Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-192. 3. 4. 5. 6. 4 10. 12. 12a. 12b. 13. 14, N \ · :(ii) {~ \l II!IiRI'.XR] {~; I,m; {,V)().'xi '~ II. (.()1 N IY I)1 I I('l BI I{'.I)IN(, Call'to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Nor Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). Public Hearing to receive comments on thdFY 1997-98/2000-03 Sf~x-Year Secondary Road Gonsrruction Plan. SP-9641. Forest Springs Mohile Home Sales Lot (Signs #13 l~). P~blic :I~earing on a request to establish outdoor storage 8c disp~a~ of mobi~ ho~es fof~sde on approx 7.9 ac zoned HC in addition to e~sting a(tto sales on p~ope~y located aupro~ 1/4 mi S of Rt 649 ori W sd ofRt 2~ N. TM32,P43 is zoned RB%, H~ & EC; T~2,P43A is zoned HC & EC. (This action is related to SDP-%-097, Fo~?t Sp~ings Mobile Home Sales center Major Site Plan' Amendment which pro'desirer ~utdoor storage & display o£mobilehomes.) (Th'rs s~t~e ts recommended £orRegional Service in the Hollymead Community.) RivannaDist. (~eferred ~rom, F~btuary 12, 1997.) SP-96-43. ~N~ancv P0rritt, Pine~, Mountain PreschOol & Cmld en S Cot a g (Signs ~61 ~ #62). Public Hearing on a request to establish private:preschool to serve 6-9 chdd en on 2.7 ac in ~k district located on Esd of Ri ~9 N across from GE Fanuc. TM21,P12A. Rivanna Dist. (This property is not located ina designated growth ZMA-96-23. Burton (Signs #73 & #74). Public Hearing on a:reques~ to rezone approx 0.5 ac from K-4 to CO. Property located on S sd of Rt i649 ~pprox:0.2 mi E of Rt 606 at SW inters w/Rt 649 & Deerw~ood Dr. TM32C~3),PL Site recommended for Neighborhood Density (3-6 du/ac) by Comprehensive?Plan for the Community of Hollymead. KivannaDist. SP-96-50. SVRS, Inc. (Signs 3 &5] Public Hearing on a request for conseruction of a rescue squad station on approx tC aczoned RAon SW corner of Rt ~6/Rt 737 inters. TM130,P7. ScottsVille Dist. (Thisprgperty is not loca~edina designated growth SP-96-54. St. Paul's Church (Sign #23 & #24~). Public Hearing on arequestto renovate an existing structure for use as administrative offices on 15.335 ac zoned VR. Property is St. PauEs Church onN sd of Rt 250 at inte:rs wi~h Rt 678. TM58A2,P's 17,18,19. Samuel M;dler Dist. Approval of Minutes; No~ember 15, 1995, January 2 and January 8, 1997. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. Certify Executive Session. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Adjourn. FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Adopt Resolution of Intent to consider adoption of an ordinance to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax to five percent 5.2 Draft statement for the Annual Six Year Primary Road Plan Preallocation Hearing. FOR INFORMATION: 5.3 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 21 and February 4, 1997. 5.4 Copy of Preliminary Report of the James River Watershed Coalition's Tributary Strategy projects as requested by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. 5.5 Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meeting for December 9, 1996. 5.6 Notice from the Department of Transportation of a design public hearing scheduled for February 25, 1997, on the proposed Route 29 Bypass project (from 0.70 mi. [1.12 km] north of Route 29/250 Bypass to 0.50 mil [0.80 km] north of South Fork of Rivanna River; UVA Connector Road (from Route 250 bypass to Massie Road) in Albemarle County. 5.7 Notice from the Department of Transportation that the Culpeper District Preallocaiton Hearing on the six Year Improvement Program for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems will be held on March 14, 1997. 5.8 Grant participation notification - Guaranteed Ride Home Program COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ' ' MEMORANDUM TO: ? 'Tucker, Ir., County Executive de Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development FROIVff.' -~-~EII~vV. Carey. CMC, Clerk~~/ DATE: February 21, 1997 Board Actions of Februa~ 19. 1997 At its meeting on Febmaxy 19. 1997, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. I. 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. Mr. Randy Layman. representing the Waste Haulers Association of Albemarle County, discussed the GBB report prepared by consultants concerning solid waste issues in the County. He asked the Board to take the study into consideration and get input from people throughout the County, not just those near the Landfill. The Waste Haulers Association and people the haulers work with would like to see the Ivy Landfill maintained. Item No. 5. I. Adopt Resolution of Intent to consider adoption of an ordinance to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax to five percent. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Public hearing set for March 19. 1997. at 7:00 p.m. Item No. 5.2. Draft statement for the Annual Six Year Primary Road Plan Preallocation Hearing. Mrs. Humphris asked that this be deferred until Mard~ 5. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing to receive comments on the FY 1997-98/2000-03 Six- Year Secondary Road Construction Plan. ADOPTED the Six Year Secondary Road Plan as presented, but deleted the Greenbrier Drive Extension proiect from the Plan fby a vote of 6:0). Agenda Item No. 7. SP-96-41. Forest Springs Mobile Home Sales Lot (Signs #13,14). Public Hearing on a request to establish outdoor storage & display of mobile homes for sale on Memo To: Robert W. Tucker Jr. V. Wayne C/limberg Date: February21, 1997 Page 2 approx 7.9 ac zoned HC in addition to existing auto sales on property located approx 1/4 mi S of Rt 649 on W sd of Rt 29 N. TM32,P43 is zoned RA, HC SC EC; TM32,P43A is zoned HC SC EC, (This action is related to SDP-96-097, Forest Springs Mobile Home Sales Center Major Site Plan Amendment which provides for outdoor storage SC display of mobile homes.) (This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Holiymead Community.) Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from February 12, 1997.) APPROVED SP-96-41 subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, with condition #1 and #2 amended and set out below (by a vote of 6:0): All areas shown on plan (stamped Exhibits presented to ARB 10/21/96 initialed by MJ) noted as display areas, other than the area to the right of the entrance showing the units visible from Route 29 North, to be completely screened from Route 29; Number of units visible from Route 29 North to be a maximum of up to two with the final number to be decided as part of the final ARB approval of the certificate of appropriateness; 3. The screening of the other display areas shall be permanent; Installation of right turn and taper lane as required by the Virginia Department of Transportation in its October 23, 1996 letter (copy attached). Agenda Item No. 8. SP-96-43: Nancy Porritt, Piney Mountain Preschool SC Children's Cottage (Signs #61 Sc #62). Public Hearing on a request to establish private preschool to serve 6-9 children on 2.7 ac in RA district located on E sd of Rt 29 N across from GE Fanuc. TM21,P12A. Rivanna Dist. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) APPROVED SP-96-43 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission (by a vote of 6:0): Installation of entrance improvements and 100 foot taper in accordance with sketch approved by VDOT and the Acting County Engineer (received January 27, 1997) prior to commencement of the use (copy attached); 2. Compliance with supplementary regulations, Section 5. 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance; Health Department approval. The house used for the preschool/child care function shall not also be used as a residence; Child care is limited to nine children. Any increase will require an aanendment to the special use permit~ Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-96-23. Burton (Signs #73 SC #74). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 0.5 ac from R-4 to CO. Property located on S sd of Rt 649 approx 0.2 mi E of Rt 606 at SW inters w/Rt 649 SC Deerwood Dr. TM32C(3),P1. Site recommended for Memo To: Robert W. Tudcer Ir. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February 21, 1997 Page 3 Neighborhood Density (3-6 du/ac) by Comprehensive Plan for the Community of Hollymead. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED ZMA-96-23 (by a vote of 6:0). Agenda Item No. 10. SP-96-50. SVRS, Inc. (Signs 3 &5) Public Hearing on a request for construction of a rescue squad station on approx I0 ac zoned RA on SW comer of Rt 6/Rt 737 inters. TM130,P7. Scottsville Dist. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) APPROVED SP-96-50 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission (by a vote of 6:0): Development shall be in general accord with the attached plan tiffed Scottsville Rescue Squad, prepared by Robert Lum, revised 12/16/96, and initialed WDF 1/9/97. The plan may be revised to address comments made by the Site Review Committee and shall be revised to provide an entrance located on Route 6 only; Subordinate uses and fund-raising activities such as, but not limited to, bingo, raffles and auctions shall require amendment of this special use permit. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-96-54. St. Paul's Church (Sign #23 & #24). Public Hearing on a request to renovate an existing structure for use as administrative offices on 15.315 ac zoned Property is St. Paul's Church on N sd of Rt 250 at inters with Rt 678. TM58A2,P's 17,18,19. Samuel Miller Dist. APPROVED SP-96-54 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and the addition of a third condition (by a vote of 6:0) This special use permit is for the existing church and church offices to be located in the lGrldea structure. Any future expansion of the church or church activities will require an amendment to this special use permit; 2. New exterior finish materials will dosely match existing materials; 3. No new mechanical equipment to be visible from the Entrance Corridor. Agenda Item No. 12a. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. At 9:55 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider candidates for appointment to Boards and Commissions and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February 21, 1997 Page 4 The Board reconvened into open session at 10:41 p.m., and certified the executive session. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tom Loach was present to speak about the recent meeting of the Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee. It appeared to be a consensus that there needed to be more neighborhood participation on the committee. Mr. Martin and Mr. Loach agreed to go bade to the committee and get a consensus on what would be adequate representation. Mr. Martin suggested this Board discuss how it would select two additional persons to serve on the committee. The Board reappointed Lisa Keyes Glass to the lordan Development Corporation, with term to expire on August 13, 1997. The Board appointed Robert F. "Chip" German, Jr., to the Library Board, to fill the unexpired term of Jerry Jones, with said term to expire on June 30, 2000. Mr. Cilimberg is to bring bade a recommendation at the March 5, 1997, meeting on the disposition of the right-of-way for Greenbrier Drive, since the Board agreed to ddete it from the Six Year Highway Plan. Mrs. Thomas asked for a progress report on GE Fanuc. The Board was supposed to receive a progress report on what kind of employment additions there had been and where they came from. Mrs. Humphris asked about the monthly report from Acme. Mr. Bowerman asked the County Attorney and staff to bring back a report on the issues involved in placing the Whitewood Road Park under a permanent conservation easement. Mrs. Humphrls mentioned a request received from PVCC to participate in a joint meeting with their Board. the Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle County School Board. Each spring the College Board holds a meeting in one of its service areas. It is Albemarle's turn. This will be a regular meeting of the College Board and they will highlight the relationship between Piedmont, the schools and the County. Mrs. Humphris asked the Clerk to coordinate a date with Board members. Mr. Marshall said he would be out of town from March 13 through March 18, 1997. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February 21, 1997 Page 5 Mrs. Humphris read a letter the Board received from Kathryn Hobbs, President, League of Women Voters apologizing for not clearing the date and time of the forum on reversion. The forum is scheduled for Saturday, February 22, 1997, from 9:30 a.m., until 11:30 a.m., at the Senior Center. Agenda Item No. 14~. Adjourn. The Board adjourned until Saturday, February 22, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., to participate in a forum on reversion sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Attachments (5) cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Kevln C. Castner Larry Davis Amelia McCulley lack Kelsey Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Jan Sprinlde File COUNTY OF ALBEIVlA~I E Office of Board o~ Supervisors 401 Mclntim Road Charlotte~ille, ~ini~ 22902-4596 (804} ~'96-5843 FAX (804} 296~800 Charles S. Mnrffn SaiI~ H. Thomas February 26, 1997 Mr. Randy Layman Layman's Disposal 6936 Plank Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Mr~ Than/< you for your recent comments to the Board of Supervisors on February 19, t 997, concerning the GBB report prepared by consultants concerning the Ivy Landfill and solid waste issues in the County. The Board appreciates you talcing the time to appear and make your views known. As you may know, a public hearing to receive comments on the consultant's report has been scheduled for March 10, ~997, at 5:00 p.m., in the County Office Building Auditorium. Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman CYt4Jec Printed on recycled paper DATE .AGENDA ITEM NO. AGENDA I'~'E~ NAME DEFEF, RED UNTIL Fo~m. 3 7/25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ©PY TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk ~.>f_~ February 21, 1997 Board Actions of February 19, 1997 At its meeting on February 19, 1997, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution of Intent to consider adoption of an ordinance to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax to five percent. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Public hearing set for March 19, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. /ewe cc: Robert Walters RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE WHEREAS, section 58.1-3819 of the Code of Virginia enables the Cotmty of Albemarle to enact a transient occupancy tax at a rate not exceeding five percent (5%); and WHEREAS, the current transient occupancy tax rate in the County is two percent (2%); and WHEREAS, it may be necessary or desirable to increase revenue generated by the transient occupancy tax. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia hereby states its intent to consider setting the transient occupancy tax rate at five percent (5%) and directs that a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend County Code Section 8-41 to effectuate such rate increase be advertised for March 19, 1997. 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 County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of six to zero on February 19. 1997. Clerk, Board of County Suff~rvisors COUNTY OF ALBEMAI~LF~ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY LARRY W. DAVIS County Attorney February 13. 1997 Just a reminder that since t~his is a resolution to impose a tax. the hearing needs to be advertised no fewer than 21 and 14 days prior to the date of the public hearing. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Transient Occupancy Tax SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Resolution of Intent to Raise Transient Occupancy Tax to five percent (5%). STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Davis AGENDA DATE: February 19, 1997 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution and Draft Ordinance REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: 2~ae 1996 General Assembly amended Va. Code ~ 58.1-3819 to enable Albemarle and five other counties to raise the lransient occupancy mx rote cap from two p~rcent (2%) to five percent (5%). The amendment also specified that the revenue collected from that portion of the tax over two percent shall be designated and spent for promoting tourism, travel or business that generates tourism or travel in the locality. DISCUSSION: Loudoun, Spotsylwni~. York, and Prince W'flllam cotmties have now set their transient occupancy tax rate at five pement (5%) pursuant to Va. Code § 58.1-3819. It is estimated that an additional $585,600.00 of revenue would be generated by a three pemant (3%) increase in Atbemarte's transiem occupancy tax mm. RECOMMENDATION: Staff reeommancls that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent to consider adoption of an ordinance to set the transient occupancy tax rate at five pemant (5%). 97. RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE WHEREAS, section 58.1-3819 of the Code of Virginia enables the County of Albemarle to enact a transient occupancy tax at a rate not exceeding five percent (5%~: and WHEREAS. the current transient occupancy tax rate in the County is two percent (2%); and WHEREAS. it may be necessary or desirable to increase revenue generated by the transient occupancy tax. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia hereby states its intent to consider setting the transien~ occupancy tax rate at five percent (5%) and directs that a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend County Code Section 8-41 to effectuate such rate increase be advertised for March 19, 1997. 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 County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of to on February 19, 1997. Cleric Board of County Supervisors TOTAX. WPD DRAFT: February 13, 1997 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION. ARTICLE IX, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. VIRGINL& BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article IX_ Transient Occupancy Tax, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 8-41, Imposed; amount of tax, as follows: Sec. 8-41. Imposed; amount of tax. There is hereby imposed a tax on the occupancy of all rooms in hotels motels, boardinghouses and travel campgrounds wSthin the county. Such t~x shah be assessed at the rate of two lq' five (5) ,~j percent of the amount charged for such occupancy; provide& however, that nothing herein shall be construed as imposing any tax upon rooms or spaces rented for continuous occupancy to the same indi,ridual, person, firm, or corporation for thirty (30) or more days in hotels, motels, boardinghouses or travel campgrounds. (11-28-73; 8-I5-74: 4-13-88.) The revenue collected from the portion of the tax over two (2) r~ercent shalt be designated and spent for promoting tourism, travel or business that ~enerates tourism or travel in the county. *State law reference--Authority of county to adopt this artide, Code of Va., §58.1-3819. · Form. 3 :712518~ ? moms . FFERSON ~O~d WA~R CONSERVATION DIST~CT 695 Ber~ CouP. Suite 2 · ~lo~esville. VA 22901-14~ (8~) 975-0224 MEMORANDUM TO: James River Watershed Coalition and other interested parties FROM: Alyson Sappington RE: Preliminary Report DATE: January 27. 1997 Enclosed you will find the "Preliminary Report" of the James River Watershed Coalition's Tributary Strategy projects as requested by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. We are continuing to expand the Coalition's outreach, so please continue to send me the names and addresses of additional individuals and organizations who should be included in our mai!;ng ]Jst. Th~nk you to those of you who a!re~dy have done this! "To promote soil and water conservation under the leadership of a citizen Board of Directors, by prov d~n~, techmcal experUse and educanon. PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE JAMES RIVER WATERSHED COALITION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL TRIBUTARY STRATEGIES Submi~ed by: Thomas Jeffe,'son Soil and Water Conse,~,atJon District_ Lead Distdct Date: January 27. 1997 LEAD DISTRICT ACTIVITIES: · A basin-wide master list of individuals and organizations involved with James River watershed protection is being compiled. To date, the list contains 118 entdes. This list will be distributed to each individual and organization on the list. · Four pieces of correspondence, including this report, have been distributed to all individuals and organizations on the master list to keep them informed of the proposal status and project activities. · Fifteen letters of support for the James River proposal have been received. · A TJSWCD representative has attended each of four basimwide planning meetings, a meeting of the Richmond Regional Planning Distdct Commission, and the VASWCD Annual Meeting to discuss the James River Tributary Strategy Proposal. · Procedures for the distribution of funds were discussed with each project's lead district. · A separate checking account was set up for the Tributary Strategy funds. Suggestions and comments as requested by DCR: · The project implementation pedod should begin when the proposals and contracts are approved and the disbursements are received so that Districts have a full year for implementation. · The entire process, from proposal preparation to fund disbursaL needs to be streamlined. · More emphasis should be placed on planning and strategy formulation to ensure that dollars are targeted where the most water quality benefits will result. This should be considered both within River Basins and among River Basins. A long term approach is important to ensure continuity and to avoid a patchwork of individual projects. The James River Basin is large enough and diverse enough to consider a division into three sub-basins for proposal development. ADOPT-A-WATERSHED PROJECT · A Watershed Education Coordinator has been hired with supplemental funding through the Piedmont Soil and Water Conservation District. · An Adopt-A-Watershed Conference, to include teachers and public officials, is planned for mid February. · A slide show is being prepared for the Adopt-A~Watershed Conference. · A list of landowners within the Flat Creek Watershed is being gathered for use in the Adopt-A-Watershed program. · Preliminary research has begun in preparation for the Adopt-A-Watershed Curriculum guide. BLACKVVATER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT On August 27. a preliminary meeting of project leaders was held to review the grant proposal before providing a presentation to the project team members. · On October 2, a meeting was held for project team members. Deborah Mills (DCR) gave a slide presentation on Blackwater Creek. highlighting problem spots dudng recent flood events. She also presented options for win-stream" structures and installation methods. At this meeting it was agreed that DCR. Robert E. Lee SWCD, and the City of Lynchburg Division of Parks and Recreation. would meet with representatives of Wiley and Wilson and the City of Lynchburg's Division of Public Works to finalize a project design. · On October 30 and November 6, creek cross sections and slope profile surveys were conducted. Subsequent creek work sessions were canceled and rescheduled due to unfavorable weather conditions. The work remaining includes l) completion of the profile and. 2) velocity readings at each cross-section. · When the stream characterization is complete, the design will be finalized and submitted to Counts and Dobyns to determine costs of the structure installation. Following an agreement or~ design, costs and mat~da!s needed, a~oth~r project team meeting will be scheduled to solicit final comments and determine a schedule for installation. LOWER JAMES RIVER WATERSHED EVALUATION OF BMPs ON LOW PRODUCING SOILS · On January 7, 1997, a farmer dinner was held to discuss the project and recruit participants. Twenty farmers from two counties attended. · Four newsletters, with articles about the project and Tributary Strategies in general, have been distributed to approximately 2200 individuals · Presentations were provided to the Boards of Supervisors of Charles City, James City County, and York County. · A representative attended Hampton Roads Planning Distdct Commission meetings where Tributary Strategies were discussed. · - JAMES RIVER WATERSHED COALITION IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL TRIBUTARY STRATEGIES The James River Tributary Strategy Proposal included four individual projects throughout the James River Watershed: 1. James River Watershed Planning and Coalition Building 2. Adopt-A-Watershed 3. ~laC~water Creek Restoration Project 4. Lower James River Watershed Evaluation of BMPs on Low Producing Soils These projects ara w~ll-underway, as described in the sections which follow. JAMES RIVER WATERSHED PLANNING AND COALITION BUILDING · Planning has begun for four sub-watershed "coalition-building" meetings to be conducted this spdng. · A proposal was submitted to, and a meeting held with, Virginia Environmental Endowment in the pursuit of additional funding from the Virginia Grant Program to supplement this project. A second follow-up meeting was held to discuss a Mini-Grant for additional funding. · Negotiations ara in progress, with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recraatio~ for the production of GIS maps. These maps will include small scale maps of the entire James River Watershed, and larger scale maps for each locality in the lower portion of the watershed· Maps will include: Soils Water quality monitoring stations (federal, state, citizen) NPS pollution ranking with water-limited segments CdticaFhabitat Hydrology Landusefland cover Transportation County borders Magisterial districts DCR hydrologic units Shellfish distribution sites Point source discharge sites (municipal. industrial) Forested/open land Wetlands/SAV Recraational/shoratine conditions The praparation of the watershed wide maps has begun, A commitment for $20.000 in additional funding for this project has been received through-' the Chesapeake Bay license plate fund (pending General Assembly approval). DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH VZRQZNZA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 -ORANGE ROAD CULPEPER 22701-3819 January 31, 1997 , DONALD R. ASKEW DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR Route 29 Bypass Proj: 6029-002-F22,PE101, RW202,C501 Fr: 0.70 Mi. (1.12 km) North of Route 29/250 Bypass To: 0.50 Mi. (0.80 km) North of South Fork of Rivanna River Ms. Shelby J. Marshall Clerk of the Court 501 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Ms. Marshall: 22901 UVA Connector Road Proj: RUVA-002-101,PE101 Fr: Route 250 Bypass To: Massie Road Albemarle County ~ There will be a Design Public Hearing utilizing an open forum for the above mentioned projects on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. at the Sheraton Inn Charlottesville, which is located at 2350 Seminole Trail. Representatives of VDOT will be present with maps and displays to explain the project to all interested individuals. In addition, a video presentation will be shown continually from 2:00 to 8:00 p.m. Arrangements have been made to allow citizens an opportunity to make both oral and written comments about the project during this time. These comments will be included in the official transcript of the Hearing. A copy of the Public Hearing Notice is enclosed. RHCjr:lcs Enclosure Sincerely, R. H. Connock, /Jr., P.E. District Construction Engineer TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ROUTE 29 BYPASS Albemarle County Hearing TT:e~day, February 25, 1997 * * * Anytime betwccethchoursof2:00 PM and 8:00PM be held at the Sheraton Inn Charlc~tesvill~ located at 2350 Seminole Trail (Route 29) in Albemarle County north of the City of Charlottesvi~. of ex/stag Rau~ 29 ,~,.antheRou~ 29 / 250 bypass ~o a~t. aonimamly 0.5 mile north oftbe Sou~h Fork ~the ~ Review: Project information, an~nvimnmentuldocummtandother a-~n pcrdnent totheproject am availableat~heVDOT Culpeper DisUi~t offic~ located ay 1601 Oran~ Read in Culpeper and ~h~ VDOT Charlotmvi~ l~id~acy c~ce loc~_ _~_~ oa Route 250 thn~ miles ~ast of Charl~e. In addition, proj~t information will also I~ availablv in the office ofth~ Director of Conmamity Devel~ for the City of Charlottes~e, 1610 East Market Sl~e~t, Tho Thomas laffmon Planning District office, 300 East M'~in Street (first floor Malt eui~-,uace) and the All:~mad¢ County _1~ ofp~nnl.~ ~n,t Comwuni~y Developmem, 401 McTntire Read. Commeats: b~ discussed. In conjuration with the proposcdimprovemm~ adjac~at salts vdthin ~ project liners may be al~xl by this proposal. S~ial Assistance: Culpeper District Office: 540-829-7500 * Char~o.l~iden~ Office: 804-293-0011 We Keep ~ Virginia Moving Device for the Hearing Impaired CITY): 1.800-307-4630 Project: 6029-002-F22,PE-101,RW-20~C-501 * FederalProject: STP-029-7 ( ) Project: RUVA-002oI01,PE-101 TO: FROM: RE: COMMONWEALTH SENATE February 14, 1997 OF VIRGINIA Albemarle County Board of Supervisor~/ Charlott~fl!e City Council Greene County Board of Supervisors Madison County Board of Supervisors Madison Town Council Orange County Board of Supervisors Orange Town Council Scottsville Town Council Stanardsville Town Council senator, 25th District VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program Public Meeting The V/rginia Depmiment of Transportation will hold a public meeting on Friday, March 14, at 9:00 a.m. to receive comments regarding transportation improvements in the area. I will be attending the meeting to speak before the Commonwealth Transportation Board about needs in my Senatorial dishict. Please let me know which improvements you would like me to highlight with respect to interstate, primary, and urban roads, as well as public transportation and ride-sharing programs. You may also want to share with me your comments on rail, bicycle, and Pedeslxian priorities. I would appreciatehearmg from you by March 10. Thank you for your time and assistance. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA DATE.' ITEM NUMBER Guaranteed Ride Home Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Grant participation notifmation. February 19, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X i ATTACHMEN?_ S: No STAFF CONTACT{S): I Tucker, Huffj Cilimberg, Wade ) REVIEWED BY.' Messrs. fv / BACKGROUND: The region's local ride shara organization is submitting an experimental grant to the State to implement a guaranteed ride home program for the region. The program will be made available to all employees that commute to work using alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle ISOV). When an emergency arises and employees are needed at home, a token will be made available for bus or taxi service. RideShara will be billed for this service. There will be no cost to the employees and, other than the initial contribution, no cost to the employer during the grant period of FY 98. For the program to continue in the future, compames will be asked to contribute at a level to be determined by data collected during the trial pedod. DISCUSSION: RideShare is asking employers participating in the program to assist in the process by contributing funds in the amount of $100 to provide the local match required by the State. The County has identified its match and will be participating in the pilot project through the end of the current fiscal year and will be monitoring the success of the program as it develops. RECOMMENDATION: This report is provided for the Board's information only at this time. 97.038 DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS O 05-24-97/]~ COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE 22@11 March 20, 1997 ~'CVD A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Ms. Ella W. Carey, CWC, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: Enclosed is a copy of the signed Six Year Secondary Construction Plan for your files as requested in your letter' of March 7, 1997. Also, it would be appreciated if you could mail a copy of the minutes or a resolution ~om the board adopting the 1997-8 dnax 2003-3 Six Year Plan. Yours Truly, Gerald G. Utz Contract Administrator /ggu Enclosure TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ~ oooo 0 0 0 ~§o g§ § oo o 0 0 ° ~ 8 ? oo o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 §o oo oooo ~O~§o o 0000 oo oo oo 0ooo § § 0ooo ~??oo §8§§ 0000 0 0 0 0 0 o 8 H ~o §~oo ~ g S§§°o ~ooo § ~o ooZ°§ ~?~°~ 0000 0000 oooo oooo oooo Bg?.°°° o§§o~ §§S§ oooo oooo o§~o §°§§o 0000 oooo 0000 §§§g oooo oo0o 0000 H °,~ § D~v~d P. Charlotte Y. Humphrh COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supawisors 401 Mdntlre Road Charlol'tesville, Vn'ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296--5843 FAX (804) 298.5800 Charl~ S. Martin Waiter F. Perkins SaiI~, H. Thomas March 7, 1997 Mrs. Angela G. Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VDoT Way Charlottesville, VA 2291 Dear Mrs. Tucker: Attached is the Six Year Secondary Road Plan which has been signed by Mr. Tucker on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. Please provide this office with a copy of the Plan after you have it. Sincerely, /EWC cc: Koberr W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Printed on recycled paper SECONDARY SYSTEM COUNTY: ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS YEAR NEW S.T. FEDERAL OTHER TOTAL 1997-98 $629.424 $2.036,049 $760,206 $3.425,679 1998-99 $633,507 $2,603j044 $210.000 $3.446,551 I999-00 $663.203 $2,713,043 S210.000 $3.586,246 2000-01 $701,687 $2,392,692 $670.000 $3.764,379 2001-02 $741.731 $2.565,990 $642,185 $3.949,906 2002-03 $741.731 $2.838,175 $370,000 $3.949,906 TOTALS $4.111.283 $15. 148,993 $2. 862.391 $22. 122,667 APPROVAL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE OT RESIDE ENGINEER DATE .......... : ....... /{~IP. FLAN, LERK, CO.ADMI~ISTRATO~) DATE COUNTY Of ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE $UMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Initial work session to review proposed County priorities for road improvements and VDO'Fs draft Six Year Secondary Plan. STAFF CONTACTtS): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimber~l, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: January 2, 1996 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY': INFORMATION: Yes ,,~ ~ / BACKGROUND: The Six Year Secondary Road Construction Plan is VDOT's Plan for the allocation of road construction funds for a six year period. It consists of a priority list of projects and a financial implementation plan. The VDOT Six Yea~ ~1~ priorities adopted by the Board of Supe~isore (the County Priority List of Road Improvements): Sinee 1~86, tl~e~Comm[~si0h and Board of Supervisors have approved this priority list of projects which would cost, in total, in excess of available funds over the six-year planning period. With such a list developed, subsequent financial plans can be prepared and revised in response to available annual funds. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Albemarle County Proposed Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment Al with the deletion of priority #6-Greenbrier Drive Extension. DISCUSSION: Major changes to the County's Priority List include: Plank Road (Route 692), in North Garden has been lowered significantly in the pderity list (from ~r22 to #33). It was previously included in the Priority List by staff to support the North Garden Development Area designation. North Garden is no longer designated a Development Area and there was no public request related to this project. The funds previously allocated to this project in the Six Year Plan have been transferred to the Meadow Creek Parkway project north of Rio Road for planning and design. The Route 606 and Route 743 relocation projects, required to meet Federal Aviation Administration safety requirements, have been included in this list for information purposes. These projects will be federally funded. No secondary funds will be used on the projects. They have been listed along with the Hydraulic Road and Avon Street/Route 20 connecter road, which are (or will be) under construction, as projects which no longer need to be ranked with other potential projects. VDOT's dra~ Six Year Secondary Road Consftucfion Plan (Attachment B) basically coincides with the County's Pdority List with two exceptions: Old Ivy Road is ranked ~ on the County Priority List, but shown as the last regular project on the VDOT Six Year Plan (~r23). VDOT Residency Staff is recommending that no commitment be shown in the Secondary Plan until the full scope of the Route 29 Bypass project is determined, given the potential for improvements to Old Ivy Road to be included in the Bypass project. Route 712~ road paving project (North Garden) is pdoritized consistent with the County's priority. However, it is being shown ss~ deferred project (no add'(donal funding ~llocated to it) in the VDOT Six Year Plan due to the lack of available right of way ~o complete the project. Based on the Board's road paving ~policy, the project will not be pursued further AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan January 2, 1997 Page 2 until full right of way is donated. Route 711 and Route 760 Road pa~/~ng projects in North Garden have been deleted from the Six Year Plan. As w~h Route 712, full donation of ~ight is not anticipated and construction cost, particularly for Route 711, would be high. This ac~on is also consistent with publis comments receive last year as part of the public meetings on the Land Use Plan. The general consensus of the public comments was to focus paving improvements on Route 712. The funding previously on Routes 711 and 760 has been reallocated to Routes 615,737, and 702. All of these projects have the necessary right of way available. Other changes and issues are discussed in the attached staff report presented to the Planning Commission (Attachment C). RECOMMENDATION: No action is required for this meeting. The Board must hold a public hearing pdor to approval of the County's Priority List of Road Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Plan. The Board should set a public headng date. 6YRPLAN.WPD 96.234 Potential New Projects for Priority. List In the development of the CATS, projects recommended in the County's Land Use Plan were included in CATS. The Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) has three different phases of recommendations. They are: Phase I - These are projects already approved for funding and are in some stage of design. Phase II - These are proposed projects which have undergone some study already, and are recommended for design and engineering. Phase III - These are potential new projects which have been introduced for the first time. They will need feasibility studies to identify specific recommendations before proceeding to any stage of design development. Most are considered pre-mature for the Six Year Plan at this time. TSM Improvements-Transportation System Management (TSM) recommendations are improvements to roadway segments, intersections, and/or bridges, which can usually be accomplished with in a one-to- five year period and are generally projects that are smaller in scope. They include improvements such as adding as turn lanes, geometric improvements (straightening a dangerous curve), and modifying intersection configuration. TSM improvements do not change the roadway's fundamental character or function. The Phase II and TSM recommendations of the CATS are the primary source of potential projects identified below for possible inclusion in the Secondary Road Improvement List. CATS\Land Use Plan Route (1) 6O6 (2) 606 (3} 743 (4) 795 (51 63 l (6) 676 (7} 678 (8) 601 (9) 649 (10) 743 (11) 1427 (A) (13) .Name Location Improvement Consider for Plan Dickerson Road Dickerson Road Earlysville Road Rt. 649 to Rt. 743 ~ 743 intersection ~ 606 intersection James Monroe Pkwy ~ 53 intersection Rio Road Garth/Woodland Rd Owensville Road Garth Road Proffitt Road Hydraulic Road ~ FSM and A. Sq Rt. 614 to Rt. 1050 ~ 676 intersection ~ 658 intersection Rt.. 819 to Rt.. 29 Rt. 29 to Rt. 1315 four lane to handle future traWm relocate to meet FAA requirement relocate to meet FAA reqmrement reconfigure intersection lengthened turn lanes improve site distance, ere realign intersection improve to handle demand improve geometric features add turning lane Hillsdale Road County line to Zan Rd new road Included in plan for identification purposes only. No VDOT funds will be usPci'on this project. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No (m Yes VDOT will be re-striping Hydraulic Road from the intersection of Route 29 to Georgetown Road as a five lane road with center mm lane in the Spring of 1997. This improvement should address this recommendation. Public Requests Route (12) 674 (t3) 640 (14) 723 (15) 685 (16) 702 (17) 633 (18) 643 (19) 743 Name Sugar Ridge Rd Gilbert Station Rd Sharon Road Bunker Hill Rd Reservoir Road Heards Mm. Rd. Polo Grounds Rd, Earlysvil}e Road (20) 666 Allen Road Location Rt. 614 to Rt. 673 Rt. 641 to Rt. 747 Rt. 6 to Rt. 626 Rt. 616 to dead-end ramp to dead-end NCL to Rt. 634 Rt. 29 to Rt. 649 Rivanna area Rt.664 to dead-end lmprovement(ADT) unpaved road (71) unpaved road (240) unpaved road (96) unpaved road [166) unpaved road (1792) unpaved road (215) improve alignment (915) widened road (8,301) improve alignment unpaved road (187) Consider for Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (ADT) Average Daily Trips >0 m E o 0 o{3 m Ill o ~ "o o m 9° o o o o o o o ~ o o o o o o o o go° o o o o o ~ o o .'~ ~_ ...... o,:, o,=. o o § ~o oo§ oo o o § o § o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c °°~§ o o o o - ~ o o o ooo§§§§ .... ooo§ ........ o o o o o o o o oo~o oooo oooo §oo~ o o ~ ;o o o o o o o o o ,ooo§ §§°° >- Z 0 LU CD UJ O00000OO00 z E Z 0 r~ o n~ ~t~ LLI I ATTAC HPIENT A I PETITION IT IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. IF YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. PETITION IT IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARI~ THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. IF ,/,,~,,;;.~.~,,~/ PETiTiON .._ fJ-c t ' IT IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GRE~NBR~R ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. IF YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD ~S NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU, .) C;3,~;,,, PETITION _ ,4. pi- . ~./ IT IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW, 0~ THANK YOU. IF NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE IT'IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE 'fEAR 2000. IF YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. N~~.ME ~ ADDRESS TELEPHONE .._.____ PETITION rT IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD tS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW, THANK YOU. IF NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PETITION /T IS tN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD 1S NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. IF NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE IT tS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD FS~';(TENSION TO RUN tHROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. IF YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE ~ J PETITION IT IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000, IF YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU, NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE IT. I~ IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. IF NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PETITION 1~1' 15 IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. IF YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD tS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. lAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PETITION IT IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YF_AR 2000. YOU AGREE WITH US THATTHE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SiGN BELOW. THANK YOU. NAME ADDRESS PETITION IT'IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARt~ THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. tF YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE I'PIS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARI~ THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE IF I-"1::: ! I 1 tgl~l IT IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. JF NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PETITION iT IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EX'TENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE IF PETITION iT IS IN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD 1S NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. IF NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PETITION - 1T IS iN THE PLANS FOR THE GREENBRIER ROAD EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH WHITEWOOD PARK. THE ROAD IS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 2000. iF YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE ROAD iS NOT NEEDED PLEASE SIGN BELOW. THANK YOU. ADDRESS TELEPHONE THANK YOU. i~iAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE COUNTY OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUPE so AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan Public Hearing SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Information for the Six Year Secondary Road Plan Public Hearing AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: February 19 1997 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Y~ STAFF CONTACT(S): Messre. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade REVIEWED BY: · .~ BACKGROUND: / At the January 2 Board meeting, staff presented VDOT's draft Six Year Construction Program and the County Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements as recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff has updated both documents to reflect the most current information available and the comments provided by the Board. Attachment A is the County's Six Year Secondary Priority List. Attachment lB is VDOT's draft Six Year Secondary Road Construction Plan which reflects the recommended County priorities. DIBCUSSION: The previous County Priority List provided to the lBoard inadvertently omitted the Avon Street- Fifth Street Connector Road project. This project is priority #25 on the attached County Priority List. It is not currently eligible for VDOT funding. The County's Priority List has also been revised based on a re-evaluation of the unpaved road projects as requested by the Board of Supervisors using the Criteria Based Rating System. The resulting changes were made to priorities #52-54. These changes were based primarily on the Grassmere Road project now having full right-of- way available. Specific changes to the priorities of the unpaved were: #52 Grassmere Rd. (Route 679) - The estimated completion date has been moved up 3 years to July 2000 (previously #53). · # 53 Midway Rd. (Route 688) - The estimated completion date is now June 2000 (previously #51). · # 54 Secretary's Rd. (Route 708) - The new estimated completion is now December 2002 (previously #52). # 59 Reservoir Rd. (Route 702) - VDOT has provided the most current traffk; counts for this road. From its dead end to 0.5 miles east~ the ADT is 55. From 0.5 miles from dead end to 2.2 miles east of dead end, the ADT is 469. Staff has not changed the priority of this project. Changes made to VDOT's Secondary System Construction Program include: # 3 Meadow Creek Parkway (Phase I) -This project is now shown as three projects; the two bridge projects (over Meadow Creek and over railroad) and the main road segment. Also, the estimated completion date has been changed to February 2000. · # 5 Rio Road (Route 631) - The new estimated completion date is now May 1999· # 8 Meadow Creek Parkway (Phase II) - The cost of this project now reflects current dollar cost estimate of $3t,000,000. · # 22 Proffit Road (Route 649) - The new estimated completion date is now April 2005. Greenbrier Drive Extended: Staff has reviewed this project (County priodty #6) with VDOT staff to determine the impact of this project to other roads in the area. If Greenbrier D~ive Extended is not constructed, it will result in an additional 3,500-4,000 vehicle trips on Hydraulic Road, approximately 16 percent reduction in the estimated traffic on Hydraulic Road in 2015 (from 24,000 to 20,000/20,500). An additional 400 vehicle trips on Rio Road West are forecast in the year 2015 without this project. This anaysis is based on using the MinuTP traffic forecasting model. This model is not sensitive in the evaluation of roads atthe neighborhood level that are internal to traffic zones such as Greenbrier Drive. Therefore, the model did not indicate any significant change in traffic on Whitewood Road or Four Seasons Drive which are also internal to the traffic zone. In order to model the impact at the neighborhood street level, it would require development of new traffic zones and supporting socio-economic data which would take several months for County staff and VDOT staff to complete. Using the informatio~ provided by the traffic model, it would seem that the greatest impact of not building Greenbrier Drive would be on Whitewood Road. Based on the minimal change in traffic on Rio Road, it does not appear that Four Seasons Ddve would significantly change. However, considering the reduction in traffic on Hydraulic Road that Greenbrier would p~e-,~ide, a similar amount of traffic reduction could be expected on Whitewood Road. This would be about one-half Of the current traffic on Whitewood Road (1994 ADT=7,000). Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this project: · more diversified transportation network · better distribution of traffic in the area (more options) · 16 percent reduction in trips on Hydraulic Road Staff has identified the following negative factors resulting from this project: · impact on Whitewood Park (up to 2 acres taken from eastern edge) · impact to adjacent residential areas The project as currently proposed by VDOT (four lane cross-section) seems to be based on a design traffic volume representing traffic volumes currently existing at either end of the extension on Route 743 (1994=11,400/ 2015=16,600) and existing Greenbrier Drive (1994=10,300). However, considering the recently adopted Land Use Plan standards to build new roads that are environmentally sensitive and of a human scale (and similar recommendations in CATS), a lesser design may be appropriate based on the traffic volumes forecast for the extension. Summary_: Staff recommends maintaining this project on the priority list to allow it to go to a design public hearing. VDOT will have more detailed information and the Board of Supervisors and public will have a plan to evaluate for appropriateness of design or design changes. The Board of Supervisors will still have an opportunity to decide if this project should remain on the priority list. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt of the Secondary Six Year Priority Plan. 97.038- ,. 0 ~ E o p ~ooo~ooo o o ~ o o©- 0 o'c~ o oo8 o o o~ .....o° o° ~ ...... o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o §§ o c o o o o o o o o o c~ :§~§oo°°:§ :,o .... o o o o o o c~ o o o o o o o o o oo~ oo~o .... o o o o ~°°§oo e ........ ~ 9, ~ 997 77 We~ieke Drive. Chari-attes¥ille. ¥¢. Z._90 ,, 8~ 4r 9 ~' 5- i 4 ¢ 1 ~. 8r~aerfer E×tensien To~¢r¢~¢oM Trailer Communi~ ~ impend? Sorr¢ of l~ r¢idents of this srsa We ~ll~ ibis ~ for 20 mere. While t~ Four S~Jp~ Community ~ould r~t be dir~s~Ig im/ol~, s.~ ur¢~rs~and and s~ppert ~sition oftha~ commoni~e~s closer to Gr~nbder pro~<.se~ ¢xter~sion. T.~ main artery throwh Four ~. -~ns community is Four ~v,~,~ Drive ,~bich serges Four ~oa~ns Four S~sons ~psrtn~nb. Pa~io Ho~;~ arm Spri~ ~,~ Con. mini u~ ~ ~It as ~C~C ~]th club. center, us .~ friends ar~ r~ighhars ~re in t~ Tm~nho~; that tha rnorre~ e~r~rk~] for Gr~nbrier t~re is h~vg ¢~trian m of Four Sea. ns Drive. ~et t~re is r~t ~r¢ si¢,,/al~ The ~ stops a pof~uia~onofapprox~mteig 580). Shouid t~ Gr~nbder extort/on ~e apprm/ed,~ould~t be four lane,or t~/s ian~ ,~ith side,~alks ~rd s4re~t!ights a~e4 for ~f~g, '~uid the ¢nt~ssn(~ to E~tein ~s,] be proFeri applied to u~r~ ~<is~ ng thoroughfare, makd r~ for greeter sat~tg 8~ ~n'~nie,,-.e f~. ~ideni~ i---~g I reiterate mg faith in our ~ard of E:.:u~rvisors. 'eNgraver g o~r ,~cision surelu it ,~li be t;s,r tbs common R~s fec~u! i g, PETITION TO STOP GREENBRIER DRIVE EXTENDED Albemarle County and the Virginia Department of Transportation are planning to extend Greenbrier Drive from Hydraulic Road to Route 29. This new road would come straight through Townwood, literally cutting it in half; through the Einstein Property, and connect to the "other" end of Greenbrier Drive, which intersects Route 29. The Townwood Property Owners' Board of Directors is against this connection for the following reasons: 1. The road will be between 3 and 5 lanes wide, with probably a 35 MPH speed limit; 2. The estimated traffic load is 4600 cars per day; 3. The cost is estimated at 91.7 MILLION of taxpayers money; 4. The close proximity of this road to our homes will lower property values; This project will provide a through route in the middle of our neighborhood, decreasing safety, decreasing pnvacy, and increasing the potential for crime. 6. There are no current or potential business which will be serviced by this road; Traveling from the Rock Store to Whitewood Road and on to Route 29 is only .04 (four- tenths) of a mile longer than the proposed road; The proposed route will either eliminate. Whitewood Park completely, or drastically reduce its size; ~ Overa . there is no benefit to this road; only detrimental results to our neighborhood and others. Townwood Board of Directors is asking that you sign this petition, that we might make our wews known in total to the County Board of Supervisors, Your assistance is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!!! Address 02/~9/97 09:0~ UVA DeE INFO SRV 1415 Mincer Rid~ Court Charlottesville. 'gA 22901-1631 February 19, !997 TO: The Board of S ctpcrvisori. Albemarl, Coan~ liB: Pro0oied Greenbri,r Road Extension I>ablie He~ring of February 19, 1997 I grit want to thank both Charlotte Humphties and David Bowim-nai1 for nlcctillg with our neighborhood committee in recent month~ [o discuss the Greenbrier Road extension project and our opposi~ioo to r/~ proposal. I know you bo~h, and each member of the board, m'e over-extended, lad we appreciat~ it whenever you can join us. I thank each meaiber of the board for yom' dedication to the complex issues facing the county. Unfortunately, I will be not be able to a~[end the public hearing on F~brua3~ 19 stand in solidari~ with my neighbom aggtrmt the project, so I send. as much as is possible, my presence at the meeting with thi~ letter. I will not repoa! the various issues sm'rounding our opposition to the Ixt~posal which have been arkkesscd by m~ neighbors in recent lepers publish~ ia the DaEy Progress. i would ~d ~at ~e minions of do,as s~nt (~d being s~nt) on ~e cxpmsion of 29 No~. Hydmuiic Ro~, ~d ~o Ro~ is ~e invest~nt fl~m w~ afford us tho greatest return. These roada, ii1 their various stages of consm.ie~ion, ~ easily trawersed a[ non- msh-h~our times. On 29 North. it is l'ar¢ lo be delayed by more that~ one stoplight except during rmh-hour. The furore completion oI the £ouMane Hydraulic/RiO ooun~tion will provide an eYea grea*~r ea~ing and a balanced flow o£ tr~fic throughout the it-ea. Building the Greenbder Road exten.qion at the cost or' 1.7 million dollar, aad a~ the cost of s¢,~eriug this densely populated area of the coun[y is ~ar too sewre for the b~efit of .4 of a. mile. Respectfully yours, Betsy Daniel Opposing the Greenbrier Road Extension Eric Strucko 1620 Garden Court Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 804-973-2815 (Home) 804,924-5199 (Work) FebruarY 19, 1997 Recent public discussions concerrfing highway and road development in Albemarle County have occurred in an inconsistent fashion. While debates on plmming new parkways and proposing new bypasses have involved environmental and commmfity issues, conveisations on secondary roads have focused mainly on measuring traffic volumes and patterns. On the whole. I believe that secondary roads have a greater impact on neighborhoods and communities than the large highways and bypasses designed to circumvent most residential and commercial areas. The secondary mad system permeates housing and business developments, and any changes to this system could damage the delicate balance of residential, recreational,, commercial, and hadustrial areas that foster a sustainable community. I would like to re-focus the discussion of secondary road development to involve broad issues such as community sustainability and comprehensive planning. The proposed extension of Greenbrier Drive offers an excellent opportunity to accomplish this aim. The $1.7 million Greenbrier proposal involves the construction of a three to five lane, 40 to 45 mile per hour road from the Rock Store on Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive, through the Townwood neighborhood and the Einstein School property, behind Garden Court and Birnam Wood, adjacent to Minor Hill, and through a portion of Whitewood Park. This road would bisect an area that I call the Commonwealth Community - a two square mile region surrounded by Route 29, Rio Road West, and Hydraulic Road. The Commonwealth Cormnunity is one of those areas that has achieved a balance of residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial regions that generates a sustainable locality. The core of the community is residential, where apartments, duplexes, stand alone homes, and subsidized housing exists. This core is home to approximately 5,000 residents, and has zoning designations that range from five to 30 domicile units per acre. Whitewood Park, the only recreational space for the people in the area, sits adjacent to the residential area. Commercial and industrial regions ring the periphery of the community, with Sperry and Comdial isolated at the corner of Route 29 and Hydraulic Road, and human service businesses circling the rest of the area. This balanced composition attracts people who are looking for secluded homes accessible recreational green space, close to shopping and human services such as schools and doctors' offices, and situated in locations where traffic flo~vs around residential areas or calmly meanders through neighborhoods. The Commonwealth Community is a desirable place to live, and a desirable community for planners who value high quality, concentrated, and diverse regions. In fact, this community has achieved several planning goals outlined in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan and the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council Report. The area has available "a variety of safe, sanitary and affordable housing types for County residents of all income groups," promotes 'Gan adequate standards of living and quality of life ... through a combination of mutually complementary public facilities and public human services." Whitewood Park serves as "an open space of... scenic ... resource [in a] growth area," and preserves a natural area which provides "the spiritual, social, and economic needs of human communities." The Commonwealth Community attracts development in a "growth area that provides a variety oftand uses .,. and services," thereby discouraging "rural residential development." The area clusters and integrates "business, industry, housing, recreation, and green space," and moderates "traffic volume and speed in residential areas for the safety of children." The proposed Greenbrier Drive extension would jeopardize the years of progress made by the Commonwealth Community to achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Council. Building a 35 to 40 mile an hour speed limit road through the residential and recreational area Would make the area unsafe, cause property values to fall, increase traffic noise and pollution, and limit, access to the recreational green space. The road would decrease the general quality of life in the area, and intensify demand for residential development outside of the urban ring. Given these circumstances, I ask the obvious question: why build the road? Alt of the plans and studies that call for the road construction claim that the throughway would improve transportation or increase mobility within the residential area. I argue that the widening of Rio Road West, Hydraulic Road, and Route 29 will result in the necessary transportation improvements. Also, the current road network within the Commonwealth Community provides optimal mobility in the area. Commonwealth Drive, Dominion Drive, Westfield Road, WhitewoodRoad, and Four Seasons Drive meander through the region, providing access to the community while calming traffic speed. Other potential reasons for the road include providing easier access to Route 29 for an anticipated population in Earlysville, and serving as a link between Route 29 and the proposed Western Bypass. The need to serve Earlysville residents has diminished since the area is no longer in the growth plan. The idea that Bypass traffic will flow through residential areas from an interchange over, the Rivanna Reservoir has received adequate criticism already! Building the Greenbrier Road extension would result ouly in the dismantling ora sustainable community that meets the goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy makers and planners would come m this conclusion only if they looked past evaluating secondary roads by measuring traffic volumes, and focused on the broader impacts on the surrounding communities. February 19th, 1997 Statement to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robert S. McAdams 1649 Cool Sprang Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 ph. 973-8098 RE: Extension of Greenbrier DrY--from Hydraulic Rd. to Whitewood Rd. I want to thank the Board of Supervisors for this opportunity to speak on the proposed extension of Greenbrier Drive. The most important point that must be made tonight is that the decision to extend Greenbrier Drive is much more than a traffic flow or transportation ~ssue. This road is planned for the high density, urban communities bordered by Rio Road, Hydraulic Road and the western side of Route 29. The four lane, 35 mile per hour highway proposed by VDOT will cut the Townwood community in half, disrupt the Einstein School, and substantially reduce the size of the only park in this area. The traffic on this road will be a real danger to the children within the communities, especially Townwood. This road will also bring noise and pollution to the doorsteps of many homes. As residents of this urban area we live in subdivisions of moderately high population density. With our neighbors from all the affected communities we have strongly opposed this road before the Planning Commission and informally with the supervisors. The vehemence of our arguments is justified, because at the core of this debate is the same issue that causes all the talk about reversion in Charlottesville and all the fears of rampant development in Albemarle. Simply put, we must preserve our urban communities. We must sustain a high quality of life and~strong property values in our densely populated neighborhoods. We must do this to avoid patterns of urban decay and the forced development of our rural areas. To reach the goal of sustainable urban communities we must be very careful not only in big decisions, but also in many small decisions. This includes the decision not to build an unneeded stretch ~f road. As I circulated a petition in Townwood I could stand with a person at their door and we could look at what we have there now° We could also imagine what would be there, if the proposed road were to be built. Everyone with whom I spoke s~gned the petition against the road. We ask the Board of SupervIsors not to sacrifice our neighborhoods for a doubtful transportation gain. We ask you to delete this project from the six year plan, to spend no more money on design or studies and to use the $1.7 million on other, needed road projects. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on this ~ssue. Townwood Property Owners' Association 1675 Cool Spring Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 February 19, 1997 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Board Members: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the opportunity to address you this evening. My name is Lois Tickle, and I am the president of Townwood Property Owners' Association. I would like to take this opportunity to present this petition against the Greenbrier Drive Extension, signed by residents, homeowners, and friends of Townwood. Townwood is a quiet neighborhood, consisting of 140 townhomes. We are a close-knit community, where children play together and residents assist each other. It is a very pleasant, peaceful place in which to live. Townwood will be drastically disrupted by the Greenbrier Drive Extension. It will run through the middle of our neighborhood, physically dividing us in half by a three to five lane road with a speed limit of 35 MPH (we all know this really means 45 5/1215). The currem traffic estimates for this road stand at5,8500 vehicles per day. Our neighborhood would see an increase m traffic of 200%! We will be the ONLY neighborhood dissected by a road which is a straight shot to Business Rte. 29. Property values would plummet. Townwood would no longer be a safe, peaceful community. It would be noisy, busy, dirty, traffic laden, and certainly not a place where children could ride bicycles or play safely. State-licensed, home-based daycare facilities in our neighborhood would be forced to close due to proximity restrictions. Studies show that crime skyrockets with increased traffic. As a community we have worked very hard to keep criminal activity to a minimum. We are VERY concerned about the safety of our children, our residents, and our homes. This extension will be detrimental to several other areas as well. Einstein School, a wonderful addition to the community at large, will suffer incredibly. Minor Hill, Garden Court, Bimham Wood, Wyndridge, Community Gardens and the Whitewood Apartments will all be hurt by the inereasedtraflic. Whitewood Parkwill not onlybe reduced in sizebut willbecome atrash dump for passmg vehicles. We in Townwood see no benefit from this extension to either our neighborhood or the community at large. There are no businesses which would be serviced by this road. It would probably route business away from those already located offWhitewood and Hydraulic Roads. The proposed extension would only shave four-tenths of a mile off the existing route (via Whitewood Road) between the Rock Store and Rte 29. The estimated $1.7 million needed to build this road is most certainly needed elsewhere. The current project underway to widen Hydraulic and Rio Roads can certainly handle any necessary traffic increases in the area without disrupting urban neighborhoods or eliminating needed green-space. The Greenbrier Drive Extension would give more impetus to VDOT to apply continued pressure on the county to allow an interchange on the proposed Rte. 29 bypass. With the widening of Rte 29, Rio and Hydraulic Roads, and the Rte 29 bypass proposal, Townwood will already by surrounded by 16 lanes of road - a veritable island in the midst of an asphalt sea. We plead with you, please, PLEASE keep us from becoming TWO islands! We in Townwood understand and appreciate the support the Board of Supervisors has shown the communities in this area by continuing to resist VDOT's efforts to add an interchange to the proposed Rte. 29 bypass, thus allowing excessive amounts of traffic to flow through our quiet neighborhood. We respectfully request that you continue to show your fiscal responsibility, your support for all the communities and businesses which would be adversely affected by this unnecessary road, and your common sense by following the recommendation of the County Planning Commission and voting to remove the Greenbrier Drive Extension project from any and all current and future plans. Thank you for your time and assistance! Sincerely, Lois Tickle, President Townwood Property Owners' Association Ron Chandross 68 Osk Forest Circle Charlottesville VA 22901 Good Even/ng, Ladies and Geutleman. This is the second time I have had the pleasure of addressing this body on the issue of the preservation of Whitewond Park as a permanent park. The first time was in 199C, when the issue was keeping th. is land as a park or using it for a school. This time I am speaking to you wearing two bats- as a long time resident of the Oak Forest commurdty, and as a member of the Board of the Piedmont group of the Sierra Club. I admit to a selfish interest in keeping the park in its present form I have had many, many hours (and several thousand miles.} of pleasant jogging and t~aining for upcoming race-walking events in this park. During my own workouts, I obviously notice what else is going on. I am pleased to report that not much bas changed since 1990. It still is a favorite area for joggers It is heavily used by families doing nothing but taking a pleasant walk in the woods. Dog owners use it to give their dogs some great outings. I've seen parents using the diversified plant life to give their youn~gsters botany lessons. The high school cross-countiy team uses it for practice. I see kids wall&ag and reading, or sitting down under a tree doing their homework. I understand many of the kids use it as a convenient and pleasant shortcut on their walk to school. It certainly beats talcing the bus. I have had the pleasure of foot racing against deer. Unlike the pavements, it's relatively cool and pleasant in the woods even in the heat of summer. I think the nearest thing is the fact that the park seems to be respected by its users. I have never felt unsafe in it. I have never come across anybody that I suspected of using the park as a base for illegal activities, or have ! heard any specific complaints. While there is trash along Whitewood Road, the park itself is kept amazingly clear. Many times, while I was pullhig on my running shoes, I asked myself where else I could go and nm off- pevement I thought immediately of Peun Park, but it certainly did seem ridiculous to drive such a distance to go for a nm I would then dismiss the problem and go about my business. While meeting with my friends and neighbors about the whole road issues, it was pointed out to me that there really is no other park land within this urban ring. In an area that prides itself on its beauty, and sensitivity to the environment, damage to this single vulnerable park should be considered unth/nkable. This is a smalI park (about 20 acres), It appears to have developed its own enxdronmeutal equilibrium with its surroundings. This equilibrium lets it maintain its diverse plant and animal life which require a variety of soil and water conditions. I knew that the planners say that they will be as sensitive to the enviroument as possible. However, even with their best intentions, and even if they had obtained advice from qualified ecologi~ (which I assume they have not) I don't think there is any way that destroying 2 acres (roughly 10% of the land area of the park) could have anything but major deleterious effects. Furt~rmore, in this real world that we live in, I would guess that the 2 acres of destruction would accidentally become 2.5-3.0 acres of total destruction, along with a region of partial damage. This evening, some of my other ueighbors will detail the damage that will be done to the Einstein school and to the Townwood Development. Construction of this road would certainly cause ninny residents (including myself) to reth/n& where we want to live, and we generally would try to get out of the area as soon as possible, before the inevitable fall of our property values. It seems to me that this is a direct violation of your own policy ofneighborhend sustainability. I've ~ven you the reasons the road should not be built Let's talk about possible reasons for building it. On a personal basis, ifI go for a haircut et Hilltop at high traffic times on I-lydraulic Road, it would save me from having to make an awkward left mm to get home. Since one way or another, I've always managed to make that left wilhin several minutes, I don't consider the 10 minutes~year it might save me adequate justification for supporting it. There are two justifications I have heard that we can dismiss out of hand. A- The road has always been on the 6-year plan, and I beheve on the 20-year plan. That may be true, and the road may have been a good idea at those times. However, this neighborhood has changed dramatically since those times. There has been major construction and rezoning which have grossly changed the dynamics of the area. We must evaluate this project on the basis of today, not on the basis of 20 (or 6) year old thin!ring B- We have already spent money planning it, and we don't want to lose this investment. Even the Pentagon is slowly shifting away from the "we must continue throwing good money after bad" approach to fiscal planning. Our planners give us three justifications for it. Quoting fi:om document 97.038. 1-A more diversified transportation network. I am sorry, but to my mind they mean a more diversified a~a_utomobile network. A more diversified transportation network nc~,ans firings like safer and more bike '[l~a~ (which perhaps could have prevented yesterdays tragic incident, where a UVA student colhded with a bus on Emmet Street), and more alternative ways of getting places- jimeys, better bus system, e~c. 2- better distribution of traffic in the area (more options). Mom options to do what? Have a major scenic trip home- hardly. Greatly shortening the trip home- Members of the planning commission showed that some people might save 0.4 miles. Is this really worth the expense and damage to neighborhoods that it would cause? 3- 16% reduction in trips on Hydraulic Road. Pardon me ifI seem confused. Aren't we in the process of spending megabucks to widen Hydraulic Road to make a more attractive route? Now we want to divert the traffic through neighborhoods, rather than keep it on our newest superhighway. Some of you know how I feel about the modeling that has been done on this project, and have read my letter on this topic in the Daily Progress. This everhng, I am going to give the modelers the benefit of the doubt, and assume that their projections are on the button. Where does that leave us? At no time do they tell us bow much time or fuel is saved by usage of this road. Instead, they give us Vehicle Trips/Day. I would suggest that this is interesting semi- raw date, but totally useless by itself in formulating a position. If we are talldng about 10000 cars/day each saving an hour on every trip, I would rethink my position. If we are talking about the average user of this road saving between 30 seconds and two minutes several times a week, I would have major questions about its value under any circumstance. We can all think of better ways to save that time, and better ways to use that money. We do not wish to build roads just for the sheer pleasure of building them. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board of Supervisors: In view of the damage to Whitewood park, in view of the damage to the Townwood development, in view of the damage to the Einstein schoOl, and in view of damage to the entire urban ring sustainability concept that my neighbors and I have shown will occur if this road is constructed, and in view of the lack of compensating advantages to our neighborhood, and the minimal advantage to the entire county, I respectfully request that the Greenbrier Road Extension be removed from the six year plan, that all further funding for this project be dropped immediately, and that Whitewood Park be redeeded as a preserved natural resource in perpetuiey. School I8~ Greenbrier Drive Ch~rtottesviIle, VA 22901 (804J 974-1991 February 19, 1997 My name is Preston Thomas and I am director of the Einstein School. I come before you this evening to urge you to vote agmnst the proposed extension to Greenbrier Drive. I believe you have three very good reasons for making this decision. First, the original purposes and plans for extending Greenbrier Drive no longer exist. Second, the road would do great damage to the park, neighborhoods, and school (the Einstein School) that lie in its path, and third, an ~mproved alternative to this road already exists. The plan to extend Greenbrier Drive was recommended in a Charlottesville- Albemarle Transportation Study as early as 1982. This project, as it was planned, had three major elements: 1. Earlysville was designated as a "high growth" area and the primary purpose of the road was to ease traffic flow for commuters. 2. A grade-separated interchange was planned for the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 North. 3. After Greenbrier Drive crossed Route 29. it was to be extended to connect with the downtown area. In the years that have passed since the road was originally planned, much has changed. Because of water problems, Earlysville is no longer designated as a high growth area. And the plan for a grade separated interchange at Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 North has been dropped by VDoT. Finally, Greenbrier Drive is no longer planned to connect with the downtown area because of geographical problems that have arisen. Thus none of the original reasons for the proposed extension of Greenbrier Drive are still valid. On the other hand this road would have a highly detrimental effect on to the school, neighborhoods, and park that lie in its path. At the South end the road would take 10% of Whitewood Park for its construction, and forever change the quiet, natural, and secluded atmosphere of this highly valued park. Much of the opposition to the road is based on this destruction of rare park space within the urban ring. The road would also fundamentally alter the nature of the charming and peaceful neighborhoods lying between Whitewood Road and Greenbrier Drive. These are the kinds of neighborhoods that must be sustained; they are quiet, with little traffic, and safe for children. All this would be lost if the road is allowed to bisect these neighborhoods. Einstein School lies at the north end of the proposed Greenbrier Drive Piedmont Environmental Council Statement to the Board of Supervisors February 19, 1997 Since at least 1982, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study has recommended that Greenbrier be extended to Hydraulic Road. This recommendation became part of the package of improvements to Route 29 North known as the "base case." Under the Four Party agreement between the Virginia Department of Transportation, City, County and University, VDoT was to build these improvements and the Meadowcreek Parkway before constructing the Western Bypass. As you all knot~ VDoT no longer intends to build the grade-separated intemhanges, which were the linchpin of the Four Party Agreement and the base case improvements. Despite VDoT's action, the PEC continues to support the phasing of improvements embodied in the Four Party Agreement. Extending Greenbrier, however, appears to have little to do with the movement of traffic along Route 29 North. While achieving a "more diversified transportation network" is certainly a worthwhile goal under most circumstances, it should be weighed against the impact on the Park. That impact gods beyond the two acres mentioned in the staff report. Extending Greenbrier would create a park wrapped in asphalt, cut off from the community by two heavily traveled roadways, The din of trucks and cars would certainly extend beyond the right-of-way to what is now one of the last quiet places in the growth area. Given the absence of evidence linking the extension of Greenbrier to a significant improvement in traffic along the Route 29 North corridor, we join the neighborhoods in asking that you delete this project from your priodty list, Furthermore, we ask that you consider placing the park under a permanent conservation easement to insure that this space will remain green for years to come, ;' !'::,...,:,,,;~.:.::~, ,'~:'..:,'~..,-'.~,i/h'~.7.Box;~;6~:~.~.: ~val'rc~aton. Virginia · 20188 · 540-347-2334 · Fax 540-349-9003 ~,~,',: :4.~.... 1~[~'1;1, ~os~ :~l[l, Drlve..~ Suite One -.CharJo~esvllle. ~rglnla * 22~3 * ~977-2033 · F~X 8~977~3~ Environmental ProtetTlng the Environment ts Eucrybod~ Statement to the Board , February 19, Since at least 1982, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study has recommended that Greenbrier be extended to Hydraulic Road. This recommendation became part of the package of improvements to Route 29 North known as the "base case/' Under the Four Party agreement between the Virginia Department of Transportation, City, County and University, VDoT was to build these improvements and the Meadowcreek Parkway before constructing the Westem Bypass. As you all know, VDoT no longer intends to build the grade-separated interchanges, which were the linchpin of the Four Party Agreement and the base case improvements. Despite VDoT's action, the PEC continues to support the phasing of improvements embodied in the Four Party Agreement. Extending Greenbrier, however, appears to have little to do with the movement of traffic along Route 29 North While achieving a "more diversified transportation network" is certainly a worthwhile goal under most circumstances, it should be weighed against the impact on the Park. That impact goes beyond the two acres mentioned in the staff report. Extending Greenbrier would create a park wrapped in asphalt, cut off from the community by two heavily traveled roadways. The din of trucks and cars would certainly extend beyond the right-of-way to what is now one of the last quiet places in the growth area. Given the absence of evidence linking the extension of Greenbrier to a significant improvement in traffic along the Route 29 North corridor, we join the neighborhoods in asking ti~at you delete this prolect from your priority list. Furthermore, we ask that you consider placing the park under a permanent conservation easement to insure that this space will remain green for years to come. YEaR RE~L ESTATE ~PPRAI~ ~OUN, OF ~L~,,~L~ VIRGINI~ 1997 1995 1993 1991 1989 1982 $227 900 $192 400 $185 400 $149 300 $75 900 $13 900 $29,300 $24,000 $22,500 $19,000 $13,000 $13,000 ~:~ 200 $216 400 ~/ 900 $8~ 900 $26,900 19% 24% 5O% 27~ PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: On October 15, 1980 a plat was approved by the Planning_Co,mission to create Parcels 10 and 10A on Tax Map 61. -~Th~E~ste~S~k~!~!~as made a previous application (SP-87-~0')'~o-X~ca~e-~h~ntersect~on of Route 660 and Route 676. That petition was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission due to strong opposition from area residents. At their meeting of September 16, 1987, the Board of Supervisors accepted the applicant's request to withdraw the petition. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as medium density residential in Urban Neighborhood 1. Staff opinion is the proposed use is compatible with this land use designation. STAFF COMMENT: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Board of Supervisors to make findings that the proposed use: will not be of substantial-detriment to adjacent property; will not change the character of the district; and will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. As to zoning, staff views certain uses as beneficial 5o the social fabric of the community. The Zoning Ordinance provides for a category of such uses by special use permit in all residential zoning districts which includes day care/nursery school facilities, churches, and private schools. Such uses are reviewed by staff in terms of physical impact on the area. The primary physical impact will be the construction of the planned recreational facilities previously mentioned. There appears to be ample area for these facilities and staff will review the adequacy of their specific location at the time of site plan submittal. The site plan shall also show improvements to the existing access onto Gresnbriar Drive to include a paved entrance of sufficient width to accommodate two-way traffic. The Virginia Department iof Transportation has stated that the private school should generate less vehicle trips per day than could be anticipated if the property ~.~u~.D~,~e~,~,~h~ ~e_x,i.s', i':-:~ z~:::l;:%.' (:;.:~.'~ At:,~ch.'.'."';t D;. The only unresolved issue identified by staff is the recommended condition requiring the existing buildings to connect to public water. The property is currently served Chairman Date Designated Agent Date This is a correct and accurate plat 3~,C<ER'S APPROVAL: This division is made · :ith the free consen~ of the undersigned .~,.v~er, proprieccrs or Erus~ees. OT5 hO~UR~HER DWIS~ON ~ ,4THOUT PLANNING COmMiSSiON PPROVAL .% The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before .~e this /f~ ~c ~' .a~ 1979. My comm{~sion expires ~_~.az~"~ ~ /~; · ~OT~ S~L~ ZONED R-2 -'RIAL D~STRtCT PROPERTY plAT SHOWING PARCEL A-I 8, PARCEL A-2,ADIVISION OF PARCEL A, SHOWN ON TAX MAP 61 PARCEL I0 AND RECORDED tN D.B.505 R9 5C.aLF':I'.,IO0 ALIBEMARLIr COUNTY,%*'A. AUG. 1979 I,RON L TOWNWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION PETITION TO STOP GREENBRIER DRIVE EXTENDED Name Address TOWNWOOD PROPERTY' OWNERS' ASSOCIATION PETITION TO STOP GREENBRIER DRIVE EXTENDED Name ~r~' ~--~/~/ l~ Address O_7- TOWNWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION PETITION TO STOP GREENBRIER DRIVE EXTENDED Name Address ~/~I &/~o,~ Ix, ..,qg, zl d-71,~cLc L.n. TOWNWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION PETITION TO STOP GREENBRIER DRIVE EXTENDED Albemarle County and the Virginia Department of Transportation are planning to extend Greenbrier Drive from Hydraulic Road to Route 29. This new road would come straight through Townwood, literally cutting it in half; through the Einstein Property, and connect to the "other" end of Greenbrier Drive, which intersects Route 29. The Townwood Property Owners' Board of Directors is against this connection for the following reasons: 1. The road will be between 3 and 5 lanes wide, with probably a 35 MPH speed limit; 2. The estimated traffic load is 4600 cars per day; 3. The cost is estimated at $1.7 MILLION of taxpayers money; 4. The close proximity of this road to our homes will lower property values; This project will provide a through route in the middle of our neighborhood, ~lecreasing safety, decreasing prwacy, ane increasing the potential for crime. 6. There are no current or potential business which will be serviced by this road; Traveling from the Rock Store to Whitewood Road and on to Route 29 is only .04 (four- tenths) of a mile longer than the proposed road; The proposed route will either eliminate Whitewood Park completely, or drastically reduce its size; OveralJ, there is no benefit to this road; only detrimental results to our neighborhood and others. Townwood Board of Directors is asking that you sign this petition, that we might make our views known in total to the County Board of Supervisors. Your assistance is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!!! Address TOWNWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION PETITION TO STOP GREENBRIER DRIVE EXTENDED Albemarle County and the Virginia Department of Transportation are planning to extend Greenbrier Drive from Hydraulic Road to Route 29, This new road would come straight through Townwood, literally cutting it in half; through the Einstein Pro perry, and connect to the "other" end of Greenbrier Drive, which intersects Route 29, The Townwood Property Owners' Board of Directors is against this connection for the following reasons: 1. The road will be between 3 and 5 lanes wide, with probably a 35 MPH speed limit; 2. The estimated traffic Icad is 4600 cars per day; 3. The cost is estimated at 81.7 MILLION of taxpayers money; 4. The close proximity of this road To our homes will lower property values; 5, This project will provide a through route in the middle of our neighborhood, decreasing safety, decreasing privacy, and increasing the potential for crime. 6. There are no current or potential business which will be serviced by this road; 7. Traveling from the Rock Store to Whitewood Road and on to Route 29 is only ,04 (four- , tenths) of a mile longer than the proposed road; 8. The proposed route will either eliminate Whitewood Park completely, or drastically reduce its size; 9. Overall, there is no benefit to this road; only detrimental results to our neighborhood and others. Townwood Board of DirecTors is asking that you sign this petition, that we might make our wews known in total to the County Board of Supervisors. Your assistance is GREATLY APPRECIATED Name Address TOWNWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION PETITION TO STOP GREENBRIER DRIVE EXTENDED Address 'rOWNWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION PETITION TO STOP GREENBRIER DRIVE EXTENDED Albemarle County and the Virginia Department of Transportation are planning to extend Greenbrier Drive from Hydraulic Road to Route 29, This new road would come straight through Townwood, literally cutting it in half; through the Einstein Property, and connect to the "other" end of Greenbrier Drive, which intersects Route 29. The Townwood Property Owners' Board of Directors is against this connection for the following reasons: 1. The road will be between 3 and 5 lanes wide, with probably a 35 MPH speed limit; 2, The estimated traffic Icad is 4600 cars per day; 3. The cost is estimated at $1.7 MILLION of taxpayers money; 4. The close proximity of this road to our homes will lower property values; This project will provide a through route in the middle of our neighborhood, decreasing safety, decreasing privacy, and increasing the potential for crime. 6. There are no current or potential business which will be serviced by this road; Traveling from the Rock Store to Whitewood Road and on to Route 29 is only .04 (four- tenths) of a mile longer than the proposed road; The proposed route will either eliminate Whitewood Park completely, or drastically reduce its size; OVbrall, there is no benefit to this road; only detrimental results to our neighborhood and others. Townwood Board of Directors is asking that you sign this petition, that we might make our views known in total to the County Board of Supervisors. Your assistance is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!!! Name , Address TOWNWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION PETITION TO STOP (~REENBRIER DRIVE EXTENDED Albemarle County and the Virginia Department of Transportation ere planning to extend Greenbrier Drive from Hydraulic Road to Route 29. This n~w road would come straight through Townwood, literally cutting it in half; through the Einstein Property, and connect to the "other" end of Greenbrier Drive, which intersects Route 29. The Townwood Property Owners' Board of Directors Js against this connection for the following reasons: 1. The road will be between 3 and 5 lanes wide, with probably a 35 MPH speed limit; 2. The estimated traffic load is 4600 cars per day; 3. The cost is estimated at ~1.7 MILLION of taxpayers money; 4. The close proximity of this road to our homes will lower property values; This project will provide a through route in the middle of our neighborhood, decreasing safety, decreasing privacy, and increasing the potential for crime. 6. There are no current or potential business which wilt be serviced by this road; Traveling from the Rock Store to Whitewood Road and on to Route 29 is only .04 (four- tenths) of a mile longer than the proposed roae; The proposed route will either eliminate Whitewood Park completely, or drastically reduce its size; Overall, there is no benefit to this road; only detrimental results to our neighborhood and others. Townwood Board of Directors is asking that you sign this petition, that we might make our views known in total to the County Board of Supervisors. Your assistance is GREATLY APPRECIATED!H !! Name Address TOWNWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION PETITION TO STOP GREENBRIER DRIVE EXTENDED Albemarle County and the Virginia Department of Transportation are planning tO extend Greenbrier Drive from Hydraulic Road to Route 29. This new road would come straight through Townwood, literally cutting it in half; through the Einstein Property, and connect to the "other" end of Greenbrier Drive, which intersects Route 29. The Townwood Property Owners' Board of Directors is against this connection for the following reasons: 1. The road will be between 3 and 5 lanes wide, with probably a 35 MPH speed Ii_mit; 2. The estimated traffic Icad' is 4600 cars per day; 3. The cost is estimated at $1.7 MILLION of taxpayers money; 4. The close proximity of this road to our homes will lower property values; This project will provide a through route in the middle of Our neighborhood, decreasing safety, decreasing privacy, and increasing the potentia for cr~me. 6. There are no current or potential business which will be serviced by this road; Traveling from the Rock Store to Whitewood Road and on to Route 29 is only .04 (four- tenths) of a mile longer than the proposed road; The proposed route will either eliminate Whitewood Park completely, or drastically reduce its size; Overall, there is no benefit to this'road; only detrimental results to our neighborhood and others. Townwood Board of Directors is asking that you sign this petition, that we might make our v~ews known in total to the County Board of Supervisors. Your assistance is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!!! Name TOWNWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION PETITION TO STOP GREENBRIER DRIVE EXTENDED Albemarle County and the Virginia Department of Transportation are planning to extend Greenbrier Drive from Hydraulic Road to Route 29, This new road would come straight through Townwooe, literally cutting it in half; through the Einstein Property, and connect to the "other" end of Greenbrier Drive, which intersects Route 29. The Townwood Property Owners' Board of Directors is against this connection for the following reasons: 1. The road wilt be between 3 and 5 lanes wide, with probably a 35 MPH speed limit; 2. The estimated traffic load is 4600 cars per day; 3. The cost is estimated at $1.7 MILLION of taxpayers money; 4. The close proximity of this road to our homes will lower property values; This project will provide a through route in the middle of our neighborhood, decreasing safety, decreasing privacy, and ~ncreasing the potential for crime. 6. There are no current or potential business which will be serviced by this road; Traveling from the Rock Store to Whitewood Road and on to Route 29 is only .04 (four- tenths) of a mile longer than the proposed road; The proposed route will either eliminate Whitewood Park completely, or drastically reduce its size; Overall, there is no benefit to this road; only detrimental results to our neighborhood and others. Townwood Board of Directors is asking that you sign this petition, that we might make our views known in total to the County Board of Su ~ervisors. Your assistance is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!!! Name Address February 19th, 1997 Statement to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robert S. McAdams 1649 Cool Spring Rd. Charlottesville, VA ph. 973-8098 22901 RE: Extension of Greenbrier Dr~from Hydraulic Rd. to Whitewood Rd. I want to thank the Board of Supervisors for this opportunity to speak on the proposed extension of Greenbrier Drive. The most important point that must be made tonight is that the decision to extend Greenbrier Drive is much more than a traffic flow or transportation issue. This road is planned for the high density, urban communities bordered by Rio Road, Hydraulic Road and the western side of Route 29. The four lane, 35 mile per hour highway proposed by VDOT will cut the Townwood community in half, disrupt the Einstein School, and substantially reduce the size of the only park in this area. The traffic on this road will be a real danger to the children within the communities, especially Townwood. This road will also bring noise and pollution to the doorsteps of many homes. As residents of this urban area we live in subdivisions of moderately high population density. With our neighbors from al/ the affected communities we have strongly opposed this road before the Planning Commission and informally with the superv!sors. The vehemence of our arguments is justified, because at the core of this debate is the same issue that causes all the talk about reversion in Charlottesville and all the fears of rampant development in Albemarle. Simply put, we must preserve our urban communities. We must sustain a high quality of life and strong property values in our densely populated neighborhoods. We must do this .to avoid patterns of urban decay and the forced development of our rural areas. To reach the goal of sustainable urban communities we must be very careful not only in big decisions, but also in many small decisions. This includes the decision not to build an unneeded stretch ~ road. As I circulated a petition in Townwood I could stand with a person at their door and we could look at what we have there now. We could also imagine what would be there, if the proposed road were to be built. Everyone with whom I spoke signed the petition against the road. We ask the Board of Supervisors not to sacrifice our neighborhoods for a doubtful transportation gain. We ask you to delete this project from the six year plan, to spend no more money on design or studies and to use the $1.7 million on other, needed road projects. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on this issue. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE CERTIFICATION OWNERS APPROVAL PLA hi N I NG COMMISSION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THIS SUSDmVlStOH IS UADE WfTH THE CONSENT OF THE THiS iS A CORRECT AND UND~ER$1GNED OWNERS,FROPRIE~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ACCURATE PLA T. ORS AN~/OR TRUSTEES. ALL .... ROADS AND STREETS IF~T CHA I R M A N ~ ~ ~ESI6NAT[ D ~E~ PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED ARE HERESY DEDICATED TO PU8~Ii ~-/- ~ 7-/-~ A RTHU R 'F. D A T E D A T E CERTI FI C A T E ~. lt~O , / ~ 61- 19 · 61- ~ .~. ~ ' '.. ' . , ~. ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ,. , ~ · ~- 6/0 - ~ LARRY J. MCELWAINE z'~ . LOT /8 LOI /9 I I Dens/tH = 5./ Onltspor~c~e COUNTY OF ALB EMA ~ L E , S TA T E OF Vi ~ G J N ~ A , TO-W I T L O T S 55 L ~ ~ TO LOTS 66 L & ~ PHASE TWO W Y N R I D G E ALBEMARLE COUNTY V iR Gl N IA JUNE 5, 19R5 0 ~00 200 300 400 500 600 G raph~c S co le In Fee f R E Y HUFFMAN 8~ A SS O C I A T E S , ENGiNEERING,LAND S UR VE Y I N G mhd LAND B AUB LTD CIVIL PLANNING HYDRAULIC GREENBRIER 21.070 10.540 10,530 11,390 5,670 5,700 TOTAL OUT IN TOTAL OUT IN OVo~ o~.~r~v~o,~~ )lUVd OgT.:2Y96ffRI) t4,:59 yBOT TEL:804 °'q 3759 Page 2 October 23, t996 Mr. Jack Kels~y Site PLan Review Meetimg SDP-96-097 Forest Sprinqs ~b{3e Home Center Major Site PLan Amendme~t Route 29 SBL ,~1)/ The two existing entrances currently serving Wheels For Less do not meet the minimum 550' sight distance requirements. The sight distance can be improved by raising the grade in the entrances approximatel~ Landscaping planted between the two entrances =s also obstruct/~g sight distance and is within the VDOT fight of way without a per, it. A 12' wide turn lane. 200' in length, with a 200' taper will be required for safety reasons to serve this site. A dedication of right of way may be necessary :o accommodmta the improvements. To minimize entrances along the 29 Corridor, the Department strongly recommends only one en~ranc~ be allowed ~o serve ~his site. Preliminary project plans (6029-002-F21, CS01) indicates significant changes to the roadway in this area. 8DP-96-105 Rio Hills ShopDin~ Center Major Site ~lan Amendment, Route 29/1417 The Department recommends the center roadway serving Rio Hills he widened an additional 3'-6' along the ~ron=age of the outlet A & B, back ro the secohd intersec=lon within the shopping center, In addition the roadway should be stripped for (2) e~ress lanea and (1) ingress, with the center island removed. These improvements are being requested due to cross-over and signal considerations for this area on Woodbrook Drive (Rt. 1417). SL~B-96-081 LaClyde R~n preliminary Plat, Route 686 1) The proposed entrance location is adequaue, provided the 25' right of way dedication zs made as proposed. This area of dedication will be required =o be cleared of vegetation to provide the 350' sight dmstance req~ir ement. 2) Road plans and drainage computations will be required if ~his is to be a state maintained roadway. When preparln~ road plans, please follow following guidelines: NBL Route TEL:804 o-" 3759 JATTACH~ JAN 2 ? l~97 £xisUng R/W 15, Note: Pavement Design 8" Aggr ~21-A - Primed ti January 30, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept, ot Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Nancy L. Porritt 4821 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22911 SP-96-43 Nancy Porritt, Piney Mountain Preschool and Children's Cottage Tax Map 21, Parcel 12A Dear Ms. Porritt: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 28, 1997, unanimously recommended approvalof the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Installation of entrance improvements and 100 foot taper in accordance with sketch approved by VDOT and the Acting County Engineer (received January 27, 1997) prior to commencement of the use (attached). Compliance with supplementary regulations, Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Health Department approval. The house used for the preschool/child care fanction shall not also be used as a residence. Child care is limited to 9 children. Any increase will require an amendment to the special use permit. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on FEBRUARY 19, 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, Mary Joy Scala Senior Planner MJS/jcf cc: ~E~ll/Carey Amelia McCulley Geraldine L. Porritt STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA JANUARY 28, 1997 FEBRUARY 19, 1997 SP 96-43 NANCY L. PORRITT The Planning Commission at its meeting on January 7, 1997 unanimously deferred this petition to its January 28, 1997 meeting in order to allow time for the applicant to meet with the Virginia Department of Transportation on the question of a commercial entrance and taper lane. The applicant met with Bill Mills of VDOT and Jack Kelsey, Acting County Engineer. Both have approved the attached sketch of proposed entrance improvements. AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Installation of co~crc~al entrance improvements and 100 foot taper in accordance with VDOT cc~ir,~'r~¢nt~ dated 1 I/21/96 sketch approved by VDOT and the Acting County En_mneer (received January 27. 1997) prior to commencement of the use. Compliance with supplementary regulations, Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Health Department approval. The house used for the preschool/child care function shall not also be used as a residence. Child care is limited to 9 children. Any increase will require an amendment to the special use permit. STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA JANUARY 7, 1997 (DEFERRED FROM DECEMBER 17, 1996) JANUARY 15, 1997 SP 96-43 NANCY L. PORRITT Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to establish a private preschool/child care facility. for fewer than 9 children of ages 2 1/2 - 5 years in one of two single family residences located on 2.7 acres. Petition: Petition to establish a day care, child care or nursery facility (Section 10.2.2.7) to serve 6-9 children on a 2.7 acre property, Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 12A, is located on the east side of Route 29 North, across from GE Fanuc in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is not within a designated Development Area (Rural Area 2). (See maps - Attachment A). Character of the Area: This property is located adjacent to the Piney Mountain Community Development Area. The area around this property is a mix of rural, commercial, and industrial uses. The property is located along a wooded stretch of Route 29, with the Bamboo House Restaurant immediately north of the subject property (zoned RA, Rural Areas), GE/Fanuc and a church across Route 29 (zoned LI, Light Industry), Briarwood residential development just south of GE/Fanuc (zoned R-4 PRD, Planned Residential Development), and scattered dwellings on open land to the north and east (zoned PA). There is also some undeveloped R-4 PRD zoning to the south. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance [special use permit criterial and recommends approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: None available. Comprehensive Plan: This site is designated Rural Area. The Piney Mountain Community Development Area is located adjacent across Route 29, and also approximately 1000 feet to the south of the subject property. In both areas it is designated Industrial Service. Route 29 is a designated Entrance Corridor. Child care is permitted by special use permit in the Rural Area, intended primarily as a service for the rural population. In this case, the use would be located in the Rural Area but would serve primarily the Development Area. In general, a new commercial use should be located in the Development Area, rather than in this Rural Arealocation. The Comprehensive Plan states, "Determination of boundaries for each Development Area is necessary to distinguish a self- contained geographic place and preclude sprawl of development." Inthe case of this child care facility, the small scale of the proposal and the use of an existing structure are mitigating considerations, STAFF COMMENT; The applicant's description and justification of this request is attached. (See applicant's proposal - Attachment B). Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, criteria for issuance ora special use permit, as follows: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use pemfits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use Will not be of substantial detriment to ad_iacent property, there are two possible impacts of the proposed use: traffic (often at rush hour, cars will be entering and exiting the property from Route 29) and possible noise. Staff opinion is that noise will not be a concern. There will be a fenced play area outside, but most activity will take place indoors. The nearest dwelling (other than the applicant's mother's house) is about 400 feet to the east, with wooded area between. Regarding traffic impacts, the Virginia Department of Transportation notes that, "The subject location meets sight distance requirements and a commercial entrance would be required. Although by the numbers it does not require a turn lane, we would recommend a taper that would be paved along the existing shoulder with minimal widening perhaps. This is a very busy section of highway and the short taper would allow for a safer exit into the entrance." (See VDOT comments - Attachment C). that the character of the district will not be changed therebw Staff opinion is that, except for increased traffic, the proposed use would be very similar in character to the adjacent residential uses. The restriction on the intensity of the use will limit the traffic impacts. The Department of Building Code and Zoning Services notes that 9 children maximum should be made a condition of approval to avoid confusion in the future. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, relation to the environment, and relation to Comprehensive Plan as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6, and has found this application to be in harmony with these sections. As long as the use is limited in scale to 9 children and takes pIace within the existing structure, it will not have a significant impact onthe Rural Area. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use is similar in character to a single family dwelling or home occupation use. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.1.6 contains supplementary regulations for day care, nursey facilities. They require licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare and periodic inspection by the fire official. Compliance with the supplementary regulations is a condition of approval of this permit. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The proposed use may promote public health and welfare. Public safety issues are addressed by VDOT requirements. The Health Department has indicated to the applicant that the existing drainfield is sufficient m support the day care use and the other house, as long as the day care structure is not used as a residence also. This is recommended as a condition of approval. SUMMARY; Staffopinion is that this request is in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Installation of commercial entrance and 100 foot taper in accordance with VDOT comments dated 11/21/96 prior to commencement of the use. 2. Compliance with supplementary regulations, Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Health Department approval: The house used for the preschool/child care function shall not also be used as a residence. 4. Child care is limited to 9 children. Any increase will require an amendment to the special use permit. ATTACHMENTS: A - Maps B - Applicant's Proposal C - VDOT Comments Y EARLYSVILLE AREA 3P-96-43 Piney Mountain Preschool C'004, ~ p ALBEMARLE COUNT. IATTACHMEN i At 2C SP-96-43 Piney Mountain Preschool / ~/ / WHITE HALL RIVANNA DISTRIGTS SECTION 21 Special Use Permit Application DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: On Route 29 North (tax map 21, parcel 12A), my mother, Geraldine Porritt, owns two residential dwellings on 2.7 acres of road frontage property. I, Nancy Porritt, her daughter, would like to use the smaller of the two buildings as a private preschool and child care facility. The maximum enrollment would be 6 to 9 children, in the age range of 2 ~ to 5 years (pre-k). The proposed preschool would be a separate facility, not a Home Occupation Child Care. I have had meetings with Ms. Jan Sprinkle from Zoning, Mr. Jay Schlothauer from Building Inspections, and Mr. Bill Fritz from the Planning Staff. I have had the septic system and drain field inspected by Mr. Gary Rice of the Health Department. He has given his approval and requested that this application be sent specifically to him. Mr. Jim Kesterson from the Virginia Department of Transportation has inspected the entrance to the property off of 29 North and has provided me with a diagram and other information detailing the modifications to be made to the existing entrance. I have also been in con tact with Ms. Paula Zirk at the Licensing Dept. in Verona, Va. and received information and assistance in order to comply with Va. State Licensing Requirements for a Child Care Facility. JUSTIFICATION: I hold a Virginia Collegiate Professional Teaching License and two endorsements in grades NK-4th and 4 -8th. I have taught in public schools, at the primary level, for 5 years and have two years of experience in a private preschool setting, one of those years as the Director. The Northern Albemarle Co. and Greene Co. areas suffer from a real lack of quality and affordable preschools and child care facilities. The population in these regions is increasing continually but child care options have remained severely limited. As~a First Grade public .s. chool teacher I have noted the behavioral and aca~demic advantages of chddren who have attended preschool. With the new, more rigorous Virginia Standards of Learning now in place, children who have not had some preschool early learning experiences tend to fall dramatically behind their peers who have had these experiences. My proposed preschool is in an excellent location for families in this area and is especially convenient for people who work in the Charlottesville area. I am Very excited about the possibility of offering an excellent and affordable educational experience to local families with young children. JUANITA T. RIDDLE 4,08 Acres lei LOVING 8, ' ALBEMARLE ACRES INC. PLAT SHOWING A SURVEY OF~ A 4.08 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON U.S. RT. 29 NEAR PINEY MOUNTAIN IN ALBEMARLE CO. THOMAS O. BLUE Mr. Ran Keeler December Public Hearings Page 3 November 21, 1996 > The total traffic volumes for year 2004 in Figure V coming out of the estrance ali9ning with Country Green Road are lower than tile site generated trips shown in Figure 6 for site traffic only. > Figure 8 indicates only a single left needed at intersection of Old Lynchburg and 5th. Street Extended, however tile volumes indicate that dual lefts will be needed EBL on Old Lynchburg Road. > In order to ensure proper signal operation at 5th. Street Extended and Stage Coach Road ~ right turn lane is needed o~ ,'itage Coach Road. The vertical curve at this intersection needs to be considered so that the enl:rance into site and Stage Coach Road can be sequenced together. > A Fioht tur~ lane Eastbouud on 5th. Street at the 1-64 Eastbound ramp will be required In general, the interchan(3e exit: rampa ahould have additional lanes provided for left and right hand movemenl~s Tile interchange, as pointed our earlier, reflects a level of Service F at peak hours, but wit]] such an impact of traffic along 5th. Street, this would probably be a continuous situation and signals should certainly be analyzed at these two ramp locations. Although Mr. Flynn states that this interchan§e is reco~nmended in CATS Study 2015 (Final Draft October 23, 1996 for study) the reality of ae improvement through sormal channels is probably yearn away. SP-96-39 Stature Family Trust, Route 687 This stream crossing shall not impact VDOT roadways. ~/~6-43 Nancy Porritt - Piney Mountain & Childrens Cottaqe, Route 29 N. The subject location meets sight distance requirements and a commercial entrance would be required. Although by the numbers it does not require a turn lane, we would recommend a taper that would be paved along the existing shoulder with minimal widening perhaps. This is a very busy section of highway and tile short taper would allow for a safer exit into the entrance. January 23, 1997 Dept. of Planning & Community 401 Mclntire Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804} 296-5823 Earl H. Burton, ETAL 1870 Lambs Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 ZMA-96-23 Earl Burton Tax Map 32C(3), Parcel 1 (part of) Dear Mr. Burton: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 21, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the BOard of Supervisors. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public conunent at their meeting on FEBRUARY19. 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, Willliam D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf CC: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Engineering Depanmem STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: William D. Fritz January 21, 1997 February I9, 1997 ZMA 96-23 Burton Anolieant's Pronosal: The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 0.5 acres from R-4, Residential to CO, Commercial Office. This site is at the entrance te Deerwood Subdivisinn which is located on Airport Road. This rezoning request would establish commercial zoning at the entrance to the Deerwood Subdivision. The access to this commercial area would be limited by the Virginia Department of Transportation to Deerwood Drive. Petition: Petition to rezone approximately 0.5 acres from R-4, Residential to CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 32C(3), Parcel l(part), is located on the south side of Rt. 649 approximatel~ 0.2 miles east of Rt. 606 in the southeast comer &the intersection of Rt. 649 and Deerwood Drive in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Neighborhood Density (3-6 dwelling units per acre) in the Community of Hollymead. Character of the Area'._ This site is located at the entrance to the Deerwood Subdivision and will be accessed from Deerwood Drive. A single family dwelling is located south of and adjacent m this site. The property immediately to the east is vacant but zoned CO. The property opposite Rt. 649 from this site is zoned LI, Light Industry. Property immediately to the west of this site, in front of Deerwood is vacant. Property fronting on Route 649 west of and adjacent to the Deerwood Subdivision is developed with an office. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial. Plannin~ and Zoning History: February 14, 1966 - Plat of Deerwood was approved. This plat showed 112 lots including 53 tots in the mar of the development which is currently zoned FA. The currently undeveloped area of Deerwood fronting on Rt. 649, including the area currently under review, was shown as Commercial Area. [Staff has reviewed all edooted zoning mapsfor this area and determined that commercial zoning was never ntaced on any portion of Deerwood.l October 17, 1968 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-14 rezoning a portion of the existing Deerwood development from A-1 to R-1 November 19, 1970 - The Board of Supervisors denied ZMA-133 which was a request to rezone a portion of the Deerwood development from A-1 to R-1. December 21, 1972 - The Board of Supervisors approved SP-227 permitting a central septic system m serve 10 residences in the existing Deerwood development. October 5, 1993 - The Plarming Commission accepted a mquest for withdrawal. Th'lsmquestwas for 18.5 acres form RA, to R-4. Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended for Neighborhood Density (3-6 dwelling units per acre) use. The area to the east is recommended for Office Service. This site lies clearly within the residential area shown on the land use plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation reflects the character and topography of the site. Approximately 2.1 acres of the original Deenvood Subdivision is zoned R-4, shown for residential use in the comprehensive plan and ondeveloped. [The parcel under review is 0.5 acres of this area.] This 2.1 acre undeveloped portion of Deerwood was not considered for non-residential designation in the most recent review of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 (Attachment C). Staff opinion is that the proposed request is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.1 and 1.6 as the zoning is not in compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. A site plan has been submitted to indicate a possible method of development of the property. While this plan is not proffered it does allow staffto determine the feasibility and impact of development of the site. The property appears to be able to accommodate a building of approximately 3,200 square feet. Under the existing zoning the property could accommodate 1 (one) dwelling unit. Commercial development of this site will result in an increase in traffic at the entrance to this residential area. In prewons review for rezoning a portion of Deerwood it was determined that Deerwood Drive was below the standard recommended by the Department of Transportation. No natural barriers exist between this site and the adjacent residential development. Even with the requirements of the ordinance for setbacks and the establishment of landscaping the commercial area will have an impact on the existing residential area. All land surrounding the Deerwood Subdivision, including land on the north side of Rt. 649, carries non- residential zoning. Locating commercial development at the entrance of Deerwood would further erode the residential character of the existing development. Based on this analysis the location of commarcial activity at the entrance to the Deerwood Subdivision would have a significant adverse impact on the charactar of the existing residential development. Therefore, in the opinion of stuff this rezoning is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 1.5. Staff has also reviewed the purpose and intent of the CO district as conta'med in Section 23.1. This district is intended to serve as a buffer between residential districts and more intensive commercial and industrial districts. The area under review is located adjacent to Rt. 649 which carries a significant volume of traffic. Office uses may provide a reasonable transitional use between the Deerwood residential development (with appropriate development/design measures) and the high volume Airport 2 Road and LI zoning on the north side of Route 649. Route 649 is proposed for improvements. However, no design information is available. Historically, staff has viewed high volume roadways in a manner similar to more intensive commercial districts when review'rog requests for commercial zoning in areas of residential development. However, staff opinion is that while the property under review may not be the most desirable residential site the existing zoning is more appropriate than the proposed zoning designation. The proposed CO zoning will introduce commercial activity adjacent to Deerwood and establish a pmeedant encouraging commercial activity on the remaining undeveloped residential area of Deerwood which also fronts on Rt. 649. The area under review has never been zoned commercially or recommended for commercial activity in the Comprehensive Plan. Staffnotes that the residents of Deerwood have a reasonable assumption that this area would be developed residentially based on the content of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff notes that property immediately to the west of Deerwood is zoned CO and is developed with an office building. Staff has reviewed the action on that application and notes several areas of difference from the current application. The adjacent CO area does not share and entrance with Deerwood and is separated from the residential area by mature vegetation. In addition the adjacent CO area is of a size and confignration that does not promote residential development. The area currently under review has no natural barrier to the existing residential area and will be required to share access with the residential development. The size of the parcel under review will permit only one dwelling. However, due to the location of the parcel residential development would represent an additional dwelling within Deerwood as opposed to a new development. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. Property adjacent to the east is zoned CO and property opposite the site on Rt. 649 is zoned LI; 2. This site fronts on Rt. 649 which is a high volume roadway which reduces the desirability of this site for residential use. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: This request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designations; 2. Commercial use of this site is not in keeping with the residential character of the area to the south; 3. Approval of this request is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. No compelling purpose can be identified to support rezoning of this site. Staff opinion is that commercial use of this property will have a negative impact on the Deerwood Subdivision. Staffopmlon is that residential zoning of this site provides for a reasonable use of the land. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staffrecommends denial of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request no proffers have been proposed. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 D- E- I:\GENERAL\SHARE~FRITZkBURTON.RPT ZMA 96-23 ~!4~ton ALB~MA~L~ COUNTY 2{) 4J WHITE H~LL ~, ........ " SECTION · "- _ _' ....... ~" RIVANNA DISTRICTS ZMA-96-23 Burton IATTACHMENT~ ALBEMARLE COUNTY DE£RWOOD ~ SECTION ONE-D.B. 426, P9.457 (~ SECTION TWO- ZMA-96-23 RIVANNA DISTRICT SECTION 32C IATTACHMENT C~ 1.2 1.3 1.4 AUTHORITY AND ]R~CT~%~ This ordinance, to be cited as the Zoning Ordinance ef Alb-~-rle County, is hereby ordained, enacted and published by the Board Qf SuperVisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, pursuant to the provisiqns of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 8, Code of Virginia, 1950, and amendments thereto; AM~ND~ TO ADOPT An ordinance to reenact and readopt the Alb-~rle County Zoning Ordinance and the Albemarle County Zoning Hap. Be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Cbunty, Virginia: That the following ordinance known as the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, together with the ZoninS Hap attached thereto, be and the same are, readopted and reenacted effective immediately upon adoption of this ordinance. EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES This Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall be effec- tive at and after 5:15 P.M., the 10th day of December, 1980 and at the same time the Albemarle County "Zoning Ordinance" adopted December 22, 1969, as amended, is hereby repealed. PURPOSE AND INTENT This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albmmmrle County adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended,.and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 8. As set forth in section 15.1-427 of the Code, this ordinance is intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future development of communities to the end that transportatien systems be carefully planned; that new co.hungry centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal land be preserved; and that the growth of the community be consonant with the efficient and economic&luse of public funds. (Added 9-9-92) Therefore ~e it ordained by the Board of SuperVisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the purposes of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of .the public and of planning for the -1- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.4.5 1.4.6 1.4.7 1.4.8 1.4.9 1.4.10 1.4.11 1.5 future development of the community, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the official zoning map adopted by reference end declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed= To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood and Other dangers; To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; , To facilitate the provision of adequate police and. fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the commrunity faci- lities existing or available, obstruction of light and ~ir, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panxc or other dangers; To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92) To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environ- ment; (Amended 9-9-92) To protect approach slopes and other safety areas ~f licensed air- ports, including Uuited~$tates government and military &ir facilities; (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards to protect 'surface water end groundwater defined in section 62.1-44.85(8) of the Code of ¥irglnia; and (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) To promote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92) ~.&TION TO _ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with. reasonable considera- tion for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehen- sive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or nhange, the current and future land and water requirements of the communit~ for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the co~unity, end the requirements for airportS, housing~ schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; fer -2- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.4.5 1.4.6 1.4.7 1.4.8 1.4.9 1.4.10 1.4.1t 1.5 future development of the community, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the official zoning map adopted by reference end declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed: To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access end safety from fire, flood end other dengers; To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive end harmonious co~aunity; . To facilitate the provision of adequate police end fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports end other public requirements; To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of lend, undue density of population in relation to the community faci- lities existing or available, obstruction of light end a~r, danger and congestion in travel and trensportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, penic or other dangers; To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92) To provide for the preservation of agricultural end forestal lands end other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environ- ment; (Amended 9-9-92) To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed air- ports, including United States government end military air facilities; (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards to protect ~urface water and groundwater defined in section 65.1-44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia; and (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) To promote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92) ~I.&TION TO .ENVIRONMENT This ordinence is designed to treat lends which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with. reasonable considera- tion for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehen- sive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or uhange, the current end future lend and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the co~m~unity, and the requirements for airports, housing& schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation ar~as end other public services; for -2- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) 1.6 1.7 1.$ the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and fcrestal land, the con- servatien of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the County. (Amended 11-1-89) R~.T.&TION TO GOMP~.-~.~SIVR PLAN In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable .consi- deration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated andexpress purpose of this .zoning. ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encourage .the realization and implementation of the C6mprebansive Plan, To this end: development is to be encouraged ~n ¥illages, Co~nunities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities' are available and where such development- will not conflict with the agricultural/forestal or other rural objectives; and development is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, and conservation cf natural, scenic and historic resources and where only limited delivery of public services is intended. (Amended 11-1-$9) : OFPICIAL ZONING MAP The unincorporated areas of Alb-marle County, Virginia, are hereby divided.into districts, as indicated on a set of map sheets entitled "Zoning .Map of Alb-m-rle County, ¥irginia" which, together with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby adopted by reference and de- clared to be a part of this ordinance. The Zoning Map shall be identified by the signature or the attested signature of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, together with the date of adoption of this .ordinance. The zoning administrator shall be responsible for maintaining the Zoning Map, which shall be located in his offices, together with the current zoning status of lend and water areas, buildings and other structures in the county. The zoning administrator shall be authorized to interpret the current zoning status of land and water areas, buildings and other structures in the county. No changes of any nature shall be made on said Zoning Map or any matter shown thereon except in conformity with the procedures and requirements of this ordinance. It shall be unlawful for any person to make unauthorized changes on the official Zoning Map. Violations of this provision shall be punishable as provided in section 37.0. CERTIFrI~ COPY, FILING A certified copy of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall be filed in the office of the zoning admini- strator and in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albe- marle County, Virginia. -3- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 APPLICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS ~ne regulations set by this ordinance within each district shall be minimum or maximum limitations as appropriat~ to the case and s~ll apply ~ifor~y to each class or kind of st~cture or land, and particularly, except as hereinafter provided: USE~ OCCUPANCY AND CONSTRUCTION No' building or structure or part thereof shall hereafter be con- structed or land used except in-confo~it~ with all of the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located, except as provided in section 6.0. HEIGHT, BULK, DE~SI%~f, LOT CO%~E1{AGE, Y~U~DS ~ OPEN SPACES No building or other structure shall hereafter be erected or altered: a. To exceed the height or bulk; To accommodate or house a greater number of buildings, f~ilies or to have greater floor area; c. To occupy a greater perc~tage of lot area; To have narrower or smaller rear yards, front yards, side yards or other open areas than herein required; or in any other n~lnner contrary to the provisions of this ordinance. REQUIILED Y~RD, OPE/q SPACE; ~{EA, P~ING OR IDADING SPACE FOR OHE S~UCIR3RE, OR USE, NOT TO BE US~ TO ME~ REQUIP~S FOR ANO%~ No part of a yard, or other opan space, area, or off-streetparking or loading space required about or in connection with any building for the purpose of complying with this ordinance shall be included as part of a yard, open space, area or off-street parking or loading space similarly required for any other building. PcEDUCTION OF LOTS OR AREAS BF~OW MINIMUM PRORIBIT~ No lot or parCel(s) existing at the tim of passage of this o~dinance shall be reduced in dimension or area below the minimum require~ents set forth herein except for the purpose of meeting or exceeding standards set forth herein or as a rusult of dedication to or exercise of e~ninent domain by a public agency. Lots or parcel(s) created after the effective date of this ordinance shall meet at least the minimum requirements established by this ordinance, except for lots created for usage by a public agency to the extent that the smne may be justifiable usder powers of eminent domain. (kmended 9-9-92) -&- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) 7..1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 APPLICATION OF DISI~LICT REGULATIONS The regulations set by this ordinance within each district shall be minimum or m~imum limitations as appropriate to the case and shall apply uniformly to each class or kind of structure or land, and particularly, except as hereinafter provided: USE, OCCUPANCY ~ CONS~qlUCTION No building or structure or part thereof shall hereafter be con- structed or land used except in-conformity with all of the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located, except as provided in section 6.0. HEIGHT, BULK, DENSII~f, LOT COlqtRAGE, YARDS AND OPEN SPACES No building or other structure shall hereafter be erected or altered: a. To exceed the height or bulk; To accommodate or house a greater number of buildings, families or to have greater floor area; c. To occupy a greater percentage of lot area; To have narrower or smaller rear yards, front yards, side yards or other open areas than herein required; or in any other manner contrary to the provisions of this ordinance. HEQUIRED YARD, OPEN SPACE; ARFA, PARKING OR LOADING SPACE FOR OHE STRUCTURE, OR USE, NOT TO BE USED TO MEET REQUIRERS FOR ANOTH~ No part of a yard, or other open space, area, or off-street parking or loading space required about or in connection with any building for the purpose of complying with this ordinance shall be included as part of a yard, open space, area or off-street parking or loading space similarly required for any other building. REDUCTION OF LOTS OR AREAS BELOW MINIMUM PROHIBITED No lot or parael(s) existing at the time of passage of this ordinance shall be reduced in dimension or area below the minimum requirements set forth herein except for the purpose of m~eting or exceeding standards set forth herein or as a result of dedication to or exercise of eminent domain by a public agency. Lots or parcel(s) created after the effective date of this ordinance shall meet at least the minimum requirements established by this ordinance, exoept for lots created for usage by a public agency to the extent that the same may be justifiable under powers of eminent domain. (Amended 9-9-92) -&- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) Earl H. Burton Srok~' 2~0 HyOtaulk~ Road Cheu~t~vSle~ VA 22501 ,. BURTON REALTY Ftsg (~Od) AIRPORT ROAD REZONING REQUEST STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: William D. Fritz January 21, 1997 February 19, 1997 ,a,.n¥1ieant'# ReSponse ta Proposal: 1 Under the heading "Character of the Area. the following was stated: "A single family dwelling is located south of and adjacent to this site." This statement implied that there might be a complaint registered by that property owner. Although a complaint might bo expected, here are the facts regarding that neighbor. The current owner of this property, Billy Shifflett, called Earl Burton at his office with concern about the proposed zonin8 change. During the conversation it was pointed out to the properly owner that the proposed use would be an office building. Billy Shiftier called back and 1~ stattn8 that after she had talked with Earl about the proposal she xvas not at all concerned about it. Then a day or so later she gallt, fl_blv~aa~,amd_tiln~ and talked to Earl In person to re-iterate in person to him that slm2~mI~lamacexat, fl about the proposed office use 2, Under the heading "RECOMMENDATION" Mr. Fritz states the following: "Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zonln8 Ordinance and recommends denial." I recently asked for a copy of the new Comprehensive Plan and was told that it is not finished yet. In 1993 when our family came to the Plam~ing Commission with a request for a zoning change from R-A to R-4 for the property behind lhe already developed part of Deerwood, we were told that the recommended use according to the Comprehensive Plan for this area was Light Industrial. lfno new Comprehensive Plan has been completed, then how has that recommended use shifted? Although I certainly do not agree with the Light Industrial designation, it seems more logical that a zoning of Commercial Office would be a closer fit with Light Industrial than a Residential zonin8. Prof~sslonal Services For All 3. After reading the section entitled"Planning and Zoning History several things need to be addressed. a. Yes the original subdivision plat did show the area under consideration as Commercial in 1966. May 1 remind you that there was no zoning at that time and the subdivision plat was approved by Albemarle County. That approval was an implied acceptance of the Commercial designation at that time. All of the original purchasers of Deerwood lots and homes were presented a copy of this subdivision plat with their purchase. Many plats with this Commercial section already marked were passed out to potential buyers as well, All this was done under the approval of the subdivision plat by the County of Albemarle. b. Zoning designations were placed on properties after this subdivision was already under way. No, there was no Commercial zoning request at the time of the origination of zoning in Albemarie County because there was no thought that it would be used for anything else. But there was no urgency for a Commercial Zoning designation because the area was considered so far out from the Commercial areas of the County, The two statemems regarding The Board of Supervlsors appear to be contradi0tory. "October 17, 1968 ~ Tho Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-14 rezoning a portion oftbe existing Deerwood development from A-I to R-I." "November 19, 1970 - The Board of Supervisors denied ZMA-133 which was a request to rezone a portion ofthe De,tweed development fi.om A-I to R-I." Since none of Deerwood is currently either A-I or R-I This cannot be a complete history. What is this referring to? What I have been told is that all of Deerwood is either R-4 or R-A. d. Regarding the October 5. 1993 withdrawal something needs to be clarified. "October 5, 1993 - The Planning Commission accepted a request for withdrawal. This request was for 18.5 acres bom PA, to Upon our request to the Real Estate Tax Assessor's office of the County of Albemarle, we were informed that the 18.5 acres under consideration were zoned R-4. Our request to the Planning Office also received an R-4 reply. Based on that information we hired Roudabush and Gale and began our plans to develop those 185 acres behind Deet~vood. Alter much investment of time and money, we were informed by the Planning Office that a mistake had been made. The 18.5 acres Professional Services For All were really zoned RA and not R-~I. But we were encoursged by the Planning Commission to pursue a zoning change with (although there were no guarantees) the expectation that it would be granted. Concern over traffic on Airport Road prompted The Board of Supervisors to ask that we proffer certain improvements to Airport Road. However, there were no plans existing for how the road would be improved ia the future and no clear recommendations as to what exactly would be required of ns; to what orient and to what expense. So the most prudent action on our part was not to commit outsdves to something that had no limits, and no plans. That ia why that request w~s withdrawn. e. it should be noted that within the last year the 2. I acres at the front of Dcerwood was put under consideration by the owners ofthe parcel for Commercial use. This lot belongs to my brother, my sister and me. Both of them live out ofthe area and would like to have this property sold rather than have it sit idle and be a tax expense to lhe three of us. After trying to sell the property for about three years with the current zoning, a commercial real estate agent anggested that I g~t the zoning changed first and then selling it would be easier. I was advised by Mr. Fritz at that time that without a site plan for the property, there was little chance nf getting a zoning change approved. Not w~ntlng w come upwith a superficial sight plan when I had no clear picture of exactly what to plan for, I did not pursue a rezoning. It should be noted that considerable time and m~ney was invested on investigating what action should be taken to get the property properly rezoned. At that time I discussed other optional uses with Mr. Fritz One such use was to build townhouses. But quite frankly, I do not think that I could sell any type of townhouse or other residential structure on a property so close to Airport Road. There is nothing like townhouses or other residential property anywhere on Airport Road that would be so close to the highway. At best if residential use is the only option, perhaps inexpensive rental property could be build for low income and section eight housing. But who would want to live that close to the highway? Even Ihat could be a very difficult sell. Before addressin8 this topic further, allow me to state that I have no problem with having Iow income housing available in Albemarle County. Also I have no problem with 8ovemment assisted housing in the County. But the location ofthis type ofhousing has to be considered in light of the citizens of the County who have already invested in a home so that we do not erode our tan haso or cause unnecessaoj situations of concern. There are several important questions that must be considered whh respect to building low inoome or ~ction eisht housin8 on that property in front of Deen~ood, Professional Services For All i, First of all, would it be best for the property owners in Deerwood? Would the residents of Deerwo0d rather drive through a section of high density, low income and section eight rental property, or w~ll kept offices? If I had the choice, I'd' choose the latter. An example of this type of situation is found on Whitewood Road where Oak Forest is located behind low income housing. This unfavorable situation has effected the value and the desirability of the Oak Forest neighborhood. ii. A recent article in 3'he,.~gly. P_r. oi~ addressed the idea that Airport Road gave to men and women who were ardving by air into this area their first impression of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. What would make a better first impression: a row of well kept commercial office buildings; or several office buildings with a group of unrelated Iow income and section eight housing units in the middle? It does not seem best for the residents of Deerwood, nor for The Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Airport, nor for the County of Albemarle, nor for the City/Town of Charlottesville nor for the current owners of this property to leave it as R-4 rather than change it to CO. 4. Before proceeding further, lot me say that I understand the need for a Comprehensive Plan and agree that it is a valuable tool for the proper designation of zoning, development, and controlled growth. However such a plan is to serve the best interests ofthe nitizens and not force the citizens to serve the plan. Under the heading "Comprehensive Plan" the following was stated: "This 2.1 acre undeveloped portion of Deerwood was not considered for non- residential designation in the most recent review of the Comprehensive Plan." The key word here is "considered." Just because it was not considered, does not mean it should not have been considered. Here are some items which should' perhaps be considered: a. Berkeley, Camelot, Woodbrook, Carrsbrook, Hollymeade, Forest Lakes, Briarwood to name a few all are residential areas which have commercial zoning in front of them. How ia Deerwood different from them? Should the people in those subdivisions be asking for a change to match what Deerwood has? b. When looking at Deerwood by itself, it may appear that not changing the zoning is logical. Bul when looking at Airport Road as a whole it does not fit for Deerwood to remain under the current zoning, Professional Services For All 5, The "STAFF COMMENT" portion was much appreciated and did a fine job of addressing many of the topics covered above. For example: a. "Staffoplnion is that the proposed request is not consistent with the purpose and intent oftbe ordinance as stated in Section 1.1 and 1,6 as the zoning is not in compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan." There is certainly no argument with Section I. 1 and 1,6 as stated above. However as Section 1,4 states: "This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to I~e in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County ..... " The question is: is the current R-4 zoning be~t For the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County or is it more practicable to change it to a more desirable CO zoning? Are the citizens best served by a possible eye sore on the Airport Road corridor into the County or by a well kept professional office? Are the property owners in Deerwood better served by such Iow income housing which would tend to reduce property values and desirability of the neighborhood or by the desired office use? Would families living next to a projected four lane busy Airport Road be better served by living in an area less endangered by frequent traffic'/ Would the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Air port be batter served? From a "practicable" application oftbe "PURPOSE AND INTENT" as stated in Section 1,4 of the ordinance a rezonin8 could certainly be applied. b. "While tiffs plan is not proffered it does allow staffto determine the feasibility and impact of the development of the site." The plan can be and will be proffered once an understanding of tho requirements of the Coum~ of Albemarle are clearly determined. c. "No natural barriers exist between this site and the adjacent residential development." The developer plans to plant white pine trees as a natmal barrier and separation between the office and the residence, Professional Services For All d. "Locating cmnmercial development at the entrance of Deerwood would further erode the residential character of the existing development. Based on this analysis the location of commercial activity at the entrance to the Deerwood Subdivision would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the existin8 residential development." Based on the type ofresldentlal home that would have to be put on that front section of Deerwood, au eroding of the character of the rest of the area would result. Putting in high density, Iow income rental housing would erode the value and desirability of the current residential development. R-4 zoning will not protect the character of tho current single family home development because the poor salability of hOmes so close to Airport Road will require that a different type md price home will have to be build. e. "Office use may provide a'reasonable transitional use between the Deerwood residential development (with appropriate development/design measures) and the high volume Airport Road and LI zoning on the north side of Route 649." Surrounding the residential area of Deerwood with natural barrier~ and well kept offices would serve to protect the character of the development rather than destroy it. f. "However, staffopinion is that while the property under review may not be the most desirable residential site ,.." The staff knows that this property left as residential will be next to impossible to market for anything but some sort of low income or section eight type of rental property as is indicated. To come out on it financially some sort of high density, inexpensive modular units would have to be used. This type of use although a money maker, would not be as attractive as a well kept office use. g. "Staffnotas that the residents of Deerwood have a reasonable assumption that this area would be developed residentially based on the contents of the Comprehensive Plan." Developer has noted earlier that all plats used to market this subdivision in the 1960's and 1970's included this lot marked as commercial. h. Some of the "mature vegetation" referred to as in regards to the other CO property that borders Deerwood was planted at the time of the construction of that office, Vegetation planted as a buffer would mature. Professional Services For All "Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: I. Property adjacent to the east is zoned CO and property opposite the site on Rt. 649 is zoned LI; 2. This site fronts on Rt. 649 which is a high volnme roadway which reduces tho desirability of this site for residential use." To these favorable factors the following could be added: 3. Berkeley, Camelot, Woodbrook, Carrabrook, Hollymeado, Forest Lakes, Briarwood to name a few all are residential areas which have commercial zoning in in t¥ont of them. Why not Deerwood? 4. Thc "reduced desirability" mentioned above would make it almost impossible to market homes on the site. This would make it necessary to build inexpensive, low income rental property which would impact the current residents of Deerwood more negatively than would a well kept office. 5. The type of housing which would end up on the site would not be in harmony with the rest of the properties along Rt. 649. There is no other residential housing of that type or that close to the road. 6.* This type of hou$1ng along Airport Road would not be as attractive as a first hnpression of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. 7: An example cfa similar situation is Oak Forest offer Whitewood Road which has been negatively effected by having low income rental property in front of it. "Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: I. This request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designatioxts;" It is consistent with the desire reeentty expressed in ~h~,J~,~ly..Rmgress to have an attractive first impression of Albemarle County for visitors who arrive to the area by air travel. "2. Commercial use of this site is not in keeping with the residential character of the area to the south;" This may be true. But the only feasible residential ese for this site will degrade the current residential character of the area to the south. While properly built and maintained office usa would protect that character. 3. Approva of this request is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance." This is true if one considers S~tion 1.1 and i.6 only. However, s~ciion 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance states: "This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan..." Is forcing the Professional Services For All construction of less desirable, low income rental properties valued at perhaps (~0,000 to $70,000 each as the first impression of the rest of the resldenti~l area with values in the $100,000 range practicablz and fair to the current residents? When considering Section 1.4 this request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. ]~,F_A~N I)E I)~CTION: In light of the above, it is recommended that the request be approved. Professional Services For All ~,~. .o, 0 January23,1997 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 SVRS, lne ATTN: D. L. Bonnet P O Box 33 Scottsville, VA 24590 RE: SP-96-50 SVRS, Inc Tax Map 130, Parcel 7 Dear Mr. Bonner: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 21, 1997, unanimously recommendOd approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject te the following conditions: Development shall be in general accord with the attached plan tried Scottsville Rescue Squad, prepared by Robert Lum, revised 12/16/96 and initialed WDF 1/9/97. The plan may be revised to address comments Site Review Committee and shall be revised to provide an entrance located on Route 6 only; Subordinate uses and fund raising activities such as but not limited to bingo raffles and auctions shall require amendment of this special use permit. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on FEBRUARY19. 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: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Engineering Department STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COIVIMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: William D. Fritz January 21, 1997 February 19, 1997 Proposal to relocate the ScoRsvill¢ Rescue Squad. This proposal involves the constru~ti~ of a new rescue squad station with access to Route 6. - Petition:~ Petition W allow the construction of a Rescue Squad Station [ 10.2.2(3)] on approx'unately 10 acres zone RA, Rural Areas. This site is located on the sonthwestem comer of the Route 6 and Route 73% intersection. This site, described as Tax Map 130, Parcel 7, is located inthe Scottsville Magisterial District. This property is not located within a designated growth area, A site plan for this development has also been submittedand~is being reviewed administratively. Character of the Area: This site is located approximately 1 (one) mile west of the existing Rescue Squad. The site fronts on Route 6 and Route 737 which is a gravel road: Several dwellings are located on the east side of Route 737 near this site. The predominate land use in the area is agriculture/pasture.. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the proviswns of Sectinn 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Plannin~ and Zoning History_: None-available. Comprehensive Plan: This area is included in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not contain any direct comment on this type of use. Staffhas reviewed the Community.Facilities plan which does provide some review criteria for this type of use. The Community Facilities plan states on page 69 "Stations are to be located in designated Growth Areas in a manner that allows desired response times to be achieved. Location of stations at or near the periphery of a :Growth Areawill allow both the Growth and Rural Areas to be better served. A station should not be located such that its equipmem response in a particular direction would be immediately hindered by steep grades, crossing restricted bridges or railroad crossings. Heavily traveled streets are usually a bad station location I~ecanse Jt may be difficult to enter the traffic flow. A site close to an intersection may prevent equipment from leaving the station because traffic is backed up waiting fora signal to-change. In general, a good location isa site that has 1. This request is not in a growth area as recommended by the Community Facilities Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staffrecommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions: 1. Development shall be in general accord with the attached plan titled Scot~sville Resc~ue Squad, prepared by Robert Lure, revised 12/16/96 and initialed WDF 1/9/97. The plan may be revised to address comments Site Review Committee and shall be revised to provide an emrance located on Route 6 only; 2, Subordinate uses and fund raising activities such as but not limited to bingo, raffles and auctions shall require amendment of this special use permit. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Section 5, 1.9 D - Site Plan E- I:\GENERAL\SHARE~FRITZ~SVRS.RPT SP96-50 ~'~' SCOTTSV~LLF. VOL. RESCUE SQUAD BLD. I ATTACHMENT A I ALBEMARLE CO! SGOTTSVILLE DIS~ ;OTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTION K .. sCOTTSVILLE VOL. ~ESCUEr SQu~D BLDo 5.1.9 5.1.10 5.1.11 Exits and aisles and passageways shall be kept adequately lighted at all times when open to the public. Artificial lights shall be provided whenever natural light is inadequate. FIRE, AMBULANCE, RESCUE SQUAD STATION (VOLUR'£~ER) Any such use seeking public funding shall be reviewed by the conunission in accordance with section 31.2.5. Specifically, the com~issicn shall find that the proposed service area is not already adequately served by another such facility. In addition, the commission shall consider: growth potential for the area; relationship to centers of population and to high-value property concentrations; and access to and adequacy of~ public roads in the area for such use. The commission may reques= recommendation from the Albemarle County fire official and other appropriate agencies in its review; Such subordinate uses and fund-raising activities as bingo, raffles and auctions shall be conducted in an enclosed building only. Noise generated from such activity shall not exceed forty (40] decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line~ No such activity shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. an6 8:00 a.m. JUNK YARDS Ail storage and operational areas shall be enclosed by a solid, light-tight, sightly fence not less than eight (8) feet in height or alternative screening and/or fencing satisfactory to the commission; bo Storage yards and access =o public roads shall be maintained in a dust-free surface.. COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY, ANIMAL HOSPITAL a. Excep= where animals, are confined in s6undproofed, air- conditioned buildings, no structure er area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For non- soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confine- ment and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator; (Amended 11-15-89) -62- (Supp. #52, 11-15-89) / / $~ood$ Ot ~ S~3 o ,0~ o ,0£ s@oods £ I. ....... ~'5-6'Ef~' 9C ,0£ February 19, 1997 Enoch E Snyder, Ili 1500B Westwood Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Plannin. & Community Developmen!~ 401 Mclntire Road RE: SP-96-054 St. Paul's Church (Sign #23 & 24) Tax Map 58A2, Parcels 17, 18, and 19 Dear Mr. Snyder: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 18, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: This special use permit is for the existing church and church offices to be located in the Kirklea structure. Any future expansion of the church or church activities will require an amendment to this special use permit. New exterior finish materials will closely match existing materials.. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on February_ 19, 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 arty questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary Joy Scala Senior Plarmer~ MJS/jcf // cc: ~ Carey David J Wood, Jr St. Paul's Church STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA FEBRUARY 18, 1997 FEBRUARY 19, 1997 SP 96-54 ST, PAUL's CHURCH Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to locate administrative offices to serve St. Paul's Church in an existing, historic house (Kirldea) currently owned by the church, and situated adjacent to the church. (See applicant'sproposal -,4ttachment,4). Petition: Proposal to renovate an existing structure (Kirklea) for use as church administrative offices on 15.315 acres zoned VR Village Residential [12.2.2(15)]. Property, described as Tax Map 58A2, Parcels 17, 18, and 19 (combined), is the location of St. Paul's Church on the north side of Route 250 West (Ivy Road) at its intersection with Route 678 (Owensville Road) in Ivy in the Samuel Miller District. This site is not located in a designated Development Area (Rural Area 3). (Soe maps- Attachment B). Character of the Area: This site is wooded and open, with Kirklea, St. Paul's Church and the church cemetery in dose proximity. Meriwether Hills subdivision (zoned VR Village Residential) is adjacent to the north. Other properties in the immediate area contain single fam'dy dwell'mgs. A realty office, service station and dwelling (zoned C-I) are adjacent to the south, across the railroad tracks. Kirklea is visible from Route 250 (Ivy Road) in Ivy. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Planning and Zoning History: None. Comprehensive Plan: This site is designated Rural Area. (VR zoning remains, although the Village of Ivy was deleted from the Plan in 1989 because it was already developed, and any future expansion would adversely impact the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed.) The Open Space Plan shows Route 250 (Ivy Road) is a designated Entrance Corridor and Virginia Byway. Kirklea is a surveyed historic site and is potentially eligible for listing onthe virginia and National Registers. Note: St. Paul's Episcopal Church was built in the 1850%, with numerous remodelings carried out in the twentieth century. Kirklea was built about 1896 as the home of the Rev. Frederick William Neve, a British clergyman, and rector of St. Paul's from 1888-1923. Neve was known for his work establishing missions and schools in the remote mountain areas of Albemarle and Greene Counties. Kirklea is one of the best examples in Albemarle County of the Queen Anne style. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources is in the process of writing a report to nominate Kirldea for the Virginia and National Registers. They expressed concern about the removal of the detached kitchen building, but not the other structures. Staff.agrees that it would be preferable to maintain the kitchen building, but the applicant has indicated that it is not economically feasible to do so. Staff.has documented the kitchen building with photographs and a measured sketch, in anticipation of its removal. Staff.opinion is that the applicant should be commended for voluntarily choosing to protect Kirklea. The Growth Management goal states, "Protect and efficiently utilize County resources by: Emphasizing the importance of pro:tecting the elements that define the Rural Area: 1) Agriculture and forestry resources; 2) water supply resources; 3) natural resources; 4) scenic resources; 5) historic and cultural resources; 6) limited service delivery. Of these, the protection of agriculture and forestry resources is the highest priority. Designating Developmem Areas where a variety of land uses, facilities, and services are planned to support the County's future growth, with emphasis placed on infill development." Staff.opinion is that the applicant's proposal to relocate the existing church offices to the residence does not affect agricultural or forestry resources, water supply resources, natural resources, or the existing level of service delivery in the Rural Area. The proposal will contribute to the scenic charcater of Route 250 (Ivy Road), and will help protect a historic resource. A Natural Environment goal states, "Protect the County's natural, scenic, and historic resources in the Rural and Growth Areas." An Objective is, "Conserve the County's historical and cultural resources, including historic sites, structures and landscape features; archaeological sites; and other unique man-made features." Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal supports this goal and objective by protecting an important historic resource. STAFF COMMENT:. Staffwlll address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance ma,/- be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, Staff optnion is that the stabilization of Kirklea will have a positive visual impact on adjacem properties. Three outbuildings (including a detached kitchen building), a modern addition and a rear porch will be removed. While these changes will be visible to the adjacent properties, they cannot be construed as detrimental to adjacen! property. No changes in hours or days of operation are anticipated. No negative impacts to adjacent property can be identified Zoning comments are attached (See memo dated2~6~97 - Attachment C). Staff'has determined that the applicant's proposal is not an intensification of use, nor is additional parking required. Therefore, no site plan is required, and no entrance improvements are being recommended by staff at this time. Regard'rog the comments about posting signs, the Board of Supervisors will need to determine whether or not reasonable notice has been given. The Virginia Department of Transportation comments are attached. (See letter dated 2/5/97 - Attachment D). The letter states, "...minor grading should be required for the northern most entrance for safe ingress and egress." Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal will not cause additional traffic impacts. The minor grading would likely remove the existing wooded buffer separating the parking area from the state road. If there is an intensification of church use in the future, then the entrance improvements will be addressed at that time. Comments regarding the Entrance Corridor from the interim Design Planner are attached. (See memo dated 2/11/97- Attachment E). that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The applicant's proposal will not change the character of the district. As previously mentioned, the proposal will not intensify this use in the VR District and will help protect a historic resource in the Entrance Corridor (EC) District. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, relation to the environment, and relation to Comprehensive Plan as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6, and has found this application to be in harmony with these sections. Specifically, this request protects against destruction of historic area with the uses permitted by right in the district, Kirklea was built as a residence; it will continue to look like a residence although the use is changed to church offices. Therefore the use will be in harmony with uses permitted by fight in the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations for this type of use. 3 and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The applicant's proposal will promote the general welfare by providing for the church's needs. There are no public health and safety ~ssues. SUMMARY: Staff opinion is that this request is in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the zoning Ordinance. No negative impacts have been identified. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: This special use permit addresses the relocation of church offices only. Any future expansion of the church or church activities will require an amendment to this special use permk 2. New exterior finish materials and colors will closely match existing materials and colors. ATTACHMENTS: A - Applicant's proposal B- Maps C- Zoning memo D -VDOT letter E - Design Planner memo 23 December 1996 County of Albemarle Department of Zoning 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 m: Kirklea Special Use Permit. Description of Reques[ Dear Sirs- Kirklea is a 19th century house owned by St. Paul's Church in Ivy. St. Paul's would like to renovate the house for use as its administrative offices. The building will be used on a day to day basis by two or three people and existing interior rooms will be used as office space. The church wants to preserve the integrity of the building as much as possible, so' renovations Will be kept to a minimun~. Air conditioning will be added, electrical service will be brought up to date, and fire code issues ~ill be addressed. A new ADA compliant bathroom will be added to the first floor, and interior finishes will generally be repaired and restored. Changes planned for the exterior of the building are meant to b~th maintain the physical structure of the building and restore the building's original aesthetics. A new roof will be put on, the building will be pmnted, porches and woodwork will be repaired, etc. Several outbuildings will be removed from the site so the house can be properly landscaped in relationship to the church next door. A poorly constructed modern.addition to the house will be removed, and matching exterior finishes will be replaced. A section of,back porch that is in bad disrepair will be removed as well. The main goal in this renovation project is to restore and put to use a wonderful structure that is not currently being used at all. The character of the house will be preserved completely, and.Kirklea will remain an Albemarle County'landmark. Thank you, Enoch E. Snyder III SPAR Construction 1500 B Westwood Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22903 804.984.2729 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I ATTACHMENT A! 23 December 1996 County of Albemarle Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 re: Kirklea Special Use Permit. Justification of Request. Dear Sirs- As explained in the'Description of Request, Stl Paul's Church in Ivy would like to renovate Kirklea and use it for its administrative offices. Kirklea has not been occupied for several years and has fallen into a state of disrepair that will soon be dangerous to the structural integrity of the building. St. Paul's purchased the property with administrative use in mind, and hopes to preserve the building while using it. The Church cannot afford tO mn0vate the structure without putting it to use. however. While well known in this area for its outstanding architecture, the house is not officially listed on any state or national historic m,gisters. It is therefore not protected under historical building guidelines. If St. Paul s finds that it cannot use the building as it needs to, the renovations may not be feasible, and the house could possibly be destroyed. The bes[ Solution for all parties would be the approval of this special use permit. St. Paul s will gain their necessary administrative space, Kirklea will be restored, and Albemarle County will keep this integral part of its architectural heritage. Thankyou, Enoch E. Snyder m SPAR Construction 1500 B Westwood Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22903 804.984.2729 KIRKLEA Written Explanations of Photographs 1 0 Photographs A &B These two photographs show Kirklea in its existing condition. 2.0 Photographs C & D These photographs show the outbuildings that will be removed from the site. With these structures gone,,the house can beProperly landscaped and the site can relate more closely to the design intentions of the original structure. 3.0 Photographs E &-F The upper photograph is of the modem addition at the rear of the _h_,o. use that will N/removed. Not only is it in poor condition, but it doesnt relate to the house architecturally at all. A small terrace will replace it. The lower photo is of the rear porches that wilt be modified. -The section of porch with railing will be presei'ved and repaired, The secti°n with concrete floors is in much worse condition and will be removed completely: 4.0 Photographs G :& H , ' The u~pe'r photon taken from St. Paul s Church towards Kirklea, With the remora] of the outbuildings shown, a nicely landscapedconnection from the church to the house can be designed. The lower photograph is facing back towards the Church. KIRKLEA Special Use Proposal Photographs A & B KIRKLEA Special Use Proposal Photographs C & D KIRKLEA Special Use Proposal P P P P P Photographs E & F KIRKLEA Special Use 'Proposal ATTACHMENT Al Photographs G & H N J · p p_;AeO dO~:l~O 96-I~ SL ALBEMARLE COUNTY 57 59 ST PAUL t S CHURCH SP 96-54 '"- - ° ....... ",o S~,MUEL MILLER DISTRICT SECT ION 58 ALBEMARLE COUNTY I? OA · ST. PAUL' S CHURCH 54 SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT SECTION 58'A(~) iVY INSERT Building Code Information (804) 296-5832 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclnfire Road. Room 223 Charlottesville. '~rginia 22902~596 FAX t804~ 972-4126 TrD 1804) 972~1012 Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Joy Scala, Sr. Planner Sprinkle, Zoning Assistant ~,~ FROM: Jan DATE: February 6. 1997 RE: SP-96-54, St. Paul's Church This special use permit is being sought to allow an existing non-conforming church to become conforming, and therefore, expand in compliance with the zoning ordinance. The desired expansion is to move the church offices out 0fthe existing church building and into an adjacent structure (on the same parcel) which was previously used only for residential purposes. In order to determine if a site plan will also be required, weneed to consider Section 32.2.1 of the zoning ordinance: "A site development plan shall be required for any construction, use, change in use or other develooment in all zoning districts; provided that no such plan shall be required for the following;..." Pads a b,c and d definitely do not apply in this situation, but we need to consider, "e. Any change in or expansion of a use except where the sale of gasoline is involved; provided that: (1) such change or expansion does not occasion additional, parking under the requirements of this ordinance; (21 no additional ingress / egress or change in ingress / egress is recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation based on intensification of use: (3) no additional ingress / egress or alteration of existing ingress/egress is porposed." (Emphasis added_) I have read VDOT's comments and I'm not sure if the sight distance improvements they are requiring for the northern most entrance are based on intensification of use or simply existing conditions. I believe the County would agree that an improvement of this sort is in the public interest, but whether it kicks in the requirement for a site plan is dubious. If the church is not expanding their area of assembly or increasing the number of fixed seats, the zoning ordinance would not consider this an intensification of use. Can you obtain this information from the applicant? Both #'s 1 and 2 from above need this information to determine if a site plan is to be required. Another issue has been brought, to our attention. Thewrong property was inadvertently posted with the .zoning notice signs intended for this site. The correction was made today and the St. Paul's property is now properly posted. This means that it is posted 12 days prior to the hearing d,,a, te but not the 15 days required by Sectiuon 33.8.1. However, since Section 33 8 states Fa ute to comply with the post ng requirements of this section Shall not invalidate,any action by the commission or the board of supervisors,' it is up to the board to determine if this constitutes reasonable notice. If not, Section 33.8.1 states. "The board may defer action on the petition or application until reasonable notice by posting js given." I envision the board waiting until the currently scheduled public hearing to make their determination. TEL' ~04 979 February P%t~l~c Rearings Mr. Rmnel~ $. Keu!er Dspu. of Plannin~ & County Office B1 9. 401 N~mIntire Roa:l Charlottesville, VA. Dear Mr. Kester: Please find our comm~n~e for PUblic Hearings listed below: $D-96-$2 Hu}'t Investment Co~-ooration. ~u~e ~722 In review o:: the site plan we recommend =ha~ =ha ~n~ernal entrance he~hifta~ as far as p;:ss~ble ~rom Rou~e 1722. The pro~sed entrance Should reflec~ S~-96-53 Uno.varsity o~ Vi=qinia Real ~s~ate Foun~at,ianr Route 250 The reques~i~d use has no ma~or im~as= ~he pu~li¢ road, however it weuId be beneficial :,~ =he %ntra~ce in~o t~ ~ion ao~d be ~e~romth~ ~c!f course en=r~e which has l~ft ~ ri~hC t~ l~es, In ~L:~on =~ sro9 ~,, Paul's Ch'ay_ch Route gT~. ~wo oI~ the entramues off uf-Rou~ 678 ac~ual!y are ~=o Kou=e ig07 and ~hen ~ere :,s a southern ~tr~ce ~to tke c~rch si~e of~ of Rt. 1607. The meet sight :{istance retirements,, ~= could mos: li~ely a~t~ a sightlin~ w&~h ~i~or l[radin~ ~on~ ~= ~t~en northe~ entr~Ce ~d Route 1607. We reco~:. =he i~rove~n= =o Route_ 1~07 ~ a ~T Cowry Project, ~t there $P-~{-55 Ro]:ert Collev, P~oute 14~2 delivery c~9any that is parking truc~s near ~he entrance, w~ich Dlocks sight 1~1~ on s':reet parking. DOes the County ba~e a~y enfor~eable ord/nance to prohibit t~::ks D~rking along the curb? t ATTACHNENT E i February 11, 1997 Memorandum SuOject: Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner Benjamin W. Blankinship, AICP, Development Review Manage~ St Paul's Church, SP 96-54 You have asked about the impact of the above-referenced application on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Adaptive reuse of this historic building will contribute to the integrity of the entrance corridor, and is generally encouraged by the County. If the special permit is approved, the applicant's representation that new exterior finishes will match the existing materials, could be a condition of the approval According to the application, the house needs repair and maintenance. The church intends to install/~ new roof and paint the building, replacing exterior finish materials with matching new materials. These improvements should restore the building's historic appearance and contribute to the integrity of the entrance corridor. They also intend to add air conditioning, upgrade the electrical service, and make improvements necessary to meet the fire code. It would be best if new mechanical equipment (e.g. air conditioning compressors) were not visible from the entrance corridor. The church also intends to remove three out-buildings, a modem addition, and a modem porch, It is my understanding that these appurtenances have little or no historic or architectural significance. None &them are visible from the entrance corridor, so their removal will have no effect on the corridor's integrity, Permits have already been issued for the demolition and renovation; they were not reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, because the improvements are not visible from the entrance corridor. If you have any questions, please call. To: Members, Board of Suoe~visors From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Cle~ $-bjec~;:Reading Li~ for Februa)~ 19, 997 Date: February 14, 1997 (item ~lSa): ,"Ir. Perkins FEBRUARY 19, 1997 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT tO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF FREGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO REVERSION. F~e, agoe of Women Voters of Chadottesville - Albemarle 105, Cherloffesville, VA 22g03 (804~0-~170' Fax February 19, 1997 Charlotte Humphris, Chair Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, VA 2Z902 Dear Mrs. Humphris, The League deeply regrets its failure to clear the date and time of the Forum on Local Government with you and other members of the Board of Supervisors. I had been told by a member of our board that all parties had been properly invited and that the date was mutually agreeable. None- theless, the final responsibility for this omission is mine and I offer my sincere apologies to you and to the Board. We are hopeful that you may be able to overlook this lapse and to attend the forum on Saturday morning, from 9:30 to 11:30 at the Senior Center. Without your participation we would be unable to fulfill our promise to provide an opportunity for the community to hear about the issues involved in the important decisions that face us all. Sincerely, Kathryn Hobbs, President "...a ~o~-p~r~b~ organization ~ to t~ promotion of informed~l~ctive pm'ticip~on ofcitizer~s ingovermr~" 0 LWV League of Women Voters of Charlottesville - Albemarle 1928 Arlington Blvd., Room 105, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Chair Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 February 17, 1997 Dear Mrs. Humphris, Enclosed is a copy of the news release sent today to the local media-newspapers, radio and television stations--and to the Roanoke and Harrisonburg Public Radio stations. We look forward to the Board's participation in Saturday's forum in the hope that the event will help to inform the public on the concerns we share as a community. Sincerely yours, Kathryn Hobbs, President "...a non-partisan organization dedicated to the Ho~ o~ f~Jorm~ ~ active participation of citizens in government. League of Women Voters Charlottesville/Albemarle County Carla Sykes, Director of Public Relations Phone: (804) 295-1254 For Immediate Release Feb. 17. 1977 Public Forum on Local Government To Be Held Representatives of Charlottesville's City Council, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, and members of the Town Reversion Committee (formerly the Town Reversion Study Group) have been in- vited to take part in a public forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters, Saturday, February 22, from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. at the Senior Center, 1180 Pepsi Place. In addition, Michaux Wilkinson, Executive Director of the Virginia Commission on Local Government, will outline the various forms of intergovernmental structures specified in Virginia law. The forum is planned to allow the representatives of each of the three local groups fifteen minutes to state their positions, followed by a question and answer period in which the audience may address any or all of the speakers. The meeting is open to the public and is designed to provide an opportunity to hear about the issues and to question representatives of our local governments. COUNTY OF A! REMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire I~ad Charlott~s-,,'ill~, Vir~j'mia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804} 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E perkins white Ha~ Sally H. T~om~s February26,1997 Ms. Lisa Keyes Glass 120 Forestvue Drive Earlysville, VA 22936 Dear Ms. Glass: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 19, 1997, you were reappointed to the jordan Development Corporation with said term ro expire on August 13, 1997. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Chaim]an CYH/ec cc: Forrest D. Kerns James L. Camblos. III Printed on recycled paper David R Bowerman ChaHoile Y. Humph~s Forrest R. M~sh~, Jro COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE O~ce of Board of Supen~sors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottes~lle. p'az~nia 22902.zk596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Ma~n Walter E Pefid~s ~y H. Thomas February 26, 1997 Mr. Robert F. German, Jr, 2370 Minor Mill Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr.~: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 19, 1997, you were appointed to 'the Library Board of Trustees, to fill out the unexpired term of Mr. Jerry Jones. The term will expire on June 30, 2000. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphris ' Chairmah CYH/ec cc: Library Director James L. Camblos. PHnted on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of County S.upervisors 401 Mclntire Rbad Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 (804) :296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Board/Commission/C~mmittee Library Board -- Jefferson-Madison Regional ~ ih~y Applica~t'sNmme .Robert .F., (Chip) German Jr. Home Phone (804) 973-8958 Home Address 2370.Minor Mi'll Road, Charlottesville~ VA 229tl Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Rivanna Employer University of Virqinia Office of Info. Technoloqi~a~one (804) 982-2249 Business Address 108 Cresap Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903-1710 Date of Emplo.vment 7/1/82 Years Resident in Albemarle County 44 Spouse'sNameMarguerite C. German Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) Oocupation/Title Director, Planning & Policy Development Previous Residence none Number of Children 2 B.g.(1974)U.Va., M.A. (1979) U.Va. Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups none Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests Chair, Executive Committee, Monticello Avenue community information service project Member, Education Advisory Committee, state Council on Information Management Reason(s]forDesiretoServeon~isBoard/Commission/Commi~e~ My experience on the Monticello Avenue project has confirmed my belief that public librari~ are the principal means of ensuring that the information age does not create a new class distinction between the information "haves" and the information "have-mots." I want to he ............ " ......... f ....... ~ -'-f .... -' ........ fo; I --'~-' ..... f ...... The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request. Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisom Albemarle County 401 Mctntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supermsors 401 Mctntire Road Charlottesville_ Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-584.3 FAX (804) 296-5800 March 28, 1997 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sails H. Thomas Mr. Cal Otto Virginia Festival of the Book 145 Ednam Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Cai: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors and citizens of Albemarle County I want to thank you and the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy for your very generous girl of the print entitled "Encampment of the Convention Armf'. We are delighted to have such a lovely memento ora very significant time in our community's history and appreciate your thoughtfulness in making the print available to local residents. We are currently in the process of obtaining an appropriate frame and we will certainly keep in mind your valuable suggestions regarding framing and hanging as we make our final decision. Please be assured that the print will be suitably framed and prominently displayed in a location that will permit it to be viewed by as many County Office Building visitors as possible. Again, please accept our appreciation for this fine pnnt and for the many outstanding services the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy provides to our community. Sincerely, LPC/bt 97-6 Charlotte Y. Humphfis Chah-man .Printed on recycled paper