Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-16 FINAL 7:00 P.M. APRIL 16. 1997 ROOM 241. SECOND FLOOR, COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. 11. 12. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). ZMA-96-28. Glenmore Assoc (Sign #36& Sign#40}. GI~(,IPB. P, Sv-,~,r,a g[;~. (Applicant requests deferral until May 21, 1997.) SP-97~01. The Frost Monte'ssori School (Sign #I I & Sign #123. Public Hearing on a request to establish preschool in existing bldg (Broadus Memorial Church} on approx 5 acs zoned RA located on E sd of Rt 20 approx 3/4 mi N of inters of Rt 250 E. TM62. P25C. IThls site is not located in a designated growth area. } Rivanna Dist. SP-97-02. Mt. Ararat Lodge (Sign #29 & Sign #30l. Public Hearing on a request to amend SP-95-39 to increase size of meeting hall for Masonic Lodge on approx 2. I 1 acs zoned RA on S sd of Rt 715 rEsmont Rd, at inters of Rr 714 (Riding Club Rd) about I m/S of Keene. TM121. P32A. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.~ Scottsville Dist. ZMA-96-17. Mechum River Land Trust ',Sign #33l. Public Hearing on a request To rezone approx 57 acs from RA & EC to R-4 & EC immediately E of The Highlands along the S sd of Rt 240 in Crozet area. TM57_P29 Sc TM57A.Parcel A(parr~. (Property is on edge of Crozet Community Sc is designed as Development Area [by the Comprehensive Plan] for portion of property which may be within the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin drainage area. I White Hall Dist. ..o~,~-" ~,~o~':^' (Applicant requests withdrawal.) ZMA-96-22. RHH Development Corp (Sign #72}. Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 1.691 acs from R-4 to CO & 2.774 acs from C-1 to CO. Property on N sd of ~Nhitewood Rd/Greenbrier Dr adj to Wynridge & Minor Hill Subd. TM61W2. P's45, 46Sc47. , Site recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential in Neighborhood 1.) Rio Dist. o ....... Rt ~, ~ ....of .......... th ~oo , ...... o^ n ....... ~,:_. (Applicant requests deferral ) 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ZMA-96-26. Forest Lakes Assoc (Sign #26. Sign #27. Sign #28). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 0.2 ac from R-15 to HC. Total site is 6.2 acs of which approx 6.0 acs are currently zoned HC. Property in SE corner of inters of Rt 29qTimberwood Blvd. ,'This site- in the Community of Hollymead. is recommended for Community Service by the Comprehensive Plan.~ TM46B4, Fsi&AZ Rivanna Dist. Approve FY 1997-98 County Operating Budget. Adopt FY 1997 Tax Rates. Approve FY 1997-98 t2001-2002 Capital Improvements Program and Adopt IcY 1997-98 CIP Budget. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Appropriation: Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention. $8.575 Form #96068 ~. 5.2 Appropriation: General Government Capital Improvements Fund. $74.000 tForm #9606%. $.2a Resolution in support of retaining the Batesville Post Office in its existing location. FOR INFORMATION: 5.3 Copies of Planning Commission minutes for March 4. March i 1 and March 25.1997. 5.4 Copy of revised State Noise Abatement Policy. effective January l, 1997. and adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. 5.5 Copy of letter dated April 1, 1997. from John Grady, Deputy Zoning Administrator. to Jay/k Taggarr. re: Official Determination of NUmber of Development Rights - Section 10.3.1 Tax Map 72. Parcel 20 tproperty of Anastasis S. Iuul-Nielsem. 5.6 1997 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Deparrmenr of Planning and Community Development. 5.7 Copy of Environmental Assessment on the natural as pipeline facilities proposed by Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation and Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation as prepared bythe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (on file in Clerk's office). David P. Bow~man ~aflc4te Y. Humpl-ais Formst R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Sup~isors 401 MclntJm Road Charlottesville, Vm~jinia 22902-4596 (8o4) 296-s843 FAX (804) ~9~58oo Charles S. M~rtin Walter E Pm'kins Sally H. Thom~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cl~rk~_.~ April 22, 1997 Board Actions of April 16, 1997 At the Board of Supervisors' meeting held on April 16, 1997, the following actions were taken: Agenda Item No. 1 Call to Order. Meeting called to order at 7:01 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. John Pollock, President of the Batesville Historical Society, said he appreciates the Board's support of the resolution to retain the Batesville post office. Mr. Michael A. Weber, representing the Ivy Steering Committee, provided Board members a copy of a press release regarding their filing a "Notice of Violations and Endangerment" which they believe have occurred at the Ivy Landfill. Agenda Item 5.1. Appropriation: Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention, $8,575 (Form #96068). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Printed on recycled paper Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: April 22, 1997 Page 2 Agenda Item 5.2. Appropriation: General Government Capital Improvements Fund, $74,000 (Form #96069). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Agenda Item 5.2a. Resolution in support of retaining the Batesville Post Office in its existing location. ADOPTED the attached resolution which has been forwarded to the appropriate persons. Agenda Item 5.4. Copy of revised State Noise Abatement Policy, effective January 1, 1997, and adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mrs. Humphris asked staff to provide an analysis of the noise policy implications, etc. Attached is a copy of the policy. Agenda Item 6. ZMA-96-28. Glenmore Assoc (Sign #36& Sign#40). Public Hearing on a request to rezone 6.6 acs from RA to PRD & amend existing agreements for Glenmore PRD. Properties are near end of Ashton Drive adj to Gleranore development. (This site, in the Community of East Rivanna, is recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential [3-6 du/ac] by the Comprehensive Plan. The existing density is 0.5 du/ac,) TM93.P's 61&6lB. Rivanna Dist. (Applicant requests deferral until May 21, 1997.) DEFERRED the public hearing for ZMA-96-28 until May 21, 1977, as requested by the applicant. Mr. Bowerman abstained from the vote. Agenda Item 7. SP-97-01. The Frost Montessori School (Sign #11 & Sign #12). Public Hearing on a request to establish preschool in existing bldg (Broadus Memorial Church) on approx 5 acs zoned RA located on E sd of Rt 20 approx 3/4 mi N of inters of Rt 250 E. TM62, P25C. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) Rivauna Dist. APPROVED SP~97-01 subject to the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: Approval is for the use ora portion of the existing Broadus Memorial Baptist Church building for a preschool for no more than eighteen children for a period of two years expiring on June 30, 1999; Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: April 22, 1997 Page 3 The supplementary regulations of Section 5.1.6 dealing with day care and nurseW facilities be applied to this special use permit. Agenda Item 8. SP-97-02. Mt. Ararat Lodge (Sign #29 & Sign #30). Public Hearing on a request to amend SP-95-39 to increase size of meeting hall for Masonic Lodge on approx 2.11 acs zoned RA on S sd of Rt 715 (Esmont Rd) at inters of Rt 714 (Riding Club Rd) about 1 mi S of Keene. TM121, P32A. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) Scottsville Dist. APPROVED SP-97-02 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. The building shall be limited in size to 3,000 square feet; Maximum attendance at the meetings shall not exceed those limits as established by the Health Department; Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structure outlined in the July 20, 1993 staffreport shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. The current activities of the Lodge are listed in a letter from Harold Key, dated February 18, 1997 which is attached; 4. Compliance with Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. A nda Item 9 ZMA ~ gq . -96-17. Mechum River Land Trust (Sign #30). Public Hearing on a request tq rezone approx 57 acs from RA & EC to R-4 & EC immediately E of The Highlands along the ~sd of Rt 240 in Crozet area. TM57,P29 & TM57A,Parcel A(part). (Property is on edge of Crozet Community & is designed as Development Area [by the Comprehensive Plan] for portion of property which may be within the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin drainage a~ea.) White Hall Dist. DEFERRED ZMA-96-17 indefinitely. (Mr. Bowerman abstained.) Agenda Item 10. ZMA-96-27. Highlands West L.P. (Sign//34 & Sign #35). Public Hearing o~a request to rezone 6.77 acs from LI to HC on S sd of Rt 240 approx 1.5 mi W of Rt 240/Rt 25Ointers at the Mechum River. (This site, in the Commtmity of Crozet, is recommended for Industrial Service by the Comprehensive Plan.) TM 56, P's 88,89,90&90A. White Hall Dist. (Applicant requested withdrawal.) Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: April 22, 1997 Page 4 SUPPORTED staff's recommendation to allow the applicant to withdraw ZMA-96-27, without prejudice, and to refund the rezoning application fee in accordance with the provisions of Section 35.1. Further, the applicant shall be allowed to file a special use permit application which will be allowed to be reviewed on a fast track basis by the Planning cormnission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman abstained. Agenda Item 11. ZMA-96-22. RHH Development Corp (Sign #72). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 1.691 acs from R-4 to CO & 2.774 acs from C-1 to CO. Property on N sd of Whitewood Rd/Greenbrier Dr adj to Wynddge & Minor Hill Subd. TM61W2, P's45, 46&47. (Site recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential in Neighborhood 1.) Rio Dist. APPROVED ZMA-96-22 as proffered: PROFFER FORM: Date: ZMA #96-22 Tax Map Parcel(s) #TM61 W2-45,46,47 1.691 Acres to be rezoned from R4 to CO with proffers. 2.774 Acres to be rezoned from C1 to CO with proffers. Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) The Owner will install and maintain an opaque privacy fence along the property line between the property and the adjoining residential district, at the points indicated on the drawing attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The fence will be six (6) feet tall and will be constructed of treated lumber. (2) All of the buildings constructed on the property will have one level visible from Greenbrier Drive, and not more than two levels visible from adjacent residential properties, with a maximum roof pitch of 6/12. No more than 43,200 total square feet of space, consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning, will be constructed on the property. The primary exterior finish materials shall be split-face block, or brick, and stucco. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker. Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: April 22, 1997 Page 5 (3) A minimum separation of fifty (50) feet will be maintained between any dumpster located on the property and the adjoining residential district. (4) All exterior light fixtures will be fully shielded. A fully shielded fixture means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal. (5) No single building shall have a floor area (footprint) greater than 12,000 square feet. (6) The Owner recognizes that certain residential property owners and the County of Albemarle desire to see certain improvements made to existing drainage facilities downstream from the subject property. To provide assistance in this undertaking, the Owner will contribute the sum of $9,334.00 to the County for application toward such improvements. Payment by the Owner shall be made when the Owner is advised in writing by the County that it is ready to commence with the construction of such improvements. (7) The Owner will construct on the property a storm water detention facility satisfying design criteria to maintain the current rate of storm water run-off from the property into the adjoining Wynfidge subdivision during a '~[wo-year storm" and to reduce the rate of run-off during a "ten-year storm," provided, however, that the Owner shall have received approval from Albemarle County to construct such detention pond by grading to the joint property line between the property and the Wynridge subdivision. Agenda Item 12. ZMA-96-25. River Heights Assoc Ltd (Sign #25). Public Heating on a request to amend existing proffers of ZMA-95-17 to eliminate requirement of connection between mobile home sales area on Rt 29 & the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park. Property is located on W sd of Rt 29 just S of inters with Timberwood Blvd. (This site, in the Community of Hollymead, is recommended for Regional Service by the Comprehensive Plan.) TM32, P's 43&43A. Rivanna Dist. (Applicant requests deferral.) DEFERRED ZMA-96-25 until June 11, 1997. (Mr. Bowerman abstained.) Agenda Item 13. ZMA-96-26. Forest Lakes Assoc (Sign #26, Sign #27, Sign #28). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 0.2 ac from R- 15 to HC. Total site is 6.2 acs of Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: April 22, 1997 Page 6 which approx 6.0 acs are currently zoned HC. Property in SE comer of inters of Rt 29/Timberwood Blvd. (This site, in the Community of Hollymead, is recommended for Community Service by the Comprehensive Plan.) TM46B4, P'sl&A2. Rivarma Dist. APPROVED ZMA-96-26 as recommended by the Ptarming Commission. [Mr. Bowerman abstained.') Agenda Item 14. Approve FY 1997-98 County Operating Budget. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Agenda Item 15. Adopt FY 1997 Tax Rates. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Agenda Item 16. Approve FY 1997-98/2001-2002 Capital Improvements Program and Adopt FY t997-98 CIP Budget. APPROVED the FY 1997-98/2001-2002 Capital Improvements Program and ADOPTED the FY 1997-98 CIP, per attached. Mr. Perkins stated that he did not support funding for Revenue Sharing. Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. APPOINTED Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., to the Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs) Committee. Agenda Item No. 18. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. Held an Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss personnel matters regarding appointments to boards and committees; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion and to a matter relating to an easement on county property. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: April 22, 1997 Page 7 Agenda ltem No. 19. Certify Executive Session. Reconvened into open session and certified the executive session. Agenda Item 20. Adjournment At 11:23 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjoumed. EC/lbh Attachments: 8 cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Kevin C. Castner Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Jan Sprinkle Yadira Amari File COUNTY OF ALBEMARI E MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin Ao Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cler~ April 21, 1997 Board Actions of April 16, 1997 At its meeting on April 16, 1997, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: AgendaltemNo. 5.1. Appropriation: ShenandoahValleyJuvenileDetention,$8,575 (Form #96068).' Approved. Attached is the signed appropriation form. Agenda Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: General Government Capital Improvements Fund, $74,000 (Form #96069). Approved. Attached is the signed appropriation form. Agenda Item No. 14. Approve FY 1997-98 County Operating Budget. Adopted the attached resolution. Agenda Item No. 15. Adopt FY 1997 Tax Rates. Adopted the attached resolution. AgendaltemNo. 16. ApproveFY 1997-98/2001-2002Capitallmprovements Program and Adopt FY 1997-98 CIP Budget. Approved the attached. /~WC Attachments (5) cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxarme W. White Robert Walters FISCAL YEAR 96/97 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ~ FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION REQUEST NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO CAPITAL FUNDING FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT RENOVATIONS AND ADDITION. 96069 X EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1901051020890901 HEALTH DEPARTMENT $74,000.00 TOTAL $74,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2901051000512013 TRANSFER FROM HEALTH DEPT RESERVES $74,000.00 TOTAL $74,000.00 ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: ENGINEERING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I GNATURE DATE FISCAL YEAR 96/97 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ~ FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION REQUEST NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO GENEPJ~L 96068 X X jUVENILE DETENTION HOME SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100039000563400 JUVENILE DETENTION HOME $8,575.00 TOTAL S8,575.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $8,575.00 TOTAL $8,575.00 ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I GNATURE DATE BOARD Ol gUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 04-' 1-97A09:05 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Appropriation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation # 96068 in the amount of $8,575 to the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home for Albemarle's share of a projected FY 96/97 revenue shortfall. STAFF CONTACTISI: Messrs. Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: April 16, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: DISCUSSION The County's sham of the Shenandoah Valley Detention Home was budgeted at $105.316 for FY 96197. However, the Detention Commission recently approved an additional $50,000 assessment for all the participating Io~ail~es due to a current shortfall in non-pa~cipant revenues. Since usage by the par0cipafing localities has been higher than anticipated in the current year, there has been limited space for non-participating localities and therefore, less per diem revenues. Based on usage, Albemarle's share of the $50,000 assessment is $8,575. REC~ Staff recommends approval of Approp~ation #96068 in the amount of $8,575 ss Albemarle's sham of the additional assessment for the Juvenile Detention Home. 97.077 April 8, 1997 PRESS RELEASE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 04-17-97A09:24 RCVD DECLARATION FROM THE IVY STEERING COMMITTEE CONCERNING "NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS AND ENDANGERMENT" I am speaking to you today as a member of the Ivy Steering Committee, which is a group of people who have been working for the past two years to correct the problems at the Ivy Landfill which threaten the environment and the health of the citizens of Albemarle County. I am also speaking to you on behalf of my mother, whose farm is right next to the Ivy Landfill, and whose home and health are threatened by this ever-expanding monstrosity. Today, the Ivy Steering Committee along with more than 60 concerned citizens has filed with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the City Council of Charlottesville a "Notice of Violations and Endangerment." This "Notice" outlines, in 8 pages and 13 attachments, the numerous legal violations which have occurred and which continue to occur at the Ivy Landfill. These violations constitute a threat to human health and the environment. The violations include: · misrepresentations of fact during the process by which the Ivy Landfill obtained its 1993 permit; · violations of the conditions of that permit; · contamination of the groundwater; · contamination of surface waters; · pollution of the air~ The "Notice" is not a law suit, but Federal law requires that this Notice be filed at least 90 days before filing the actual law suit. We hope that during the next 90 days the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority will take concrete steps to cleaning up the Ivy Landfill, closing it to further waste disposal and converting it to a park so that further legal action will not be necessary. This notice remains in effect until the violations are corrected, regardless of what else is done at the Ivy Landfill site. We all are aware of how slow, expensive and acrimonious legal proceedings can be, and pursuing this avenue for redress of grievances is not being taken lightly. We would much prefer to negotiate rather than to litigate. However, the history of the Ivy Landfill and the responses of our elected representatives during our recent efforts to close the site indicate that legal action may be necessary. Promises made by one generation of elected officials have been ignored by the next generation Therefore, statements made by current officials concerning the future of the Ivy Landfill -- even if made in good faith -- cannot be relied on without a legally binding document. Why have we taken this momentous step of initiating legal action? After all, many people in our community have been led to believe that the Ivy Landfill is finally closing. However, that is far from the truth. The plans unveiled last Thursday, April 3 by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority reveal a much more brutal reality. Rather than being cleaned up, closed down and converted to a park, the Ivy Landfill is being expanded for the burial of Construction and Demolition Debris and for erection of a garbage transfer station and large-scale composting facility. The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority estimates that these waste burial, waste processing and waste transfer activities will continue for at least another 80 years. 2 The efforts made by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority to remediate the environmental damage at Ivy, rather than being aggressive and making use of proven methods, are minimal and experimental. Moreover, the people of the Ivy Valley and of Albemarle County are, in effect, the Guinea Pigs in their experimems. Many people in the Ivy Valley are concerned about the future safety of their drinking water and of the watershed. Rather than establishing a program, where test wells are drilled outside of the Ivy Landfill and the safety of the drinking water is monitored, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has ignored or delayed addressing these legitimate concerns. Rather than repairing the environmental damage that has been done at Ivy, the Rivarma Solid Waste Authority is continuing the destructive and short-sighted policies of the past. RSWA is following a policy of "Bury the trash; Bully the neighbors; and Bamboozle the citizens." These are the 3 "B's" of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. What do we want for the site of the Ivy Landftlt? We ask that the environmental damage done at the Ivy Landfill be remediated, that the site be converted to a park and lhat no further trash burial be carried out at the new Ivy Park. The Ivy Landfill should be cleaned up, closed down and converted to a park. These are the 3 "C's" of the Ivy Steering Committee: Clean it up, Close it down, Convert it to a park. This is in the best long-term interests of the residents of the Ivy Valley and of all the residents of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The decisions that our elected officials and their appoimees make concerning the Ivy Landfill are their legacy to the community. The Ivy Landfill -- or the Ivy Park -- will be there for our children and our children's children, long after issues such as reversion and curfews and lodging taxes are forgotten. We are standing near Mclntire Park, a memorial to a man whose vision did so much to create a beautiful environment here in Charlottesville. So I ask the Board of Supervisors and City Council, "How do you want to he remembered?" Will this be the "Sally Thomas Nature Area?" Will it be the "David Bowerman Fitness Trail?" Will it be the "Charlotte Humphris Ivy Park?" or will this continue to be an abused and contaminated memorial to the current members of the Board of Supervisors and City Council. Now is the time to exercise some vision for the future. Michael J. Weber, Ph.D. (804) 979-0810. 924-5022. MJW~Virginia. edu Professor of Microbiology, University of Virginia Medical School Associate Director, University of Virginia Cancer Center (Titles given solely for purposes of identification). Gail Starling Marshall, Attorney. (540) 672-3506 David W. Booth. President, Ivy Steering Committee. (804) 971-5564. Ivy Landfill Homepage: http://www.comet, net/ivysteer 3 WHAT RSWA PROPOSES FOR THE IVY LANDFILL The 3 "B's": Bury the trash; Bully the neighbors; Bamboozle the citizens. We have been hearing in the media that the Ivy Landfill soon will be "closed" because most household gaybage -- Municipal So[id Waste -- will be taken to a private landfill where it can safely be buried. However, current plans of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and their Ixired consultants -- Stun Tatum and Malcolm Pimie Incorporated -- rather than calling for closure and remediation of the Ivy Landfill, call for expandin~ thc Landfill by bu~y'mg Construction and Demolition Debris. In fact, current plans call for building new burial cells specifically for Construction and Demolition Debris and for continuing this activity for at least 80 more years. Although Construction and Demolition Debris may not attract veruun, unless closely monitored it can contain numerous hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead, solvents~ paints, adhesives and even Municipal Solid Waste. Moreover, as Albemarle County develops, there will be an increasing volume of this material. This plan thus continues the hazardous and destructive activities which have characterized the Ivy Landfill in the past. Rather than correcting the violations which threaten human health and the environment, these plans continue the short- sighted and dangerous policies of the past~ Current plans also call for establishing a so-called "mini-transfer station" at Ivy. This transfer station supposedly would be a place where the three Western Albemarle garbage haulers can dump their trash prior to its being shipped to its ultimate burial ground at a commercial landfill. The cost of a mini-transfer station represents an unjustifiable subsidy for a special interest group, but most importantly it is a "foot in the door" to establishing a county-wide or regional transfer station at Ivy. The size of the waste transfer station displayed in the recent site plans from RSWA is much larger than is needed for a "mini-station" and reveals the true intentions of RSWA in this regard. RSWA continues the policy of promising one thing and deliver'rog another. Current plans also call for building a major composting facility at Ivy. Both the transfer station and the composting facility are to be built on a mountain of trash at the highest point in the Ivy Valley, where these industrial activities will intrude on the residential and rural nature of the neighborhood and on the recreational activities of the portions which are to become a park. The buildings, trucks and compost piles will be visible from all over the Ivy Valley and the Blue Ridge Mountains. The RSWA is performing minimal efforts at remediation, using an "experimental" in situ methodology. The Rivarma Authority does not have the technical competence to manage such an experiment, and the Ivy residents are being used, in effect, as human Guinea Pigs without their "informed consent" -- which should be required in all medical experiments. Remediating the site using proven techniques should have the highest priority. In sum, what RSWA proposes is essentially a "bait and switch:" while leading the citizens of Albemarle to believe that the Ivy Landfill is closing, they actually are expanding the area which is being used for landfilling, expanding the industrial activities which are inappropriate for a residential/rural neighborhood and doing virtually nothing to clean up the site or protect the health of the Ivy neighbors. They follow a policy of 3 B's: Bury the trash, Bully the neighbors and Bamboozle the citizens. 4 IVY STEERING COMMITTEE PROPOSAL FOR THE IVY LANDFILL The 3 "C's": Clean it up, Close it down, Convert it to a Park. 1. Clean it up. Remediate the Ivy Landfill so as to guarantee the quality of the water and the air. This is important for the Ivy residents, for people who will be using the new Ivy Park for recreation and for protection of the watershed and the environment. Until this is done, the possibility of legal action will remain. 2. Close it down. Negotiate for the disposal of Municipal Solid Waste at an environmentally sound landfill. RSWA is currently doing this, and this is an important step in the right direction, because n reduces the likelihood that additional threats to health and the environment will be created. But in addition, no more landfill cells should be constructed and no more trees and other buffers should be cut down. 3. Convert it to a park. Develop and immediately implement a final use plan for the Ivy Park site in which the entire site is used for Parks and Recreation, appropriate natural contours and buffers are restored and no final grade is higher than 700 feet: there should be no Mount Trashmore at Ivy. We have come a long way in raising public awareness about the environmental problems associated with the Ivy Landfill, but we still have to overcome an entrenched municipal bureaucracy which has resisted facing the reality that landfilling can be performed less expensively and more safely at properly sited, constructed and managed regional landfills. The Ivy site has been damaged by poor managemem in the past, and it is foolhardy to bury any more potentially toxic materials at that location -- it is time for remediation, not reconfiguration to a CDD landfill. The Ivy Landfill can never be managed ~n accordance with contemporary standards for landfills because ~t is improperly sited in a residential neighborhood in the headwaters of the Rivanna; n poses a threat not only to the Ivy neighbors but to the entire commumty. We ask that the Rivarma Solid Waste Authority, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle commit in writing to the remediafion and phased closure of the Ivy Landfill, as outlined in our proposal. In tlfis way, they can reduce their exposure to the financial, legal and political liabilities of the landfilling business. SUMMARY OF MAJOR FACTS · A Notice of Violations and Endangerment is a document which is required prior to filing an environmental law suit. It lists the numerous ways in which the Ivy Landfill violates State and Federal laws governing landfill operations, including violations of permits, nnsrepresentations of fact, contamination of the groundwater and surface water and pollution of the air. · The Notice is being filed so that residents of Ivy can retain their rights to go to court if these violations are not corrected. Federal law requires that a Notice such as this one be filed at least 90 days prior to filing suit. The 90-day period is to be used to initiate actions to correct the violations. This notice will be in effect until the violations and dangers are remediated and corrected, regardless of what else is done at the Ivy Landfill site. · It is necessary to file this Notice and may be necessary subsequently to file suit because promises made by elected officials and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority have not been reliable in the past and are not legally binding. [1 also is necessary to file this notice because RSWA does not plan currently to dose and remediate the site, which would be the correct course of action, but to expand landfilling at that site with Construction And Demolition Debris and to build a transfer and composting station. This is unacceptable because these activities, unless properly restricted, can cause additional continuing danger to human health and the environment. · The Ivy Steering Committee proposes, first, that the Ivy site be remediated to eliminate the threats to human health and the environment. Until this is done. the Ivy Steering Committee reserves the possibility of legal action. Second, that no expansion of landfilling activities should occur. Third, that a site plan be developed for the Ivy Landfill which converts it to a park, and that such a plan be immediately implemented. 6 BACKGROUND INFORMATION · A short history of landfilling in Virginia, In 1991 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued new comprehensive standards for mumcipal solid waste landfills including environmental impact analysis, the use of double-lined cells for bu~ng garbage, and enhanced systems to collect the leachate (garbage juice) which seeps from the cells. Most of the landfills then existing in Virginia could not meet these regulations without considerable capital expenditure, and thus numerous new regional landfills were constructed over the following few years to handle the waste stream (and capture the associated revenues) which would be available when local and county dumps shut down. However, in 1993 the Virginia legislature, under pressure from Counties and Municipalities, passed HB1205, which "grandfathered in" 112 existing municipal landfills throughout Virginia, exempting them fi.om the liner and leachate collection requirements of federal Subtitle D standards. As a consequence, the Ivy Landfill -- and numerous other landfills in Virginia -- continue to operate using procedures which are no longer considered appropriate for the protection of health and the environment. In addition, because there is now excess landfill capacity in Virginia, the large regional landfills, which do meet current EPA standards, are importing trash (primarily from the Northeast) to cover their debt and operating expenses. So, ironically, Virgima is using its environmentally sound landfills to protect the health and environment of the Northeast while subjecting its own citizens to the dangers inherent in old, leaky landfills. · A short history of the Ivy Landfill: a history of broken promises. Thirty years ago, Albemarle County established a garbage dump at Ivy, without an enwromnental site analysis and in spite of protests from Ivy residents. The Ivy residents took action against the County, but agreed to drop their opposition when promised that the dump would operate for only five years, until a better site could be found. This promise was broken. Twenty-seven years ago the County Comprehensive Plan called for small, scattered temporary landfills, which would ultimately be planned for parks and recreation. The Ivy neighborhood has consistently been zoned for agricultural and residential -- not industrial -- uses. More recently, the area which includes the Ivy Landfill was downzoned to protect the watershed. The implicit promises in County Plans and zoning restrictions have bee~ broken. Twenty-four years ago the City of Charlottesville began using the Ivy site on a temporary (6-month) basis, until a better, more permanent site could be found. The promise that the CiO; use of the site wouM be temporary was broken. From the beginning, promises were made that the Ivy Landfill would be operated under the highest standards of a sanitary landfill. However, at least 120,000 gallons of solvents now known to be hazardous were dumped at Ivy on unlined cells between 1968 and 1980 Moreover, the Ivy Landfill operates only because HB1205 and a series of waivers issued by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality exempts it from modem standards for good landfill operation. Thus, this Landfill, which never was properly sited in the first place, and which sits on top of springs and is bisected and bordered by streams, is exempt from Federal requirements designed to protect the water. Finally, the Ivy Landfill has a long record of failing to meet even these lowered standards and is currently operating under a Consent Enforcement Order from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to stop discharges to surface water and the groundwater. Thus, promises of environmentally sound operations have been broken. Is it any wonder that we view with skepticism new promises by the RSWA and elected officials of clean, safe and environmentally sound operations? 7 Notice of Violations and Endangerment: ABSTRACT This Notice of Violations and Endangerment hsts the numerous ways the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority violates state and federal law in the management of the Ivy Landfill. It is filed so as to preserve the right of the Ivy residents to subsequently file a law suit if these violations are not rectified. The violations are of two types: · The Ivy Landfill operates under House Bill 1205 legislation which provides specific exemptions from current environmental laws for Landfills which qualify. However, the Landfill is not eligible for those exemptions because it is an open dump, the application for those exemptions contained false and misleading statements which were relied on by the state m granting the operating permit and the permitting process by DEQ was unconstitutional. · The Ivy Landfill has consistently failed to meet even the extremely low standards set for it by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Thus, it continues to leak hazardous chemicals into the groundwater and surrounding streams, thereby threatening the drinking water; and it emits dangerous gases and offensive odors into the air. Notice of Violations and Endangerment: SUMMARY The Ivy Steering Committee is filing a "Notice of Violations and Endangerment" m give notice that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA), the City Council of Charlottesville and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County are in violation of legal standards governing the handling, storage and disposal of solid and/or hazardous wastes, and that these violations present a substantial and imminent danger to human health and the environment. Federal law requires that citizens must file a Notice such as this as a pre-condition to filing any suit raising these issues. Thus, filing this Notice is legally necessary to preserve our right to bring action in Court to stop these violations. Many of the violations occur because the Ivy. Landfill operates under a series of exemptions to current state and federal law which have been granted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, but in fact is not eligible to receive those exemptions. Other violations occur because the RSWA has failed to meet even these extremely low standards of performance. The violations are as follows: 1. The Ivy Landfill operates under House Bill 1205 legislation, which provides exemptions for qualifying Landfills from the lined cells and enhanced leachate collection systems that are mandated by current law. However, the Ivy Landfill is an "Open Dump" and is not eligible to be exempt fxom those minimal environmental laws. 2. The RSWA is not eligible for exemptions from Federal requirements because its self- certification, upon which the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality relied, 8 contained false and misleading statements. In particular, RSWA claimed that no hazardous materials had been deposited at the Ivy Landfill, even though a 1988 Department of Waste Management investigation documented the dumpmg at this site of over 120,000 gallons of material, now known to be hazardous waste, between 1968 and 1980. RSWA also claimed that the facility posed no substantial present or potential danger to human health and the environment, even though it did and does, Hazardous materials have now been found in the groundwater at numerous locations at the site. Solid wastes are flowing out of the site and this creates a threat of endangerment to human health. 3. The legislation under which RSWA applied for these permits is unconstitutional since it did not have the required notices or public hearing and because there was no effort to verify the qualifications of RSWA. 4. The Ivy Landfill, being an "Open Dump" is prohibited from operating. 5. The Ivy Landfill continues to discharge waste into State and United States waters, and this poses a threat to the environment and human health, including the threat of cancer. 6. The Ivy Landfill continues to violate regulations controlling storm water ran-off. 7. The Ivy Landfill seeps hazardous chemicals onto neighboring property. 8. Monitoring wells on the Ivy Landf'dl indicate concentrations of hazardous pollutants well in excess of maximum permissible levels, and these pose an iunninent and substantial threat to human health and the environment. 9. The disposal of solid waste at the Ivy Landfill poses a threat to health and the environment also because of inadequate measures to control odor, noise and air pollution. 10. The Virg'mia Department of Environmental Quality has failed to enforce the timelines and other requirements contained in the consent order entered into with RSWA, and this also contributes to the threat to human health and the environment. The histo~ay of the operation of the Ivy Landfill dramatically demonstrates that it has never been in compliance with applicable state and federal laws and cannot be operated in compliance with the law. It is past time for this Dump to be closed. BOARD Ol~ SUPER¥ISORS Text of statement to Board of Supervisors, April 16, 1997 Michael Weber 979-0810 (H); 9224-5022 (W); MJVq~Virginia.edu 04-I~-97702:14 RCVD By now you all know that a Notice of Violations and Endangerment has been filed in federal court, and that this is the first step which must be taken if citizens are to file an environmental law suit. 17he 90 day mandatory wait,rig period is supposed to be a period in which authorities can take action to address the substantive ~ssues rinsed in the Notice I hope ~t will be a period in which we can discuss in a direct and substantive way the issues which prompted the filing of this Notice. The Daily Progress has characterized the threat of a law suit as "extreme." Whether one agrees with that characterization or not, I hope you will ask yourselves what events would have precipitated a group of peop!e who genera!iy are far from being extremists to take such strong action. The major reason is the feeling on the parr of the residents of the Ivy Valley that their voices have n6t been heard and that their legitimate interests have not been given their due. I personally feel that if we could sit down with the people in this room and engage in a real dialogue, that we could resolve this problem in short order. Unfortunately, the Board of Supervisors ~s only one of the governing parties in this issue. We feel very strongly that the RSWA and City Council have gone through the motions of soliciting public opinion and then,have made ~he opinigns~and interests of the residents of IW the Ye~l~a~st 6fti~ei~ c6r~er~s. '.. I will give y~u_ j~st ofie~ e~m/ipi',el' R~f;tly RswA un~,eiled :their intermediate use plan for the IW Landfill. It puts a ver~ larg~ transfer' sta{ion (not a mini-6'ansfer station as promised) and a large scale composting facility at the very top of the highest garbage peak in the area, where it will be seen. heard and probably smelled from ali directions. It puts leachate collection ponds right on the border of the Western boundary, where the most heavily-impacted neighbors will have to continue indefinitely to have their healtk their peace of mind and their property under unpredictable odiferous assault. It expands the landfilled area horizontally by cutting down more trees. And when I pointed all this out to the representatives from Malcolm-Pirnie. and how important it was that the landfill become a good neighbor, I got this reply, "Frankly, this is the first time anyone has said anything to me about restoring the buffers." It is clear that RSWA held public hearings, the neighbors made their suggestions and raised their concerns, and then these were all ignored. The forms of input were observed but-the content of public input was ignored. Let me give you another example. The people who drink well water in the Ivy Valley are very concerned about leakage of cancer causing chemicals from the Landfil'~, and remediating that site is foremost among their concerns. The remediation being performed by RSWA is experimental -- apparently [eyeral experiments are being tried along the lines of "in situ", b. ioremediation, Thi~ is wl~ere bacteri~ are being used to digest the cancer causing compounds by pumping the ba¢t~ri'a :into the 'wells N0xv, I ~can't pretend to be an expert in biorernediation. But I'm a professor of Microbiology, I've done studies for the EPA on wasteveater contamihatipn and I'm Associate Director of the Cancer Center l can say this with some confidence -- the RSWA staffis in over their heads on this topic. They don't know what they're doing. Worst of all, they don't recognize that they don't know. This is an issue I feel strongly about: The best decisions are made when diverse opinions are seriously and thoughtfully considered -- not when you surround yourselves with "yes men." The RSWA has controlled the kind of information you receive, the people who.are appointed to the advisory committee, the consultants who are hired to provide "outside expert" advice and the information that your two members of the RSWA Board convey. When you chose option 7A from the options put forward a~rer the GBB report, I believe you made a good faith effort to do the right thing, considering the information you were provided by people in whom you placed your confidence. However. you were choosing from a very narrow range of possible opuons, and information about the benefits and risks of these and other options were not fully disclosed. In the interest of providing a complete airing of the information about this issue, I have asked the League of Women Voters to sponsor a forum about the Landfill, as they did about reversion. I would be happy to stand in front of you, the City Council and other citizens of the County and debate with Jack Marshall point by point and fact by fact the pros and cons of each scenario for the future of the Ivy Landfill site. I hope you will encourage the League to take on this important task. There are two issues facing our community wtfich I call "legacy issues" and these are the Landfill and the Bypass. I call them "legacy" issues because the decisions made on these issues today will determine the shape of our community 50 and 100 years from now In that sense, they are more ~mportant than issues such as reversion, curfews and even taxes, which will be footnotes in history. The issue of the Ivy Landfill is an important one, it will be one of your legacies to the community forever, and it deserves more serious and undelegated attention from you than it has been getting. COUNTY OF ALBE suPERwsoRs EXECUTIVE SUMMAI Y_0s_9 AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - General Government Capital Improvement Fund SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #96069 in the amount of $74,000.00 to fund a portion of the health department renovation and addition from the health department rental account STAFF CONTACT(S}: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden, Ms. White BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: April 16, 1997 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: ¢7. ~/c. ~35E INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X iNFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: The County and the City approved $160,000 in FY 95/96 to complete the Health Department addition and renovations. Final construction bids for the addition came in $200,900 over the available funds and on September 11, 1996, the Board was advised that this shortfall in funding could be funded from donated funds from the Free Clinic ($108,500), reserve funds in the Health Department Rental Account ($74,000), and funding from the City and the County ($17,500), with the County's share ($8,750) being funded from the Health Department refund monies. DISCUSSION: In September, 1996, an appropriation was requested and approved to cover the County's share ($8,750) of the shortfall in funding. The attached appropriation #96069 is requesting approval of the transfer of $74,000 from the Health Department Rental Account to the General Government Capital Improvement Fund account. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriation as detailed ~)n form #96069 in the amount of $74,000.00. 97.076 COUNTY OF Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfim Road Chadofte~ille, Vir~nia 22902.4596 {8041 296-584,3 FAX (804) 296~5800 Walter E Pm'kins Sally H. Thomas April 21. 1997 Mr. Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General c/o the United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20260 Dear Mr. Runyon: At the Board of Supermsors meeting held on April 16, 1997, the Board adopted the attached resolution supporting the efforts of the residents of Batesville to keep the Batesville Post Office at irs exisung location. The Board also asked that the Postal Service abandon any plans it may have ro relocate this Post Office. /ec Sincerely, Clerk CC: Mr. Thomas Koeber, Secretary, Board of Governors Mr. Joseph Rein. District Manager, Mid-Atlantic Region Mr. Bobby Abernethy, Manager of Postal Operations Printed on recycled paper David P Bowerman Fao Charlotte Y. Hurnphris Forrest R. Ma~hall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Beard of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Vh'~inia 22902-~596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 29(>58~ charles S. Martin Wall~,r E Perkins Sall~ H. Thomas April 21, 1997 Mr. Bobby Abernethy, Manager of Postal Operations c/o United States POstal Service PO Box 1996 Staunton, VA 24401 Dear Mr. Abemethy: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 16, 1997, the Board adopted the attached resolution supporting the efforts of the residents of Batesville to keep the Batesville Post Office at its existing location. The Board also asked that the Postal Service abandon any plans it may have to relocate this Post Office. Sincerely, /ec CC: Mr. Marvin Rtmyon, Postmaster General Mr. Thomas Koeber, Secretary, Board of Govenors Mr. Joseph Rein, District Manager, Mid-Atlantic Region Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Hurnph~ Fom~ R. Marshall, Jr. CO~ OF AI_B~! E Office of Bc~d of Supervisors 401 Mclnfir~ Road Charlottesville, Vn'~nia 22902-4596 (804] 29~-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Chmt~s S, Martin April 21. 1997 Mr. Joseph Rein, District Manager Mid-Atlantic Region cYo the United States Postal Service 1801 Brook Road Richmond, VA 23232 Dear Mr. Rein: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 16, 1997, the Board adopted the attached resolution supporting the efforts of the residents of Batesville to keep the Batesville Post Office at its existing location. The Board also asked that the Postal Service abandon any plans it may have to relocate this Post Office. Sincerely, /ec cc: Mr. Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General Mr. Thomas Koeber, Secretary, Board of Govenors Mr. Bobby Abernethy, Manager of Postal Operations Printed on recycled paper C~ot~ ¥. Humphr~s Jack Jou~a Forres~ P,. lvlamh~ ~ Walter E Perkins Sall~ H. Thomas Samuel t~er April 21, 1997 Mr. Thomas Koeber, Secretary Board of Govenors c/o the United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza. SW Washington, DC 20260 Dear Mr. Koeber: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 16, 1997, the Board adopted the attached resolution supporting the efforts of the residents of Batesville to keep the Batesville Post Office at its existing location. The Board also asked that the Postal Service abandon any plans it may have to relocate this Post Office, Sincerely, / /ec CC: Mr. Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General Mr. Joseph Rein, District Manager, Mid-At/antic Region Mr. Bobby Abernethy, Manager of Postal Operations Printed on recpcled paper Mr. Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General c/o the United States Postal Service 475 L'Errfant Plaza, SW Washington, D.C. 20260 Mr. Thomas Koerber, Secretary Board of Governors c/o the United States Postal Service 475 L'El~fant Plaza, SW Washington, D.C. 20260 Mr. Joseph Rein, District Manager Mid-Atlantic Region c/o the United States Postal Service 1801 Brook Road Richmond, VA 23232 Mr. Bobby Abemethy, Manager of Postal Operations c/o the United States Postal Service P.O. Box 1996 Staunton. VA 24401 (540) 886-1474 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the village of Batesville in Albemarle County, Virginia, is eligible for and pursuing being listed as an historic district on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register; and WHEREAS, Batesville has had a post office since at least the early 1830's and that post office has been located in or beside Page's store since 1914; and WHEREAS, the existing Post Office acts as the center and heart of the Batesville community; and WHEREAS, the U. S. Postal Service has announced its intentions to relocate the Batesville Post Office; and WHEREAS, such relocation would irreparably remove the heart of this community; and WHEREAS, there is strong conm~unity support to keep the Post Office at its existing location, including willingness to design access for handicapped persons; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors realizes the important role small villages play in promoting the American way of life and wants to encourage their continued viability in Albemarle County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Albemarle Board of County Supervisors supports the residents of Batesville in their efforts to keep the Batesville Post Office at its existing location; and FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board send a copy of this resolution to the U. S. Postal Service with a letter asking them to abandon any plans they may have to relocate the Batesville Post Office. l, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors at a regular meeting held on April 16, 1997. erv sors DAVID R, GEHR COMMISSIONER BOARD OF:{ klP. E VASDRS 04-08-9'/1~05 ;2fl g,C,V~ D COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND 23219 1939 April 7, 1997 JAMES S. GIVENS STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER Boards of Supervisors of All Counties and the Council of the City of Suffolk Revised State Noise Abatement Policy Ladies and Gentlemen: The Commonwealth Transportation Board, at its meeting of November 21, 1996, adopted a new Sta~e Noise Abatement Policy which became effective on January 1, 1997. This policy outlines the criteria for the construction of sound barriers to reduce highway traffic noise impact on adjacent properties. The new policy incorporates several changes tha= help clarify the previous policy. The most significant change raises the cost from $20,000 to $30,000 per protected residential property. I would emphasize that the new policy continues the requirements of the previous policy for non-federal-aid projects. These requirements are: The local jurisdiction through which the project traverses will pay 50% of the noise abatement cost, and The local jurisdiction mus= have an ordinance requiring developers to include noise abatement meas- ures in their plans for residential and other noise sensitive developments adjacent to existing highway and future highway alignments previously adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. For your convenience, we are attaching a copy of the new State Noise Abatement Policy and a cover sheet showing a list of changes from the previous policy. Please call me at (804) 786- 2746 if you have questions concerning the contents of the document or need assistance. State Secondary Roads Engineer Enclosure TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY /NTRODUCTION The State Noise Abatement Policy was adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), effective January 1, 1989. The purpose of the policy was to establish criteria for providing noise protection in conjunction with proposed highway projects in Virginia. The policy has been applied statewide for nearly eight years and has aided in the construction or construction approval of more than 100 sound barriers. It has been a source of considerable experience and valuable feedback from citizens and elected officials. On the strength of this experience and feedback, the CTB decided to evaluate the policy and detemfine whether changes are warranted. The evaluation indicated the need for revisions to the policy, and as a result, a number of changes were made and incorporated in a revised policy. The revised State Noise Abatement Policy was approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on November 21, 1996 and became effective on January !, 1997. The major source of information utilized in the evaluation was a survey of 15 state DOTs. The states surveyed were Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. This group includes states in this FHWA region, neighboring states, and states along the Atlantic Seaboard. The evaluation was perforated by VDOT's Environmental Division with assistance from the Transportation Research Council as well as the Transportation Planning, Policy Analysis, and Urban divisions. CHANGES TO THE STATE NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY 1. Change format to make the policy more user friendly. 2. Add a section on Type II (Retrofit) defining Type II noise abatement and stating specifically that VDOT does not participate in Retrofit noise abatement, page 1 *This change is actually only a clarification, since VDOT has never participated in Type II noise abatement. 3. Revise one definition of noise impact reflecting a FHWA mandate. Change from "equal or exceed the NAC" to "approach (reach one decibel less than) or exceed the NAC". page 2 *This change has been in affect since December 1993. 4. Change cost-effectiveness ceiling ~om $20,000 per protected re~ceptor to $30,000 per protected residential property. The proposed change results from a survey of 15 states in the eastern part of the country. Only one of the states has a lower ceiling than VDOT, and the average is $32,000. VDOT's ceiling has not changed since 1987. page 2 *The new ceiling will apply to any project for which the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (P,S&E) assembly had not been submitted to the FHWA by January 1, 1997. 5. Add procedure for making cost-effectiveness determination for noise abatement for non-residential properties, page 2 *This procedure is currently in use but was not spelled out in the original policy. 6. Add third party funding element, including the etu-off date for receipt by VDOT of third party share of cost (prior to submittal ofP, S&E assembly). page 3 *This policy element is already in effect but was not addressed specifically in the original policy. STATE NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Approved November 21, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997 AUTHORIZATION The state noise abatement policy is adopted pursuant to the authority of Section 33.1-12 of the Code of Virginia. Moved By: ~. White Seconded By: ~. Cosbill WHEREAS, the State'Noise Abatement Policy was adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, effective January 1, 1989; and WHEREAS, the purpose of policy was to establish criteria for providing noise protection in conjunction with proposed highway projects in Virginia; and WHEREAS, the policy has been applied statewide for more than seven years and has aided in the construction of more than 100 sound barriers; and WHEREAS, the policy has been a source of considerable experience and valuable feedback from citizens and elected officials; and WHEREAS, on the strength of this experience and feedback, the Commonwealth Transportation Board decided to evaluate the policy and determine whether changes are warranted; and WHEREAS, the evaluation has indicated the need for revisions to the policy, and proposed changes have been incorporated in a revised policy; and WHEREAS, careful consideration has been given to the proposed changes to the policy; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the revised State Noise Abatement' Policy be approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, and that such policy be effective on January 1, 1997. Motion: Carried 11-21-96 STATE NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY It is the policy of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to employ the following criteria and procedures in determining the need for and the reasonableness and feasibility of noise abatement measures along Virginia's highways. The U. S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 (23 CFR 772) will be the guiding document for the analysis and abatement of highway traffic noise. TYPE I PROJECTS A Type I project involves the construction of a highway on new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through traffic lanes. When the abatement criteria contained in this policy are satisfied in conjunction with a Type I project, noise abatement must be provided. TYPE II PROJECTS (RETROFIT) A Type II or retrofit project involves the construction of noise abatement along an existing highway when not in conjunction with an improvement for that highway. VDOT does not participate in Type II or retrofit noise abatement. NOISE IMPACTS A. Noise impacts occur when the projected highway noise levels: 1. Approach (reach one decibel less than) or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) contained in 23 CFR 772, or 2. Exceed existing noise levels by a substantial amount (10 decibels or more). B. Noise impacts beyond 1000 feet (305 meters) fzom the roadway will not be considered in determining the need for noise abatement. ABATEMENT CRITERIA A. A noise abatement measure will be considered cost effective if the cost of the measure per protected residential property does not exceed $30,D00. Each residential (dwelling) unit will be considered as a single residential property. B. The cost-effectiveness determination for non-residential properties will be handled on a case by case basis and will include, in addition to the abatement cost, the type and duration of the activity taking place, the size of the affected area, the severity of the impact, and the amount of noise reduction to be provided. 2 C. To be protected, a property must be impacted and receive a minimum of 5 decibels of noise reduction. D. Extenuating circumstances will be considered on a case by case basis. THIRD PARTY FUNDING A. When the cost of a noise abatement measure exceeds VDOT's cost- effectiveness ceiling but the measure otherwise satisfies the criteria contained in this policy, the measure can still be constructed, provided 1. A third party funds the amount above the cost ceiling and, 2. VDOT receives the third party share prior to the date of submittal of the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (P,S&E). B. Ifa third party requests the use of VDOT right of way for the construction ora noise abatement measure deemed unnecessary by VDOT, the request can be granted, provided: 1. The third party assumes 100% of the abatement cos~ including, but not limited to, preliminary engineering, construction, and maintenance and, 2. VDOT's material, design, and construction specifications are met. 3 STATE FUNDED NOISE ABATEMENT For state funded projects that meet the FHWA Type I project definition, VDOT will consider and, if reasonable and feasible, construct and maintain noise abatement measures, provided the local jurisdiction through which the project traverses: 1. Agrees to assume 50% ofthe abatement cost and, 2. Has an ordinance requiring developers to include noise abatement in their plans for residential and other noise sensitive developments adjacent to existing highways and future highway alignments previously adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The abatement measures constructed by developers will ensure compliance with the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria, where these criteria can be reasonably achieved, but will at the minimum provide 5 decibels of noise reduction for each property to be protected. The abatement measure can be located in total or partially on VDOT right of way, provided: a. The developer complies with VDOT's design, construction, and materials specifications and, b. The local jurisdiction is responsible for maintaining the abatement measure. 4 UNDEVELOPED LAND In assessing the noise impacts and evaluating noise abatement measures associated with a highway project, undeveloped lands will be treated as developed lands, if and only ifa proposed land use development plan has been approved by the local jurisdiction prior to the date of approval of the project alignment by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The final decision concerning noise abatement for a proposed development will be conditioned on two points: 1. The noise barrier will not be constructed until the portion of the development to be protected by the barrier is completed to the satisfaction o£VDOT, and 2. When there is a substantial time lapse between the final decision and the date the development is completed, the noise barrier analysis will be updated and the decision will be reconsidered. DECISION AUTHORITY A. For federal aid projects, the joint FHWA-VDOT Noise Abatement Committee will have the responsibility for assembling all relevant information and developing noise abatement related recommendations. On non-federal aid projects, the Committee's function will be carded out by its VDOT members. B. The Chief Engineer, on behalf of the CommOnwealth Transportation Board, will make the final determination on all noise abatement related issues. 6 Building Code Information (804) 296-5832 COUNT~ OF ALBEMARLE Depa,'~'nent of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road. Room 223 Ch~lo~esville, Virginia 229024596 FAX 1804 972~]I26 'lTD 804 9724012 ..................... BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 04-04-97A1}:1~ RCVD Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 Apri~ 1. 1997 JayA. Taggart, L.S. P.O Box 1346 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 Re: Officia! Determination of Number of Development Rights - Section 10.3.1 Tax Map 72. Parcel 20 (Property of Anastasis S. JuuI-Nielsen) Dear Jay: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information you have submitted for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination ~hat this property contains 4 deve!opment rights. The parent parcel of Tax Map 72 pame120 was 117.17 acres on December 10, 1980 when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. On September 25, 1984, a plat and deed were recorded dividing the property into two pieces and transferring one of 100 acres with one development right to a new owner. Therefore. the residue of 17.17 acres was left with the remaining four development rights. This determination considered only the descriptive clauses of the deed recorded at Deed Book 815 page 533. if you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date notice of this determination is g~ven, in accordance with Section 15.1-496.1 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not rite a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. The date notice of this determination was given is specified above. Sinecure[y, John Grady Deputy Zoning Administrator cc: Anastasis S. JuuPNielsen John Shepherd, Planning Department Gay Carver, Real Estate Depar[mem Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files 04-08-97P03:20 RCVD 1997 FIRST QUARTER BUILDING REPORT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 INDEX I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C & D) III. Comparison of AII Building Permits (Chart E) IV. Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F - H) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA Single-Family (includes modular) Single-Family Attached Single-Family Townhouse Duplex Multi-Family Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) Accessory Apartment -2- Dudng the first quarter of 1997. 155 permits were issued for 155 dwelling units In addition 3 permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2500. for a total of $7500. I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTI- Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month MONTH 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 JAN 93 56 64 183 49 190 50 26 54 FEB 172 68 31 72 56 53 43 44 44 MAR 61 92 57 64 58 72 47 61 57 APR 49 82 62 72 76 69 46 71 MAY 89 75 44 62 45 60 41 63 JUN 220 85 54 48 79 70 62 41 JUL 67 42 58 62 81 186 51 87 AUG 74 87 58 126 116 49 44 105 SEP 72 90 55 48 45 47 56 64 OC~ 56 48 39 43 66 51 42 186 NOV 301 37 42 49 65 60 66 43 ~EC 55 42 50 37 57 32 48 44 TOTAL 1309 804 614 866 805 939 596 835 Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Montt 200 180 ~ Chart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by MonthI 160 140 i [20 100 80 2O [- 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH ~1995 ·1996 ~19971 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning & Community Development -3- II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL :)WELLING UNITS Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH I DUP MF MHC AA Chaff D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0! g 01 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 10 2' 0 0 21 URSAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 O 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 3 0 0 0 3 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 2 6 0 0 8 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0: 0 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 14 4 g 0 0 18 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 24 01 0 0 0 28 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 2 RIVANNA VILLAGE 16 0 0 0 16 GROWTH AREA SUBTOTAL 69 1~ 13 0 0 0 0 96 RURAL AREA 1 14 0 0 2 0 t6 RURAL AREA 2 13, O 0 0 0 0 13 RUEAL AREA 3 15i ti 0 0 1 0 16 RURAL AREA 4 11 0 0 0 3 0 14 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 53 (3 0 0 0 6 0 59 TOTAL 122 14 13 0 0 6 0 155 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning & Community Development MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCMJ- FARM EUILDING TOTAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER, RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT T~PE TOTAL PERCENT DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH I DUP MF MHC ,AA D,U. TOTAL D.U. Prepared by Albemarle County Planning & Community Development -5- IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (cont~nue~) Char[ G. Breakdown of CO's for Resident[a[ Dwelling Units by Megistedar Distr~ and Dwelling Unit Typ~ MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH I DUP MF MHC RIO 0 0 0 0 0 0 JACK JOUETT 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVANNA 34 7 O 0 0 O 42 SAMUEL MILLER la 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 SCOTTSVILLE 17 0 0 0 52 0 0 6 WHITE HALL 19 0 0 0 2 01 22 TOTAL 82 4 7 0 52 2 147 Cha~t H. Breakdown of CO*s for Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNITTYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 URSAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 9 0 3 0 0 12 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 0 0i 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 12 0 0 0i 52 0 64 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 3 2 0 0 5 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 2 0 0 0 2 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 11 I 0 0 0 12 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 11 I 4 0 0 16 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVANNA VILLAGE 10 0 OJ 0 0 10 GROWTH AREA SUBTOTAL 58 4 52 0 0 121 RURAL AREA 1 7 0 2 0 9 RURAL AREA 2 4 0 g 0 0 4 RURAL AREA 3 8 0 0 0 0 8 RURALAREA4 5 0~ 0 0 0 5 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 24 0 2 0 26 TOTAL 82 g 52 2 0 147 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning & Community Development THE KESSLER GROUP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 04-10-97P03:35 RC¥o Don Franco. RE. April 10, 1997 Ms. Elaine Echols Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 re: ZMA 96-28 Glenmore Associates Dear Ms. Echols: On behalf of Glenmore Associates, ! l~ereby request that the action on this matter be deferred to the May 21, 1997 meeting of the Board of Supervisors so that issues regarding the language used in the proffers can be adjusted to the satisfaction of Glenmore Associates, Randolph and Catherine Lang, and the Office of the County Attorney. Do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Don Franco, P.E. PO. Box 5207. Charlottesville Va 22905 (80%' 979-9500 FAX B043 979-8055 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT for Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14(E)] 2. 3. 4. NalTle ~ Title: Agency: Transaction: David P. Bowerman Rio District Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ZMA-96~28 Glenmore Associates -- Public hearing on a request ro rezone 6.6 acres fi:om RA to PRD and amend existing agreements for Gle~unore PPD. Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction: Personal interest in a contract which sold fitness equipment to an entity in which the pnncipals are also principals of the applicant. I declare that: I am disqualifying myself from participating in this transaction and request that this fact be recorded in the appropriate public records for a period of five years. Dated: April 16, 1997 DPB41697.A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS March 27, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4896 (804) 296-5823 Don Franco The Kessler Group P O Box 5207 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: ZMA 96-28 Glenmore Associates Dear Mr. Franco: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 25, 1997, by a vote of 5-1, recommended approval of the additional land area to the Glenmore PRD and the proffered changes to the density, modifications to the General Conditions, minor wording changes recommended by the staff and with the applicant's offer to proffer that Ashton Road would not be used to provide access to Glenmore except as an alternate emergency access point. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 16, 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, Elaine K. Echols Senior Planner, AICP v~r~(Ella Carey GlenmoreAssociates Amelia McCulley David P. Bowerman ak, Charlotte Y. Humphfis Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF Al REIvlA~I _E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesv~e, V~m:dinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-58OO April I0, 1997 Charles S. Martin Walter E l~rldns Sally H. Thomas TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE ATTACHED LISTING: Re: ZMA-96-28 - Glenmore Associates Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you as an adjacent property owner that the applicant has requested that the above-noted petition be deferred until MAY 21, 1997. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors will hold its public hearing on ZMA-96-28 on MAY 21, 1997. The public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m., in Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. If you need any additional information, please contact the undersigned: Sincerely, /ewc Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk / cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg Elaine Echols Amelia McCulley Printed on recpcled paper ZMA-96-28 GLENMORE- ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ACCAD, PAUL D ADER, RICHARD M OR TESSA G ALBRIGHT, ANNE E ANDA, WILLIAM T OR STEVIA C ANGELLO, DEBRA A ARMSTRONG, CHARLES S OR MARY LEE ARNETT. THOMAS G OR MARY F ARNETTE, C EUGENE OR PAM%LA A ATWELL, HELEN S ATWOOD, WILLIAM H OR DENISE C BAELLOW, RONALD L OR JANET B BANIS, THEODORE W BARATZ, MORTON S OR MARLEIGH M BARNES, SHIRLEY SAY BATTAGLIA, CARL & DOMENICA, ETAL BEASLEY, CHARLES A & FRANCES S BECKWITH, RODNEY F OR ELIZABETH W BERRY, PETER N OR JOAN H BHATIA, SANJIV OR CLAUDIA BALTODANO-BHATIA BICKERS, DUANE H OR MARY ELAiNE BICKERS, NELSON E OR MARY S BIEKER, DANIEL J BIRCKHEAD, STUART T OR LYNN C BITTNER, ROBERT L OR JULIA M BLAUVELT, HOWARD W OR MARY C BLEDSOE, RALPH C OR ROSE MARIE J BOCOCK, MARTIN H JR OR GLEMA D BOLLERSLEV, TIM P OR MARIAN STAER BOURKE, ELIZABETH M BOUTON, BRIAN B BOUTON, BRIAN B OR SHEILA G MCCORMICK BOWER, PETER J OR DIANE H BOWMAN, THOMAS A OR VIRGINIA S BREEDEN, TOBY M OR SUZANNE IX [ BRINKMAN, NORMAN T OR GEORGIA C BROWN, CRAIG R OR REBECCA I_ BROWN, HARLAN J OR CHRISTINA L BROWN, BENHAM E BURCH, SUZANNE T BURGEE, MICHAEL B BURRUSS, ROBERT L & SUSIE C BUYS, CLIFFORD R & JEANETTE O C & B LAND TRUST; CAMBLOS, JAMES L III OR CHRISTINE C CAMPBELL, ROBERT H JR OR GAYLE C CAMPBELL, DUNCAN W OR SUSAN J CAMPBELL, WARD J OR PEGGY B CANNON, CARL E OR MILDRED F CANVASBACK LAND TRUST CAPERTON. NANCY G CARMAN, RITA D CARMICHAEL, F. CHARLES OR JANET MARTIN CARROLL, CYNTHIA OR PETER C GROH CARTER, RONALD D CARTER, RICHARD G OR PEGGY W CARTER, WILLIAM EDGAR JR OR LINDA LANIER BELL C. CASELLA, JAMES J OR GLORIA J CENEDELLA, ATTILIO H & VIRGINIA B & TRUSTEES CHAMALES, JOHN P & JEANNE C CHAPMAN, ROBERT B OR DELORES J CIBBARELLI, VINCENT C OR BEVERLY B CLAIRMONT, TERESA MARIE CLARK, LESTER L OR MEREDITH ANN CLINGER, ARTHUR W JR OR LILLIAN W COBURN, WILLIAM L OR ANNE C COLEMAN, MARY H COLOMBINI, CARLOS OR MARTHA ANN COMER, MICHAEL D OR KANDI K CONLON, RUTH A COPPOLA, M JEFFREY AND MARY R COREY, GRACE L OR BARBARA PAULINE CORRIGAN, EUGENE F OR LENA N COSNER, B L & E GRANT COSTLIER, FRANK A OR PEGGY B COTTRELL, RONALD J OR DAWN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE & EAST RIVANNA VOLUNTEER FIRE CO INCORPORATED COX, BARRY V OR KAREN A CRAIG, ROBERT L OR ANDREA P CRENSHAW, PARIS E .IR OR BETTY G CUBBAGE, MICHAEL L OR JANICE W DAMVAKARIS, ZANNIS DANDRIDGE, WILLIAM R JR OR BETTY B DAVIES, DARLA DEAN, MICHAEL JONATHAN OR JANET MARY ROSE D DEAN. D KEVIN OR CHRISTiNE.D DEANE, RODNEY E JR DEANE, DAVID M OR TERRI T DEANE, RAYMOND C JR OR EVELYN P DECKER, JEFFREY C OR ANGELA HOLLY DEE, JOHN T OR SUSAN M DENNIS, EDMUND G & FLORENCE M DENNIS ETAL, TRUSTEES FOR EDMUND DENZEL, KYLE J OR CAMDEN WOOD SELIG DESIM1NI, THOMAS W OR LESLIE A DOMBROWSKI, JAMES M OR SANDRA D DOWNIE, ALISTAIR J OR JANIS L EARLE, PATRICIA W EDWARDS, DAVID M OR SHAUNA S ELLIS, LINDSAY S OR WE2qDY J ESS DEVELOPMENT CORP FAULKNER, LYNDON J OR CHRISTINE FEINBLATT, THEODORE M OR ELEANOR G FLETCHER, JOHN C OR ADELE D FORLOINES, WALLACE M OR ANN M FORNADEL, WILLIAM M OR SARAH G FOSTER, DONALD W OR DEBORAH C FRANCOLINI, CHARLES A OR JEAN W FRAZEE, KEITH ALAN & CAROLE C FRAZIER, HENRY B 11I OR JOAN M FRIESMAN, DAVID A OR JOYCE E GAFFNEY & ASSOCIATES, 1NC . GALE, J TOM OR MARILYNN R GANSNEDER, BRUCE OR NANCY GARRISS, JAY V OR KATHERINE J GASKINS, RICHARD N OR SARA M GLENMORE ASSOCIATES LIMITED GLICK, JOHN E JR OR MARY JO GODFREY, LESTER J OR PATRICIA A GOLDWEIN, NElL K OR BONNIE GOOD, ALFRED W & SUELLEN D GRAHAM, JOSEPH L OR BRENDA W GRIGG, JAMES P OR BENTLEY C GROVER, WILLIAM C OR PRISCILLA J GROW, DAVID W OR CAROLYN P GUTER, JACQUELIN J HADEN, JAMES E OR SUSAN E HALL, WILLIAM C.OR BARBARA A HAMILTON, WILLIAM W OR ELSIE S HANSEN, DONNA R HAP, LOW, HENRY PATRICK JR OR PAULA GARVER H HATHAWAY, CURTIS H JR OR ELLEN R HAUGHEY, THOMAS M OR PAULA D HEE, MARGARET HEIL, STEVEN L OR MARIA HEIM, JAMES V OR THERESA A ANDERSON HENDERSHOT, LEWI'S E T/A L.E.H. CONSTRUCTION HENDON, DAVID H OR LIN-DA B HHS LAND TRUST; STEPHAN C STACY, TRUSTEE HILLCOAT, DAVID OR CHRISTINE HILLER, BERNARD F OR SHIRLEY L HOPKINS, ROBERT KING[ SEY -JR OR HOWARD, MARY E; ESTATE HOWARD, WILLIAM L OR GLENDA M HUARD, DAVID E OR DANA L HUCEK, ANDREW M OR MARGENE W HUNT, MARSHALL G OR CARLA J HUTCHISON, CHARLES L & MARY E IGNACZAK, ANTHONY R OR LARA E IMHOFF, EDGAR A & BETTY M IMHOFF ISHITANI, MICHAEL B KAREN P JACKSON, JOHN E JR OR BARBARA Q JEFFERSON LAND COMPANY JESSUP, JAMES L OR KAREN ANN JESSUP, JAMES L JR & SUZANNE JESSUP STATON, TRS OF THE MARITAL TRUST JESSUP, ELIZABETH H JOHNSON, ROBERT R JONES, DEBRA S & MICHAEL A DUNCAN JONES, JEFFREY A OR LISA O JOSEPHS, JOHN W OR BARBARA C KALAFIAN, MICHAEL OR DELORES KAUDER, LOUIS M'OR SALLY L KEPLINGER, FRANKLIN W OR JULIE A KEY, ARNOLD W KINGMA, DOUGLAS G OR DEBORAH D KINGSBURY, MICHAEL O OR BETSY C KIRBY, RONALD LEE & WILLIAM MONTY KNIGHT. COLTER DILLARD OR CHRISTINE CUTRIGHT K KOSTICK, EDWARD OR ANN L LAKES, RICHARD B LANE, ALEXANDER G OR CATHERINE J LANGLEY, SHIRLEY LARUE, DAVID W OR AMPARO G LAUDENSCHLAGER, ROHN MOEN OR LAUDENSCHLAGER, ROHN MOEN OR CONSTANCE CLARK L LEAKE, JOE M OR ETHEL LEE, ALLAN E OR HILDE G LEE FAMILY TRUST LEE, OCK KlM TRUSTEE OF THE SO0 IK LEPCHITZ, W MICHAEL OR NATHALYNN T LICATA, PETER J LiN, KANT Y OR ESTHER A LIVENGOOD, ROBERT D & CAROLYN LONG, PATRICK T ORKATHLEEN M LYSZYK, GENE OR PAULA S MACDONALD LAND TRUST MACOMBER, LARRY D OR MARY ANN MANDEVILLE, BRIAN W OR JEAN E MANN, ARTHUR R OR JEANNETTE M MANN, ARTHUR R OR JEANNETTE M MANTELL, PETER D OR SUSAN E MARCUS, RONALD L MARSHALL, GEORGE E JR & JENNIFER D MARTHALER, WAYNE A OR PATRICIA T MARTHALER MATARESE, WILLIAM A JR OR CAROL S MCALISTER, ALEXANDER G OR FRANCES F MCCABE, GEORGE T MCCLANAHAN, BETTY L MCCLELLAN, C J III OR CAROLYN H MCCONNELL, LAWRENCE L OR MICHELLE E MCCULLOUGH, CHRISTOPHER S OR KAREN MCGOWAN, PATRICK J OR SARAH T MENDOZA, LUIS A OR MONIKA MGR DEVELOPMENT CORP MILLER, PAUL DAVID OR M REBECCA MILSTEAD, THOMAS G JR OR LAURA C MINK. EL, LEWIS S OR PRISCILLA A MITTAL, RAVINDER K OR SARITA K MONTESI, STEVEN G OR JUDITH E MONTGOMERY, MATTHEW T OR BARBARA J MULLER, LLOYD OR CORINNE R MYERS, WILLIAM E OR BARBARA J NATOLI, PHILIP R OR ELIZABETH R NEATHERY, KENNETH L JR NELSON, ALLEN T JR OR CORDELIA M NETHERLAND, SALLY NUNLEY, RICHARD L OR JULIA G OFFIELD, WILLIAM E OR JESSIE B O'KEEFE, ANDREW J ORMSBY, JAMES M OR LORRAiNE M OWEN, JACK W OR CHARLOTTE E PACE, JEAN M PACE, WALTER A JR PACE, THOMAS A OR JUDY S PAHITES, CHRISTAKIS J OR DEBORAH J PAINLEY, RAYMOND P & MERLE M CHRISTAKIS, ETAL PANGBURN, JAMES P OR GLORIA K PARKHILL, BARRY L OR PATRICIA M PAYNE, GEORGE LATHAM PAYNE, GEORGE L JR OR SHELLEY H PECK, THOMAS A & DOROTHY I PEMBERTON, TERRY L PETERS, LAURA E TRUSTEE PEW, KENNETH L OR RITA P PHILLIPS, MICHAEL OR PATRICIA PHILLIPS, HAROLD C OR KATIE M PHILLIPS, KEITH OR RUTH POCHICK, FRANCIS E & SHIRLEY A PRICE, DAVID J OR SUSAN L ROBINSON PROFACI ROSE & N1NFA IENTILE R D WADE BUILDER, INC R W MAWYER INC RATHBURN, DAVID R OR JAYNE J RATZA, JOHN D OR DORIS REINES, PETER L OR KATRINA J RENDELMAN, JOHN L JR OR KAREN BEHLA RENDELMAN REYNOLDS, PHILLIP R OR NANCY T AND JORGE A MARTINEZ & CECILY D RIDGE STREET LAND TRUST RIGGIN, DONALD C JR OR MARY V RINEHART CONSTRUCTION LTD RIPPLINGER, RHETT R OR MARSHA ROBBINS, WILLIAM L III OR BONNIE A ROBERT HAUSER HOMES [NC ROBERTS, CURRY A OR VICTORIA H ROBERTS, ROBERT M SR OR LUCILLE F ROBERTS, CURRY A OR VICTORIA H & ROBINSON, JERROLD OR JOANNE B ROGERS, JACK A ROGERS, DAVID W JR OR CLAUDIA SUZANN ROGERS ROGERS, LYLE V OR MARY E ROJO LAND TRUST ROSENSTEIN, EDWARD OR HELENE B ROTELLA, ROBERT J OR DARLENE ROWE, GLENN R OR PATRICIA F ROWE, WILLIAM J M D.AS TRUSTEE OF RUNKLE, STEPHEN N RUSK, CHARLES A OR PATRICIA E SALLEY, LILLIAN D SAMPSON, A CLARENCE OR DONNA M SAUNDERS, CARTER A OR AMELIA Y SCHMITT, ERNEST A OR GLADYS C SCHNUR, MICHAEL D OR MARY J SCHOENIG, GERALD P & ELLIOTT G SCHOENIG SCHWENK, C ROBERT SCIRE, PHILIP V OR ELSIE SCOTT, THOMAS C & LINDA L SCOTT, JOHN E JR OR BETTY COX SELFRIDOE, ANDREW P SELINGER, JOSEPH J OR MARGARET MARY SHEPPARD, DALE D OR ELIZABETH SHIELD. WILLIAM R OR SALLY K SHIFFLETT, AUBREY THOAMS OR VIRGINIA SUE SHIFFLETT, EDWARD E OR BRENDA H SIMMONS, ROBERT OR LUCINDA SISK, HARRY R OR JOANNA SKAAR, ARNOLD H OR JOY W SLOAN, WILLIAM D OR JANE T SLONAKER, E THOMAS DULANEY OR MADELINE ELLEN SMAGALSKI, GARY W OR FAITH L SMITH, CLYDE E OR LISA H SMITH, SCOTT R OR CONNIE K SNIPES, CHARLES D JR OR CLARA JANE SNYDER, NEIL H OR KATHLEEN L SNYDER, JOHN E JR & JANET H SOTO, ARTURO OR HERMINIA C SOUTHLAND CONSTRUCTION INC STALLINGS, PRESTON O OR CYNTHIA D STALZER, EDWIN OR CAROL J STANLEY, CATHERINE K STATON, SUZANNE J STEGALL, ROBERT E OR PATSY H STOKES, STEPHEN J OR ALISON KNIGHT SULLIVAN, PATRICK H OR RUTH W SYCAMORE TREE PARTNERSHIP TAGGART. ALEXANDER L OR DEBORAH R TARRING, DOUGLAS R OR KARIN N TAYLOR, JOHN R III.OR CARRIE WASHBURN T TAYLOR, GARY W OR TANA M THE WILLIAM J ROWE M D TRUST U/A & MARY E ROWE AS TRUSTEE U/A THOMPSON. CHARLES C, TRUSTEE FOR THOMPSON, C MARSHALL THOMPSON. CHARLES C, TRUSTEE FOR THE CHARLES C THOMPSON TRUST TILMAN, WILLIAM T OR MARTHA C TISCORNIA; PAUL F OR PAMELA R TOBIAS, STEPHEN E OR ROBERTA L TOMPKINS, WILLIAM F OR DOROTHY G TOWNES, LINTON R OR TRACEY J TRAINOR, F M TRAVERS, GEORGE E OR PATRICIA A TREMAGLIO, CARL J OR VICTORIA M TRIANGLE TWO LAND TRUST TRIMMER, WILLIAM S JR OR GLENDA R TRUDEL, DAVID J OR LOUISE C TULLO, VINCENT OR SHEILA TURNER, SUZANNE M & ARTHUR LOCKE VALLANO, SUZANNE B REVOCABLE INTER VANGELOPOULOS, THOMAS OR JUDIE C VANN, KATHLEEN B VERHAGEN, TED OR LINDA VINTAGE ENTERPRISES 1NC VIRGINIA ESTATE DEVELOPERS, 1NC VOGEL, BETTY G VON STORCH, BARBARA DOWN WADE, RANDOLPH D WAGNER, ERIC B SR MARY BETH SELINGER WALKER, JAMES W OR CHERYL A WALL TRUST, THE WALL, J GREGORY OR MARTHA B WALLENSTROM, JOEL OR SHARON WARD, S ROBERT OR BARBARA A WATTS, LINWOOD D OR CYNTHIA E WEATHER HILL HOMES LTD WEATHERSBY, WILLIAM C WEBER, GARY OR CAROLYN M WELLS, JAMES F JR OR DEBORAH W WEST, MICHAEL C OR KELLY WESTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.C. WHELAN, GARY M WILKOWSKI, MICHAEL J OR DEBORAH- WILLIAMS, FONTAINE L JR OR BARBARA C WILLOUGHBY, ROBERT H OR JOAN M WILSON, JACK E OR SUE L WILVER, WAYNE R OR ROBERTA H W1NN, CRAIG, OR KATHARINE B WITMER, DAVID OR ANNA MARIE BARTEL, GEORGE B OR KAY H WOOD, BENIS D OR L1NDA E YACORZYNSKI, JENNIFER A OR GEORGE K YATES, M CLAYTON OR B EDITH YATES, MARTIN C OR BARBARA L YOUNG. JEFFREY S OR DENISE S ZECHER, RICHARD J OR LINDA K ZERRENNER, JANET M COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 03-~4-97P04:57 RCVD March 14, 1997 Dept. of Planning & Communiw Developmem 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902~4596 ~8041 296-5823 Megan Tribble 2194 Arrowhead Valley Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: SP 97-01 The Frost Montessori School Tax Map 62, Parcel 25C: Dear Ms. Tribble: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 11. 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: Approval is for thc use ora portion of the existing Broadus Memorial Baptist Church building for a preschool for no more than eighteen children for a period of two years expiring on June 30. 1999. The supplementary regulations of Section 5.1.6 dealing with day care and nursery facilities be applied to 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 onAPRIL 16, 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 nor hesitate lo contact me. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Senior Planner EKE/cf cc: Ella Carey Broadus Memorial Baptist Church Ed Bain STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP MARCH 11, 1997. APRIL 16, 1997 SP 97-1 The Frost Montessori School Applicant's Pronosal: The applicant's proposal is to obtain a special use permit to utilize two existing rooms in a church building for the Frost Montessori School. This new preschool f0r 3 and 4 year olds would use part of the education wing of the Broadus Memorial Baptist Church. The request is for a two year special use permit while the applicant purchases property and receives approval for construction for a new school facility. The school would operate Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon. The school would start out with ten students and would grow to a maximum of eighteen students at the end of the two year period, The school is not affiliated with the church; however, the church has given the school permission to use its facility. A site plan which was approved for the church in 1991 is included in this staff report. Petition: The petition is for approval ora special use permit for a school in the church building Which is located on a parcel described as Tax Map 62, Parcel 25C. Parcel 25C is 5 acres in size and the adjoimng unimproved parcel 25C1 which contains 5.531 acres is also owned by the church. The site is located at 1525 Stony Point Road (Route 20) across the street from the Darden Towe Park in the Rivanna Magisterial District. It is situated within the designated development area of Urban Neighborhood 3, Pantops, Character of the Area: Nearby and surrounding land uses consist of open undeveloped land, a single family residence, and the Darden Towe Park. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. Plannine and Zoniw, History: The property in question is zoned RA Rural Area but is located in the Pantops Urban neighborhood (Neighborhood 3). In October 1989, the Broadus MemOrial Baptist Church received two special use permits. One of the special use permits wasto allow a stream crossing in the floodway fringe of an unnamed stream of the Rivarma River. The other special use permit was for the church facility. Approval was made of the permit with the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission approval of site plan; 2. Any future uses, to include day care, shall require an additional special use permit; 3. Structure to be located on the site approximately as shown on the plat dated October 4. 1989. and initialed by V. Wayne Cilimberg; 4. Maintenance of existing major vegetation other than scrub; 5, Development in a manner so as to minimize visual impact from Rt. 20: Outdoor night lighting is limited to s~curity lighting. The Church met all of the conditions of the special use permit with construction ofthe facility. At the time of the original special use permit, the Church mentioned that it might, someday, open a day care in the building. For that reason, the church was constructed to meet the bulldingcode requirements for such a facility. Those building code requirements are the same for the preschool use. Comprehensive Plan: The property is designated for Neighborhood Density Residential on the Land Use Plan, which supports low intensity residential types of uses. Churches and schools are cousidered to be uses incidental to residential neighborhoods and, as such, are among the special uses in the R~ Rural Areas zoning district. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board OfseL~crx i~ors hcreb~ rc. ser~ e, unlo itself the riehl io i~suc all special u~c pcmfil, perlllillct[ hcrelJnder. Special u~¢ pCl'lllJla Ibr uses a~ prox klcd ill Ihi~ Ol'dilh'lilcc Ill;1'~ bc iq-;llcd upon a findin~ by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to ad_latent property. The proposed use of the existing building for a small preschool use should not be of any detriment to adjacent property. The adjacent residents have indicated that they have no problem with the school operating in the church building. that the character of the district will not be chanced thereby. The character of the area along Stony Point Road and the zoning district should not be changed by the addition of a small preschool in an existing church building. and that such use will be in harmony with the pu~ose and intent of this ordinance and with the uses nermitted by rieht in the district. Section 1.4.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance says that one of. the purposes of the ordinance is to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disasterevacuation, civil defense, umasportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facil~ties, airports and other public requirements. The use is viewed to be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and with the uses permitted by fight in the district. with additional reeulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance. Section 5.0 of the zoning ordinance provides supplementary regulations for different uses in the County. There are no requirements for private schools in this section; however, the 'preschool will need to be licensed bythe Virginia Department of Welfare ina way similar to licensure ora day care.. Section 5.1.6 provides the following requirements for a day care or nursery: Day cares and nurseries require licensing by the State. It is the owner's responsibility to transmit to the County a copy of the license and reneWal notices. 2. Periodic inspection by the County fire official is required. 3. These provisions are considered to be supplementary to other state requirements. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The public health, safety and general welfare is not anticipated to be affected by the small private school in the church. The additional 74 trips per day should not adversely impact. Stony Point Road nor should it impact the one adjoining residence. (To drop off and pick up each child constitutes 4 trips.) Both the Building and Fire Officials have indicated that the building meets the building and fire codes for this preschool use. The well and septic system are sized appropriately for this use. Site Plan Issues: The Frost Montessori School will not need a site development plan to establish the use in the facility. Parking needs for 20 - 22 persons will be accommodated easily in the existing 123 space parking lot. Outdoor play will take place for about 20 minutes per day on the flat grassy area owned by the church between the lower parking lot and the nearby residence. The adjoining residents are satisfied that using this area as a play area will not be detrimental to the enjoyment of their property. No additional screening or buffering is proposed since this special use permit is requested for a two year time period only. Should the applicant be unable to meet her projected time schedule for building a new facility and should she desire to continue with the school at this location, staffrecommends that the issue of screening and buffering of the play area be revisited in a subsequent special use permit amendment. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There are no physical changes proposed to the property and the number of students is so small as to have little or no impact on nearby and adjoining properties. The request is in keeping with the Zoning Ordinance. The ability to use an existing building for the preschool during the week and the church on Sunday provides for a more economical use of land. The special use permit would be established for a two year period only. Any unanticipated adverse impact which could not be mitigated during this period would be discontinued after two years. Staffhas identified no factors which are unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: Approval is-for the use of a portion of the existing Broadus Memorial Baptist Church building for a preschool for no more than eighteen children for a period of two years only. 2. The supplementary regulations of Section 5.1.6 dealing with day care and nursery facilities be applied to this special use permit. A - Location Map B -Tax Map £ - Site Plan of Broadus Memorial Baptist Church D - Survey of Property I:\GENERAL\SHARE~ECHOL S\SUPWIONI'ESSO. SR c SP 97-01 The Frost Montessori School [ATTAC'HMENT AJ ,.' ?;' CII~'O~I ', ' ' VI( I.L SP 97-01 / / // / / , f % PLAT SHOWIN , A SURVEY OF pARCEL 'X". A pORT,ON OF '~M ~2 ~ARCEC ,RECORDED IN D,B. 156 CHARLOTTESVILLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. ALBEMARLE COUNTY,, VIRGINIA ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOC. INC. PLAT SHOWING A SURVEY OF PARCEL Y A PORTION OF T.M. 62 PARCEL 2.5 LOT 6 OF FRANKLIN LAND RECORDED IN D.B. 156 R 186 CHARLOTTESVILLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ROUDAB USH, GALE & ASSOC., INC. March 7, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Developmem 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Howard Key 7027 Secretary Sand Road Schuyler, VA 22969 RE: SP 97-02 Mt Ararat Lodge #20 Dear Mr. Key: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, ar its meeting on March 4, 1997, unammously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note thru this approval is subject to the following conditions: The building shall be limited in size to 3,000 square feet. Maximum attendance ar the meetings shall not exceed those limits as established by the Health Department. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structure outlined in the July 20, 1993 staff report shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. The current activities of the Lodge are listed in a letter from Harold Key, dated February 18, 1997 which is attached. Compliance with Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 16, 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, Planner cc: ~lla Carey Amelia Mcculley Jack Kelsey COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 97°02 Mount Ararat Lodge #20 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: The applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend SP 95-39 to increase the square footage from 2,200 to 3,000 for a lodge [10,2.2 (2)] on 2.11 acres zoned RA. AGENDA DATE: Planning Commission: March 4, 1997 Board of Supervisors: April 16, 1997 ACTIQN: Yes INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: No INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(St: John Shepherd ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed and approved a request for SP 93-17 on July 20, 1993. The Board of Supervisors reviewed and approved this request on August 1 t, 1993. The approval of SP 93-17 expked. ~The applicant resubmitted a request for SP 95-39 and a site plan waiver request which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on April 23, 1996 and by the Board of Supervisors on May 15, 1996. The applicant is now requesting that SP 95-39 be amended to allow for allow for an increase in the size the lodge from 2,200 to 3,000 square feet. The original staff reports, action letters, minutes, the Engineering Department's report on the wmver request, Engineering comment on this revised request and a letter from the applicant describing em'rem lodge activities are attached. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has reviewed the this request for increased building size, the applicant's letter describing increased activities, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan to determine if any amendments have been approved that would necessitate a change in design or alter the original comments provided by staff in the 1993 review of this application. Staff is unable to identify any changes m circumstances which alter the original staff recommendations prepared for this application. The Engineering Department has determined that an increase in building size would not change the recommendation to approve the site plan waiver request. The conditions of the April 23, 1996 approval of the site plan waiver remain in effect on this site. The increased building size and maximum attendance at Lodge functions remain subject to Health Department approval. Staff opinion ts that the activities, including picnics, outlined in letter dated February 18, 1997 from Harold Key are consistent with and subject to the provtsions of 5.1.2 Co) of the Zoning ordinance pertaining to lodges. RECOMMENDATION: Staff opinion is that no changes tn circumstances have occurred since the original review. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this Special Use Penn/t with revised conditions based on the r'~"~onditions contained in the August 11, 1993 action by the Board of Supervisors. Condition #1 is revised to allow a 3,000 square foot building. Condition #3 is revised to reference the letter from Harold Key describing the lodges activities dated February 18, 1997. Those conditions include: 1. The building shah be limited in size to 3,000 square feet. Maximum attendance at the meetings shall not exceed those limits as established by the Health Depanm.~m.} Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structure outlined in the July 20, 1993 staff reportz-.~ shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. The current activities of th~,~ Lodge are listed in a letter from Harold Key, dated February 18, 1997 which is attached. Compliance with Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Report for SP 95-39 Mount Ararat Lodge & S.P. 96-011 Waiver Request with attachments; B. Engineering memo regarding existing site plan waiver; C. Applicant letter dated FebmarS- 18, 1997 describing lodge activities. D-Plann'mg Commission Minutes dated April 23, 1996 0 Z o TO: FROM: DATE: RE: [ATTACHHENT BI COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department o£Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM John Shepherd, Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer 24 February 1997 Mount Ararat Lodge (SP-97-02) The proposed additional square footage for the proposed Mount Ararat Masonic Lodge does not change the Engineering Department review of 15 December 1995. As stated in the memorandum of 15 December 1995, the Eng'meering Department will support a site plan waiver request subject to a sketch plan which meets all applicable Ordinance requirements, and the following conditions: 1. VDOT approval of the entrance on Route 715. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan if the land disturbance is to exceed I0,000 square feet. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. GEB/ Copy: SDP-97-02 (formerly SP-95-39) File: glenn~ARARAT.SP2 MR. JOHN SHEPi4ERD. PLANNER COUNTRY OF ALBEMARLE DEPART. OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY 4~I ~CZ~TZRE RD. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. DEVELOPMENT DEAR ~R. SWEPFiERD: AN WR]T]NG ]N RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER DATE ~EBWORAY !5. ~T. THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW CNANGES S!NDE THE LETTER DATED JUNE 8. i9~3. T~E CHANGES ARE AS FOLLOWING: THERE WILL BE 40 MEN AND 5~ WOMEN MEMBERS. NO CHANGE WE ASK ~HAT THE BUILDING BE 5.00~ SQUARE FEE'[. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. 6. THERE WiLL BE NO EXCESSIVE NOISE 7. THERE WILL ~E PICNICS. THESE CHANGES ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT TIME. WE ARE AWARE OF AT ?HIS HOWARD KEY C.~'" ~ ~ ~ ~ =R~S-f'~ BOARD. ~: f~..R ,AN Lr .... I ATTACHMENT OI 4-23-96 1 APRIL 23, 1996 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public headng on Tuesday, April 23, 1996; in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chairman; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Mr. William Finley; Mr. David Tic'e; Ms. Bahs Huckle, Ms. Hilda Lee-Washington; and Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Others officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Claudia Paine, Planner; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. At 7:00 p.m. Mr. Nitchmann called the Planning Commission meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 2, 1996, were unanimously approved as submitted. SP-95-39 Mt. Ararat Lodge - Petition to construct a masonic lodge [10.2.2(2)] on 2.11 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas and request for site plan waiver [32.2.2]. Property, described as Tax Map 121, Parcel 32A is located on the southeast side of the intersection of Rt. 715 and Rt. 714 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated Growth Area (Rural Area IV). Mr. Shepherd presented the staff re, port. Staff recommended approval of the special permit, subject to conditions, and of the site plan waiver request. Mr. Shepherd said no changes in circumstances have occurred since the previous approval of this petition. (The approval granted in 1993 has expired.) The applicant was represented by Mr. Howard Key. He expressed a willingness to work.with the County and a desire to proceed with the project. There was no public comment. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP-95-39 for Mt. Ararat Lodge be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The entrance on Route 715 is subject to VDOT approval 2. An erosion control plan will be required if the total land disturbance is over 10,000 square feet, The motion passed unanimously. ~TTACHPIEN'F D~ 4-23-.96 .2 MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Washington seconded that a request for a site p an waiver be granted [32.2.2]. The motion passed unanimously. Hunter E. Crai_g. P.O. I ,ox 615 ~-C tarl)ltesvl] ~Virg~ 974-4500 · F~x (804) 974-6753 P.O. Box 6156 · Charlottesville Virginia 22906 April l4, 1997 Members of the Board of Supen, isors David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Forest R. Marshall, Jr. Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Highlands Section 3 - ZMA 96-17 - Mechum River Land Trust Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the following plans for your information: · Land Use Analysis for Addition to the Crozet Growth Area. · Overall Layout of Highlands at Mechums River · Application Plan for Highlands Section 3 I thought these plans would be helpful in your review of the proposed rezoning. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 974-4505 Humer E. Craig Land Use Analysis For Addition to Crozet Growth Area Scale: 1" = 500' Sources of hfformation: Flood Plain Data Topographical Dat.a Property Line Data Flood ltazard Bounda~ Map (Panel 510006 0185B & 510006 0195B) United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey; Crozet Quadrangle Plat as prepared by Roger Ray & Associates Albemarle County Tax Maps (1" = 600') Flood Plain Zone Descriptions: Zone A Designates areas of. 100-year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determine& Zone B Designates areas between limits oFtbe 100-year flood and 500-year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flood with average depths less than one (1) foot or where contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood. Zone C Designates areas of minimal flooding. Landuse Summary Description Acreage % of Total l'otal Acreage 169 100% g5%' Slope~ 43.5 26% Flood Pia'i'~ Zone A 32.5 19% Flood Plain Zone B 5.15 3% Developable Land 87.85 52% March 7. 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Hunter Craig Mechums River Land Trust 338 Rio Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 ZMA-96-17 Mechums River Land Trust Tax Map 57, Parcel 29 and Tax Map 57A, Parcel A (part of) Dear Mr. Craig: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 4, 1997, by a vote of 4-3, recommended denial 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 publiccommentattheirmeetingonMARCH12,1997. 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 heating date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to comacr me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf / / cc: .Vf~(a Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 996-5823 03-03-97Al1:2! RC:/D BOARD Or Su~:r~¥,buRS February 28, 1997 Hunter Craig Mechums River Land Tr 338 Rio Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA 96-17 Mechums River Land Trust Tax Map 57, Parcel 29 and Tax Map 57A, Parcel A (part of) Dear Mr. Craig: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its February 25 meeting, per your request, deferred the above-noted petition to its March 4, 1997. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me al (804) 296-5823, ext. 3385. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Plauner WDF/jcf / cc: ~lla Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey This report has been revised from the original report prepared for the February 25, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. This report incorporates the information provided to the Planning Commission in a memo dated February 27, 1997. STAFF PERSON: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ MARCH 12, 1997 ZMA 96-17 MECHUMS RIVER LAND TRUST Applicant's Pronosal: Proposal to rezone property east of and adjacent to the existing Highlands development to allow the construction of an additional 148 dwelling units. This proposal will appear as an additional phase of Highlands. The applicant has provided proffers to limit the level of developmem. Petition: Petition to rezone approximately 57 acres from PA, Rural Areas (and EC, Entrance Corridor), to R-4, Residential (and EC). Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 29 and Tax Map 57A, Parcel A (part) is located immediately east of the Highlands at Mechums River residential development along the south side of Route 240 in the White Hall Magisterial District. The property is on the edge of the Crozet Community, with designation as Development Area for the portion ofthe property which may be within the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin drainage area. Character of the Area: The area south of this site, across the C&O Railroad, is the site of the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin. North of the site across Route 240 is the Beaver Hill Mobile Home Park and several small lots. The Highlands at Mechums River development is adjacent to the west. This site is open pasture towards the west and heavily wooded towards the east. The site is characterized by three north-south ridges with steep slopes occurring along the ridge valleys adjacent to the streams. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and past Board actions and recommends denial. Planning and Zoning History: ZMA 89-06, a rezoning petition for Tax Map 57, Parcels 29 and 29D, was presented to the Planning Commission on July 25, 1989. The proposal, to rezone 192 acres from PA to R-4, was recommended for denial by a vote of 4-3. On August 9, 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved 117 acres of Parcel 29 to be rezoned to R-4 with a maximum of 350 dwellings units by a vote of 5-1. This request, ZMA 96-17. is similar to ZMA 89-21 which was a request to rezone this same 57 acres currently under review to R-2. That request was denied by the Board of Supervisors on May 16, 1990. The current rezoning request is identical to ZMA 93-03 which was a request to rezone this area to R-4. That request was not acted on by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial on July 12, 1994. STAFF COMMENT: Staff comment will be divided into the following sections: 5. 6. 7. Crozet Growth Development Boundary Comprehensive Plan Designation Current Zoning Regulation Governing Development in the Watershed Outside of the Development Area Prior Zoning Decisions: Requests for Urban Densities in Rural Areas On-Site Runoff Control Proposal Recommendation for ZMA 96-17 Additional Comment Crozet Growth Area Boundary Staff opinion remains that this proposal to rezone approximately 57 acres is inconsistent with the Crozet Development Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. This position was originally stated in the staff report for ZMA 89-06 and reiterated in the report for ZMA 89-21 and ZMA 93-03. The original report for ZMA 89-06 is included as Attachment B. The reports for ZMA 89-21 and ZMA 93-03 are used as ~ basis for findings in this report. As to Development Area boundaries, staff opinion is that there has been no change in circumstance to warrant reconsideration since the Board approval of only a portion of the parcel 29 in the Crozet Development Area in ZMA 89-06 and Board denial of ZMA 89-21. Development Area boundaries in the County have generally been set along watersupply watershed boundaries so as not to intrude upon those watersheds. Crozet's boundaries are unique in that they are within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed, but have been establishedto drain the Development Area to the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin. The Land Use Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan in defining the location of the Community, states "The eastern boundary is a valley of streams which flow into Lickinghole Creek", page 90. The intent of the boundary of Crozet is to include those areas which drain to the Lickinghole Creek. The plan also states "A significant residential population resides just north of the Development Area (north of Crozet and Railroad Avenues) in the Parrot Creek watershed. This area is recognized as an important part of the Crozet social community and ~s served by water and sewer and zoned for residential development. Due to the location of this area outside of the Lickinghole Creek watershed and within the Parrot creek watershed (a tributary to the Beaver Creek water supply reservoir), it is not considered part of the Development Area." This statement of the Plan reinforces the intent of the Plan to limit new developmeut and expansion of the Development Area to those areas which drain to the Lickinghole Basin. The Board of Supervisors made a policy decision not to allow the expansion of the Crozet Community to include areas which do not naturally drain to the Lickinghole Creek Basin when this area was not included in the approval of ZMA 2 89-06 and restated this position in the denial of ZMA 89-21. Staff opinion is that the current policies of the Comprehensive Plan also do not support on-site nmoffcontrol measures to justify expansion of the Development Area and that such a proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Comprehensive Plan Desianation The applicant is proposing an urban density zoning, R-4, Residential, in an area designated by the Comprehensive Plan to be Rural Areas. Staff opinion is this rezoning petition is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, in the past, staff has consistently not supported rezonings to urban densit3~to permit development of vacant land in the rural areas anywhere in the County, particularly within watersupply watersheds. Stafftypically recommends that proposals for urban development outside a designated development area be addressed by a Comprehensive Plan Amendment rather than a rezoning. Considering the history of considerations for development in watersupply watersheds, particularly in the Crozet area, and the recent reaffirmation of the Crozet Development Area boundaries and its basis in last year's adopted Land Use Plan, an amendment in this case would very likely not be supported by staff. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following information regarding Total Developable Acres: Developable Developable Developable Residential Residential Residential Acreage Acreage Acreage Development N-Hood Urban Total Added Added Area Density Density Dwelling Population Units (Capacity) (Capacity) Crozat 640 154 I 794 2,846-6,920 7,114-17,300 The plan submitted in support of the application shows 148 lots, However, of these 148 lots, 101 are located entirely outside ofthe area which drains to the basin, 26 are located entirely within an area that drains to the basin (and which is currently zoned R-4), and 21 lots contain land which drains both to and away from the basin. In staff opinion if this area is rezoned it will naturally lead to other land lying east of Highlands, south of Route 240 and north of Route 250 to become part of the Crozet Development Area. This triangular area consists ora total of 169 acres. Approximately 87 acres of this area is developable. This could result in an additional 261 to 522 dwellings at Neighborhood Density with a potential population of 657 to 1,315. Staff opinion is that the above table indicates that adequate area for residential development is available in the Crozet Development Area and that no increase in the development area is needed. Current Zoning Regulation Governing Development in the Watershed Outside of the Growth Area Staff is also concerned with the potential inconsistency if this rezoning is approved for property outside of the Crozet Development Area in a watersupply watershed after the Board of Supervisors has adopted Zoning Ordinance provisions such as those not allowing additional development rights by special use permit for land zoned Rural Areas in the such watersheds. Section 10.5.2.1 was amended November 8, 1989 and states: 3 "The Board of Supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use permit for: More lots than the total number permitted under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water supply impoundment." Staff opinion is that it would be inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to approve an urban density rezoning for property in the watersupply watershed designated as Rural Areas by the Comprehensive Plan. Prior Zoning Decisions: Reauests for Urban Zoning Densities in Rural Areas This section of the staffreport discusses the disposition of residential rezoning petitions similar to this request. More specifically, discussion is limited to cases of: Properties within reservoir watershed and/or outside of designated development areas, in which the rezoning was from a rural to urban designation reviewed since the adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance and map. Since 1980, nine (9) rezoning petitions meeting the preceding description have been reviewed. Of these nine petitions, one (1) was approved (see Attachment C for listing and disposition of these nine petitions). (Prior actions involving the area currently under review is not included in this listing.) Further analysis is offered: As in the case with this rezoning, all of the nine petitions listed were for property outside ora development area and in the reservoir watershed. Four of these were withdrawn. One request, ZMA 85-22 Peacock Hill, was approved to rezone 2.5 acres from RA to PUD and amend 62 acres of the existing PUD to delete the commercial uses and reduce the number of cluster lots. Four (4) of the request, for rezoning outside of the development area, were denied. Staff has also idemified nine (9) petitions approved which were in a watersupply watershed, but were also inthe designated development area of Crozet. The are as follows: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ZMA 81-24 Knopp Enterprises- 16 acres from R-1 to R-6. ZMA 84-29 Grayrock PRD - 294 townhomes on 74 acres. ZMA 85-05 Jordan Development Corporation - to amend existing PRD. ZMA 89-06 Mechum River Land Trust - 117 acres of RA to R-4. ZMA 90-03 Barclay Corporation - 19 acres from R-1 to R-6. ZMA 90-20 Stanley Wilcox - 2 acres fi.om C-1 to PDSC. ZMA 94-14 Highlands West - 132 acres from RA to R-1. ZMA 95-09 Sam Enterprises - $2 acres from R-1 to R-4. ZMA 95-22 J. Bruce Barnes - 19 acres from C-1 to HI. In a continuing effort to provide reservoir protection and to maintain consistency and integrity in the comprehensive planning program, the County has been deliberate and careful in granting rezoning approval. Adjacency of a property to a development area in such cases has not been a favorable factor in zoning deliberations. Additional Comment on Other Rezonings in the Crozet Ar~a Staff would like to note two recent rezomngs in the Crozet area which may have attributes relevant for consideration in the review of ZMA 96-17. Those requests were for Cory Farm (ZMA 95-09) and The Albemarle County Service Authority (Z/vIA 96-14). Both of these rezonings included land which does not drain to the Lickinghole Basin. Staff will provide information on both requests ZMA 95-09 Cory Farm - This rezoning was for 82 acres from R-1 to R-4. A portion of the area rezoned, approximately 16 acres, does not drain to the Lickinghole Basin. However, staffdocs not consider the approval of Cory Farm as justification for the Me, chums River rezoning request. The Cory Farm site had urban zoning, R-l, Residential, and has been included within the boundaries of Crozet since the County's first Comprehensive Plan. The Mechums River property, currently under review is zoned RA, Rural Areas and has not been included in the boundaries of Crozet. Staff notes that while the southern development area boundary of Crozet generally follows Route 250, the Lickinghole Creek watershed drainage divide meanders slightly north and south of Route 250 in the same area. Thus, a small an~ount of the land within the development area does not drain to the Lickinghole Basin and a similar area of land not within the development area does drain to the basin. The Crozet boundary, extensively discussed during the last revision of the Land Use Plan, represents that area deemed necessary to accommodate urban scale growth in the Crozet area and generally follows definable physical boundaries along Route 240 (northern boundary) and Route 250 (southern boundary), rather than explicit drainage divides (i.e. the Lickinghole Creek drainage basin). However, the eastern boundary represents only that area that naturally drains to the Lickinghole Creek Basin. ZMA 96-14 Albemarle County Service Authority - This rezoning was for 4 acres from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industry. Approximately half of the site does not drain tothe Lickinghole Basin. This was the former site of the Service Authority's maintenance yard. When the public use of the maintenance facilities was discontinued, the site effectively had no other uses. The intent of the rezoning was m permit only continued use of the existing facilities in a manner similar to their historic use. The proffers accepted with the rezoning limit the use of the site to public uses, warehouse facilities and contractor's yard. However, warehouse facilities and contractor's yard will not be permitted after October 9, 2006 which will essentially return the allowed use to its traditional public use only. Because of these unique circumstances and limited extent of approval, staff did not consider approval of ZMA 96-14 as supportive of the current request by Mechums River Land Trust. On-Site Runoff Control Proposal The Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin serves as an erosion, sedimentation and runoff control device for development in Crozet. The Watershed Management Official has provided information which includes the prewous conm~ents provided by the Watershed Management Official and Engineering Department regarding runoff control for development outside of the sedimentation basin. The current comments of the Watershed Management Official state, in part, "The argument can be made and supported technically that on-site stormwater practices can be built that would equal or surpass the ~rearmem provided by the Lickinghole Basin. Given the right siting and design parameters, this is certainly true, especially with the new generation of BMP designs that are now available. We must realize, however, that BMP's are designed to treat some of the pollutants in the nmoffsome of the time. In this regard, BMP's even those of the most advanced design, are no substitute for the proper land uses and zoning in the drinking water watershed. We can think of land uses and zoning as source reduction, while BMP's are a form of end-of-pipe treatment." Staff's opinion is that on-site facilities are not intended to be used in the drinking water supply watershed to allow urban development. A primary concern of the use of on-site facilities as opposed to public regional facilities is the issue of maintenance. While maintenance agreements are required for on-site facilities, limited staffrasources are available to insure that maintenance does occur. In addition, the cost of maintenance is frequently passed to the homeowners' association which may be unaware of the responsibili~ and unable to afford the cost of maintenance. It should be noted that approval of this request could set a precedent for other requests for urban zoning in drinking water supply watersheds outside of designated development areas that cite the provision of on-site facilities as a justification for approval. Recommended Action In previous reviews of rezoning requests on this site, staff has recommended that no zoning decision be made antil such time as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been pursued. Staff opinion is that, with the recent readoption of the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan without extension of the Crozet Community, nothing is to be gained by delay of action on this request until a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is pursued. Staff opinion is that this rezoning ts inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recomntends denial. This recommendation is based on the following reasons: 2. 3. 4, The proposal is inconsistent with the boundaries of the Crozet developmem area as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is for urban density zoning which is inappropriate for rural area land, particularly within a water supply watershed, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal conflicts with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which do not allow additional development rights for property zoned Rural Areas in water supply watersheds. Approval of this request would be difficult to distinguish from other similar requests outside of development areas in water supply watersheds and could set a precedent for consideration of other such rezonings. Should the Board choose to approve this request, the applicant has submitted the following proffers: [The full text of the proffers is included as Attachment G.] Construction to be in accordance with the submitted plan. This shall include walking trails, buffer zones and open space. Payment of Lickinghole Creek Regional Stormwater Management. Facility pro ram share for the area rezoned outside of the facilities natural drainage area. Construction and maintenance of on-site basins at no cost to Albemarle County. This shall be accomplished by the Albemarle County standard form titled Stormwater ManagemenffBMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement and provisions in the Declaration of Covenants, Restriction and Easements for the homeowners association. Only proffer one is an acceptable proffer and it must be revised to reference a particular plan. Proffer two would require the developer to pay for an impact he does not create. Proffer three is an existing 2 25 DISTRICT SECTION 56" - ..... :~ ........ ?? SAMUEL MILLER AND WHITE HALL DISTRIC STAFF PERSON: HEARINGS: RONALD S.KEELER PLANNING COMMISSION: JUNE 25, 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: AUGUST 2, 1989 ZMA-89-06 MECf{UM RIPPER LAND TRUST Petition: Mechum River Land Trust petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 192.41 acres from RA, Rural Areas-to R-4, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcels 29 & 29D is located along Rt. 240 at the eastern end of Crozet. Parcel 29, consisting of.~173.77 ~acres, is situated between Rt. 240 and the C & O Railroad. The parcel surrounds the Crozet water treatment plant, extending about 3,000 feet to the west and 1,500 feet to the east of the water plant. Parcel 29D, consisting of 18.64 acres, is situated on the north side of Rt. 240 with f~ontage also on Rt. 802. White Hall Magisterial District. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Review of this rezonlng petition, submitted in May, has paralleled and been complicated by growth area boundary decisions of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted July 12, 1989. The preliminary development plan for the site, in staff opinion, has been effectively foreclosed by decision as to the Crozet growth area limits. The Plan limits the Crozet eastern boundary to those areas naturally draining to the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin, based on final engineering design of the basin which has yet to be completed. This raises a question of whether this application is premature. Recently, the applicant has proposed alteration to natural drainage patterns in order to increase site acreage susceptible to urban residential zoning based on an assumed location for the Lickinghole basin. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors determine whether or not this is an acceptable developmental practice prior to rezoning action. Such determination would allow the applicant to assess project viability and provide staff opportunity to work with the applicant towards a definitive plan of development which is appropriate to a project of this scale. It is recognized that this proposal provides an opportunity for significant residential development in a growth area, clearly a high priority of the Comprehensive Plan. Character of the Area: The area south of this site, across the C & O Railroad, is the proposed site of the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin. North of the site across Rt. 240 are the Beaver Hill mobile home park and several small lots. This site is open pasture towards the west and heavily wooded towards the east. The site is described by three north-south ridges with steep slopes occurring along the ridge valleys adjacent to streams. Public sewer is available at the Crozet Interceptor south of the C & 0 Railroad. Public water can be extended from the storage reservoir at the Crozet water treatment plant. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL~ While the Comprehensive Plan was under review, the applicant met with staff to discuss various development scenarios for this proper=y. When submitted in May, the rezoning petition was accompanied by a preliminary development plan which proposed a gross density of 1.2 dwellings per acre on the main tract. The Plan proposed 166 single-family detached lots served by an internal public road system with two points of access to Rt. 240. The plan also proposed 30 single-family attached units west of the water treatment plant adjacent to Rt. 240 and 30 single-family attached units in the southwest corner of the site. Conventional subdivision was proposed for single-family detached lots while open space areas would have been provided for the single-family attached units. In order to provide'two access points to Rt. 240, an internal road of necessity traversed areas of critical slope. All lots appeared viable in terms of adequate building and yard areas exclusive of critical slopes and 100 foot stream setback. Mechum River Land Trust proposes rezoning "consistent with low-density residential shown in the Comprehensive Plan" in order to "provide affordable housing to the Crozet growth area." STAFF COMMENT: Review of this rezoning petition has been complicated by the simultaneous discussions as to the eastern boundary for the Crozet growth area. While the rezoning petition was submitted in May, 1989 final determination of the Crozet limits was not made until July, 1989. The Comprehensive Plan as adopted states that (p. 271; dnderlining added for emphasis): The eastern boundary of Crozet between Rte. 240 and 250 shall be adjusted to include all areas which naturally drain into the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin. Determination of this boundary shall be based on the final engineerlnq desiqn of the basin. Any extension of the existing boundary shall be designated low density residential. In regard to this Comprehensive Plan statement, staff offers the following comments: Premature ADplication: This rezoning petition could be viewed as premature since the FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN which will determine the exact location of the Lickinghole Creek impoundment has not begun° By letter dated March 23, 1989 (attached) John Horne advised the applicant's representative that the appropriate time for review of a rezoning application for this area would be concurrent with a revised eastern boundary determination for Crozet. However, from preliminary studies, it does not appear that the dam site would be subject to relocation unless geological surveys reveal unforeseen restrictions to the current proposed site. Natural Drainaqe: Of the 192 acres proposed for rezoning, it appears that about 117 acres in the westerly portion of the site would NATURALLY DRAIN to the Lickinghole Creek basin as currently located. The applicant proposes to alter on-site drainage patterns to increase th~ site area available for urban residential zoning by about 30 acres (i.e. - 147 acres). STAFF VIEWS A POLICY DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING DRAINAGE DIVERSION AS ESSENTIAL TO FUTURE PROGRESS OF THIS PETITION. IT IS STAFF'S OPINION THAT THE CURRENT POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS RECENTLY DISCUSSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOT SUPPORT SUCH A DIVERSION AND THE AREA OF DRAINAGE DIVERSION WOULD REQUIRE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. In order to realize a viable project consistent with the affordable housing market, Mechum River Land Trust must realize a minimum project scale (The original preliminary plan showed 200+ units). Assuming some market flexibility as to lot size and unit mix, development scenarios would vary with acreage subject to urban development. Located within a reservoir watershed and representing more than 100 dwellings, a planned approach to development is favored by the Comprehensive Plan and staff. For this reason, staff would recommend a determination be made as to drainage diversion prior to rezonlng action. However, the Commission and Board may wish to rely on existing Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance regulations as adequate to ensure appropriate development, and ~ake zoning decision at this time. Of the 192 acres proposed for rezoning: o o About 117 acres would naturally drain to the proposed Lickinghole Creek basin as currently located and would be appropriate to urban residential zoning; About 45 acres would not drain to the Lickinghole Creek basin and would be inappropriate to urban residential zoning; and About 30 acres are proposed for drainaqe diversion to the Lickinghole Creek basin in order to become susceptible to urban residential zoning. Historically, The Watershed Management Official, County Engineer, and Planning staff have opposed substantial alterations to natural drainage patterns and encroachment into stream channels within reservoir watersheds. Staff did not support the Blue Ridge Shopping Center proposal for piping and substantial fill over the stream to the rear of that site. Likewise, staff cautioned in the recent Ann Horner rezoning that encroachment into the restricted development/flood plain area would not be viewed favorably. In this case, diversion of drainage is proposed in order to increase the site area eligible for urban zoning. In this regard, the proposal is similar to past proposals for drainage alterations of or within reservoir watersheds (It should be noted that for a development of this scale, the extent of drainage alteration is not usual). The Watershed Management Official, County Engineer and Planning staff have not supported such proposals in the past and are unable to support this current proposal (See attached comments from Watershed Management Official and County Engineer). A primary focus of the Comprehensive Plan is to accommodate future residential growth in designated growth areas and the Mechum River Land Trust proposal is viewed as consistent with this goal. The area proposed for drainage diversion was initially identified by the applicant as the more desirable and marketable portion of the site. A successful residential project by ~ major local developer could promote interest in the Crozet community for additional residential development. The issue is whether or not the objectives for urban residential development as proposed in this application outweigh issues of drainage alteration. 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor not make a zoning decision at this time, so as to allow for final engineering design of the basin and/or policy determination of the site area appropriate for urban residential zoning. Staff opinion is that such determination can be made without any promissory implication as to density or other development considerations. Such determination would allow the developer to assess project viability and consider further options. Also, the Planning staff would be afforded opportunity to work with the developer on specific issues related to development of this property. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors desire to make zoning decision at this time, staff offers the following: Assuming that the Lickinghole Creek Basin location is not subject to relooation with final engineering, the western 117 acres will naturally drain to the basin and will thus fall within the area to be included in the adjusted eastern boundary of Crozet. The remaining 75 acres will not naturally drain to the Lickinghole Basin and falls within the Comprehensive Plan Rural A~ea. The applicant's proposal to divert drainage for about 30 acres is inconsistent with current Comprehensive Plan policy and should be addressed through Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 5 ATTACHMENT C Prior zoning decisions meeting the following criteria Properties within reservoir watershed and/or outside of designated development areas, in which the rezoning was from a rural to urban designation; reviewed since the adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance and map. ZMA 83-17 Douglas and Della Marsh - Request to rezone 1.77 acres from RA to R-2. Tax Map 15, Parcel 29B. PC: Recommended Denial BOS: Withdrawn ZMA 83-21 Drew Boles - Request to rezone 0.52 acres from RA to R-6 with proffer to limit development to one duplex. Tax Map 60A, Parcel 09-7. PC: Recommended Denial BOS: Withdrawn ZMA 84-20 Blue Ridge Land Trust - Request to rezone 9.0 acres from RA to R-10. Tax Map 45, Parcel 21 PC: Withdrawn BOS: ............. ZMA 85-22 Peacock Hill - Request to rezone 2.5 acres from RAto PUD and amend 62 acres of the existing PUD to delete commercial usage and reduce the number of cluster units. Tax Map 73, Parcel 29, 29E, 29J and 29K. PC: Recommended Approval BOS: Approved ZMA 89-06 Mechum River Land Trust - Request to rezone 192 acres from RA to R-4. Tax Map 57, Parcel 29 and 29D. (A portion of this request was in the Community of Crozet and a portion was outside of the designated development area.) PC: Recommended Approval BOS: Approved only that portion which was within the Community of Crozet ZMA 93-12 Wayne and Deborah Hall - Request to rezone 2.3 acres for RA to HC. Tax Map 45, Parcel 27. Withdrawn prior to Planning Commission meeting ZMA 93-20 Albert DeRose - Request to amend the Buck Mountain PRD to allow one additional lot. Tax Map 17, Parcel 62. (Staffhas considered this in this analysis due to the characteristics of the Buck Mountain PPD.) PC: Recommended Denial BOS: Denied ZMA 94-18 Donald Robertson - Request to rezone 4.34 acres from RA to LI. Tax Map 55B, Parcel 17. PC: Recommended Approval BOS: Denied ZMA 95-10 Crozet Moose Lodge - Request to rezone 3 acres from RA to HC. Tax Map 55, Parcel 109B, PC: Recommended Denial BOS: Denied A:x/-IIGH. SUP IATTACHMENT D 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM Planning Dept. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Bill Fritz, Senior Planner David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager<~ ~ Glenn Brooks, Civil Engineer January 22, 1997 ZMA ~ Highlands Rezoning ~J~t& q6- 2;7 With regard to this rezoning application, questions concerning watershed issues and smrmwater runoff have been addressed previously for similar applications For background, please see a 4/16/90 memo from Peyton Robertson to Richard Tarbell and a 6/29/94 memo from Jack Kelsey m Bill Fritz (both attached). At this point, I would like to elaborate on the information in these memos. Since the time of these previous discussions, the Lickinghole Basin has been completed, and the area of land that drains naturally to this facility can be pinned down on the land. The argument can be made and supported technically that on-site stormwater practices can be built that would equal or surpass the treatment provided by the Lickinghole Basin. Given the right siting and design parameters, this is certainly true, especially with the new generation of BMP designs that are now available. We must realize, however, that BMPs are designed to treat some of the pollutants in rtmoff some of the time. In this regard, BMPs, even those of the most advanced design, are no substitute for the proper land uses and zomng in the drinking water watershed. We can think of land uses and zoning as source reduction, while BMPs are a form of end-of-pipe treatment. This holds true for the Lickinghote Basin and for any on-site facilities that may be constructed on the property in question. The Lickinghole Basin was conceived as a way to reconcile the presence of an existing community and development area lCrozet) within the drinking water watershed when all other development areas were removed from that watershed in the Comprehensive Plan. This does not mean that this approach (strncmral stormwater treatment, or end-of-pipe) should be I ATTACHMENT D I MEMORANDUM ZMA - Highlands Rezoning January 22, 1997 Page Two generalized to the remainder of the drinking water watershed. In other words, the land use/zoning approach should prevail as the primary means of protecting the water supplies, and well-conceived structural measures used to complement and reinforce the land use approach (as with our current runoff control permit program). If given the opportunity, we should not allow end~of-pipe treatment to be a substitute for source reduction. Many considerations went into the designation of a development area in Crozet, and natural drainage into the Lickinghole Basin is a reasonable method for determining the development area boundary. In this regard, this Department supports the policy of not expanding the development area and/or attendant zoning classifications to land that drains downstream from the Lickinghole dam. We recommend the following conditions if the rezoning is granted: With the exception of road crossings, 100 foot build'rog setbacks (as required by the Runoff Control Ordinance) should be treated using the management guidelines for Resource Protection Area buffers ~see Section 8(b) of the Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance). The purpose of this would be to maintain the vegetation in these setback areas. BMPs should be designed to capture and treat the first half-inch of runoff from a drainage basin's ultimate impervious cover and to protect downstream channels from 2- year storm velocities. Advanced BMP design elements, such as forebays and aquatic benches should be incorporated. BMP designs should be approved by the Engineering Department. These measures would be in addition to any requirements that may apply if a Runoff Control Permit is required for the development. Some runoff treatment should be provided for the lots and roadway surfaces on the east side of the property for which no runoff treatment is shown on the application plan. DJH/ybv Attachments Copy: Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering File: DavldA~ighland A I EMARLE - C ARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE OF WATERSHi D MANAGEMENT 2 6 1990 ~O~ P NNiNG DIVISION TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Richard E. Tarbell, Planner J. W. Peyton Robertson, Jr. Watershed Management 0fficia~ April 16, 1990 Mechums River Land Trust - Rezoning for additional acreage I have reviewed the Runoff Control calculations submitted by Tom Muncaster for the proposed rezoning and have the following comments: o The issue seems to be clouded by calculating runoff values for higher density development in order to show that this additional density can be accommodated through the use of an on-site detention basin (and that even without a basin, the proposed development would result in lower loadings than before). The real question remains related to the policy issue of allowing higher density development outside of designated growth areas. o Par5 of the rationale for the boundary of the Crozet growth area is the siting of a regional detention facility to control runoff from a basin-wide approach. Because this proposed rezoning is outside of the natural drainage to that facility, it does not conform with the regional policy approach. o One of the primary purposes behind any regional stormwater management approach is related to maintenance of structural facilities required to control runoff. Counties with a great deal of experience in this area .(Fairfax and Prince William for example) are favoring an exclusively regional approach due to a history of problems with on-site facilities which have not been properly maintained for one reason or another--failed homeowner agreements, lack of enforcement personnel or authority, difficulty in identifying responsible parties, etc. o The basis for the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin was and continues to be one of ability memo pa~e to Tarbell 2 to control runoff from a larger geographical area with a facility which will be maintained by an identifiable, responsible party (RWSA) which will insure its proper function. The boundary for drainage to that facility has been the basis of defining the growth area and for making a number of decisions related to land use in the area. Allowing additional density outside of that area would seem to leave little basis for zoning decisions throughout the watershed. wsm90-57 UNTY OF ALBEMAR[ MEMORANDUM 2 9 1994 TO: Bill Fritz - Senior Planner H~(/~ ~ FROM: Jack M. Kelsey, PE - Civil Engineer DATE: June 29, 1994 RE: ZMA-93-03 Craig Builders This Department has reviewed the Hunter Craig letter dated April 11, 1994, the previous Engineering Depamuent comments of May 12, 1993 regarding the plat, and the May 11, 1993 Water Resource Manager comments on the rezoning request. Mr. Craig raised several points worthy of a discussion on philosophies of stormwarer management, but none of them change the issue. This entire site is under the jurisdiction of the Runoff Control Ordinance and a large portion of this section lies within the watershed of a regional stormwater facility, namely the Lickinghole Creek Regional Basin. This ordinance clearly states in Sections 19.1-6.f) and 19.1-7.e) that for any development proposed within the watershed of a regional stormwater management facility, the developer shall pay a pro-rata share of the costs associated with the regional facility. There are no waivers or exceptions to this provision. The effectiveness of the Lickinghole Creek Regional Basin has been scrutinized in the past. The benefits and disadvantages of both regional and on-site facilities have been documented and the strategy of stormwater management conunues to evolve as methods are tried and tested. However, reports from respected professionals, such as William Norris (ex-Water Resources Manager) and Frank Browne, have concluded that this regional facility is mom effective and more cost efficient (based on cost per developable acre) than subregional or on- site facilities. In other words, this facility provides the best bang for the buck! We support the adequacy and effectiveness of the Lickinghole Regional Basin, concluded by these professionals, and the exercise of the pro-rata share requirement. As a matter of clarification, there are a few comments in Mr. Craig's letter that need to be corrected. The Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations am only guidelines and am not required. Regional facilities are a comprehensive stormwater treatment method and these guidelines are not applicable to regional management. Bill Fritz June 29, 1994 Page 2 ATTACHMENT DJ The maintenance of regional facilities, within the runoff control ama, are the responsibility of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, according m the Buck Mountain Agreement. Maintenance of the Lickinghole Creek Regional Basin was figured into the cost for the facility. Maintenance of on-site facilities has been and will continue to be the responsibility of the landowners, To assure awareness and compliance with the maintenance responsibilities, this Department requires, as a condition of plan approval, a County standard Stormwater Management/BMP Facility Maintenance Agreement be recorded at the County Courthouse. The previous Water Resource Manager comments (see attached) are still valid, with only one correction to the comment regarding compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance setback requirements. The entire site is under the jurisdiction of the Runoff Control Ordinance and must comply with the 100' building and septic setback requirement from all tributary streams and all other ordinance provisions. Lastly, we still support the recommendation that the setbacks also be treated as vegetative buffers to afford a level of protection similar to the Water Resoume Protection Areas buffers. The Engineering Department comments have been revised to adequately reflect the preliminary plat content .requirements, as outlined in the ordinances. Comments are as follows: Prior to Preliminary plat approval the following items must be addressed on the plat: Delineate the existing rights-of-way and label all property metes & bounds. Delineate and label 100' Building & Septic setbacks along all intermittent streams. Label all &xisting State Route numbers. Delineate and label drainage easements along along alt streams and watercourses. Label all existing and proposed right-of-way widths. Show preliminary provisions for drainage (ie. ditch & culvert locations). Final Subdivision Plat shall be subject to Department of Engineering approval of all relevant final plat details and the conditions listed below: 1. VDOT and the Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations. Bill Fritz June 29, 1994 Page 3 ~ATTACHI~ENT D I 2 3. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater management plans and calculations. Depamnent of Engineering receipt of the pro-rata share payment for the areas within the watershed of the Lickinghole Regional Basin. Departmem of Engineering issuance of a Runoff Control Permit. Proof of recordation of a County standard Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreemem, for onsite facilites proposed to control runoff from areas not within the watershed of the Lickinghole Regional Basin. Department of Engineering approval of an Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. Attachment CCi Jo Higgins David Hirschman Don Franco DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTI-ESVILLE, 22911 ~TTACHMENT E 1 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Septe~er 19, 1996 october Public Hearings Mr. Ron Keeler Dept. of Planning & Commu/~ity Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Keeler: Please find listed below our comments for October Public Hearings. SP-96-~5 & SP-96-36 Matthew & Suzane Crane, Route 743 The existing entrances do not meet our minimum standard of 250 feet of sight distance for a private entrance. The entrance can perhaps be adjusted to meet private enurance requirements. The two home occupations and a garage~apartment in addition to the private dwelling would warrant a commercial site distance requirement. The activity generated by the two home occupations would be more than a private entrance. The sight distance can possibly be attained, but would require sight easements on both sides of property. SP-96-~7 Buck Mountain, Route 743 The existing entrances to church and parish hall will be required to meet commercial entrance standards. A sight easement will be required at the paris~hall entrance and the fence to be removed or set back. We recommend that t~e northern entrance be closed or to meet commercial entrance standards. SP-96-38 L~A Employees Credit Union, Route 1403 ! The e~isting entrances and turn lane were determined to be adequate when Berkmar~. Drive Extended was built. The traffic flow appears to be improved. site ~lan review recommended the elimination of several parking spaces near the southern mosn entrance uo help with on-site circulation. A TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY RECEIVEI . Planning DOD'[. ATTACHMENT E 1 Mr. Ron Keeler October Public Hearings Page 2 September 19, 1996 ZMA-96-16 Carolyn Letner, Route 631 The recent improvement to Rio Road apDears to be adeqn~ate for this slight change in usage. ZMA-96-17 Mechum River Land Trust, Route 240 Route 240 is a non-tolerable road as far as geometries are concerned, that includes horizontal alignments, vertical alignment and width of pavement and shoulders. The increase in traffic would not only impact Route 240, but also Route 250, particularly in the Ivy area. A traffic impact study or an intersection analysis minimum should be performed to determine impacts at Route 240/250 and Route 240 ac Highlands/Mechum Subdivision, along with Route 240 at Western Ridge. Ii traffic signals are warranted, they should be proffered by the developer. All areas should be through the existing roadway in Hiqhlands Subdivision. ZMA-96-18 William A. Marshall, Jr. Route 649 This property can not at present time meet commercial entrance sight distance. All access should be through existin9 entrance to the east of the site. Route 649 is to be improved in the next few years and any entrance or accesses should be determined by proposed design. ZM3%-96-19 Hunter E. Craiq Co. Route 1165 If you have any questions, please advise before you release comments 5o the developer. HWM/ldw cc: J. H. Kesterson Irma vonKutzleben Yours truly, Assistant Resident Engineer DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911 I ATTACHME"T !~ A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER September 19, 1996 October Public'Hearings Mr. Ron Keeler Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Keeler: Please find listed below our comments for October Public Hearings. SP-96-35 & SP-96-36 Matthew & Suzane Crane, Route 743 The existing encrances do not meet our minimum standard of 250 feet of sight distance for a private entrance The entrance can perhaps be adjusted to meet private entrance requirements. The two home occupations and a garage/apartment in addition to the private dwelling would warrant a commercial site distance requirement. The activity generated by the two home occupations would be more than a private entrance. The sight distance can possibly be attained, but would require sight easements on both sides of property SP-96-37 Buck Mountain, Route 743 The existing entrances to church and parish hall will be required to meet commercial entrance standards. A sight easement will be required at the parish hall entrance and the fence to be removed or set back. We recommend that the northern entrance be closed or co meet commercial entrance standards. SP-96-38 WA Employees Credit Union, Route 1403 The existing entrances and turn lane were determined to be adequate when Herkmar Drive Extended was built. The traffic flow appears to be improved. site plan review recommended the elimination of several parking spaces near the southern most entrance to help with on-site circulation. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Planning Mr. Ron Keeler October Public Hearings Page 2 September 19. 1996 ZMA-96-16 Carolyn Lerner, Route 631 The recent improvement to Rio Road appears to be adequate for this slight change in usage. Route 240 is a non-tolerable road as far as geometrics are concerned, that includes horizontal alignments, vertical alignment and width of pavement and shoulders. The increase in traffic would not only impact Route 240, but also Route 250, particularly in the Ivy area. A traffic impact study or an intersection analysis minimum should be performed to determine impacus at Route 240/250 and Route 240 at Highlands/Mechum Subdivision, along with Route 240 at Western Ridge. If traffic signals are warranted, they should be proffered by the developer. All areas should be through the existing roadway in Highlands Subdivision. ZMA-96-18 William A. Marshall, Jr. Route 649 This property can not at present time meet commercial entrance sight distance. All access should be through existing entrance to the east of the site. Route 649 is to be improved in the next few years and any entrance or accesses should be determined by proposed design. ZMA-96-19 Hunter E. Craiq Co. Route 1165 If you have any questions, please advise before you release comments to the developer HWM/ldw cc: J. H. Kesterson Irma vorff~utzlehen Yours truly, Assistant Resident Engineer Mr. Ronatd S. Keeler Site Plan Review Meeting Page 2 June 21, 1989 5. SP-89-50 Willoughby Fast Joint Venturer Route 631 S. - The Department has no comnents concerning this request. 6. ZMA-89-6 Mechum River Land Trust7 Route 240 - This request is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. There would be a significant increase in the volume of traffic generated from this property should it be rezoned ~n accordance with this request. Under the RA zoning approximately 125 VPD could be generated from the two parcels depending upon the development rights. Under the R4 zoning approximately 5,400 VPD could be generated from this property. Therefore, there could be a net increase of 5,275 VPD. Route 802 is currently tolerable. The Department does not support this zoning request since it is not in acordance with the Comprehensive Plan and could possibly generate 5,275 VPD more than all. owed under the current zoning. Yours truly, D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer By: J.A. Echols Ass' t. Resident Engineer JAE/ldw cc: D. E. Ogle J. F. Coates RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VJR INIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 2013 CHAELOTrESVlLLE. 22902 December 20, 1989 D. S. ROOSEVELT RESIDENT ENGINEER Site Plan Review Meeting December 21 ~ 1989 Items 1A-4A Mr. Richard Tarbell County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22901 Dear Mr. Tarbell: The following are our conments: IA.' Southside Transfer. Station~ Route 715 '- A 30 foot wide conmercial entrance with 45 foot radii is required for this site. A gate is shown across the entrance on site and the Department recommends that it be reflectorized so that vehicles can see the gate when it is closed. ~here is a rural section existing along Route 715 and it is satisfactory to continue tbat for the entrance. Should curbing be used on the entrance, then there needs to be a min/mum of 22 feet from the centerline of Route 715 to the face of curb (CG-6). With a rural section, a pipe is probably needed under the entrance in the ditch line. There should be adequate screening for the transfer station from the public roadway. The plan Indicates 25 feet is to be dedicated from the centerline of Route 715 along the frontage of the property and a recorded plat would be needed for this. The existing field entrances should be closed off and the area restored back. 2A. ZMA-89-21 Machum River Land Trust~ Route 240 - A minimum of 550 feet of sight distance .is required for the entrance to Route 240. Removal of trees along the south 'side o'f the road to the east of the entrance will be needed to obtain adequate sight distance in this direction. Additional right of way dedication and/or a sight easement would also be needed in this direction to insure that the sight distance is maintained. This section of Route 240 is curvy and is upgrade going east to west. The Department recommends 200 foot long right and left turn lanes, with 200 foot long taper lanes on Route 240 for this new entrance. A traffic analysis will be needed for the sizing of roads within this proposal. The Department recommends that at least 25 feet from' the centerline of Route 240 be dedicated along the property frontage. Additional right of way would be needed for the turn lanes. The Department recommends that the existing private driveway serving this property be closed off and all access be,~ to the new internal roads. I ATTACHt,IENT E I Mr. Ronald Keeler Special Use Permits & Rezonings Page 3 December 20, 1989 4. SP-89-106 Central Fidelity Bank~ Route 29 N. - This request would generate more traffic than a walk-in bank with no drive-thru windows. A drive-in baffle generates 291 VPD per 1,000 square feet gross floor area, while a walk-in bank generates 190 VPD per 1,000 square feet gross floor area. This property is tohave access to the entrance for The Gardens Site Plan. 5. ZMA-89-21 Mechum River'.Land Trust, Route 240 This request is outside of the growth area and therefore not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Under the RA zoning there would be approximately 50 VPD generated from .this property. The application plan for this property indicates 50 lots which would generate approximately 350 VPD. Therefore, there would be a significant increase in the traffic generated from this property with this request. Should the request be approved: the Department recommends right ~nd left turns with taper lanes on Route 240 to serve the new entrance. The Department does not support this request since it is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and it is outside of the growth area and would generate more traffic than allowed under the current zoning. Yours truly, D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer By: J. A. Echols Ass7 t. Resident Engineer JAE/ldw cc: D. E. 0gle J. F. Coates IATTACHHENT F t ZMA-89-9 Mechum R~-~r Land Trust - Request to rezone 192.410 acres from RA, Rural Areas to .4, Residential. Property, des %bed as Tax Map 57, Parcel 29 and 29D is located between the C & 0 Railway and Rt. 240, approximately one-half mile west of intersection with Rt. 240 and Rt. 250, a smaller piece of the property is located on the north side of Rt. 240 between Rt. 240 and Rt. 802. White Hall Magisterial District. Deferred from July 18, 1989 Commission meeting. Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors .not make a zonzng decision at this time, so as to allow for final engineering design of the (Lickinghole Creek Basin) and/or policy determination of the site area appropriate for urban residential zoning." Mr. Cilimberg further clarified that staff was recommending that the Co~mnission either delay any rezoning consideration or only take action on that part of the application which naturally drains to the basin's location. There was a brief discussion about how maintenance of the basin would be addressed. Mr. Cilimberg described three possibilities: (1) County expense; (2) llomeowners' associations; or (3) Developer bond. In response to Mr. Michel's question about the status of the Lickinghole Creek project, Mr. Cilimberg explained that the project is funded in the CIP for the engineering studies and is listed in the CIP as a future proj¢cg, but ~]c County, ag this time, has not appropriated money for the actual construction. The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Craig. He felt this project would funnel growth into a designated growth area. He pointed out water and sewer ms available to the property and schools in the ares are currently underutilized. He felt that the development would improve the quality of run-off after construction ms complete. Regarding the Lickinghole Basin, he stated it was not designed to meet the needs of residential development and even if it were already constructed it would not sufficiently meet run-off control needs and os-site run-off control measures would still be necessary. July 25, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Bowerman asked if the Lickinghole Basin were being designed to meet the amount of run-off generated from this area after development. Mr. Meting, the County Engineer, responded affirmatively. Mr. Craig asked Mr. Tom Muncaster, Engineer for the applicant, to comment on the basin issue. Mr. Muncaster explained that the basin is designed to remove 45% of the ~osphorous it collects. He continued that if the undeveloped part of this land develops it will increase the phosphorous load five times but the Ordinance says that the amount of phosphorous after development cannot exceed what it was before. development. Therefore, if the Ordinance is strictly followed, additional controls will still be needed, not only with this development, but through- out Crozet. Mr. Daley Craig, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stressed that the Lickinghole basin was not designed to handle residential run-off, but rather was designed for agricultural purposes. He also commented on possibilities for maintenance of the detention basin. He felt the most equitable solution for maintenance would be through a homeowners' association or possibly to have the homeowners make a monthly contribution to the County and let the County then maintain it. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Moring to comment on the purpose of the Lickinghole Creek Basin. Mr. Meting declined comment explaining that he was not familiar with the project as it was done several years ago. Mr. Cilimberg comm~ented that it was his understanding that Lickinghole was designed as a detention basin for that growth area. He felt the issue was not agricultural vs. residential, but rather efficiency in removal of phosphorous. He stated that the question of whether or not additional detention would be required has not yet been answered, nor has it been determined whether or not current or future development in Crozet should bear part of the cost of this basin. Mr. Bowerman stated it was his understanding that the only way a growth area could be accommodated in the watershed was if there was a way to protect the water supply, thus the proposal for the basin which was supposedly the most efficient way (rather than have multiple basins). Mr. Cilimberg added that it was an alternative of doing sub-regional basins which, though possibly more efficient, would have been much more costly. Mr. Cilimberg felt cost "was a contribution to the whole consideration." tie pointed out that the City and the Rivanna Authority had declined to participane in this project, though the EPA contributed $300,000. The'Chairman invited comment from Mr. Peyton Robettson, the Watershed Management Official. Mr. Robertson explained that typically regional basmns are meant to acepmmodate large drainage areas (200 acres or greater) with the idea being "individual contributions to systems are then managed'so that the entire basin is maintained without individual on-site maintenance required." He continued and explained that "smaller individual on-site basins are used for 20~acre drainages or smaller .... " He stated his understanding, after reviewing the files, was that the July 25, 1989 Page rationale behind the LiCki~ghole Basih was to accommodate growth in the area in a regional basin "for the simple reason that on-site facilities do require maintenance and a regional basin would be under one control and would not end up with individual on-site systems locmted in various places." He explained that various locations had been considered and Lickinghole had been chosen because of its proximity to Crozet. Mr. Bowerman asked if it had been the Commission's understanding that there would be additional basins or if this was to be "the basin which would protect the reservoir from the development in Crozet?" Mr. Michel recalled that it had been a "two pronged" issue, i.e. that the Lickinghole Basin would provide the large area detention and the potentional for primary on-site detention would contain all the run-off control needed in Crozet, but if the primary systems failed to be maintained properly, then the Lickinghole Basin would still provide a measure of protection for the growth area. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question about the status of the design, Mr. Cilimberg stated that the final engineering design had not only not bea~ comp~ted, it had not been contracted. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if there was any reason why it could not be designed to handle all the runoff for the area in question. Mr. Cilimberg felt it was a question of "how it is located in relation to the railroad and whether or mot another dam location would be feasible." Mr. Moring added that the environmental work had been done several years ago but the structural work and actual location could possibly still be looked at. Mr. Rittenhouse concluded that the perfomnance level was set, and Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that it was assumed that it would handle the entire area under discussion. Mr. Robertson confirmed that a 45%-50% efficiency' level was typical of this type of basin, lle added that efficiency could be increased with a series of basins. Mr. Hunter Craig pointed out that on-site basins are much more efficient (65%). Mr. Daley Craig again stressed that the Lickinghole Basin was only meant to accommodate agricultural runoff. He felt it's existence, or non- existence would make no difference to development in Crozet because residential run-pff would have to be addressed through individual, on-site devices. He felt the Commission had been misled. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the rezoning request: Mr. Robert Sable; Ms. Adelaide Spainhour; Mr. Clarence Clayton; Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle; Mr. Scott Peyton; Mr. John Marston; Mr. Clay Sprouse; Ms. Ellen Woff; and Mr. Corey Newman. Their reasons included: --Too many unanswered questions about the Lickinghole Basin. --Request is premature. --Inadequate, dangerous roads. Ms. Bev Ergenbright also addressed the Commission and asked for an explanation of the growth area map. Mr. Cilimberg complied. July 25, 1989 Page 5 There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Stark stated he felt there were ~oo many unanswered questions about the Lickinghole Basin issue. He concluded he could not vote favorably on the request at this time. Mr. Michel agreed. Commissioners Diehl and Rittenhouse agreed also. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that there seemed to be serious disagreement as to whether the proposed basin works or not. Mr. Wilkerson agreed. Noting that this development lies in his district, Mr. Jenkins pointed out to the public that growth in the Crozet area was inevitable, though, unfortunately, the improvements to the roads would not come until after growth has occurred and the roads have gotten worse. He noted that the property under consideration is designated for growth, partly because of the availability of sewer. Mr. Bowerman stated that many hours have been spent on the Comprehensive Plan over the years in trying to arrive at a plan for the development of this community that the people can accept. He continued that the most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan shows the majority of this area in the growth area of Croze[ and at some point we must start trying to make the Plan work by taking measures which will actually implement the Plan. lte felt, "in general, the application before us is proper." He felt the degree of the rezoning still needed to be resolved. He agreed there were unanswered questions but he did not think the developer should be expected to wait four years for a decision to be made. He concluded: "We are either barking up the wrong tree or we're not even close. We seem to be saying that this isn't appropriate, whatever." Mr. Michel stated he felt Mr. Bowerman was "overstating" the issue because that was certainly not his feeling. He simply felt the Lickinghofe issue needed to be clarified. Mr. Jenkins stated he wanted more information about plans for runoff even if there isn't a Lickinghole Basin. There was a brief discussion about the Commission's options for dealing with the request, m.e. deferral to a date specific, indefinite deferral or denial. Mr. Bowling interjected that the Commission did not have the option of indefinite deferral unless the applicant concurred. T~e Chairman asked the applicant his preference. Mr. Craig responded that the applicant did not "have the luxury of waiting." tle stated he did not understand the issue and asked that the Commission approve the request with the condition that the applicant meet the requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance. July 25, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Bowerman explained that part of the concern is the ultimate location of the dam for the Lickinghole Basin which could effect whether the 117 acres is entirely or only partially in this basin. Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-89-9 for Mechum River Land Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on staff's recommendation and on the feeling that there are too many unanswered questions about the Lickinghole Creek project. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Bowerman noted that he would have been in favor of a deferral and would not support the motion for denial. Ms. Diehl noted she was also concerned about the possible density increase if only 117 acres were used. The previously-stated motion for denial passed (4:3) with Commissioners Bowerman, Jenkins and Michel casting the dissenting votes. Agenda Item No. 14. ZMA-89-6. Meehum River Land Trust (deferred from August 2, 1989). Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: "No development impacts were included in the staff report for ZMA-89-6 MECHUM RIVER LAND TRUST since no definitive development scheme was available prior to Board consideration. At the public hearing of August 2, 1989, the applicant verbally stated desire for approval of (a maximum of) 350 dwellings whether on 117 or 149 acres. Based on a maximum of 350 dwellings, staff offers the following comments: Transportation: Staff has met with VDOT regarding the effect of additional traffic on Virginia State Route 240 by introduction of 350 dwellings om this site: Traffic generation (i.e. - turns in and out of the development) would be about 2450 vehicle trips per day. This number cannot be simply added to the current +4000 vehicle trips per day on Route 240, but must be dispersed along desired lines. Lacking study to the contrary, VDOT and staff assume a 75/25 split to the east and west respectively. This would be an increase of about 1730 vehicle trips per day to the east and 620 vehicle trips per day to the west. (This distribution could change with construction of the proposed Route 240/250 connector · together with location of shopping facilities on Route 250, and additional commercial/industrial development within Crozet). VDOT recommends a four lane roadway when traffic exceeds 6000 vehicle trips per day. However, in observed practice, traffic volume ca~ approach or exceed 15,000 vehicle trips per day before improvement occurs (as a result of funding and other considerations). It should be noted that most major collector secondary roads in the Urban Area accommodate two to three times the projected volume on Route 240 (i.e. - Hydraulic, Barracks, Rio and Georgetown Roads). Regarding specific improvements to accommodate this rezoning, VDOT and/or staff recommend the following: a. Right and left turn lanes into the development from Route 240; b. Divided entrance road for emergency access and appropriate turn lanes; c. One entering lane from and two exiting lanes onto Route 240. Exiting lanes to accommodate right and left turns; d. Relocate townhouse units adjacent to Route 240 to obtain 550 feet of sight distance. Sight distance ~a~ement will be required. School Enrollment: Projection methods for school enrollment are districts and residential development. Ant[cipated enrollment increases from this pro}act based on multipliers used by staff in Elementary (Crozet) Hlddle (Henley) Secondary (~estern Albemarle) 67 students 39 students 53 students 13 students It should be noted that these multipliers are based on a mix'of all types of dwelling units and are not specific to dwelling unit type. Actual school enrollment could vary with the mix of dwptling unit type in this development. Population; This development would house about 900 persons. Residential builders respond to market demand which county-wide is !?O0 dwellings per year. The County government does not exercise such practice has generally been held as unconstitutional, The County is attempting to guide the location of new residential development to ~eslgnated growth areas such as Crozet which has Mr Ciltmberg said the Planning Comission. at its meeting on July Mr. Perkins asked if the applicant planned to relocate the townhouse~ to the portion of ~he property adjacent to Route 240. Mr. Cilimberg said the applican~ plans to locate the multi-family units Just east of the entry into the development from Route 24Q, Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks these units should be placed as far to the rear of the site as possible, given the topog- raphy and the setback required from the stream, to insure that the sight distance is adequate along Route 240 to the east, Mr, ~ay asked Mr, Cilimberg to clarify the proposal made by the applicant concerning the'proposed Ltckinghole Creek drainage basin. Mr. Ciltmberg said the applicant has proposed to divert drainage from about 32 acres of the site to the Lickinghole Creek drainage basin. Mr. Way asked Mr, Richard Moring, County Engineer, to cogent upon the e~fectiveness of the proposed diversion of drainage. Hr. Meting said he dent it would set. Mr. Lindstrom said that this developer, Craig Builders, has built some subdivision, lie said the Comprehensive Plan designates Crozet aa a growth to provide the infrastructure for this growth. Hr. Llndstrom said he has no can be extended and have the drainage still flow into the Lickinghole Creek impoundment, ~e thinks this is as far as the.boundaries should be extended. Re said he has heard the applicant argue that his drainage basin will work as proposes to drain into the Lickinghole Creek impoundment. If the Board were to allow the natural topographio boundaries o~ the watershed to be violated, developmenL is the ~aJor non-point source of pollution in the Be said the Board has also had problems enforcing ~aintenance aEre~nts for small detention basins. He said he things he can suppork the development of the 117 acres that drains naturally in the Llckinghole Creek Mr. Llndstrom said this is the first major rezonini request to co~e ~efore the Board since July 1, 1989, when it became legal for counties to accept proffers that minimize the fiscal impact of rezoning. Be said he believes the County has the authority to deny this application in view of ~ts impact upon the resources of the comunity, particularly its impact upon the infrastructure of Crozet. Be said that i reapplication of this request, with proffers, would be a substantially different application and would not need to be deferred for a year. He said he is ~oncerned that if the County does not beBin to use its authority to accept such proffers, it will bare established a precedent of not considering this aspect of the fiscal impact of development 0n co~nunities. Br. Ltndstro~ said that this development of 350 units would increase the population of Crozet by about 900 people including at least 1~9 school-aged children, He said he believes that the nur~ber of school-aged children would be closer to 313, given the type of housing the applicant plans to build. It costs the County $3,000 per student im local funds; $296.47 per capita in costs to General Government; and about $966.72 per student per year in capital costs for schgols, based on the Crozet school project. If the development brings in 313 school-aged children, the annual cost to the County will be $1,508,406, Basing this analysis on the lower estimate of 159 school-aged children yields a cost to the County o£ $897,531 per year. He said the proposal. (Page Mr. Perkins asked if the scaled-back version of the project would have two entrances and if so, where the second entrance would be. Hr Craig said he thinks it would be ~mpossible to have a second entrance with the scaled- )ack version of the pro3ect. Hr. Bain asked if the Lickinghole Creek drainage basin could be moved. Hr. horinB said "yes", but changing the location would require another esti- mate for the cost of the dam. Mr. Bain said he agrees with the comments made by Mr. Lindstrom'and Br. Perkins concerning the Comprehensive Plan and limiting the development to the 117 acres that drain naturally into the kickinBhole Creek drainage basin. Br. Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board must also consider the fiscal impact of Hr. Perkins said he would prefer that Crozet remain the way it is, but Lhe County has spent a lot of money in schools and utilities to encourage restricting the development to 117 acres will encourage the developer to put thinks a sedimentation pond on-sire might ba more effective than the proposed Llckinghole Creek impoundment, lie thinks the Board should encourage as Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the request for [49 acres, including proffers to this point. Mr. Lindstrom said the notion that this development must be approved in order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan misses the significance of the drainage basin and the 30 acres which are not covered by the Comprehensive Plan He said the impoundment planned for this area determined the boundaries of the Crozet growth ar~a. If the Board approves this reques~ ko modify the topography of a site to divert drainage, he said, there will be many mor~ such requests. Be said he does not think this developer will build an unattractive development, because he cannot sell lots and houses that people to not like. Be said he does not think the difference between a development of 149 acres and one of 117 acres will dictate whether the p~ojec~ is a slum or an attrac- tive development. Be said he cannot support the motion. Moreover. he said, development does no% pay for itselI at the current tax rate. If the Board does not wish to raise the %ax rate on real property, then he thinks the County must rely on o~her sources Of revenue, such as the proffers now allowed Hr. Perkins said he thinks the issue is whether a sedimentation pond on August 9. I989 (ReBular Day HeetinB) (Page 18) possible with the proposed Licklnghole Creek impoundment. Re said the sedl- Hr. Lindstrom said there are many developers in the County who are capable of constructing such devices, building their developments, selling the ~r. Bowie said he thinks a major difference is that the Board still does nor know exactly where the dam for the impoundment will lie~ it could very well include the 30 acres the applicant wishe~ co include as part of the Hr. Lindstrom said the entire request should then be deferred until the Board knows the exact location of :he dam and the impoundment. Be said he thinks this is the reason :he Planning Commission reca~ended that the request be denied. Re said he is not willing to deny the request, but be could support deferring it until more tnfor~tion is available on the Lickinghole tion oi the revised Comprehensive plan just adopted by the Board this sunnier. said she knows very well the proble~n$ presented by the diversion el drainaBe the flooding and drainage problems experienced by residents of the Charlottesville District. She said she supports rezoning the 117 acres, Hr. Perkins withdrew his motion with the concurrence of the seconder and listed below. Boll was called and the motion carried by the followtni AYES: Hr. Bain. Hr. Bowie. Hrs. Cooke. Hr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: Hr. Llndstrom. 1. lnstalla divided road entrance from Route 240 to the first off-road within the subdivision. 2. B~elling units limite'd to 350. ATTAC~4~T 5 May 16, ~90 (Regular Night Meeting) 191 (Page 20) Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-89-21. ~echumRiver Land Trust. Public hearing on a request te rezone 117 acres zoned R-4, Residential (proffered), and 56.77 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, to pP~D, Planned Residential Development (prof- fered). Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 29, is located on the south side of Rt. 240 approximately 2000 feet west of its intersection with Rt. 250 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This property is not within a desig- nated growth area. (Advertised iq the Daily ProRress on May 1 and May 8, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: "Character of the Area: The area south of this site, across the C & 0 Railroad, is the proposed site of the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sediz~ntation Basin. North of the site across Route 240 are the Beaver Rill mobile home park and several small lots. This site is open pasture towards the west and heavily wooded towards the east. The site is described by three north-south ridges with steep slopes ocnurrlng along the ridge valleys adjacent to streams. Public sewer is available at the Crozet Int~rcepnor south of the C & 0 Railroad. Public water can be extended from the storage reservoir at the Crozet water treatment plant. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: ZMA-89-06, a rezonlng petition for the Tax Map 57, Parcels 29 and 29D, was presented to the Planning Commission on July 25, 1989. The proposal, to rezone 192,41 acres from RA, Rural Areas. no R-4, Residential, was recommended for denial by a vote of 4-3 On Augusg 9, 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved 117 acres of Parcel 29 to be rezoned to R-4, Residential, with a maximum of 350 dwelling units by a vote of 5-1. The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to rezone the remaining 56.77 acres of Parcel 29 from RA, Rural Areas, to R-2, Residential (proffer), ~o limit development to a maximum of 52 lots. In addition, the applicant is proposing ko amend ZMA-89-06 to reduce the maximum number of dwelling units from 350 units to 223 units. The 223 units will consist of 148 single-family lots and 75 townhouses on the 117 acres. The applicant has stated the justification for this rezoning request as: Provide environmentally sensitive housin~ to Crozet~ Provide affordable housing; Improve the quality of runoff going into the Mechum River. S%~m~ary and Recommendation: This proposal is for property outside of the Crozet growth area as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ~nd Board of Supervisors not make m zoning decision at this time, so ms to allow for final engi- neering design of the Lickinghole Creek Basin and/orallow the appli- can5 go pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Should the Planning Con~ission and Board of Supervisors desire ~o make a zoning decision without consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, staff recommends denial of the rezoning petition for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is not consistent with the boundaries of the Crozet growth area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Thc proposal is for an urban density zoning which is inappro- priate for land designated ~s rural areas. The proposal conflicts with the recently adopted provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which does not allow additional development rights for property zoned Rural Areas in the watershed. ~ACH~Eb~ 5B 192 May 16 ~Page 2~ 90 (Regular Night Meeting) STAFF COMMENT: Crozet Growth Area Boundary: Staff opinion remains that this proposal to rezone 56.77 acres of land zoned Rural Areas is inconsistent with the Crozet growth area boundary as defined in the Gomprehensive Plan. This position was originally stated in the staff report for ZMA-89-06 which is included herein as Attachment B (on file). As to growth area boundaries, staff opinion is that there has been no change of circum- stances ~o warrang reconsideration since the approval of a portion of this parcel in ZMA-89-06. The Comprehensive Plan states: 'The eastern boundary of Crozet between 240 and 250 shall be adjusted to include all areas which naturally drain into the Liekinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin. Determination of the boundary shall be based on the final engineering design of the basin. Any extension of the existing boundary shall be designated iow density residential.~ The Board of Supervisors made a policy decision not to allow the expansion of the Grozet growth area to include areas which do not naturally drain to the Lickinghole Creek Basin when this 56.77 acre portion of the property was not included in the approval of ~2~A-89-06. Notwithstanding water supply protection concerns, staff opinion is tha~ the current policies of the Comprehensive Plan do not support on-site runoff control measures ~o justify expansion of the growth area and that such a proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Comprehensive Plan Designation: The applicant ~s proposing an urban density zoning, R-2 Residential~ in an area designated by the Compre- hensive Plan to be Rural Areas. Staff opinion is that this rezoning petition is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, in the past, staff has consistently not supported rezonings to urban density in the rural areas anywhere in the County. As is the ease with any rezoning proposed outside a designated growth area, staff recommends the proposal be addressed by a Comprehensive Plan amendment rather than a rezoning. Current Zonin~ Regulations Governing Development in the Water- shed Outside of the Growth Area: Staff is concerned with the poten- tial conflict i~volved if this rezoning is approved for propergy in the watershed after the Board of Supervisors has adopted Zoning Ordinance provisions which do not allow additional developmen[ rights by special use permit for land zoned rural areas in the watershed. Section 10.5.2.1 was amended November 8, 1989, and states: 'The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use permit for: More lots than the total number permitted under section 10.2.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that mo such permit shall be issued for properEy within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water supply impoundment. Staff opinion is that it would be difficult to sustain this provision of the Zoning Ordinance if an urban density rezoning is approved for property in the wa~er supply watershed, zoned Rural Areas, and desig- nated as Rural Areas by the Comprehensive Plan. Prior Zoning Decisions: Requests for Urban Densities in Rural Areas: This section of the staff report discusses the disposition of residen- tial rezoning petitions similar [o the Mechum River Land Trust's circumstances. More specifically, discussion is limited to cases of: a. Properties within reservoir watershed, and/or b. outside of designated growth areas, in which c. the rezoning was from a rural ~o urban residential designation, d. reviewed since the adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance and map. AgTAC~I~qT 5C May 16, 0 (Regular Night Meeting) 193 (Page Since 1980, 13 rezoning petitions meeting the preceding description were reviewed. Of these 13 petitions, five were approved. Further analysis is offered: As in the case with this rezoning, four petitions were for proper~y outside of a growth area and in the reservoir watershed. Three of these were withdrawn and the fourth, ZMA-85-22, Peacock Hill, was approved to rezone 2.5 acres from RA to PUD and amend 62 acres of the existing PUD to delete the comercial uses and reduce the number of cluster units. The other four petitions approved which were in the watershed were also in th~ designated growth area of Orozet. They ar~ as follows: 1. ZMA-81-24, Knopp Enterprises - 16 acres from R-1 to R-6. 2 ZMA-84-2§, Grayrock pRD - 294 townhouses on 74 acres ZMA-85-05, Jordan Development Corporation - to amend existing PPD. ZMA-89-0~, Mechum River Land Trust - 117 acres of RA to R-4. In a continuing effort to provide reservoir protection and to maintain the integrity of the comprehensive planning program, the County has been conservative in graeting rezoning approvals. Adjacency of a property to a designated growth area has not been a major factor in zoning deliberations. Staff opinion of this petition is consistent with the review of past rezonings with similar circumstances. On-site Runoff Control Proposal: The Lickinghole Creek Regional S~dimentation Basin will serve as an erosion, sedimentation and runoff control device for development in Crozet. The applicant is proposing an on-site runoff control basin which he states 'could further reduce th~ total phosphorus as much as 65 percent and total Suspended solids over 90 percent. The proposed Lickinghole Creek Basin project is expected to reduce total phosphorus by 45 percent and total suspended solids by 71 percent'. The applicant has provided calculations which demonstrate that the proposed developmen~ would reduce the pollutant level without a runoff control basin. The Engineering Department has prepared comparative calculations utilizing the revised Runoff Control Guidelines prepared by F. X, Browne Associates, Incorporated in 1982. Their calculations indicate a significantly higher quantity of both phosphorous and sediment loadings. Additionally, in response to the applicant's calculations, for runoff control, the Watershed Management Official has stated a concern for the precedent the approval of this proposal would set, leaving little basis for zoning decisions throughout the watershed. To reiterate staff's opinion, the rezoning is inconsistent with the eas%ern boundary of the Crozet growth area which is defined in the Oomprehensive Plan as the area which drains naturally to the Licking- hole Creek Regional Sedimentation gasin. The basin is intended to work with the requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance, not replace them. The issue before the Planning Co~mission and Board of Supervisors is not the ability of an on-site runoff control facility potentially providing for better water as compared to the regional basin, rather, it is an issue of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation for ZMA-89-21: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors not make a zoning decision at this time, so as ~o allow for final engineering design of the Lickinghole Creek Basin and/or allow the applicant to pursue a Comprehensive Plan ~ 5D May 16, )0 (Regular Hight Meeting) 3_94 (PaBe 2h, Should the Planning Corm~ission and Board of Supervisors desire to make a zoning decision without consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, staff recommends denial of ZMA-89-21 for Mechum River Land Trust for the following reasons: The proposal is not consistent with the boundary of the Crozet growth area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is for an urban density zoning which is appropriate for land designated and zoned as Rural Areas. 3. The proposal conflicts with the recently adopted provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which do not allow additional development rights for property zoned Rural Areas in the watershed. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this rezoning petition, staff recommends acceptance of the proffer as stated by the applicant: 'To limit ko 52 units and amend 117 acres of R-4 Residential go R-4 Residential with proffer to limit to 223 units on 117 acres.' Additional Con~nent: Route 240 RealignmenT: Schematic plans for improving Route 240 East have recently been received by the Planning Depargmen~. The proposed improvemen~ is ~o consgrucg a ~wo-lane road to Virginia Depar~men~ of Transportation standards and improve verti- cal and horizontal curvature. These are no~ final road design plans and further engineering will be necessary in the future. However, the plans indicate that a realignment of Route 240 may occur along the frontage of this property to improve horizontal curvature. The applicant should, consider the potential impact of this realignmen~ on the projec~ Staff recommends that appropriate reservation and/or right of way dedication be made to accommodate these improvements mE the time of preliminary plat review. At a minimum, staff will recom- mend the affected area to be designated as common open space. Additional co~nents from the Virginia Department of Transportation on both ZMA-gg-06 and ZMA-89-21 are included herein as Attachment M (on file}. A/~endment ~o the Albemarle County Service Authority Service Area: As stated earlier~ public sewer is available at the Crozet Interceptor sou~h of the C & 0 Railroad. Public water can be extended from the sgorage reservoir at the Crozet water Erea~menn plant. Should ~he Board of Supervisors choose to approve this rezonzng proposal, a resolution of intent [o amend the Albemarle County Service Authority area for water and sewer service Eo this property should be made an this time." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 1, 1990, recommended denial of this petition. Mr. Bowie said he does no~ understand the reference ko "urban density zoning" because one unit per acre is not Rural Areas zoning, but is certainly within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said one dwelling unit per acre is the lowest end of the urban category of densities for residential use. If is considered to be a growth area density and mot a rural area density. The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Daley Craig came forward to speak. He handed ou~ documents as back-up to his address to the Board. Mr. Craig said he came tonight without much expectation, since he feels two Board members have already made up their minds against this petition. He said one of the Board's options is to delay action In view of the time and expense already incurred in trying ~o get this issue before the Board in a proper manner~ he feels that delay is nog a viable option. Mr. Craig said the neighborhoods built by his company and the contented people living in them stand as permanent testimony ~o the good work he does. He realizes that he is May 16, 90 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting) ~-95 (Page 24) Mr. Craig then cited statements reflecting the position of the Piedmont Environmental Council and addressed each one. Re said the Fiedmont Environ- mental Council sna~es it supports growth away from rural areas. However, Mr Craig said the effect of the past Comprehensive Plans has been to direct the majority of the growth into the rural areas, which the County wants to pro- tect. The present Comprehensive Plan, which the Piedmont Environmental Council supports and promoEes, is almost identical to the one that he feels failed in its goals for the County. The PEt says that land west of Georgenown Road and Hydraulic Road was removed from the growth area because of residential runoff. But now, the PEt claims that runoff control measures should be used to determine where growth can occur in the watershed and solve that problem. That puts the land wesg of Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads back into jeopardy. The Piedmont Environmental Council says that on-site runoff control devices, which are acknowledged to be better than regional ones, require "a ma3or program of maintenance by the County", which means tax dollars. Mr. Craig feels that tax dollars are required to maintain the regional runoff control devices, not the on-site ones. The on-site basins can and should be maintained by the people immediately served, and at their expense and no~ at the expense of the taxpayer. The Piedmont Environmental Council says maintenance of private, on-site sedimentation basins is "uncertain". Mr. Craig feels it is non-existent. He said Mr. Lindstrom, lobbyist for PEC, had the opportunity as a member of this Board to require that on-site basins be maintained, but he did not do so. Mr. Craig said the County has not demonstrated good maintenance ability, and cannot even mainnain the County dump. For example, there was no mainte- nance at Camellia Gardens, because the County did not require lt. The County, upon the recommendation of the County Engineer, adopted the runoff control ordinance, which failed to include any provision for maintenance. Subse- quently, the Buck Mountain agreement provided that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is responsible for maintenance of all runoff devices, including regional ones. Mr. Craig quoted the Piedmont Environmental Council as saying "approval of one private basin would set a precedent which would lead to others, and as the Office of Watershed Management has noted, would jeopardize the long-stand- ing policy upon which zoning decisions in the watershed have been made". Mr. Craig said that statement is factually incorrect. The fact is, the County has approved, and even required, over 55 private basins according to County records. He feels that to deny an on-site basin would actually run counter to the existing precedent. The Piedmont Environmental Council has advocated, through its paid lobbyist Timothy Lindstrom, that Albemarle County adopt the exclusive "Goochland policy". The exclusive Goochland policy is so-named because Goochland County thought of it first and the other rich counties in Virginia a~e rushing to copy it. Mr. Craig explained that this policy welcomes comer- cial development into the county and forces the employees who work in the com~ercial establts~unents co llve in adjoining jurisdictions, where their children will be educated with the tax dollars of others. Since 60 percent or more of local budgets goes to education, the exclusive Goochland policy is designed ~o save enormous amounts of money on the expense side of the budget, while realizing additional dollars on the revenue side. Mr. Craig said this is a clever device, but also a short-sighted one. He said the idea is to have the State take over the local Lax collection and then distribute it to the counties on the basis of population, particularly school-aged population. Mr. Craig feels this policy will erode local goverrument's self-determination, increase local taxes and reduce available funds for schools and other govern- meng operations. Mr. Craig feels that the self-interest of the PEG is so exclusive that it is contrary co the interests of the majority of Albemarle County taxpayers. May 16, J0 (Regular N~ght Meeting) 196 (Page 25) Mr. Craig feels the issqe ton%ght is which development plan is the hast of two alternatives. H0we9~, ma~y ~ople Seem to think that the issue before the Board is whether there are going to be houses on this land. Mr. Craig said he is appalled at that perception because the Board has already approved building 350 units on 117 acres. Mr. Craig said he ms proposing £o build 275 units on 173 acres, thereby reducing the density by reducing the number of units by 75. But most importantly, Mr, Craig said there will be a mix of housing types and prices ranging from $75,000 to $250,000 and from 200 detached houses to 75 multi-family houses. The zoning already approved will not provide for any single-family, detached houses, but provides for 350 nmlti-family units. Mr. CraiB said he thinks the Planning staff wants co puc as many houses for low and moderate income people in Crozet as possible to keep that type of housing away from the rest of the County. Mr. Craig said he has no objection to people of moderate means living in Crozet, or wherever else they want ~o live. That is their right guaranteed by the Constitution. However, he feels that low and moderate housing should not be limited to a project, but instead these people should have the opportunity to live in neighborhoods with up- scale housing. He ~sked why school teachers, for example, should be forced to live in a low-lncome project whe~ they would prefer to raise their families in a mixed price neighborhood. Mr. Craig feels that a number of County profes- sional employees cannot afford ro live in Albemarle County. Mr. Craig read from the staff report, "Notwithstanding water supply protection concerns, staff opinion is that the current policies of the Compre- hensive Plan do not supporg on-site runoff control measures to justify expan- smon of the growth area and that such a proposal would require Comprehensive Plan amendment." Mr. Craig interpreted that 5o mean, "Notwithstanding wager supply protection concerns, staff opinion is that runoff control measures have not, do nog, and should mot, determine growth areas". He feels the two statements say the same thing. He does not think it is in the County's best interests to have runoff control measures determine growth areas. Custom and precedent in Albemarle County has been to establish growth area lines around major roads, unless there is some compelling reason not to. At Crozet on Route 250 across from the proposed shopping center, a 40-acre area drains away from the proposed regional siltation basin, but is included in the growth area because it is on the north side of Route 250. As recently as April 10, Mr. Craig said the Board rejected a proposal on the east side of Route 20 South, affirming the principle of major roads being the growth dividing lines. Even ~en years ago, the Board revised the growth lines in the Georgetown Road and Hydraulic Road areas. Mr. Craig said the courts generally uphold local government's selecting major roads as growth area dividing lines. Mr. Craig said the Piedmont Environmental Council wants the Board to compromise a time-tested and proven principle of using roads as growth divid- ing lines. The PEC wants the Board to create runoff control measures to be used to determine growth areas. They say that the area which drains into the proposed Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin should be in the growth area, but that areas not draining into the sedimentation basin should remain in agricultural use. Mr. Craig feels that, along with the precedent already set in Albemarle County, the facts show that on-site runoff controls are more effective and better for the environment than regional ones. He also stated that if the 56-acre parcel proposed for rezoning is left in agricultural use, figures show that it will produce up to ten times as much runoff as does residential. He noted that agricultural use does not require any runoff control measures whatsoever, but residential use does. Mr. Craig said if the Board wants to protec~ the reservoir, it should put the land into residential use, no~ agricultural use. Mr. Craig went on to say that the Piedmont Environmental Council believes that on-site runoff control measures cannot be maintained. Mr. Craig feels they can be maintained a~ no expense to the taxpayers of Albemarle County. On the other hand, the regional basins cannot be maintained except at awesome expense ro the ~axpayers. Mr. Craig said if runoff control measures are used to determine growth areas as advocated by the PEC, then a new precedent will be established which will work against the County. The Piedmont Environmental Council would counter by saying that they favor usin~ only regional r~noff control measures to determine growth areas. May 16, A~90 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) 197 He said there are 5wo problems ~ith that. One is that individual runoff control measures are probably more effective than regional ones. Secondly, the County has adopted long-range plans for several regional sedimentation basins, and Lickinghole Creek is not rated high in order of priority or effectiveness. If runoff controls are to be used to determine growth areas, then there are potentially several more growth areas. Mr. Craig concluded by saying that in trying to defend an unworkable policy, the Board is about to adop= new policies ~o try to justify the inde- fensible one, and will have to defend the new pOlicy as well because it makes no sense. He said that is where the Piedmont Envirorumental Council has been leading the Board. Be feels the Board will be saying that runoff control measures should determine where growth areas are by voting against this petition. He feels that Crozet and the taxpayers of Albemarle County will be better off if the Board rejects the Piedmont Environmental Council's position before another detrimental step against preservation of rural areas is taken. Mr. Paul Burke, resident of Crozet, said he is opposed to this petition to expand development outside of the Crozet growth area. Mr. Burke said the Comprehensive Plan calls for development plans along Route 240 to be sensitive to growth. He said the petition is actually asking for an increase in the amoun~ of developable land from 117 acres to 174 acres. He reminded the Board that Route 240 is the main entry corridor used by Conagra as well as the resi- dents of Crozet to get to and from work. He feels that extra development along this corridor will be detrimental to those residents who travel the road. Ms. Kelly Bain, resident of Crozet, said she was horrified that the 350 townhouses were approved originally. However, she is in support of decreasing the number of houses and favors houses being built over the socio-economi¢ range that is being proposed. She said the residents are concerned over the large number of houses being developed at one time. She, therefore, supports this requesn because additional land will decrease the density of this devel- Ms. Sally Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters, spoke in support of the staff recommendation that this application for rezoning be denied. In recent months, she said, the League has spoken in favor of some development plans. However, protection of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is a relevant basis for decisions on developmenE. She said the Board has already weighed the pros and cons of regional versus on-site sedimentation basins and concluded that the arguments in favor of a regional basin outweigh those in support of on-site basins. She said the League belie~s those reasons are still valid. She distributed to Board members the comments that the League made during discussions about the Lickinghole Creek Sedimentation Basin. She said an Albemarle County study indicates that the cost of development and maintenance of a regional sedimentation basin is less than the development and m~intenance of multiple on-site basins. She pointed out that the maintenance of on-site basins is difficult as indicated by the problems which Fairfax and Prince William Counties have had with failed homeowners agreements, lack of enforcement personnel and authority, and difficulty in identifying responsible parties. She said Mr. George Williams of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has said thatthe enforcement of maintenance of multiple on-site basins would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for his office to carry out. She said these factors and those in the December statement dis- tributed to the Board point to continued support for the ~egional impoundment method instead of the on-site basin approach. She further pointed Out that a regional sedimentation basin will collect not only the sedimentation and phosphorous for the applicant's development and other future developments in Crozet, but also the sediment from existing developments and agricultural and forested land in the Crozet area. On-site basins would not help with the last three runoff sources. She said the League feels it is prudent to limit development to areas which naturally drain into the regional basin. Allowing a violation of the natural boundaries of the watershed would set a precedent that may have far-reaching effects on the County's ability ~o control non- point sources of pollution for residential development and the ability ~o pro~ect the Rivanna Reservoir, which the Board and others have spen5 many years trying to progecg~ She urged the Board to deny the request. ~ ~tCH~NT 5H May 16, ~0 (Regular Night Meeting) 198 (Page 27) Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizehs for Albemarle, said that the Board should hold to the recommendation in the staff report that this applica- tion should be accompanied by er preceded by an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Based on a procedural problem, the Citizens for Albemarle believe the application should be denied. Mr. Dennis Yutchishen, resident of Crozet, said Mr. Craig presents a difficult situation for him because he holds ou~ a "carrot" of lower density housing, even though the development will lead to runoff which does not flow into the regional sedimentation basin. Mr. Yutchishen said he chooses to protect the reservoir instead and is against the proposal. Mr, Yutchishen feels that the density on the original 117 acres should be lowered, without requesting additional development outside the regional sedimentation basin. He supports lower density housing because the development will change the vital character of Crozet to the detriment of the community. Mr. Richard Cogan spoke as an impartial observer familiar with the Crozet community. He said the Comprehensive Plan is a guide which is written in broad terms and offers some flexibility. Nevertheless, it is the foundation upon which the erdinances are created ~or the County. Mr. Cogan said the line designating the community of Croze~ is close to that of the watershed, even though there are sections that fall within or without the Lickinghole Creek Basin. Overall, the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to put growth where it is best served by utilities, roads, and protection of the watershed. The Comprehensive Plan designates Crozet as a growth area, but until now the community has not done much growing compared to Hollymead or Earlysville. It is important ~o designa=e growth areas, but if the private sector does not follow those designations, sometimes the growth does not occur. Mr. Cogan feels this applicant is trying to f611ow the growth area designation. Re feels the runoff situation is one among several important considerations, Mr. Cogan said ~ new school is being built in Crozet outside of the growth area. The school is adjacen5 to Parrot Branch which runs directly into the Beaver Creek Reservoir, the water supply for Crozet. Re said he knows the County would not build that school in that locatio~ unless it could be done properly and still pro~ec~ the Reservoir. He said this proves that such development can b~ done. Mr. Cogan said runoff can be control!ed on this property through engineering standards with ~ guarantee of maintenance, or through the design of the Lickinghole Creek Basin to take the additional runoff. Mr. Cogan said another issue regarding this petition is the density of 350 units on 117 acres compared to 275 units on 173 acres. Be said higher density results in m~re ~axes, more services required, and more traffic. He said 350 townhouses will not pay their way from a tax perspective because the houses will have to ~e assessed at over $120,000 in order for the County to break even in taxes. Mr, Cogan ~then suggested that the petition be reduced from 75 down to 26 ~own- houses. The conditions of approval could require that thc ~acer runoff and a maintenance plan would have tc be satisfactory to the County Engineer. Or, he muggested that an on-site basin could be designed so that it will run into the Lickinghole Creek Basin. Ms. Sherry guttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, said ~EC's position has already been made clear sentence by sentence. The PEC supports thm Comprehensive Plan's fundamental premise that growth should go into the growth areas and be directed away from the rural areas. That is a long-standing policy supported by PEC through many v~rsions of the Comphre- hensive Plan, She said the eastern boundary of the Crozet growth area ~s to be finally determined by the engineering study of thc Lickinghole Creek Basin. She stated that PEC supports any portion of the applicant's petition that is determined to lie within the natural drainage of the Lickinghole Creek Basin. However, PEC does not support urban density in what is now a rural area, She said this 57 aores may nog have a large impact, but these requests come in parcel by parcel, and it is important go defend the policy on the same basis, Ms. Buttrick said since 1979, the Boa~d of Supervisors has made an effort to protect its watershed by use of rural area densJ ty zoning, among other means, She said the PEC s~rongly suppor~s the protection of the watershed. Ms. Mary Kelly, an educator in Albemarle County, said she is representing educators from Crozet Elementary School, Brownsville Elementary, Henley Middle School, and Western Albe~rle High, who will be impacted by the high-density urban development. Ms. Kelly pointed out that by the time Meriwether Lewis School was finished, there was no~ enough space, She said that wall be a A~T~ 5I May 16, 30 (Regular Night Meeting) ZL 9 9 (Page 28) problem in Crozet if urban density is allowed. She said the quality of education in this County will be impacted if the Comprehensive Plan is not flexible in the pace of this development. She believes the expectation of success, which is the motto of the Albemarle County Schools, will not be kept if the devBlopment gels ou~ of handin Crozet. She would like to see services continue for children and the quality of education be maintained in Albemarle County. To do that. she asks that the Board deny this proposal and consider the fact that 350 townhouses are too much for Crozet to handle at this time. There being no other members of the public present [o speak, the public hearing was closed, Mr. Bowie commented that several people have spoken concerning the 350 townhouses in Crozet. He clarified that that application has already been approved and is not before the ~oard tonight. Mr. Perkins said since he has been on the Board, the main concern of the County. of the Board of Supervisors, and of the Planning Commission is the growth taking place in rural areas. As a result, consideration has been given =o ways to prevent growth in r~ral areas and direct it into the proposed designated growth areas. One way to encourage people to live in growth areas is to provide attractive housing. Be said this County is depending on private developers go provide the housing. Mr. Perkins said that if he and the Board made a mistake a year ago by approving 350 units in Crozet, there is now the opportunity to reduce the density from three units per acre to .6 units per acre. Regarding water quality, Mr. Perkins said he is confused because there are several formulas that can be used for determining water quality, depending on what answer is desired. Mr. Perkins said he is convinced that runoff can be controlled and water quality can be protected. He concluded by saying he feels the proposal before the Board tonight is best for the Crozet community, The only way Mr Perkins knows to prevent growth is ~o put a chain link fence around the County and close off Reute 29 and Route 250, and possibly bl~w up the University of Virginia. Otherwise, there will be growth in the rural areas or in the growth areas. He feels the biggest concern that this Board faces is getting people ~o move into th~ growth areas, when it is so easy to build in the rural areas. Mrs. Bumphris said she feels that the real issue is changing a rural area into a growth area. She said the area under consideration ~s outside the growth area. She feels the main point to consider is that Albemarle County has made efforts ~o protect the watershed of the South Pork Rivanna Reservoir for the past 15 years or more. For a number of years the Comprehensive Plan has included a regional sedimentation basin to serve the Crozet area. She feels strongly that [o change the crux of past actions by the Board strikes mt the heart of reservoir protection. Experts in engineering have said that the individual bas,ns do not work and other areas have tried and failed in using individual basins. Mrs. Hemphris feels that it is extremely critical for this Board to maintain the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan and the protection of the reservoir by letting the zoning designation stand as a rural area and not a growth area. Mr. Way asked where the applicant plans to drain the 56 acres. Mr. Craig said the drainage would eventually go into Lickinghole Creek after it passed through the runoff control devices proposed on-site. Mr. Craig said the runoff would enter Lickinghole Creek below the proposed basin, but the runoff control devices would be built in accordance with existing County ordinances. He said the Ordinance requires that the runoff after development must be a5 least as good as the runoff prior ~o developmens. There would no~ be any additional degradation of the environment. Mr. Bain asked if the approval for 350 dwelling units on 117 acres was primarily for single-family units. Mr. Cillmberg said most of the area was for single-family detached units, although he could not recall the exact number. Mr. Bain said the subject of the regional sedimentation basin was discussed by the Board during the Capital Improvements Program as well as during the previous application made by Mechum River Land Trust. He said the Board was told by the Watershed Management Official of problems that other jurisdictions are having with individual sedimentation ponds. Mr. Bain said a~ one time, none of this area was included in the Crozet growth area. The Post-Ir' [=ax Note 7571 Date Co.~Dupt Original Preffer Amended Proffer_ (Amendmenl # ) PROFFER FORM Date: z. ~4/.' ~,~ ; ZMA# Acres to be rezoned from Pursuant lo Section 33.3 of the Albemarle Counly Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or ils duly authorized agenl, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and }[ is agreed that; (1) lhe rezoning itself gives rise [o the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (]) Development shall bc in general accord with thc plan titled Highlands lB., prepared by Muncaster Engineering and last revised 12/19/96. (2) Construction and maintenance of on-site BMP Facilities at no cost to Albemarle County~ BMP Facilities shall be designed to capture and treat tha first half-inch of[finoff from a drainage basitVs ultintate impe~-vious cover and to protect ~ownstream channels from 2-year storm velocities Advanced BMP design elements, such as forebays and aqualic benches, shall be incorporated where practical. Signatures of All Owner~ Printed Names of Alt Owners Date $ignal, ure o[ Attorney-In-Fact Printed Nameof Aflomey.ln-Fact (Attach P~'oper Power or Attorney) ~ Piedmont Environmental Council Protecting the Enulronmer3t is Evergbody's B~Jsine..cs Statement on ZMA-96-17 Mechums River Land Trust Delivered to the Planning Commission on February 25, 1997 Almost three years have passed since the Planning Commission considered and denied this applicant's petition to rezone this.particular prope~y from rural to residential use. Not much has changed in those three years. The fundamental premise of the Comprehensive Plan remains the same: growth should be steered away from rural areas toward growth areas in order to provide schools, utilities and other services to County residents at the lowest possible cost. The drainage area of the Lickinghole Creek Impoundment continues to define the growth area boundary for the Community of Crozet. The property proposed to be rezoned remains outside the drainage area and therefore outside the growth area. In 1990, the Watershed Management Official noted that the ability to maintain basins properly and efficiently was one of the primary reasons for adopting a regional approach to controlling runoff and cited the maintenance problems counties such as Fairfax and Prince William had experienced with on-site facilities. In a memo dated June 29,1994, the Engineering Department repeated its commitment to the regional approach, maintaining that regional stormwater facilities are more effective and less costly than on-site detention basins. The Piedmont Environmental Council asks that you once again uphold the Comprehensive Plan, follow the recommendations of the planning and engineering staff and deny this request. Approving this rezoning would make it difficult to deny similar requests from other landowners, which would lead to a multitude of on-site detention basins scattered througt~out what once was the countryside. The County would then find itself faced with a choice: either assume the heavy financial burden of maintaining these basins or sacrifice the quality of our ddnking water. You can avoid this dilemma by denying this re(~uest and affirming the County's longstanding policy governing land use decisions in the watershed. :; '-.."' "~ ~ '¥' :.-? '"', '" ..'?/~P.'(~ ".BOX'A-60 *.Warrenton .Virginia * 20188 · 540347-2334 · FaX 540-349-9003 '.:';!i 'i:?i~~ }:~i~ :,i'~;~ !li.l~ ;'~)1:i9~: ~i'~ re:Oho .. Charlottesville. Virginia · 22903 · 804-977-2033 · Fax 804-977-6306 Piedmont Environmental Council Statement on ZMA-96-17 Mechums River Land Trust Delivered to the Board of Supervisors on April 16, 1997 Th a Piedmont Enviror mental Council urges you to stand by your Comprehensive Plan and leave this property zoned for rural use. If you rezone this property, other landowners in similar circumstances will ask that you rezone their land. They will make the same arguments and promises this landowner has made. Unless you can distinguish this request from the others which most certainly will follow, you will be pressured to approve rezoning after rezoning in the watershed. On-site detention basins will dot what once was countryside and they will come with a cost. You will find yourselves having to shoulder a heavy financial burden and hire staff to insure that the basins are designed, constructed and maintained properly or you will sacrifice the quality of our ddnking water. You can avoid this dilemma by denying this request and affirming the County's longstanding policy governing land use decisions ~n the watershed. · .~C .i I~O:'BOX 460 · Warrenton, Virginia.· 20188 · 540-347-2334 · Fax 540349-9003 l~).4c~:Hill Drive, ~ ,~uite One · Charlot~e~Ville. Virgin a · 22903 · 804-.977-2033 · Fax 804-977-6306 Citizens for Albemarle Statement Regarding ZMA 96-17 April 16. 1997 Mechums River Land Trust In 1990, Citizens for Albemarle opposed rezon~ng of this parcel of land to high density residential use We opposed such a rezoning again in 1994. To quote from our statement of 12 July, 1994 to the Albemarle County Planning Commission: "The petition seeks R-4, urban density zoning, rot a tract of land outside of a designated growth area but within the boundaries for the watershed of a public ddnking water supply." "We believe that the petition ~s inconsistent with our Comprehensive Plan and would set an undesirable precedent." We remain opposed to a rezoning of this proper~y to high density residential use and for the same reasons we expressed several years ago. Granting this request will violate an essential principle in land use planning in our county. High density residential developments belong in designated growth areas. Our growth areas should be well-defined areas, of location and size consistent with topography and wishes of their residents. They should exhibit a spatial design that suppor[s mixed uses while minimizing conflicts. Residents of Crozet have been exceptional in their commitment to a good design for their community and their work should be respected. Of course, we need more affordable housing, but it should be integrated within designated growth areas. Last year our organization proposed that a growth area design committee be created by the county government, in part to consider how desirable, affordable housing could be provided in our growth areas. Citizens for Albemarle's representative to this committee is an architect with extensive experience n affordable housing. Our best path to more good affordable housing in Albemarle County is not to abandon planning principles. Rather, we must fol ow through on planning initiatives already underway. Our residential areas should not be amorphous and expanded upon individual request. If they become so. residential developers who work within the strictures of growth areas will be put at a disadvantage. Market values of lands best left in open spaces will continue to be driven up by speculative pressures. This will raise the pressure for conversion of open space lands to more intensive uses. We will end up living in a community very different from the one we now say we want. Rezoning this property [o high density residential was not in the public interest in 1990. It was not in the public interest in 1994 and it is not today. We urge that you deny ZMA 96-17. Piedmont Environmental Council Statement on ZMA-96-17 Mechums River Land Trust Delivered to the Board of Supervisors on April 16, 1997 The Piedmont Environmental Council urges you to stand by your Corn prehensive Plan and leave this property zoned for rural use. If you rezone this property, other landowners in similar circumstances will ask that you rezone their land. They will make the same arguments and premises this landowner has made. Unless you can distinguish this request from the others which most certainly will follow, you will be pressured to approve rezoning after rezonmg in the watershed. On-site detention basins will dot what once was countryside and they will come with a cost. You will find yourselves having to shoulder a heavy financial burden and hire staff to insure that the basins are designed, constructed and maintained properly or you will sacrifice the quality of our drinking water. You can avoid this dilemma by denying this request and affirming the County's longstanding policy governing land use decisions in the watershed. ~} ':.).~.::.'v:.-!.'i; :9', ..' ~. '".... '..': :'.).:,'? I-:O., Box.'400 · Warrenton Virginia · 20188 :'i'i.~ '?,"'.~i ,:'~(?;'~': :~:. )"':i-.l:il;'R~)s(i"Hfll Dri",;(.i.~ Suile One · Charlolle, sville. Virginia · 22903 · 804-9)77-2033 · F*.tx 804--~477 (3' 06 PflCK 'N' H~:L TEL No.80~-977-5912 NaP ~2,97 13:00 No.O02 Po02 To~ Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Chairman Albenmrle Cour~y Boar~i et' Sapervisors From: C'yndi Burton Re: ZMA~96-17. Mechum River Land Trust (Sign #33) When this issue comes before tl~ Boa~d tonight, I encourage you lo 'vote u.~ defer any dectsaon until ai~er the Lrffill" slucly is done. It ~sn't appropriau~ To vote on this until all the faet~ on grovah manag~nent are available, Thank you for your eonfideration, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS £3_~9-99P04:5~ RCYD Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Thomas J. Goodrich 3680 Country Lane Charlottesville, VP~22903 March 17, 1997 Dear Supervisors: My work schedule prohibits me from attending your proposed April date(s) to hear your discussion on a proposed zoning change request submitted by Mechums River Land Trust. Item ZMA-96-17 My position; against granting the zoning change request; is unchanged. The original zoning request approved by the board had public input that expressed limiting the lots to R& I was one of the county residents that expressed my concern then that high density zoning would tax the services of the fire, rescue and police agencies tha~ serve the western portion of Albemarle County. There are still no provisions, I am aware of; that considers the increasing demands on these services that an additional 200 homes would create. The most convenient route into the city, 250W, is limited in its ab'flity to grow with increasing traffic. VDOT acknowledged at a" town meeting" at Greencroff 2 years ago that the cost of widening the railroad bridge in Ivy is beyond their means and no federal funding is envisioned. So, no matter how many improvements are made to 250W; west of Ivy; traffic will still come down to one lane in each direction at the bridge. The eastbound traffic congestion is already unacceptable to residents living north, on Owensville Rd. Allowing more ears by means of increased housing density would only make this un- resolvable condition worse. The fact that the job market outlook and shopping availability remain east of Ivy does nothing to improve the situation. How much more traffic can Route 240W safely handle before it resembles a northern Vkginia bottleneck. You~e taken away the passing lanes and are already propoffmg to lower the speed limit. It remains the preferred route out for residents of the Highlands and now Western Ridge. Please maintain the rural nature that attracted me to existing housing in this area and deny the zoning change request before you. Thomas J~ Goodrich 804-979-4764 03-12-97A09:46 RCVD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS To: Mrs. CharlOtte Humphds, Chair & the Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County From:¢¢&~y Beattie, 225 ipswich Place, Charlottesville, VA (978- Date: March 12, 1997 (via FAX to 296-5800) I am oppo ,sed to ,rgzoning of the Mechums River Lar~d Trust land (56 acres). This land ts outside the Crozet growth area. To vote for denser zoning would go against the countYs land use plans and efforts to keep new developments ir~ growth areas. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT for Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14(E)] 2. 3. 4. Nanle: Title: Agency: Transaction: David P. Bowerman Rio District Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ZMA-96-17 Mechum River Land Trust -- Public hearing on a request ro rezone approximately 57 acres from RA and EC to R-4 and EC. Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction: Personal interest in a contract which sold fitness equipment to an emity in which a principal is also a prin.c, ipal of the applicant. /4D/~/T-/~ ~':~ ~ ~C~ ~' ~' 6. I declare that: I am disqualifying myself from participating in this transaction and request that this fact be recorded in the appropriate public records for a period of five years. Dated: April 16,, 1997 Signature DPB41697.B BOARD OF SUPERVIS©R 04_11_9~/P0£: 03. RCYD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4.5% (804) 296-5823 Memorandum TO: FROM: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors William D. Fritz, Senior Planner ~#( ZMA 96-27 Highlands West L.P. This petition was submitted for the rezoning of approximately 1.5 acres from LI, Light Industry to HC, Highway Commercial for the purpose of establishing a day care center. At the time of the Planning Commission meeting the Zoning Administrator had determined that a day care center could not be processed as a special use permit for a supporting commercial use within the exisfmg LI zoning. The Planning Commission by a unanimous vote, recommended denial of the rezoning. At the same meeting, the Commission passed a resolution of intent to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow day care in Industrial Zon'mg Districts without restriction asto percentage of area. Based on addition'al review, the Zoning Administrator has determined that a special use permit for supporting commercial use to allow the day care can be processed on this property. The opinion of the Zoning Administrator is attached. The applicant has requested withdrawal of the rezoning petition and will file a special use permit application. A letter to this effect is forthcoming. Staff supports this request and recommends that the fee for the rezoning application be refunded in accord with the provisions of Section 35.1. Further, staff can support scheduling the special use permit for Plmming Commission and Board of Supervisors review as soon as application, review and advertising can be processed. I:\GENERAL\SHARE~FRITZ\HIGHWEST.MEM Building Code Information (804) 296-5832 COUN'I~ OF P~I I~EMARI F_ Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road. Room 223 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 FAX (8O4) 972-4126 'lTD (804) 972-4012 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 04-t ~-97P02:03 RCVD Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator April 9, 1997 Proposed Day Care Use in Light Industrial District Per your request, I have reviewed whether a day care center is permitted by special permit in the light industrial zoning district within the category of"supporting commercial" (Sect. 27.2.2.(14)). In my review I considered the language of Section 9.0 "Guidelines for Comprehensive Plan Service Areas and Section 9.4 "Establishment of Secondary Uses." As a result of that review and our discussion, it is .my opinion that this use may be permitted by the board in a particular case. The intent of this section states specifically that Section 9 is "guidelines for implementation of these various service areas." The "Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines" table for industrial service areas indicates that supporting commercial uses are allowed as other secondary uses. Section 9.4 outlines various findings for a proposed use. Section 9.4 3 allows supporting commercial uses consisting of primary uses recommended for village and neighborhood service areas. This includes day care as stated in the non-residential guidelines. Section 9.4 states that the board may modify guidelines in a particular case. The guidelines limit the floor area of the supporting commercial uses to five (5) percent of the total floor area devoted to primary uses. It is my opinion that the board is given the discretion to modify that percentage based on appropriate findings. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.1-496.1 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. The date notice of this determination was given is specified above. e March 26, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept of Planning & Communit9 Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Hunter E. Craig Highlands West, LP 228 West Rio Road Charlottesville. VA 22901 ZMA 96-27 Highlands West L P l~ax Map 56, Parcels 88, 89, 90, 90A Dear Mr. Craig: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 25, 1997, unanimously recommended denial of the of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please be advised thru the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on APRIL 16, 199Z 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 ~ff' Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey We, the undersigned, support Highlands West Limited Partnership's application to rezone 1.5 acres on Park Ridge Drive in Western Ridge Business Park from Light Industry to Highway Commercial, so that a day care center can be located there. We understand that this change would prohibit industrial and warehouse uses on the said 1.5 acres, which uses are permissible under present zoning. Signature and Date: Address: STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ MARCH 25, 1997 APRIL 16, 1997 ZMA 96-27 WESTERN RIDGE BUSINESS PARK Annlieant's Pronosal: The applicant is proposing to rezone the area shown on Attachment C to allow for the construction of a day care center. Petition: Proposal to rezone 1.5 acres from LI, Light Industry to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Part of Parcels 88, 89, 90 and 90A, consist of atotal of 10.51 acres, is located on the south side of Ronte 240 approximately 1.5 miles west of the Route 240/250 intersection at Mechum's River in the White Hall Magisterial District. This Site is located in the Community of Crozet and is recommended for Industrial Service. Character of the Area: The site under review is located between the C&O Railroad and Route 240 on the east side of Park Ridge Drive which provides access to the Western Ridge development currently under construction on the south side of the railroad. A medical office for Martha Jefferson Hospital is under construction. All of the land between Route 240 and the railroad is zoned LI. (Medical Offices are permitted by-right in the LI district.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and recommends denial. Plannin~ and Zonine History: The area under review was involved in a subdivisiun plat for Phase One of Western Ridge which was approved in May, 1996. Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Industrial Service in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has included as Attachment D, the Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines as contained in the Comprehensive Plan and Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has proposed HC zoning on this property,:with proffers. Staffopinionisthatthis designation is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use'Map and the following statement found on page 93: "Strengthen the downtown as a shopping area, and the focal point of the Crozet Community by encouraging all new commercial uses to locate in the downtown as opposed to Route 250. Limit commemial development on Route 250 to existing commercial land only. Unless such a downtown commercial element is encouraged, pressure will increase for suburban-type shopping center located outside of the Community." While this speaks directly to development on Route 250 staff opinion is that this comment is applicable to possible development on Route 240 outside of the downtown as well. The language speaks only to Route 250 because it currently has commercial zoning. No commercial zoning exists on Route 240 in the development area other than in downtown Crozet. Staff opinion is that this rezoning request xs inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has also filed for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for this area, but has requested that this rezoning proceed prior to the review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment due to the time involved in the review of the Amendment. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has provided proffers which would effectively limit the use of the site to those uses currently permitted in the LI district, less industrial and warehouse uses, and adding day care. This request has been brought on by a specific request to establish a day care center at this location. The existing LI zoning of this site does allow for supporting commercial uses by special use permit, (reference Section 27.2.2(14) and 9.0 of the zoning ordinance). Due to the limited extent of existing Industrial development on land which is directly associated with the proposed day care center the ordinance would limit the size of the day care center m such an extent that it would not be practical. (Supporting commercial use would be limited to 5% of the floor area of the existing Industrial uses which currently is 8,286 square feet. 5% of this total is approxhnately 415 square feet) The Board does have the flexibilityxo modify the provisions associated with support'mg commercial uses. However, based on existing provisions contained in the ordinance, it is the opinion of the Zoning Administrator that the Board could modify the ratio to a maximum of 10% of the floor area. Staff does note that existing industrial development is located in the immediate area, Conagra, Gemini Transportation,. While this existing industrial development cannot be included in any calculations for a special use permit, the Board may want to consider this rezoning as supportive of the larger industrial area. However. this can only be accomplished through the proposed rezoning ~o HC which is inconsistent with intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Again, staff opinion is that if this site is to provide support services to the residential and industrial development in the area that a comprehensive plan amendment should be approved first. This site is separated from the residential development of Western Ridge development by the railroad. This separation from the anticipated residential development should allow-industrial use of this site to be substantially buffered from the residential development such that adverse impacts would be minimal. (It should be noted that the location of a day care center as proposed by the applicant wili provide for further separation of the residential and industrial uses.) Staffis not aware of any site constraints which would indicate that industrial use of this site would be impractical. Based on the above comments it is the opinion of staff that the existing zoning is appropriate and allows reasonable use of the land In other reports (Peabody School in Mill Creek) staff has noted that the presence of a day care/private school in an industrial area may adversely impact use of adjacent industrial property. This impact may be created by the desire of the day care center m minimize the impact, such as noise and traffic, caused by the industrial uses. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: Approval of this request will provide for increased separation of industrial and residential areas; Day Care Centers have sometimes '~een controversial when proposed for location in residential areas. This Use could provide a support service to existing industrial development and existing and proposed residential development in the area. Staffhas identified the following factors which a~e unfavorable to this request: 1. ~Commercial use of this site is not recommendedby the Comprehensive Plan; Use of this site for a day care center could conflict with potential industrial development of adjacent areas; 3. The site has no chark/teristics which indicate that the site could not be used for an industrial use consistent with the existing zoning. Staff has considered the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan to beof great significance. The intent of the language in the Comprehensive Plan appears to be to Iimit commercial development to downtown Crozet. Rezoning of this property to commercial, though proffered extensively, would introduce commercial zoning outside of the downtown. Without a Plan Amendment to sigulfy this area as a commercial area or inclusion of this area as a supporting commercial area as part of an large scale industrial development, staff cannot support this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the above comments staffrecommends denial of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request staff recommends acceptance of the applmams proffers. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B: Tax Map C - Plat of area to be rezoned D - Applicant's proffers A:~ZMA9627.RPT tATTACHHEN'I~AI -~i L.= BO.aZ MOUNTAIN HIGHLANDS WEST ZMA 96-27 TOP t ALBEMARLE 40 COUNTY I ATTACHI~IENT B J 55 5T WHITE HALL DISTRICT ...........- -- SECTION 56 Date: 3. Jo '~'7 '. tlATTACHMEN. T .CI Original Proffe'r Amended Proffer. (Amendment # .) PROFFER FORM ZMA# ~-~7 Tax Map Parcel(s)# Acres to be rezoned from Z-z-' to //~.- Pursuant to. Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarilyproffers the conditions listed below which she1 be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezonlng itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. [) Use of the site shall be limited to the following uses of Section 22.2.1 and 24.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as it exists on March 10~ 1.997 (copy attached); 24.2.1(13) 24.2.1(28) 24.2.1(35) 24.2.1(36) Fire and rescue squad stations {reference 5.1.20); Administrative. business and professional offices; Electric, gas, oil and comm~mication fac-'il~es excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. Public uses and buildings including tempora~ or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads ttmderL owned or operated by local, state or fe~ral agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, mm or trank lines, treatment facilities_ pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanus Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5: Signatures o! All Owners / Printed Names of All Owners Date Signature of AUorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM.WPD Rev. December 1994 OR' Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact ] Dale: ~.~o-q'7 '. Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment #, ) PROFFER FORM ZMA# ~,- T7 Acres to be rezoned from /-..% to /-/C. Pursuant to. Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a p~-rt of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. 24.2.l(37) 24.2.1(40) 24.2.1(41) Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18); Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8); Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection ¢2.2.1 of Section 22,1. commercial, C-1. Uses permitted in accord with Section 24.2.1(41) shall be limited tc the following: 22.2.1(o. 1) 22.2. l(b.6) 22.2.1~o.13) 22.2.10>.17) Administrative, professional offices; Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9) Nursuries. day care centers (reference 5.1.6) Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, trazmformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines_ pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. Printed Names of All Owners Signatures of All Owners Date OR' Signature of Attorney-tn-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM.WPD Rev. Decembel 1994 Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact 2 Date: 3-/o.~7 '. Original Proffer,. - - Amended Proffer. ~. (Amendment Cf .) __¢ PROFFER FORM ZMA# q/~-g7 TaxMap Parcel(s) /. ¢'- Acres to be rezoned from /..._v- to. /C/t-- PursuantJ. o. Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. 22.2.I(b. 18) Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobite facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, m~in or truak line~, treatment faciliQes, pumping stations and the like. owned and/or operated by the Rivmma Water and Sewer Authority (reference 3 !.2.5; 5.1.12); 22.2.1(b,19) Temporay conslxuction uses (reference 5.1,i8); 22,2.1(b.20) Dwellings ~reference 5.1.21~: 22,2.1(I).23) Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8) Signatures of All Owners ~" Printed Names of All Owners '~.5. ~' 'q'? Date Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM.WPD Rev. December 1994 OR' Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact 3 O. oo ~o. ~o ~° ?R-i8-97 TUE 18:17 FEIL ?ETTIT WILLIAMS NO, 8775108 C4-16-97P03:28 RC¥O FEIL, PBTTIT ~ WILLIAMS, RI-~.~l~,~t(~) ()}, SUPERVISORS ATTOR~I:Y~ AT LAW P, O. BOX 2057 April 16, 1997 (~04) 977-5109 Mr. Bill Fritz Albemarle County Department of Planning County office Building Charlottesville, VA Via Facsimile 972-4025 Re: Rezoning application for Highlands West, L.P- Trust; ZMA 96-27 Dear Bill: As you know, thim firm represents Highlands West, L.F. whose petition for rezoning of a parcel adjacent to Western Ridge Subdivision currently zoned LI is scheduled for the Board of Supervisors meeting tonight. Based upon our understanding that a ruling from the Zoning Administrator now allows us to seek approval for a day care center for this site through the use of a special use permit rather than rezoning, we withdraw the application for rezoning. Please fax me an application for aspeoial use permit and advise me of the nex~ deadline for submission. We are anxious to proceed as expeditiougly as possible. I understand that our resorting ~pplication fee can be applied to the fee r~c/uired for ~he special use permit. Any remaining balance should be refunded directly to our client. Thank you for your help on this matter. Sincerely, catherine ~/womack cc. Hunter Craig STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT for Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14(E)] 2. 3. 4. NalTle ~ Title: Agency: Transaction: David P. Bowerman Rio District Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ZMA-96-27 Highlands West L.P. -- Public hear'rog on a request to rezone 6.77 acres from LI to HC. Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction: Personal interest in a contract which sold fitness equipmem to the applicant. I declare that: I am disqualifying myself from participating in this transaction and request that this fact be recorded in the appropriate public records for a period of five years. Dated: April 16,, 1997 Signature DPB41697.C February28,1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 1804) 296-5823 RHH Development Corporation P O Box 5487 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: ZMA-96-22 RHIt Develpment Corporation Tax Map 61W2, Parcels 45, 46 and 47 Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 25, 1996, by a vote of 5-1, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers (copy attached). The Commission's motion also included a recommendation that the County move forward to find a resolution for the dra'mage problems in this neighborhood. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 12. 1997. Any new or additional information regarding your application must he submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior m 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, Senior Planner MJS/jcf CC: Ella Carey Minor Land Trust Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Of Co~-~ LAW OFFICES GILLIAM, SCOTT & KRON~R POgT OFFICE BOX 2737 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 ~18 EAST WATER STSEET February 19, 1997 TELEPHON~ (804)296-2161 FAO,gIMI~I~ (804) 293~2073 FACSIMILE TRANS/vlITI'AL SI"~ET NO. OF PAGES ~ (including cover shee0 TO: MARY JOY SCALA Albemarle County Planning Deparuuent Fax No: 972-4035 FROIvI: Robert J. Kroner RE: RI-IH Development/Greenbrier Drive Office Park MESSAGE: Following, for your review, is a revised proffer, requested. Item #6 is new. 7334. Thanks. Time: 3:26 pm Item #2 was revised as you Please call Bob Hauser to discuss mis on Thursday mormng, at 979- THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NoTII~'IED THAT ANY DISSEI~IINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMNiUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION iN ERROR, PLEASE IMbIEDIATELY NOTIFY GILLIAM~ SCOTt & KRONER BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS vIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE~ THANK YOU. If fax is poorly received, please call Sender at (804) 296-2161. cc: M~- Robert M. Hauser (w/enclosure) STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COlVIMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA FEBRUARY 25, 1997 (DEFERRED FROM FEBRUARY 18, 1997) MARCH 12, 1997 ZMA 96-22 RHH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION The Planning Commission at it meeting on January 7, 1997 unanimously deferred action on this petition until January 28, 1997 to allow the applicant time to submit written proffers, and to atlow time for s~affto review proffers offered verbally atthc January 7 meeting. Staff subsequently requested deferrals to February 18, 1997, and to February 25, 1997, to allow additional time for the submittal and review of proffers. stuff received a phone call on January 20 regarding an existing drainage situation downstream from the property. Staff walked the site with three residents on January 27. (See ATTACHMENT A - memo from Glenn Brooks dated January 27, I997.) One letter was received from adjacent owners on January 27, 1997, which notes, among other problems, water nm off and noise pollution./See ATTACHMENT B - letter received January 27, 19970 Staff opinion is that the drainage problem is existing, and the proposed rezoning does not itself give rise to the need for drainage improvements m correct the offsite problem. If the property develops under the existing R-4 and C-1 zorimg, even with the additional setbacks from the residential zoning, the amoant of impervious cover may be equal to or more than the amount created under the proposed zoning. There are two requirements related to stormwater which will be addressed during the site plan review. The site plan ordinance requires stormwater management (detention facilities), but the Engineering Department memo indicates that, "...the volume, duration and frequency of runoff wilt be increased with the replacement of woods with impervious areas, and control of nmoff from storms with less than a 10 year frequency will not be required, which will aggravate the existing problem." This will occur under either the existing or proposed zoning. The developer is also required to contribute a pro mm share for the small portion-of'the site which drains to the future Peyton detention basin. Grading the entire site to drain to the Peyton basin was discussed. That would bevery difficult to accomplish.because the lower portion of the site would have to be raised at least ten feet The applicant submitted written proffers on January 23, 1997. They have been reviewed by staff, revised by the applicant, and were resubmitted on February 14, 1997. (See ATTACHMENT C - proffers received February 14, 1997.) The five proffers address identified site concerns of fencing, square footage of individual buildings and total square footage of commercial office space, dumpster locations, and lighting. A further revision of the proffers is expected which will include the following changes: Proffer (2) should read, "...total square feet of cc,~crc~a! space consistent with the CO Commemial Office zoning...." The proffers must be signed and dated. The applicant has verbally offered a proffer of $3,000 cash to be used toward the offsite drainage problem, which will become proffer (6). The Engineering Department has indicated that the best solution to the existing drainage problem is to pipe the open channel in Minor Ridge, which would cost an estimated $28,000. The applicant's contribution is not sufficient for the County to initiate a cost-share project using funds from the drainage improvements budget. However, the Engineering Department has indicated that this money could be used to replace an existing drainage manhole with a grate. SUMMARY: There are two zoning requests here, which the applicant has requestedbe considered as one application: 1.691 acres from R-4, Residential to CO, Commercial Office, and two parcels totaling approximately 2.774 acres from C-l, Commercial to CO, Commercial Office. Staffpreviously identified the following factors which remain favorable to the request: 1. Developing parcels 46 and 47 under CO zoning would potentially create less impacts on adjacent properties than the existing C-1 zoning. Although CO zoning is not consistent with the recommended Residential designation in the Plan, it is more consistent with the Plan than the existing C-1 zoning. CO zoning is consistent with the transitional character of this site. 2. Developing the three parcels together could allow a better plan than developing them separately. A factor previously identified as unfavorable to the request, "possible objectionable aspects of the requested CO zoning adjacent to a residential area, including noise, lighting, service area locations and traffic impacts" has been addressed by proffers. Staffpreviously identified the following factor which remains unfavorable to the request: 1 The R-4 to CO request is inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Parcel 45 is currently zoned residential which is consistent with the Plan. gPaile staff is reluctant to recommend a zoning change to the parcel designated as Residential in the Plan, the applicant's proposal has merits which might work best for the property and the neighborhood. An inconsistency with the Plan already exists in the C-1 zoning. Staff opinion is that the proposed zoning will allow the three parcels to develop with less impact on adjacent residences than the existing zoning would allow. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval with the attached proffers. ATTACHMENTS: A - Memo from Glenn Brooks dated 1/27/97 B - Adjacent owner letter received 1/27/97 C - Proffers received 2/14/97 AAZMA9622-.RPT 2 Date: Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment #i___) PROFFER FORM ZMA# 96-22 TaxMapParcel(s)# TH 61W2-4S,46,47 691 R4 co 774 Acres ~o be rezoned fro~ cl to co Pursuant toSection 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions: and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) The Owner will install and maintain an opaque privacy fence along the property line between the property and the adjoining residential district, at the points indicated on the drawing ~tached hereto as Exhibit 1. The fence will be six (6) feet tail and will be constructed of treated lumber. (2) All of the buildings constructed on the property will have one level visible From Greenbrier Drive, and not more than two levels visible from adjacent residential properties, with a maximum roof pitch of 6/12. No more than 43,200 total square feet of'space, consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning, will be constructed on the property. (3) A minimum separation of fifty (50) feet will be maintained between any dumpster located on the proper~y and the adjoining residential district. (4) All exterior light fixtures will be fully shielde4. A fully shielded fixture means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such manner that ail light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal. Continuation sheet, attached.] Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact Date OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM.WPD Proffer Form (continued) ZMA #96-22 TM 61 W2-45,46,47 (5) No single bu/lding shall have a floor area (footprint) greater than 12~000 square feet_ (6) The Owner recognizes that certa/n residential property owners and the Count), of Albemarle desire to see certain improvements made to existing drainage facilities downstream from the subject property. To provide assistance in this undertaking, the Owner Mil con~bute the sum of $3,000 to the County for application toward such improvements_ Payment by the Owner shall be made when such improvements are to be made. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department ofEngtneefing & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer ~B 27 January 1997 ZMA-96-22, R.H.H. Development Corporation, TM. 61W2 45.46 & 47 We met with the concerned residents of Westfield Road and Minor Ridge Road about the drainage problems in the Wyridge Subdivision. They took us on a tour of the problem areas through back yards of houses on Westfield Road. The Engineering Department file on Wymidge documents a detailed history of drainage problems, starting with the construction of these homeg in 1984 to the present time. Three recent inspections of this problem were conducted by myself, Don Franco. and David Hirschman in 1995 and 1996. The drainage problem concerns a channel which originates from the storm sewer outlet in Albert Court on Whitewood Road. The run0ff from this area drains into the wooded area of T.M, 6iW2 parcels 45 & 46. The combined runoff from these areas gathers into a small channel which travels under fences and through the backyards of the lots on Westfield Road. Refer to the attached sketch on a copy of T.M, 6'1W2. The Engineering file indicates that.from 1985 to 1990 there were many meetings and much discussion concerning this channel. The County held up the release of bonds and the accepuance of Westfleld Road into the state system pending the resolution of this drainage problem. A plan by B.Aubrey Huffinan & Associates proposing that the developer, Robert Hauser, regrade the affected lots and widen the channel, was reviewed and approved by the County in 1990. The mmn emphasis of this plan was to prevent flood waters (100 year storm water level) from reaching finished floor elevations. The plan proposed widening the channel from its current 2' width to 4' wide at the bottom with 6:1 side slopes. From speaking to the residents and from correspondence in our file, it appears that the channel widening plan proposed by Hauser Homes in 1990 was not acceptable te the residents. The file indicates additional concerns with possible construction damage to residences, which were not addressed in the proposed construction and drainage easements, When the landowners refused to grant the necessary easements, the matter was dropped, bonds were released and Westfleld Road was accepted into the state system. The drainage problems persist with this channel, specifically flooding and standing water due to flat grades. The proposed development on parcels 45, 46 & 47 will increase the impervious area and smrmwater management will be required. This will control the peak stormwater rnnoffflow during the I0 year storm draining to the Wynridge Subdivision and to the backyard channel at the rear of the lots on Westfield Road. However, the volume, duration and frequency of runoff Page 2 Memorandum: R.H.H. Dev. Corp. 27 January 1997 will be increased with the replacement of woods with impervious areas, and control afnmoff from storms with less than a 10 year frequency will not be required, which will aggravate the existing problem. Options to improve the condition of the lots on Westfield Road include redixecting drainage from the Albert Court area, and rebuilding the Wynridge channel and drainage system connecting ro Westfield Road. The drainage from Albert Court can be redirected to the proposed (Peyton) regional detention basin at the comer of Greenbrier Drive and Commonwealth Drive or to the proposed (Bimam) regional basin in Whitewood Park. This redirection could be incorporated into VDOT's Greenbrier Drive extension project, the County's regional basin capital improvements, volunteered by the developer, or provide by the impacted property owners. Within Wyuridge, building a channel w~th greater fall and greater capacity would be effictive but does not appear to be an acceptable alternative to homeowners. Another recommended solution would be to pipe runoff within a closed system from the proposed development to the drainage system On Westfield road, and provide grate inlets in those backyard areas which cannot be regraded to drain to the roads. This could require a substantial amount of fill, considerable work on private property, with unavoidable consequences to fences and landscaping, and greater expense. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. GEB/ attachment (sketch of channel location) Copy: SUB-12.200 File: glenn\WYNR.DC3 "~'"x/' IATTACHI'4ENT Al BERKEL WYNRIDGE TO ROUTE 29 CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT Albemarle County Planning Commassion 401 Mclntire Road Charlct~esville, VA 229024596 Re: ZMA 96-22 RHH Development Corporation Dear Sir or Madam: January21, 1997 ~ . ECEi 'E J~N 2 7 1997 Having attended the very late night session on Jan. 7, 1997 concermng the above referenced petition and further gathering information concerning this item, we reiterate onr opposition to the proposed changes for the following reasons: A. Robert Hauser Homes has misrepresented to the commission the following items: l. He did not notify all of the adjoining proper owners of his plans prior to the hearing. 2. Those who were notified were given incorrect information about the present zoning of the propemes m question. Lot 45 is currently zoned R-4 and nut R-6 as his letter stated. There is a substantial difference between the two with R-4 being more in keeping with the existing neighborhood. 3. His development plan is not "more neighborhood-friendly than the curreat" wooded In paragraph four of his Oct 28. 1996 letter to the planning Department, he incorrectly stated that there "is currently no residential development fronting on Greenbriar (si6) Drive from its intersection with Rt. 29, to its terminus with Whitewood Road." We are quite sure there are peOple living in the duplex units on the south side of Greenbrier Drive directly across Greenbrie[ from the proposed office park. These citizens will be greatly impacted by office development through additional 'traffic, lights and noise. 5. The commercial uses adjacent to Lot 47 are currently housed in buildings which look like two story colonial dwellings that have been converted to office use by a chiropractor and real estate companies, NOT RETAIL. There is No Retail within earshot or sight of the property in question. There are townliouses and a few offices in dwelling-style buildings all along the west side of Commonwealth Drive. 6. The drawings presented at the January 7, 1997 public hearing did nut represent the current stream which runs through the property. Those drawings appear to show a building and a parking lot on the current stream bed. How does one build on top of water? He does not address what will happen to all the water from the proposed parking lots once the natural woodlands are destroyed. Currently the manor homes on Wesffield Rd and the single family homes on Minor Ridge Road have a serious problem with water nm off from Lot 45 at this time and the loss of the vegetation upstream would greatly increase the problem. It appears that some of the current flooding may be caused by that stream being piped under Westfield through a too small pipe. 7. In letters to the neighbors and planners Mr. Hauser has stated that he is proposing one story buildings, yet his drawings clearly show two story buildings. B. The current zoning for parcels 46 and 47 may indeed allow for unpleasant development, however, most of the commercial uses by right would NOT meet set back requirements without joining all the parcels together. As planners, you cemainly know that there are side line and back yard allowances as well and they were placed in the code for everyone to obey and for very good reasons. Commercial develupment similar to what is currently adjoining lot 47 at the comer of Commonwealth and Greenbrier would be in keeping with the neighborheod while four office buildings certainly would NOT ! C. Run off from the proposed parking lots would greatly increase the demage to adjoining properties andthose downstrearn. Paragraph 3 of Mr. Hanser's October 28, 1996 letter states "Parcel 45 was originally a portion of Minor property which was developed into Wynridge and Minor Hill, but due to drainage considerations, this parcel was not included in these developments." What has changed to now make this lot developable? The spring mad the run off are still there! D. The proposed parking is stated to be "in excess of County requirements" which'will only cause more run off and more opportunity for the skateboarders, therefore more noise. E. Tho lack of attention to detail and the obvious errors in the letters ~rom Robert Hauser indicate that this is not a wet] planned project. Witnees the misspelling of "Greenbrier," the omission of/be water problems on tot 45 in the drawings, lack of knowledge of the duplexes facing his property and the many errors concerning the currea£ zoning!. F. The Professional Planners have correctly recoam~ended a danial of this reZOmng and we heartily agree with them. The placement of four office buildings will provide our property with unwanted 24 hour security lighting, noise and automobile pollution_ No amount of shrubs would eliminate these intrusions on the quiet enjo~aeat ofthis family neighborhood. For all of the above stated reasons, but especially because of the water nm off and noise pollution we request that you recommond a denial of this rezon~ng request to the Board of Supervisors. Thank you for your consideratie~ of this matter. Sincerely yours, · ,/~ ~ 849 Woodlands Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 PROFFER FOR. M Date: ZMA # 9 6- 2 2 bTTACHHEI~T; C f Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # ) Tax Map Parcel(s) # TN 6~.W2-45,46, 47 :1.. 69 z ~,4 co 2. 774 Acres to be rezoned from cz to CO Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shalt be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) The Owner will install and maintain an opaque privacy fence along the property line between the property and the adjoining residential district, at the points indicated on ~e drawing attached hereto as Ex}u'bit 1. The fence will be six (6) feet tall and will be constructed of treated lumber. (2) All of the bfffld'mgs constructed on the property will have one I~el visible from Greenbrier Drive, and not more than two levels visible from adjacent residential properties, with a maximum roof pitch of 6/12. No more than 43,200 total square feet of commercial space will be constructed on the property, (3) A rrdmmum separation of fifty t50) feet w/Il be maintained betwe~m any dumpsrer located on the property and the adjoining residential district. (4) All exterior light fix-rares will be fully shielded. A fully shielded fixture means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such rnarmer that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below ~ horizontal. (5) No single building shall have a floor area (footprint) greater than 12,000 square feet. Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of^Il Owners Date Signature of Attomey"i'h'-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) OR Printed Name of ^t~orney-in-Fact ~-<:t E:ZJB;EE:6~ I~IDS ;d'qNO~ .L±OOS 'H~'I-lqI~D ~qO~-t Hd/S: [ /6~t-~l--~ 0_I-04-9'7P04: February 25, 1997 Good evening. My name is Mary Morris and I am President of the Minor Hill ManorHomes and a resident of Westfield Road. My property is one of those which suffers from the drainage problems we currently have in the area. Because my home is located "downhill" (at the comer of Westfieid Road and Westfieid Ct.) near the storm drain, I receive a lot of runoff from the properties above, behind and beside me. During heavy or steady rains my backyard usually ends up with a stream running through it. To date I have received only minor damage to my home from the water (outside trim replacement and some repairs to the inside trim around the front door) but surrounding residents have incurred damages ranging from a few thousand to upwards of $1 SK. As you know, we have had problems since the construction of our homes ' with the poor drainage system put in which did not meet County requirements during the construction of the homes in the lVfmor Hill area. In a number of cases, including my own, we found that the underground drainage pipes installed during construction went nowhere or had rocks piled on top so that the water could not go anywhere. Over the years we have found it extremely difficult to work with Mr. Hauser in trying to find a solution to the problem (which he feels is not his): The other residents and myself feel that if considerable effort is not made to deal with the runoff from the proposed construction by Mr. Hauser that considerable damages could result to our homes and property. If that should happen we feel that someone should be held liable for this damage - whether it is Mr. Hauser's Company or the County or both. Another concern is that the proposed construction will be close to the curve on Whitewood Road. Until this curve is straightened out we feel that the additional traffic could cause problems - e.g., the heavy equipment needed to prep the site. We understand from the materials we have had access to that Engineering Staff feels that with the rezoning for Mr. Hauser's proposed plan there will be less impact on the residences in the area versus the current zoning. If Mr. Hauser's plan is approved we would request that the County establish a group comprised of residents of the area and County staff to oversee the efforts undertaken to handle the drainage problem. We would hope that the Commission will decide not to go ahead with the plan. We would suggest that perhaps the area could be used basically in its current form for parking for the Whitewood Park by simply clearing only enough vegetation to allow vehicles to park offoftbe road. If the current path which runs along the parcel were extended a little further into the park it would make the park more accessible to residents. Thank you. Ma~ Morris 352 Westfieid Road, 978-7012 (h); 979-3571 (w) STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA JANUARY 7, 1997 FEBRUARY 12, 1997 ZMA 96-22 ~ DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Ar licant's Pro osal: The applicant proposes to rezone one parcel containing approximately 1.691 acres from R-4 Residential to CO, Commercial Office and two parcels totaling approximately 2.774 acres from C-1, Commercial to CO, Commercial Office. to create a campus style office park, containing approximately 41,000 square feet of office space on approximately 4.5 acres. The applicant is requesting that the three parcels involved be eoasidered together; that the same action be taken on all three parcels. Petition: Petition to rezone approximately 1.691 acres from R-4, Residemial to CO, Commercial Office and approximately 2.774 acres from C-I, Commercial to CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 61W2, Parcels 45, 46, and 47 are located on the north side of Whitewood Road/Greenbrier Drive adjacent Wynridge and Minor'Hill subdivisions in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood One. See Maps - ~tTTACHMENT.d Character of the Area: There are a variety of land uses in the area along Whitewood and Greenbrier Roads. The area adjacent to the subject property is developed residentially, with single family attached being the predominant dwelling type, in Wynfidge to the north(zoned R-4), Albert Court to the west (zoned R-15), and on the south side of Whitewood Road (zoned R-1 $). Whitewood Park. a wooded area with trails, is also adjacent to the west (zoned PA, Rural Areas). Minor Ridge subdivision to the east contains single family detached (zoned R-4). Several office bu'fldings are adjacem to the southeast along Commonwealth Drive (zoned CO). RECOMMENDATION: Stuff bas reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial. Planning and Zonine History: May 15. 1985 - ZMA 85-2 request to rezone Parcel 45 from R-4 to C-1 was denied. 1971 - ZMP-163 request to rezone Parcels 46 and 47 from R-3, Residential (high density) to B-l, Business was approved. Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is designated for Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 du/acre) in Neighborhood Oneofthe Urban Area. Based on this designation,.the applicant's request is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Land-Use Plan shows a clear division between commercial designations along Route 29, and residential designations to the west. The dividing line between the Commtmity Service and Neighborhood Density designations is the rear property line oftbe offices located on Commonwealth Drive. [The Comprehensive Plan designation does not recognize the existing C-1, Commercial zoning adopted in 1971 on parcels 46 and 47. While it was understood with the development of the Plan that there was existing, commercially zOned land in this location, expansion of commercial uses was not contemplated.] Wym-idge to the north and Minor Hill to the eastare also designated for Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 du/acre). Whitewood Park is designated Parks and Greenways. The area to the west and south is designated Urban Density Residential (6-34 du/acre): The area to the south and east (including the offices on Commonwealth Drive) is designated Community Service. The Land Use Plan states: Improve traffic circulation in the large residential area located between Hydraulic and Rio Roads with the extension of Greenbrier Drive to Hydraulic Road~ Provide additional pavement width to accommodate bicycles and construct sidewalks along the south side of the new roadway. [The Planning Commission on November 26, 1996 voted to delete the GreenbrierDrive Extension from the Six-year Road Plan. The Board will discuss the Six-year Road Plan in January.] Maintain a wooded buffer between the Community/Regional Service located on Route 29 and the adjacent residential developments. The Open Space Plan also recommends this buffer between the Community Service designation and the Residential designations. Encourage infill development of vacant lands and development of under-used areas within the designated Development Areas. Mixed commercial and residential areas as well as mixed uses within buildings should be encouraged as land and energy-efficientdevelopments, along with infill of existing commercial areas._ ' Rezoning to a commercial designation for sites of three acres or more shouldbe accomplished under a planned approach accompanied by a traffic analys~s. Commercial uses adjacent to residential areas should be effectively buffered and screened in accordance with zoning regulations. Generally, commercial office uses should be employed as la'ansitional areas between residential development and heavier commercial or industrial areas. Any uses (including commercial office uses) allowed adjacent to residential areas should be compatible in operational aspects, and any potentially objectionable aspects* should be adequately addressed at-rezoning. 2 *Objectionable aspects are factors which could reasonably be anticipated to disrupt a residential atmosphere including such factors as extensiye hours of operation (i.e. delivery traffic), and factors which may trespass into residential areas to an objectionable level such as lighting, noise, smoke, and odors. When site illumination is proposed, encourage the use of external lighting which is efficient, provides necessary security and is dom-directed and shielded to minimize light trespass. STAFF OMME : In addition to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the primary issues to address for this request are: 1. Uses allowed under CO zoning. 2. Impact on adjacent residential areas. 3. Traffic impacts. No nroffers have been received to date from the apolicant. Staff has not addressed the applicant's justification letter since none of the statements have been proffered. The applicant has also submitted a sketch plan which shows the concept of a campus style office park and a possible entrance location. See Applicant's justification -.4 TTA CHMENT B Uses Allowed Under CO Zonine The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial office uses to be employed as a transitional area between residential areas and more intensively zoned areas. That recommendation reflects the types of uses permitted by right in the CO District, which are generally less intensive. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve the applicant's request for CO zoning, staff opinion is that all uses permitted by right in the CO District can be compatible adjacent to residential uses, with an appropriate site design. Imnact on Adjacent Residential Areas Possible impacts of CO uses are noise, lighting, service area tocations; and traffic. Staff has suggested to the applicant that they meet with the adjacent residents to determine any objection~s which can be addressed through proffers. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires a buffer between a residential district and a commercial district of 50 feet for structures and 20 feet for parking, clearing and grading. Traffic Imnaets Virginia Department of Transportation comments are attached. See VDOTletter - ATTACHMENT C. They state that the only access should be through a right of way shown opposite the intersection of Whitewood Road and the proposed extension of Greenbrier Drive. [A strip of land, not a dedicated right of way, extends between parcels 46 and 47 where the sketch plan indicates a single entrance to the property. This strip of land is part of parcel 45, and is currently zoned R-4.] 3 Half of the right of way for Greenbrier Drive Extended was dedicated along parcel 45 when Wyr~.'dge was platted. Whether or not Greenbrier Drive is extended is not an issue affecting the rezonmg of this property. SUMMARY: There are two zoning requests here, although the applicant has requested that they be considered as one application: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to the request: 1. Developing parcels 46 and 47 under CO zoning would potentially create less impacts on adjacent properties than the existing C-1 zoning. Although CO zoning is not consistent with the recommended Residential designation in the Plan, it is more consistent with the Plan than the existing C-1 zoning. CO zoning is consistent with the transitional character of this site. 2. Developing the three parcels together could allow a better plan than developing them separately. Staffhad identified the following factors which are unfavorable to the request: The R-4 to CO request is inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Parcel 45 is currently zoned residential which is consistent with the Plan. Possible objectionable aspects of the requested CO zoning adjacent to a residential area include noise, lighting, service area locations and traffic impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends denial because the unfavorable aspects outweigh the favorable aspects. The Plan does not recognize this area for commercial uses. While it was understood with the development of the Plan that there was existing, commercially zoned land in this location, expansion of commercial uses was not contemplated. As indicated in the summary, the zoning change of the C-1 property (Parcels 46 and 47) to CO, a less intense district, would be more consistent with the Plan. However, there is no compelling evidence that rezoning the existing R-4 property (Parcel 45) to CO will not have objectionable impacts to the adjacent site regarding lighting (from building/auto lights); noise (trash collection, other service activities); or traffic. ATTACHMENTS: A- Maps B - Applicant's Justification C - VDOT Letter A:~ZMA9622.RPT 4 ALBEMARLE COUNTY I ATTACHMENT A I WYNRIDGE '~ BtRNAM WOOD ZMA-96-22 -- RHH Development Corp, MINOR TOW NHOUSES CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 61W2 ALBEMARLE 45 COUNTY OF CHARLOTTESVILCF_ ZMA -96-22 RHI{ DEVELOPMENT CO1AP. I ATTACHMENT B J RHH DEVELOPMENT CORP. P.O. BOX 5487 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22905 October 28, 1996 County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Tax map 61W2, Parcel 45 Dear Sirs, Attached please find our re-zoning request for the above referenced property. We have attempted to include information adequate for your consideration, includihg three copies of our preliminary site and building plans. More copies of these plans are available at your request. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: We request that Albemarle County re-zone parcel 45 from R-4 to Commercial Office. In support of our request, we have developed, and hereby submit, a preliminary site plan which shows how our 1.691 acre parcel can be joined With TM61W2, parcels 56and 47 to create a campus style office park, containing approximately 41,000 square feet of office space on 4.38 acres. JUSTIFICATION OFREQUEST: The primary justification for our request is our belief that parcels 45, 46 and 47 are best developed as one site. Currently, parcels 46 and 47 are zoned C1, and as evidenced by their current tax assessment, are Valuable for their development potential. Parcel 45 was originally a portion of Minor property which was developed into Wynridge and Minor Hill, but due to drainage considerations, this parcel was not included in these developments. By combining parcels 45, 46 and 47, we were able to create a more orderly and attractive development than if the three parcels were developed individually. In addition, we do not believe that parcel 45 has the potential to be developed into an attractive residential property. The unusual configuration of this paxcel -~ prevents orderly land planning. While we are confident six (6) homes could be planned for the property, we do not feel that they would be meaningful ad,d. itions to this neighborh~nt, nor do we feel that they would enhance Albemarle s housing stock. Further justifying our request is the fact that them is currently no residential development fronting on Greenbriar Drive from its intersection with Rt. 29. to its terminus with Whitewood Road, Examining Greenbriar Drive's current developments, you will fred a combination of retail, office, and office/storage buildings. Our proposed use of the prol~rty as an office park is consistent with the commercial nature of this street, and provides an intelligent transition from the more intense r~tail uses currently existing on Greenbriar Drive. Finally, we feel that our proposed site plan strongly justifies our request. By combining the three (3) parcels, we are able to efficiently develop the site into an attractive office park, while providing ample separation from our residential neighbors and minimizing the number of aecess~points offof Greenbriar Drive. We have allowed for parking in excess of County requirements, while maintaining amplelandseaping opportunities. Architecturally, we have developed preliminary building plans which illustrate the type and scope of the buildings that we feel are appropriate for this area. You will note that we have designed all of these buildings to be one story from Greenbriar Drive. We feel it is important that the architecture of these buildings have the proper scale for the neighborhood. Additionally, these buildings are designed to serve office users such as doctors, insurance agencies, etc. Given the proximity of the existing residential development, we do not feel that many of the uses permitted in C~I zoning are appropriate. For that reason, we have chosen not to incorporate more intense uses for the site, such as restaurants, banks, or automotive repair. Developing parcels 45, 46 and 47 individually would not permit us this flexibility, and would most certainly force the properties toward more intense uses. We appreciate your consideration of our request. We are sensitive to the impact development has on neighborhoods, and we will make every attempt to educate the neighbors of our plans for the property, and where possible, we will attempt to hake their concerns into consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact myself or Scott Williams With questions that you may have. Sincerely, Robert M. Hauser P~resident cc: Mr. Scott Williams, RI-IH Development Mr. David Cart Ms. Carolyn Shears, Edward H. Brownfield, Inc. RHH DEVELOPMENT CORP. P.O. BOX 5487 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22905 December 23, 1996 Ms. Mary Joy Scalla County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Re-zoning Tax map 61W2, Parcel 45 Dear Ms. Scalla, Thank you for the opportunity to expand oar justification for re-zoning the above parcel from R-6 to CO. When I originally submitted the paperwork for this re-zoning on October 28, 1 wrote a letter justifying our request based on the following arguments; 1) Parcel 45 has little or no residential development potential. 2) Greenbriar Drive is not an appropriate location for residential development, and 3) Parcels 45, 46, and 47 are best developed jointly. As you are aware, Parcels 46 and 47 are currently zoned C-1. Subsequent to our original submittal, the owners of parcels 46 and 47 agreed that in exchange for Albemarle County changing the zoning on pamel 45 to CO, they would agree to reduce the zoning on thek two parcels to CO. We feel this offer is a significant justification for our request. On December 19th, my firm conducted a question and answer session with the neighbors of our proposed office park. All of the contiguous property owners were invited to attend this meeting and question me about my goals for the property. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the information packet distributed at this meeting. My memorandum goes into detail explaining the advantages of our proposed development versus a development that could be done by right. I stress to the neighbors the benefits of Commercial Office development, as compared with retail development. Please consider the points I make in this submittal as further reasons justifying our request. Ms. Scaila Re-zoning Tax map 61W2, parcel 45 December 23, 1996 Page 2 When we last spoke, you mentioned that Albemarle County must consider both the impact of this development on the local neighborhood, and this project's contribution to serving Albemarle County's overall land use requirements with regards to the neighborhood. I believe an office park in this location would be a gentler neighbor than some other retail use such as a gas station or restaurant. This office park would provide an appropriate buffer between the retail development and the residential neighborhoods. With regards to Albemarle County's land use needs, office space availability in the North 29 corridor is currently in short supply. Recent studies have shown vacancies in this sector to be as Iow a three percent; clearly, this market is under served. Our proposed park will provide space for those businesses who serve the local neighborhoods such as physicians, Realtors and accountants. This site will provide many people with the opportunity to patronize and work for businesses without crossing or traveling on Route 29. Finally, it is our belief that this development, containing an internal road system, will be superior to the strip development found on the remainder of Greenbriar Drive. Thank you for your assistance. Please contact me with any questions that yoiu have. Sincerely, Robert M. Hauser President MI~IORANDUM TO: NEIGHBORS OF THE GREENBRIER DRIVE OFFICE PARK FROM: BOB HAUSER, RHH DEVELOPMENT DAT~ 12/19/96 Dear Neighbor, Thank you for your interest in the Greenbrier Drive office park; Our purpose in providing this letter, and the attached handouts, are to make you aware of our goals in developing our property along Greenbrier Drive. We currently own a parcel of land, Tax map 61W2, parcel 45, which contains 1.691 acres, is zoned R-6, and fronts on Greenbrier Drive. In addition, we have placed under contract two contiguous parcels of land, Tax Map 61W2, Parcels 46 and 47, ~;hich contain an additional 2.~ acres, are zoned C-l, and also front on Greenbrier ~arcriVe. We are proposing to re-zone Parcel 45, the R-6 property, to C-O, and re-zone els 46 and 47, the C-I properties, to C-O. Attached you will find excerpts from the Albemarle County ZovAng Ordinance, which describes what is permitted in R-6 and C-1 zoning. In general, the uses permitted in these zoning categories are as follows; R-6: Residential development, including garden apartments C-O: Commercial' office development C-l: Commercial retail and office development We are proposing this change in zoning, because after evaluating the site, we felt that the three parcels are best developed jointly, whereby we can create the most attractive community. initially, we evaluated the property for residential purposes, and we came to the conclusion that a high density residential property could be designed on the site, but could not be justified economically. We also feel that a high density residential development would be more intrusive on the adjoining property owners than the development we are proposing. Apartment design would most certainly involve multi-story construction, and in addition, the peak use of time for activity in an apm'tment communiw is in the evening, which is the time when most of the neighbors would also be at their homes. Office parks are active during the normal business day, and dormant during the evening hours and for this reason we feel confident that our proposed use of the land is appropriate. The re-zoning that we have undertaken requires a great deal of effort and expense, so before proceeding down this path, we also evaluated developing the properties using their current zoning. While we feel confident that the C-l, and R-6 properties can be developed profitably, we find many of the uses within C-1 to be intense for a neighborhood setting, and.the Ro6 property is not sufficient in size to be developed meaningfully. This approach would also have necessitated developing the 3 parcels separately, which would lead to multiple entrances off of Greenbrier Drive, disjointed architecture, and in general poor land..planning. After having done this analysis we came to the conclusion that an office park, designed for use by businesses, Who provide neighborhood services, such as doctors, insurance professionals, and Realtors, would best serve our market, and would be the use most compatible with the neighborhood. We have just recently completed construction of an office building in Sachem Village, where we have located our corporate offices. Our experience in this park is that it is a quiet environment, with limited amounts of traffic from people coming and going, as compared to what you would find at a retail site, where customers are coming and going on a constant basis. Further, the majority of the offices close between 5 and 6 PM, which coincides with the time many people are returning to their homes. Again, this is in contrast with the uses you find in retail projects which most times include businesses such as restaurants which are open well into the evening~ We feel strongly that our proposed development will share these positive characteristics, and will be a good transition between the existing strip commercial development on Greenbrier Drive, such as the movie theatre, and the existing residential neighborhoods. In creating the site plan, we stressed to. our planners the necessity of being sex~sitive to our neighbors. You will note that the proposed buildings hav~ ~been designed to meld into the property, not dominate the site. Where possible we intend to hold our parking below grade, reducing the visual effect of automobiles. We 'have made use of residential materials and architectural shapes, such as you would find on homes, to better fit into the existing style of the neighborhood. We intentionally kept the buildings to one story so that we would maintain a residential scale .We intend to hold the buildings forward, maximizing the amount of common area between the proposed buildings and the existing homes, while also maintaining the existing landscaping whenever possible. When it is necessary to remove the existing landscape, we are prepared to plant' new landscaping to maintain adequate screening. Also noteworthy are our plans to fence our rear property line, which will reduce the unwanted-pedestrian traffic that presently appears to travel through the rear of the Wynridge Manorhomes. Finally, we Offer to Work with our neighbors to install our security lighting in such a way that we minimize the effect on the adjoining owners. As we have been preparing our development plans for ~his property we have been following the public discussion concerning the extension 'of Greenbrier D~ive. While you might infer that any commercial development welcomes additional traffic and exposure, we do not feel that this decision has a material effect on our plans. In conclusion,~ I want you to know that I understand that nearby development can lead to anxious feelings. I hope that this information helps to minimize your anxiety. If you have any questions, or suggestions, I would welcome your call at 979-733z~, or mall me your thoughts in the self addressed envelope that this included With this packet of information. GREENBRIER OFFICE PARK FACT SHEET PROPERTY: Three parcels, which are shown on the attached plat and described below, have been incorporated into the site design. Tax Map 61W2 Parcel 45, containing 1.691 acres Tax Map 61W2 Parcel 46, containing 1.365 acres Tax Map61W2 Parcel 47, containing 1.409 acres TOTAL ACREAGE 4.47 ACRES DEVELOPER: RHH Development Corp. PROPOSED USE: The property is proposed to be developed into a campus style office park, with 4 buildings totalling 41,000 square feet of office. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: The buildings are a traditional design, incorporating a combination of split face block and synthetic surfacing. POINTS OF INTEREST 1 ) The current zoning on Parcels 46 and 47 would allow gas stations, restaurants and other intense commercial uses. ~ 2) Our proposed use of the property is as a neighborhood office park, where businesses who service the neighborhood can locate. 3) Re-zoning parcel 45 will allow us to develop the property as one parcel, where we can create a less dense, more park-like environment. 4) Combining the 3 parcels into one development also will allow us to make a single connection to Greenbrier Drive which is safer than making 3 separate connections. Further we are able to create an office park where the buildings can be primarily one level and where the architect.ural, design can be un!form, creating amore attractive community and one which is more in scale with the residential neighbors. 5) RHH Development Corp., an affiliate of Robert Hauser Homes, is an experienced developer who is concerned with their reputation in the community. Past commercial projects which RHH has constructed include Village Green on Commonwealth Drive, Republic Plaza on West Main Street, Republic Business Center on Whitewood Road, Harris Sweet office warehouses, and multiple office buildings at Pantops, and the Spectrum Therapy building on Hydraulic Road. DAVID R. GEHR COMMONWEALTIt o[ IRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDO~ WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE. 2~11 November 21, 1996 I ATTACHMENT C I A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Ik~pt:. ot ['launitl(3 & Con,mini ty Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Submittals for December Pnblic Hearings Dear Mr. Keeler: Please find our commenEs listed below for ocr December submittals: ZMA-96-21 & SP-96-46 Mill Creek Industrial Land Trust-The Peabody Route Southern Day Care Center on the opposite side of Stoney Ridge Road. A recommendation was also made that a ri~3ht turn and taper be provided off of the Southern Parkway. It should be noted that this proposed rezoning does not meet Industrial Land []se Requirements as Stoney RJdue Road was built with [ndusLrJal FiHJdf!. L/~k-96-22 RHH Development Corporation, Route 866/1455 Tile rezonin~ from R-4 to CO will increase tile ]]mount of traffic but not significantly because of the small size of lot. All access through to parcels 45° 46 and 47 should be through ~ right of way shown opposite tits intersection of Whitewood Road and the proposed extension of Greenbrier Drive. This should be the only access with right of way needed for Greenbrier Drive provided. A more specific planned usage will be required to evaluate ~the trip generation of proposed site. ZMA-96-23 Burton, Route 649 This property ]nay be impacted by the proposed widening of the AirporE Road. All access should be from the lesser road. The right of way for proposed road should be provided. More information as to types of usage would be required to determine impacn to adjacent roads, however it appears additional lanes would be needed along Route 1501 into Deerwood for turn]n9 movements. RECEiV :.D 1996 FROM PHONE NU, : 703 525 5591 3-an. 1997 II : / / / COUNTY OF ALBEMARI .E Office of Board of Supen~sors 401 Mclntire Road Charlo~esville, Virginia 22902-4696 (804) 296-5840 FAX ~804) 296-5800 Charles $~ Martin WaI~r E Perkins Sally H. Thomz~ March 24, 1997 RHH Development Corporation Amos, Barbara H. Beluge, Kersti Charlottesville-Albemarle Board of Realtors Corish, Catherine Bryan County of Albemarle Davis, Robert G. Or Barbara B. Devore, Brian L. or Joanne G. Gibson, Bruce W. or Virginia Marie Greene Ruth A. Kawasaki, Masashi or Yasuko Lebedin, Neal D. Moeller, Henry F., Frances E., or Edith M Pope Paul, James or Marjorie M. Real Property Investors, Inc. Stephens, Christopher M. or Sharon J. Sumpter, Lee C. or Kdstal K. Currey Wood, David J. Jr., Etal. Bryant, Edward V. or Mary E. Harris, Michael A. or Barbara S. Lam, Yee F. Lee, Jen-Shih or Lian-Pin Houghton, Diane E. Costley, Virginia P. Trustee 2309 Commonwealth Drive Ptn Taylor, Bonnie M. Wadsworth, Deborah L. Bledsoe, Randall G. or Marityn Fang, Ta-Fang or Alice J. Lee King, Lee-John or Rosy K. Liu, Rei or Nan Zhou nay, William r. or Meta L Sturgill, Benjamin C. Or Eleanore B. Shifflett, Yvonne C. Rambo, Ronald J. Wang, Bo Ping or Wen Sy Van Der Linde Ventures, Inc. Robinson, Glen O. or D. Kay Charlottesville Land Trust Robert Hauser & T. Blakey Hurt, Trustees Re: ZMA-96-22 - RHH Development Co~tion PHnted on r~cyclcd pc]per Depl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE of Planning & Community 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 1804) 296-5823 February 19. 1997 Rill] Development Corporation P O Box 5487 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: ZMA-96-22 RHH Development Corporation Tax Map 61W2, Parcels 45, 46 and 47 Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 18, 1997, unanimously deferred the above-noted petition to its February 25, 1997 meeting. This petition was deferred to allow time for the applicant to submit proffers and for staffto revtew proffers. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their March 12, 1997 meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary Joy Scala Senior Planner MJS/jcf cc: Minor J~and Trust , ~a~ McCulley ~Elta Carey < April 16, 1997 es and Gen o t e , My name is Mary Morris and I am a resident of Westfield Road (Lot 48L). I would like to thank Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Cillmberg and Mr. Kelsey for meeting with us earlier this month to discuss our concerns about Mr. Hauser's proposed development and our drainage problems. We, the residents, find ourselves in a Catch 22 of sorts, with this situation. We would like not to see development on the 3 lots as proposed by Mr. Hauser, in particular the lot zoned as a residenfml lot, whose shape we feel is not conducive to development. On the other hand, we understand that Mr. Hauser is willing to provide assistance, both monetary and in the construction of a detention basin, towards cas'rog the drainage problem which exists in our neighborhoods if he is allowed .to develop the lots. We would ask the following: is there a real need for more commercial development in the county? As most of us have noticed there appears to be a lot of available commercial space for lease. what impact will this.development have on Whitewood Road? In looking at the preliminary materials it would appear that the access To the office complex would be very close, if not, at the curve on Whitewood Road. Won't this lead to potentially hazardous traffic patterns? will the proposed detention basin really help in alleviafmg the anticipated additional runoff for the residents of Westfield Road and Minor Ridge? what ~ the buildings look like? The information in the proffers cover a i$~ range of building materials - cement blocks, bricks, stucco, etc. more studies on the potenftal impact to the residential areas - a more extensive study needs to be carried out to determine what the impact on the community will be. f) if approval is given to Mr. Hauser what would be the possibility of limiting the development to the 2 commercial lots 0nly? Thank you for allowing me to voice my concerns. Mary Morris 352 Westfield Road COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Boa.rd of Supervisors Wayne Cilimberg Ubt. j(,_~ April 11, 1997 ZMA 96-22, RHH Development The Staff and Planning Cotmnission previously recommended approval of the above noted request with six proffers. Since the Planning Commission action, the applicant has attempted to respond to neighborhood concerns, particularly regarding existing downstream drainage problems, with additional proffer language. (attached) The attached proffers are not signed and are under review by the County Attorney for acceptability of comem. As to intended substance, staff feels these proffers provide for additional possible initiatives beyond those proffers as recommended by the Planning Commission. The applicant indicates the attached proffers are being signed by the property owners at this time. The changes from the proffers previously submitted are: An increase in the cash contribution in proffer #6 (from $3,000 to $9,334) to a potential public improvement project addressing the existing drainage problems downstream of this site in the Wynridge and Minor Hill neighborhoods. The revised language also clarifies when the contribution is to be made. A new proffer (#7) to construct an on-site stormwater detention facility to maintain the current rate of run-off from the site during the two-year storm and reduce the rate of run-off during the ten~year storm. This is conditioned on granting of necessary County approvals to allow grading up to the property line between Wynridge and Minor Hill subdivisions in order to construct the larger facility. Additional language added to proffer #2 defnfing the exterior finish materials to be used on the buildings. ROBERT HAUSER HOMES F~OH GILLIAH, SCOTT, KRONER HO,S16 P. 2 Date: ZMA # Original Pr.offer__ Amended Proffer (Amend merit #__) PRO,FFER FORM. Tax Map Parcel(s) 1.69 1 R4 co 2..'/74 Acres to be rezoned from cl to co 61W2-45,46.~7 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County ZonlnQ Ordinance the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as apart of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (11 the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions: and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested, (1) The Owner will i~stall and m~. '=rain an op~l~a privacy fcnc~ aloag l~e propertS, line between th= p~pe~y ~ th~ adjoi~ng ~sidcn~a[ dis~c~ ~t ~e ~in~ ~catcd on ~ d~ng a~ed hereto ~ E~ibft 1. ~ f~n~ ~11 bc six (6) feet ~1 ~d ~ll ~ co--ted of ~t~ (2) All'of the buildings constructed on thc property will have one level visible from Greenbrier Drive. and not more than two levels vis~le from adjacent residential propertie~, with a maximum roof pitch of 6/12. No mare th~ 43,200 total square feet of space, consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning, will be cor~ructed on thc property. The primary exterior finish materials shall be split-face block: or brick, and stucco, (3) A minimum sale,ration of fifty ($0) feet will be maintained between ~_ny dumpster located on the property and thc adjoining residential district. [Se, Continuation sheet, attached.] ~=rinted Names ef A~[ Owners ~ate ~tPR.11.1997 8:lgAM ROBERT HAUSER HOMES F'RQN GILLIES, ~C'OT.T, KRQNER 8~a 2.932073 NO. 31~ P.3 Proffer Form (continued) ZMA #96-22 TM 6 ] W2-45,46,47 (4) All exterior light fixtures will be fi~.ly skiolded. A fully shielded flxto~ means an outdoor l~ght fiXr~l~ shielded i~ such ma~n~r tha~ a~ B~t ~ By ~e f~ ~ ~ly ~m ~e l~p or in~ectiy ~om ~e fi~e, is proje~ed below ~c h~zon~[. (5) No single building shall have a floor ama_(footprint) greater than 12,000 square feet (6) The Owner re¢ognize~ that c~tain residential prol~re/o~vners ~d ~e Co~ of ~b~le d~ to s~e ~n improv~ made ~ cxi~g ~ge facili~ do~ ~ · e subject p~pe~. To pro~ msis~ in ~is ~de~g, ~e ~cr~l con.brae ~e ~ of $9,334.00 to ~e ~ for appii~Qon tow~ s~h improvem~. Pa~t by ~ 0~ s~ll be m~e when ~e O~g is ~vb~ h ~g by ~e Co~ ~at it is ~dy to ~m~a wi~ ~e comt~tion of such improvements, (7) The Owner will cav. straet on the proporty a s~orm water detention facility aatisfyir~ d~sig~ criteria to maintain the Curr~t ra~ of storm water run-off from the prop~'ry into thc a~joining Wynridge subdivision duch~g a "two.year ~orm" and to reduce th~ m~e of rtm-offdm-i~g a "mn-year ~totm," provided~ however, ~at the Owner shall have recelv~ approval from Albemarle Cotm:y c~ns~'act s~urh detention pond by grading to the joint proI~tty li~e be~w~ ~o property Wynridgc subdivbion. $ignaturex Of All Owners Printed Names of All Ownar O~ (At'tach Proper Pc~ver of A['torney) Pr;nted Name of AltOrney-ih-Fac~ 0F suPE IIvS 0 s 03-1 '-9?Al0:26 March 5, 1997 Albemarle Coanty Board of Supervisors 401 Melntire ROad Clmtlo~sville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA 96~22 RHH Development Corporation Dear Sir or Madam: Having attended tho very late night session of the Planning Commission on Jan. 7, 1997 concerning the above referenced petition and further gathering information conceaffmg this item, we reiterate our opposition to the proposed changes for the following reasons: Robert Hamer Homes has misrepresented to the pltmning Commission the following items: 1. He did not notify all of the adjo'ming proper owners of his plans prior to the hearing. Those who were notified were given incorrect information about the prese~ zoning of the properties in question. Lot 45 is currently zoned R4 and not R-6 as his letter stated. There/s a substantial differ{mm between the two with R4 being more in keeping with the existing neighborhood. 3. His development plan is not "more neighborhood-friendly than the current" wooded 4. In paragraphfonroflfisOot28, 19961ettertothePlamaingDepamnea~t, he incorrectly stated that there "is currently no residential development fronting on Greenbriar (sic) Drive from its intersection with Rt. 29. to its tol'nmimls with Whitewood Rond,~ We are quite sure there are people living in the duplex units on the south side of Gre~brier Drive directly across Greenbrier from the proposed office park. These eitizans w~l be greatly impacted by office developmeat tkrongh additional traffic, lights and noise. 5. The commercial uses adjacent to Lot 47 are eurreatly housed in buildings wh/eh look like two story colonial dwellings that have be~ onnverted to office use by a chiropractor and real estate c~an/es, NOT RETAIL. There is No Retail within earshot or sight oftbe propertyin question. There are townhonses and a few offices in dwelling-style buildings all along the west side of Commonwealth Drive. 6. The drawings presented at the January 7, 1997 public hearing did not represent the curreat stream which runs through the property. Those drawings oppear to show a building and a parking lot on the current stream bed. How does one build on top of water? He does not address what will happen to all the water from the proposed parking lots once the natural woodlands are destroyed. Currently the manor homes on Westfield Rd and the single family homes on Minor Ridge Road have a serious problem with Water runoff from Lots 45 and 46 at this time and the loss of the vegetation upstream wonld greatly increase the problem. It appears that some of the current floodkn, ~ may be mused bythat stream being piped under Wesffield through a too small pipe. 7. In lettersto tbe neighbors and planners Mr. Hauser has stated that he is proposing. one story buildings, yet his drawings elmfly show two story buildings. B. The currem zoning for parcels 46 and 47 may indeed allow for unpleasant development, however, most of the commercial uses by right would NOT meet set back requlremems without joining all the parcels together. As public officials, you certainly know flint them are side line and back yard allowance~ as well and they were placed in the Code for everyone to obey and for very good reasons. Commercial development similar to wh~ is carmntly adjoining lot 47 at the comer of Cogmnonwealth and Greenbrier would be in keeping wi~ the neighborhood while FOUR office buildings certuiuly would NOT ! C. Tho Senior Engineer, Mr. Glenn Brooks, in his January 27, 1997 letter to Ms. Scala clearly indicates that them is a water nmoffprobtem existing now and has been known to the County since t984. It appears that some~ae in the County Office Building dropped the ball in 1990 which allowed Hauser Homes to escape from solving *.he water problem at that time! As stated in Mr. Brooks' letter, '~the proposed development on pamels 45, 46, & 47 will .......... aggravate the exis~g problem~. D Runoff from the proposed parking lots would greatly increase the damage to adjoining properties and those downstream. Paragraph 3 of Mr. Hauser's October 28, 1996 letter states "Parcel 45 was originally a poffion of Minor prope~t-y which was developed into Wyaridge and Minor Hill, but due to drainage considerations, this parcel was not included in these developments.' What has changed to now make this lot developable? The spring and the nm off are still there and paving the lots where there are now woods would exacerbate the drainage problem for all of us! E. The proposed parking is stated to be "in excess of County requirements" which wilt only muse mom nmoff and mom opportunity for the skateboarders, therefore mom noise. F. The lack of attention to detail and the obvious errors in the letters fixan Robe~ Hauser indicate that this is not a welt planned project. Witness the misspelling of "Greenbrier," the omission of the water problems on lets 45 and 46 in tho draw/ngs, lack of knowledge of the duplexes fac~mg his property and the many errors concerning tho current zoning!. G. The placem~t of four office buildings will provide our property with unwanted 24 hour security ~ noise and automobile pollution. No amount of shrubs would eliminate these intrusions on the quiet enjoyment of this fam/ly neighhothood of affordable homes where many of our residents are nurses, policemen, young doctors and retired persons. For alt of the above stated reasans, but especially because of the water nmoff and noise pollution we request that you vote to DENY this rezoning request. The County has dropped the ball on this once before, in 1990, and we request that you not allow what is already a BIG problem to becom~ DISASTROUS for the rasidentz ofthis neighborhood. You have correctly ditched the extension of Greenbrier Drive so as to presarve the park andneighborhood and we*hank you for that decision. We now beg you to vote for what is proper in this case. Please don't allow Hauser Hom~ to cause any more damage to our properties. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely yo~rs, 849 Woodlands Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 ~ho~e.: ~'o¢)q?3-q¢~ b o¥~o3 )3'~i~4~qcl l Form. 3 7/25/86 8eh:[ oy: UNITED LAND CORP 972412~ 04/"5/97 )4-15-97PO2:4d April F.&_C..S_.IM 1 I..E Ella Carey Clerk, Board of Supervisors Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 R{:: ZMA--96- 25 Dear Ms. Carey: Please defer Z~IA-96-25, River Heights Assoc/ala.q, from the Aprit 16, 1997 Board agenna. Sincere])', ~endell ~, ~ood General Partner 975-3334 975-0267 Rd. Box 5548 · Charlottesville, ¥1rginla 22905 II (804)~;~ll Fax BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 03-14-97P04:57 RCVD March 13, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Don Franco The Kessler Group P O Box 5207 Charlottesville, VA 22905 ZMA 96-26 Forest Lakes Associates Tax Map 46B4, Parcel 1 and A2 Dear Mr. Franco: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 11, 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 comment at their meeting onApri116, 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 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ MARCHll, 1997 APRIL 16, 1997 ZMA 96-26 FOREST LAKES ASSOCIATES AnDlieant's Pronosal: The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 0.2 acres currently zoned R-15, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. The area of existing R-15 zoning and HC zoning is shown on Attachment C which has been modified by staffto show the area of the proposed rezoning. This small area of residential zoning cannot be used for residential use due to its configuration. 'The applicant has requested this rezoning to provide consistent zoning over the entire parcel. Petition: Proposal to rezone approximately 0.2 acres form R-15, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. The Total site consists of 6.2 acres, of which appro:ff~mately 6.0 acres is currently zoned HC. The property, described as Tax Map 46B4, Parcels 1 and A2, is located in the southeast comer of the intersection of Route 29 and Timberwood Blvd. in the Rivaona Magisterial District. This site is located in the Community of Hollymead and is recommended for Community Service. Character of the Area: The Gateway Townhomes development is located on the opposite side of Worth Crossing adjacem to the area proposed for rezoning. The remaining land between the area to be razoned and Route 29 is zoned HC and is currently developed with a McDonald's Restaurant and an office building (~mder constructionS. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. Plannine and Zonine History: The residential zoning for the entire Forest Lakes development, R-4 and R-15 was approved with ZMA 83-19. The commercial zoning on the fronl portion of the site was established with ZMA 85-20. Worth Crossing was constructed after the zoning was placed on the property. Comnrehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Community Service. Based on Section 9.3 of the ordinance, HC zoning is appropriate in a Community Service Area. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has viewed this request as creating a more logical zoning boundary. The original boundary between the commercial and residential area was a straight line taken from a comer of the property. When Worth Crossing was constructed it crossed the zoning boundary in order to align with the road on theunrth side of Timberwood Boulevard. This left a small area of residential on the west side of Worth Crossing. The size and configuration of this area of residential zoning is such that residential use cannot be made of the property. The residential zoning does place increased setbacks on the commercial property. This reduces the area available to commercial development. Staff opinion is that the increased setback imposed by the residential zoning does not further any identified purpose in the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan and that adequate protection of travelers on Worth Crossing and the existing residential development is afforded bythe provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. All of the land west of Worth Crossing is designated as Community Service and this rezoning would create a corresponding area of commercial zoning. SUMMARY: Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Further, approval of this request will allow for more logical boundaries of commercial and residential zoning and more efficient use of land in the Hollymead area. Staff can find no negative impacts which will result from approval of this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval ofthis request. No proffers are proposed and in the opinion of staffnone are necessary or appropriate. Staffnotes that the existing HC area is subject to a trip generation proffer which is based on 430 vehicle trips per acre. If the area under reView were subject to a similar proffer 9 vehicle trips would be allowed. Any proffer to increase the trip generation for ~he area covered by the existing proffer would require application of the several property owners which are subject to the proffer. Staff opinion is that with such a small area being rezoned nothing would be gained by adding a proffer to limit vehicle trips, In addition such a proffer may be difficult to track as development occurs. ATTACItMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Plat of property showing area to be rezoned A:kZaMA9626.RPT · -FOREST LAKES ZMA 96-26 EARLYSVILLE ( CHARi 0t ~,, FOREST LAKES ZMA 96-26 ALBEMARLE 2O COUNTY WHITE H~LL ~, SECTION 52 RIVANNA DISTRICTS STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT for Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14(E)] 2. 3. 4. Nam.e: Title: Agency: Trmxsacfion: David P. Bowerman Rio District Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ZMA-96-26 Forest Lakes Association -- Public hearing on a request to rezone approximately 0.2 acres from R-15 to HC. Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction: Personal interest in a contract which sold fitness 9/quipment to the applicant. I declare that: I am disqualifying myself from participating in this transaction and request that this fact be recorded in the appropriate public records for a period of five years. Dated: April 16. 1997 Signature DPB41697.D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: FY 1997-98 Buclget Resolution and 1997 Tax Levy Resolution ' SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Board approval of FY 1997-98 Operating Budget and 1997 Tax Rates STAFF CONTACT(SI: Mes~ra. Tucker, White AGENDA DATE:' April 16, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENTAGEND~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes//~ REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Attached for your approval are two resolutions that must be approved at the April 16th meeting. DISCUSSION: I: Resolution to Approve the FY 1997-98 Operating Budget The first resolution (Attachment I) formally approves the proposed expenditures for FY 1997-98, which are shovm by major categow or fonc~on and total $126,628,365, an increase of $259,296 over the County Executive's recommended budget. The added revenues ara shown on Attachment 2 and raflect an additional $39,296 in revenues to the General Fund, and $220,D00 to the School Fund. County ExenuUve adjustments to the recommended budget in the amount of $39,296 include $9,296 in miscellaneous persennel/ope~ cost adjustments, due mainly to increases in State salaries for constitutional officers, and a $30,D00 increase in the Tax Relief for the EldeW/Disabled program, based on recent projections from the Deparbnent of Finance. These additional expendituras are completely offset by additions to General Fund revenues totaling $39,296, which include increases in State salaries for constitutional officers, additional Tax Relief for the Elderly/Disabled program revenues end $2,687 in additional General Fund Balance. Board of Supervisors' additions to the School Transfer include $1,071,404 from the Board's reserve, for a total FY 1997/98 General Fund transfer to the School Division of $46,091,436, a 2.4% increase over the recommended budget. School Fund changes include $220,000 in unexpected additional State education revenues. #: Resolution to Set the County Levy The second resolution, presented in Attachment 3, sets the tax levy for the taxable year 1997. The proposed rates ara the same as the current year and are set at $0.72/$100 assossed valuation for the real estate tax rate and $428/$100 assessed value for the personal propen'y tex rate. RECOMMENDATION: If the Board has no further add~ons or deletions to the proposed budget, staff requests approval of the attached resolutions. 97.079 FY 1997/98 Adopted Total County Revenues Serf-Sustaining 5% Federal Revenue 2% Cany-Over/Fund Bal <1% Local Property Taxes 49% State Revesue~ 23% Other Local Revenues 21% FY 95/96 TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES ACTUAL LOCAL REVENUE PROPERTY TAXES 70.493.756 OTHER LOCAL REVENUE 22.351,470 OTHER LOCAL - SCHOOL FUND 592,586 SUBTOTAL 93.447.812 STATE REVENUE GENERAL 4.133.864 SCHOOL FUND 23.292,535 SUBTOTAL 27,426,399 FEDERAL REVENUE GENERAL 1.599.793 SCHOOL FUND 665,725 SUBTOTAL 2.205.513 SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS 6.791.951 CARRY-OVER BALANCE GOVT: CARRY-OVER 0 GOVT: TRANSFERS/FUND BAL 38.466 SCHOOLS: CARRY-OVER 0 SCHOOLS: TRANSFERS/FUND BAL 773.578 SUBTOTAL 813.042 TOTAL REVENUE 126.684,717 SPLIT BILLING REVENUES 16,500,000 TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES t46,~84,7~7 FY 86/97 ADOPTED 58.063,980 22.874.870 541.876 81.480,725 4.361.233 23.251,334 27.612,567 1,939.962 658.185 2.596.147 6.337.670 0 501,495 0 118,839,105 FY 96/97 REVISED 58,063,980 22.938.743 541,876 81,544,599 4.427.410 23.251.334 27,678,744 1.936.962 658.185 2.598.I47 6.544.670 0 1.666.500 0 108.500 1.175.000 119,541,160 FY97/98 --Y97/98 FY9756 REQUEST RECOMM ADOPTED INC INC TL 61.811,400 61,825,420 61,855,420 3,791.~40 6.53% 48.85% 24.349,980 25.526 928 25,527,427 2.652.557 I1.60°~ 20.16% 543.220 543,220 5~3.220 1.344 0.25% 0.43% 86,704,520 87.895,568 87.S26.067 6.445.341 7.910/~ 69.44°/~ 4.926.783 4.932.693 23.745.622 23.965.622 25.672,405 28.896,515 571.660 714.288 1.285.948 4,547,100 23.745.622 28,292,722 13.11% 3.go"/~ 3.07% 18.93% 4.66% 22.82% 1.915.840 2.293.737 2.293.737 353.775 18.24% 1.81~A 682.735 682.735 582.735 24.550 3.73% 0.54% 2.598.575 2.976.472 2,976,472 378.325 14.56°~ 2.35% 353.284 6.690.954 6.690,954 6,690,954 5.57°/~ 5.28% 0 0 0 0 6.00% 0.00% 0 0 2,687 (498,808} -69.46°~ 0.00% 50.000 50,000 50.000 50,000 100.00°/~ 0.04% 83,670 83.670 83,670 (24,830) -22.88% 0.07% 133,670 133.670 136,357 (473,638) -77.65a/~ 0.11% 124,42B.441 126,369,069 128,628,365 7.989,2~0 S.73% 108.00% C ota! ( o.nt¥ .xpendit. ee FY 1997198 Adopted Total County Expenditures General Gov't Operations General Gov't Miscellaneous <1% Capital Program 2% Revenue Sharing Self-Sustaining 5% School Debt 6% School Operations 57% FY 95/96 TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES ACTUAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS ADMINISTRATION 4.888.428 JUDICIAL 1,734,13o PUBLIC SAFETY 8,094,645 PUBLIC WORKS 1.943,514 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT §.187.012 PARKS. REC. & CULTURE 2.781.324 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2.073.723 SUBTOTAL 26.702.776 SCHOOL DIVISION SCHOOL FUND OPERATIONS 64.278.291 SELF-SUSTAINING FUND OPERATIONS 5,791,951 DEBT SERVICE FUND 6,839,880 CAPITAL PROJECT/DEBT RESERVE 250,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 785.000 SUBTOTAL 77,945,122 NON-DEPARTMENTAL CAPITAL PROGRAM - GEN. GOVT. 1.880,000 CITY/COUNTY REVENUE SHARING 5,849,991 DEBT SERVICE - GENERAL GOVT 118.698 JAIL EXPANSION RESERVE O CONT]NOENCY RESERVE 0 MISCELLANEOUS 1.483 REFUNDS 54,718 STORM DRA[RAGE 60,000 SUBTOTAL 7,162,887 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES 111,810,788 SPLIT BILLING RESERVE 16,500,000 TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES 128,310.785 FY 96/97 ADOPTED 5.182,845 1,727,629 9,089,203 2.187.568 5.843.716 2.942.414 2.328.108 29.301.483 67.172.182 6.337.670 6.845.880 450.000 669.900 81.475.632 1,956.600 5,170,853 113.500 200.000 213.252 FY 96197 REVISED 5.263,795 1.871.01t 9,308,622 2,282,258 5.889.805 2,983.979 2,501,967 30.099.435 67.172.I32 6,944,670 6.845.880 450,000 669.~30 61,682.632 1.956.600 5.170.853 113,500 200.000 110,355 94.685 53.100 60,000 7,759.093 FY 97/98 -~Y 97/88 FY 97/98 $ q~ % REQUEST RECOMM ADOPTED INC INC TL 5.568.428 2.035.654 11.162.376 2,232,304 6,842,991 3.210.567 2,872,119 33.924,639 71.538.373 6.690.954 6,845,880 600,CO0 500.000 86.175,207 1,390,000 5.516.393 0 160.000 200,000 0 51,700 110,000 7,870.093 127,969,939 5.627.024 1,999,500 3,597,976 2.535.961 33.042.459 70.125.279 6.690,954 6.845.580 600,000 800.000 84.762,113 1.713,000 8.518.393 0 100.000 1.071,404 0 51.700 110.000 8.664,497 128,369,069 5.627.146 2.004.859 10.412.182 2.195.044 6,710.384 3.597.976 2,534,164 33.081.755 6.690.954 6.845.880 600.000 800.000 5.518.393 0 100,800 o 81.760 110.000 7,493,093 126,628,365 277.230 1.322.979 7.476 866.668 655.562 206,056 3.780.272 4,244.501 353.2~4 0 150.000 (169,900) 4.577.885 (243,600) 347.540 (113,500) (100,000) (213,252.) (94.685) (1,4oo) 80,000 (368,897) 7,989,260 8.57% 4.44% 14.83% 5.30°/, 22.28% 2.84% 6.32% 56.40% 5.57% 5.28% 0.00% 5.41% 33.33% 0.47% ~25.36% 0.38% 5.62% 67.96% -12.45% 1.35% 6.72% 4.36% -100.00% 0,03% ~0.00% 6.08% -100.00% 0.00% FY 95/96 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ACTUAL ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 293.694 COUNTY ATTORNEY 332.279 COUNTY EXECUTIVE 463,378 FINANCE 2,077,570 INFORMATION SERVICES 1,291,420 HUMAN RESOURCES 264,117 REGISTRAR/BOARD OF ELECTIONS 165,970 SUBTOTAL 4,686,428 JUDIC AL CIRCUIT COURT 66.591 CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT 458.260 COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY 354.031 GENERAL DISTRICT COURq' 11,075 JUVENILE COURT 37.044 MAGISTRATE 25.833 SHERIFF 781,365 SUBTOTAL 1,734,130 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY ATTENTION 128.6~4 CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD 0 EMERGENCY COMMUNIC. CTR 449.686 FiRE DEPARTMENT - CITY 691.550 FIRE DEPARTMENT - JCFRA 805,650 FIRE/RESCUE ADMINISTRATION 267,253 FIRE/RESCUE CREDIT 43.190 FOREST FIRE EXTINCTION 13.758 INSPECTIONS 624.188 JUVENILE DETENTION HOME 70.713 OFFENDER AiD & RESTORATION 37.403 POLICE DEPARTMENT 4,977,465 REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY 186.098 RESCUE SQUADS - JCFRA 160,431 SPCA 8.596 SUBTOTAL 8,094.645 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 766.543 RECYCLING/SOLID WASTE 19{).396 STAFF SERVICES 930,480 WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 48.095 SUBTOTAL 1,943,514 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ~RIGHT STARS PROGRAM 87.816 CHARLOTTESVILLE FREE CLINIC 5.000 CHILDREN & YOUTH COMMISSION 24.750 CHILDREN YOUTH & FAMILY SVCS 27,054 DISTR~CT HOME 41.192 FOCUS - TEENSIGH7 33.615 ~ EALTH DEPARTMENT JAUNT 280.000 JEFFERSON AREA BOARD FOR AGING 139,530 JABA - ADULT HEALTH FACILITY 0 JEFFERSON AREA DISABILITY BOARD 1.286 LEGAL AID 15.655 MADISON HOUSE 4.205 (Continued on Next Page) FY 96197 FY 96197 ADOPTED REVISED 301.916 301,916 331.079 356,909 495.477 496.877 2,248.016 2,267.336 1.364.625 t .364.625 253.323 268,323 187.809 187,809 5, t82.,545 5.263.795 69.203 77.496 471.866 479.146 375,335 409.783 10.915 15,415 37.621 58,709 16.165 27.740 746.524 809,720 1,727,629 1,871.011 160.309 237.066 3.750 3,750 54~.964 642,964 620.800 620,800 571.282 571,282 398.153 416,452 45.000 45.000 13,800 13.800 643,460 643,460 105.316 176.890 38,525 38,525 5.558.389 5.609.178 186.098 186,068 188.397 188,397 12.960 12,960 9,089,203 9,306.622 905.139 946,300 291,465 339,884 938.393 943,503 52,571 52,571 2,187.568 2,282.258 78,810 98.810 5,150 5, I50 25.792 25.792 27.865 27.865 41.100 41.100 20,405 20,405 FY 97/9~ FY 97198 FY 97/98 $ % °k REQUEST RECOMM ADOPTED INC INC TL 261,052 291,252 291.252 (19,664) -3.53°~ 0.31% 499.597 409.015 409.015 77.936 23.54% 0.43% 550.774 585,610 585,610 90.133 18.19% 2.363.032 2.350,491 2.350.491 101,875 4.53% 2.48% 1.470.716 1,515.614 1,518.8t4 153.989 11.28% 1.81% 273,813 287,402 287.402 34,079 13.45% 0.30% 209,4z~1 184,640 184,762 (3.047) -1 .~.o~ 0.20% 5,568.428 5.627.024 5.627.146 444,301 8.57% 5.95% 7I .880 7t.880 71,880 2.677 3.87% 0.08% 493.752 493,752 496,352 24.486 5.19% 0.52% 483.403 467,601 465.189 89,854 23.94% 0.49% I2.830 12,830 12.830 1,915 17.540~ 0.01% 78,382 78,382 78.382 40,761 108.35% 0.08% 18,655 17.588 17.5~8 1,423 8,80~ 0.02°A 876,951 857,467 862.638 115.114 15.55°~ 0.91% 2.035.854 1.999,500 2,004.859 277.23(; 16.05% 2,12% 238,183 238,183 238.153 77.874 48.58°~ 0,25% 3,865 3,865 3.865 115 3,07°/~ 0,00% 1,143.058 1,057,524 1,057,524 514,560 94.77% 1,12% 641,290 641.290 641.290 20.490 3.30% 0.58% 767,620 585,275 585.275 13.993 2.45% 0.62% 505.409 473.478 480.171 82.018 20.60~ 0.51% 59.020 59.020 59.020 14,020 31.16% 0.06% 13.800 13,800 13.800 0 0.00~ 0.01% 728.522 676,372 676.372 32,912 5.11% 0.71% '23.905 123,905 123.905 18.589 17.65% 0.13% 39.680 39,680 39.680 1,155 3.00~& 0.04% 6,369,407 6,034,737 6.034.737 476,348 8.57°~ 6.38% 286.037 236,585 236.585 50,487 27.13°~ 0.25% 214,500 192.495 192,495 4.098 2.18~ 0.20% 28.080 28,080 29.280 16.320 125.93% 0.03% 11,167-379 10.404,989 10.412.182 1.322.979 14.56"A 11.01% 999.156 976,387 974.309 69.170 7.64% 189,935 189.935 189.935 (101,530) -34.830~ 0,20% 986.966 974.756 974.553 36.160 3.85% 1.03% 56.247 56.247 55.247 3,676 6.99°/~ 0.06% 2,232.304 2.I97,325 2,195,044 7,476 0.34~ 2.32% 118.810 t18.810 118.810 40.000 50.75% 0.13% 5.506 5,150 5.150 0 0,00% 0.01% 26,565 26.566 26.566 774 3.00°,( 0.03% 47.360 35.035 35.035 7.170 25.73% 0.04% (Continued from Previous Page) FY 95/96 GENSRAL FUND EXPENDITURES ACTUAE ~IENTAL HEALTH - REGION TEN 250.104 MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY 0 SEXUAL ASSAULT RESOURCE AGCY t9.600 SHELTER FOR HELP IN EMERGENCY 57.115 SOCIAL SERV[CES 3,263.838 TAX RELIEF FOR ELDERLY/DISABLED 266.637 UNITED WAY SCHOLARSHIP PGM. 44.305 SUBTOTAL 5.179,702 EDUCATION PIEDMONT VA. CGMMUNITY COLLEGE 7.310 PARKS & RECREATION DARDEN TOWE MEMORIAL PARK 98.030 DISCOVERY MUSEUM 13.335 LIBRARY 1.573,880 LITERACY VOLUNTEERS 12.000 PARKS & RECREATION 964.083 PIEDMONT COUNCIL OF THE ARTS 8,335 TSANSER: TOURISM D VISITOR'S BUREAU 194,661 WVPT PUBLIC TELEVISION 7,000 SUBTOTAL 2.781.324 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ALBEMARLE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT 346.710 BUS SERVICE/ROUTE 29 38.200 GYPSY MOTH PROGRAM 24~121 MONTICELLO COMM. ACTION AGENCY 45.790 OFFICE OF HOUSING 3~4.145 PLANNING 724,611 PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 55,344 SOiL & WATER CONSERVATION 26.055 TJHIC-CHP 3 VPI EXTENSION SERVICE 75.529 ZONING 433.218 SUBTOTAL 2/973 723 FY S6/97 FY 06/97 ADOPTED REVISED FY 97/98 FY 97/98 FY 97/98 $ % % REQUEST RECOMM ADOPTED INC lNG TL 251,811 251.811 262.742 259.365 259.365 7.554 3.00% 0.27°/0 75.0~O 78.000 75.000 78.000 75,000 0 0.00% 0.08% 20.190 20,190 20.190 2g. tgD 20,190 0 0.00% 0.02% 60.037 60.037 62.052 61.840 61,840 1.803 3.00°/0 0.07% 3,g28,900 3.95t 989 4,683,324 4.653.674 4,653,674 727.774 18.54o/0 4.~2% t90,000 190.000 19(1.000 190.C~0 220.000 30.000 15.79% 0.23% 50.545 50.545 56.785 56.785 56.785 6.240 1Z35% 0.06% 5.835.432 8.881,521 6.834.707 6.672.100 6.702.100 866.668 14.85% 7.08% 8,284 8.284 8,284 8.284 8.28~ 0 0.00% 0.01% 107.075 107,075 I13.775 108.990 1{38.990 1.915 1.79% 0.12% 11.055 11.155 11,430 8.855 8,855 (2.200) -19.90% 0.01% 1,621,589 1.621.589 1,748.470 1.685.260 1,685,260 63.671 3.93% 1.78% 13.000 13.000 15.750 15.750 15.750 2.750 21.15% 0.02% 1.064.455 1.105.820 1,183,g18 1.177.666 1.177.666 113.211 10.64% 1.24°/. 8.555 8.685 9,DO0 8.868 8.865 300 3.51% 0.01°/. 0 O ~ 585.600 585.600 585,600 100.00% 0.62% 109.685 109.685 121.224 0 0 (lOg,6&5) -100.00% 0.00% 7.000 7,000 7.000 7,000 7.000 0 0.00% 0.01% 2,942,414 2,983,979 3.210.567 3,597,976 3,597,976 655.562 22.28o/. 3.80% 357.110 357.110 45.200 45.200 25.953 25.953 47.165 58.575 346.793 346.793 842.065 991.992 61.561 61.561 29.534 29.534 0 0 135.942 135.942 436.785 449.306 2.32&108 2.501.9S7 NON-DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUNDS 2,725,000 2,686.600 2,686,500 GENERAL GOUT DEBT SERVICE 116,698 113.500 113.500 CAPITAL PROJECTS/DEBT RESERVE 250.000 450.000 450.000 CiTY/COUNTY REVENUE SHARING 5.049.991 5.170.853 5,170,853 CONTINGENCY RESERVE 0 213.252 110,355 JAIL EXPANSION RESERVE 0 200.{~30 200.000 SCHOOL D!VISION DEBT SERVICE 6,839,880 6.845.880 6.845.880 MISCELLANEOUS 1.483 94.685 94.685 REFUNDS 54,715 83~100 53.10¢ SUBTOTAL 15,037.767 15,827.770 18,724.873 TOTAL GEN. FUND EXPENDITURES 41,740,543 45,129,253 45,824,308 TRANSFER TO SCHOOL OPERATIONS 39.013.874 42,110.792 42.110.792 SCHOOL TRANSFER - ONE TIME 0 501.495 501.495 SUBTOTAL 39.013.874 42.612.287 42,612.287 SUBTOTAL OPERATING BUDGET 80,754,418 87,741,540 88,436,585 SPLIT BILLING RESERVE 18.500.000 357,375 357.375 357.375 265 0.07% 0.38% 86.056 46.556 46.556 1.356 3.00% 0.05°/" 22.483 D 0 (25,953) -100.00% O.OD% 60,938 60.335 60.335 13.170 27.92% 0.08°/0 397.009 378~60 378.250 31.457 9.07~ 0.40% 1,127.257 973,294 973.294 131.229 15.58~ 1.03°/" 73.378 62.686 62.686 1.125 1.83% 0.07°/0 49.725 30.075 30,075 541 1.83% 0.~3% 5O.O00 0 O 0 0,00% O.DO% 159.029 140.021 140,021 4.079 3.00% 0.15% 488.869 487.369 485,572 48.787 11.17% 0.51% 2.872A19 2.535.961 2.534.164 206.056 8.85% 2.68% 2,500,000 2,323,000 2,323.900 (363,500) 0 0 0 (113,500) 600.000 600.000 600,000 150.000 5,518,393 5.518.393 5,518,393 347.540 2~0.000 1.071.404 0 (213.352~ 100.000 100,000 100.000 (100,000) 6,845,880 6,845,880 6,845,880 0 0 0 0 (94,685) 51,700 51.700 51.700 (1,400) 15.815.973 16,510.377 15,438.973 (388,797) 49,740,812 49,552,836 48,820,728 3,391,475 45,020.032 45,020,{)32 46,091,436 3.980.644 0 0 0 (501,495) 45.020.032 45.020.032 46.091,436 3,479,149 94,760,644 94,672,868 94,612,164 6,870,624 6.72% 5.83% -100.00% 0.00% -50.00% 0.11% -100.00% 0.00% 7.52% 51.28% 9.45% ~8.72% -100.00% 0.00% 8.16% 48.72°/0 7.83% 100.00% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 97,254,418 FY 95/96 SCHOOL DIVISION EXPENDITURES ACTUAL SCHOOL OPERATIONS 64.278,291 SELF-SUSTAINiNG FUNDS 5,791,951 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 70.070,242 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER 39.013,874 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER - ONE TIME 0 TOTAL GENERAL FUND TRANSFER 39.013,874 FY 96/97 FY 96/97 ADOPTED REVISED 67.172.182 67.172.182 6.337.670 6,544.670 73,509,852 73.716.852 42.110.792 42.110.792 501,495 501.495 42.612.287 42.612.257 FY 97/98 FY g7/g8 FY 97/98 $ % REQUEST RECOMM ADOPTED INC INC 71,538,373 70.125.279 71,415,683 4.244.501 6.32% 6.690.954 6.690.954 6,690,954 353.284 5.57% 78,229.327 76.616,233 78,107,637 4,597,785 6.25% 45,020,032 45,020,032 46,091,436 3,980,644 9.45% 0 0 0 (501,495) -100.00% 45.020,032 45.020.032 46.091.436 3.479.149 8.16% Budget Discussion As in FY 1997, the School Board has recommended an unbalanced budget. The shortfall is $1.41 million over allocated new local revenues of $2.9 million. Their request is deemed a maintenance of current effort by the School Board. The major components of this request include funding the projected enrollment growth of 282 new students; providing an overall 3.55% salary adjustmc'nt for teachers and a 3.5% merit pool for classified staff; providing a 2% increase for operational budgets; and funding essential startup costs for Monticello High School. The total requested budget from the School Board is $71,538,373, an increase of $4.36 million (6.5%) over FY97. The adopted budget funds all but $121,690 of the School Board's shortfall, through a combination of Board of Supervisors' reserves, which include local savings due to additional State revenues, and a proposed transient lodging tax increase; and additional unexpected State education revenues of $220,000. School Division operating revenues are depicted below, followed by a synopsis of the School Division's budget request and funded initiatives for FY98. FY 1997198 Adopted School Division Revenues $78,107,637 Carry~3ver/Fund Bal. <1% $133,670 Local - Transfers 59% ~."~ 291 ~3~ SeE-Sustaining 9% $6.690.954 Federal $682,735 31% 1% $23,965,622 $543.220 RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1997, be approved as follows: General Government Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Development Parks, Recreation & Culture Community Development County/City Revenue Sharing Refunds Capital Improvements Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve Education - Operations Education - Self-Sustaining Funds Education - Debt Service Jail Expansion Reserve Contingency Reserve 5,627,146 2,004,859 10,412,162 2,195,044 6,710,384 3,597,976 2,534,164 5,518,393 51,700 2,323,000 600,000 71,416,683 6,690,954 6,845,880 100,000 0 TOTAL 126,628,365 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 16, 1997. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors 04/10/9701:56 PM Attachment 1 RESOLUT.WK4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' FY97-98 ADOPTED BUDGET !- CHANGES FROM RECOMM TO ADOPTED GENERAL FUND ~ECOMM ADOPTED BEGINNING RESOURCES (BOARD RESERVE): 1,071,404 1,07'1,404 COUNTY EXECUTIVE ADJUSTMENTS TO GENERAL FUND: Miscellaneous Adjustments in Personnel/Operating Costs (9,296) Adjustment for Tax Relief- Elderly/Disabled Program @ $220,000 (30.000) SUBTOTAL COUNTY EXECUTIVE ADJUSTMENTS (39,296) GENERAL FUND ADDITIONS TO REVENUES: Additional General Fund Fund Balance/Carry-Over 2,687 Additional Real Estate Tax Revenues - Tax Relief (~ $220,000 30,000 Additional Scottsville Reimbursement (4%) 499 Additional State Compensation Board Revenues - Salary Increases 6.110 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE ADDITIONS 39,296 B.O.C.S. ADDITIONS TO SCHOOL TRANSFER Increased School Transfer - Ongoing Operations (1.071.404) SUBTOTAL ADDITIONS TO SCHOOL TRANSFER (1,071,404) ENDING BOARD RESERVE - GENERAL FUND 0 I1. CHANGES FROM RECOM M TO ADOPTED SCHOOL FUND RECOMM ADOPTED SCHOOL FUND ADDITIONS TO EXPENDITURES: Additional School Fund Expenditures (220.000~ SUBTOTAL SCHOOL FUND EXPENDITURE ADDITIONS (220,000) SCHOOL FUND ADDITIONS TO REVENUES: AdditionaJ School Fund Revenues 220.000 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL FUND REVENUE ADDITIONS 220,000 II1. ADOPTED FY 1997198 TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET RECOMM ADOPTED TOTAL GEN FUND 94,612,164 TOTAL SCHOOL OPERATIONS (LESS TRANSFER) 25,325,247 TOTAL SELF-SUSTAINING 6.690.954 FY 1997-98 TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET 94,572,868 25,105,247 6,690.964 126~69,069 126,628,365 04/'~ 3/9702:35 PM ~,ttachment 2 RESSUM98.WK4 RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable year 1997 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service assessments; and FURTItER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable persona] property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public Sereice Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock. and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508. Attachment 3 RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1997, be approved as follows: General Government Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Development Parks, Recreation & Culture Community Development County/City Revenue Sharing Refunds Capital Improvements Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve Education - Operations Education - Self-Sustainlng Funds Education - Debt Service Jail Expansion Reserve Contingency Reserve 5,627,146 2,004,859 10,412,182 2,195,044 6,710,384 3,597,976 2,534,164 5,518,393 51,700 2,323,000 600,000 71,416,683 6,690,954 6,845,880 100,000 0 TOTAL $ 126,628,365 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 16, 1997. County Supe~fs RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable Year 1997 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars and Tw~ty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Fora Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service assessments; and FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy for a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 16, 1997. Clerk, Board of County Supervisjffs} COUNTY OF ALBEMAR .; OglA dFIS JO (lPSVOa EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 97/98 - FY 01/02 Capital Improvements Program and FY 97/98 Capital Improvements Budget SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Board approval of FY 97/98 - FY 01/02 Capital Improvements Program and FY 97/98 Capital Improvements Budget STAFF CONTACT[SI: Messrs. Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: April16,1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At its January 6th public headng, the Board heard public comments on the recommended FY 97/98 - FY01/02 CIP, which totaled $62.6 million and which recommended that the School Division reduce the scope of its requested CIP by approximately $4.26 millio~ to stay within approved debt levels for FY 97~98 - 00101. Since thattime, the following changes have been made to the recommended ClP: To fund the $4.3 million increase in the cost of the Monticello High School, the scope of several projects were reduced or postponed. Major reductions totaling nearly $3.75 million were made by eliminating the proposed Piedmont Regional Education Program (PREP) facility (a savings of $2.5 million), reducing the Henley addition project by $1 million, and by reducing the Burley Middle School Technology Education Lab project by $225,000. The Board of Supervisors also requested that the School Board look for an additional $500,000 to complete the funding of Monticello High School by further reducing costs or deferring other requested projects. Approximately $136,100 in miscellaneous revenues also were added to help fund the project. On January 13, 1997, the School Board also approved additional reductions to its requested CIP to stay within approved debt levels, as recommended by the Technical Committee. To accomplish this, the scope of the Northern Area Elementary project was reduced by 14,000 s.f. with completion deferred for one year ( a savings of $1.896 million) and the Red Hill Expansion project was postponed for two years and reduced to accommodate 140 fewer students, for a savings of $3.734 million. These reductions were partially offset by the addition of renovation projects at Brownsville and Stony Point Elementary (adding a total of $420,000), and restored funding for the Burley Middle School Technology Educaiton Lab. Additionally, du~ng the re-districting process, the Board expressed a desire to move the Stone Robinson and Walton projects forward to allow additional classroom space for anticipated growth in these areas and to defer the Walton Middle HVAC replacement project to FY01. Finally, to reflect the transfer of the Rivanna Greenway and the Route 250/616 Turn Lane projects to the new Toudsm Fund in FY98, the General Fund Transfer to the ClP was reduced by $177,000 during the FY 1997/98 budget process, for a new transfer of $2,323,000. All of these changes were incorporated into the revised proposed FY 1997/98 - 2001/02 CIP, presented to the Board o~ March 5, as part of the County Executive's FY 1997/98 Operating Budget document. There have been no changes or revisions in the five-year ClP, or in the FY 1997/98 proposed capital budget since that time. AGENDA TITLE: FY 97/98 - FY 01/02 Capital Improvements Program and FY 97/98 Capital Improvements Budget April 16, 1997 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Abraakdown of the proposed FY 1997/98 -2001/02 CIP by major func~on and revenue source is presented below. The revised five year plan totals $62,449,176, a reduction of $162,911 Eom the Technical Committee's initial recommendation. This five-year plan is furlher broken down on the following pages info three separate funds: $13,376~60 for the General Govemmant Capital Fund. $48,742,916 for the School Division Capital Fund, and $330,000 for the 8formwater Capital Fund. Ex_eenditures by Function: Administra~on & Courts Fire/Rescue & Safety Highways & Transportation Ubreries Parks & Recreation U~lity Improvements Contingency Reserve School D'wision Projects Stormwatar Projects Grand Total Projects FY 97-98 FY 97198 - 01102 440,000 2,834,2.50 585,500 3,719,830 544,000 3,473,075 232,500 418,500 229,000 1,860,935 0 300,000 0 769,670 22,630,467 48,742,916 110.000 330.000 24,771,467 62,449,176 Available Resources: CIP Fund Balance General Fund Revenues Ja'd Expansion Fund Balance Borrowed Funds State Technology Funds Additional Split Billing Revenues Miscellaneous Grand Total Resources FY 97-98 243 2,323 175 20,451 575 768 236 24,771 FY 97~98 - 01102 000 1,068,000 000 15,318A60 000 175,000 367 43,508,816 000 575,000 000 768,000 100 1 036 10~_ 467 62~49,176 Page t of the a0ached sheets represents a summary of total projects by func~en and a summary of both revenues and expenditures for each of the three separate funds. Pages 2-5 show all the funded projects for the five-year padod,with the proposed changes highlighted. Pages 6-15 provide a brief descripiton of each of the projects funded in the FY 1997/98 Capital Improvement Budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY 1997/98 - 200t/92 Capital Improvements Program and the FY t997/98 Capital Improvements Budget. 97.078 § ~oo ~, ~oooo~ ........ OOOOF~OOO00000 o ~00000000' oo ~ o o o ~ § o o o Administration & Courts County Computer Upgrade. An ongoing project~ land numerous technologyinitiatives $250,000 including: Local Area Network (LAN) servers, LAN hubs, LAN disk space, a document management/imaging system, a LAN fax system, microcomputers and microcomputer hardware to support the networks This ongoing project is expected to cost $1,120,000 over the 5-year period. ($400,000 in prior year funding already has bcen allocated.) The impact on the operating budget is projected to be $0 in FY98 and $233,100 over the entire five years ~o provide for maintenance, help desk support and training. County Facility Improvements. This project funds improvements to the Old Real Estate $15,000 Building and the Old Jail/Old Jailer's House. Programmed improvements include the installation ofa drmnage and climate control system atthe Old Real Estate Building and roof repair, interior painting and the installation of a climate control system at the Old Jail/Old Jailer's House. These improvements are needed ~o preserve these historic buildings and to create additional paper file storage space, which isin high demand (The $15,000 requested in FY 1997/98 provides for drainage system design at the Old Real Estate building.) This project is expected to cost atotal of $420,000 upon completion in FY99/00. However, no funds will be spent on improvements to these buildings until a final decision has been made regarding their future use. Although operating costs are projected to be zero in FY98, annual, ongoing operating costs of $150/month for electricity in each building are expected beginning in FY 1999/00, for a total operating budget impact of $11,106 over the five year period. Old Crozet School Improvements. Building renovations ro repmr the roof, replace $15,000 windows, and meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. ADA-related improvements include the installation ora ramp access, wheelchair access to bathrooms and water fountains For complete compliance, an elevator also is required Addition- ally, future requirements (within 5 years) include the replacemant of floor tile. Since these tiles are made with asbestos, abatement also will be necessary. However, long- terms plans for the property should be solidified before any funds are spent on improvements. The total cost ofthe project is expected to be $280,000 upon completion in July of 2000. There are no associated operating costs. (Continued on next page.) Capital Improvement Program 6 J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement. This project funds maintenance/reparr projects $30,000 a~ the Juvenile and Domestic Relations (J&D) Court building. Improvements planned include a space study to determine the long-term plans for this facility m conjunction with all other City/County court facilities (FY98), an elevator, and various maintenance and repair projects, including interior and exterior painting, and ceiling tile replacement. All renovations to the J&D Court building are funded jointly by the City and County, with each locality contributing half of the project costs. The $492,500 total cost of these renovations over the five-year period will be funded by equal contributions of $246,250 from each locality. Funding of $30,000 is requested in FY97/98 for the County's share of the $60,000 space study. Operating expenses in FY98 are zero, however, annual, ongoing operating costs of $720/year (adjusted for inflation) are expected to cover the additional cost of electdaity to operate the elevator. The County ~s responsible for funding 50% of these operating expenses. County Office Building Maintenance & Replacement Projects. This ongoing project $130,000 funds building renovations at the County Office Building (COB), including chiller replacements, the replacement and repair of existing roofing and damaged parapets, the replacement of two underground storage tanks, the replacement of carpeting in various departments, and maintenance and expansion of the 120,000 s.f. parking lot. Funding of $130,000 is requested in FY98 to replace part of the roof and seal parking lot cracks. The totai cost ofthis project over the next five yearsis $750,000. Operating expenses in FY98 are zero, however, annual, ongoing operating costs of $360/year (adjusted for i~flation) are expected to cover increased electricity costs associated with new elevator. Fire/Rescue & Safety Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund. This project involves the continued contfi- $262,500 bution to a sinking fund created to provide funding for the figure construction of two (2) new County fire and rescue stations in designated rapid growth areas and for the purchase of an aerial track. Funding of $262,500 is requested for FY 1997/98. The five-year total project cost is $1,607,500. Prior year funding of $650,000 already has been appropriated. l~his project's impact on the operating budget is expected to be $122,930 in FY98, to continue funding for three firefighters for aerial track service approved in FY 1996/97. Operating costs of $1,725,099 over the next five years fund a total of 12 firefighters, if volunteers can not staff future additions. Police Radio Simulcast System/ECC Link. This project will link police radio transmitter $108,000 sites and allow for the simulcastmg of radio tran__smissions through multiple repeaters. Additionally, this project links the radio system receiver network with the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) facility, providing for remote control of the comparator system from the ECC. The $448,300 total cost of this project includes $246,000 in prior year funding, plus requests for $108,000 in FY98 and $94,330 in FY99. There are no additional operating costs associated with this capital project 7 Capital Improvement Program Pofice Firing Range Study. This project will study thc £easibility and cost of constructing a Police Department firing range and training facility for the purpose of Uaining and qualifying police officers with various firearms. Total funding of $40,000 is requested for FY 1997/98. There are no operating costs associated with the study. Juvenile Detention Facility. This project funds the planning and construction o£a 40-bed juvenile detention facility for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. The ~otal cost of this project is $5,471,574, and includes $71,574 in total prior-year fanding. The State is expected to contribute $2,160,000 to the project over the next five years, and Charlottesville is being asked to fund $1,620,000 (Prior year contributions from the City total $33,545.) The net cost to the County is $1,653,545, including $33,545 m prior funding, plus requested contributions of $175,000 in FY98, and $1,445,000 in FY99. Operating costs are based on an estimate of $30,000foed for a 40 bed facility, or $1,2 million/year. These costs will be reimbursed at 50% from the State, with the remaining $600,000/year shared 30/70 with the City, for an additional operating cost to the County of$75,000/year, beginning in FY 1999/00. $40,000 $175,000 Highways & Transportation Revenue Sharing Road Program. Each year, the County participates in the Revenue Sharing Program in which the State provides funds to match County funds for the construction, mamtenance, or improvement of secondmy roads. (The Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation, VDoT, matches local contributions up to $500,000 annually.) The roads programmed for improvements with Revenue Sharing Funds over the next five years include: Meadow Creek Parkway (Rt. 631), Rio Rd. (Rt. 631), Greenbrier Drive Extended (Rt. 866), Airport Rd. (Rt. 649), Georgetown Road (Rt. 656), Old Ivy Rd. (Rt. 601), Old Lynchburg Rd. (Rt. 631), Jarmans Gap Rd. (Rt. 691), James River Rd. (Rt. 726), Hatton Feny Rd. (Rt. 625), Blenheim Rd. (Rt. 795), Owensville Rd. (Rt. 676), Plank Rd (Rt. 692), Browns Gap Rd., (Rt. 810), and Owensville Rd. (Rt. 678). The County's annual contributionto this ongoing project is $500,000, for atotal of $2,500,000 over the five-year CIP. No impact on the operating budget is projected. Route 29 North Landscaping. This project provides landscaping for the median areas of Rt. 29 North disturbed by VDoT's ongoing project to widen the road. The ~401,000 total cost of this project includes $365,000 in prior year funding from VDoT and $14,000 in prior County funding. Funding of $4,000 is requested from the County in FY98. Supplemental funding of $6,000/year through FY00 also is anticipated from the Rt. 29 North Business Council. This project adds ongoing operating costs of $10,000/year (adjusted for irrflation) for landscape maintenance and phased plantings, beginning in FY 2000/01. $500,000 $4,000 Capita/Improvement Program Route 250-Route 616 Turn Lane. A projec~ to construct a left mm lane and mpcr (200'x200') within the existing tight-of-way of Route 250 at its intersection with State Route 616, the site of the 1789 Productions' proposed outdoor theater. The total cost of the project is $110,000, winch includes $10,000 in developer contribution and $100,000 in requested County funding. However, this project is recommended to be funded with additional transient tax revenues set aside in a separate County fund and, as such, no general revenue funding is recommended. There are no associated operating costs. Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program. The purpose of this request is to provide ongoing funds to implement improvements recommended by specific neighborhood plans, This initial request is to fund improvements identified in the Crozet Community and Pantops Neighborhood Plans, sucli as sidewalk construction, landscaping and bike lanes/paths. Staff will work with these communities to determine the specific projects for these funds. The total cost of tins project over the next five years is expected to be $232,825. Associated operating costs are unknown at this time, but may be incurred for sidewalks, signage or other projects. $0 $411,000 Library Library Computer Upgrade. Replaces and upgrades computer hardware, telecommu- nications devices and other eqnipmentJsoftware used as an integral part of library operations. The County's share of the $541,553 total project is based on circulation, and mounts to $200,000 in FY98 and $100,000 in FY99, The Library is requesting that the City contribute $t39,474 and that other localities fund the remaining $102,079. Some additional data/telephone costs are anticipated, however, actual dollar mounts are unknown at this time. Library Maintenance/Replacement Summary. This ongomg project funds maiute- nance/replacemeut projects at all branches of the regional library. The total cost of this project over the next five years ~s projected to be $158,500, of which $118,500 represents County cost and $40,000 is the City contribution toward joint projects (for winch it provides 50% funding.) No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. Parks & Recreation $200,000 $32,500 Crozet Park Athletic Field Development. This project funds the development of athletic field space at Crozet Park to meet the acute need for athletic fields in western Albemarle County. This project is expaeted to cost a total of $640,000 upon completion in FY03 Funding of $96,000 is requested for FY98. Ongoing operating costs in the following amounts cover regular mowing~ fertilization, top dressing, seeding, aeration, dragging, marking, trash control, etc., as well as a new mower in FY02:$8,885 (FY99), $9,395 (FY00), $15,210 (FY01) and $39,760 (FY02.) $96,000 9 Capital Improvement Program Rivanna Greenway Access & Path. This request provides funds ~o implement the $0 R.ivanna Greenway plan, and is part of a two phase project to first purchase and develop an accessible section of greenway along the Rivanna reservoir, and then to develop the Greenway property. The total cost of this project ~s expected to be $450,000, which includes $1000,000 in prior year funding. However, the County Executive recommends that this project be funded with transient tax revenues set aside in a special fund for tourism-related projects and expenditures. As such, the net general fund cost is $0. Ongoing operating costs cover gate openings and closings, trash pickup, safety checks, and hazard removal in the following amounts: $1,800 (FY98), $6,300 (FY99), $8,000 (FY00), $9,700 (FY01) and $11,400 (FY02), for a total of $37,200 over the five year period. These costs will be funded through the tourism fund. Southern Albemarle Organization Park Development. This project funds the purchase $50,000 of property and initial development of a park to serve the needs of the neighborhoods in the Yancey School District. Actual park needs will be determined by the Southern Albemarle Neighborhood Organization. The total project cost is $100,000, to be allo- cated in equal contributions of $50,000 in FY 98 and FY99. The mount and type of associated operating costs will be dependent on the site selected and the type of facilities developed. "Placeholder" operating costs in the following mounts have been identi- fied: FY00 ($6,825), FY01 157,125) and FY02 ($7,485) to cover ongoing salary, fringe and operating expenses. County Athletic Field Study/Development. This project requests funds to implement $50,000 the recommendations of the County Athletic Field Study, currantiy underway, to identify potential athletic field space in the County. Although sites and actual facilities still have yet to be determined, emphasis will be placed on existing County-owned property. The total cost of this project is expected to be $520,000 (including $20,000 in prior alloca- tions.) The County's requested contribution for FY98 is $50,000. The mount and type of associated operating costs will be dependent on the site selected and the g~pe of facilities developed. However, "placeholder" costs in the following mounts have been identified: $8,885 (FY99), $9,395 (FY00), $15,210 (FY01) and $39,760 (FY02.) These costs cover regular mowing, fertilization, top dressing, seeding, aeration, dragging, marking, trash control, etc., as well as a new mower in FY02. Parks & Recreation Maintenance/Replacement Summary. This ongoing project funds $33,000 various maintenance and replacement projects at County parks Funding of $33,000 is requested in FY98 for road and parking lot m-surfacing at Beaver Creek, parking expansion at Greenwood Community Center, and general park enhancement. The total cost of this ongoing project over the next five years is $183,130. Them are no associated operating costs. Capital Improvement Program 1 0 School Division High School Technology Education Labs. This project funds the conversion of one of $550,000 the Western Albemarle High School's existing industrial arts shops to a dust free, climate controlled industrial arts technology education lab/classroom that will house computer modular traits. This project is 100% funded in FY98. Additional ongoing operating costs of $5,000/year (adjusted for inflation) are projected to cover air-conditioning/utility costs, beginning in FY98. PREP New Facility. This project constructs a facility to house the Piedmont Regional $0 Education Program (PREP.) It has been canceled to fund increased costs associated with the newhigh school. Total savings equal $2,497,715 overthe five-year period. Stony Point Parking & Pla.~eld. A project to reconfigure the parking lot at Stony Point $193,000 Elementary to add twenty parking spaces and an additional exit onto the main mad. Additionally, a 100' x 225' multi-purpose field would be constructed on the eastern side of the property. The total cost of the project is $193,000, and is funded completely in FY 1997/98. There are no associated operating costs. Vehicular Maintenance Reconfiguration. This project is a three phase addition/reno- $294,000 vation to the Vehicle Maintenance Facility to accommodate growth in the number of vehicles serviced. In Phase I, the parts and service department would be moved to the fist floor with all offices and a new driver training room located on the second floor. A 2,040 S.F., two-story addition would be needed to accommodate these changes. In Phase II, a 2,080 S.F. double-wash bay would be constructed, along with site impmvemems to permit a second entrance and additional parking space for fifty buses. Phase m will relocate the fuel station and removes/replaces the underground storage tanks (mandated). The total cost of this project, including $347,400 in prior year funding, is $784,400. The requested funding for this project in FY98 is $294,000. No impac~ on the operating budget is anticipated. Albemarle High School (AHS) Phase II & III Restoration. Phase II includes a kitchen $20,000 renovation and addition, cafeteria and auditorium improvements, new restrooms for the cafeteria and auditorium, restoration of the first floor main hallway resrrooms, removal of the front lobby kiosk and renovation of the lobby area to include a security window overlooking the lobby. The cost of Phase II is $1,545,500. Phase 11I includes a complete renovation of the old girls/boys showers and locker moms, and costs $649,000. The total cost of the project, including $1,546,000 in prior year funding, is $2,215,000 The requested funding for this project in FY98 is $20,000. No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. Murray High Renovations. This project funds improvements to Murray High Schoolto $70,000 transform the current facility into a more modem efficiently operating building for high school students. The scope of work includes general remodeling with anew heating/cool- ing system, replacement of all windows including the Resource Center, and site work. The total cost of the project is $1,029,000, and includes $95,000 in prior year funding. The requested funding for FY98 is $70,000. There are no associated operating costs. J- J- Capital Improvement Program New High School. This project funds the construction of the new Monticello High School in southern Albemarle County for an initial enrollment of 1,000 students, and plans for a furore expansion for 500 additional students. Core areas will be designed to serve a capacity of 1,500. The building will incorporate sustainable design concepts that will support maximum flexibility and state of the art technology. The total cost of this facility is expected to be $29,468,000, including $12,385,303 in prior year funding. Over the five year period, $6,087,082 in cumulative operating costs are projected, to fund staffing and operational needs. Additional operating expenses in FY98 are projected to be $1.29 million. Administrative Technology (School Division). This ongoing project funds new admin- istrative technology in the form of computers and nctworks for all schools. The racom- mended five year project tutal is $280,000, consisting of equal contributions of $70,000/year. (No funding is recommended in FY01 due to insufficient local revenues.) Annual ongoing operating costs in the following mounts provide for maintenance, help desk support and training: $19,000 (FY99), $28,500 (F00), $38,000 (FY01) and $47,500 (FY02.) Instructional Technology (School Division). This ongoing project funds new insumc- tional technology in the fonn of computers in the classroom, libraries and in the computer labs, new/expanded networks, software, supposing equipment and supplies. The recom- mendedfive year project cost is $2,035,115. Funding of $605,070 is requested for FY98. Annual ongoing operating costs in the following amounts provide for maintenance, help desk support and training: $41,947 (FY98), $135,000 (FY99), $182,500 (F00), $182,500 (FY01) and $227,500 (FY02.) Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) Building Renovations. This project funds a classroom addition of 10,665 S.F., an auxiliary gym, minor and major renovations to current interior space, major parking/bus/driveway improvements, baseball field up- grades, two lighted tennis courts, a roof replacement and HVAC duct cleaning. This modernization will not change the total capacity of the school which cnrrenfly is 1,044. The total cost of this project is $3,988,075, and includes $2,558,375 in prior year funding. Ongoing operating costs of $10,000/year for custodial support and $16,700/year for utilities are projected, beginning in FY99. Henley Addition. This project funds the addition ora 6th grade '~house" at Henley Middle School to consist of 7 regular classrooms, two science classrooms, a special needs classroom and office, a work room and students restrooms. Major renovation to the library would include approximately 1,500 S.F., along with site work to include an extension to the front walk of the bus loading area and minor renovations to the entire building. The scope of this project has been reduced by $1,000,000 due to redistricting, which reduced the anticipated enrollment, and limited CIP funds. C1P funds are nor available at this time to complete the office renovations, gym, lockers and lighting replacements, but will be incorporated into a future CIP budget This project is expected to cost $2,003,000, and includes $185,000 in prior year funding. Ongoing additional operating costs of $20,000/year for custodial support, and $15,900/year for utilities are projected, beginning in FY98. $17,082,697 $70,000 $6 ,o7o $185,000 $1,190,000 Capital Improvement Program 1 2 Middle School Technology Education Labs. This project funds the conversion of $~25,000 industrial arts shops at Burley, Henley, Jouett and Walton Middle schools to dust flee, climate controlled industrial arts technology education labs/classrooms that will house 12 computer modular units. The total cost of this project is $875,000, and includes $550,000 in prior year funding. Additional annual, ongoing operating costs of $3,750/year are projected to cover air-conditioning/utility costs, beginning in FY99 Northern Area Elementary. This project constructs a 56,000 s.f., 400 student elemen- $0 tary school in the Route 29 North area. Due to redistricting, and revised enrollment projections, the scope of this project was reduced by 14,000 s.f., and deferred for one year, to begin in FY99. The revised total cost of this project is $8,429,000. This postponement makes $1,365,000 available to fund Monticello High School costs. Op- erating costs of $85,000 are expected in FY01 to hire a prmcipal and secretory, with $773,939 expected in FY02 to fund teachers, custodians and utihty costs. Walton Renovation. This project funds renovations to Walton Middle School in two $26,000 phases. Phase I involves the conversion of the unused Industrial Arts shop into three classrooms. Phase II adds two (2) sixth grade science classrooms. Renovations would include selected replacement of lighting, gym floor refinJnhing, and ADA modifications. The total cost of the project is $995,000, of which $46,000 is requested fimding for FY98. It is projected that the cost of utilities and maintenance for the mobile classrooms that could be removed will offsct any additional operating costs. Stone Robinson Addition. This project funds a 14,800 S.F. addition to Stone Robinson $250,000 Elementary school, to include 6 regular classrooms, a library, cafeteria, a special education/resource area, work rooms and additional parking, minor office renovations and play field expansion. With the addition, the rated capacity of the school would be 616 students. The total cost of the project is $2,664,000. The School Board has recommended that this project be moved forward one year to allow additional classroom space for anticipated growth Additional, ongoing operating costs of $20,000/year for custodial support and $14,800/year for utilities are projected, beginmng in FY 1999/00. Brownsville Addition. The project restores funding for portions of an existing project to $212,000 add approximately 9,470 S.F. to Brownsville Elementary School which were postponed after higher than anticipated bids were received for the project. These additional funds will allow renovations to the office areas, parent drop offsite work, and a resource/work- room to complete the project as originally designed. The total cost of the Brownsville Addition project is $1,511,470, including $1,299,470 in prior year funding. Additional funding of $212,000 is requested in FY98. Ongoing operating costs of $12,000/yr. for custodial support and $11,000/yr. for utilities are expected, beginning in FY99. Stony Point Addition. This project restores funds for portions of the existing project to $205,000 add 9,500 S.F. to Stony Point Elementary, which were reduced after bids were opened. These additional funds will provide for renovations to the kitchen, cafeteria and office area, ro complete the project as bid. The total cost of the Stony Point Addition is $1,323,000, including $1,118,000 in prior year funds. Additional funds of $205,000 are requested for FY98. Ongoing operating costs orS 11,000 for custodial support and $8,500 for utilities, begttming in FY99 are anticipated. 1 3 Capital Improvement Program School Division Maintenance & Replacement Projects. This ongomg project funds a $665,700 variew ofmaintenance and replaccmentprojectsat County School facilines. FY 97/98 projects include improvements/renovations to Cale and Stone Robinson Elementary Schools, Burley, Henley and Jack Jouett Middle Schools and CATEC. The total 5-year project cost is $5,225,470. Funds of $665,700 are requested for FY98. There arc no associated operating costs. Chiller Replacement. This project replaces chillers a~ the following County schools: $35,000 Albemarle High (1996, 1998), Walton Middle (1996), Hollymead Elementary (1998), Albemarle High (1998), Gteer Elementary (1998) and Burley Middle School (1998-Re- condition). Due to federal regulations that prohibit production of chloroflourocarbons (CFC's) after December 31, 1995, chillers nearing the end of their life expectancy that use CFC as a refrigerant must be replaced. 3~he total cost of this project, including $381,000 in prior year funding, is $1,049,200. Funding of $35,000 is requested for FY98. No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. Greer HVAC Renovations. This project funds renovations that include the replacement $22,000 of the electric boiler with natural gas boilers and the installation of an energy management system. The total cost of the project is $306,000. Funding of $22,000 is requested for FY98. There are no associated operating costs, however, the replacement of the electric boiler with natural gas is expected to have a 9-10-year payback in energy savings. Walton I-IVAC Renovations. This project funds renovations to Walton Middle School $0 that include enclosing the Media Center, replacing the electric boilers with oil boilers, P/A clock system replacement, gym divider replacement, rekeying the exterior of the building and track resmfacing. The total cost of this project is $471,700 and includes $101,700 in prior year funding. At the recommendation of the School Board, the HVAC replacement has been deferred to FY00/FY01 to fund other priorities. As such, no funding is recommended for this project in FY98. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Structural Changes. This project funds stmc- $425,000 rural changes at several County School facilities to allow for accessibility, as required by the Americans With Disabilities Act. Because of escalating construction costs in the current year, selected ADA modifications in major renovation projects programmed for 1996/97 could not be completed. This project requests funding to complete these projects. The total cost of the project is $1,125,963, including $505,963 in prior funding. Funding of $425,000 is requested for FY98. There are no associated operating costs. VMF Underground Storage Tank Replacement, l~nis project funds the replacement of $180,000 underground fuel storage tanks that are used to fuel buses and other County vehicles at Walton and Western Albemarle High School (WAHS.) WAILS has a 6,000 gallon gasoline tank and a 10,000 gallon diesel tank. Walton has a 5,000 gallon gasoline tank, and a 10,000 gallon diesel tank. The EPA Technical Standards require that owners of UST's provide corrosion protection, overspill containment, leak detection methods and use standard record keeping methods, these tanks must be replaced by 1998 to comply with the standards. This project is 100% funded in FY 1997/98. There are no associated operating costs. Capital Improvement Program 1 4 Stortnwater Projects County Master Drainage Plan. The scope of this project is to provide a master drainage plan for the Couuty in anticipation of new Virginia State and Federal EPA stormwater management regulations. The County has been divided into drainage basin areas and prioritized. The total cost to the County of this project is $510,000, including $330,000 in prior year funding. The City and University have provided an additional $60,000 in combined prior year funding for this project. This project is expected to be completed in June, 2001 There are no additional operating costs at this lime. Transfer to Drainage/Erosion Correction. This project provides funds to the Depart- ment of Engineering for the expeditious response and provision of corrective measures for the mcrea/mg incidence of flooding, erosion and other drainage related problems. Use of funds shall be limited to incidents that are not covered under VDoT, Homeowner's Associations, or any other maintenance agreement, but are a public use and/or a public health, safety and welfare concern. The program criteria may require property owners to contribute a share depending on the specific situation, however this potential revenue can not be estimated at this time. 3~he total cost ofthis project is $250,000, including $100,000 in prior year funding. This project is expected to be completed in FY 00/01. $60,0O0 $50,000 Capital Improvement Program David P. Bowerman Chadolte Y. Hurnpbats COUNTY OF ALBEMAR~ _R Offic~ of Board of Supe~sors 401 Mclnth'e Road Charlottesville, V'u'c~nia 22902--4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX 1804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas April 21, 1997 Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. Boyle, Bain & Downer PO Box 2616 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear ~ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 16, 1997, you were appointed to the Purchase of Development Pdghts (PDRs) Committee. For your information, attached is a copy o£the Committee's charge and a complete listing of Committee appointees. Someone from the County Executive's office will be contacting you in the near future to schedule the first meeting. 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, Chairman CYHJec cc: Robert W. Tucker. Jr. Larry W. Davis James L. Camblos, III Pdnted on recycled paper DaSd I~. ~ern~ Charlo~e Y. Humphfis COUNTY OF Ali .REMAR! E O~ce of Board of Supmvisors 401 Mcln~ke Road Charlotte.v&lle, V~-gmia 22902-4896 {804) 2955843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. M~lin Waiter E Perk}ns Sally H. ~om~ April 21, 1997 Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. Boyle, Bain & Downer PO Box 2616 Charlottesville, VA 22902 ]Dear M~ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 16, 1997, you were appointed to the Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs) Committee. For your information, attached is a copy o£the Committee's charge and a complete listing of Committee appointees. Someone from the County Executive's office will be contacting you in the near future to schedule the first meeting. 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 Chairman CYH/ec cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Larry W. Davis James L. Camblos, II1 Printed on recycled paper