Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-182. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10 11, 12, 13 FINAL 7:00 P.M JUNE 18, 1997 ROOM 241. SECOND FLOOR, COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING Call to Order~ Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda Con next sheet~. ZMA-97-I. Still Meadows I Signs #63.64,68&69;. Public Hearing on a request ro rezone approx.1 z~ acs from R1 to PRD w max of 160 lots. Located at end of Northfields R4, Access proposed to Northfmlds Rd and Carrsbrook Dr. TM46,P21 & TM45B2 P2(part)&4(part). (Properoj recom for Neighborhood Density (3-6 du~ac3 in Neighborhood 2 of Comp Plan.) Rio Dist. (Applicant requests deferraL) ZMA-96-24. N&S. LL.C~ (Signs #75, #76. #77 & #78L Public Hea~ng on a request to rezone approx. 43 acs from R-2 &EC to R-15 &EC. TM76,Ps~4.54A.55B&35D. Propert'ms on N sd of Rt431 (Fifth St Ext) approx ,2 mi SW of I~64. (Ps54,54A&55B are recommended for Transitional Use in Neighborhood 5. Scott~ville D~st. (Deferred from May ~1, 1997,) SP-97-05_ WTmgspreadFarmEstates (S~gns#5t.52&53L PubhcHearir!g on a request to allow construct of bridge in floodway in conjunct w/proposed Wingspread Sub& Znd RA. Bxklge would cross Hardware Rio near Lots 9 &t 0,~i propased subd. Located on W sd Of Rt29 N near inter w Heards Mm Rd (Ri 633). TM982P15A. ~ Property shown as RA in Comp Plan3 Scottsvflle & Samuel Miller Dists. SP-97-15. Western Ridge Business Park (~xgns #73&741. Public He~ring on a request to establish day care on 1.5 acs of 10.51 ac site. znd LI. Located on S side of Rt 240_ Three Nomh'd Rd. approx 1 ~5 mi W of Kt 240/250 inter at Me,bum's Rvr. TM56. P~art of Ps88,89,90&90A- (Property ~ Community of Croeet & recom for Industrial Sexvice.~ White Hall Dist. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Executive Session: Legal Matters. Certify Executive Session. Adiourn. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tudcer, Ir., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerl~W~- June 19. 1997 Board Actions of June 18. 1997 At its meeting on June 18, 1997. the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. l. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman. (All Board members were present.) Agenda Item No. 4, Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. Item No. 5. I. Amendments to the Albemarle County Personnel Policy, Section P-03. dealing with employee grievances. Adopted the attached resolution. Resolution forwarded to Mark Trank, Item No. 5.2. Set public hearing for July 9. 1997. to amend and reordain Chapter 12. Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the County Code. Public Hearing set for July 9. 1997, Item No. 5.3. Authorize County Executive to execute service agreement with Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., advancing $50,000 to purchase new utility vehicle. Approved. Agreement forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg June 19, 1997 (Page 2) Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-97-1. Still Meadows (Signs #63,64,68&-69). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx .I42 acs from R1 to PRD w/max of 160 lots. Located at end of Northflelds Rd. Access proposed to Northfields Rd and Carrsbrook Dr. TM46,P21 & TM45B2, P2(part)&4(part). (Property recom for Neighborhood Density (3-6 du/ac) in Neighborhood 2 of Comp Plan.) Rio Dist. (Applicant requests deferral.) DEFERRED ZMA-97-1 until September 10, 1997, at the request of the applicant. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-96-24. N&S, L~L.C. (Signs #75, #76, #77 & #78). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx. 43 acs from R-2 & EC to R-15 & EC. TM76)Ps54,54A, 55B&55D. Properties on N sd of Rt 631 (Fifth St Ext) approx .2 mi SW of 1-64. (Ps54,54A& 55B are recommended for Transitional Use in Neighborhood 5. Scottsville Dist. (Deferred from May 21, 1997.) APPROVED ZMA-96-24 to rezone up to R-10 designation in lieu of the applicant's request for R-15 designation. (Note: A motion to approve ZMA-96-24 to rezone up to R-6 designation in lieu of;the applicant's request for R-15 designation failed by vote of 2!4.) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-05. Wingspread Farm Estates: (Signs#51,52&53). Public Hearing on a request to allow construct of bridge in floodway in conjunct:~v/proposed Wingspread Subd. Znd RA. Bridge would cross Hardware Riv near Lots :9 &I0 of proposed: subd. Located on W sd of Rt 29 N near inter w/Heards Mtn Rd (Rt 633). TM98;PtSA, (Property shown as RA in Comp Plan.) Scottsvifle & Samuel Miller Dists: (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1997.) APPROVED SP-97-05 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: Water Resources Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment and inclusion of mitigation measures for critical sections immediately upstream and downstream of the stream crossing in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; Engineering Department approval of the final crossing plans and details. These plans must dearly show the before and after construction 100-year flood elevations and boundaries; 3. Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details and computations; Engineering Department approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing. These computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Flood elevations at the upstream property line must not increase; Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg June t9, 1997 (Page 3) regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses, The applicant is encouraged to contact the Federal and State agencies in the early stages of the design process; Verification that the access easement which exists on the property, as shown crossing Lots 12 and 13, caa~ be used for emergency access from the subdivision to Route 29; and Provision of gate across the emergency accessway which discourages shortcuts through the adjoining properties, but provides unimpeded emergency access during flooding or other emergency conditions. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-97-15. Western Ridge Business Park (Signs #73&74). Public Hearing on a request to establish day care on 1.5 acs of 10.51 ac site, znd LI. Located on S side of Rt 240, Three Notch'd Rd, approx 1.5 mi W of Rt 240/250 inter at Mechum's Rvr. TM56, Part of Ps88,89,90&90A. (Property in Community of Crozet & recom for Industrial Service.) White Hall Dist. APPROVED SP-97-15 subject to the following conditions recommended bythe Planning Commission: No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare asa child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit tothe zoning administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the zoning adininistrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the conditions of this special use permit; Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle Cotmty fire official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the conditions of this special use permit; and These conditions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Fred Pa)me, representing Mr. Heischman, asked the Board to rescind its earlier action tonight on ZMA-96-24, to allow the applicant the opportunity to work with staff and amend the proffer in response to Board comments. The Board took no action on this request. VOTED to accept an application from Hunter Craig for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Highlm~ds Section 3 (ZMA-96-17) earlier than the next scheduled deadline. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Mr. V, Wayne Cilimberg June 19; 1997 (Page 4) Mrs. Thomas said as of two weeks ago gantrak added a Virginia Rail Express car to the Crescent in Atlanta for travel through Charlottesville to Washington DC. VOTED to recommend to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission the appointment of Mr. Derek Jones to the Sustainability Council. Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 9:16 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion, probable litigation regarding claims for attorney fees and probable litigation regarding a denial of a jurisdictional area. Agenda Item No. 12. Certify Executive Session. At 10:54 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and certified the executive session. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 10:55 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board. the meeting was adjourned. iEWC Attachments cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxarme White Kevin C. Castner Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Jan Sprinkle Yadira Amari File RESOLUTION TO AMEND SECTION P-03 OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Grievance Policy is intended to provide a fair, equitable and satisfactory method of addressing employee complaints and grievances; and WHEREAS~ Section 15.1-7.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to local government grievance procedures, requires a public body to establish and maintain written grievance procedures applicable to its employees, but exempts certain employees from those procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby amends Section P-03 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy by adding the following new paragraphs preceding the section entitled "Definition of Grievance" as follows: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY §P-03 §P-03 GRIEVANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURE Objective: It is the objective of the Board of Supervisors to provide fair, equitable and satisfactory working arrangements for its employees. Every effort will be made to resolve employee grievances informally with the least amount of worry and delay. However, in some cases it becomes necessary to proceed through a formal appeal and panel review to handle thoroughly a given grievance. Accordingly, the following procedures and regulations are established. Eligible Employees: Only employees deemed eligible to file grievances may utilize this grievance procedure. Unless otherwise provided by law, all permanent full-time and permanent part-time local government employees are eligible to file grievances with the following exceptions: (2) (3) (4) Appointees of the Board of Supervisors; Officials and employees who serve at the will or pleasut'e of the Board of Supervisors or the County Executive; Deputies and Assistants to the County Executive; Depadment or agency heads; (5) Employees whose terms of employment are limited by law; (6) Temporary, limited term and seasonal employees; (7) Probationary employees; and (8) Law enfomement officers whose grievance is subject to the provisions of § 2.1-116.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, and who have elected to proceed pursuant to those provisions in the resolution of their grievance. The Director of Human Resoumes or his designee shall prepare and maintain a list of all officers and employees excluded from the grievance procedure. Such fist, however, shall be advisory only and shall not be binding upon the County Executive in determining whether those officers or employees are eligible employees for purposes of this grievance procedure. Definition of Grievance: A grievance shall be a complaint or dispute by an eligible employee as defined in this policy relating to his employment, including but not necessarily limited to: Disciplinary actions including dismissals, disciplinary demotions; and suspensions provided that dismissals shall be grievable whenever resulting from formal discipline or unsatisfactory job performance; If an appeal is made of any disciplinary action;: the appealing employee should recognize that at each level of the process; a new hearing on the matter will beheld and the disciplinary action rendered at subsequent levels may be either more or less stringent than that recommended at a previous level. The application of personnel policies, procedures~ rules and regulations~ including the application of polioies involving the contents of ordinances, statutes or established personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations; Acts of retaliation as the result of utilization of the grievance procedure or participation in the grievance of another local govemment employee; Complaints of discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, political affiliation, age; disability, national odgin or sex; and Acts of retaliation because the employee has complied with any law of the United States or of the Commonwealth, has reported any violation of such law to a governmental authority, or has sought any change in law before the Congress of the United States or the General Assembly. The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County shall retain the exclusive fight to manage the affairs and operations of government, Accordingly, the following complaints are nongrievable: 2 1. Establishment and revision of wages or salaries, position classification or general benefits; 2. Work activity accepted by the employee as a condition of employment or work activity which may reasonably be expected to be part of the job content; 3. The interpretation of contents of ordinances, statutes or established personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations; 4. Failure to promote except where the employee can show that established promotional policies or procedures were not followed or applied faidy; 5. The methods, means and personnel by which work activities are to be carried on; 6. Except where such action affects an employee who has been reinstated within the previous six months as the result of the final determination of a grievance, termination, layoff, demotion or suspension from duties because of lack of work, reduction in work force, or job abolition; 7. The hiring, promotion, transfer, assignment and retention of employees within the County of Albemarle; 8. The relief of employees from duties of the County of Albemarle in emergencies; In any grievance brbught under the exception to provision 6 of this subdivision, the action shall be upheld upon a showing by the local government that: I. there was a valid business reason for the action; and ii. the employee was notified of the reason in writing pdor to the effective date of the action. Grievances filed with regard to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) shall follow the grievance procedure established in the County's ADA Transition Plan. Management Rights: Nothing in this procedure is intended to circumscribe or modify the existing management right of the County to do the following: I. direct the work of its employees as well as establish and revise wages, salaries, position classification and general employee benefits; 2. hire, promote, transfer, assign and retain employees within the agency; 3. maintain the efficiency of governmental operations; 3 4. relieve employees from duties of the agency in emergencies; and determine the methods, means, and personnel by which operations are to be carried out. Determination of Grievability: If a question arises as to whether an employee is eligible to grieve under this policy, or whether a particular complaint constitutes a grievance as defined by this policy, and the department head/supervisor determines that the complaint is not grievable because the employee is not eligible to grieve or because the complaint does not state a grievance, the employee may appeal the decision regarding grievability to the County Executive. Such appeal shall be filed by the employee in writing within five (5) working days following the department head/supervisor's determination that the complaint is not grievable. The County Executive shall issue a decision concerning grievability within ten (10) working days of receipt of the written appeal by the employee. The County Executive shall not be required to meet with the employee, but shall base his decision on the wdtten record. th the event that the employee disagrees with the decision of the County Executive concerning grievability, the employee may appeal the issue of grievability to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County for a hearing. The employee shall perfect his appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the Circuit Court within ten (10) working days following the date of the County Executive's decision regarding grievability. A standard form for this purpose is available from the Department of Human Resources. The employee shall serve copies of such notice of appeal upon the County Executive and County Attorney, Within ten (10) working days after receipt of service of the notice of appeal, the County Executive shall transmit to the circuit Court the wdtten record, including copies of the decision of the County Executive regarding grievability, the notice of appeal, and any exhibits. The County Executive shall also serve a copy of the list of evidence furnished to the Circuit Court upon the employee. The failure of the County E~ecutive to transmit the wdtten record within the ten-day period shall not entitle the employee to pursue his complaint on the merits, nor shall it prejudice the rights of the employee in any manner. In the event the County Executive fails to transmit the written record within the ten-day period to the Circuit Court, the employee may petition the Circuit Court for a wdt of cediorad requiring the County Executive to transmit the record on or before a certain date. The Circuit Court shall hold a hearing to consider the issue of grievability only, and shall not consider the merits of the complaint. The Circuit Court may affirm the decision of the County Executive, or it may reverse or modify the decision. The Circuit Court's decision shall be final and nonappealable. Either the employee or the County may raise the issue of grievability at any stage of the grievance procedure prior to a panel hearing, but once raised, the issue of grievability shall be resolved prior to fudher proceedings. In any event, the issue of grievability must be resolved pdor to the panel headng or it shall be deemed to have been waived. The classification of a complaint as non-grievable shall not be construed to restrict any employee's right to seek or the County's dght to provide customary administrative review of complathts outside the scope of the grievance policy. 4 Policy: All stages of the grievance beyond the first step (see following procedure) shall be in writing on forms supplied by the Human Resources Department of the County. Once an eligible employee as defined in this policy reduces his grievance to writing he must specify on the appropriate form the specific relief he expects to obtain through use of this procedure. After the initial filing of a written grievance, failure of either party to comply with all substantial procedural requirements of the grievance procedure, including the panel hearing, without just cause shall result in a decision in favor of the other party on any grievable issue, provided the party not in comDliance fails to correct the non-compliance within five (5) working days of receipt of written notification by the other party of the compliance violation. Such written notification by the grievant shall be made to the County Executive, or his designee. The County Executive, or his designee, at his option, may require a clear written explanation of the basis for just cause extensions or exceptions. The County Executive, or his designee, shall determine compliance issues. Compliance determination made by the County Executive shall be subject to judicial review by filing a petition with the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) calendar days of the compliance determination. Required Steps in the Grievance Procedure Any eligible employee as defined in this policy who timely files a grievable complaint shall have the right to follow all the steps of this procedure as listed below with complete freedom from reodsal. Albemarle County police officers have the right to file a grievance under this procedure or the state law enforcement officers grievance procedure but not both. With the exception of Step I¥ (Upper Management Level) the only person who may normally be present in the Management Step meetings are the grievant, the appropriate official at the level at which the grievance is being heard, and appropriate witnesses for each side. Witnesses shall be present only while actually providing testimony. At the Upper Managemen[ Level, the grievant, at his option, may have present a representative of his choice. If the grievant is represented by legal counsel, the County Executive likewise has the option of being renresented by counsel. If an appeal is made of any disciplinary action, the appealing employee should recognize that at each level of the process, a new hearing on the matter will be held and the disciplinary action rendered at subsequent levels may be either more or less stringent than that recommended at a previous level. Step I (Supervisory Level) a) Within thirty (30) calendar days after the occurrence or condition giving rise to the grievance, the employee affected may identify the grievance verbally to the employee's immediate supervisor.* Within three (3) working days of such presentation, the supervisor shall give his/her response to the employee with respect to the grievance, or shall advise the employee that additional time for such decision is needed, in which case a decision must be given the employee within three (3) working days thereafter. b) If a satisfactory resolution is not reached by this process, the employee shall produce the grievance in writing, identifying the nature of the grievance and the expected remedy on Grievance Form A. Such wdtten grievance shall be presented to the immediate supervisor and Director of Human Resources within three (3) working days of the supervisor's verbal reply. 2. Step Il (Management Level) If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the first step, the employee may so indicate on the grievance form and submit the grievance to his/her department head within ten (10) working days. A meeting to review the grievance shall be held between the employee and the department head within three (3) working days. The time between the second step submission and the second step meeting may be extended by mutual agreement. When the action being grieved was initiated by a level above the immediate supervisor, the grievance shall be presented to the person whose action is being grieved. A second step written reply to the grievant shall be provided to the employee within three (3) working days after the second step meeting. 3. Step Ill (Upper Management Level) If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the second step~ the employee may submit the grievance to the Deputy County Executive: Submission to the third step must occur within ten (10) working days of the second step. The Deputy County Executive will meet with the employee within three (3) working days or indicate an extension is necessary; Such extension shall not exceed three (3) additional working days except by mutual agreement. The Deputy County Executive shall render a written reply to the grievance within three (3) working days following the third step meeting. 4. Step IV (Upper Management Level) If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the third step, the employee may submit the grievance to the County Executive. Submission to the fourth step must occur within ten (10) working days of the third step. The County Executive will meet with the employee within three (3) working days or indicate an extension is necessary. Such extension shall not exceed three (3) additional working days except by mutual agreement. The County Executive shall render a written reply to the grievance within three (3) working days following the fourth step meeting. 5. Step V (Panel Hearing) If the reply from the foudh step meeting is not aFceptable to the grievant, he/she may submit the grievance to a fifth step panel headng. The request for~ fifth step panel hearing shall be indicated by the employee on Panel Hearing Form B and submitted to thc County Executive. A request for panel hearing must be submitted within ten (10) working days of the fdurth step reply. The County Executive will arrange for the panel selection and schedule the panel hearing. 6 A panel shall be chosen which shall be composed of three members and shall be chosen in the following manner: one member appointed by the grievant, one member appointed by the County Executive and a third member selected by the first two. To ensure an objective panel, neither the gdevant nor supervisory personnel responding to the first four steps of the grievance may serve on the panel. Panels chosen in compliance with these requirements shall be deemed to be impartial. In the event that agreement cannot be reached as to the final panel member, the chief judge of the Circuit Court of this County shall select such third panel member: To insure an impartial panel, such panel shall select such third panel member. To insure an impartial panel, such panel shall not be composed of any person having direct involvement with the grievance being heard at the panel, or with the complaint or dispute giving rise to the grievance. Managers who are in a direct line of supervision of a grievant and the following relatives of a participant in the grievance process or a participant's spouse are prohibited from serving as panel member: spouse, parent, child, descendants of a child, sibling, niece, nephew and first cousin. No attorney having direct involvement with the subject matter of the grievance, nor a partner, associate, employee or co-employee of such an attorney shall serve as a panel member. Panel members chosen in compliance with these requirements shall be deemed to be impartial. In cases involving retaliation or employee termination, Albemarle County retains its right to use an administrative hearing officer as a third panel member. When this option is exercised, the administrative headng officer shall be appointed by the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court. The appointment shall be made from a list of Administrative Headng Officers maintained by the Executive Secretary pursuant of Section 9-6.14:14.1 and shall be made from the appropriate geographical region on a rotation basis. If the local government elects to use an Administrative Hearing Officer it shall bear the expense of such officer's services. In all cases, the third panel:member shall be the chairman, set the time for the headng and notify the employee. The hearing shall be held no later than (10) working days after the date of the request unless the selection involves the use of the Circuit Court. in such case, the hearing shall beheld as soon as practicable, but no more than ten (10) working days altec the final panel member has been selected. The grievant may have present at this meeting representatives of his/her choice. Copies of Form A shall be sent by the County Executive to the panel members. The majority decision of the panel, acting within the scope of its authority, shall be final, subject to existing policies, procedures and law. The question of whether the relief granted by the panel is consistent with wdtten policy shall be determined by the County Executive of Albemarle County, or his designee; unless such person has a direct personal involvement with the event or events giving rise to the grievance, in which case a decision shall be made by the Attorney for the Commonwealth of Albemarle County. The panel has a responsibility to interpret the application of appropriate agency policies and procedures in the case. It does not have the authority to formulate policies or procedures or to alter existing policies or procedures. The conduct of the hearing shall be as follows: The panel shall determine the propriety of attendance at the hearing of persons not having a direct interest in the hearing. At the request of either party, the headng shall be private. The County shall provide the panel with copies of the grievance record prior to the hearing and provide the grievant with a list of the documents furnished to the panel. The grievant and his attorney, at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the scheduled panel hearing, shall be allowed access to and copies of all relevant files intended to be used in the grievance proceeding. Documents, exhibits and lists of witnesses shall be exchanged between the parties at least five (5) calendar days in advance of the hearing and the parties shall be under a continuing duty to disclose additional documents identified later which may be used in the respective parties' cases-in-chief. The panel may, at the beginning of the hearing, ask for statements clarifying the issues involved. Exhibits, when offered by the grievant or the County, may be received in evidence by the panel, and when so received, shall be marked and made a part of the record. The grievant and supervisor, or their representatives, shall then present their claims, evidence and witnesses who shall submit to the questions or other examination. The panel may, at its discretion, vary this procedure but shall afford full and equal opportunity to all parties and witnesses for presentation of any material or relevant evidence. The parties may offer evidence and shall produce such additional evidence as the panel may deem necessary to an understanding and determination of the disputes, The panel shall be the judge of relevancy and materiality of the evidence offered. All evidence shall be taken in the presence of the panel and of the parties. The panel chairman shall specifically inquire of all parties whether they have any further proofs to offer or witnesses to be heard. Upon receiving negative replies, the chairman shall declare the hearing dosed. The hearing may be reopened by the panel chairman no later than fifteen (15) working days after the completion of the headng. The decision shall be made on forms furnished by the County. The decision shall be filed in writing by the panel chairman with the County Executive no later than fifteen (15) working days after the completion of the hearing. The decision shall be made on forms furnished by the County. Copies of the decision shall be transmitted to the County Executive, the employee, and the employee's supervisor. The parties to the grievance, by mutual agreement, or the panel chairman may extend any or all of the time periods established in this procedure. The grievant must bear any cost involved in employing representation or in the legal preparation of his/her case. 8 Either party may petition the court for an order requiring implementation of the decision of the panel. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of six to zero on June 18, 1997. Clerk, Board of County Superv. J~rs 9 SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this /62 day of June, 1997, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA_ a political subdivision. (the "Countv"L and the CROZET VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT. INC.. ~the "Fire Departntent" ). WHEREAS. the Fire Department agrees to continue to provide valuable fire protection services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Communications Center ~"Service Area"); and WHEREAS. the Fire Department desires the County to contribute Fifty Thousand Dollars I $50.000 ~ for the pm'chase of a utility vehicle: and WHEREAS, the Fire Department desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholding of payments by the County. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises the County and Fire Department agree, as follows: 1. The County previously had entered into a sepvice agreement ~vith the Fire Department dated June 28, 1995, providing for the withholding of certain sums each vear by the County from the County's annual appropriation to the Fire Department. as set forth in said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebtedness now totals Two Hundred Fifty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($257.700L 2. The County shall contribute to the Fire Department Fifty Thousand Dollars 1550,000~ to be used for the purchase of a utility vehicle. These funds shall be allocated from the County's Fire Fund ("Fund"l and shall be delivered upon demand after the execution of this Agreement. 3. The Fire Department agrees that the County will withhold Thirty-Eight Thousand Fottr Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($38,462.50'~ from the County's annual appropriation to the Fire Department's operating budget for eight (8) years beginning July 1. 1997. and ending after a final withholding on July 1, 2004, and that such withholding may be used by the County to replenish the Ftmd for so long as the Cotmty, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of the prior serwce agreements with the Fire Department dated February 22, 1985. June 11, 1986, May I 1. 1990, April 12, 1995, and June 28. 1995. 4. The Fire Department agrees that the Fifty Thousand Dollars r$50,000 contribution shall be used only for the purchase of the utility vehicle. The Fire Department further agrees that it shall not convey the utility vehicle or any interest therein to any party other than the County ,vithout the Countys prior written consent. 5. The Fire Department agrees that at such time as it no longer provides volunteer fire department services in Albemarle Cotmty while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey all of its interest in the vehicle described in paragraph 2 to the County at no additional cost to the CounTy upon the County's request. 6. The County and Fire Department agree that the covenants set forth in their prior agreements dated February 22. 1985, June I1. 1986, May 11. 1990, April 12, 1995, and June 28. 1995. to the extent they are not in conflict with this Agreement. shall remain in full force and effect. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to the Fire Department. at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors. to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Fire Department. Witness the following signatures and seals: Date ROBERT W. TUCKER. JR. ~ ALBEMARLE COUNTY EXECUTIVE Date Approved as to Form: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: CROZET V~EUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT. INC. ~wo~'n to ~d subscribed ~for~ m~ thi~_ I ~ The foregoing xnstrument was signed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this /9 Notary Public My Commission Expires: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden. Director of Finance Ella W. Carey. Clerk, CMC~*~F.~-~ June 20, 1997 Board Actions of June 18. 1997 At its meeting on June 18. 1997, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item No. 5.2. Set public hearing for July 9. 1997, to amend and reordain Chapter 12. Motor Vehicles and Traffic. of the County Code. Public Hearing set for July 9, 1997. Item No. 5.3. Authorize County Executive to execute sermce agreement with Crozet Volunteer Fire Department. Inc.. advancing $50.000 to purchase new utility vehicle, Authorized County Executive to execute agreement. Attachment (1) cc: Robert Walters COUNTY~ OF ALBEMARLE Office of C~unty Execufive 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~596 (804) 296-5841 FAX ~804) 9724060 June 26, 1997 The Honorable Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk Albemarle County Circuit Court 501 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: County of Albemarle Grievance Procedure Amendments Dear Shelby: Enclosed please fred a copy of the amended Grievance Procedure adopted by the Board of SupervisOrs on June 18, 1997. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.1-7.2, I hereby certify that the attached Grievance Procedure is in compliance with this provision. Please return to me a certified copy of this Certification for our records. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this matter, Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Enclosures cc: Larry W. Davis, County Attorney Ella W. Carey, Clerk MAI :certgrv. it2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARI° E -9 P° :42 Rsvp BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendments to Personnel Policy SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of amendments to the Albemade County Personnel Policy, Section P-03. dealing with employee grievances, to clarify eligibility of employees to file grievances and to clarify procedures for appealing determinations by the County Executive regarding grievability of specific complaints. STAFF CONTACT(S}: Messrs. Tucker. Huff. Davis. Trank AGENDA DATE: June 18, 1997 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes J BACKGROUND: Section 15.1-7.1 of the Code of Virginia requires the Board of Supervisors to maintain a grievance procedure for its employees that affords an immediate and fair method for the resolution of disputes which may arise in the workplace. The current Grievance Procedure is set forth in Section P-03 of the Albemarle County Personnel Policy. Pursuant to state code requirements, all nonprobationary local government permanent full-time and permanent part-time employees are eligibts to file grievances with certain exceptions. Currently the Personnel Policy does not specify within the Grievance Procedure which employees are eligible to file grievances, instead, eligible employees are defined in other sections of the Personnel Policy. This has led to some confusion. In addition, the process in the current Grievance Procedure to appeal the County Executive's decision is difficult to interpret by employees attempting to utilize the procedure. The proposed amendments clarify how a decision can be appealed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends thatthe Board adoptthe proposed amendments tothe County Personnel Policy, to be effe~ive upon passage. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mark Trank. Deputy- County Attorney Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC-~O C- June 20, 1997 Resolution to Amend Section P-03 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy At its meeting on June 18, 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution to amend Section P-03 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy. /~WC Attachment cc: Richard E. Huff, II Juliet Je~mings RESOLUTION TO AMEND SECTION P-03 OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Grievance Policy is intended to provide a fair, equitable and satisfactory method of addressing employee complaints and grievances; and WHEREAS. Section 15.1-7.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to local govemment grievance procedures, requires a public body to establish and maintain written grievance procedures applicable to its employees, but exempts certain employees from those procedures, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby amends Section P-03 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy by adding the following new paragraphs preceding the section entitled "Definition of Grievance" as follows: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY §P-03 §P-03 GRIEVANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURE Ob!ective: It is the objective of the Board of Supervisom to provide fair, equitable and satisfactory working arrangements for its employees. Every effort will be made to resolve employee grievances informally with the least amount of worry and delay. However, ~n some cases it becomes necessary to proceed through a formal appeal and panel review to handle thoroughly a given grievance. Accordingly, the following procedures and regulations are established. Elioible Employees Only employees deemed eliqible to file qrievances may utilize this drievance Drocedure. Unless otherwise provided by law, all permanent full-time and permanent part-time local qovernment employees are eliqible to file qrievances with the followinq exceptions: Appointees of the Board of Supervisors: Officials and employees who serve at the will or pleasure of the Board of Supervisors or Deputies and Assistants to the County Executive; Depadment or aqency heads; Emp oyees whose terms of employment are mired b.v aw Temoorarv. limited term and seasonal emolovees: Probationary emDIov_ees: and Law enforcement officers whose arievance is sut)iect to the orovisions of ~ 2.1-116.1 et seq. of the Code of Virqinia (1950) as amended, and who have elected to proceed pursuant to those orovisions in the resolution of their ~. rievance. The Director of Human Resources or his designee shall prepare and maintain a list of all officers and employees excluded from the arievance ~)rocedure. Such list, however, shall be advisory only and shall not be bindino uoon the County Executive in determinina whether those officers or emolovees are eliqible employees for purposes of this qrievance procedure. Definition of Grievance: A grievance shall be a complaint or dispute by an eliqible employee as defined in this policy relating to his employment, including but not necessarily limited to: Disciplinary actions including dismissals, disciplinary demotions, and suspensions provided that dismissals shall be grievable whenever resulting from formal discipline or unsatisfactory job performance; If an appeal is made of any disciplinary action, the appealing employee should recognize that at each level of the process, a new hearing on the matter will be held and the disciplinary action rendered at subsequent levels may be either more or less stringent than that recommended at a previous level. The application of personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations, including the application of policies involving the contents of ordinances, statutes or established personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations; 3, Acts of retaliation as the result of utilization of the grievance procedure or participation in the grievance of another local government employee; Complaints of discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, political affiliation age, disability, national orig~n or sex; and Acts of retaliation because the employee has complied with any law of the United States or of the Commonwealth, has reported any violation of such law to a governmental authority, or has sought any change in law before the Congress of the United States or the General Assembly. The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County shall retain the exclusive right to manage the affairs and operations of government. Accordingly, the following complaints are nongrievable: 1. Establishment and revision of wages or salaries, position classification or general benefits; Work activity accepted by the employee as a condition of employment or work activity which may reasonably be expected to be part of the .ob content; The interpretation of contents of ordinances, statutes or established personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations; Failure to promote except where the employee can show that established )romotional policies or procedures were not followed or applied fairly; 5. The methods, means and personnel by which work activities are to be carried on; Except where such action affects an employee who has been reinstated within the previous six months as the result of the final determination of a grievance, termination, layoff, demotion or suspension from duties because of lack of work, reduction in work force, or job abolition; The hiring, promotion, transfer, assignment and retention of employees within the County of Albemarle: 8. The relief of employees from duties of the County of Albemarle in emergencies. In any grievance brought under the exception to provision 6 of this subdivision, the action shall be upheld'upon a showing by the local government that: ~'i. [here was a valid business reason for the action; and the employee was notified of the reason in writing prior to the effective date of the action. Grievances filed with regard to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) shall follow the grievance procedure established in the County's ADA Transition Plan. Management Rights: Nothing in this procedure is intended to circumscribe or modify the existing management dght of the County to do the following: direct the work of its employees as well as establish and revise wages, salaries, position classification and general employee benefits; 2. hire, promote, transfer, assign and retain employees within the agency; 3. maintain the efficiency of governmental operations; 4. relieve employees from duties of the agency in emergencies; and 5. determine the methods, means, and personnel by which operations are to be carried out. Determination of Grievability: if a question arises as to whether an employee is eliqible to qrieve under this policy, or whether a particular complaint constitutes a qdevance as defined by this policy, and the department head/supervisor determines that the complaint is not qdevable because the employee is not eliqible to qdeve or because the complaint does not state a adevance, the employee may appeal the decision reoardinc~ (3rievabilitv to the County Executive. Such appeal shall be flied by the employee in wdtinq within five (5) workinq days followinq the department head/supervisors determination that the complaint is not qrievable. The County Executive shall issue a decision conceminq qdevability within ten (10~ workinq days of receipt of the wdtten appeal by the employee. The County Executive shall not be reouired to meet with the employee, but shall base his decision on the written record. 4 In the event that the emolovee disaarees with the decision of the County Executive concerning .arievability.. the employee may appeal the issue of gdevabili .ty to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County for a hearing. The employee shall perfect his appeal by fllina a notice of appeal with the Circuit Court within ten ('10) workina days followina the date of the County Executive's decision reaardino arievabilitv. A standard form for this purpose is available from the Department of Human Resources. The employee shall serve copies of such notice of apDeal upon the County Executive and County Attorney. Within ten (10) workina days after receipt of service of the notice of appeal, the County Executive shall transmit to the Circuit Court the written record, includina copies of the decision of the County Executive reaardina arievabilitv, the notice of appeal, and any exhibits, The County Executive shall also serve a CODY of the list of evidence furnished to the Circuit Court upon the employee. The failure of the County Executive to transmit the written record within the ten-day Deriod shall not entitle the employee to pursue his complaint on the medts, nor shall it ~reiudice the riahts of the employee ~n any manner, in the event the County Executive fails to transmit the written record within the ten-day pedod to the Circuit Court, the employee may petition the Circuit Court for a writ of cediorari reauirina the County Executive to transmit the record on or before a certain date. The Circuit Court shall hold a headna to consider the issue of orievabilitv only. and shall not consider the merits of the complaint. The Circuit Court may affirm the decision of the County Executive or it may reverse or modify the decision. The Circuit Court's decision shall be final and nonappealable. Either the employee or the County may raise the issue of adevabilitv at any staae of the anevance procedure prior to a panel hearing, but once raised, the issue of arievabilitv shall be resolved pdor to fudher proceedinqs. In any event, the issue of grievability must be resolved prior to the panel hearina or it shall be deemed to have been waived__ The classification of a complaint as non-arievable shall not be construed to restrict any em~)lovee's riqht to seek or the County's dqht to provide customary administrative review of complaints outside the scope of the adevance policy__ Policy: All stages of the grievance beyond the first step (see following procedure) shall be in writing on forms supplied by the Human Resources Department of the County. Once an eliqible employee as defined in this policy reduces his grievance to writing he must specify on the appropriate form the specific relief he expects to obtain through use of this procedure. After the initial filing of a written grievance, failure of either party to comply with all substantial procedural requirements of the grievance procedure, including the panel headng, without just cause shall result in a decision in favor of the other party on any grievable issue, provided the party not in compliance fails to correct the non-compliance within five [5) workinq days of receipt of written notification by the other party of the compliance violation. Such written notification by the gdevant shall be made to the County Executive. or his designee. The County Executive. or his designee, at his option, may require a clear 5 written explanation of the basis for just cause extensions or exceptions. The County Executive. or his designee, shall determine compliance issues. Compliance determination made by the County Executive shall be subject to judicial review by filing a petition with the Cimuit Court of Albemarle County within thidy (30} calendar days of the compliance determination. Required Steps in the Grievance Procedu,re Any eliqible employee w~h'~-~rt~~ as defined in this policy who timely files a .arievable complaint shall have the right to follow all the steps of this procedure as listed below with complete freedom from reprisal. Albemarle County police officers have the right to file a grievance under this procedure or the state law enforcement officers grievance procedure but not both. With the exception of Step IV (Upper Management Level) the only person who may normally be present in the Management Step meetings are the grievant, the appropriate official at the level at which the grievance is being heard, and appropriate witnesses for each side. Witnesses sha~l be present only while actually providing testimony. At the Upper Management Level, the grievant, at his option, may have present a representative of his choice. If the grievant is represented by legal counsel,/he County Executive likewise has the option of being represented by counsel. If an appeal is made of any disciplinary action, the appealing employee should recognize that at each level of the process, a new headng on the matter will be held and the disciplinary action rendered at subsequent levels may be either more or less stringent than that recommended at a previous level. Step I (Supervisory Level) a) Within thirty (30) calendar days after the occurrence or condition giving rise to the grievance, the employee affected may identify the grievance verbally to the employee's immediate supervisor.* Within three (3) workinq days of such presentation, the supervisor shall give his/her response to the employee with respect to the grievance, or shall advise the employee that additional time for such decision is needed, in which case a decision must be given the employee within three (3) workinq days thereafter, If a satisfactory resolution is not reached by this process, the employee shall produce the grievance in writing, identifying the nature of the grievance and the expected remedy on Grievance Form A. Such wdtten grievance shall be presented to the immediate supervisor and Director of Human Resources within three (3) working days of the supervisors verbal reply. 2. Step II (Manaa_ement Level) If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the first step, the employee may so indicate on the grievance form and submit the grievance to his/her department head within ten (10) workinq days. A meeting to review the grievance shall be held between the employee and the department head within three 6 (3) workinq days. The time between the second step submission and the second step meeting may be extended by mutual agreement. When the action being grieved was initiated by a )evel above the immediate supervisor, the grievance shall be presented to the person whose action is being gdeved. A second step written reply to the gdevant shall be provided to the employee within three (3) working days after the second step meeting. 3. Step Ill (Upper Management Level) tfa satisfactory resolution is not reached at the second step, the employee may submit the grievance to the Deputy County Executive. Submission to the third step must occur within ten (10) workinq days of the second step. The Deputy County Executive will meet with the employee within three (3) working days or indicate an extension is necessary. Such extension shall not exceed three (3) additional workinq days except by mutual agreement. The Deputy County Executive shall render a written reply to the grievance within three (3) working days following the third step meeting. 4. Step IV (Upper Management Level) If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the third step, the employee may submit the grievance to the County Executive. Submission to the fourth step must occur within ten (10) working days of the third step. The County Executive will meet with the employee within three (3) workinq days or indicate an extension is necessary. Such extension shatl not exceed three (3) additional workinq days except by mutual agreement. The CounTy Executive shall render a wdtten repty to the grievance within three (3) workinq days fo}lowing the fourth step meeting. 5. Step V (Panel Hearing) If the reply from the fourth step meeting is not acceptable to the grievant, he/she may submit the grievance to a fifth step panel headng. The request for a fifth step panel hearing shall be indicated by the employee on Panel Hearing Form B and submitted to the County Executive. A request for panel hearing must be submitted within ten (101 working days of the fourth step reply. The County Executive will arrange for the panel selection and schedule the panel hearing, A 9anel shat} be chosen which shall be composed of three members and shall be chosen in the following manner: one member appointed by the grievant one member appointed by the County Executive and a third member selected by the first two. To ensure an objective panel, neither the gdevant nor supervisory personnel responding to the first four steps of the grievance may serve on the panel. Panels chosen in compliance with these requirements shall be deemed to be impartial. In the event that agreement cannot be reached as to the final panel member, the chief judge of the Circuit Court of this County shall select such third pane~ member. To insure an impartial panel, such panel shall select such third panel member. To insure an impartial panel, such pane} shall not be composed of any person having direct involvement with the grievance being heard at the panel, or with the complaint or dispute giving rise to the grievance. Managers who are in a direct line of supervision of a grievant and the following relatives of a participant in the grievance process or a padicipant's spouse are prohibited from serving as panel member: spouse, parent, child, descendants of a child, sibling, niece, nephew and first cousin. No attorney having direct involvement with the subject matter of the grievance, nor a partner, associate, employee or co-employee of such an attorney shall serve as a panel member. Panel members chosen in compliance with these requirements shall be deemed to be impadial. In cases involving retaliation or employee termination. Albemarle County retains its right to use an administrative hearing officer as a third panel member. When this option is exercised, the administrative hearing officer shall be appointed by the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court. The appointment shall be made from a list of Administrative Headng Officers maintained by the Executive Secretary pursuant of Section 9-6.14:14.1 and shall be made from the appropriate geographical region on a rotation basis. If the local government elects to use an Administrative Hearing Officer it shall bear the expense of S ' uch officers serv ces. In all cases, the third panel member shall be the chairman, set the time for the hearing and notify the employee. The hearing shall be held no later than (10) ~ days after the date of the request unless [he selection involves the use of the Circuit Coud. In such case, the hearing shall be held as soon as practicable, but no more than ten (10) ~ days after the final panel member has been selected. The grievant may have present at this meeting representatives of his/her choice. Copies of Form A shall be sent by the County Executive to the panel members. The majority decision of the panel, acting within the scope of its authority, shall be final, subject to existing policies, procedures and law. The question of whether the relief granted by the panel is consistent with written policy shall be determined by the County Executive of Albemarle County, or his designee, unless such person has a direct personal involvement with the event or events giving rise to the grievance, n which case a decision shall be made by the Attorney for the Commonwealth of Albemarle County. The panel has a responsibility to interpret the application of appropriate agency policies and procedures in the case. It does not have the authority to formulate policies or procedures or to alter existing policies or procedures. The conduct of the hearing shall be as follows: The panel shall determine the propriety of attendance at the hearing of persons not hawng a direct interest in the hearing. At the request of either party, the hearing shall be pdvate. The County shall provide the panel with copies of the grievance record pdor to the hearing and provide the gdevant with a list of the documents furnished to the panel. The gdevant and his attorney, at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the scheduled panel hearing, shall be allowed access to and copies of all relevant files intended to be used in the grievance proceeding. Documents, exhibits and lists of witnesses shall be exchanged between the 8 parties at least five/5) calendar days in advance of the hearing and the parties shall be under a continuing duty to disclose additional documents identified later which may be used in the respective parties' cases-in-chief. The panel may, at the beginning of the hearing, ask for statements clarifying the issues involved. Exhibits, when offered by the grievant or the County, may be received in evidence by the panel, and when so received, shall be marked and made a part of the record. The grievant and supervisor, or their representatives, shall then present their claims, evidence and witnesses who shall submit to the questions or other examination. The panel may, at its discretion, vary this procedure but shall afford full and equal opportunity to all parties and witnesses for presentation of any material or relevant evidence. f. The parties may offer evidence and shall produce such additional evidence as the panel may deem necessary to an understanding and determination of the disputes. The panel shall be the judge of relevancy and matedality of the evidence offered. All evidence shall be taken in the presence of the panel and of the parties. The panel chairman shall specifically inquire of all parties whether they have any further proofs to offer or witnesses to be heard. Upon receiving negative replies, the chairman shall declare the hearing closed. The hearing may be reopened by the panel chairman no later than fifteen (15) workinq days after the completion of the hearing. The decision shall be made on forms furnished by the County. The decision shall be filed in writing by the panel chairman with the County Executive no later than fifteen (15) working days after the completion of the hearing. The decision shall be made on forms furnished by the County. Copies of the decision shall be transmitted to the County Executive, the employee, and the employee's supervisor. The parties to the grievance, by mutual agreement, or the panel chairman may extend any or all of the time periods established in this procedure. The grievant must bear any cost involved in employing representation or in the legal preparation of his/her case. Either party may petition the court for an order requiring implementation of the decision of the panel. 9 I, Ella W. Carey, do herebycertify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of. to. on ,1997. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors C:~B OS~RESOLUTIXDEFGRIEV.WPD 10 DATE ' ~ AGENDA IT~M NO. AGENDA I'£F_~M NAME DEFERRED UNTIL Form. 3 7/25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendment to Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to advertise for a public hearing to amend and raordain Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of the Coun[y of Albemarle, Virginia STAFF CONTACTtS}: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Davis, Miller AGENDA DATE: June 18, 1997 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMA~ON: A'I-rACHMENTS: Yesr~~ · REVIEWED BY: / ~- / BACKGROUND: Amendments to Chapter 12 of the County Code were adopted by the Board on May 21, 1997. Upon review, staff determined that provisiohs dealing with tire lane enforcement were inconsistent with similar provisions located in Chapter 9 of the Code perlaining to fire pmtec~on. The amendments would clarfry that no parking or standing is allowed in fire lanes within the County. rn addition, the time within which a person may pay a citation for failing to have a valid County motor vehicle sticker has been extended from 48 to 96 hours, consistent with the time frames established elsewhere in the ordinance for payment of parldng violations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a public hearing be set to consider amendments to Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic Ordinance, for July 9, 1997. 97.112 simultaneously to signal approaching motorists of the existing hazard, whenever such vehicle is equipped with a device which will cause the four (4) turn signals to flash simultaneously. (e) No truck or bus, except a school bus, shall be stopped wholly or partially on the traveled portion of any highway in the county outside of a town for the purpose of taking on or discharging cargo or passengers, unless theoperator cannot leave the traveled portion of a highway with safety. A school bus may be stopped on the traveled portion of a highway when taking on or discharging school children, but such stops shall be made only at points where the bus can be cleady seen for a safe distance from both directions. For state law as to stopping on highways, see Code of Va. § 46.2-893. (Previous § 12°5 Authority of fire department officials to direct traffic, etc. is now § 12-8,-4-.) Sec. 12.5.4. Parking or standing in fire lanes. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park or stand a vehicle in any designated and marked fire lane_._~ (bi The placement of a vehicle, for any purpose, within a fire lane perpendicular to the curb or edge is prohibited. (c) Any police officer or the fire marshal or his authorized representatives who finds any vehicle in violation of this section shall have the authority to remove such vehicle at the owner's risk and expense. This authority shall extend to any fire or rescue officer in charge of a fire or rescue operation who finds any such violation to be interfering with such emergency operations. (dj The county police or the fire marshal or his authorized representatives are authorized to enter any fire lane for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this section, (e) No provision of this section shall apply to fire, rescue or police vehicles while they are involved ~n emergency operations. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY U6-~3-9?A~O:~ ~ RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Service Agreement with Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To authorize the County Executive to sign the service agreement with Crczet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., advancing $50,000 to purchase a new utility vehicle. STAFF CONTACTIS}: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Pumphrey AGENDA DATE: June 18, 1997 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: Several years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten volunteer fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at two million dollars, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed fire-fighting equipment and buildings, interest fee, with repayments being deducted from their annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and approved by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA). DISCUSSION: The cun'ent amount available for loan in the revolving fund is $197,527.13. Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $50,000 to be used for the purchase of a utility vehicle. This advance will be paid upon request after the execution of this agreement. Repayment of the loan will be over an eight year period beginning in FY 97/98. JCFRA has approved this request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends authorizing the County Executive to execute the service agreement. 97.0113  0~-09-97A1! :~t ~CV5 (804) 975-0224 To: Supervisors Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson Counties From: Steven Meeks Chairman Re; TJSWCD Award Date: June 6, 1997 As- you can see from the letter which is enclosed, our District has been named Virginia's Conservation Education District of the Year for 1997 by the Virginia Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts. We are very proud of this honor and wanted to share it with our County representatives. As this award confirms, your financial support is being put to good use. "To promote soil and water conservation under the leadership ora citizen Board of Directors. by providing technical expertise and education." VIRGINIA SOIL & WATER VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 7293 Hanover Green Drive, Suite 8-101 · Mechanicsville, Virginia 23111 (804) 559-0324 · Fax (804) 559-0325 · E-Mail VASWCD@EroIs.com May 19, 1997 Mr. Steven G. Meeks, Chair Thomas Jefferson SWCD 5000 Meeks Run Crozet, Virginia 22932 RE: 1997 NACD/Zeneea Ag Conservation Education Awards DearMr. Meeks, I am delighted to inform you that the VASWCD Awards Judging Committee hu~ selected the Thomas Jefferson SWCD as Virg/nia's Conservation Education District of the Year for 1997. Your track record has proven how your district has continuously maintained excellent educational pro,grams for all age groups over the past years. -, We'have submitted your entry to NACD for their consideration at the regional level. Again, I applaud you for all your hard work and efforts that went into developing exceptional conservation educational programs. We will recognize your district at th/s year's VASWCD 59th Annual Meeting being held at the Fort Magruder Inn in Williamsburg, Virginia during the dates of December 7-9, 1997. Robin Minich, Special Projects Coordinator, will be in contact with you later with details of the meeting. Sincerely, Stephen D. Mallette President CC: Deloris Bradshaw Debbie Cross VASWCD Executive Committee Robin Minich ALB MAI LE COUNTY SEI VICE AU-i-HO ItY PO. ~©X }OO9 ;55 S?OTN~P ~m. ~HA~LOTTESVILE VA 229©2 ~ 8Oa5 Q77 a51~ F,~X (6©4~ 979 0698 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 06- ]2-97P01 :~57 RgVB ~uue 10, 1997 Albemarle County Board of Supercisors Albemarle Coun~ Office B~di 4~1 MCLutire Ro~d Ladies and Gentlemen: Please find enclosed a copy of the Albemarle County Service AuthoritY's operating budget for the fiscal year beginning Iuly 1. 1997. If you have any questions concerning our budget please do not hesitate to give us a call. Execmive D~ector Buildin9 Coda Information (8O4) 296-5832 COUNTY OF Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 40I Mclntire Road, Room 223 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 FAX (804) 972-4126 'I-rD 1804) 9724012 Od_lO-C.?A09:4'7 RCVD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Zoning Information (8O4) 296-5875 June 4, 1997 James E. Swingler Rt 1 Box 218 Esmont, VA 22937 Steven Swingler 8077 Porters Road Esmont, VA 22937 Mary Hudson Fulghum 184 North 3rd Street Newark, NJ 07107 Re: Use of Tax Map 128A2, Parcel 3 - Determination of Violation (V97-75) Dear Ms. Fulghum and Gentlemen: This Office has irzvestigated a complaint about use of the above-referenced property in violation of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Apparently, this property is being used by the community as a recreational facility. Neither the complaint nor the investigation findings are a statement that this commumw use is bad or is not needed. This Office can not conkider whether this use is positive and needed in the area, in the decision of whether or not it violates zoning, I have also been informed that a sign located on the properw advertises a flea market. Please be advised that after extensive review, we have found that both of these activ/ties are in violation of Albemarle County zorfing regulation. It is my responsibility ro notify you that this public recreational use shall cease and desist immediately and the flea market shall not occur. It was our original understanding that the recreational use of the property was non-conforming. We did not receive information to validate this. That decision requires that basically the same use has occurred since before December, 1969 and has continued w/thout a break in use of more than two years. Page 2 June 4, 1997 V 97-75 Esmont Recreation Efforts to lessen the use and/or to decrease nuisance aspects of it do not exempt the requirement of a special permit or my responsibility to have you cease and desist. I understand that in an effort to minimize some of the visual impact of the use, some porta-johns were relocated to be further from the adjacent residence. This was a considerate effort. However, it does not change a use in violatlon to a use in compliance. Violations on this site are the following: 1) Conducting a use not permitted by right in the Rural Areas zoning district (Section 10.2.1). The use may be considered an athletic facility and requires a special permit under Section 10.2.2(4). 2) Erecting a sign without a sign permit. This is a violation of Section 4.15.9.1 The flea market use described by the sign is not a permitted use within the Rural Areas zoning district. In order for this use to comply with the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, a special permit approval must be received from the Board of Supervisors. If approved, there could be conditions for its operation. A site plan or sketch plan showing what exists on the property and what is proposed is needed for review of the special permit. The application which has been submitted to our Department is incomplete and can not be processed. The following items are necessary: Signature of all legal owners either on the application or by separate letter authorizing this application; The most recent recorded plat or deed of the property; Sketch showing existing and proposed condirions~ Fee for application. Once you have all the owners' signatures and the plat, please contact us to assist you through the application process. Until and unless this is approved by the Board of Supervisors, the use shall cease and desist. Page 3 June 4, 1997 V 97-75 If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date notice of this determination is giyen, in accordance with Section 15.1-496. l of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeals shall not be considered complete unless it includes the written justification, completed application and fee The date notice of this dete~nination was given is specified above. If you have questions please contact me. Sincerely, Amelia G. McCulley, A.I C.P. Zoning Administrator cc: Charlotte Humphris Kick Huff agra gensh~e/e~mt 06-11-97P03:44 RCVD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CRESCENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC. June 11, 1997 lvlr. William D. Fritz Senior Planner Coumy of Albemarle Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: ZMA 97-01 Still Meadow Dear Mr. Fritz: With this letter, we request that the referenced rezoning request be deferred from the June 18, 1997 Board of Supervisor's meeting. We request deferral so we can make some minor changes to our plan, and to revise our proffers We ask that we be placed on the agenda at the next available Board of Supervisor's meeting as it will not take us long to make the plan changes. If you have any questions about our request, or if we can provide any additional information in support of this, please let us know. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott A. Williams Manager Planning Dept, BOARD OF SLIPER¥1SORS 06-]!-gTAiO:09 RCVD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 7, 1997 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Members of the Board: We attended the public meeting of the Planning Commission on June 3rd and were pleased with their unanimous vote against rezoning Still Meadows. We understand this will now come before the Board of Supervisors on June 18th. We will be out of town and will miss this important meeting. However, we are in hopes you will back their decision to keep this property R1. We live at 507 Carrsbrook Drive, lust two houses East of the main entrance re Still Meadows. Some of our main concerns are: traffic, especially safet~ on t~is busy street and the speed on Carrsbrook Drive; water pressure in regard to fire protection; being boxed fn on four sides by other housing developments; and if rezon£ng is approved, will the developer stop at 155 houses e~cwill this give him the go-ahead to b~ild another 50 houses and still be within the limits of what constitutes high density? Rezoning this property will adversely affect an enormous group of home owners and families as evidenced by the many concerned neighbors speaking out at the public meeting on J~ne 3rd. We trust you will give this serious consideramion and vote agains~ this application re rezone Still Meadows. Thank ~ou. Yours very truly, Lewis L. & Betty M. Leaks 507 Carrsbrook Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 05-29-97P03: ~6 ~CVD BOARD OF SUPBRVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Developm~m 401 lVfc]ntire Road Charlottes~lle. Virginia 22902-4596 {8041 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE; RE: Albemarle County Planning Commission William D. Fritz, Senior Planner May 28, 1997 ZMA 97-01 Still Meadow Due to a copying error all of the letters received from the public were not included in the staff report distributed to the Planning Commission on May 27, 1997. Attached is a complete set of letters received as of May 28, t997. wdf Mr. William D. Fritz Dept. of Planning and Comm. Dvlpmnt. Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 A TTACHMENT KI April 5. 1997 1 Dear Mr. Fritz: We are writing to express our concerns about the proposed Still Meadows Development in conjunction with the implementation of this brand-new creature called the Land Use Plan for Albemarle County, In particular, we are concerned about the use of this plan exclusively to support the rezoning to the aforementioned higher intensity development right in our back yards. We have 3 major concerns: thru the land use plan is still too new and too different from traditional policy to rush into implementation right now. that the surrounding residents are having less influence on the planning process than they should (given the unusual situation ofttsing a PRD in an already developed area), and that the landuse plan is not as supportive of the.developer's proposal as the.v would have us believe. I. PREMATURE, PREEMPTIVE IMPLEMENTATION Albemarle County's Land Use Infill Policy includes a recommendation that changes occur "through an ad hoc advisory committee, which should "develop strategies and standards to promote infill development." Ip. 24). However when the developer'splan was filed, this committee had not even been chosen yet, much less convened. Thus. we worry that our small, established neighborhoods will be adversely impacted in the county's rush to implement the infill plan without agreed-upon standards, guidelines, or consideration of how this vastly diffcringpolicy affects the current neighborhoods. In particular. Northfields and Carrsbrook have existed very well here under a different policy for over 30 years. There's an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We would add "Don't fix it before you even have a crystallized, finished process to use!" The county should not approve the proposed zoning change until receiving input from the new consultant being hired by the Albemarle Neighborhood Association. We know that the booklet for this policy was STILL in unfinished, draft form as recently as 2 months ago [after the developer's plans were filed). Is it really fair to implement such broad, sweeping changes for the first time, when the community owners involved can't evenget a final, definite copy of what policies are being used to decide their fate? We have no quarrel with the county planning department, as we believe they are in the same boat as we are and they have been very fair about .trying to provide access to the current drafts. However, they seem to be making important and lasting decisions based on this still-changing draft of a policy, and this seems unfair. The infill policy makes a certain amount of sense and we understand why it is in the process of being adopted by the county. However. it does meun~ an end to the old Charlottesville....a I0-minme drive from town and deer in the bankyard (along with, for example, 4 species of woodpeckers: hairy., red-beilied. yellow-bellied, and pileated). And the people being asked to make this sacrifice are not the developers (who will be allowed to build higher density developments in the most prime areas right next to the city) but the ordinary people in the "inflll neighborhoods." Speaking for Carrsbrook and Northfields alone, these neighborhoods have enjoyed great popularity and stability throughout their 30-year lives. This new development will substantially change the character of these neighborhoods from a country setting to an urban one. We do not feel that such a different land use policy should be rushed into implementation, as it does violate the expectations of all the people in these neighborhoods who bought their houses in good faith thinking that the previous slower-growth policy was the one that wonld be maintained. II, AT THE VERY LEAST, LET RESIDENTS HAVE MORE 1NPLrl Even ffthe County does choose to implement this somewhat premature policy and make an example of our neighborhoods, it seems only fair to give us influence over the process (more than if the rezoning request was straightforward and for a similar neighborhood). TTACHMEN ' Kt A TEST CASE We believe that other communities and the media will be watching as this request for a PRD rezoning is proposed and goos through the planning process. It is likely that our experiences will influence how receptive they are to these new ideas of PRD's and infill development. Our initial neighborhood meeting with the developer was distinctly unpromising. The meeting was ostensibly to address neighborhood concerns, but many times the developer (Scott Williams~ said that he "did not know" the answers to basic questions about (for example) the planned sewer systems and thetr effects on adjacent waterways. A casual listener may even have thought Mr. Williams was attempting to mislead us at certain times, such as when he said that the existing R-1 zoning would permit approximately 140 homes on the property, not 105 as noted by the county. In addition, the neighborhood residents repeatedly asked Mr. Williams what he could do to make the development less of a burden to existing neighborhoods. Mr. Williams refused to address this idea in any way, maintaining that he was merely there to explain-the development, not to consider any proffers that could benefit existing communities. Thus, he did not senm very interested in talking about neighborhood concerns, apparently changing his mind atier he noted in his development proposal to the county that he would be meeting with us about our concerns. Such a beginning does not give us confidence in our ability to influence the developers at all or reach any kind of compromise. 'It worries us that he seemed so casual, unprepared, and confident in his meeting with us and we fear that he knows something we don't about the likelihood of his current proposal succeeding as is, without any compromises. If we have only a minimal influenea on the process, we would have no alternative but to tell others honestly that the infill policy means that the county has adopted a pro-development "great blob" approach to Charlottesville and surrounding Albemarle. Hopefully, it will be evident that the flexibility of the PRD can work in everyone's favor to lessen tension between new and existing neighborhoods through creative planning ensuring that new neighborhoods do not destroy the pleasures and amenities ofthe older, more established ones. Ifthis is the case, we will be the first to point to the positive aspects of the new PRD-type zoning. We trust our elected and appointed public officials, and we know that they would not let stand (without significant and measurable modificatiunsl a development plan which would cause a drastic degradation of the quality of life in our community, since to do sowould beto betray the public trust placed in them by their constituents II1. HOW THE LAND USE PLAN IS CONTRARY TO THE CURRENT STILL MEADOW PROPOSAl_ Below we specifically describe some of the areas of the Land Use Plan that we believe are contrary to the Still Meadow Development proposal currently onthe table; DEFINITION OF THE LAND USE PLAN The new infill development policy cited in the County's Land Use Plan booklet is defined as "to facilitate infill development including development of existing structures or new development of vacant and under-utilized areas, within existing Development Areas. ' Ithas3 objectives l)"touse Development Area lands in the most efficient manner possible:'? 2) "to discourage sprawl development:" and 3) "to maximize the usegsuppott of community services and facilities (roads, utilities, transit, other serviees'~." (p.22) One of the recommendations of this policy is to "consider rezoning vacant properties designated for residential use to reflect the recommended densities of the Land Use Plan." But without "compromising issues of geneeal health or safety" (their italics, p.23). Clearly, putting more traffic on roads like Carrsbrook, Northfietds, Huntington, and Old Brook would compromise the safety of neighborhood pedestrians, joggers, and esPecially children playing In their own yards (most of these roads don't even have sidewalks!). In addition, points further noted below imply a county concern about the capacity of the water and sewer systems as they currently are to take on this additional demand. In addition, general land use standards note that "developments should be concentrated and clustered to the maximum extent possible to protect environmental features (floodplain. critical slopes, ere.), soonie vistas [our italics)....to minimize traffic hazards, conflicts with other land uses. and adverse 2 IATTACHMENT KI visual impacts associated with linear/strip development." R urges planners to "maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions." [our italics). In addition, it notes that "connections between developments...should be provided to maximize a sense of community and provide additional transportation links ..... additional recreation facilities, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, and access to schools, parks, and other public facilities." ho. 24). The developer has made no offers to improve the neighboring communities as a way of compensating for the increased problems their development would impose: They currently have no plans for a buffer between the neighborhoods and are not retaining many of the scenic vistas that exist for either the residents of Northflelds and Carrsbrook. nor for their own Still Meadow residents, except those paying for the high priced sites next to the [undevelopable] floodplain. DEFINITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD TWO "Bounded on the east by the Rivanna River, on the south by the City, on the west by Route 29. and on the north by the South Fork Rivanna River,....major residential areas include Wondbronk. Carrsbrook, Westmoreland, Dunlora, stonehenge, Squire Hill and Raintree subdivisions." (p.49) It is clear that Northfields is also included in this area, as is Fieldbrcok. "Neighborhood Two contains 2,901 housing units with a population of 6,965:people...the second largest population concentration in the County. 46% of the housing units are either townhouses, single family attached or duplexes, 30% are multi-family, and less than 1% are mobile homes as of July 1996." (our italics). It "provides the largest volume of retail services in the County." "The Northwest portion of the Neighborhood is ebaracterized by relatively steep slopes along the floodplain fringe. These steeply sloped areas and the floodplain along streams draining to the Rivanna River limit development potential in' these areas." (our italics, p. 49) The County's recommendations for this neighborhood include: "Provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with all major road improvements in the area", and for utilities, "Upgrade water distribution in the entire Neighborhood to ensure adequate serviea," "construct the Carrsbrcok sewer to provide service to the area," and "evaluate Woodbronk Channel to determine the need to widen in the vicinity of the area upstream of the old Woodbrook sewage lagoons.' Recommendations also include: "retain open space areas in the Meadow Creek floodplain, the area along the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway corridor, the lake andstream system north of Rio Rd. in the Woodbrook. Carrsbrook, and Northfields areas, andalong the Rivanna River floodplain. (our italics)" and "canstrudt a greenway along the South Fork of the Rivanna River.....Develop the greenway to areet thc recreational and conservation needs of the residents in Neighborhood Two, and the entire County." (p.5D First. hasn't Neighborhood Two already done our part m help the county? As the plan notes, Neighborhood Two is already the second most populated neighborhood in the county. It appears that this greater population has occurred slowly over many years and has not substantially altered the character of many neighborhoods involved: Woodbronk. Fieidbrook. Raintree, Carrsbroolc Westmoreland, and Northfields. l/f ny now accelerate growth so much and risk alienating existing owners, who will then move out m the country, leading to the very suburban growth planners so greatly desire to minimize? If the county truly wants this infill policy to work. theyarust give the homeowners Who will be most affected a seat at the table and some reason to buy into this overall plan, rather than moving with their feet (and with their votes). In other words, we should be able to see our influence on the process and the developer and county should truly pay attention to our concerns, and alter their plans accordingly. Second, very few roads in the area have walkways or bicycle routes (as far as we can recall, only Old Brook Rd. has sidewalks and we can't think of any road with bicycle lanes in our neighborhoodsl. There has been no mention that we know of for upgrading water distribution or sewer facilities in existing neighborhoods to take care of increased demand from this new development. Third. it doesn't seem that much of the proposed development is really retaining oper snace [except for the floodplain area, which can't be built on anyway). While there are some steep slopes that will remain wooded, the proposed Still Meadows plan seems to put buildings wherever they can to maximize their density. In addition, the proposed recreational areas are noted on the Still Meadow plan as being for the exclusive use of the Still Meadow residents....thereby ignoring the "recreational and IATTACHI IENT K_J conservation needs of the [existing] residents in Neighborhood Two." That doesn't seem very neighborly to us! Nor is it in line with the county idea 6f neighboring communities linking together to share reereational sources. 1N SUMMARY. THE STILL MEADOW LAND TRUST DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL We are troubled by several aspects of the initial set of plans formally submitted by Still Meadow Land Trust for development of the old Wetsel farm. In particular, we are troubled by the fact that this plan seems to offer little to the surrounding community. For example. a) some of the assumptions in the planning do not seem feasible to us b) there are no buffers at all between current neighborhoods and the proposed neighborhood. c/ the greatest density of houses oocors in areas of the plan directly adjacent to Carrsbrook and Northfields neighborhoods. While gengraphieally, this is understandable, the current homes bordering this area would be better suited by a straight R-1 development, rather than the current no-buffer PRD, which allows many more houses on the outside areas of the development than would be possible, with the current zoning. d) Most of the amenities noted by the developer (swhnming pool, club house, walking trails) are reserved for the exclusive right of those moving into the new community. Clearly, for the surrounding neighborhoods, the developers could build more houses on that land and fewer houses right by. us. Much has been made of the flexibility of the PRD. However. no proffers have been suggested by the developer, and we feel that the flexibility at this point benefits only the developer. A more convincing ease will have to made by the developer and/or the county for why a rezoning to a PRD would be better for the existing surrounding neighborhoods, rather than worse. FFcASIBILITY OF THE CURRENT PLAN 1. An article fi.om the Daily Prom'ess (1/29/97) notes that. according to Melvin Breeden, Albemarle CoUnty finance director, many homes in the $200,000 to $400,000 range have declined in value because Albemarle has a surfeit of these kinds of homes akeady on the market. What is the likelihood that this development will not suffer from the glut on the market already of these kinds of homes? 2. The developer notes that public access will be given to the river and the county is planning a walking trail along their Rivunun greenbelt. The people in the new development can walk to the rivm. most of the surrounding neighborhoods can walk to the river, but what about other people in the county? Where will they park? How can they access the river when there are no extra parking spaces? In addition, the roads in the development will be too narrow to allow on-streex parking. Thus. is there truly access for the city and county, or just the appearance of access to the natural area by the river? 3. This development seems to be taking place in a vacuum. TRAFFIC a. We still have not seen the results of the traffic study on our roads. We eagerly await the planned study but would like to know exactly what it entails. Will consideration be given to the current residential character of the streets? If the study only considers traffic intersections and not pedestrian traffic along such reads as Carrsbrook Dr., Huntington Rd.. Northfield Rd. and Old BrooldWestmoreland. it will not be a comprehensive enough study. Also, if it only studies non-Rio intersections, it will miss much of the traffic that might be a problem. Yet, as of now. we have no idea what kind of study is being done nor who will evaluate it after it is completed. there are now only 134 homes in all of Carrsbrook. The addition of 155 homes, as proposed in the current PRD plan. without any improvement in local roads, would increase traffic .TTACHMENT K1 density by a factor of over 10 on the. upper reaches of Northfields Rd. It would double traffic on Carrsbrook Rd. and on the lower'reaches of Northfields Rd.. and lead to significant increases in traffic on Huntingdon and Old Brook roads. Currently, many children ride their bicycles on all of these roads. We believe that in warmer weather on a weekly basis more than One-third of area residents either jog, walk, ride bikes, or walk their dogs on Northfields, Huntingdon, Carrsbrook, and other area roads. With the additional traffic fi.om the new PRD, this will become dangerous, especially for our children and senior citizens, some of whom already have difficulty coping with existing traffic on Carrsbrook. If these issues are not addressed, we fear that people will die. Because roads in the new neighborhood will be very narrow (only 22 feet wide, as opposed m more than 30 feet for existing roads), they will not offer the same safe recreational possibilities. Accordingly, we recommend: i. A traffic study by a neutral party, such as the University of Virginia Urban Planning Deparlment. ii. That significantly fewer than 155 new homes be built, to mitigate the effects of traffic danger on our children and senior citizens. iii. That Me developer pay for sidewalks and bike lanes for Carrsbrook. Northfield, and Huntingdon- so that area children and adults can still safely use the area for walking and other recreational purposes. iv. The strategic installation ofspeedbomps for the safety of our children and senior citizens. SCHOOLS The surrounding schools are apparently close m capacity, if not full already. If there are even 150 more children zone for each house, a low estimate), where will they go? How will a new school be built? Hasn't the building ora new Northern Albemarle school already been delayed greatly, due to funding problems? Also, what about other developmears, like Dontora and Forest Lakes, that aren't even "built out" yet? This'.development witl not be the only one adding children to currently full schools. Where will they all go? We can't see how this higher level development benefits the county at all, since new schools will have to be built or existing schools will be overcrowded. BUFFERS PRDs supposedly offer significant advantages in encouraging innovative urban planning designs allowing new neighborhoods to enjoy the amenities values (such as woodlands) se typical of old-style Charlottesville neighborhoods. In its jusfifieation for the proposed PRD to the county, Still Meadow Land Trust notes no fewer-than six times that this newneighborhood will offer its residents homes with woodlands and other amenities. Unfortunately, this is not exactly the case for the current PRD proposal. In the curren~ plan, only 35 of the 155 proposed homes would border a wooded area or an open field. In each ease the house fronts either floodplains or slopes too steep to build upon. Accordingly, the developer is not making a sacrifice in failing to build on such areas. Because the currant proposal would build large (Dunlom style) homes on very small lots, averaging .3 acres or less, very few of the other homes would even be within sight of a wooded area. In essenec, the new PRD would offer residents a northern Virginia style urban neighborhood in a Charlottesville location. Good planning can accomplish far more. Further, since the new neighborhood would have no buffer between itself and the existing neighborhoods, the new PRD would destroy the scenic views of 26 tong-existing homes in Northfields and Carrsbroolc homes which now face woodlands. This would greatly decrease property values for existing landowners, since studies suggest that woodlands can increase the value of a house by over 10%. Accordingly, we strongly reeoinmend that lots 1-35 and possibly 50-55 be left as woodlands. (Currently 1-35 are entirely wooded while 50-55 are a mix of woods and fields.) This would provide a green donut surrounding theproperty, as is suggested in the most innovative urban planning designs. I TTA( HMBNT K 6 Thiswould cost only about 15 acres of the total. 140 acre property. Yet it would have the following advantages: ' First. and most importantly, this would safeguard the interests of the 26 adjacent landowners by maintaining their scanie views and mitigating the noise, unsightliness, and erosion attendant to the construction of the new PRD. This would protect their property values and enable them the possibility of selling their homes during the five year period during which the PRD will bo constracted. Without a significant grcen buffer, it is unlikely that existing home owners will bo able to sell their homes without significunt losses. In its proposal Still Meadow statas that development will occur over a five year peried. As any real estate agent knows, new home buyers are reluctant to buy m an area under construction since they cannot visualize the final appearance of the site. and are discouraged by the noise and unsightliness of construction. Since many of the homeowners in the area are senior citizens contemplating moving to smaller houses or apartments in the near future, this loss of immediate market value could cause serious and unanticipated harm. It would also cost the onunty in property taxes colleoted. Second. the green donut would safeguard the interests of the new neighborhood, Under the current PPI), only 35 of the 155 proposed hemes would border a wooded or field area. If the proposed green donut were set aside, 97 of 115 homes would border a woodland ur field area. and some of the other homes would be within sight of such an area. This would allow the homes robe sold for a far higher price, making more money for Still Meadow and making for a far more pleasant neighborhood making full use of existing natural amenities. It would bo a neighborhood the developer andthe county could be proud of. Third. the green donut would save the developer the expense of building approximately 1600 feet of road. for an approximate ballpark cost of $500.000. It would also save the county the expense of mainmimng said road. Finally, since proposed lots 3-8 and 11-29 are either on steep slopes or in wet areas which would nced either grading or drainage work. these lots would in any event be relatively' ~pansive to build on. These lots would accordingly offer relatively limited profits and could present unwary homeowners with long term drainage and erosion problems.- The interests of possible homeowners must be considered, as well as their n¢ighbers who might face erosion onto their property. A grean donut would also help safcgnard area wildlife populations. The existing neighborhoods boast large numbers of such uncommOn species as red-backed and red eft salamanders, eastern bluebirds, Coopers Hawks, and pileated woodpeckars. Without kee~ing some of the woodlands (not just the marsh by the river), these species will be lost. AMENITIES There is frequent mention in the developer's rationale of every effort being made to save existing woodlands, yet. as noted above, most of the wooded areas will be tom down for houses. Only the floodplains (a marshy area) and steep slopes, both.areas unsuitable for building, remain untouched. Let's call a spade a spade here. If the developer truly wants to keep amenities, not only for their new homeowners, but also for the adjacent homeowners: they will put in the buffers we request. The new development is taking up }and to have swimming pools and tennis courts: the county's new comprehensive plan notes the ~importance of extending links between communities and having recreational facilities nearby. Obviously, enabling our neighborhoods to use these facilities would be giving us some recompense for the greater traffic density on our roads and the loss of our woodland views. ADHERENCE TO PROMISES While developers often make good on their promises and plans during the initial planning stage, such scenarios are not what cuncem us here. As the adjacent neighbors who will be adversely impacted by failures to comply with plans, we have been told beth by those in the county and those in other neighborhoods that we will have to be the "watchdogs" that keep the developers from changing their arinds onea they decide the original plan no longer suits them. Since we will bear the burden and responsibility of "enforcing" promises, we must be prepared for a worst case scenario, while always hoping and expecting that developer compliance will not be a problem. IATTACHMENT Ki 7 However, what if the developer does ch_ange their inind and decides to take down more trees than originally planned? We want to know what our Options are in such a case. 1. Ifthe only option is to take the developer to court, that is not acceptable to us. The developer obviously has deeper pockets and more poIitical connections than we do. ll is unfair for us to have to take on Goliaths, using our own money and time, just to ensure that promises are kepL Thus, we want to know how the county plans to enforce these PRDs. For instance, how great a deviation from the original plans must occur before the developer can be determined to be in violation? What kind of documentation must be kept on the land in question to show that the developer has in fact violated property?. What kind of compensation is dueus (and the new homeowners) if the developer violates a promise With an irreversible action (such as taking down trees that are over 40 years old? What consequence is it for the developer if such a violation is foand? WiIl they be restricted in future developments? Will they pay a fine? Or Will they be scolded once and forgiven? In the unlikely, but not impossible event that the developer violates said proffers, there must be real sanctions. Otherwise communities cannot be expected to trust the PRD process, ar the infill development policy generally-. We have tried to find out in writing what sanctions would occur, but have been unable to find them. Thus~ we hope the coonty can clarify this for us. 2. Clearly, these questions are very related to how proffers for this development may be written. We would like to get some information about proffers since we know little about them and for obvious reasons do not want m just rely on the developers' lawyers to draw them up. How must these proffors be written? Who is knowledgeable about proffers but is a neutral party? What are examples ofwritteo proffers? When have proffers been violated and what has occurred? The above points represent areas of major concern to us. In addition we have some minor concerns as well. Minor Recommendations: 1. The county should urge the developer to take steps to limit construction noise, erosion, and general inconvonionea to existing neighborhoods. It is known that the old Wetsel farm contains a significant Indian archeological site. Accordingly. we recommend that the University of Virginia Archeology Department and the local tribe have input as to the development plan. to assure that this part of our nation's cultural heritage is not lost. The current plan Includes three separate spill ponds, including one for a "gravity sewage system." We are concerned that these areas may be health hazards, particularly to small children. Are there ways to mitigate these hazards, or at least assure that they are made inaccess~le to children. About 50 acres of the property cannot be built upon since it lies on a floodplain. It is known that the county wants to develop a greenbelt along the river. We think this a good idea. but have two First, the coanty should not accept this land (and the attendant liability costs) unless county residents can gain access to the property either through the PRD or through other means, the county must recognize that it is very much in the developer's best interest to give this land to the co_anty. TTACHMENT KI Second. since the land cannot be build _upon, xt offers no revenue source but costs the developer in taxes and liability costs. (Unfortunately, people drown in rivers and their survivors sue.] Indeed. Charles Hurt has tried for years to donate aren recreational land to the Northfields Neighborhood Association--_-which has understandably refused the offer for the very reason of reliability. Accordingly, the county should agree to take the river floodplain land only if certain of the above development conditions are met. We hope that this case can be a shining example of what can be accomplished by a Planned Residential Development we will do our best to work with the developer and the county if we feel they also are making the same good faith effort. Botwe have some very understandable apprehensions about this untried process, particularly given the past history of developer-resident interactions in some of the 6 neighborhoods surrounding the property.. REMEMBER, once this land is developed, it cannot be undeveloped. If this must happen, let's get it right the first time! We thank you for your time. Sincerely, Bob and April Maranto 2821 Northfield Rd. 8 [,~. Wil!is~ D. Fri%z, Senior Planner- Dep%. of ~'ianning & Community Development 401 I~intire Ros~ Charlottesville, Va. 22902-~96 IATTACHMEI~IT K Dear ~,~. Fritz: Reference is maple ~o your letter dated Fm,z~h ?, 1997, ~nd our telephone con- vers~mion when the letter w~s delivered on the 12th. As owner and resident at the above a~d~ess in Westmoreland since late t973, it is urgently requested that the p~operty ~.hind Ca_vrsbrook D~. retain its pres- en~ R-1 zoning. ~ main concern involves the dangerous increase in t~fic, since it appea~s the~e will be no access to or f~om Route 29N except by way of Camrsb~ook D~ive. (Postal delivem-y p~obahly also will be even more delayed: ) This s%reet is winding and hilly in ps-~ts and is not conducive ~o supporting heavy traffic. I a~ constantly being wa~ned by neighbors and visitors ~o be very cs.reful, as the street at this point is on an incline, making it impossible for motorists going toward 29 to see a car backing ou~ of this driveway in time to stop unless they sze d~iving mt a very moderate speed. D~n Roosevelt main- ~ined time after time at meetings of the Boaz~ of Supervisors that individuals drive at the speeds with which they feel comfortable. Unfortunately, this is not always the posted speed, as evidenced by the t~fic using Cmz~sbrook D~ive as a shortcut during the widening of the Bio Road/Rte 29 intersection. Filling in vacant spots of imndmakes sense where the land~_ready is situated on am&in thoroughfare that has been built to ~ccommodate tb_~ough t~fic or where zOads can be built for easy access to amain highway. It also can be a reasonable use of lamd where la~ge s.reas can be developed affording residents access %o recreational, educational, and even ret~uil facilities within the com- munity itself. It does no% seem logical to erect structures ~o house as m~ residents as possible within a l~m~ted, confined a~ea sum~unded by established homes built for more space and pz~iv~cy. An editorial in The _Daily Progress. 6 ~b_~ch 1997, emph&sized %hat "in-fill" developments must address a number of ~,slity of life issues within the a3_veady existing neighborhoods, such as tzmuffic, pszks, schools, police protection, dogs running a~ large, and noise. (The sw~mm~ngpool ~ clulzhouse ps. posed for future residents of the land n6w under consideration for re-zoning could be a source of noise pollution, espec~s~ly if electm~nic devices ane used.) The difference between R-1 a~PRD zoning has been estimated to be about 50 houses. Even now, the Supez-risors have _out on hold the considez~tion of a new zoming oz~linance that wou~d allow a form of zezo-lot-line developmen~ which seems to bode even worse for the use of the Wetzel land if applied there. The deveiopmenm of this land will eliminate the visiting deer, fox, raccoon, opos- sum, rabbit, and possibly even diminish the now extensive and v~ried bird pop- ulation, but this can't be helped. However, there c~n be help in maintaining the present zoning restrictions, and i hope you will give the above concerns favorable consideration. CC: Wayne Cilimberg / Dir.Planning & Devel. D~vid Bowerman Bd of Supervisors Pres., Westmoreland Very t~y yours, _ / ELMIRA B. H',J,~D (Fms. Walter J. Hu~) Neighborhood Assn. [-~TTACHMENT !' Carrsbrook Homeowners Association, lnc May 23, 1997 Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Commumty Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 2290 t-4596 Dear Mr. Fntz At its annual meeting on 1 May 1997, the Carrsbrook Homeowners Association discussed the proposed development of the Wetzel Farm Property. It was the consensus that Carrsbrook should oppose any change m zoning of this property. There are two reasons for our opposinon. Over the last several years there has been a notable increase in traffic density on Carrsbrook Drive and other streets in subdivisions adjacent to Carrsbrook. This is due to two reasons: residential development on Old Brook Road and new home construction on vacant tots in other area subdivisions; people finding quicker and less frustrating mutes between East Rio Road and Highway 29N. With increased traffic, there is the potential for an increase in traffic-related accidents and there has been an ~ncrease in noise and activity levels. These factors detract from the ambience of Carrsbrook as a safe, quiet and tranquil residential neighborhood. Residential development of the Wetzel Farm Property as presently zoned will exacerbate the situation; rezoning to allow- fifty pement more homes than present zoning allows can only further worsen the situation. The other reason is more difficult to define; however, it is equally, if not more important than the traffic issue with its attendant adverse impacts. Zoning ordinances, development covenants and residential deed restrictions are agreements among people and their governmental agencies as to how they will structure their communities. People move into these communities and invest their time, energy and resources in development of homes and life styles based on the assump- tion that they are protected by these legal conventions. To abridge these convennons ~s a breach of faith which diminishes their personhood by altering the character of their societal identity. And this breach of faith weakens the social order by lessening people's confidence in govern- mental agencies as the protectors of their interests and promoters of their welfare. Represent- ation of the people is a sacred trust which may not be violated without adversely affecting the fabric of society by eroding confidence in its institutions. Except for the most compelling of reasons, to change the plans which are the basis of the assumptions on which people have ordered their lives and affuirs is a violation of the people's trust [ATTACHM EbiT K The residems of Carrsbrook oppose the rezomng of the Wetzel Farm Property. Respectfully, Carrsbrook Homeowners Association. Inc. Address t35 Inchan Spring Road Charlottesville, VA 2290 l Phone (804) 9784488 Facsimile/804~ 978-7785 IATTACHMENT Ki March 12, 1997 ~ir. Bobby Shaw Albemarle County Erosion Office Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Still Meadow Development of the Werzel Farm Dear Mr. Fritz: Several things about this development concern us. The impact of traffic on Carrsbrook Drive and other surrounding roads is worrisome. Most of these outlet roads are already used maximally, and the addition of 1.55 homes would overwhelm the infrastructure. Without significantly damaging existing home site~., the roads cannot be widened. All the neighborhood roads lead to roads that are strained as well If the VDOT estimate of 10 uups per house per day is used, 1550 more 1rips per day xxdtl take place on already overburdened roads. These cars are being put on neighborhood smeets - streets with families walking and biking on them, most of them with no sidewalks or safe paths. If, as the developer has stated, he can put la0 homes on the silo by right, then I do not greatly object to the home sites he has proposed. However, if. as a Carrsbrook homeoxwaer has stated, the coun .ty estimates that by rights the developer can only put 100 homes on the property, then I am opposed to any rezoning of the property that allows more homes. I also would like to oppose the placement of the club house. It seems the least obtrusive place to put a parking lot and parr); area would be the river side of the property., where it does not disturb the surrounding neighborhoods. If the buyers of these homes are similar to Dunlora, it is estimated that 75% will be families with school age childrem Should the development go as predicted by the developer - completed in about four to five years - where will these children go to school? Will the increase prop~' tax pay for a new school and teachers. Where will this school be built? The surface water mn offin this area was not well planned for during development that took place years ago. Every ~ime it rains heavil3~ large amounts of water from Colonial Auto, Route 29, Albemarle Square, Rio Road Putt-Pu~t area, Raintree. Fieldbrook_ Woodbrook and Weslmoreland. run into the creek that feeds the lake east of Dover Road. With poor erosion measures, with each hard raim large amounts of mud and silt are washed into the lake and then into the Rivanna River. This is happening now with the development taking place on Rio Road Taking out a twenty foot wide swath for a sewer line on a ~ade that is 45 degrees of slope, which is planned for this development, will probably fill in the lake. If the lake survives the sewer installation, the speed with which water will wash offofthe developed land, unimpeded by the trees and undergrowth that he is planning to remove, will add to erosion and more silting. Please have ~he developer rATTACHMENT place this~ewer line where it damages th~ land the least. The ~teep hill on the northwest boundary of the proper%' cannot be the best place. Sincerely, F. Michael and Maril3aa G. Ashby 327 Dover Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 8O4 978-7127 Copy to Mr. Bobby Shaw Erosion Office ,PRODIgY(R) Services Messages 01/28 ET 9:51 A~ From: Mail Delivery Subs Subject: Internet Message Date: 01/27 11:19 AM Date: Man, 27 3an 1997 11:02:01 -0500 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <~AILER-DAEMON> Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: mail.ce.virginia.us: hast not found) The original message was received at Non, 27 Jan 1997 10:25:30 -0S00 from mime3.prodigy.com [192.168.2S3.27] ..... The following addresses had delivery problems ..... <wcilimberg%~cva~mail.co.virginia.us> (unrecoverable ..... Transcript of session follows ..... S50 <wctlimberg%ocva~mail.co.virginia.us>... Host unknown (Nome server: mail.co.virgznia.us: host not found) ..... Original message follows Return-Path: K~3g77A@pfo_~d_~g_~.cq~ Received: from mime3.prodigy.com (mime3.prodigy.com [192.168.253.27]) by pimaia2y.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAB22382 for ?~j.~.~,~gr~%~cva~ail.co.wrginia.us>; Man, 27 3an 1997 10:2S:30 -0S00 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime3.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id KAAT8484 for wcitimberg%acva~,ail.co.virginia.us; Man, 27 3an 1997 10:02:18 -0S00 Message-Id: <I99701271502.KAA78484~mime3.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet G~(vO.gbeta) - aeOldmO4sc03 From: KF]B77A@prodigy.com (DR ED [ RUSHIA) Date: Man, 27 Jan 1997 10:02:18, -0500 To: wcilimberg%ocva~ail.co.virginia.us Subject: Carnage Comes to Carrsbrook Wayn~,~i~l~b~,r~,~gr~e County Director of Planning and Devetopmentwcilimberg~neil.co.virgihio.usDear Mr. Cilimberg:~e have just been informed about the purchase of the Wetzel property by Still Meadow Land Trust and 10 acres of Northfields Circle by Charles Hurt. We understand that there will soon follow a request for rezoning to ~ higher density use. This ~s of great concern to the Corrsbrook people, for the reasons you know so well---overloading of a neighborhood designed for homes of fairly large size and costing considerably mare than one commonly sees in high density neighborhoods, traffic I TTACHMENT K; ................................... IATTACHMENT ~ PRODIGY(R) Services Messages 01/28 ET 9:51 AM problems in an already much traveled oreo. Much money has apparently already been spent to purchase the land involved and we fervently hope that some arrangement has not already beer made with your group to consummate the necessary zoning changes to permit this ill advised pro]ecl . Ed and Mary Anna Rushio228 Carrsbrook DriveCharlottesville, Virgtnio.3anuary, 29, 19 .......... Or%ginal message header follows ........ Return-Path: MAILER-DAEMON Received: fron! locolhost (localhost) by pimoia2y.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with internal id LAA1170Z; Man, 27 ]an 1997 11:02:01 -0500 Date: Man, 27 3an 1997 11:02:01 -0500 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON> Subject: Returned moil: Host unknown (Name server: moil.co.virginio.us: host not found) Message-Id: <199?0127160Z.LAAl170Z@pimaiaZy.prodi§y.com> To: <KF3B77A@prodigy.com> ................ End of message .............. -~r. William D. Fritz, Senior ?lamner Dept. of Planning & Community Development ~01 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902-$396 IATTACHMENT. 408 CazTsbrook Dr. ot esv O:EIVED 22 E~.rc h p ann ng Dept- Dear ~. Fri~z: Reference is mz~ie to your let%er dated Yz~ch 7, 1997, a~ our telephone con- versation when the letter w~s delivered on the 12th. As owner and resident a~ t~he abOve address in Westmoreland since late 1973, it is urgently requested that the p~operty behind ~rsbrook I~. ret~n its pres- ent R-i zoning. My m~ n concern involves the dangerous increase in traffic, since it appears there will be no access %o or f~om Route 29N except by w~y of O~rsbrook I~ive. (Posta~ delivery probably also will be even more delayed.' ) This street is winding and hilly in paz~s and is not conducive ~o supporting hear/ traffic. I am constantly being warned by neighbors and visitors %o be vary careful, as the street at this point is on an incline, making it impossible for momorists going towa~ 29 ~o see a car backing out cf this driveway in time ~o stop unless they a~e driving at a ve~ modez~te speed. I~n Roosevelt m~n- t~ined time after time at meetings of the Boa~-d of Supervisors that individuals drive ak the speeds with which they feel comfortable. Unfortunately, this is not always the posted speed, as evidenced by the t~fic using Caz-~st~-ook Drive as a shortcut during the widening of the Rio Road/Rte 29 intersection. Pilling in vacant spots of land m~.kes sense where the land a/~eady is situated on a main thorough, fare that has been built to accommodate through t~fic or where roads canbe built for easy access to a main highway. It also can be a reasonable use of land where large ~reas can be developed affording z~esidents access to recreational, educations_l, and even retail facilities within the com- munity itself. It does not seem logical to erec% s~rucmu~es ~o house as many residents as possible within a limited, confined area surzo~,~ded by established homes built for more space and pm~iv~cy. An editorial in ~The Daily Pro,ess, 6 ~zrch 1997, emphasized that "in-fill" developments must address a number of q,~lity of life issues within the already existing .neighborhoods, such as t~fic, parks, schools, police protection, dogs m%uuning at la~ge, and noise. (~e s~imming pool and clubhouse lm~"oposed for future residen%s of the l~nd n6w under~ coneidez-ation for re-zoning could be a soum~e of noise pollution, espec%~lly if electronic devices are used. ) The difference between R-1 amd PRD zoning has been estimated to be about 30 houses. EVen now, the Supez~sors have put on hold the consideration of a new zoming oz~Linance that would allow a form of zero~-let-line development which seems to bode even worse for the use of the Wetzel land if applied there. The development Of this land w~I eliminate the visiting deer, fox, raccoon, opos- sum, r~bbit, and 'possibly even diminish the now eXtensive and v~ried bird pop- ulation, but this can't be helped. However, there can be help in ma&ntaining the present zoning restrictions, and i hope you will give the above concerns favorable consideration. CC: Wayne Cilimberg Dir.Planning & Devel. D~vid Bowerman Bd of Supervisors Very tz~lx yours, EI~,tTRA B. HURD (~ms. Walter J. Hurd) Pres., Westmoreland Neighborhood Assn. IATTAC H M ENT,KI William Fritz Albemarle County Planning and Community Development Dept 401 Mclntyre Rd .... Charlottesville VA 22902-4596 April 14. 1997 RECEIVE ! B t997 Dear Mr Fritz: Planning Dept. We have both general and specific concerns-about the proposed Still Meadows Development on the old Wetsel Farm. We sugest that you deny their rezoning request. Generally we are concerned about equity, traffic, taxes and schools, the absence of public access to any of the green space by the fiver; specifically we are concerned about drainage and safety problems inherent in the proposal. EQUITY Put bluntly and quickly, though, we think that the County should act to maintain the current R-1 zoning, or in some other way limit development on this property to the roughly 100 houses an R- I zoning would permit. Zoning exists to give current property owners stable expectations about the quantity and quality of developmem that is likely tdgo on around them. When we purchased our house, we did so in the expectation that this zoning was relatively stable, because ii conformed to existing density in the three neighborhoods surrounding the Wetsel property. The densest housing .in these neighborhoods is roughly one house per half acre in Westmoreland, rising to one house per acre in Northfields and Carrsbroook. In contrast, Still Meadows' proposal seems to average one house per third acre. The County's (still un~misbed, still unpublished) comprehensive plan does call for more density in the area bounded by the Rivarma. 29, and,the City, but it also calls for limiting development adjacent to the Rivanna floodplaim and for keeping development consistent with existing neighborhoods. Furthermore, when'Still Meadows bought the property it was zoned R-l, so they commited their money with the same expectations as we did. If they can't see their way clear to recouping their investment without higher density, then they?ve made a bad business decision and it's not the County's problem to bail them out at the expense of the existing neighborhoods. It seems m us that this would set a bad precedent that would encourage more speculative development elsewhere. TRAFFIC Carrsbrook, Northfield, and Huntington have no sidewalks (portions of Oldbrook/Wesunoreland do have sidewalks), but are used dally by the many elderly poeple living in the neighborhood as well as by children on bikes~ Perhaps:adult dogwalkers can deal with. the dramatic increase in traffic that the proposed subdivision will generate. I doubt that the former groups can. particularly as Huntington and Northfields are relatively narrow, curving roads with limited line of sight in many places. We understand that VDOT has already indicated that they will ask for a lefthand mm lane on Carrsbrook into the subdivision to handle to additional traffic. Limiting the development to R-1 will at least cut this traffic by a third. SCHOOLS / TAXES When both this development and the apartments behind Putt-Putt go on-line, there will not be enough space in Woodbrook and Agnor-Hurt to aec0modate the school population. Wo0dbrook's current expansion is already 'mortgaged' to the new apartments. Over the long term thislneighborhood is lik~ to generate more school age ckildren as elderly residents sell out or die out and as new f~milies move in. This process is already occurmg. Since the County doesnot have the tax base to build the proposed Northern Elementary School without an increase in m.xes, and since any family in the new subdivision with one child imposes a net'cost of roughly $200Oon the County in additional school expenditure [I will spare you the analysis behind this assertion and instead refer you to Mr Tmchta's letter, which I am told lays it out], it - seems to us that the County should do anything it can to slow development. ~TTAC HMENT ! ACCESS TO GREEN SPACE As things stand in the proposal, virtually the entire Rivarma frontage will be closed offby private lots, and there seems to be little provision for public parking on the proposed narrow roads. So while there is no access to this green space now, there will be just as little in the future. This is not compensation for the additional traffic and housing density that a PRD would allow, so the County and its residents do not seem to gain anything from the proposal, particularly as the flood plain is unbulldable anyway./ We have spec'fflc concerns about drairmge and safety in our particular comer of the property. If you check your map you wilt note that we are the third house up on Carrsbrook from the comer of Carrsbrook and Northfields, backing onto the farm. DRAINAGE As it stands now, we have drainage problems during heavy rains or snows. Water flows done the farm's slope behind us and frequently pools on our property. We have dug and mainta'med a ditch with our northern neighbor, located (with the Wetsel's permission) on the farm side of the property line, that partly alleviates this problem. Still Meadows' proposal to aleut land on this slOpe for 3 houses, and the clearance associated with their proposed sewer line just inside the property line here will only aggravate the problem as rain flows off houses and paved areas. There is no assurance that either the developer or any future homeowner will act to mitigate the additional run-offcreated by clearing existing forest. Note that this problem affects at least four houses - the one to our north/west and the two south/east of us. SAFETY The proposal has a "detention pond" in the comer of the property proximate to the intersection of Carrsbrook and Northflelds. Right now there are ar least seven chitdren (of whom four are ander age 7) living adjacent to this proposed pond. Many of the nearby houses are owned by elderly couples and upon sale would likely be bought by families with children; the neighborhood is undergoing a bit of a generational change, This pond would be a major drowning hazard in the present and future. Again, we urge you to deny this re~zonin~g. eve schwartz 506 Carrsbrook Dr Charlottesville VA 22901 - 1218 I ATTACHMENT K 2610 & 2612 Hunt£ngLon Road Charlottesville. VA 2290] February 4, 1997 I~vid Bowerman Board of Superv:isor$ 40l McIntLre Road CharloLLesviJle, Va. 22902 As you know, the residents of Northfields bare been advised by their neighborhood association of the possible request by the developers to re- zone the Wetzel Farm property from the current R-1 to higher density snch as PRD. As long-Lime residents of this area, we JmDiore you to deny any such reqaest for re-zoniag. The sLreeLs nnd roads in this area could not accomodate the large n- mounL et Lraffic Lhis would generate. R-1 will create some burden but this could never compare to the problem created by 800 or more dwelliags. As senior cJ. hizens, this would present a hazaFd Lo us that would be intolerable. It is also unbelievable that our representatives would allow our p~operLy values ~o be:decreased by such action. We are requesting that you represent ns effectiveJy by conv:incang Lbe Planni. ng Comm~.:;sioa Lo deny the re-zoning due to Lhe above mentioned adverse conditions Lo the citizens of NorLhficlds; as well tls; maay other problems such as pol[ntion, noise and crowded schoo].s in thc [ll-e~. We trnsL your j.dgcmcl]t in keeping the current R-] zoninR~][ Also, the extra Lra[[5c on Rio Road I'hsL wouhl be an invitation t.o dis- asLer. This road cannot handle Lhe Lra[fic ns iL is--Lhe pavement crt.al)ling away on Ihe vicJatlN curves and Lhe unproLested spe0d[llg and lack 0[ signs to insLrnct, large ti-tick8 LO avoid this area. We need action immediaLely on this vehicles Jn the area due to high dens.[gy bniiding~ We're counting on you Lo Lake oar reqnesL serionsl7 and Lo acL according- ly. We wJl.] be very gratefnl to you for yonr approprLate acLZons[l[ [~].ease Thank you tot your aLLel]t:5on Lo Lh[s serious maLLet. Yours Lruly, John O. Parks. Sr. t)/,' .:., A,-? . , Robert A. Coleman. Sr. Ruby M. Cole. an Copy: David Tice, Planning Commission Wayoe Cilimbcrg,County Director of Planning & Development Alice Feebley-Maus, NorthfJclds Neighborhood Association To: David Bowerman William D. Fritz VDOT From: Robert R. Von Achen Subject: Access Road TTACHI IE, NT_ Ptarmin9 Dept. I live in the Westmoreland Sub Division at 500 Carrsbrook Drive, Charlottesville, VA., 22901. My property is on the corner of £arrsbrook Drive and the proposed Still Meadow Development access road. My garage is in the back of my house, one story below the level of the access road. I must back into the access road in order to get onto Carrsbrook Drive, and then ko my £~nal u~ination. There is no o~=~,,~- It is_difficult for me to see traffic when I pull out of my driveway due to the difference in levels, and far more difficult for access road traffic to see me. There have been some close calls and one near accident for a person who thought the road was the Indianapolis Speedway. In the future I will be at the mercy of a proposd paved access road whic~ will serve as the main enterance to bhe development. Future, potentially dangerous problems bo myself and oncomin§ traffic [s forthcoming. Mow do I back out of my driveway without risking an accident? Further, how do I, because of the expanded width of the propose acess road which will come so close to the house that some ~re questionir the legality, of that action, construct a privacy barrier without obliterating the questionable views from the driveway and access roDd? I am faced with a dillemma that I truly cannot solve. I have lived at this address for the past 28 years, have been the past President of the Westmoreland Neighborhood Association, solving complaints ~ithout askin~ for assistance from higher authorities. Now however, I ask for your help and guidance. Thank you for your Robert R. Von Achen ~ ~RITACHi'~ENT K t 500 Carrsbrook Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 March 9, 1997 Hr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner Dept. of Planning & Community Development 40[ McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Fritz: As a resident on Carr~brook Drive who will be directly affected by the entrance to Still Meadows development, I am writing to express by concerns regarding the changp in zoning from ~-t to PRD. I live on the corner of the entrance to Still Meadows. Because of the many factors that will be adversely affected by rezoning ~o a greater density ~n Still Meadows, I am expressing my desire that you do all in your power to keep the R-1 designation. I can find no good reason for a greater density. Of the many things that will be affected, the important ones, I believe, are the already over-crowded roads in this area; the Local schools; our water system. In addition, this neighborhood is already densely populated, and traffic cutting through on Carrsbrook Drive to 29 North is already excessive. Please give this matter your most thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, J~hanna Von Acher] t['? [qorr, hf~.ei~s ~ad Cha ulottesvi lle V~ Mr. William b. Fr~sz. Senior Planner Dept of Planning & C. ommunitv Deveior~ment Count3, of Albemarle 401 Melntire Road Gharlo%%esville. VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Fritz t am wrlt~ns [n regarG Ao the 'WeLsel Propers¥ proposals which are cur'rentll~ in the official pioeJlne_ OnfouLunate]v, ] will ~e lma}~le %o at%e~d meetings or take any o~her action sfte~ this ~etter since I will be havinm bin, r~placemen~ aur~er~ on [4ar. ch ih. Otherwise i would b~ [.~'-t. When mile County [~lan was ado~,Y, ec[. this was the c]esi~naLson an~ the neighborhood has accepted that: cJearl~r we felt %hat R-1 was both suitable and asCot,table, a review of t,he zonin~ r, egl]lat]ons, both by theft stated' intent and permitted uses bu ri~h~ are reasonabte. In view of the proximity of t. he rive? and the 'wetlands' . the special uses are mostly lnappi'.ou, r] ace_ The proposal of the developers, which I have no% had all opportul]itv Lo study careful]x and won %. of course in the hospital pays little attention to ~the existing neighborhoods anG will nave a major an~ deleterious imoact. The existin~ roams canno~ handle th~ nraffie, i'£hev are already overburdened by the traffic resulting from the 20 Norti] work. ~ The other elemenss of the infrastructure will be equally ohaLlenge~_ Water and sewer lines will hav~ no t,e redevelo]~ed on c~]e p.~'O~l'Lie~ ol' ~i~tl~]~ nei~iboz'hood residez]us. This ~s surel~ an unfair lmeosition. The local schools are already overloaded. While 1L is inevitable that some of the iorested areas wikl be ~estro~,ed, Lhe ~].ans. as ~ mare seen them. seem %o lmDJv clear-cur. Lln~. This ~s hardly an environmental assel. irifilling" oz un~aeve.Looed areas ma~f be sound planning: I have insufficient ~.inderstandinl of told ti]at th~s ~$ t,h~: nnI~ PRD wiii,".h is enr. iret~; surround~ct )ATTACHMENT KI whic~ sI~ould 0e snorou~_Iliv unde~'mtood ahead o~ In cie, sine. let me than~ you and the ~iannin~ ca~efu] and thorou~_,h ¢'onsideratJon of ~nese and other ar~_uments that will be made. ] hope l~hat the t{-1 desi~na%ion will be reY, ained. March 12, 1997 Mr. Bobby ~haw A.lbemarle Count)' Erosion Office Albemarle County, Office Building 401 McIntke Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Still Meadow Development of the Wetzel Farm Dear Mr. Fri~z: Several 'fixings about this development concern us. The impact of ~ra_ffic on Carrsbrook Drive and other surrounding roads is worrisome. Most of these oufleI roads are already used maximally, and the addition of 155 homes would overwhelm the infras'a-ucture. Without si_maificantly damaging existing home sites, the roads cannot be widened. All the neighborhood roads lead to roads that are strained as well. If the VDOT es~rnate of I0 'a'ips per house per day is used, I550 more 'a'ips per day will take place on already overburdened roads. These cars are being put on neighborhood s~reets - streets with families walking and b'~ on them, most of them with no sidewalks or safe paths. If~ as Om developer has stated, he can put 140 homes on the site by righ% then I do not ~eafly object to the home sites he has proposed. However, if, as a Carrsbrook homeowner has stated, the county estimates that by rights the devaloper can only put 100 homes on the property, ~hen I am opposed to any rezoning of the property that allows more homes. I also would like to oppose the placement of abe club house. It seems the least obWasive place to put a parking lot and part)' area would be the river side of the property, where it does not disturb the surrounding neighborhoods. If the buyers of these homes are similar to Dunlora, it is estimated that 75% will be families with school age children. Should the development go as predicted by the developer - completed in about four to five years, where will these children go to school? Will the increase propert)' tax pay for a new school and teachers. Where will this school be built? The surface water run offin this area was not well planned for during development that took place years ago. Every time it rains heavily, large amounts of water from Colonial Auto, Route 29, Albemarle Square, Rio Road Putt-Put~ area, Raintree, Fieldbrook, Woodbrook and Weslrnoreland, run into the creek that feeds the lake east of Dover Road. With poor erosion measures, with each hard rain, large amounts of mud and silt are washed into the lake and then into the Rivanna River. This is happening now with the development Yoking place on Rio Road. Taking out a rwenw, foot wide swath for a sewer line on a ~ade that is 45 de~ees of slope, which is planned for this development, will probably fill in the lake. If the lake survives the sewer installation, the speed with which water will wash off of the developed land, unimpeded by the ~rees end under~owth that he is planning to remove, will add to erosion and more silting. Please have the developer [ATTACHMENT K i place this sewer line ~vhere it dm-nages the land the least. The steep hill on the northwest boundary of the property cmanot be the best place. Sincerely, F. Michael mad Marilyn O. Ashby 327 Dover Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 g04 97g-7127 Copy m Mr. Bill Fritz Planning Office ] ,TTACHM E NT, Ki May 6, I997 H. WAYNE ELLIOTT Mr. William D. Fritz Dept. Of Planning & Community, Development 401 McInfire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4596 Dear ]Vm Fritz: I write to state my opposition to the proposed rezoinng of the old Wetzel Farm property. As you know the developer requests that the land be rezoned fxom R-I to PRD. The rezuning would result in an increase in the number of homes in the development from around 100 to about 160. The additional homes would have an unacceptable impact on nearby roads, property values, and the schools which service the area. I know the county is now developing an "in-fill" pohcy. Generally, that might be a good idea. But. the Wetzel farm is in the most developed part of the county. The people who live in the area are already burdened with the consequences of in-fill, and it all occurred before it became a goal of the county'. A valid in-fill policy would simply make clear that as a general rule land outside the growth area will not be rezuned until land In the growth area is developed to its most appropriate use. The most appropriate use of this land is as it has been zoned--R-1. In any event, land use policy can not be viewed in a vacuum because no one lives in a vacuum. Whatever is built on the Wetzel Farm will cause an impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and the county,. To force the citizens of the county to endure that inconvenience and the public expenses related to development so that a land speculator might make an even greater profit simply makes no sense. I can think of no reason why such a change in zoning is in the interest of either the surrounding neighborhoods or the county as a whole. In short, this is a development the county can not afford. make this letter a part of the packet on this project. Please Sincerely, Lieutenant¢olonel, U.S. Army (Retired) / June 5, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596 (804l 296-5823 Scott A. Williams HCR 1, Box 3 Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA 97-01 Still Meadows Tax Map 46, Parcel 21 and Tax Map 45B2, Parcel 2(pt o0 and 4 (pt of) Dear Mr. Williams: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3, 1997, unanimously recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission based their reasons for denial on (1) the finding that the existing zoning allows reasonable use of the property; (2) the proposal does not adequately address concerns about public health and safety; and, (3) conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 18, 1997. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your schedule hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf cc: I~Ellaa Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Joseph W. Richmond, Tr Cresent Development Group, LLC STAFF PERSON: PLANNING~COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WilliamD. Fritz June 3, 1997 June 18, 1997 ZMA 97-01 Still Meadow Land Trust Applicant's Pronosal: The applicant is proposing m rezone approximately 142 acres to allow for the development of 155 single family lots. The development will include public roads, a recreation area and approximately 70 acres of open space, much ofit in the floodplain. Provision for the construction ofthe Rivauna Greenway has been made. Petition: Proposal to rezone approximately 142 acres from R- 1, residential to PRD, Planned Developmem Residential with a.maximumof 155 lots. Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcel 21 and Tax Map 45B2, Parcel 2 (part) and4 (part) is located at the end of Northfields Road. Access is proposed to both Northfields Road and Carrsbrook Drive. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District and is recommended for Neighborhood Density (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan. (Staff notes that the originalapplication for this project was 160 units. This was reflected in:the legal ad for this proposal. The applicant however, has reduced the development proposal m 155 units.) Character of the Area: The site proposed for rezoning is a mixture of woods and pasture. The floodplain area is exclusively pasture: Steep slopes are present at the boundary of the floodplain and at scattered points on the property. The site has access from two existing roads, Carrsbrook Drive andNorthfields Rd. Existing single family residential development abuts the proposed development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Plannine and Zoning Itistor~: None available. Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Neighborhood Density in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan, a designation which calls for a density of 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The density of the proposed development is 1.09 dwelling units per acre. The density of the developable portion oftbe site is 2.01 dwelling units per acre. The lot sizes range from 12,530 to 34,850 square feet. The density of the proposed development is below that recommended by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan for this area. Staffdoes note that substantially increasing the density above that currently proposed may be inconsistent with the prevailing building pattern of the area. (Westmoreland - 2.7 dwelling units per acre or an average lot size of 16,000 square feet: Northfields -1.4 dwelling units per acre oran average lot size of 31,500 square feet; Ralntree 2.2 dwelling units per acre with an average lot size of approximately 11,000 square feet with additional Open Space provided; Carrsbrook 1 to 1.6 dwelling units'per acre or an average lot size of 27,000 to 43,700 square feet with th6 lots adjacent to the lake abutting the proposed development at 0.69 dwelling units per acre or an average lot size of 63,000 square feet. All densities are approximate.) Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains "Principles Governing Land Use in Designated'Development Areas", (Attachment C). The plan states in part "For the County's g~owth 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 fred 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." To this end, the County has established the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee to guide a planning process to establish an overall vision for the character/design of designated Development Areas. The staffis currently in negotiations with candidate consultants for the project; The consultant's work, including significantpublic input and education effort through the process, is estimated at this time to take approximately one year to complete. This process will provide a clearer picture of how the County can achieve quality infill development which is acceptable to the larger community. The proposed development has addressed many of the design guidelines for the Development Areas. The area of development has been clustered to protect those items identified as resources in the Open Space Plan, critical slopes and floodplain most notably. Impact on the transportation network is not anticipated to be excessive. (Staffwill provide full analysis of the transportation impact of this development in later portions of this report.) Connection to existing neighborhoods will be provided by sidewalks and access to the proposed Greenway has been provided for. The development is internally oriented with recreation located in the center of the development. The Comprehensive Plan states in part as a Residential Land Use Standard "Unless contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehensive Plan recommended r. land use density-ranges (i.e., Neighborhood or Urban scale) should be favored even if the density- exceeds that of surrounding developments." The density proposed by the applicant is less than the minimum recommended by the Land Use Plan. In order to increase density the use of zcro lot lines (available in a P.R.D.), attached or multi-family unit types would be required. Staff can identify no matters of public health and safety which would be affected by an increase in the density of the development. The review ofthe mmsportation impact of the proposed development indicates that more 2 units than proposed could be located on the Stil.lMeadow site without causing any intersection with an acceptable level of service to beenme unacceptable, Staff opinion i~that the design of the project is generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The density, however, is below that recommended by the plan. It is the opinion of staffthat increased density could be achieved in this project with the use of zero lot lines, attached or multi-family units. The character of the property is such that attached or multi-family units could be provided internal tothe development with single family detached units located on the perimeter of the development adjacent to the existingdevelOpments, without changing the character ofthe area. Due to the density of the proposed development at less than the minimum recommended by the Land Use Plan it is the opinion of staff that this request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan density reeommeadations. The Comprehensive Plan also contains as a recommendation for Neighborhood Density Residential areas, "Any new development within an existing subdivision shall be in keeping with the character and density of the existing development. New developments adjacent to existing subdivisions shall be developed athigher densities to support'infill development efforts", The proposed development does maintain the character of the existing area, Staff is sensitive to the possible change in the character of the area Which could be generated by increasing the density of the proposed development, particularly if attached or multi-family units were added. This application moves towards the density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan and is more in keeping with these recommendations than the existing zoning. Staff has previously noted that the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee is working on the issue ofthe character/design of development in Development Areas: While it would be helpful if the County had the benefit of the committee findings in the review of this application, staff notes that the existing recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan do not call for a delay in the review of development proposals to allow the Committee to complete its work. Based on the fact that this development is consistent withthe design guidelines for residential development and that this proposal achieves increased density without changing the eharanter of the area staff opinion is that this request on balance complies with other recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: All applications for Planned Developments are reviewed for compliance with the provisions of section 8 which addresses Planned Devel0pments Generally and section 8.5.4 which provides for specific review criteria. 8.5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS "At such time as further conferences appear unnecessary, or at any time on request ofthe applicant, the commission shall proceed to prepare its recommendations m the board of supervisors. The date of the commission's determination to proceed, or of the applicant's request for preparation of recommendations, shall be deemed the formal date of submission of the application. Specifically, recommendations of the commission shall include findings as to: The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD district proposed in terms of: relation to the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to surrounding area; Relation to major roads~ utilities~public facilities and services: Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such insmanants or for amendments in those proposed: and Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are, necessary or justified by demonstration that the publiepurposes of PD or general regulations as applied would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. Based onsuch findings, the commission shall recommend approval of the PD amendment as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated modifications, or disapproval." Staff will address each provision of section 8.5.4. The suitability_ of the tract for the general _ty~e of PD district proposed in terms of: relation to the comprehensive ~lan: ohvsical characteristics of the land: and its relation to surrounding area. This development does not provide for any buffer between the proposed lots and existing lots. This issue has been raised by abutting property owners. Staff opinion is that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance commems regarding buffering apply to the buffering of different unit types, such as multi- family adjacent to single family detached units, or to commercinl uses adjacent to residential uses. Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that no buffering is required for this proposal to be compatible with adjoining uses. Matters regarding the Comprehensive Plan have been addressed. As stated previously, this site is recommended for Neighborhood Deusi~y residential use in the comprehensive plan. The land proposed for development is such that a significant portion of the site is not suitable for development dueto critical slopes or floodplain. The floodplain and the critical slopes associated with the Rivanna River system are identified in the Open Space Plan. The areas identified in the Open Space Plan as a resource have been included in the open space of the proposed development. The lots have been clustered onto the buildable area. The plan has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee and limited obstacles to development of the site have been identified. Scattered areas of critical slopes do exist within the development. These critical slope areas are not associated with the Rivanna River and cover a relatively small area. A modification to allow activity on these isolated areas of critical slopes has been applied for. Staffwill address the modification request in latter portions of this report. The areas surrounding the proposed development are mature subdivisions. Lot sizes in these adjacent subdivisions are on the average larger, and in some cases substantially larger, than proposed in the Still Meadow development. The Westmoreland development is similar in density and lot size to that proposed in the Still Meadow development. Staffopinion is that the proposed development is compatible to the surrounding area. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services. Staffhas received and reviewed a traffic study for the proposed development. The comments of the Department of Trensporration are included as Attachment D. Additional information regarding observed travel speeds is included as Attachment E, this information was obtained from the "smart sign" used by the County. Staff has included as Attachment ¥.one page from the traffic study "2001 Traffic Intersection Capacity Analysis Results" which provides a quick summary of the anticipated impacts of this development on various intersections. The proposed development will not result in a reduction in the level of service for any of the intersections internal to existing development~ The intersections of existing streets with Rio Road will be the ones most significantly impacted by the proposed development. Two of these interseetious with Rio Road, Huntington and Old Brook, currently have failing levels of service for certain turning movements. It is. anticipated that the Old Brook intersection will be signalized at some point in the future, based on the comments of VDOT. The Department of the Transportation has recommended that improvements, in the form of pavement stripping, occur at the Northfields, Old Brook and Huntington intersections with Rio Road. The applicant has not proffered these improvements. It is the opinion of staff that the problems associated with this3ntersections are due to existing and/or prior approved development, and staff opinion is thar the need for the improvements to the intersection recommended by VDOT is not substantially generated by this project alone. The applicant has proffered to provide stripping at the Westmoreland/Old Brook intersection with Carrsbrook. The establishment of turn lanes on Carrsbrook into the development can be required atthe time of subdivision plat approval and no proffer is needed to address this issue. The Department of Transportation has suggested realignment of the entrance location onto Carrsbrook so as to line up with Westmoreland. This would require acquisition of not only a parcel fronting on Carrsbrook, but also a parcel which separates Still Meadow from the houses fronting on Carrsbrook. The Department of Transportation has also requested that the developer participate in the cost of a signal at the intersection of Rio Rd and Old Brook. The applicant has not proffered any cost participation. The need for a signal at this intersection has been identified witkthe existing level of development in the area. Therefore, it is the opinion of stgffthat the proposed development does notdirectly occasion the need for the improvement. The problems associated with this intersections are due to existing and/or prior approved development, and staff opinion ~s that the need for the improvements to the intersection recommended by VDOT is not substantially generated by this project alone. The Comprehensive Plan recommendations for Infill Development include: Schedule public improvements needed to support/encourage infilt development within undeveloped portions of the Development Areas; · ® Develop plans for proposed public projects in a timely fashion so that they may be incorporated into new developments, as necessary. The traffic study analyzed only the intersections. Staff analyzed the capacity of the various roadways to accommodate the volume of traffic which the Still Meadow development is anticipated to develop. The following tables shows the results of the staff analysis. Read Name C~rrant Traffic Anticipated Current Traffic plus Capacity of Road Additional Traffic Anticipated Traffic Carrsbrook . · 1,475 320 1,795 3 999 Huntington 1,185 244 1,429 7,500 NoFthfield 5,37 l 544 5,915 7,500 Westmoreland I 2,634 496 3,130 5,999 Old Brook 5 Current traffic volumes are based on traffic co~nts taken by VDOT in 1992 and t994. Based on this information, all roads have sufficient capacity'to accommodate the proposed development. The analysis of the traffic impact of the proposed development indicates that the existing/planned infrastructure, with minima[improvements, will be able to accommodate the proposed development within acceptable levels of service. . It should be noted that the traffic study assumed a development of 160 lots and the plan submitted for approval indicates only 155 lots. Further, it appears that the existing/planned infrastructure would be capable of accommodating more units than included in the traffic study. (Staff does note that with the exception of some relatively small parcels the area making use of the road network is completely developed.) The development will be served by public water and sewer and adequate capacity exists in the existing system. The applicant has proffered to provide area for the Rivanna Greenway and public access from the proposed public roads within Still Meadow to the Greanway. The provision of area for the Greenway and access to it is consistent with the proposed Greenway Plan. Te address impact on other facilities/services staff has conducted a fiscal impact analysis. Development Imoaet 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 CIPor 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 ~evenues and the amount attributable to this development. The costs outlined by staff only indicate the proportionate share of construction cost for the additional development generated by the rezoning over by-right development. Facility Improvement and Imoacts: The following are those facilities which will be affected by the rezoning request: A. Transportation - No projects are identified in the CIP or Six Year Plan Schools - Schools affected by this proposal are Woodbrook Elementary, Sutherland Middle and Albemarle High School. Only Albemarle High School has a project in the current CIP. This project is for the Phase II and ti restorations, $699,000. Based on student multipliers currently used by the County this project will result in a total addition of 36 elementary school students. 17 middle school students and 20 high school students. This is an increase of 12 elementary school students, 5 middle school students and 6 high school students over what. would be generated under the existing zoning. Cost attributable to this development based on the proportion of students is $2,341.50 or $15.11 per unit. Parks and Recreation - No projects are identified in the CIP: Libraries - This proposal is considered to be in the service area of the Main Library. One project is identified in the CIP: Library Computer Upgrade - $300,000 Library Maintenance/Replacement Projects - $118,500 Based on the service area and capacity of the facility and residents located in the service area a total of $2,803~95 is attributable to this,development or $18.09 per unit. Summary of fiscal imoacts: Proiects Total Cost proposed Share Cost/DU Albemarle HS $669,000 $2,341.50 $15.11 Library Computer $300,000 $2,000100 $12.97 Upgrade Library Maintanance/ $118,500 $793.95 $5.12 Replacement Projects Total $1,087,500 I $5,135.45 $33.20 While not listed in the CIP staffhas identified one additional service which would have a cost associated with it. Provision of bus service to this area will require new equipment and restructuring of existing routes, or establishing an entire new route.. Anticipated cost for extension of bus service to this area is approximately $75,000. 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. Adeauacv of evidence on unified control and suitabiliw of any proeosed agreements contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments or for amendments in those proposed The applicant has submitted the necessary documents to address this provision of the ordinance. Specific modifications in PD or eeneral regulations as annlied to the nartieulae ease, based on determination that such modifications are necessary_ or justified by demonstration that the public ournoses of PD or general regulations as applied would be satisfied to at least an equiva ent degree by such modifications. The plan submitted in support of this application,does comply with the plan reqmmments for Planned Districts. Two modifications of general regulations have been identified: 1. Waiver of Section 4.2 to allow development on areas containing critical slopes. 2. Modification of Section 5.1.16 to allow the recreation area to be located closer than 75 feet to the nearest property line. Waiver of Section 4.2. The applicant has requested a waiverofSectiun 4.2 to allow disturbanceof areas of crifieal slopes. The site has scattered areas of critical slopes which affect portions of various lots. A contignous-area of critical slopes which is associated with the Rivanna River is also present. Those areas of critical slopes which are part of the Rivanna River system are not proposed for disturbance. The areas proposed for disturbance are found on lots 58, 59, 60, 68, 69, 70, 79, 118, 119, 120, and 144. The applicant has submitted a request for the modification which has been reviewed by the Engineering Department. Attachment G. The Engineering Department can support the request subject to the resulting slopes being established at 3:1. The area of slopes on which the applicant has requested a waiver are not identified in the Open Space Plan as a resource. Historically, request fo.r disturbance of areas of critical slopes which are supported bythe Engineering Department and which involve slopes in Urban Areas not identified in the Open Space Plan have been approved. Staff can identify no justification for denial ofthis request for activity on critical slopes. Modification of Section 5.1.16 The applicant has requested modification of the provisions of Section 5.1.16 which addresses the relationship of recreational facilities to adjoining property. The applicant's request and the provisions of Section 5.1.16 are included as Attachment H. Staffhas interpreted this provision of the ordinance as designed to protect properties from the establishment of recreational facilities adjacent to them. Staff does not believe that the provisions of the ordinance were designed to prohibit the location of recreational facilities internal to a new development adjacent to proposed lots. Potential owners of the lots adjacent to the recreation area will have the opportunity to have full knowledge of the presence of the recreation area. Staff Can envision situations where proximity to the recreation area is desired. Based on this analysis, staff can support modification of the provisions of Section 5.1.16. While not a modification of general regnlations, the applicant has requested relief from the stormwater detention requirements. This modification request has been reviewed by the Engineering Department. All information regarding this modification is included as Attachment I. This modification would apply only to those portions of the development which drain directly to the Rivanna. Those areas which drain to adjoining properties would remain subject to the Stormwater detention requirements. The Engineering Department is able to support this request. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The immediate transportation system is adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The design of the development is generally consistent with the design standards of the Comprehensive Plan; Provision has been made for the RivaunaGreenway and for public access to the Greenway; Generally maintains the character of the area while providing some increase m gross density over the existing zoning of the property. Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: The density of the development is below that which is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; Contributes additional traffic to the Huntington/Rio Road and Old Brook/Rio Road intersections which currently have failing level of service for certain turning movements. However, the problems associated with these intersections are due to existing and/or prior approved development, and staff opiuion is that the need for any maprovements to these intersection is not substantially generated by this project alone. While not cited as a factor favorable or unfavorable, the timing of this request precedes the completion of the Development Area Initiatives Committee work. Ideally, it would be preferable to have the committee complete its work prior to the review of this request. This would enable the County to better evaluate and balance the issues of achieving higher densities in keeping with the character of with the adjacent neighborhoods. However, if the Board chooses to take action, slaff is able to recommend approval of this request based on the facts at hand and standards of development currently in the Comprehensive Plan. While this proposal does not meet the minimum density requirements for the Neighborhood Residential designation, it does provide additional density above the existing by right developmem potential. It will also meet other development standards of the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, staffis concerned that increased densities may result in a change in the character .of this already developed area. For this reason staff opinion is that the proposed density, while less than that recommended by the plan, is appropriate for this development. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Should the Board choose to act on this request at this time staff recommends approval subject to the following: 1. Acceptance of the applicant's proffers. 2 Approval of a modification of Section 4.2 m allow activity on critical slopes located on lots 58, 59, 60, 68, 69, 70, 79, 1'18, 119, 120, and 144. Where slopes are to be constructed they shall be at a maximum slope of 3:1. 4. Approval of a modification of Section 5.1.16 to allow the recreation area to be located as shown on the application plan. 5. Approval of a waiver of the stormwater detention requirements for those portions of the property which drain directly to the Rivanna River subject to the approval of the Engineering Department. ATTACHMENTS: A- Location Map 9 B - Tax Map - C - Comprehensive Plan - "Principles Governing Land Use in Designated Development Areas" D - VDOT Comments E - Smart Sign Information F - Intersection Analysis G - Information regarding waiver of Section 4.2 H - Information regarding modification of Section 5.1.16 I - Stormwater Detention Information J-Applicam's description and justification of the proposal K - Letters from the public. I:\GENERAL\SHAREWRITZ\STILL.RPT l0 ALBEMARLE ZMA 97-1 C-- still Meadow GHARLOTTESVt AND RIVANNA DISTRIGT~, I 146 79 SECTION 46 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZMA 97-1 St ill Meadow 9 SECTION 45B~' "- '-"' -/ / / / / / QAC'REiGn'PARCELS C HAELOTTESVILLE DISTR IGT SECTi C ~ty of Albemarle Land Use Plan J ATTACHHENT C J Principles Governing Land Use in Designated Development Areas For the County's growth management goals to be achieved, the Developmem Areas taus! 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 developmem in the Development Areas, particularly in the locations designated "Urban Areas" or "Commuffnies." 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 des]re for design strategies that are more characteristic of small, welt-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 should be reflective of. and consistent with, these principles: 1. Accommodate new growth in the County within Development 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. 3. Encourage infill development of vacant lands and development of under-used areas within the designated Development Areas. 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. 5. Avoid development of "Significant Areas" as designated in the Open Space Plan. 6. Discourage extensive linear style development along major roads. 7. All Development Areas shall be served by public sewer and water. 8. Plan for a system of transportation and community facilities and services that support and enhance the Development Areas. 21 · Infill Development Policy - County of ~emade Land Use Plan · OBJECTIVE: Develop and adopt an infill policy for the County. Facilitate infill development, including redevelopment of existing structures or new development of vacant and under-utilized areas, within existing Development Areas. For the purposes of this Plan, infill development is defined as the establishment of new land uses, either residential or non-residential, on tmdeveloped or under-developed sites within thedesxgnated Development Areas. Infill development is considered one of the key initiatives for implementing the growth management policy and is encouraged for the following reasons: · To use Development Area lands in the most efficient manner possible · To discourage sprawl development · To maximize the use/support of community services and facilities (roads, utilities, transit, other services) In the Development Areas, undeveloped areas consist of both small tracts of land (5 acres or less) and large tracts (over 100 acres). The reasons why these areas haven't developed to date vary, but the primary reasons which can be cited are: · The property owners desire to retain existing use and/or are unwilling to sell for development at this time · Physical characteristics such as topography (slopes, soils, streams), size/shape of property, or ~ncompatible existing adjacent uses · Condition of existing roads, utilities or possibly other community services are not able to accommodate anticipated scales of development · Proposed public projects on, or near, vacant areas (which affect planning and development potential of an area) Also, the cost to develop infill lots is often relatively high compared to other sites. This is due to the fact that these areas are often surrounded by developed or zoned properties which tend to escalate the speculative value of the property. The potential for public/neighborhood opposition m_new development proposals adjacent to existing developed areas can also limit developer interest, particularly for smaller sites. Consideration of more in/ensive uses or densities on some properties may be necessary to offset development costs including measures necessary to minimize impacts of development. A commitment of the County to support infill developmem proposals consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is essential in facilitating infill developmem. 22 "'ounty of Albemarle Land Use PJan A comprehensive strategy for implementing infill development will address impediments limiting the opportunity or attractiveness of sites for development. It will also encourage market tomes to operate in a manner that makes these areas attractive for development. · Strategies for InfiI1 DeVelopment Strategy: Plan/provide for necessary infrastructure improvements that are currently impediments to development of vacant sites. Recommendations: · Schedule public improvements needed m support/encourage infill development within undeveloped portions of the Development Areas; · Develop plans for proposed public projects in a timely fashion so that they may be incorporated into new developments, as necessary. Strategy: Provide for greater flexibility in type of use and density of development. Recommendations: · Provide for greater flexibility in gross development densities within the Land Use Plan residential categories, with a focus on increasing grosg densities · Consider rezoning vacant properties designated for residential use to reflect the recommended densities of the Land Use Plan · Support innovative development and design concepts, particularly those that maximize gross density of developmem Strategy: Consider greater flexibility in development regulations which may limit development opportunities (without compromising issues of general health or safety); Evaluate and amend zoning and subdivision regulations in a manner that results in opportunities for increased development densities (including, but not limited to: critical slope regulations; open space requirements; reduction of area requirements for planned developments; density bonus provisions; commercial parking requirements, subdivision street and lot access requirements; possible impediments to "alternative" development designs) Utilize the Open Space Plan Development Area Composite Maps as a guide for waiver requests from the critical slopes regulations 23 CounW of P'hemarle Land Use Plan J ATTACHM EN-T Through an ad hoc advisory committee,_ develop strategies and standards to promote infill development=Use these strategies and .standards to work as needed for changes in state legislation and agencies, and to evaluate proposals for new Development Areas Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas Land Use standards provide guidelines for development which are consistent with the Growth Managemem goals and are in keeping with the man-made and natural environment. These standards provide the basic framework for the review of development proposals for_ the Development Areas, in conjunction with other applicable ordinances and regulations. · eneral 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 those categories. General Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas: 1. Development should be concentrated and clustered to the maximum extent possible to protect environmental features (floodplain, critical slopes, etc.), scenic vistas, and istoric sites, to provide for open space (for either passive or active recreation), and to minimize traffic hazards, coriflicts with other land uses, and adverse visual aspects assoc ated with linear/strip development. The Open Space Plan should be used to identify areas that need to be preserved. 2. Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions. 3. 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. 4 Connections between developments with an appropriately scaled transportation network should be provided to maximize a sense of community and provide additional transportation links. Connection of multiple developments may provide for additional recreation facilities, increased open space ~rea, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools, parks and other p~Ublic facilities. The emphasis is on linkage between developments and just not within ~aeh development. 5. Provide for ultimate future transportation improvements and ne.w road loc.ations.t..hr..°ug.h the reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and construc'ang utnmes in a manner consistent with planned transportation improvements. Tr~tnsportation improvements should include all modes of t{avel (aUto, b6s, bicycle, pedestrian). 6. Require underground utilities in new residential and non-residential developments, including new lines and major improvements to existing lines. 24 Co' -fy of Albemarle Land Use Plan 7. New development or major rec!evelopment 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 reamnable 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 developmems, parking capacity needed only on a few peak shopping days of the year is amenable to design alternatives to flat blacktop, Creatively designed altemative parking areas could serve as buffer zones to adjacent lane uses or road frontage. 8. To the extent reasonable and feasible given site: constraints, site development should encourage building orientation to public streets. Parking areas do not nee,~ to be located exclusively in front of buildings. 9. When site illumination is proposed, encourage the use of external lighting which is efficient, provides necessary security and is down;directed and shielded to minimize light trespass. 10. Adaptive re-use of historic buildings to uses which preserve the building's amhitecture and site character should be encouraged as a method of historiq preservation. 11. 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. · 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 guide 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 Erpes and forms Of ownership be permitted within the County. Residential Densities and Relationships to Other .Land Uses It is intended that where possible, and practical due to terrain, availability of public utilities and adequate public infrastructure, that overall development density be at as high a level as practical. The use of bonus provisions to increase density and provide for affordable housing should be eneourag~d. 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. 2. In rezoning deliberations, the County should be mindful of the intent to encourage infil] development, contain most future growth within designated Development Areas, and 25 F ~nty of Albemarle Lana Use Plag J ATTACH M ENT_~..J - 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., Neighborhood or Urban scale) should be favored even if the density ~exceeds that of surrOunding developments. 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 screemng of objectionable features and dissimilar uses provide for appropriate protection. These fefi. tures should be retained. In addition to these regulatory i'equirements, care should be taken in residential design to provide for buffeting, orientation, and other measures to avoid conflicts with surro~inditig uses. Identification of appropriate land use relationships is important in applying !and rise designations as well as in considering development proposals. Residential Development Desien: 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. 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 ihcentives. ~ 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. For larger developments, layout and design should 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 design feature tc establish and define sr~aller neighborhood areas within the l~ger development. The PRD/PUD approach is particularly applicable for larger developments. 5. Maintain requirements for recreational facilities for developments where the density and lot size do not allow for meaningful recreational space. Commercial Land Use Standards In addition to the general standards noted above, the following standards are recommended to guide commercial development. These standards apply to commercial, commercial-office and service type uses. 26 County of Albemarle Land Use Plan I ATTACHMENT C 1. Commercial zoning districts should :be permitted only in designated Villages, Communities and the Urban Area. Only limited supporting commercial uses appropriate to-the Rural Areas should be included in the Rural Areas zoning provisions. Highway-oriented commemial development should be located in clusters with common access points. Highway-oriented commercial development not located in such clusters should utilize service roads or shared access with adjoining sites to minimize the number of intersections on higher volume roads. To encourage this approach, areas designated for commercial development should not be less than three acres and should be of reasonable topography to allow unified access. 3. Rezonin[g to a commercial designation for sites of three acres or more should be accomphshed under a planned approach accompanied by a traffic analysis. 4. Commercial uses adjacent to residential areas should be effectively buffered and screened in accordance with zoning regulations. Generally, commercial office uses should be employed as transitional areas between residential development and heavier commercial or industrial areas. Any uses (including commercial office uses) allowed adjacent to residential areas should be compatible in operational aspects, and any potentially objectionable aspectsI should be adequately addressed at rezoning. 5. Mixed commercial and residential areas as well as mixed uses within buildings should be encouraged as land and energy-efficient developments, along with infill of existing commercial areas. Commemial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, natural gas systems, and community facilities should be considered in review of a commercial rezoning request. Industrial Land Use Standards In addition to the general standards, the following standards are recommended to guide industrial development. These standards apply to light and heavy industrial uses, warehousing, "flex" type uses, and research/development/technology centers having characteristics more in keeping with industrial type uses. 1. Industrial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Communities and the Urban Area. While single-use industrial sites must be accommodated, rezonings which propose multiple sites served by common access points should be encouraged. To encourage multiple-site development, areas designated for industrial development should not be less than five acres and should be of reasonable topography to allow unified access. 3. Industrial sites should locate adjacent to compatible uses (commercial, other industrial site or employment center, etc.) as opposed to residential, agricultural, or other sensitive 1Objectionable aspects arc factors which could reasonably bc anticipated to disrupt a residential atmosphcrc including such factors as cxmnsivc hours of operation (i.c. dclivcry traffic), and factors which may trespass into residential arcas to an objectionable level such aa lighting, noise, smoke, and odor~ 27 County of Albemane Land U~se Ptdn J ATTACHMENT C J areas. Industrial traffic should avoid residential areas and roadways not designed for such traffic. Objectionable aspects of an induslrial use should be addressed through a combination of realistic performance standards, buffeting; and special= setback regulations. This approach should be flexible so as to accomplish the objective without creating burdensome and arbitrary regulations. Methods tO mitigate objectionable aspects should be addressed at time of rezoning. Industrial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical~lelephone, and natural gas systei'~ should be considered in review of an industrial rezoning request. Rezoning to industrial designations for sites of 20 acres or more should be accomplished under a planned approach accompanied by a Iraffic analysis. 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 proposing 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: D Neighborhood Density Residential · Neighborhood Density Residential areas are intended to have a gross density, of between 3 to 6 dwellings per acre. · Neighborhood Density Residential may be located within the Urban Area, Communities and :~'h Villages. 28 J County of Albemarle Land Use Plan · Neighborhood Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate all dwelling unit types. Any new developmem within an existing subdivision shall be in keeping with the character and density of the existing development. New developments a~acent to existing subdivisions shall be developed at higher densities to support infill development efforts. Urban Density Residential 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 (PRD/PUD). · Urban Density Residential areas may be located within the Urban Area and Communities only. This designation is not appropriate within Villages. · Urban Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate residential uses other-than single family detached dwellings. · Urban Density Residential designations are not intended for development at densities below 6 dwellings per acre. 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 e.nvironmental criteria, mad function and condition, available utilities, adjacent land uses, and stte reqmrements. · Maintain statements in the Zoning Ordinance that site development within Urban Density residential areas be based on standards in both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. · All Comprehensive Plan standards should be reviewed in conjunction with development proposals within Urban Density Residential areas. Transitional Transitional areas are intended to be used primarily between residential areas and commercial or industrial areas, or in areas where flexibility of land uses may be necessary or appropriate to blend changing circumstances (e.g., where long-term public improvements are anticipated, or areas where redevelopment/re-use is encouraged). Transitional areas provide an opportunity to develop mixed use areas with Urban Density Residential usds and non-residential.land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Setwice, as defined in the next section of this chapter. 29 DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINFA' ' = DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22911 A.G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER May 5, 1997 Still Meadows Route 854 Mr. Bill Fritz DepE. of PlaD-ninG & Communit~Developmen~ 401 HcIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Fritz: This is in reference 5o the Cerrsbrook Road Development Traffic Impact Study dated April 9, 1997 The total site traffic of 1600 daily vehicle trips (study 1591) is basically distributed over four (4) differen~ rouEes. Below is a chart showinG existinG traffic per date of count and the increase from the site. Route ~/]T Site Traffic Percent Increase 854 1740-1995 320 18~ 652 3429-1996 496 14% 1427 1186-1994 544 46% 1248 1181-1994 244 20% The above stated routes would meet todays subdivision standard for pro3ected traffic as far as width oi road is concerned, with the possible excepsion on Carrsbrook Drive which has only a 20 foot surface between Route 1419 and Route 1432, a distance of 0.28 miles. In addition, there may be a curve on Car~sbrook Drive that would not meet design, although we do not have plans for Carrsbrook Drive. An intersection aliGnmenE of Old Brook Road with the site would be preferable, however, this would most likely chan~e the site ~raffic along Old Brook Road. Although the numbers by themselves would not require left ~urn lanes for this offset intersection, we feel that for safety in this operational area of £he two offset intersections, left turn lanes will be required. This can be accomplished with some m~nor pavemen~ wideninq and two short left turns for each intersection. A right turn lane for the site from Route 854 most likely cannot be achieved within the Right of Way, however, maximum use of a large radius and wedge should be sought for easier movement from the roadway. This can be addressed in the site plan review. The aforementioned intersection could perhaps line up if the properEy directly opposite Old Brook Road was purchasedr we noEe it as for sale. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 219T CENTURY J ATTACHI',~ENT D J Mr. Bill Fritz Still Meadows Page 2 Route ~54 May 5, 1997 There are presently two unsignalized intersections w~th Rio Road 9hat function a5 a level of service "F" for several movements in peak hour. 101d Brook Road'Rio Road - Huntington Road/Rio Road) The additional site traffic worsens these mDvemen~s by increasing the delay up co 3 times as long. We recommend that ~he developer participate in the cost of a signal for Old Brook Road with Rio Road by the percentage of site traffi~ to Old Brook Road. This is approximately 14% as shown in the previous chart. It is our opinion that a signal may be required au this location ultimately and the developer should participate in this cost. In addition, we recommend the developer improve ~eometrics of lanes by adding additional pavement markings to cre~e three (3) lanes at ~he intersections with Rio Road which will allow for less restricted movements. This can be accomplished for very short distances with the three (3~ roads intersecting Rio Road. The same geome~rics can be accomplished at the intersection of Old Brook Road and Carrsbrook Drive. By adding pavement markings on Old Brook Road there can be two (2) out lanes and one receiving lane, the same as for the Rio Road intersections. If you have any questions, please advise before releasin9 these comments 5o the developer HWM/llc cc: Jeff Hores Irma yon Kutzleben J. H. Kesterson ~%%~s Truly, ~ 2tl-~'n~' / H. W. Mills Asst. Resident Engineer [ATTAC:HM ENT_-E,I, Smart Sign Data Summary Location -On Northfields Road about 3/4 miles from Rio Road The data was collected from 4-07-97 starting at 4:47 pm to 4-08-97 ending at 4:42 pta. Hour Total Vehicles 5 - 6 pm 113 6 - 7 pm 61 7-~ 8 pm 27 8 - 9 pm 29 9- 10 pm 20 10-11 pm 4 11-12 am 2 12- I am 2 I - 2 am 2 2 - 3 am 1 3-4 am 1 4-5 am 3 5 -6 am 17 6 - 7 am 102 7 - 8 am 99 8 - 9 am 62 9- 10 am 53 10-11 am 62 11 - 12 am 61 12- I pm 74 1 - 2 pm 75 2 - 3 pm 73 3 - 4 pm 99 4 - 5 pm 114 Total cars for a twenty four hour periqd was 1156 Minimum MPH { 11 Maximum MPH 56 Average MPH 31 50% of the cars average speed was 32 85% of the cars average speed was 38 There were 2 accidents on Northfields between 1/1/92 to 12/31/96. The accidents took place between 12 pm and 2 pm. Conclusions: Based on the above information, Northfield Road is experiencing a slight speeding problem. Eighty-five percent of the vehicles counted were going three miles over the speed limit. Northfield Road has had two accidents over the past four years. As expected, the largest traffic coum occurs during the Am and Pm peak hours. I:\g\s\juan\smartda2.wp I ATTACH.E~I.T E ~ Smart Sign Data Summary Location On Carrsbrook Drive between Carrsbrook Ct and Westmoreland Rd The data was collected from 3-24-97 starting at 5:30 pm to 3-25:97 ending at 7:25 pm. Hour Total Vehicles 5 - 6 pm 160 6 - 7 pm 127 7 - 8 pm 117 8 - 9 pm 42 9 ~ 10 pm 32 10- 11 pm 16 11-12 am 8 12-1 am 3 1 - 2 am 0 2 - 3 am 0 3 - 4 am 3 4 - 5 am 5 5 - 6 am 5 6 - 7 am 15 7 - 8 am 89 8 - 9 am 96 9- 10 am 61 10-11 am 52 11 - 12 am 64 12- 1 pm 67 1 - 2 pm 83 2 - 3 pm 80 3 - 4 pm 91 4 - 5 pm 80 Total cars for a twenty four hour period was 1291 Minimum MPH 11 Maximum MPH 59 Average MPH 28.2 50% of the cars average speed was 29 85% of the cars average speedwas 33 There were 16 accidents on Carrsbrook Drive between 1 / 1/92 to 12/31/96. Twelve of these accidents involved two vehicles, which is greater than average. The remaining four accidents involved one vehicle2 Ten persons were injured as a result of these 16 accidents. The majority of these accidents took place between 4 - 6 pm. Conclusions: Based on the above information, Carrsbrook Dr. is not experiencing a speeding problem. Eighty-five percent of the vehicles counted were going two miles under the speed limit. Carrsbrook Drive has averaged four accidents a year over the past four years. As expected, the largest traffic count occurs during the Am and Pm peak hours. I:\g\s\juan\smartdal.wp i i i I I I i! I I1 ~TTACHi~.ENT Fi [ATTACHMENT CRESCENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, L.LC. March 24, 1997 Mr. William D. Fritz Senior Planner County of Albemarle Dept. &Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 RE: ZMA 97-01 Still Meadow Dear Mr. Fritz: With this letter, we request a modification of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County to allow for grading and construction in areas of critical slopes associated with our pr 'ehn~ plan for the referenced rezoning. Our plan identifies several areas of critical slopes, most of which are shown on the Comprehensive'Plan Open Space plan. We are not asking for a modification for the areas of critical slopes that are shown on the Open Space plan. The areas of critical slopes that we are seeking a modification for are mostly small, isolated, non-contiguous areas. We would like to address the specific concerns as noted in Section 4.2, as the responses to the concerns will be the same for each area, and later to make specific comments about certain areas. Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies five concerns with respect to the' development of critical slopes. Below, we list the five concerns with our response to each: R~. id and/or l~ge~scale movement qf soil and rock; Our proposed development would not cause rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock because we would use sound engineering and construction methods to ensure that. In several cases we would take an area of critical slopes marked by a depression, and fill in the depression, eliminating the slopes(and the possibility of large-scale movement of material) altogether. In all cases, areas that are graded will be immediately and permanently stabilized to prevent large-scale(and small-scale) movement. We propose to have an engineer monitor the activities to ensure that the fills are properly benched or notched and:compacted. Excesstvestormwaterrun-off; Our proposed development of areas of ctitical slopes would not cause or create excessive stormwater mn-off. Our request for modification, if approved, does not create additional impervious surfaces with respect to what could be done without a modification; it does, however, allow for a more prudent use of space, Again, in areas where a depression is rifled in, we would improve stormwater mn-offby eliminating some areas of steep slopes. IATTACHMEN'~ G! Siltation q£natural and man-made bodies of water: While we believe this to be the most sensitive &the concerns listed in the Zoning Ordinance, we do not think our request wilt result in siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water. The pond between o~ur property and Carrsbrook is an area that needs to be protected, and we intend to aggressively protect this pond with our erosion and sediment control plans. We have moved our recreation area away form the pond in order to better protect this areas fi.om siltation. The new area for our recreation area will still be in areas of critical slopes, but the development of this area will no longer impact the Carrsbrook pond. Beause we have identified this area at the beginning, we can make specific plans to protect the pond fi.om all siltation, not just fi.om the development of critical slopes, which will be much less, if any now that we have moved the recreation area. All parts of this site will be protected with erosion and sediment control devices, eliminating the chance of any body of water . silting in. Loss q£an aesthetic resource: Approval of our request for modification will not result in a loss of an aesthetic resource. We are making a substantial effort to ensure that the areas of critical slopes that are an aesthetic resource, are protected. The tong, continuous bands of slopes that divide the flood plain and our meadows are certainly a resource, and we are doing everything within our power to protect these areas. As previously noted, we are not requesting a modification for these slopes. The areas we are requesting a modification for are mostly small bands of slopesin the middle of an open field. We believe these areas of critical slopes have no aesthetic value. In the event qf a se.z~tic faitnre, a greater travel distance o_f se. t~tic _~_ uent: This site will be served by public water and sewer, therefore, this concern does not apply to our project. Several areas of critical slopes for which we are requesting a modification would be eliminated with road grading, or the areas could be corrected with additional grading in conjunction with road, building, The area of slopes on lots: 58, 59, 60; 79, 119, 120; 144 will be si~m~ifleanfly changed with road construction. In all cases, additional grading with road construction would correct areas of Critical slopes by improving the topography, creating flatter areas for building sites and our recreation facilities. In all areas noted above, the development of critical slopes will not cause or make worse any of the concerns noted in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of this request will not endanger the public health, safety and/or welfare. The area of critical slopes that runs along or through lots: 70,69,68,79, and 118 were largely created when the old farming road was built. Approving our request to develop portions this man-made slope will improve the overall condition of the property, and not create problems. If our request is not approved, we will not loose any lots. We could adjust lot lines and move around our amenities. We believe prohibiting development on small areas of critical slopes does not make sense and is not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan- to protect the areas of critical slopes that are an aesthetic resource. We believe our plan and our request for modification of section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. We are protecting the areas of critical slopes that need to.be protected. I hope that the staff feels that we have taken extreme measures to protect these slopes, We agree that these areas of critical slopes(the slopes separating the ridges and flood plain) are an aesthetic resource and should be protected. However, we feel strongly that the other, smaller areas of critical slopes within the project are not slopes that the Comprehensive Plan seeks to protect. These slopes are not an aesthetic resource, and by developing them, we will not adversely effect the property or that of our neighbors. Approval of our request for modification will not result in more profits for the developer. What it will provide for is the efficient use of a piece of property located in the growth area without negatively impacting the neighboring properties or endangering public health, safety and/or welfare while still protecting areas of critical slope that are of importance to the community. If you have any questions about our request, or if we can provide any additional information in support of this, please let us know. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott A. Williams Manager RECEIVED Planning Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Bill Fritz, Senior Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer 25 ApriI 1997 Still Meadow The Waiver Requests for development on critical slopes and relief from the detention requirement of the Zoning Ordinances received on 25 March 1997 have been reviewed. Comments on the Traffic Study, received on 17 April 1997 will be provided when comments from VDOT have been reviewed. Detention Waiver The Engmeering department recommends approval &the detention waiver for those portions which drain directly to the Rivaana River. This is similar to other detention waivers in that runoff from this development should pass through the river corridor before flooding has time to develop and peak. Also similar to other recent detention waivers, the Engineering Department and the Water Resources Manager have the following conditions to be attached to the detention waiver which pertains to water quality. Engineermg Department approval of Water Quality BMP's to be provided in lieu of detention to treat a mlmmum &the first ½ inch of runoff from all impervious areas. The locations are m be approved by the Engineering Department. Engineering Department receipt of proof of recordation and copies of Stormwater Management BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreements for all BMP's. Critical Slone Waiver The majority of slopes under consideration are along the Rivauna River floodplain, and in the three major ravines leading into the Rivanna River floodplain and Carrsbrook pond. For a delineation of the areas under discussion, please refer to the plan provided by the applicant. Below each of the concerns specified in the Zoning Ordinance section 4.2 is addressed. rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock The critical slopes are to be graded to provide a mom level area for subdivision development. Proper fill construction, surface stabilization, and controlled drainage from the roadways will minimize the possibility of slope failure in those areas where slopes will remain. Surface stabilization will be assured by an erosion and sediment control plan. excessive stormwater runoff The site will not experience an increase in Storm water runoff as a result of steep slopes. Page 2 Memorandum: Still Meadow 25 April 1997 IGATTACHMENT Gt Draina~ge fi.om impervious areas, and any newly created slopes will be controlled through the drainage system shown on the site plan. siltation of natural and manmade bodies of water Siltation will be controlled through an erosion and sediment control plan for the development. As a condition of this erosion control plan, the site will be permanently stabilized prior to completion, To better ensure that siltation is eliminated, a 3:1 slope is recommended where slopes are to be constructed. We recommend that lots be moved back off the slopes which border the Rivarma River's floodpla'm and Carrsbrook pond, and sewer lines be moved up or back from these slopes wherever possible. Any disturbance of these steep slopas which make up the Rivanna River stream valley will be very difficult to stabilize, as well as damage a identifiable critical resource. It appears as though the lots and sewer line along the Rivanna River have been moved back. However. a few of the lots and the sewer line above Carrsbrook pond could be relocated or rearranged. loss of aesthetic resource The slopes being addressed are wooded. They are visible in portions from across the Rivanna River, and partially fi.om the residences along Carrsbrook Drive and Northfield Road and Dover Road, a greater travel distance of septic effluent This is not an issue as the site will be serviced by public sewers. Provided the plan is revised to reduce disturbance of the slopes bordering the Rivanna River and Carrsbrook pond as mentioned above, Albemarle County Engineering recommends modification of Section 4.2 for development of the Critical slopes. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. GEB/ss Copy: ZMA-97-0I File:glenn\STILLMEA.ZI A~TTACHM ENT 'H~ CRESCENT DEVELOP1WE~NT GROLTP, L.L.C. March 24, 1997 Mr. W'flliam D. Fritz Senior Planner County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: ZMA 97-01 Still Meadow Dear Mr. Fritz: We would like to request a modification of Section 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the location of our recreation facilities less than 75 feet fi-om the nearest property line and 125 feet fi-om the nearest dwelling. We believe that our reques~ shouldbe approved because it will not effect any existing dWellings, only those to be developed in our project. Because we are showing this on our plan fi-om its inception, purchasers in Still Meadow will see the location of the recreation facilities and the proximity to their homes. We believe that having the amenities located close m homes is an attraction, not a distraction, for many buyers. It makes it much easier for people to enjoy the facilities without having to get in their cars and drive some place. In addition to not causing a problem for Still Meadow's residents, this will not cause a problem for the surrounding property owners because of the significant distance to the nearest home. We believe the justification for our request for modification of Section 5.1,16 is sound and consistant with the view we have for Still Meadow. We acknowledge that all other provisions of Section 5.1.16 will have to be met. As is the case with our request for modification of Section 4.2, approval of this request will not result in a financial windfall for the developer. It will allow for the prudent and efficient use of a piece of land designated for residential growth. If there are any questions, or if we can provide any additional information in support of our request, please let us know. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott A. Williams 5.1.16 5.1.17 SWIMMING, GOLF, TENNIS CLUBS The swimming poo~-, including the apron, filtering and pumping equipment, and any buildings, shall be at least seventy-five (75) feet from the nearest property line and at least one hundred twenty-five (125) feet frem any existing dwelling on an adjoining property, except that, where the lot upon which it is located abuts land in a commercial or industrial district, the pool may be constructed no less than twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest property line of such land in a commercial or industrial district; When the lot on which any such pool is located abuts the rear or side line of, or is across the street from, any residential district, a substantial, sightly wall, fence, or shrubbery shall be erected or planted, so as to screen effectively said pool frem view from the nearest property in such residential district; The sound from any radio, recording device, public address system or other speaker shall be limited to forty (40) decibels at the nearest residential property line; The board of supervisors may, for the protection of the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, require such additional conditions as it deems necessary, including but not limited to provi- sions for additional fencing and/or planting or other landscaping, additional setback from property lines, additional parking space, location and arrangement of lighting, and other reasonable requirements; 'Provision for concessions for the serving of food, refreshments or entertainment for club members and guests may be permitted under special use permit procedures. TOURIST LODGING The zoning administrator may issue a permit for such use for a period not exceeding five (5) years and renewable for five (5) year periods thereafter, provided that: Approval for such use has been obtained from the AlbemarIe County fire official. The fire official shall thereafter inspect the premises at his discre- tion; Approval of permit has been obtained from the Bureau Tourist Establishment Sanitation of the Virginia Department of Health. of -66- B. A UBREY HUFFMAN ASSOCIATES, LTD. CML ~GINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLAArArlNG 195 RIVEi~BEND DRIV~, SUIT~ 2 MAILING .~DDRESS - PO. BOX 6124 ~O~TESPTLT.~ lrIRG~ 22906 ]ATTACH MENT 3 , Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner Dept. of Planning & Community Development County of Albemarle ~ ~ 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 March 24, 1997 RE: Still Meadows ZMA 97-01 Dear Mr. Fritz, This letter is in response to your comments and other departments comments concerning the above mentioned project. In regards to critical slopes shown on the plan, feel that we have shown all of them. In regards to site distance at our two entrances, we made an examination and found both to have in excess of the required 350 feet. In regards to stormwater detention, we $how proposed detention basins that will serve the areas of the site that will drain across other properties. The rest of the site, which is the majority, drains across flood plain and then directly into the South Fork of the Rivanna River. A waive~ of the stormwater detention requirement for this portion of the site should be granted beeause of its proximity to the above mentioned river. Also, because of this sites location within the drainage basin of the river, there should be no detrimental impact on any downstream properties during storms of any consequence. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above or need further information, please contact my office at your earliest convenience. cc Mr. Scott Williams [ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A TO REZONING APPLICATION DESCRIPTION OF .REQUEST Crescent Deyelopmem Group, L.L.C., is requesting-that approximately 142 acres be rezoned from R-1 Residential to PRD Residential in order to create Still Meadow, a planned community ofnot more than 160 units. Crescent Development has agreements to purchase 135 acres ( TM46-21 ) from Still Meadow Land Trust and 7 acres ( TM45B2-2, a portion of) from Ollie and Florence Fitzgerald. Both of these properties are currently zoned RI, and our plan shows creating 151 lots out of TM46-21, and 4 lots out of the 7 acre portion of TM45B2-2. jane Williamson has joinnd a portion ofher property (TM45B2-4), approximately 10,000 square feet, to our rezoning request. Crescent Development is the contrael purchaser of the 10,000 square foot area to be rezoned. TM45B2-4 is already recognized as a subdivided lot, but its access is across the spillway of the pond. In exchange for the 10,000 square feet and a sanitary sewer easemem, Crescent Development sell Jane Williamson a piece of land that will provide her lot with road frontage on our subdivision road. Therefore, the transactions with TM45B2-4 will not create an additional lot, they will provide an existing lot with better and safer access. Jane Williamson will provide Crescent Development with a sanita~, sewer easement across her property. We have enclosed a preliminary plan for Still Meadow to be part of our application. The property that will become Still Meadow has some unique eharaeteristics. The 142 acre property is comprised of 55 aerea that are undevelopable because of being in the flood plain oftbe South Fork oftbe Rivanna River, with the remaining 87 acres being pastures and wooded ridges. The property has access to Carrsbrook Drive through a dedicated right of way, and it has access to Northfields Road. The property can be served by public water which exists at both of the road accesses. Still Meadow can be served by public sewer ~fith the Woodbrook interceptor running through the property's flood plain, and a smaller line that runs along Still Meadow% boundary with Nortkfields. Still Meadow is surrounded by the established residential developments ofNorthfields, Carrsbrook, and Westmoreland, and is one of the few undeveloped parcels in this urban area. The proposed development, Still Meadow, is a community of not more than 160 single family detached homes situated in the pastures and along the ridges of the property. The homes in Still Meadow will be constructed by the area's best builders, and will range in price from $200,000 to well over $300,000. The homes ,and lots will be protected by Covenants and Restrictions that will ensure that homes are built to the highest standards, and that will protect and preserve the wooded areas not dedicated for homesites. All · homes will be served by public water and sewer The subdivision streets in Still Meadow will be built to the Virginia Department of Transportation C VDOT ") standards, and will be accepted into VDOT% secondary road system. Still Meadow will have a significant amount of area dedicated to Open Space: the 55 acres of flood plain; and large portions of the ridges. In addition to the Open Space, this community will have its own amenities. The amenities in Still Meadow will be for the use of the community's residents and guests only. We plan to build an adult pool, a toddler pool, a ¢lubhousegoathroom facility, a tennis court, and a playground. We have dedicated a site on the preliminary plan for the recreation facilities, but because we are still evaluating the site, we would like to reserve the right to relocate the facilities. Should we elect to keep the amenities where they are shown, we would submit a request for a waiver or modification of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the grading on critical slopes on the recreation lot. We would also like to explore the possibility of proViding less parking than is required in the Zoning Ordinance because it is our experience that most residents will walk to the facilities. By providing less than required but certainly adequate parking we may be able to provide additional amenities for the community. If we decide to relocate the recreation lot, we would move it to the area shown as lots 78,79 and 80, and we would create 3 lots where the amenities are currently shown. If the amenities are built in the location shown on the plan, we would want to have:the ability to move the facilities around in the designated area. As nice as our amenities will be, the large amount of Open Space may be the mOSt attractive aspect of Still Meadow. The Open Space in Still Meadow will encompass most of the environmentally sensiti,2e areas on the property. All of the 55 acres in the flood plain will be designated as Open Space, and will have pedestrian access to the flood plain as well as the Rivanna River. We plan to provide at least two accesses to the Open Space: one being a trail from the recreation lot down to the pond between Carrsbrook and Still Meadow; and another between lots I 17 and 118. In addition to the flood plain, significant portions of the critical slopes will be preserved as Open Space, and additional protective measures will be employed to preserve the wooded slopes on lots. Homesites will be located on lots in such a way as to preserve as manytrees as practical. We have also shown two potential pond sites located in the Open Space that we are currently evaluating. Still Meadow willbe served by public water and sewer, aspreviousty mentioned. Most of the site will be served by gravity sewer with the exception of 21 lots in the southern comer we are serving with a lift station and forced main. We are currently evaluatifig whether this area can be served by gravity sewer connecting to an existing line in Northfields. We have an agreement from Jane Williamson to grant us a sewer easement across her property. All other sewer lines originate from and mn on our property. We believe that there is sufficient fire flow in the water lines to allow us to reduce the side yard stebacks to 10 feet. We have identified3 areas for storm water detention facilities, if they are required. Still Meadow will be developed in 3 or 4 phases. We hope to begin site development in the late summer or early fall Of this year, and we:expect that Still Meadow will be substantially complete in 5 years. At this early stage, we are not prepared to make any proffers, however, we are reviewing several items which may lead to future proffers. At the suggestion of VDOT IATTACHMENTJt and the Planning staff, we have engaged a firm in Richmond to prepare a traffic analysis to determine the impact Still Meadow Witl have on area roads. We expect to submit this analysis in 3 to 4 weeks. We will be meeting with neighborhood association representatives, and with adjoimng property owners to assess their concerns. We expect these meeting to occur in the next 2 weeks. In addition, Crescent Development is willing to discuss the possible participation in the County's Greenway project. IATTACHI~ENT'JI ATTACHMENT B TO REZONING APPLICATION JUSTIFICATION OF REQUEST Crescent Development Group, L.L.C., ("Crescent"), believes this rezoning request should be approved because it will create a planned community that conforms to the surrounding neighborhoods, and it efficiently uses the developable area of this growth area property. We believe that our rezoning request and our plan comply with Albemarle Coufity's Comprehensive Plan. Still Meadow, the proposed community, wilt have most of its environmentally sensitive areas protected as Open Space. We believe that Still Meadow will help meet the growing market demand for a family oriented community that is conveniently located to businesses, schools and shopping. And perhaps most importantly, we believe our request represents a growing trend in the County where it is becoming increasingly more important to get the most out ofinfill sites. The property that comprises this rezoning request is currently zoned R-I Residential, and recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential development, 1 to 4 units per acre. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan Update recommends the site for neighborhood density residential, 1 to 6 units per acre. Our proposed plan will have a gross density ora little more than 1 unit per acre. As recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, our community will fit in well with the surrounding neighborhoods. We expect our average sales price to be well over $250,000 with many homes being well over 5;300,000. The lot sizes in Still Meadow will be similar to those in Westmoreland and smaller than many in Northfields and Carrsbrook; however, this should not be seen as not complying with the Comprehensive Plan because the lots in Carrsbrook and Northflelds had to be larger to accommodate septic systems. The site is located within a designated growth area, and our proposed plan is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that our plan also complies with the Open Space Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. The Open Space Plan recommends that the flood plain of the South Fork of the Rivanna'River be maintained as Open Space, and our plan does that. The Open Space Plan also recognizes several areas of critical slopes on the hills between the flood plain and the ridges. Our plan proposes that large portions of these critical slopes be designated as Open Space. The balance of the remaining areas of these slopes will be protected by the community's covenants and restrictions, and also tree protection easements. When building sites are located on the lots, great care will be taken preserve as many trees as practical. With the exception of the gravity sanitary, sewer system, very little clearing will occur on the wooded slopes. We believe that Still Meadow complies with the provisions of the Open Space Plan of the Comprehensive Plan, and in many cases, will take extra steps to protect these and other sensitive areas. Crescent believes that our rezoning request is not seeking much more density than could be done by fight. Because of the large amount of flood plain, I do not believe we could obtain 142 lots by right; however, given the bonus level/cluster developmem provisions in R-1 Residential, I believe we would be dose to 140 lots. We believe that the effect that Still Meadow has on the area versus what could be done by right will be negligible. We realize that there will be more homes, more students and more traffic, but not much more than if the property were developed with out a rezoning. We believe that Still Meadow will not have a negative impact on the values of the surrounding properties. Actually, because our average price will be higher than many existing homes in the area, we believe that Still Meadow may have a positive effect on property values. '- ~ We believe that Still Meadow will meet the demands ora growing area of the new home market, homes between $200,000 and $300,000 Currently, this demand is served by Dunlora and the upper end in Forest Lakes. Dunlora is beginning its final phase and should be built out in the next two years. The market wants amenities, and our residents will be able to enjoy numerous amenities with out having to leave Still Meadow. Because many oftbe homes in Still Meadow will back up to Open Space, it will feel like a rural subdivision and yet it will be in a designated growth area. I think that it is important to continue to be able to offer new home buyers communities like Still Meadow in order to limit the number homes being built outside of the growth areas. While Crescent knows that Albemarle County has not yet adopted an infilt policy, we believe that it is important that infill sites like Still Meadow are developed in such a way as to maximize their potential, yet doing so not at the expense of the neighbors. We believe Still Meadow accomplishes just that; a thoughtfully planned community that takes advantage of its usable space with out negatively impacting the surrounding properties We believe that Still Meadow achieves a growing goal of the County, to effectively develop the infill sites in the growth areas before adding additional property to growth areas. Still Meadow will use and take advantage of the existing roads, water and sewer lines that it has access to. Crescent believes that Still Meadow fitsin well Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan, and can serve as a model for the County's developing infill policy. We hope that our rezoning request is looked at favorably. We currently have a consultant preparing a traffic analysis to determine what impact Still Meadow will have on the existing roads. Once we have received the traffic analysis, and we have been able to meet with the neighbors, we will be in a position to meet with the Planning staff to discuss what proffers we will make. IATTACH"MENTJI PROFFER STATEMENT CRESCENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, L.L.C. ~.MA-9?-01 I ATTACHMENT J t PROFFER STATEMENT CRESCENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP r L.L.C. REZONING KPPLICKTION: ZMA-9?-01 Ma~ 21, 1997 Crescent Development Group, L.L.C. (the "Applicant") is the contract purchaser of that certain property located in Albemarle County (the "County") described in rezoning application ZMA-97-01 as Tax Map 46 Parcel 21 and portions of Tax Map 45B2 Parcels 2 and 4 (the "Property"). Applicant, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board") to the planned residential development (the "PRD"], development of the Property shall be in accordance with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.1- 491.2:1 cf the Code of Virginia (1950),.as amended ~the "Code")~ and applicable provisions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). If Applicant's rezoning application is denied, these proffers shall be immediately 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, except as permitted by the regulations of the PRD Zoning District. These proffers .shall supersede all other proffers made prior hereto. A. RIVANNA RIVER GREEN BELT Applicant shall reserve a 100' wide area along the boundary of the Property and adjacent to the Rivanna River (the "Green Belt"). Nm structural improvements (other than pedestrian and riding trails and utilities) shall be constructed or erected within the Green Belt without the consent of the County. The Green Belt shall be preserved in its current condition except for general beautification measures including but not limited to the clearing of underbrush, removal of dead trees and shrubs, and clean up of the river. Applicant may grant across the Green Belt utility easements, and access easements to the Rivanna River for the residents of the development and their guests, and may at its option, build pedestrian and riding trails or similar uses. At such time as the County decides to establish along the Rivanna River a public area or park within the Green Belt, and upon a (1) [ATTACHI~IENTJI request by the County, Applicant shall convey the Green Belt to the County without considera~ioh, provided the uses allowed for utilities, and pedestrian and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed. The Green Belt may continue to be maintained by the owner of the Property, however, in the absence of such maintenance, Albemarle County at its option may maintain the 100' wide Green Belt. Applicant shall provide public access to the deeded Green Belt. .B. PEDESTRIA/~ PATHS Applicant agrees to construct paved pedestrian paths, 3-4 feet wide on one side of roads A, B, C (to road D), D (to road F), F, and G, and for two pedestrian access easements to the Open Space, said roads are shown on the plan of development dated February 24, 1997, revised March 24, 1997, and submitted with the rezoning application (the "Plan"). Applicant will constructthe paved pedestrian paths from road A to Carrsbrook Drive and Northfields Road p~ovided the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") approves the paths to be constructed within the road rights-of-way. C. CRITICAL SLOPES Applicant will designate on the final plat as "Restricted Areas" those areas of lots 99 through 142 upon which are located critical slopes, as are currently shown on the Plan, by limiting the use of those areas through the . pro~ect Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration"). The Declaration shall limit the removal of live trees within the Restricted Areas but shall allow for the construction of sanitary sewer lines and laterals. D. PAVEMENT STRIPING Applicant shall improve the geometrlcs of lanes by adding additional pavement markings at the intersection of Old Brook Road and Carrsbrook Drive and will provide additional pavement markings on Old Brook Road to create two out lanes and one receiving lane. Applicant will complete these pavement markings to VDOT's satisfaction prior to final plat approval of the one- hundredth lot in the project. This proffer shall not be construed to require the Applicant to provide additional paving on any of the roads where said striping will be provided. (2) E. SIgNaTORY ~TTACHMENT j I 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 of the Property or an portion of the Property. Witness the following signature and seal: CRESCENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, L.'L.C. Scott A. Williams, Manage/k-' STATE OF VIRGINIA, At Large CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was ~/='-day of May, 1997, by Scott A. Development Group, L.L.C. My co~mission explres: 97-crescent.pro acknowledged before me on this Williams, Manager of Crescent (3) From= April ~resham Maranto & Bob Mara~to We just looked over the proposed development plan. These are initial reactions. Perhaps we need to study it some Bore, but it seems to us that it contains absolutely NOTHING for the neighborhood. Is a P~D to compromise between the community and the developer, or just to put in as many people as possible? Is it really generous of the developer to Hive the county floo~ plain land? It can't be built on, a~ter all, hut must he paid taxes on unless it is given away. Is that really generous? {Note that the generous Dr. Hurt is trying to gi~e up such land!) The county plan is violated in that there is no buffe~ between the neighborhoods (well, a few feet). In our particular case =ne new sidewaIk on our side may well wipe out a group of trees that gives us some buffer from our ~ew nei~hbor, a busy road. (~ut at least we don't lose half our yard to a turnin~ lane, like some others.) Will our property assessments HO down when the woods turn to homes? Our chances of selling our house will! If the new neighborhood is to offer woodland and other amenities, as the developer's plan claims, why do fewer th~n a quarter of the homes bordez anything save other homes? If we HOt a wooded buffer on the side, more ~han half would. That would be far better for them and for us (and could still allow 18-30 more homes than R1). Do we want to make good neighborhoods, or just crowded ones? Is this Fairfax County? (No, Fairfax has buffersl) Is there stall time for compromise? As it i~, R1 is far better than this plan. It,s a s~a~e, because I really think a win-win solution was possible with some effort. Bob Maranto Petition We, the undersigned adjacent property own6rs, oppose the proposed rezoning of the area owned by the Still Meadow Land Trust (the Wetsel Farm) from RI to a PRD. The proposed zomg change would violate the long-standing expectations of local property owners who bought their homes with the expectation that the land would remain at R1 zomng. Second, we request that, whether or not the zoning changes, Still Meadow reta/n a wooded buffer area between the new neighborhood and the existing Carrsbrook and Noahfields neighborhoods. This would retain the amenities values, wildlife and bird populations for all neighborhoods, and accords with Still Meadow's professed desire to be a good neighbor and to develop an attractive community. It also is in accord w/th the County's Comprehensive Land Use P1an to "maintain existing forested areas act'mg as buffers between subdivisions" (.Co. of Albemarle Land Use Plan, p. 24). Signature Print Name Address Phone ....~~ ~~Q ....... ~-~-~-~ ........................... ~ / z~ ...... ~ Please return to Herman Schwartz (9754)720) 506 Carmbrook Dr. or April/Bob Maranto 2821 Northfields Rd. Petition We, the undersigned adjacent property owneis, oppose the proposed rezoning of the area owned by the Still Meadow Land Trust (the Wetsel Farm) from R1 to a PRD. The proposed zoning change would violate the long-standing expectations of local property owners who bought their homes with the expectation that the land would remain at R1 zoning. Second. we request that, whether or not the zoning changes, Still Meadow retain a wooded buffer area between the new neighborhood and the existing Carrsbrook and Northfields neighborhoods. This would retain the amenities values, wildlife and bird populations for all neighborhoods, and accords with Still Meadow's professed desire to be a good neighbor and to develop an attractive community. It also is m accord with the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan to "maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions" (Co. of Albemarle Land Use Plan, p. 24). Signature Print Name Address Phone Please ~oarn to Haman Schwartz (975-0720) 506 Carrsbrook Dr. or April/Bob Maranto 2821Norttrfields Rd. Petition We, the undersigned adjacent property owners, oppose the proposed rezoning of the area owned by the Still Meadow Land Trust (the Wetsel Farm) from RI to a PRD. The proposed zoning change woutd violate the long-standing expectations of local property owners who bought their homes with the expectation that the land would remain at R1 zoning. Second, we request that, whether or not the zoning changes, Still Meadow retain a wooded buffer area between the new neighborhood and the existing Carrsbrook and Northfields neighborhoods. This would retain the amenities values, wildlife and bird populations for all neighborhoods, and accords with Still Meadow's professed desire to be a good neighbor and to develop an attractive eormmunity. It also is in accord with the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan to "maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions" (Co. of Albemarle Land Use Plan, p. 24). Signature Print Name Address Pl~one Plea*eretumtoHermanSchwa~.(975-0720)~'D~ ...... ~ '--'~' .... JS06CarmbrookDr. orApril/BobMamnto2$21Nortlffi¢ldsRd. Petition We, the undersigned adjacent property owners, oppose the proposed rezoning of the area owned by the Still Meadow Land Trust (the Wetsel Farm) from RI to a PRD. The proposed zoning change would violate the long-standing expectations of local property owners who bought their homes with the expectation that the land would remain at RI zoning. Second, we request that, whether or not the zoning changes, Still Meadow retain a wooded buffer area between the new neighborhood and the existing Carrsbrook and Nortbfields neighborhoods: This would retain the amenities values, wildlife and bird populations for all neighborhoods, and accords with Still Meadow's professed desire to be a good neighbor and to develop an attractive community. It also is in accord with the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan to "maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions" (Co. of Albemarle Land Use Plan, p. 24). Signature Print Name Address Phone ......... ? ~,' tu ...................... ~ ................. ZL ............. 9 / .... 12 .... ............. PI~ ~ ~ He. an Sch~ (9754720) 506 ~k Dr. or ~ ~nto 2821 No~et~ ~ Petition We, the undersigned adjacent property owners, oppose the proposed rezoning of the area owned by the Still Meadow Land Trust (the Wetsel Farm) from RI to a PRD. The proposed zoning change would violate the long-stanchng expectations of local property owners who bought their homes with the expectation that the land would remain at R1 zoning. Second, we request that, whether or not the zoning changes, Still Meadow retain a wooded buffer area between the new neighborhood and the existing Carrsbrook and Northfields neighborhoods. This would retain the amenities values, wildlife and bird populations for all neighborhoods, and accords with Still Meadow's professed desire to be a good neighbor and to develop an attractive community. It also is in accord with the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan to "maintain ex~sting forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions" (Co. of Albemarle Land Use Plan, p. 24). SignaturePrint Name Address Phone ..... . 10. 11. 12. Please return to Herman Schwartz (9754)720) 506 Carrsbrook Dr. or April/Bob Maranto 2821 Northfields Rd. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM Bill Fritz, Senior Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer ~cTgo 3 June 1997 Still Meadow, Clarification Regarding VDOT Comments The memorandum from the Engineering Department of 2 June 1997 is in need of clarification. The memorandum stated that we were in support of the VDOT recommendations for a traffic signal at the intersection of Rio Road and Old Brook Road, and paint striping at the three intersections on Rio Road from Woodbrook Subdivision. These VDOT recommendations were made in an attempt to help ~vith existing problems on Rio Road. Since they were raised as concerns by VDOT, we support their concerns and urge the applicant to consider them. However, we are unable to require cost sharing of these ~mprovements, the signal or the paint striping because the need is not substantially generated by the proposed Still Meadow development. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. GEB/ctj Copy: ZMA-97-01 June 18, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Plannin§ & Community Developmem 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virgima 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Memorandum To: From: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors William D. Fritz [4,fi ZMA 96-24 N&S, L.L.C (South Pointe) This memorandum is a supplement to memorandum dated June 13, 1997 which was provided to the Board. The previous memorandum calculated the impacts of various densities on 25 acres of rezoned land. The applicant has stated that the acreage involved is approximately 28 acres. The applicant has provided a detailed map showing the boundaries of the area.to be rezoned. However, the area to be rezoned is a portion o£a larger property, and no survey has been conducted to determine the exact acreage. Staff has estimated that a total of up to 30 acres may be included within the boundaries of the area proposed for rezoning. Staffhas provided the potential traffic impact figures based on the upper end estimate of the total acreage. The original information for R-15 zoning of this site assumed a development potential of 400 units. This supplemental information indicates that a development potential of up to 450 units is possible. The traffic distribution numbers provided in the various attachments to the June 13, 1997 memorandum have not been revised as this would require additional review time. However, the ratios of the distribution pattern is unchanged by density or total development numbers. The fiscal impact numbers have not been updated as this is a more complex calculation which would require additional review time. Transportation Analysis The traffic distribution pattems which would be generated by densities higher than currently permitted are attached. The traffic study submitted by the applicant does not consider the provision of public transit to this site. Public transit could be provided to the site which could reduce the overall impacts. This would require a contract between the County and the City for CTS service. At this time staff is unable to determine what the cost of providing public transit to this site would be. Number of Total Trips AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak Units, Enterine Exiting Entering Exitine 60 (By right) 600 14 28 22 22 180 1,122 14 36 41 29 6.01 DU/AC 300 1,894 35 85 86 60 ~ 10 DU/AC [ 450 2,868 68 169 156 109 15 DU/AC -, The following table shows anticipated 24 hour traffic volumes. Existing ~ 180 Units 300 Units 450 Units Traffic Units 6.01 DU/AC 10 DU/AC 15 DU/AC Volume ~ Right 5th Street 13,754 172 527 ' 890 1,348 north of the Interstate 5th S~reet south 3,581 22 67 114 172 of Old Lvnehbure Old Lvnehburg 2,187 29 90 151 229 The access to the public schools that serve this site, Cale Elementary, Walton Middle and Monticello High School, will involve use of roads within the City. School Impacts The multipliers used to determine potential enrollment are those contained in the Fiscal Impact Model which has been received by the Board. The per unit multipliers are Elementary School 0.15, Middle School 0.07 and High School 0.06. Number of Units Total Elementary. .Total Middle School .Total Hieh School ~chool 60 Units (By Right) 9 4 4 180 Units ~ 27 13 11 6.01 DU/AC 300 Units 45 21 18 10 DU/AC 450 Units 68 32 27 15 DU/AC WE TI{E FOLLOWING ~ESIDENTS DO tlERBBY OBJECT TO T~E CEIA/~GING OF T~ ZONING OF ~ LO~TED ON 5T5 ST~ET EXTD. TO ~LOW 420 ~AR~NTS TO BE BUILT. T~ RO~S SER~NG T~T ~A ~ NOT DESIGNED TO C~Y T~E ~DED CARS, ~ICH WO~D ~D ~OTEER 420 TO 800 MO~ PER DAY. THE O~Y ROUTES OPEN TO THIS ~DED T~FIC WO~D BE 5TR ST~ET LE~ING INT0 TO~ ~B TEEN GOING DO~ RIDGE ST~ET ~IGR IS ~Y CONGESTED WIT~ T~FFIC OR OLD LyNC~URG RO~ GOING INTO JEF~RSON P~ A~NUE AT FRYS SPRING B~C~ CLUB. T~E FIRST P~T OF ~IS RO~ IS ~RY N~0W ~ C~ ~D ~DED T~FFIC OF TMIS VOL~ WOULD PRODUCE A D~GER T0 MOTORISTS. WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS DO HEREBY OBJECT TO THE CHANGING OF THE ZONING OF LAND LOCATED ON 5TH STREET EXTD. TO ALLOW 420 APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT. THE ROADS SERVING THAT AREA ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CARRY THE ADDED CARS, WHICH WOULD ADD ANOTHER 420 TO 800 MORE PER DAY. THE ONLY ROUTES OPEN TO THIS ADDED TRAFFIC WOULD BE 5TH STREET LEADING INTO TOWN AND THEN GOING DOW~ RIDGE STREET WHICH IS ALREADY CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC OR OLD LYNCHBURG ROAD COMING INTO JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE AT FRYS SPRING BEACH CLUB. THE FIRST PART OF THIS ROAD IS VERY NARROW AND CURVY AND ADDED TRAFFIC OF THIS VOLUMN WOULD PRODUCE A DANGER TO MOTORISTS. WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS DO HEREBY OBJECT TO THE CHANOING OF TICg ZONING OF LAiqD LOCATED ON 5TH STREET EXTD. TO ALLOW 420 APARTMENTS TO BE ~ILT. THE ROADS SERVING THAT AREA ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CARRY THE ADDED CARS, WHICH WOULD ADD ANOTHER 420 TO 800 MORE PER DAY. THE ONLY ROUTES OPEN TO TtLIS ADDED TRAFFIC WOULD BE 5TH STREET LEADING INTO TOWN AND THEN GOING DOWN RIDGE STREET WHICH IS ALREADY CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC OR OLD LYNCHBDRG ROAD COMING INTO JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE AT FRYS SPRING BEACH CLUB. THE FIRST PART OF THIS ROAD IS VERY NARROW AND CURVY AND ADDED TRAFFIC OF THIS ¥OL~MN WOULD PRODUCE A DANGER TO MOTORISTS. // WE THE FOLLOW%NG RESIDENTS DO HEREBY OBJECT TO THE CltAN~I~G OF TIlE ZONING 0E LAIRD LOCATEH ON 5TH STREET EXTD. TO ALLOW 420 APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT. THE ROADS SERVING THAT AREA ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CARRY THE ADDED CARS, WHICH WOULD ADD ANOTHER 420 TO 800 MORE PER DAY. THE ONLY ROUTES OPEN TO THIS ADDED TRAFFIC WOULD BE 5TH STREET LEADING INTO TOWN AND THEN GOING DOWN RIDGE STREET WHICtt IS ALREADY CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC OR OLD LYNCHBURG ROAD COMING INT0 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE AT FRYS SPRING BEACH CLUB. THE FIRST PART OF THIS ROAD IS YERY NARROW AND CURVY AND ADDED TRAFFIC OF THIS VOLUMN WOULD WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS DO HEREBY OBJECT TO THE CHANGING OF THE ZONING OF LA!~D LOCATED ON 5TH STREET EXTD. TO ALLOW 420 APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT. THE ROADS SERVING THAT AREA ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CARRY THE ADDED CARS, WHICH WOULD ADD ANOTHER 420 TO 800 MORE PER DAY. THE ONLY ROUTES OPEN TO THIS ADDED TRAFFIC WOULD BE 5TH STREET LEADING INTO TOWN AND THEN GOING DOWN RIDGE STREET WHICH IS ALREADY CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC OR OLD LYNCHBURG ROAD COMING INTO JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE AT FRYS SPRING BEACH CLUB. THE FIRST PART OF THIS ROAD IS VERY NARROW AND CURVY AND ADDED TRAFFIC OF THIS VOLUFfN wOULD PRODUCE A TO MOTORISTS. WE THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY OBJECT TO THE REZ0NING OF THE LAND ON 5TH STP. EET EXTENDED TO ALLOW THE BUILDING OF AN APARTMENT COM]~LEX . WE THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY OBJECT TO THE REZONING OF THE LAND ON 5TH STREET EXTENDED TO ALLOW THE BUILDING OF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX . WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS DO HEREBY OBJECT TO THE CHAN~ING OF TIlE ZONING OF LAND LOCATED ON 5TH STREET EXTD. TO ALLOW 420 APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT. THE ROADS SERVING THAT AREA ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CARRY THE ADDED CARS, WHICH WOULD ADD ANOTHER 420 TO 800 MORE PER DAY. THE ONLY ROUTES OPEN TO THIS ADDED TRAFFIC WOULD BE 5TH STREET LEADING INTO TOWN AND THEN GOING DOWN RIDGE STREET WI{ICH IS ALREADY CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC OR OLD LYNCHBURG ROAD COMING INTO JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE AT FRYS SPRING BEACH CLUB. THE FIRST PART OF THIS ROAD IS VERY NARROW AND CURVY AND ADDED TRAFFIC OF THIS VOLUMN WOULD PRODUCE A DANGER TO MOTORISTS. WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS DO HEREBY OBJECT TO THE CHAN~ING OF THE ZONING OF LAND LOCATED ON 5TH STREET EXTD. TO ALLOW 420 APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT. THE ROADS SERVING THAT AREA ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CARRY THE ADDED CARS, WHICH WOULD ADD ANOTHER 420 TO 800 MORE PER DAY. THE ONLY ROUTES OPEN TO THIS ADDED TRAFFIC WOULD BE 5TH STREET LEADING INTO TOWN AND THEN GOING DOWN RIDGE STREET WHICH IS ALREADY CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC OR OLD LYNCHBURG ROAD COMING INTO JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE AT FRYS SPRING BEACH CLUB. THE FIRST PART OF THIS ROAD IS VERY NARROW AND CURVY AND ADDED TRAFFIC OF THIS VOLLTMN WOULD PRODUCE A DANGER TO MOTORISTS, WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTSDO HEREBY OBJECT TO THE CHAN~ING OF THE ZONING OF LA~D LOCATED ON 5TH STREET EXTD. TO ALLOW 420 APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT. THE ROADS SERVING THAT AREA ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CARRY THE ADDED CARS, WHICH WOULD ADD ANOTHER 420 TO 800 MORE PER DAY. THE ONLY ROUTES OPEN TO THIS ADDED THAFFIC'WOULDBE 5TH STREET LEADING INTO TOWN AND THEN GOING DOWN RIDGE STREET WHICH IS ALREADY CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC OR OLD LYNCHBURG ROAD COMING INTO JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE AT FRYS SPRING BEACH CLUB. THE FIRST PART OF THIS ROAD IS VERY NARROW AND CURVY AND ADDED TRAFEIC OF THIS VOLIFMIq WOULD PRODUCE A DANGER TO MOTORISTS. WE T}IE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS DO HEREBY OBJECT TO THE CHAN~ING OF THE ZONING OF LAND LOCATED ON 5TN STREET EXTD. TO ALLOW 420 APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT. THE ROADS SERVING THAT AREA ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CARRY THE ADDED CARS, WHICH WOULD ADD ANOTHER 420 TO 800 MORE PER DAY. THE ONLY ROUTES OPEN TO THIS ~ ADDED TRAFFIC WOULD BE 5TH STREET LEADING INTO TOWN AND THEN GOING DOWN RIDGE STREET WHICH IS ALREADY CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC OR OLD LYNCHBURG ROAD COMING INTO JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE AT FRYS SPRING BEACH CLUB~ THE FIRST PART OF THIS ROAD IS VERY NARROW AND SURVY AND ADDED TRAFFIC OF THIS VOLIfMN WOULD PRODUCE A DANGER TO MOTORISTS. ~.' ~ ~ . f,,~,, ~ ' ~ ' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & CommuniW Development 40] Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 June 13, 1997 Memorandum To: From: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors William D. Fritz ZMA 96-24 N&S, L.L.C (South Pointe) This information is provided as a supplement to the staff report. The purpose of this information is to provide a comparison of the impacts created by various densities. This area is identified as Transitional in the Comprehensive Plan. That this site lies between two high volume roadways, 1-64 m~d 5th Street. The Transitional Areas designation permits both residential and non-residential use. The intent of the Transitional Areas is contained in the Comprehensive Plan and attached are the relevant sections of the Plan. (Attachment A) The non-residential uses in Transitional Areas are intended to be on a scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service. The residential use is intended to be of an Urban Density scale. Urban Density residential is 6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre. These densities, ~p to 15 dwelling units per acre, would be supported by the R-10 and R-15 Residential Districts. To exceed 15 dwelling units per acre a Planned Development District, such as P.R.D. or P.U.D., would be required The Board could approve this request at a density less than requested, R-10, and still be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, such an approval would not allo~ for the acceptance of the applicant's proffer without the applicant's agreement. This would mean that the applicant would not be obligated to submit a site plan for the entire rezoned area one time. (This rezoning affects all or part of four parcels.) This would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan intent for an overall plan of development for Transitional Areas. Staff has evaluated the potential development of this site under densities that would be supported by conventional zoning, and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Densities shown are 6.01 unks per acre (the minimum density for Urban Residential Development) 10 units per acre and 15 units per acre. All figures for traffic generation are approximate and are based on the assumptions made in the traffic study submitted bythe applicant. Please note that some of the figures for the 15 dwelling units per acre potential development are different than contained in the original report due to additional information. (The original study for R-15 zoning of this site assumed a development potential of 400 units. Additional information indicates that a more likely development potential is 375 units.) Transportation Analysis The traffic distribution patterns which would be generated by densities higher than currently permitted are attached. The traffic study submitted by the applicant does not consider the provision of public transit to this site. Public transit could be provided to the site which could reduce the overall impacts. This would require a contract between the County and the City for CTS s~rvice. At this time staff is unable to determine what the cost of providing public transit to this site would be. Number of Total Trins AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak Units Entering Exiting Entering Exitin~ 50 (By right) 500 12 23 18 18 150 935 t2 30 34 24 6.01 DU/AC 250 1,578 29 71 72 50 10 DU/AC 375 2,390 57 141 130 91 15 DU/AC The following table shows anticipated 24 hour traffic volumes. Existine 50 150 Units 250 Units 375 Units Traffic Units : 6.01 DU/AC 10 DU/AC 15 DU/AC Volume ~y Right 5th Street. 13,754 143 439 · 742 1,123 north of the Interstate 5th Street south 3,581 18 56 95 143 of Old Lynchburg Old Lynchbnrg 2,187 24 75 126 191 The access to the public schools that serve this site, Cale Elementary, Walton Middle and~ Monticello High School, will involve either use of the Interstate or roads within the City. The School Division is anticipated to meet on the issue of access and provide comments as to the most likely routes. This information was not available at the time of the preparation of this report, but is anticipated prior to the Board's meeting. Fiscal Impacts The impacts identified here are the overall impacts and cost per dwelling unit for the various densities. 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 is based on a fair share determination of a particular development's impact m 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 developmem. The costs outlined by staff only indicate the proportionate share of construction cost for the additional development generated by the rezoning over by-right development. A more detailed break down is included in the comments regarding each specific density. Number of Units Pronoscd Share Cost/DU 150 Units $101,911 $679.40 6.01 DU/AC 250 Units $283,787 $1,135.14 10 DU/AC 375 Units $95,271 $1,320.72 15 DU/AC School Impacts The multipliers used to determine potential enrollment are those contained in the Fiscal Impact Model which has been received by the Board. The per unit multipliers are Elementary School 0.15, Middle School 0.07 and High School 0.06. Number of Units Total Elementary Total Middle School Total Hieh School School 50 Units (By Right) 8 4 3 150 Units 22 10 9 6.01 DU/AC 250 Units 38 18 15 10 DU/AC 375 Units 56 26 22 15 DU/AC Potential Impacts of 6.01 Units Per Acre. A density of 6.01 units per acre could result in 150 units. Fiscal Impact analysis of rezoning from R-2 (50 Units) to R-6 (150 Units). Projects I Total Cost Pronosed Share Cost/DU(150DIB Cale 15859,000 $18,898 $I25.99 Walton $370,000 $1,850 $12.33 Monticello HS i $22,620,350 $67,861 $452.41 Towe Park i $143,144 $3,006 $20.04 Monticello HS Rec. $343,500 $7,214 $48.08 Main Library $293,447 $3,082 $20.55 Total $24,629,441 $101.911 $679.40 Potential Impacts of 10 Units Per Acre. A density of 10 units per acre could result in 250 units. Fiscal Impact analysis ofrezoning from R-2 (50 Units) to R-10 (250 Units). Proiects Total Cost Proposed Share Cost/DU(250 DU) Cale $859,000 $46,386 $I85.54 Walton $370,000 $5,920 $23.68 Monticello HS $22,620,350 $203,583 $814:33 Towe Park $143,144 $6,298 '$25.19 Monticello HS Rec. $343,500 $15,144 $60.58 Main Library $293,447 $6,456 I $25.82 Total $24.629,441 $283.787 $1.135.14 Potential Impacts of 15 Units Per Acre. A density of 15 units per acre could result in 375 units. Fiscal Impact analysis of rezoning from R-2 1.50 Units) to R-15 (375 Units). Projects Total Cost Pronosed Share Cost/l)U(375 DUI Cale $859,000 $77,310 $206.16 Walton $370,000 $9,990 $26.64 Monticello HS $22,620,350 $361,926 $965.14 Towe Park $143,144 $10,406 $27.75 Monticello HS Rec. $343,500 $24,972 $66.59 Main Library $293,447 $10,667 $28.44 Total $24,629,441 $495,271 $1.320.72 County o! Albemarle Land Use Plan areas. Industrial traffic should avoid ~esidential areas and roadways not designed for such traffic. Objectionable aspects of an industrial use should be addressed through a combination of realistic performance standards, bul~ering, and special setback regulations. This approach shouid be flexible so as to accomplish the objective without creating burdensome and arbitrary regulations. Methods to mitigate objectionable aspects should be addressed at time of rezoning. Industrial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, and natural gas systems should be considered in review of an industrial rezordng request. Rezoning to industrial designations for sites of 20 acres or more should be accomplished under a planned approach accompanied by a traffic analysis. 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 m proposing 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 devdopment 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: Recommendations: Neighborhood Der~sity Residential Neighborhood Density Residential areas are intended to have a gross density of between 3 to 6 dwellings per acre. Neighborhood Density Residential may be located within the Urban Area, Communities and Villages. 28 County of Albemarle Land Use Plan · Neighborhood Density Residential areas are intended to acconunodate all dwelling unit types. Any new development within an existing subdivision shall be in keeping with the character and density of the existing development. New developments ad_iacent to existing subdivisions shall be developed at higher densities to support infill development efforts. Urban Density Residential 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 p~r acre under a planned development approach (PRD/PUD). · Urban Density Residential areas may be located within the Urban Area and Communities only. This designation is not appropriate within Villages. · Urban Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate residential uses other-than single family detached dwellings. · Urban Density Residential designations are not intended for development at densities below 6 dwellings per acre. 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. · Maintain statements in the Zoning Ordinance that site development within Urban Density residential areas be based on standards in both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. · All Comprehensive Plan standards should be reviewed in conjunction with development proposals within Urban Density Residential areas. 7Yansitional Transitional areas are intended to be used primarily between residential areas and commercial or industrial areas, or in areas where flexibility of land uses may be necessary or appropriate to blend changing circumstances (e.g., where inng-term public improvements are anticipated, or areas where redevelopment/re-use is encouraged). Transitional areas provide an opportunity to develop mixed use areas with Urban Density Residential us~s and non-residential.land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service, as defined in the next section of this chapter. 29 County of Albemarle Land Use Plan Uses include neighborhood-scale commercial areas, office buildings, townhouses and apamnenl buildings. Areas should be developed under an overall plan for the designated area m ensure coordination of uses, access and circulation, landscaping, and maintenance of natural/environmentally sensitive areas. Transitional designation requires a small to medium size site (1-30 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. · Non-Residential Land Use Designations OBJECTIVE: Establish a mix of commercial, industrial, and open space, and public laud uses hz designated Development Areas to support County needs. The County's Economic Development policy indicates the desirability of a wide range of business and employment opportunities. The availability of jobs and services for the County's future population requires sufficient land to locate such activities. The County's growth management approach requires that such. land be located in Development Areas. Commercial and industrial designations are confined to designated Development Areas. It was established that more than sufficient designated acreage exists to meet commemial and industrial land use needs for the next twenty years. The actual development of this land will be dependent on its developability and availability. As with residential areas, land for commercial, industrial, office, and public facilities needs to he--over the 20-year time flame--developable, and locationally desirable. Typical primary uses should be identified for each designation. Appropriate secondary uses, which would be limited to certain percentages of the designated area, should also be identified. Percentages m be devoted to a secondary use should be identified in the Zoning Ordizmnce. To assure that developmem of these areas adequately addresses environmenmt, infrastructure, and land use considerations necessitates appropriate County standards and guidelines identified in this Plan. Strategy: Establish non-residential land use designations for Development Areas that provide for a variety of scales of development and intended service populations and stress a mixed-use orientation. 3O ! I I ! i i i i i ! ! ! I I Re¢0mmendations: County of Albemarle Land Use Plan Neighborhood Service Uses allowed in this designation include neighborhood-scale commercial; specialty shops; professional and office uses providing retail, wholesale, and/or business within a Village, Urban Neighborhood, or Community. Tiffs scale of commercial is the type anticipated within a planned development approach. · Urban density residential uses are allowed within this designation as a secondary use. · Neighborhood Service designation requires a small site size (1-5 acres), collector road accessibility, water mad sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Commuz~ity Service Uses allowed in this designation include community-scale con~tnercial, professional, and Office uses providing retail, wholesale, business, medical offices, small office buildings, mixed-use core communities and/or employment services to the Urban Neighborhood. Communities, and larger geographic sections of the County. · Urban Density Residential uses are allowed within this designation as a secondary use. · Community Service designation requires a medium site size (5 to 30 acres), collector road- accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Regior~al Service Uses allowed within this designation include regional-scale commercial, regional malls, medical centers, mixed-use developments, professional, interstate interchange developments and corporate office uses providing retail, wholesale, business, and/or employment services to Albemarle County and the region. · Urban Density Residential uses are allowed within this designation as a secondary use. · Regional Service designation requires a large site size (+30 acres), arterial road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Office Service Uses allowed withh~ this designation include office parks and mixed-use planned developments emphasizing office uses and regional-scale research and office uses providing information and professional services to the County and the larger region. Limited production activities and marketing of products may be included. 31 County of Albemarle Land Use Plan · High density residential, commercial, and motel/hotel/conference facilities may be included as a secondary use. · Office Service designation requires a large site size (+20 acres), arterial road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Office/Regional Service Uses allowed within this designation include large, mixed-use developments typically located on contiguous parcels under common ownership. Such areas provide large scale employment centers and major retail/commercial services. All primary and secondary office and regional service uses may be found in such areas. Regional Service uses are not to exceed 15 percent of the total gross floor area in'Office Service uses. · Areas must be developed under one consolidated application plan providing for an integration of all uses and establishing location of all uses, access and circulation, landscap'mg, and maintenance of natural areas and environmentally sensitive areas. · Office/Regional designation requires a large site size (+200 acres), major collector or medal road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacem uses. Industrial Service Uses allowed within this designation include warehousing, light industrial, research, heavy industrial uses, as well as uses allowed under Office Service. Commercial uses are allowed in this designation as a secondary use. Industrial Service designation requrres appropriate site size (+5 acres), arterial road accessibility, water and/or sewer availability, compatibility with adjacent uses. Rail access may be necessary. Areas not meeting all the above-noted infrastructure criteria may be appropriate for less-intensive industrial uses, which may be appropriate as transitional areas between commercial and industrial areas. A zoning district to distinguish between general industrial and transitional industrial may be appropriate. 32 County of Albemarle Land Use Plan Table I summarizes non-residential land use guidelines. Other standards includedin both "The Natural Environment" and "The Developed Environment" chapters should be reviewed in conjunction with these guidelines for development proposals. Table II provides an inventory of developable acres within the designated Development Areas. Developable acreage is considered land void of slopes greater than 25% and 100 year floodplain. The calculations for determining developable areas was based on the identification of significant areas of floodplains and critical slopes. Some acreage identified as developable in the table may contain smaller more isolated areas of critical slopes, 100 year floodplains or other constraints for development (wetlands and poor soils). 33 P~J PlO P~ ~ODOOeBD.IS II II © D~I 13~nqLIoU,tl PlO (oJ)~, ---~' --~0 D~ tlODOOOBD.I~ ©>_ m © pu BJnqqou/,-1 PlO ® III II II,I 0 Memorandum CC: Date: Subject: South Pointe file F~ederick W. Pa)me June 4, 1997 Residential density in city of Charlottes~ville I went today to the'Commtmity Development deparmtent at the City axtd examined the comprehensive plan adopted in 1995, ~., the current plan. Based on this, the overall resident/al density of the City is between 4.6 and 5.3 du/acre. These figures are derived as follows: Total munber of households in Cityt ........................................ 16.009 Total land zoned for residential use in Ci~~ ............................... 3450 ac. Land zoned for on~tw~ family residences ......................... 2700 a.c. Land zoned for multi-fandly uses ..................................... 358 ac. U2 area of lartd zoned for commercial (B-I [75 acres] through B-~*[709 ac.]) .......................................... 392 ac. Ovexall residential density of Citys ............................................. 4.6 du/ac, ~Total population of the City is shown at 40,341. "Households" ligted separately as a statistical category__ These figures appear to be based on 1990 census figures. According to the plan~ the City's population is stable. 2AII City commercial districts permit resi~tenc~s, and many milts actually exist in commercial districts For examtfle~ Queen Charlotte Square, zoned B-l, in addition to its office units, contains approximately 30 residential units on a total of I acre. While residences are also permitted, and actually exist, in industrial distri~ts~ the nnmhers, according to the City% stat~ are negligible. The City's staff considers the percentage used in the above-calculations50% of commercial land used fox residential purposes, to be reasonable though probably excessive. A total of 468 acres is undeveloped in the City. The proportion of this contained in residential districts is unspecified in the comprehensive plan. Total land area in all districts and uses is listed as 6942 acres. ~Overall density for residentially-zoned land only is 5.24 dwelliug units/acre. FF~Ui4 PAkNE'HUOUUS $-~t 977 6674 P. 3 Densky regulations of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance District Building type~ Min. lot size Max. dexxsity (dwelling units/acre) R-I Single. family 8125 s.f. 5.36 deta -chea ' R-lA Single family 6000 s,f. (7200 7.26 (single faro.) detached, some for 2-family) 12.1 (2 family) 2-family R-2 Single family, same 7.26 (single faro.) two-family 12.1 (2 family) P.-3 same plus multi- Nol~e 21 by right, up to hmily 87 by special use permit 1LHD (adjacent same None 120 to B-3 and g-4 o,ay) PUD (requires same None 14 or whatever plan of underlying development) distxicr pemfits, whicheVer is greater [ None 21 by right, up to 13-1 through B-$ same 87 by special use p~rmit 4Residential uses only, Othec uses ~re also permitted in most districts. Mobile parks are exoluded (see R-MHP and R-MHS flistriots). BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 40I McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4696 (804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060 May 30, 1997 Mr. Frederick W. Payne Payne & Hodous Attorneys At Law 412 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: ZMA 96-24 South Pointe, N & S, L.L.C. Dear Fred: In response to your earlier letter and as we discussed by phone this morning, I have polled five members of the Albemarle County Board of Supeeasors, as you know Ms. Humphris is out of town, and all have agreed to continue the deferral of the above referenced matter until additional information can be provided to them by the Planning staff I would note that they all did agree that we should move as expeditiously as possible to place this matter back before the Board for a final decision, hopefully within the month of Sune. Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive RWT,Jr/dbm 97.067 pcz Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Mr. S. W. Heischman Mr. Larry W. Davis Mr. R. Stan Tatum Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-~ 9-97/~0~ :4t RCV) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Cornmunity Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottes~lle, Virginia 22902-4596 (8O4) 296-5823 May15,1997 Frank Cox The Cox Company 220 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22902 SP-97-5 Wingspread Farm Estates SUB-97-009 Wingspread Farm Estates Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Cox: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 13, 1997, took the following actions with regard to the above-noted items: $P-97-5 Wingspread Farm Estates - Recommend approval, by a vote of 5-1. to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Water Resources Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment and inclusion of mitigation measures for critical sections immediately upstream and downstream of the stream crossing in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Engineering Departmem approval of the final crossing plans and details. These plans must clearly show the before and after construction 100-year flood elevations and boundaries. 3. Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations. Engineering Department approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing, These computations must demonstrate compliance with sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Flood elevations at the upstream property line must not increase. Page 2 May 15, 1997 Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies - regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. The applicant is encouraged to contact the Federal and State agencies in the early stages of the design process. Verification that the access easement which exists on the property, as shown crossing Lots 12 and 13, can be used for emergency access from the subdivision to Route 29. Provision of a gate across the emergency aceessway which discourages ~hortcuts through the adjoining properties, but provides unimpeded emergency access during flooding or other emergency conditions. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at thek meeting on JUNE 18, 1997. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your schedule hearing date. SUB-97-009 Wingspread Farm Estates Preliminary Plat - Unanimously approved subject to the following conditions: The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: Engineering Department receipt of a copy and proof of recordation of a County standard Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement for the pond and any proposed BMP facilities. b. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan. Engineering Department approval of final public road plans and drainage computations. VDOT approval of f'mal public road plans and drainage computations. Roads built or bonded in accordance with the approved final public or private road plans. Page 3 May 15, 1997 Engineering Department approval of pond routing and spillway discharge computations, and possible improvement plans. Discharge waters of the 10 year storm must be demonstrated not to block roads to the lots. g. Compliance with the conditions of Special Use Permit SP-97-05 Verification that the access easement which exists on the property, as shown crossing Lots 12 and 13, can be used for emergency access from the subdivision to Route 29. Provision of a gate across the emergency accassway which discourages shortcuts through the adjoining properties, but provides 'unimpeded emergency access during flooding or other emergency conditions. Please be advised that preliminary plat approvfil is valid for six (6) months, Failure to submit a fmal plat to the Department of Planning & Community Development within that time will render the preliminary approval null and void, In Order to expedite completion of the above noted items, please have the appropriate agency or department notify the Departmem of Planning & Community Development, in writing, that the applicable condition has been met. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Senior Plarmer EKE/jcf cc: I-Ell~aCarey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Jill Stolz 05-19-97A08:41 ROVD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ELA1NEK. ECHOLS, AICP MAY13,1997 JUNE 18,1997 SP 9%5 WINGSPREAD FARM ESTATES SUBDIVISION, STREAM CROSSING Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposal is to construct a public subdivision street crossing of the South Fork of the Hardware River located west of Route 29 South which is indicated on the Preliminary Plat entitled "Wingspread Farm Estates". This preliminary plat proposes to subdivide 704.95 acres into 31 lots. A new road to serve a majority of the lots in the subdivision would have to cross the Hardware River which traverses the subdivision. Attached to this staffreport is a reduced copy of the proposed plat which shows the proposed stream crossing between lots 9 and 10. Petition: The petition is for approval ora special use permit, in accordance with Sections 30.3.5.2 and 30,3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow construction of a stream crossing over the floodway and to obtain a landfill permit for floodplain alteration, respectively. This petition is requested in conjunction with the Wingspread Farm Estates subdivision on an existing parcel known as Tax Map 98 Parcel I5A. The property is located in the Scottsville and Samuel Miller Magisterial Districts in the Rural Area (RA) zoning district and is recommended as a Rural Area on the Land Use Plan. Tile Applicant has stated, that, "The planned subdivision street crossing is to be accomplished by the placement of a bridge and/or culvert structure within the 100 year floodplain as determined and mapped by FIA/FEMA. The residential street shall be a 22' wide rural subdivision street located within a 50' public right of way. The bridge and/or culvert structure of hydraulic equivalent shall be engineered in accord with hydraulic design requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the County of Albemarle." Applicant's Justification for the Request: The Applicant believes that the conditions and circumstances requiring approval ora Special Use Permit and Landfill Permit are supportable because: There are no feasible or practical alternatives to provide pubhc street access to the property because of existing land ownership conditions and the fact that the Hardware River bisects the property. No alteration or relocation of the stream channel will be required to. achieve the stream crossing and very limited earthwork will be required to meet VDOT road gradient requirements. Additionally, the road approach sections will be designed so that any increase in the level of the 100 year storm will not be statistically significant. The stream crossing will be engineered to ensure that there will be no adverse hydraulic conditions to impact upstream and downstream properties. The crossing design will ensure that the existing flood carrying capacity within the tributary watercourse will be maintained. The project will employ Best Management Practices and erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented for critical sections immediately upstream and downstream of the stream crossing. Use of these two techniques should help correct existing streambank erosion problems and channel deterioration within the construction area of the tributary crossing. Hydrologic analysis and preliminary engineering investigations of the proposed crossing reveal that the bridge and/or culvert imprOVements can be implemented without negative impacts on storm drainage characteristics and floodway carrying capacity. Character of the Area: The proposed stream crossing is in the Covesville area of the County and the parcel contains an existing working farm. There are several houses and farm buildings on the property. Surrounding land uses on the west side of U.S. Route 29 South include Cove Creek Industries which makes fenceposts, a nursery, another large working farm, the Covesville Baptist Church, the International Cold Storage company, and large lot rural residential uses. On the east side of U.S. Route 29 South, another branch of the Hardware River flows between Route 29 and several small lot single family residences which take access from Route Murray Lane (Route 718). RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: Tax Map 98 Parcel 15A is a 745 acre parcel from which several adjacent lots were subdivided prior to 1980. (An easement exists on the adjoining parcels 151E, 15B, and 15C which provides the current access to the farm.) Full development rights exist for the property being subdivided which yields 5 parcels of less than 21 acres and 26 parcels of greater than 21 acres each. An existing parcel, Tax Map 109 Parcel 35A, is 3 acres in size and has been included as part of the subdivismn. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plhn shows this area as Rural Areas, intended for rural uses. En~neering Analysis: The initial review by the Engineering Department resulted in a strong recommendation to avoid the stream crossing because of the large amounts of fill required to raise the road and crossing above the flood elevations. Ifa stream crossing could not be avoided, Engineering strongly recommended that the emergency access be provided to lessen the amount of fill in the floodplain by allowing the crossing to meet the requirements for a 10 year flood. Additionally, engineering recommended that a bridge, rather than a culvert, be provided to allow the river to follow its natural morphology. That department, also recommended that the crossing be moved so that it would not directly affect designated wetland areas. The Applicant responded by making provision for emergency access so that the crossing could be designed to meet a 10 year flood and by indicating that a bridge structure would be used to minimize earthwork and allow for maintenance of the natural morphology of the stream channel. Regarding the wetlands, alternative locations were considered by the applicant and discussed with the Water Resources Manager, David Hirschman. Mr. Hirschman then concluded that the proposed 19cation for the stream crossing would be suitable since the applicant plans to do substantial mitigation through the Water Quality Impact Assessment (streambank repair and buffer plantings). Mr. Hirschman believes that these improvements will compensate for any impact to the small wetland area involved, which has been damaged by cattle from the existing pasture use. The mitigation will be specified in the Water Quality Impact Assessment. As a result, the County Engineering Department recommended approval of the Special Use Permit with these conditions: 1. Water Resources Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment. Engineering Department approval of the final crossing plans and details. These plans must clearly show the before and after construction 100-year flood elevations and boundaries. 3. Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations. Engineering Department approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing. These computations must demonstrate compliance with sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Flood elevations at the upstream proper~y line must not increase. Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. The applicant is encouraged to contact the Federal and State agencies in the early stages of the design process. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued u_non a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to ad_iacent property_. The proposed stream crossing should not be of detriment to the. adjacent property since it will be built to a 10 year storm and utilize a bridge and streambed improvements. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, No change in the district should occur as a result of a stream crossing and land fill activity. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Section 30.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the purpose and intent of the Flood Hazard Overlay District to provide safety and protection from flooding. More specifically, the provisions of thio section of the ordinance are to "restrict the unwise use, development and occupancy of lands subject to inundation which may result in: danger to life and property; public costs for flood control measures and/or rescue and relief efforts; soi! erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources; and general degradation of the natural and man-made environment" There should be no danger to life and property or public costs for flood control as a result of the stream crossing. Regarding environmental impacts, the proposed stream crossing would be built to sustain a 10 year flood instead ora 100 year flood. With the proposed conditions for approval, no soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation should occur as a result of the construction with the uses ~ermitted by right in the district. By-right uses in the Rural Areas include residences, agriculture, public facilities, and tourist lodging. The proposed stream crossing would enable a road to be built to serve additional residences and would be viewed as being in harn~ony with the permitted uses in the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations for stream crossings in this section of the ordinance. and with the public health, safe _ty and general welfare. The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the provision of an emergency access for egress from the subdivision, should a flood with a frequency of greater than 10 years occur and inundate the proposed stream crossing. This alternate access enables a minimal an~ount of grading and land disturbance to occur, further protecting the general welfare of the community. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The Engineering Deparunent is satisfied that the steam crossing can be constructed to be in conformity with Federal and State requirements. No substantive increase in flood levels should occur as a result of this construction. 3. The proposed channelization and streambed plantings will improve an existing situation in which livestock have damaged the streambed. Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: A Rural Preservation D,evelopment could provide for a development which requires less road construction (and subsequent maintenance) and could possibly avoid the stream crossing; however, a RPD for this scale of development reqmres a separate special use permit approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: Water Resources Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact AsseSsment and inclusion of mitigation measures for critical sections immediately upstream and downstream of the stream crossing in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Engineering Department approval of the final crossing plans and details. These plans must clearly show the before and after construction 100-year flood elevations and boundaries. 3. Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations. Engineering Department approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing. These computations 'must demonstrate compliance with sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Flood elevations at the upstream property line must not increase. Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. The applicanl is encouraged to contact the Federal and State agencies in the early stages of the design process. Verification that the access easement which exists on the property, as shown crossing Lots 12 and 13, can be used for emergency access from the subdivision to Route 29. Provision of a gate across the emergency accessway which discourages shortcuts through the adjoining properties, but pr. ovides unimpeded emergency access during flooding or other emergency conditions. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Parcel Map C - Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat for Wingspread Farm Estates A:\SP9705.RPT ;HM Wingspread Farm Escace 0 CASTLE ROCK TOP p 0 C. BOAZ MOUNTAIN % \ / / SP 97-5 Wingspread Farm Estate 9 Proposed Stream Crossing '.\ PRELIMINARY PLAT WINGSPREAD FARM ESTATES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-29-~ ~?03:46 RCVg COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planr~ing & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4696 (804) 296-5823 May29,1997 Catherine J. Womack 530 East Main St Charlottesville, VA 22902 SP 97-15 Western Ridge Business Park Tax Map 56, Part of Parcels 88, 89, 90 and 90A Dear Ms. Womack: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 27, 1997, by a vote of 3-2, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning aministrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the conditions of this special use permit; Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the conditions of this special use permit; 3. These conditions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Departmem of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. Page 2 May 29, I997 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 18.1997. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted te the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior m your schedule heating date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me, Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf cc: ~a Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Highlands West, LP STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT for Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14(E)] 2. 3. 4. 5. Transacti~: ~ '~")-;~' ~'"~,~-- ~.,0~ ~,$~.,,~.,s //;,¢,r Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction: I declare that: I am disqualifying myself from participating in this transaction and request that this fact be recorded in the appropriate public records for a period of fiue years. ~-~ Signature~ - __ STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: William D. Fritz May 27, 1997 June 18~ 1997 SP 97-15 Western Ridge Business Park Applieant~s Proposal: The applicant is proposing to obtain a special use permit to allow for the construction of a day care center ha the area shown on Attachment C. Petition: Proposal to obtain a special use permit on 1.5 acres zoned LI, Light Industry [27.2.2(14)]. Property.. described as Tax Map 56, Part of Pareals 88, 89, 90 and 90A, consist ora total of 10.51 acres, is located on the south side of Route 240 approximately 1.5 miles west of the Route 240/250 intersection at Mechum's River in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is located in the Community of Crozet and is recommended for Industrial Service. Character of the Area: The site under review is located between the C&O Railroad and Route 240 on the east side of Park Ridge Drive which provides access to the Western Ridge development currently under construction on the south side of the railroad. A medical office for Martha Jefferson Hospital is under eonstruction~ Ail of the land between Route 240 and the railroad is zoned LI. (Medical Offices are permitted by-right inthe LI district.) RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the ZoningOrdhaance and Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. Planning and Zoning History: The area under review was involved in a subdivision plat for Phase One of Western Ridge which was approved in May, 1996. The area under review was recently considered for rezoning to HC, Highway Commercial. That request was withdrawn when it was determined that the day care use proposed by the applicant could be approved as a speciaLuse permit within the existing LLzoning~ Comnrehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Industrial Service in the Comprehensive Plan. Staffhas included as Attachment D, the Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines as contained in the Comprehensive Plan and Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Supporting Commercial Uses, which day care qualifies as, is listed as a secondary use ha Industrial Service Areas. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following statement found on page 93: "Strengthen the downtown as a shopping area, and the focal point of the Crozet Community by encouraging all new commercial uses to locate in the downtown as opposed to Route 250. Limit commercial development on Route 250 to existing commercial land only. Unless such a downtown commercial element is encouraged, pressure will increase for suburban-type shopping center located outside of the Community." While this speaks directly to development on Route 250 staff opinion is that this~omment is applicable to possible development on Route 240 outside of the downtown as well. The language speaks only to Route 250 because it currently has commercial zoning. No commereial zoning exists on Route 240 in the development area other than in downtown Crozet. The Crozet Community Study notes the lack of day care facilities in the Crozet area and recommends "The County should publicize the need for a day care facility in Crozet". Staff opinion is that the location ora day care on this site would provide a supporting commercial use to the existing and potential industrial development in the area, as well as developing residential areas. Approximately 700,000 square feet of industrial buildings are located along Rt. 240. This day care would serve to fill a need identified in the Crozet Community Study. Staff opinion is that locating supporting commercial uses in Industrial Areas in Crozet is generally inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which encourages the location of commercial uses in the downtown. However, the need for a day care exists and suitable locations have not been identified in the downtown. The location proposed by the applicant will allow the day care to serve both industrial and residential areas of Crozet. As this location will provide support to the industrial development in the area and residential development, it is the opinion of staff that this use is consistent with the Crozet Community Study. While stuff is concerned that approval of this request does establish a commercial use outside of the downtown area, the service it provides to the industrial and residential development_of the area is unique in consideration of the comments of the Comprehensive Plan. Should this request be approved staffwill not consider it as a precedent to the approval of other special use permits for supporting commercial uses in industrial areas of Crozet. The relatively small size 6f Crozet is such that most supporting commercial uses will be able to locate within the downtown area and still serve the industrial areas of Crozet. STAFF CO- r ~ : Each special use permit is reviewed for compliance with the provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all snecial use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding.by the Board of Supervisors that,such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional remalations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety_ and general welfare. The following comments are intended to address the content of this provision. The existing LI zoning of this site does allow for supporting commercial uses by special use permit, (reference Section 27.2.2(14) and 9.4 of the zoning ordinance which are included as Attachment D), Day Care is a supporting commercial use. The zoning ordinance would limit the supporting conmaereial use to 5% of the existing industrialuses on site which is 8,286, 5% of this total is approx'unately 415 square 2 feet. The Board does have the flexibility to modify the provisions associated with supporting commercial uses. Due to the limited extent of existing Industrial development on land which is directly associated with the proposed day care center, the ordinance would limit the size of the day care center to such an extent that it would not be practical. Staff does note that existing industrial development is located in the immediate area, (Conagra and Gemini Transportation). Total existing industrial development in Cmzet is approximately 700,000 square feet, almost all of which is located near the site under review. The Board can consider this special use permit as supportive of this larger industrial area. The location of this site is such that it provides ready access to the industrial developments within Crozet. In addition this development will be easily accessed by existing and proposed residential development. In other reports (Peabody School in Mill Creek) staff has noted that the presence of a day care/private school in an industrial area may adversely impact use of adjacent industrial property. This impact may be created by the desire of the da.~, care center to minimize the impact, such as noise and traffic, caused by the industrial uses. There is additional undeveloped industrial land immediately adjacent to this property. However, staff has also observed that it in some instances the location ora day care in residential areas has been controversial. Staff has identified no constraints to development &this site. The review of the site plan will allow staff to adequately address issues of development including outdoor recreation areas. State licensing requirements establish minimum outdoor recreation area. SUMMARY: Stmqfhas identified the following factors which are fa{,orable to this request: 1. This use could provide a support service to existing industrial development and existing and proposed residential development in the area. 2, The need for day care has been identified in the Crozet Community Study. 3, The proposed use is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 1. Commercial use of this site is not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; 2. Use of this site for a day care center could conflict with potential industrial developmem of ad. iacent areas. The proposal exceeds the 5% of existing industrial uses on site for supporting commercial uses. As previously noted however, this percentage can be modified by the Board of Superwsors if warranted in a particular circumstance. Staffhas considered the recommendation ofthe Comprehensive Plan to be &great significance. The intent of the language in the Comprehensive Plan appears to be to limit commercial development to downtown Crozet. Approval of this request would introduce a commercial use outside of the downtown. However, the need for day care in Crozet has been identified and this use would provide a support service to a large industrial area of Crozet along Route 240, as well as developing residential areas on Route 240. In the opinion of sta~ the need to provide day care in Crozet and the allowance of the ordinance for supporting commercial uses where appropriate in a particular case make this proposal acceptable. The site is adequate to accommodate the proposed use. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the above comments staffreeommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions of approval. _ Recommended Conditions of Annroval: 1. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning aminislxator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the zoning administrator of any license.expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the conditions ofthis special use permit; Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the conditions of this special use permit; These conditions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the'Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Plat of area to be rezoned D - Section 27.2.2(14) and 9.4 of the zoning ordinance I:\GENERAL\SHARE~FRITZ~-IIGHWEST.RPT Attachment SP 97-I5 WESTERN RIDGE BUSINESS PARK 55 -- Attachment B ALBEMARLE GOUNTY 40 66 94 53 SP 97-15 WESTERN RIDGE BUSINESS PARK WHITE HALL DISTRIGT 69 92 SECTION O~ O_~ 0 ~-od p~ o~5 qo. ('3 :::0 T 0 ::o~m T --I m -<E'-< m r-'m -mm> ~mO o --I- m F %.- ! 1> om~m 0 0 -1 o 1'13 · >~< ~ ~ "n ..< T ~ ~ r N ZZZZZZ ~o ~Attachment D 9.4 9.4.1 9.4.2. 9.4.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF SECONDARY USES Secondary uses are intended to be complementary of and subordinate to primary uses. To this end, secondary uses shall be established on a pro rata basis for phased develop- ment to the floor area of primary uses unless otherwise specifically permitted by the board in a particular case. In addition, the following guidelines are intended to govern secondary uses unless otherwise specifically modified by the board in a particular case: Secondary residential uses shall not occupy more than twenty (20) percent of the total site area. Other secondary uses shall comply with the following limita- tions: Total floor area devoted to warehousing shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total floor area devoted' to primary uses; Total floor area devoted to supporting commercial uses shall not exceed five (5) percent of the total floor area devoted to primary uses; Total floor area devoted to related office uses shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total floor are~ devoted to primary uses; As to motel/hotel/conference use, the applicant shall demonstrate that such use is intended to be complemen- tary of and subordinate to primary uses in terms of scale, contractual agreements with primary uses, or otherwise. Supporting commercial uses may consist of primary uses recommended for village and neighborhood service areas to provide convenience uses to employees within service areas. Such supporting commercial uses as may be provided by an individua~ occupant for_~he exclusive use of the employees of--such occupant shall not be included in floor area limita- tions of section 9.4.2. Supporting commercial uses may also consist of dependent or parasite uses as may be demonstrated to be sustainable by and related to the specific character and service require- men~s of primary uses. (Added 6-19-91) -87.4- (Supp. #62, 6-19-91) ,JUNE I 8, 1997 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PurSUANT tO SECTION ;2. I -344(A) Of tHE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUbSeCTION (7) tO CONSUlt With LEGAl COUNSEl and STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO REVERSION, PROBABLE LITIGATION RELATING TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT INCIDENT, PROBABLE LITIGATION REGARDING CLAIMS FOR Ai iORNEYS FEES, AND PROBABLE LITIGATION REGARDING A DENIAL OF A UURISDICTIONAL AREA. I~vid E Ch~otle Y Humphris Fonest R. Mamhall. Jr. COUNT~ OF ALBEMARI F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfim Road Charlo~e, V'm2inia 229024596 (804) 2965843 FAX (804] 296-5800 Charles S. M~in Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas June20,1997 Ms. Nancy K. O'Brien Executive Director Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission PO Box 1505 Charlottesville. VA 22902-1505 Dear Ms. O'Brien: At its meeting on June 18. 1997, the Board of Supervisors voted to recommend the appointment of Mr. Derek Jones to the Sustainability Council as a representative and liaison for the Chamber of Commerce. For your information. attached is a copy of Mr. Jones' resume'. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, CMC, C~/erk ,q~WC Attachment CC: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Derek Jones Jane Dittmar Printed'bn recycled paper 12:42P Fitness Gallery Inc. B04-973-0302 P.O1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 06-£0-9qA3'7: 08 RCVD FROM= Fitness Gallery, Inc. 820 Berkmar Circle Charlotbesville, V~.2~901 Ju~-lg-97 12:42P Fitness Gallery Inc. 804-973-0302 Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce "dedicated to representing the ~dvate sector, prom~ting business and enhancing the quality of ?/fa in our cornrnun#y." MEMORANDUM P.02 TO: David Bowerman, Sustainability Council FR: Jane Dittmar, President~ DA: May 28, 1997 RE: Chamber Nomination This memorandum makes official our nomination of Derek Jones as a representative and liaison for the Chamber of Commerce to the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council. We've selected him based on his close working relationship with our Chamber, your desire for us to suggest someone to serve, and knowing his expertise will greatly benefit your Council. Thank you for encouraging direct Chamber involvement. Please let us know if you appoint Derek so we may follow up with him as well We look forward to being in the loop with your efforts through active participation. Derek Jones Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee Enclosure: Resume' for Derek Jones P. O. Box 1564 * Fi~h & Market Streets * Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1564 Telephone (8047 295-3141 Fax (804) 295-3144 h~tP'~/www, cvillechamber, org Jun- 12:42P Fitness Gallery In¢, 804-g73-0302 UniverstL~ of',/irgi:ia tJnlver~taet Trier Trier, C~nuany, 199~. C:omcm.porary Oem~Lq Studies Pro£us$ional Hori~n Imlflute for Policy $ohitlons - £harloilesville,V^ ExcCuli,,'¢ Ditoctor (April 'g&-p~esen0 Co~rdina1~ all as.r. ects of or$tmizaiional cl~'glopmcnl .Manase full,iime staff of tour, [:~Jl-tim¢ sbqffofsix Dcsign, [mpleme~tl, and cvataate Institute progrm~s .¥~anag~ me,ia n~la!ior, s ~irecto~ for De'¢elopmanl / Assisla~'~t to the Red,ch D~ctor :Au~s~ '95-April '961 ~'e~ ~d or~cd long. ~ ~o~.te~ ~mi~ng plans ~ml~ ~d ~y~d Viz~a ]e~slalion, p~u~b' t~t r~la~ to public sch~l I~ . 0:3 R,publican Na. tionai Committee - Washington. D.C. (May - Au~ '95) Intern l~gon S~m~ C~rdi~tor ~ra~ i~o~fien cl~fin~ou~ ~ k~p v¢tcm, c~a~date~ and lcg~sla[o~ appfi~ ~ Re.limn ~lt~ mnmr~ ~agcd ~1 ~Cn~ for Cl~n~n ~ey B~u~ As~[ Edict, ffoamaJ ~J'De~cracy W~c a~ ~i~ for ~fi~l ~'O~ to ~s~s ~Jnent ;o ~x.~tcing ~elo~s dem~cies. ~t~ [narm~fi~ of~n~sMd Big Brotber~ (1993-5) Program Direcior Select, train. ~ supervise 400 students malch~l aith ar~ yomh in nmd of Hunter E. Craig Co. P.O. Box 6156 · Charlottesville V~rginia 22906 (804) 974-4500 · Fax (804) 974-6753 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 06-13-97A10 :-~0 RCV~ June 1:3, 1997 Mr. Walter F. Perkins Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA96-17 Mechums River Land Trust Dear Mr. Perkins, We hereby request an allowance to submit a comprehensive plan amendment for Highlands Section 3 (ZMA96-17) earlier than the next scheduled deadline. The next comprehensive plan mnendment deadline is September 2. 1997. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 974-4505. Sincerely, ~ Hunter E. Craig BOAR OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Board of Supervisors, Bob Tucker, Rick Huff Bill Mawyer ~ June 13, 1997 Trees for 29 Project We had a productive meeting this week to continue the discussion about the trees to be planted in the Rt. 29 median between Hydraulic Road and Hilton Heights. Those participating in the meeting included: David Tice, Will Rieley, Peggy and Mitchell Van Yahres, Phil Garber and D. J. Manafe (City Gas), Angela Tucker, Bill Brent, Susan Thomas. Lisa Glass, and myself. In summary, there seems to be an opportunity to plant medium sized trees such as the hackberry, swamp white oak, autumn purple ash, and common honey locust. Peggy and Phil are going to exchange some information next week about the depth of tree root growth before final tree selection recommendations are made. Through compromise from all parties, we expect to maintain the construction bid and fail planting schedule. I will provide a summary of the tree selection recommendations in the near future. BM/ss Copy: Lisa Glass