservation shall be released and the Applicant then may use Lot 10 for a building lot. 2 HI. RECREATIONAL AND BUFFER AREAS 3.1 Recreational Areas. Applicant, or the Association, (defined in 4.5(a) below) shall manage the ponds, and shall establish and maintain passive recreation and picnic areas in in the open space areas adjacent to the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, for use by homeowners within the Property. Open space areas shall be established as each section of the subdivision is platted containing such open space. The open space located in the area of the ponds as shown on the attached Conceptual Plan shall also be for the mutual benefit of the residents in the development on the Townhouse Property. 3.2 Buffer Area. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall establish by conservation easement a 50' Buffer Area along the western boundary of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Plan. The 50' Buffer Area shall be maintained by the owners of the lots encumbered by the easement in a natural state, and shall not be disturbed other than to: i) construct fences or walls, approved by the Association, ii) remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping trees for screening. The 50' Buffer Area conservation easement shall run to the benefit of, and shall be enforced by, the Association, as provided by the Declaration. 3.3 Landscaping: Utilities. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant, or the Association shall maintain and replace as necessary, outside the 25' area to be dedicated for improvements to Jarmans Gap Road, (State Route 691) a row of existing apple trees along Jarmans Gap Road for the length of the subdivision (except for the entrance area) in satisfaction of Section 32.7.9.8.4 of the Ordinance. Applicant also shall plant street trees along the internal road system, at 100 foot intervals, and as sections of the subdivision are platted. Street trees shall be maintained by the Applicant, or the Association and shall be from spectes approved by the County in accordance with applicable Ordinances. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall erect and Applicant, or the Association shall maintain a split rail or three board fence along Jarmans Gap Road, on the South side of the row of trees referenced herein. All utilities installed within the Property shall be underground. IV OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 4.1 Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration"). The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and development of the Property in a unified and consistent manner. The Declaration shall set forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by homeowners within the Property. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County of Albemarle will have no rights or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or Albemarle County regulatory or minimum code standards, except as allowed by the regulations of the Ordinance. 4.2 ~. The Declaration shall hnpose design and architectural guidelines for each residential lot within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas (the "Design Guidelines") will ensure high quality architectural and landscape design and a harmonious residential community. 4.3 Fixed Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be referenced in the Declaration: (i) Types of materials to be used in construction of dwellings; (ii) Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Property, lot/building ratios, height restrictions; and (iii) Types of materials to be used and standards for landscaping. 4.4 Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines also shall: Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are implemented; Co) Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee. (The County of Albemarle will not participate on such Design Review Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); (c) Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project; and (d) Include requirements for builders to install water iow flow showers and toilets as water conservation techniques. 4.5 Maintermnce of Landscaping. Open Space and Common Areas. The Declaration shall provide a mechanism for establishing and maintaining landscaping, open space, (including open space, and landscaping required by these proffers) and common areas within the Property, including the following: 4 (a) (c) (e) The Applicant shall organize a Home Owners Association (the "Association") as a non-stock organization under the laws of Virginia for the care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such association (the "Common Areas"/. The Association shall be bound by the Declaration's covenams, conditions and restrictions running with the land. The Applicant or such Association shall be responsible for the perpetuation, maintenance and function of all Common Areas. The Applicant or such Association shall provide a means for identifying Common Areas as to location, size, use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. The Declaration's method of identifying Common Areas shall not supersede any applicable requirements m identify common areas in a site development plan or subdivision plat. The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a period of not less than twenty-five (25) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years unless terminated in a manner set forth in the Declaration~ The Association shall continue in effect so as to control the availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Association shall not be dissolved nor shall such Association dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except to successor organizations conceived and organized under the same standards and principles set forth herein for the Association to own and maintain the Common Areas. V. REZONING APPLICATION AND ILLUSTRATIONS 5.1 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant presented as pan of its Rezoning Application, an initial conceptual plan. Except for the Conceptual Plan attached to these proffers, any plan submitted as part of Applicant's rezoning application, or as part of the rezoning process shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plan shall not be deemed a proffer. 5.2 Conceptual Plan Exhibit. These proffers refer to the Conceptual Plan which is being used to illustrate certain proffers, aml to show the general lot and internal street configuration. Subject m adjustments for final engineering and to comply with the 5 requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and Virginia Departmem of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards, the final layout and configuration of lots and road improvements shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan. VI. MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 Certificate. The undersigned, Robert S. Savage, and Ann S. Savage certify that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 6.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall mn with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. FRIED COMPANIES, INC. By: Title: 6.1 Certificate. The undersigned, Robert S. Savage, and Ann S. Savage certify that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of the rezoning application and these proffers. ROBERT S. SAVAGE ANN S. SAVAGE 7 PRINCIPLES FOR LAND USE IN DESIGNATED GROWTH AREAS GRAY ROCK REZONING ZMA-97-12 The following is an outline of the County's Comprehensive Plan principles for land use decisions as applied to the application by Fried Companies, Inc. for the Gray Rock Property in Crozet (ZMA 97-12). I. General Principles For Land Use. Listed below are the general principles to guide development of the Development Areas, and an analysis of the application of such principles to the ZMA 9%12 application: 1. Accommodate new growth in the County within Development Areas. The Gray Rock proposed development will offer a single family housing type on small (approximately 11,000 square foot) lots within the Growth Area. Sales experience from successful developments throughout the County demonstrates that demand for this housing type is steady. The supply of housing offered by the proposed development will accommodate within a Growth Area continued expected demand for housing in tire County and thus will reduce the pressure of development in the Rural Areas. 2. Encourage greater utilization of land in designated Development Areas by achieving higher gross densities for residential and non-residential development than in the past. The Gray Rock proposal offers greater utilization of land than that provided by the current zoning. The current zoning permits only 37 single family dwellings on the 53 acres, or 0.7 dwellings per acre. The proposal contemplates 131 single family dwellings, or 2.4 dwellings per acre. 3. Encourage infill development of vacant lands and development of under-used areas within the designated Development Areas. Tlie current zoning, (which allows only 37 single family lots) has been in place since 1984. The land remains undeveloped. The applicant intends to pursue subdivision immediately, if the rezoning ~s approved. Thus the proposal will result in utilization of under-used land in the Growth Area. 4 Development Areas shall not encroach into water supply watersheds, except for the Crozet Community, which shall not be expanded beyond the watershed boundary of the Lickinghole Creek detention basin. The Gray Rock property is within the Crozet Community Growth Area. Developmem of the Gray Rock site will serve to relieve pressure m expand the Growth Area, by providing within the Growth Area, housing types that are in high demand. 5. Avoid development oJ' "Significant Areas" as designated in the Open Space Plan. The Gray Rock proposal preserves Significant Areas, such as critical slopes, woodlands, streambeds, ponds and related waterways. The applicant views these areas as valuable amenities which will enhance the beauty and marketability of the project. 6. Discourage extensive linear style development along major roads. The Gray Rock development will be served by an internal road system, in accordance with the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance. The project will be limited to one entrance to State Route 691. 7. All Development Areas shall be served by public sewer and water. The Gray Rock property is within the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdictional area. The project will be served by public water and sewer. 8. Plan for a system of transportation and community facilities and services that support and enhance the Development Areas. The Gray Rock property has access to public water and sewer. Water service capacity will be adequate to provide desirable fire protection. Other utilities such as electricity are readily available to the property. Crime protection in the area is adequate. According to Chief Jolm Miller, the recent opening of a County police satellite station in Crozet was in response to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for improvements to reduce police response times. The added number of families associated with the proposed development may be accommodated under existing police staffing and Sector B coverage. Access to the property wilt be off Jarman Gap Road (State Route ~91). Funding for improvements to Jarman Gap Road has received a high priority in the Six Year Road Plan. The applicant's traffic study demonstrates that existing road improvements, including Jarman Gap Road can more than accommodate the proposed development. In fact, the highest level of service {Level A) experienced currently along the roadways and at intersections surrounding the property, will not be reduced by the proposed development. The public school system will be able to accommodate students attributable to the proposed project. Using the County's Fiscal Impact methodology, school enrollment may be increased by up m 23 elementary, 11 middle school, and 13 high school students, (based upon an increase of 100 residential units over the existing zoning). According to figures provided by Al Reaser of the Albemarle County Schools, with the completion of the new Monticello High School, both Brownsville Elementary and Westem Albemarle High School will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected increase. The seven additional classrooms and the recent school redistricting also should accommodate additional students attending Henley Middle School. II. General Land Use Standards. The following is a list of General Land Use Standards for Development Areas and an analysis of the applicability of such standards to the Gray Rock proposal: 1. Development should be concentrated and clustered to the maximum extent possible to protect enuironmental features (floodplain, critical slopes, etc.), scenic vistas, and historic sites, to provide open space (for either passive or active recreation?, and to minimize traffic hazards, conflicts with other land uses, and adverse visual aspects associated wiht linear/strip development. The Open Space Plan should be used to identify areas that need to be preseved. The proposal (2.4 dwellings per acre) concetrates developmem more efficiently in the Nothwestern portion of the Crozet Community Growth Area than does the existing zoning which permits only 0.7 dwelling per acre. The higher density is achieved without reducing significantly the open space which will provide buffers for adjoining land uses. The streams, woodland and pond areas will be preserved to enhance visual aspects, and for passive recreation purposes. 2. Maintain existing forested areas acting as. buffers' between subdivisions. Existing tbrested/wooded areas will be maintained as buffers between the Orchard Acre and Waylands Grant subdivisions. In addition, a proffered, natural buffer area will be maintained between the Jarman Gap Estates subdivision. 3. Minimize the impact of developments on major roads to the extent feasible by limiting access points to major roads', providing side street access, service roads and/or joint accesses. Access to Jarman Gap Road will be limited to a single entrance to the subdivision. 4. Connections between developments with an appropriately scaled transportation network should be provided to maximize a sense of community and to provide additional transportation links. Connection of multiple developments may provide for additional recreation facilities, increased open space area. bicycle/pedestrian links, ~mproved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools, parks and other public faciIities. The emphasis is on linkage between deveelopments and just not within each development. The project will be linked by common open space amenities with the Gray Rock PRD (townhouse-approved development) to the North. This will accommodate pedestrian/bicycle access and will enhance a sense of community among the developments. There also will be emergency vehicle access between these two developmems. The developmem plan also may accomodate a connection with the Waylands Grant subdivision to the East. 5. Provide for the ultimate future transportation improvements and new road lacations through the reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designating and constructing utilities in a manner consistent with planned tramportation improvements. Transportation improvements should include ali modes of travel (auto, bus, bicycle, pedestriand . The applicant has proffered areas necessary for dedication of future right-of-way for improvements to Jarmans Gap Road. In addition, the applicant has proffered easements to accomodate the construction of future utility improvements along such right-of-way. 6. Require underground utilities tn new residential and non-residential developments, including new lines and major improvements to existing lines. The Applicant will proffer that all utilities within the project will be installed underground. 7. New develoment or major redeveloment design plans should include features to prevent impact from impervtous surfaces on water quality. Parking areas, roads~ and other impervious areas should meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed use and possible future uses. Avoid parking areas which exceed that which is necessary for the anticipated development. As this proposal contemplates a residential subdivision, no significant impervious areas, such as blacktopped parking areas are contemplated. 8. To the extent reasonable, and feasible, given site contraints, site development should encourage building orientation to public streets. Parking areas do not need to be located exclusively in front of buildings, All residential dwellings in the proposed project will be oriented to public streets, in accordance with applicable subdivision ordinances. No parking areas, other than private driveways are contemplated in the residential developmem. 9. Encourage the use of external lighting, when site illumination is proposed, which is efficient, provides necessary security, and is down-directed and shielded to minimize light trespass. All lighting within the proposed development will comply with the applicable zoning and subdivision ordinances. 10 Adaptive re-use of historic buildings to uses which preserve the building's architecture and site character should be encouraged as a method of historic prevervation. No historic buildings will be impacted by the proposed development. ll. Ensure evaluation of future land use changes under the fiscal impact model prior to rezoning approvals. Appropriate planning/phasing of development to match service/infrastructure availability and capacity should be established See response to item 8 of General Principles For Land Use. III. Residential Development Design: The following is a list of Residential Development Design elements from the Land Use Plan (page 261 and an analysis of the applicability of such elements to the Gray Rock proposal: A. Residential Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses. 1. lt is intended that where possible, and practical due to terrain, availablility of public utilities and adequate public infrastructure, that overall development density be at as high a Ievel as practical. The use ofbonus provisions to increase density and provide for affordable housing shouM be encouraged Where demonstrated, by economic or other considerations, that density in excess of the recommended by the Plan is warranted to accomodate an affordable housing proposal, a reasonable density increase should be provided The proposed density of 2.4 dwellings per acre is practical, given terrain, economic factors, and demand for single family housing types in the County. 2. In rezoning deliberations, the County should be mindful of the intent to encourage infill development, contain most future growth within Development Areas, and avoid rural development pressure. Unless contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehensive Plan recommended land use density-ranges (i.e., Neightborhood or Urban scale; shouM be favored even if the density exceeds that of surrounding developments. While it is tree that the Land Use Map for the Community of Crozet (Map G) recommends for this property a higher gross density than is contemplated by the applicant's proposal, the proposal is actually in-line with the Crozet Community Study's recommendations. (See Map N, page 42, Crozet Community Study), The Crozet Community Study was prepared under the direction of a citizen committee representing the Crozet community. As it was adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the Crozet Community Study has become a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's proposal is consistent with the Study's recommendations for low residential development density (1 to 4 dwellings per acre) for this area. The applicant's proposal for this property exceeds density of that of the surrounding development yet it is more consistent with neighboring development and permitted uses than the Urban Density suggested by the Land Use Map. The desired R-4 density for the property (limited to 131 lots, by proffer) provides a logical transition between the R-6 zoning on the Bargamin tract to the East of the property, the R-2 permitted density in Orchard Acres, m the Northeast, and the R-1 density found on surrounding tracts West of the site, including the Jarman Gap Estates subdivision, to the immediate West. 3. Maitenance of the integrity of residential areas can be accomplished with standards for the relationship of residential use to adjacent non-residential uses .... The adjacent areas to the Gray Rock property do not include any existing, or permitted non-residential uses. B. Residential Development Design: 1. Residential development should be designed with an internal orientation to foster a sense of place and avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl. To encourage such design, conventional and cluster options as well as density bonuses are provided in all residential zoning dislricts. The proposed development will have an internal orientation, consistent with the applicable subdivision ordinances. The increase in density from 0.7 dwellings per acre (under the current zoning) to 2.4 dwellings per acre under the proposed R-4, will serve to reduce suburban sprawl. 2. Make available a variety of development approaches to the developer that encourage innovative design and reduce housing costs, including zero lot line subdivisions, and sustainable design zncentives. The applicant will endeavor to use all available design approaches, currently permitted under the County Ordiances, to reduce housing costs for a conventional subdivision. 3 Lot design and residential layout should be based on a rational use of land that reflects topographic and other physical features rather than imposing a layout intended solely to 6 satisfy minimum ordinance requirements. As demonstrated by the applicant's concept plan, the proposed density may be accomodated by the topographic and other physical features presented by the site, yet at the same time preserving as visual and passive amenities, the sites' natural characteristics. Most notably, the contemplated development will incorporate wooded areas as buffers with adjoining uses. The areas surrounding the two ponds will be preserved for passive recreation. 4. For larger developments, layout and design should provide for varying building orientation,... The proposed 53 acm development should not be considered "larger" development for consideration of these design elements. 5. Maintain reqmrements for recreational facilities for developments where the density and lot size do not allow for meaningful recreational space. The contemplated development will incorporate wooded areas as buffers with adjoining uses. The areas surrounding the two ponds will be preserved for picnic areas and passive recreation. 7 Attachment E1 General Principles for Land Use in Designated Development Areas: For the County's growth management goals to be achieved, the Development Areas must be attractive places to live and work. The land within the Development Areas must also be used efficiently if designation of these Areas is to realistically help prevent sprawl development. To this end, the Land Use Plan for the Development Areas is designed to concentrate development in the Development Areas, particularly in the locations designated "Urban Areas" or "Communities. "Planning for future development in the Development Areas is at densities higher than in the past, with more varied uses. Furthermore, revised plans for the Development Areas emphasize the County's desire for design strategies that are more characteristic of small, well-planned city neighborhoods or towns than of typical low density suburban areas. Inevitably, some people will experience more significant change than others and will find that nearby land uses may not be the same character as their residential area. However, through careful design of the land use plan and its development standards and recommendations, this situation may not be necessarily bad, and in fact can be beneficial for the community. Listed below are the principles that guide development of Development Areas. The Development Areas Land Use Plan as well as subsequent decisions regarding land use in these areas shouM be reflective of and consistent with, these principles: Accommodate new growth in the County within Development Areas. Comment: This site is situated within the Crozet Community as designated in the Comprehensive Plan and this rezoning is consistent with this general principle. Encourage greater utilization of land in designated Development Areas by achieving higher gross densities for residential and non-residential development than in the past. Comment: This rezoning would increase residential density on this portion of the site from 0.7 dus/acre to 2.5 dus/acre. Overall, density (including area approved for townhouse development in 1985) would increase from 1.4 to 2.7 dus/acre. To an extent, this rezoning is consistent with this principle. Encourage infill development of vacant lands and development of under- used areas within the designated Development Areas. Comment: This site is currently in orchard use with one dwelling and outbuildings located on the portion requested for rezoning. The orchard is non-conforming to zoning regulationsl agriculture is not a permitted use in development areas zoning districts. The current density of 0.7 dus/acre is below the current and all predecessor Comprehensive Plan recommendations for minimum residential density within any Community or Urban Area Neighborhood. This rezoning is consistent with this principle. Development Areas shall not encroach into water supply watershed& except for the Crozet Community, which shall not be expanded beyond the Attachment E2 watershed boundary of the Lickinghole Creek detention basin. Comment: This site is situated within the Crozet Community and within the Lickinghole Creek detention basin watershed. The rezoning petition is consistent with this principle. 6. Avoid development of"Significant Areas" as designated in the Open Space Plan. Comment: The Open Space Plan identifies no "Significant Areas" on this property. Prior planning efforts have identified areas of shallow rock, soils limitations and critical slopes. Comparatively, this property has few environmental/physical limitations to development. [The applicant is entreated to utilize this information during subsequent plan development]. The rezoning petition is consistent with this principle. Discourage extensive linear style development along major roads. Comment: All lots in the subdivision would be served by an internal roadway which would intersect Jarman's Gap Road in one location. This rezoning petition is consistent with this principle. All Development Areas shall be served by public sewer and water. Comment: Public water and sewer are available to this site and connection to these utilities is required by operation of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. This rezoning petition is consistent with this principle. Plan for a system of transportation and community facilities and services that support and enhance the Development Areas. Comment: The Comprehensive Plan and Crozet Community Study both recommend sidewalk construction along Jarman's Gap Road. Six Year Secondary Road Plan calls for sidewalk gnd bikeway. The Subdivision Ordinance authorizes the Planning Core'mission to require sidewalks for a development of the proposed density as well as pedestrian connections to adjoining properties [Staff has not analyzed the adequacy of proposed pedestrian access to open space areas]. The proffers include provisions for right-of-way dedication along Rte. 691. Another proffer dealing with roads offers as much as $65, 500.00 in cash payment to the County for improvements to Rte. 691. A proffer also would provide for roadway connection between Grayrock and property to the east. This rczoning petition is consistent with this pr'mciple. Attachment E3 Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas Land Use standards provide guidelines for development which are consistent with the Growth Management goals and are in keeping with the man-made and natural environment. These standards provide the basic framework Jbr the review of development proposals for the Development Areas, tn conjunction with other applicable ordinances and regulations. General Land Use Standards Standards that apply to all types of development in the Development Areas are provided as "General Land Use Standards. "More specific standards for commercial, industrial, and residential land uses are provided to address the different locational and surrounding character aspects of thase categories. General Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas Development should be concentrated and clustered to the maximum extent possible to protect environmental features (floodplain, critical slopes, etc.), scenic vistas, and historic sites, to provide for open space (for either passive or active recreation), and to minimize traffic hazards, conflicts with other land uses, and adverse visual aspects associated with linear/strip development. The Open Space Plan should be used to identify areas that need to be preserved. Comment: The Open Space Plan identifies no "Significant Areas" on this property. This dev. elopment is not proposed as a cluster development as defined in the zomng ordinance. Development is not concentrated and clustered to the maximum extent possible, however, areas of open space and conservation easement are incorporated for several of the purposes in this standard. The proffers address: minimization of traffic hazards through a single entrance to Rte. 691 as wall as participation in improvement to the roadway; conflicts with other land uses through buffering measures [although adjoining developments are also single family in naturel; and adverse visual impacts associated with linear/strip development through an internalized lotting pattern and buffering measures from Rte. 691. The rezoning petition is consistent with this standard. 2. Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions. Comment: This would be accomplished through the proffers. This rezoning petition is consistent with this standard. Minimize the impact of developments on major roads to the greatest extent feasible by limiting access points to major roads, providing side street access, service roads and/or joint accesses. Comment: All lots within the subdivision would be served by an internal roadway system which would intersect Jarman'S Gap Road in one location. Emergency access would be provided established to Rte. 691 initially and Attachment E4 subsequently to Rte. 684 (as required by zoning approval for the townhouse area). Provision is made for internal road connection to undeveloped property to the east. This rezoning petition is consistent with this standard Connections between developments with an appropriately scaled transportation network should be provided to maximize a sense of comthunity and provide additional transportation links. Connection of multiple developments may provide for additional recreation facilities, mcreased open space area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools, parks and other public facilities. The emphasis is on linkage between developments and just not within each development. Comment: Proffer has been made for internal road connection to the undeveloped property to the east. Prior zoning action requires an emergency access between the townhouse area and this area of the property. This portion of the property would be linked to the townhouse area to the north through common open space and recreational facilities near the lakes. No public recreation areas are proposed in the area and no recreational opportunities are offered to adjoining pro.perties. Public facilities (schools, phrks, library, etc.) are remote from this site. This rezoning petition is consistent with this standard. Provide for ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations through the reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner consistent with planned transportation improvements. Transportation improvements should include all modes of travel (auto, bus, bicycle, pedestriam. Comment: While this standard refers to reservation of right-of-way, a 30- foot wide strip would be dedicated along Rte. 691 for improvements to that road. Temporary construction easements be provided to allow for any needed road work outside of the dedicated right-of-way. The applicant has also proposed cash contribution toward road improvements. As stated earlier, the Subdivision Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to re.quires side.w, alks for a development of the proposed density as well as pedestrian connections to adjoining properties [Staff has not analyzed adequacy of proposed pedestrian access to open space areas]. This rezoning petition is consistent with this standard. Require underground utilities in new residential and non-residential developments, including new lines and major improvements to existing lines. Comment: The Zoning Ordinance requires location of utilities underground, where practical, within commercial and industrial districts but not within residential districts. Generally, new residential developments have included underground utilities for local service. The applicant has proffered that new utilities will be located underground. This rezoning petition is consistent with this standard. 10. Attachment E5 New development or major redevelopment design plans should include .features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality. Parking areas, roads, and other impervious areas should meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed use and possible future uses. Avoid parking areas which exceed that which is necessary for the anticipated development. For large retail developments, parking capacity needed only on a few peak shopping days of the year is amenable to design alternatives to flat blacktop: Creatively designed alternative parking areas could serve as buffer zones to adjacent land uses or road frontage. Comment: This standard is more applicable to commercial development where more parking space than required may occur. The only "reducible" impervious feature for this petition would be the length of public roadway. Generally, residential developments seek to reduce road length/cross- section and associated costs. This rezoning petition is consistent with this standard. To the extent reasonable and feasible given site constraints, site development should encourage building orientation to public streets. Parking areas do not need to be located exclusively in front of buildings. ~.o. mment: These two standards (7 & 8) are more applicable to commercial and industrial uses. Generally, in residential development, the developer seeks to minimize road construction and other paving costs (See following comment #1 under "Residential Development Design"). Lots will be oriented toward new internal roads and not existing state roads (which would be eons!der.ed as ".stripping" and has lo.n.g been discouraged). This rezoning petition is consistent with long-estabhshed practice regarding residential orientation relative to roads. Encourage the use of external lighting when site illumination is proposed, which is ~efficient, provides necessary security, and is down-directed and shielded to minimize light trespass. Comment: Currently, no lighting restrictions are placed upon homeowners. Subsequent development will be required to comply with regulations in effect at time of plat approval. While deed restrictions could control lighting, no intensity or other limitation has been endorsed or enacted at this time. Adaptive re-use of historic buildings to uses which preserve the building's architecture and site character should be encouraged as a method of historic preservation Comment: The Open Space Plan does not identify any historic feature on this site nor in the immediate area which would be affected by this development. Not applicable. Ensure evaluation of future land use changes under the fiscal impact model prior to rezoning approvals. Appropriate planning/phasing of development to match service/infrastructure availability and capacity should be established. Comment: The position of Fiscal Planner remains vacant and, therefore, no Attachment E6 "official" model is currently being utilized for rezonings. The applicant has provided comment regarding fiscal matters under item 8 of General Principles of Land Use (Attachment D). Staff has provided comment for informational purposes only under Development Impact to Public Facilities in the body of the staff report. Attaclunent E7 Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Land Uses Residential Land Use Standards In addition to the general standards noted above, residential standards are presented here as a basic framework to gnide future residential development proposals. It should be recognized that substantial changes in the economy, housing market, and housing industry may warrant flexibility in the application of these standards. These standards are intended to encourage the provision of various housing types and provide for affordable housing. It is intended that all dwelling types and forms of ownership be permitted within the County. Residential Densities and Relationsh(t)s to Other Land Uses Iotf piS intended that where possible, and practical due to terrain, availability ublic utilities and adequate public infrastructure, that overall development density be at as high a level as practical. The use of bonus provisions to incre-ase density a~nd provide for affordable housing should be encouraged Where demonstrated by economic or other considerations, that density in excess of that recommended by the Plan is warranted to accommodate an affordable housing proposal, a reasonable density increase should be provided Comment: This property could accommodate a higher density with road condition as the primary limiting factor. Thc density of requested development is driven .by market, terrain and other factors and reflects thc applic~intjs determination that density is"as high a level as pra.c, tical." No proposal ns made to provide for affordable housing. While not hterally consistent with the density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, this proposal would increase density as compared to existing zoning. In rezoning deliberations, the County should be mindful of the intent to encourage infill development, contain most future growth within designated Development Areas, and avoid rural d~velopment pressure. Unless contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehensive Plan recommended [and use density-ranges (i.e., Neighborhood or Urban scaled should be favored even if the density exceeds that of surrounding developments. Comment: This property could be developed at a significantly higher density by a change of dwelling unit type or a mix of dwelling unit types. Again, the major constraints in terms of health and safety would be the condition of Rte. 691 and changes in required fire flow dependent on dwelling type. Attachment E8 Maintenance of the integrity of residential areas can be accomplished with standards for the relationship of residential use to adjacent non- residential uses. Buffering, screening and physical separation of non- residential uses can alleviate such relational problems. The current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance addressing the screening of objectionable features and dissimilar uses provide for appropriate protection. These features should be retained In addition to these regulatory requirements, care should be taken tn residential design to provide for buffering, orientation, and other measures to avoid conflicts with surrounding uses. Identification of appropriate land use relationships is important in applying land use designations as well as in considering development proposals. Comment: Since there are no non-residential adjoining uses, this standard is not applicable. Buffering provisions from Rte~ 691 as well as buffering from the development to the west and other areas are included in the proffers. This rezoning petition is consistent with this standard. Residential Develot~rnent Design Residential development should be designed with an internal orientation to foster a sense of place and avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl. To encourage such design, conventional and cluster options as well as density bonuses are provided in all residential zoning districts. Comment: All lots would be served and oriented to an internal road system, avoiding the appearance of suburban sprawl. Common areas between this and the townhouse area would serve to enhance a sense of place Make available a variety of development approaches to the developer that encourage innovative design and reduce housing costs, including zero lot line subdivisions, and sustainable design incentives. Comment: The R-4 zoning district offers a variety of lotting patterns and a variety of single family attached and detached dwelling types. Zero lot line development is not permitted in the R-4 zone. Lot design and residential layout should be based on a rational use of land that reflects topographic and other physical features rather than imposing a layout intended solely to satisfy minimum ordinance requirements. Comment: The Open Space Plan identifies no "Significant Areas" on this property. Prior planning efforts have identified areas of shallow rock, soils limitations and critical slopes. Comparatively, this property has few environmental/physical limitations to development [The applicant is encouraged to utilize this information during subsequent plan deveiopment]. No lot design or residential layout has been submitted for review. For larger developments, layout and design shouM provide for varying building orientation and setback, dwelling unit type, facade treatment, and lot size to avoid repetitiveness. Open space should be employed as a Attachment E9 design feature to establish and define smaller neighborhood areas within the larger development. The PRD/P UD approach is particularly applicable for larger developments. Comment: The PRD option was not chosen for this proposal. This proposal does not provide for a variety of dwelling unit types, however, zoning approval for the townhouse area would be retained. No lot design or residential layout has been submitted for review. Maintain requirements for recreational facilities for developments where the density and lot size do not allow for meaningful recreational space. Comment: The zoning ordinance does not require centralized recreational facilities for a development of this nature. Provision of open space would allow for accommodation of picnic areas and other passive recreation areas. Residents could provide active recreation within these areas upon approval of the Planning Commission. Attachment E10 Land Use Designations Residential Land Use OBJECTIVE: Establish flexible residential land use densities for the designated Development Areas. The success of Development Area development will depend greatly on the provision of residential land use areas that are developable, locationally desirable, and responsive to changing market demands. Two density categories are provided in the Development Area, each with a range of acceptable density. Flexibility in residential density ranges leaves some discretion to the market in propostng development characteristics (such as housing type and arrangements), but relies heavily on County standards to evaluate the suitability and acceptability of the proposal. Strategy: Establish maximum gross development density of each residential category, but determine density of development up to maximum based on specific standards. Two ranges of residential development densities applicable in the Development Areas stipulated below are as follows: NOTE: THIS DEVELOPMENT IS WITHIN AN AREA RECOMMENDED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR URBAN DENSITY AND THEREFORE, ONLY STANDARDS REL3cYIVE TO URBAN DENSITY ARE ADDRESSED HERE: Urban Density Residential areas are intended to have a gross density of between 6.01 to 20 dwellings per acre, with possible densities of up to 34 dwellings per acre under a planned development approach (£RD/PUD). Comment: At a density of 2.5-2.7 dwellings per acre, this rezoning petition is not consistent with this residential density objective. Urban Density Residential areas may be located within the Urban Area and Communities only. This designation is not appropriate within Villages. Comment: This property is located within a Community as designated in the Attachment E11 Comprehensive Plan. Urban Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate residential uses other- than single family detached dwellings. Comment: Thc northern portion of the property has been approved for townhouse development. This portion of the property is proposed for single family detached development. Urban Density Residential designations are not intended for development at densities below 6 dwellings per acre. Comment: This proposal is below the minimum density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan and is therefore not consistent with this residential objective. Developments within an Urban Density Residential areas are expected to occur within the designated range of 6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre and, to the greatest extent practicable, to maximize the developed density. Development densities within the Urban Density Residential area should ultimately be based on environmental criteria, road function and condition, available utilities, adjacent land uses, and site requirements. Comment: This rezoning petition does not meet the minimum density requirement established by the first objective above, however, given various factors including environmental issues, roadway conditions and perceived market, the applicant has determined the requested density to be the maximum currently practicable under the second objective above. CE37(p) Rev. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LAND USE PERMIT , AT~-~ENT F J January 22, 1998 Gray Rock, Route 691 Albemarle County Mr. Ron Keeler Dept. of Planning & Community Developmenu 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Keeler: With reference to our meeting on January 21~ 1998 and clarification of items ~4 and #5 in my letter of January 7, 1998, we submit the following: When we scope Route 691 project for developmenu and should a left turn lane be warranted into Gray Rock Developmenu, we recommend that this be addressed by a proffer to supplement cosu. The right uurn and uaper from Route 691 will be required with the Gray Rock Developmenu and will need to be constructed when the enurance is built. There will need ~o be additional right of way for construction of the uurn lane. A permit will be needed for any work within the right of way. If you have any questions, please advise before releasing commenus to the Developer. Yo~u~s t~uly, / . W H. W. Mills Assistann Resident Engineer HWM/ldw cc: g. H Kesterson DAVID R, GEHR COMMISSIONER RECEIVED q 1998 Planning Dept. COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARL©'J~ESVILLE. 22911 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER January 7. 1998 Gray Rock, Route 691 Albemarle County Mr Ron Keeler Dept. of Planning & Community Developmenu 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Keeler: In response to the Gray Rock Devetopmenu Traffic Impact Analysis Reporu dated November 1997 end received aE our office on December 16, 1997, we have the following comments: 1) It appears the level of servmce at the intersections are satisfactory along the corridor, however we could not determine what width of lanes was used in the analysis. 2) One of our main concerns is the volume of traffic along the non-tolerable roads that surround the project. Route 691 ms currently in the [6) Six Year Plan with an advertisement date of February 2002. ~) We recommend that right of way be dedicated across the frontage of the property ac a minimum of 25 feet from centerline of road, with additional dedication for turn lanes at the Gray Rock/Route 691 intersection. The traffic study indicates a right turm ~aper of ].50 feet wilt be reguired for the westbound right turn movemenn, we recommend that this be changed co a 100 foot taper with a 100 foot turn lane. In addition to make this intersection operate more freely and safer for the through motorists there should be a left mum lane provided. [minimum 100 foot stacking) This will of course require additional right of way dedication. TRANSPORTATIOf FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Mr. Ron Keeler Gray Rock Page 2 January 7, 1998 5) We recommend that instead of the developer building these Eurn lanes with development~ that a proffer be made of approximately $150,000.00 and the turn lanes could be built with the proposed road project. 6) The entrance for Gray Rock is recommended to be wide enough to accommodate three (3) lanes, since there will be a hea~ left turn movement at this location. If you have any questions, developer. please advise before releasing comments to the /~ou~s truly, ~ Assistant Resident Engineer HWM/ldw cc: Irma vonKutzleben Jeff Hores J. H. Kesterson GRAY ROCK REZONING REQIYEST TIlE UNDERSIGNED, residents or business ow~ers of tbu Conm~unity of Crozet supt~ort th~ application of the Frieds to rezon~ approximately 53 ae~ on Jarmans Gap Ro~l to permit 131 single family homes, The proposal will benefit the community of Crozel and fi~rlher the County's goals of directing resid~tial housing in lh~ Gro-,.~h .Mess and no~ in the Rural A~eas of ~h~ Coanly. ADDRESS: GRAY ROCK I~ZONING P..EQUEST THE UNDERSIGNED, residenls or business owner~ of ~c Conununi~~ of Crozc1 sup~ the appli~fion of the F~a m r~o~ approxi~ely 53 ~ on J~s Gap Ro~ to p~t 131 single f~ly hom~. ~e proposM w~l benefit ~he communi~ of~et ~d fu~h~ · e Count's ~s of di~c~g ~id~6~ housing m t~ Gro~ ~ ~d not in ~e P~ A~ of ~e Coaa~-. GRAk' ROCK REZONING RE QUEST TtIE UNDERSIGNED, residents or business owners of the Community of Cmzet supt~rl the application otr the Fri~t,q to r~.on¢ approximately 53 aems on Jannans Gap Road ~t t31 si~e f~ly homes, ~e pto~fl w~l ~nefit the comuni~ of ~ozel ~fl fu~her the Count's go~s of ~r~fing msid~fi~ housing m the Gro~ A~ ~d not in ~e R~ A~ of ~ Coun~ GP. AY ROCK REZONING REQUEST TIlE UNDERSIGNED, residenls or busingss owners of thc Conmmnity of Crozet suplpo~t Ibc application or the Ftieds to rezone approximately 53 acres on Jmmms Gap Ro~l to permit 131 single family homes. The proposal will benefit the commaniB, of C~zet and further the County's goals of d/retting reaid~,afial housing in tl~ Growth Areas and not in the Rumt Areas of the Coca,y. ADDRESS: -~~--~-& ~ ~l~ _~.}~___.i~ ~s~ ~. ~.~ ~K~. C ~' ~t GP.&Y ROCK REZONING REQUEST THE UNDERSIGNED, residents or business owners of the Conwaunity of Cwzct suppoa the application ot'the Fried~ to rezone approximately 53 acres o~t Jarmans Gap Road l)~m-it 131 single family homes. The proposal will bencfi! lhe comamuniiy of Ckoze~ alld fi~rlhcr the County's goal~ of dir¢c{Jng residential housing in the GrouCh ,~as and not in the Rural A~eas of thc County. ADDRESS: _4~.~ .......... _d__~~ ..... _.~~_.~ ...... ~~! .......... GRAY ROCK REZONING REQUEST TIlE UNDERSIGNED, residents o£ business owners of the Conmmnits- of Cwzet support the applicalion of the Frie& to rezone approximately 53 a~ws on Jarmans Gap Road to permit 131 single family homes. The proposal will benefit the community of Orozet and further the County's goals of din~ctbg residential housing in the Gcrowth ,a.~t~ and not in the Poaral A~eas of th~ Co-anVy. Crozet Community Association January 23, 1998 Mr. Walter Perkins, Supervisor Albemarle County Office Building 40 [ Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Perkins, This letter ~s in reference to the upcoming Gray Rock Farm rezoning proposal scheduled to come before the Board of Supervisors on Februm7 18, 1998. At the January 9m meeting of the Crozct Community Association the issue of this rezoning received careful consideration and discussion. As a result of this discussion a motion ~as made and passed w'hich requests the Board of Supervisors defer any final decision on this rezouing. This motion was passed for the following reasons: The residents of Crozet wish to take the opportunity to meet with and discuss the potential for development of the property, with the consulting firm of CHK Associates which has been hired by the County as part of the Development Area Initiative Study. The residents of Crozet wish to have hke same opportunity as other growth area residents to be part of the county wide design process now underway. Indeed, it would seem not only counterproductive, but also a waste of taxpayer dollars to employ consultants to work with growth area residents and then make decisions without obtaining their input. This would be especially true for the Gray Rock property, which represents a significant mount of the remaining open land in the Cmzet growth It is the view of the membership that the current PtLD zoning that now exists for this property was the result of a prior decision made between the owner of the property, the residents of Crozet and the Board of Supervisors. It is the opinion of our members that prior decisions, especially those on the level of a PPI), must be honored and that such agreements can only be changed with the advice and consent of the residents of Crozet. The fact is, Crozet is a growth area and as such will have to bear a greater physical and social burden than other areas in Albemarle county that do not fall in this category. Because of this additional burden it is the opiniou of our members that every consideration must be given to growth area residents in the planning of their neighborhoods and communities. The Crozet Community Association is committed to Albemarle County's policy for growth area management We believe that for this policy to be successful every effort must be made to make our growth area communities desirable places to live and that this can only be accomplished with the cooperation of all of our residents. Our membership is more ~ willing to work with developers as part of a collaborative effort with the County Planning Staff; members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors and hope the board wit/help give ns that chance. Best Regards, Thomas Loueh, President 5&~,RD OF SUPERVIS©~g?' CcMembers, BoardofSupervisors -~ e ..... ' ', 2C BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,,.~)~'/ XX .... o ~ ..~ X, ~ ', / / . / ~ I ~ ~.~.~ ~ ~ 0 , ~ -~ X ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ , -- ~'% ~ ) ,, ~ i ~,,~ ,.~ % ~J_ I__~__~ ~ [ /:lip _]~% ', ~ , ~ , ~,, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA TAX NAP §5, PARCELS 65 G 65A ZNA 97-22 CONCEPTUAL PLAN January 16, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept, of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804~ 296-5823 Steve Blame McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe P. O. Box 1288 Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: ZMA 97-12 Grayrock (Fried Companies, Inc.) Dear Mr. Blaine: This letter is to notify you that your above-referenced petition, has been scheduled for public hearings as follows: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1998 Both of these meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the staffreport and tentative agenda one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS. If you should have any questions or concerns about this petition or schedule, please do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 296-5823 ext. 3250#. Sincerely, Chief Of Planning RSL/blb cc: '~s. Ella Carey Robert S. & Ann S. Savage Fried Companies, Inc. February 4, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 /804) 296-5823 Steve Blaine e/o McGuire, Woods, Baffle & Boothe, LLP P O Box 1288 418 East Jefferson St Charlottesville, VA 22902 ' / / RE. ZMA-97-12 Fried Companies, Inc (G-r~frock) Tax Map 55. Parcels 65 and 65A / Dear Mr. Blaine: / BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / / The Albemarle County Planning Co~fiss~on, at its meeting on February 3, 1998, forwarded this petition to the Board of Supervisor/with no recommendation. Please be advised that the Albemarle CountX Board of Sup~visors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on February 18: ~,99.8. ~An. y. new or additional inform, ation regarding your application must be submitt%l~o the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing c~te. If you should have ~a~y~estions or Comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact m~ / Sincerely, Chief of Planning RSK/jcf cc: l.."EeIIfi"~Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey III. RECREATIONAL AND BUFFER AREAS 3.1 Recreational Areas: Walking/Jogging Trails. Applicant, or the Association, (defined in 4.5(a) below) shall manage the ponds, and shall establish and maintain recreational improvements and picnic areas in in the open space areas adjacent m the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, for use by homeowners within the Property. Except as specifically set forth herein, the recreational and picnic improvements to be constructed within the open space areas shall be constructed as a condition of the platting of each section of the subdivision that either contains such open space or, is located immediately adjacent m such recreational or picnic improvement. Applicant shall construct a tot lot and basketball court in the areas indicated on the Conceptual Plan. The tot lot shall contain the equipment required by Section 4.16.2.1 of the Ordinance. The basketball court shall conform m the specifications of Section 4.16.2.2 of the Ordinance. Applicant shall establish a walking/jogging trail through the wooded area and along the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. The surface of the walking/jogging trail shall consist of wood chips, and tree clearing shall be kept m a minimum. Applicant shall construct a picnic shelter in the area shown on the Conceptual Plan. The open space, tot lot, basketball court, picnic shelter and walking trail located in the area of the ponds as shown on the attached Conceptual Plan shall also be for the mutual benefit of the residents in. the development on the Townhouse Property. In order to provide access to the open space and recreation areas, Applicant shall install at least one (1) pedestrian access at a grade of not greater than 10%. 3.2 Buffer Area Easement. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall establish a 50' Buffer Area easement along the western boundary of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Plan. The 50' Buffer Area shall be maintained by the owners of the lots encumbered by the easement in a natural state, and shall not be disturbed other than m: i) construct fences or walls, approved by the Association, ii) remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping trees for screening. The 50' Buffer Area easement shall run to the benefit of the Association and shall be enforced by the Association, as provided by the Declaration. 3.3 Landscaping: Utilities. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant, or the Association shall maintain and replace as necessary, outside the 30' area to be dedicated for improvements to Jarmans Gap Road, (State Route 691) tree screening along larmans Gap Road for the length of the subdivision (except for the entrance area). Such screening shall consist of double staggered rows of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on-center, in accordance with Section 32.7.9.8.4 of the Ordinance and shall be located within a permanent open space area 20' in width (measured from the edged of the State Route 691 dedication). The 20' open space area along State Route 691 shall be maintained by the Association, and may include stormwater management BMPs. Applicant also shall plant street trees along the internal road system, at {10fi} [40] foot intervals, -{~~ on both sides of the roads) as sections of the subdivision are platted. Street trees shall be maintained and replaced as necessary, by the Applicant, or the Association and shall be from To: ' Members, Board of Supervisors From: EllaWashington Carey, CMC, Cler4~J.~__~ Subject: Reading List for February 18, 1998 Date: February 13, 1998 February 7, 1996: Pages - 23 - Mrs. Humphris September 17. 1997: Mr. Martin /~WC RESOLUTION W}{EREAS, the planning district commissions throughout the Commonwealth serve both state and local interests; and WHEREAS, the snane funding for planning district commissions would support the state's interes~ in regional planning, and the use of regional planning as a basis for state-wide planning; and WHEREAS, the local contribution 5o the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission increases every year as a result of population growth; and W~EREAS, additional state supporn would assist the planning district commissions to help both the state and local governments; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Countuy Board of Supervisors and Charlottesville City Council hereby supporns increased state funding for planning district commissIons and urges the passage of the bndge~ amendment ~o do so. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, corect copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of 5 ~o 0 on February 81, 1998. C~Ff~/, B-oard of Coul/~y Su-ptvisors / EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(a) Of the CODE Of VIRGINIa UNDER SUE~SECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MAi i ERS RELATING TO CHARLOTTESVILLE'S TRANSITION TO TOWN STATUS.