Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-06-19
FINAL 7:00 P.M. JUNE '19, '1996 ROOM 241, COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) e) 7) 8) 9) ~o) 11) 12) 13) 14) Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Presentatien of Certificates of Appreciation Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (oncnext sheet). ZMA-96-03, Won*ell Land & Cattle Co. Public Hearing on a request to amend existing agreements& proffers of ZMA-92~12. Property in NW comer of inters of Rt250/I-64. Area recommended for office regiona~ use in Neighborhood 3 by Comprehensive Plan TM78 P20B,20C,20K,20M,31,32,71,71A. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from June '12, '1996.) (Applicant requests deferral.) ZMA-96-04. Encore Investments Ltd Ptrn. Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 11 ac - from CO & R-10 to PD-MC located on N sd of Rio Rd E of Putt-Putt Lane This area is recommended for office service in Neighborhood 2 by the Comprehensive Plan. TM61,P's 124A, 124B,124C. Rio Dist. ZMA-96-08. Albemarle Board of County Supervisors - Monticello High School & Assodated Public Facilities. Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 101 ac frem P,-1 to R-15. Property just S of PVCC btwn Avon St Ext & Rt 20 S of 1-64. Property, currently designated for Iow density residential in Neighborhood 4 is proposed for institutional use in the update of the Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. TM91,P2. Scottsville Dist Appeal - SDP-96-024~ Monticello High School Preliminary Site Plan. Proposal to construct public high schocl for approx 1500 students with approx 135,000 sq ft & associated athletic facilities & parking on site of approx 67 acs. Same description as ZMA-96-08. ZTA-96-01. Public Hearing on a Resolution of Intent by the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows: amend section 4.15.3. definition of public sign; amend section 31.2.4.2. review period for special use permit application: add section 31.2.4.2.1. limitation on filing new special use permit application after original denial; add section 31.2.4.2.2. withdrawal of special use permit application; amend section 33.7. withdrawal of petition for zoning map amendment: amend section 33.8. posting notice of hearing on zoning map amendment or speical use permit on property by zoning administrator; amend section 33.8.1. posting notice of planning commission hearing on property by zoning administrator; repeal section 33.8.2. posting notice of board of supervisors hearing on property; add section 33.8.2. va[idati0n of prior notice requirements: amend section 33.8.3, maintenance and removal of signs. Approyal of Minutes: April 5, 1995. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOAP,D. Adjoum. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 Appropriation: Circuit Court Records Preservation Grant, $11,202 - (Form #95977). 6.2 Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance. Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail. and Clerk. Circuit Court. for the month of May, 1996, FOR INFORMATION: 6.3 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for May 14 and June 4. 1996. 6.4 Letter dated June 10, 1996. from Warren C. Smith. Department of Housing and Community Development, to Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman. providing notice that Albemarle County did not receive a grant offer for its CommuniTy Development Block Grant proposal in the 1996 competition. 6.5 Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors for March 25 and April 22, 1996. 6.6 Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's proposed Five Year Capital Improvement Program. 6.7 Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995, as prepared by the Auditor of Public Accounts. David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Hurnphris Forrest R. Marshall. Jr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 ¢804) 296-5843 FAX ~804} 296-5800 MEMORANDUM Charles $. Martin Rivanna Walter F, Perkins Sally H. Thomas TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk ~ June 21, 1996 Board Actions of June 19, 1996 The following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on June 19, 1996: Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Leu Bloomfield, a resident of Squirrel Ridge Subdivision, was present along with many other residents of the subdivision, to state that after a recent meeting with VDoT, they have been told that VDoT will purchase all of the homes in Squirrel Ridge if the Board of Supervisors will allow VDoT to include drawings of an interchange at Hydraulic Road in the right-of-way acquisi- tion portion of their documents. The County could remain opposed to construction of the interchange for all time. If VDoT can be allowed to purchase the homes in Squirrel Ridge without compromising the County's stand against the interchange, the residents implore the Board members to help make that purchase possible. Mrs. Humphris said she has discussed this request with the County Attorney since meeting with Mr. Bloomfield this morning. This Board will have further discussions, and she thanked everyone who came to bring this to the attention of the Board. Agenda Item No. 6.1. Appropriation: Circuit Court Records Preservation Grant, 811,202- (Form #95077). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Printed on recycled paper Robert W. Tucker, Jr. June 21, 1996 (Page 2) Item 6.5. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors for March 25 and April 22, 1996. Mrs. Thomas asked for a copy of the work plan which is referred to often in these minutes. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-96-03. Worrell Land & Cattle Co. Public Hearing on a request to amend existing agreements & proffers of ZMA-92-12, Property in NW corner of inters of Rt 250/I-64. Area recommended for office regional use in Neighborhood 3 by Comprehensive Plan. TM78,P20B,20C,20K,20M,31,32,71,71A Rivanna Dist. At the applicant's request, DEFERRED to July 10, 1996. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-96-04. Encore Investments Ltd Ptrn. Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 11 ac from CO & R-10 to PD-MC located on N sd of Rio Rd E of Putt- Putt Lane. This area is recommended for office service in Neighborhood 2 by the Corn prehensive Plan. TM61,P's 124A,124B,124C. Rio Dist. DEFERRED to July 17, 1996. The Board needs the minutes of the June 18, 1996, Planning Commission meeting; an explanation of the letter dated June 17, 1996, from H. W. Mills to Bill Fritz; more than likely, the Board will take additional comments from the public at the July 17 meeting, that will be decided by the Board at that time. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-96-08. Albemarle Board of County Supervisors - Monticello High School & Associated Public Facilities. Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 101 ac from R-I to R-15. Property just S of PVCC btwn Avon St Ext & Rt 20 S of ~-64. Property, currently designated for Iow density residential in Neighborhood 4 is proposed for institutional use in the update of the Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. TM91,P2. Scottsville Dist. APPROVED excluding that portion of the property between the proposed connector road and the Tandem School property (Tax Map 91, Parcels 2A and 2B.) Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal - SDP-96-024. Monticello High School Preliminary Site Plan. Proposal to construct a public high school with core facilities for approx 1500 students with teaching space for 1000 students, with approx 180,000 sq ft & associated athletic facilities & parking on site of approx 67 acs. Same description as ZMA-96-08. APPROVED with the following conditions: Preservation of a m~nimum 100-foot tree buffer, together with a fence at least eight feet in hei~jht on the school side of the buffer along the border of the townhouse portion of the Willow Lake Subdivision; Installation of Best Management Practices to include constructed wetlands to filter the runoff from ~aved surfaces; Robert W. Tucker, Jr, June 21, 1996 (Page 3) 3. Create wetlands in the margin of the lake to mitigate the filling of the wetlands; Retain the six fields relocating one practice field to the area on the southwest side of the lake (competiton fields may be increased to three in number); *Relocate the football field to preserve the natural drainage, unless mitigation is conducted by installation of a forebay and wetlands in the end of the lake to filter the runoff; 6. Planning Commission approval of the final plan; and There shall be no lighted fields between the high school and Piedmont Virginia Community College. *Although not included in the motion, the record will confirm that the football field will not have to be relocated because the Board agreed, by consensus, to the expense of the mitigation techniques. Agenda Item No, 11. ZTA-96-01. Public Hearing on a Resolution of Intent by the Planning Commissmn to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows: amend section 4.15.3, definition of public sign; amend section 31.2.4.2, review period for special use permit application; add section 31.2.4.2.1, limitation on filing new special use permit application after original denial; add section 31.2.4.2.2, withdrawal of special use permit application; amend section 33.7, withdrawal of petition for zoning map amendment; amend section 33.8, posting notice of hearing on zoning map amendment or special use permit on property by zoning administrator; amend section 33.8.1, posting notice of planning commission hearing on property by zoning administrator; repeal section 33.8.2, posting notice of board of supervisors hearing on property; add section 33.8.2, validation of prior notice requirements; amend section 33.8.3, maintenance and removal of signs. ADOPTED the attached ordinance with new language in Section 33.8.1. Amended sheets for the Zoning Ordinance will follow under separate cover. NOT DOCKETED: AUTHORIZED the County Attorney to retain counsel and initiate litigation to recover hospital discounts improperly retained by Trigon. LEN/mms Attachments (2) cc: Richard E. Huff Roxanne White Jo Higgins Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Amelia McCulley Larry Davis Wayne Cilimberg Jan Sprinkle Kevin Castner File APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FI/ND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NUMBER 95077 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X GRANT FUNDING FOR CIRCUIT COURT RECORDS PRESERVATION GRANT. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 115542106033100 REPAIRS & MAINT. $11~202.00 TOTAL $11,202.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2155424000240500 GRANT REVENUE $11~202.00 TOTAL $11,202.00 CIRCUIT COURT SIGNATURE REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE ORDINANCE NO. 96-20(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE 11, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained by: Amending: Section 4.15.3 Section 31.2.4.2 Section 33.7 Section 33.8 Section 33.8.1 Section 33.8.2 Definitions Special Use Permits -- Application Withdrawal of Petitions Posting of Property Posting of Property =- Planning Commission Hearing Maintenance and Removal of Signs Adding: Section 31.2.4.2.1 Section 31.2.4.2.2 Section 33.8.2 Limitation on Filing New Application After Original Denial Withdrawal of Application Validation of Prior Notice Requirements Repealing: Section 33.8.2 Posting of Property -- Board of Supervisors Hearing 4.0 4.15.3 GENERAL REGULATIONS DEFINITIONS Public Sign: Any temporary or permanent sign erected and maintained by a town, city, county, state or federal government or an authority thereof. 31.0 31.2.4,2 31,2,4.2.1 ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION APPLICATION Application for a special use permit shall be made by the filing thereof by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property with the zoning administrator, together with a fee as set forth m section 35.0 of this ordinance. No such permit shall be issued unless the board oflsupervisors shall have referred the application therefor to the commission for its recommendations. Failure of the commission to report its recommendations to the board of supervisors within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission after the application has been referred to the commission shall be deemed a recommendation of approval. Provided, however, any day between the date an applicant requests or consents to a deferral or continuance of the consideration of the application by the commission until the date of the deferred or continued hearing by the commission shall not be counted in computing the ninety (90) day review period. The board of supervisors may extend the review period upon a request by the commission. The board of supervisors shall act upon such application and render a decision within a reasonable time period. No such permit shall be issued except after notice and hearing as provided by section 15.1-431 of the Code and section 33.8 POSTING OF PROPERTY. (Amended 5-5-82) LIMITATION OF FILING NEW APPLICATION AFTER ORIGINAL DENIAL Upon denial by the board of supervisors of any application filed pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 above, substantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of denial. Ordinance No. 96-20(2) Page 2 31.2.4.2.2 WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION Any application filed pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 above may be withdrawn upon written request by the applicant. The written request must be received by the body considering the application prior to it beginning consideration of the .matter on the meeting agenda. Upon receipt of the request for withdrawal, processing of the application shall cease without fUrther action by the commission or the board. Sul~stantially the same application shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of the withdrawal unless the body considering the application at the time of withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. 33.0 AMENDMENTS 33.7 WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS Any petition filed pursuant to section 33.2.1 above, may be withdrawn upon written request by the applicant. The written request must be received by the body considering the application prior to it beginning its consideration of the matter on the meeting agenda. Upon receipt of the request for withdrawal, processing of the petition shall cease without further action by the commission or the board. Substantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of withdrawal unless the body considering the application at the time of withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. 33.8 POSTING OF PROPERTY Additional notice regarding zoning map amendments initiated pursuant to section 33.2.1 above or special use permit applications initiated pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 shall be provided by posting signs on the subject property in the manner prescribed in section 33.8.1 and section 33.8.3. However, failure to comply with the posting requirements of this section shall not invalidate any action by the commission or the board of supervisors. Ordinance No. 96-20(2) Page 3 33.8.1 33.8.2 33.8.3 POSTING OF PROPERTY - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public hearing, the zoning administrator or designee shall erect on the property specified in section 33.8 above, a sign or signs indicating the property is to be subject to public hearing and referencing how to obtain additional information regarding such hearing. The sign shall be erected within ten (10) feet of whatever boundary line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road. If more than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then s~gns shall be erected in the same manner as above on at least two boundaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. The filing of the petition or application shall be deemed to grant consent to the zoning administrator or designee to enter upon the property and to erect the signs. Upon a finding by the board of supervisors that failure to comply with the posting requirements of this section has denied the public reasonable notice of the public hearing, the board may defer action on the petition or application until reasonable notice by posting is given. VALIDATION OF PRIOR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS The adoption or amendment of any zoning map amendment or the approval of any special use permit shall not be declared invalid by reason of a failure to post notice as may have been required under pnor prowslons of section 31.2.4.2 and section 33.8, provided a public hearing was conducted by the board of supervisors prior to such adoption, amendment, or approval. MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF SIGNS The applicant shall exercise due diligence to protect the sign or signs erected pursuant to section 33.8 from vandalism and theft; maintain the sign or signs in the location or locations in an erect position as placed by the zoning administrator or designee; and ensure that such sign or signs remain legible. Failure to comply Ordinance No, 96-20(2) Page 4 with these responsibilities may be grounds for the commission or the board of supervisors to defer action on the Petition or application until there is reasonable compliance, Any sign erected pursuant to section 33.8 shall remain the property of the board of supervisors. It shall be unlawful for any person, except the applicant performing maintenance required by this section Or the zoning administrator or an authorized agent of either, to remove or tamper with any sign erected pursuant to section 33.8. All such signs shall be removed by the zoning administrator or designee within fifteen (15) days following the board of supervisors' final action on the petition or application or the applicant's withdrawal of the petition or application. I, Ella W. CareY, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on June 19, 1996. Clerk, Board of County S~pervisors Ordinance No. 96-20(2) Page 5 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors ~I)1 McIntire Road Charlottes~le, Virgiffm 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 ~RD Or' SU~ E~ ~V~O, ~ July 18, 1996 Mr. Ron Keeney 321 Squirrel Ridge Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Keeney: The BOard of Supervisors listened with concern and interest, carefully and attentively when Squirrel Ridge Homeowners appeared at our meet'rog of June 19. We have read letters ant by some of tho residents and read the article which appeared in The Daily Progress. In addition, Mr. Bowerman and I had along and beneficial .m. eeting with Mr. and M~s~ Bloomfield. We do understand tho position of the Squirrel Ridge Homeowners and we are very sympathetic to your plight. However, the posirion which Vir~nla Department of Transportation offidals encouraged the homeowner~ to take is in direct conflict with an extremely important and long- standing county position. At its meeting on July 3, our board had no other objective than to reiterate that position at the place on the agenda when we regularly take up transportation matters. There was no intent whatsoever to prevent public participation. We had heard from the public and we simply responded that we were not going to change our position for the reasons stated in the resolution. The resolution makes clear again to the Virginia Department of Transportation that we believe the construction of an interchange so close to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir would pose serious risks to that major water supply;, that it would cause serious problems by pr.o~.oting residential development.in the watershed and commercial development in the wci~ty of the interchange in conflict with our Comprehensive Plan; and that it would direct a large new flow of traffic through.our most densely develop~ residential neighborhoods, something we are determined to avoid, In addifio~ at would turn a bypass into a lo~al road, creating a need in the future for another bypass, something which we are also determined to avoid. Please note that the resolution refers to the county's desire "to minimiz~ the impact on the Squirrel Rid. g.e Subdivision to the greatest extent possl"ole eonsisteflt with the protection of the dnnldng water reservoir and the greater public interests)' (~h~ ~a~d) Printed on recycled paper Mr. Ron Keeney .luly 18, 1996 Page 2 The Rt. 29 Bypass Citizens Advisory Committee, although appointed by the Metroporltan Planning Organization Policy Board, works with VDoT and its design consultant and does not report to the MPO. Its members are charged with reporting to their individual neighborhoods to keep them updated and to receive input to take back to the committee. The minutes of the various committees appointed by the MPO are, of course, available in the MPO office, but the MPO Policy Board members read only the minutes of the MPO Technical Committee and the Policy Bo~d. Hannah Twaddell, an employee of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission who staffs the MPO, provides us with brief updates of the committees' work when she thinks it is appropriate. It is certainly understandable that the Squirrel Ridge Neighborhood and all the other neighborhoods in the corridor are tremendously upset at the destruction which will occur as a result of the construction of the proposed bypass. Losing one's home or being let to live in it betide a highway is extremely painful and very difficult to deal with, we know, and we share that distress with your neighborhood and the others in the corridor. However, the Board of Supervisors has an obligation to look at the entire situation and act - in what it firmly believes is in the best interest of the furore of the whole community. That cannot, of course, satisfy everyone who is affected, but we do hope that everyone will understand, even if they do not agree. Sincerely yours, Chairman pc: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Mr. and Mrs. Louis Bloomfield COPY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. PeWxins Sally H. Thomas MEMO TO= FROM: DATE: SUBJECT= Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CM~_~ June 24, 1996 AppropriatiOn Approved on June 19, 1996 At the Board's meeting on June 19, 1996, the following appropri- ation was approved: Funding for Circuit Court Records preservation Grant, Form #95077° $11,202.00, len/ Attachment cc: Shelby J. Marshall Printed on recycled paper AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Grant COUNTY OF ALBEMARF T o[ B[u "[t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: Request approval of appropriation ¢f-95077 in the amount of $11,202.00 for funding of the Circuit Court Records Preservation Grant. AGENDA DATE: June 19, 1996 ACTION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden ITEM NUMBER:~ INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA~ ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: DISCUSSION: The Library of Virginia has approved a grant in the amount of $11,202.00 to repair and preserve books and records in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office. This project and grant will be administered by Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court during the period of June 1, 1996 to November 30, 1996. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriation for this grant in the amount of $11,202.00 as detailed on attached form #95077. 96.103 FISCAL YEAR TYPE OF APPROPRIATION 95/96 95077 ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? APPROPRIATION REQ{TEST NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO X X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ~ FUNDING FOR CIRCUIT COURT RECORDS PRESERVATION GRANT. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 115542106033100 REPAIRS & MAINT. $11,202.00 TOTAL $11,202.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2155424000240500 GRAi~T REVENI/E $11,202~00 TOTAL $11,202.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CIRCUIT COURT S I GNATURE DATE TO: STATE COMPENSATION BOARD FOR: MONTH OF MAY, 1996 STATEMENT OF EXPENSES DEPARTMENT COUNTY STATE TOTAL SHARE SHARE Department of Finance -0- -0- -0- Sheriff -0- -0- -0- Commonwealth ' s Attorney - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Regional Jail -0- -0- -0- Clerk, Circuit Court -0- 2,735.73 2,735.73 NOTE: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in which the State Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and are not the total office expenses of these departments. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT June 10, 1996 The Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman, Board o£ Snpervfsors County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V/rginla 22902 Robert T. Skunda ~ecretary of Commerce and Trade Warren C, Smith Director Dear Ms. Humphris: Thank you for submitting a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) proposal in the 1996 competition. The Department of Housing and Community Development has completed its review of the CDBG proposals received in the first round o£ competition. An objective rating system was used to judge the applications. Of the 1,000 points available fit the rating system, your pro~ ect rec(lved 766 points. Grant offers have been made to local governments with projects rating 817 points or higher. The 'Deparanent received Colm~aunity Improvement Grant proposals from seventy-six localities amounting ro $52,713,283/n ftmding requests. Although the applications were for very worthwhile pro~ecrs, grant offers could be made to only rwemy-nme cmmnmfities with the $12,750,480 available. If you would like to discuss the review process or the rafi~g of your applicafio~ please contact Mr. Batty Brown of the CDBG Technical Assistance Office at (804~ 371-7030. He will be happy to assist you. cci We appreciate your Laterest in the Virg/nia Community Development Block Grant Progrmn. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Sincerel~ a- Dlrector 501 North Second Street, The Jackson Center, Richmond, VA 232194 321 · (804) 371-7000 · FAX (804~ 371-7090 · 'Fi'P [804) 371-7089 "Revitalizing Virginia's Inner Cities and Rural Communities" 'ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY P.O BOX 1OO9 168 SPOTNAP F~D. CHARLO~fESVILLE VA 22902 · (804) '977-4511 FAX (804) 979-0698 - June 11, 1996 Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building CharlottesVille, Virginia Ladies' and Gentlemen: I am enclosing for your information a copy of ACSA's proposed Five Year Capital Improvement Program. A public hearing on the CIP is scheduled for 9:15 a.m., June 20, 1996 at our office. If you have any questions about any of these projects please give me a call. Executive Dkector JWB/lbt c.c: Bob Tucker ¥ , :: ' %~© OF SUP~i~,w~'m'~} ..~T,RE~ COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS BEYOND JULY 1, 2001 PROJECT' COST A/RPORT ACRES SEWER BISCUIT RUN INTERCEPTOR BUCKINGHAM CIRCLE SEWER BELLAIR LIBERTY HILL SEWER CARRSBROOK COLT~CTOR SYSTEM CHAPEL HILL SEWER EDNAM FOREST SEWER SCOTTSVILLE EXPANSION SEWER STONY POINT SEWER HESSIAN HILLS SEWER PHASE III CAMELOT SEWER/WWTP REPL. OAK HILL WATER REPL. DEERWOOD SEWER PHASE II GLENORCHY WATER OAK HILL SEWER $365, 000 $ 120.00/LF $265,000 $610,000 $750,000 $210,000 $1,240,000 $365,000 $280,000 $ 72,000 NOT AV-A-I LAB LE $143,600 $186,650 $ 96,000 $1,000,000 Projected Revenue For Capital Projects July 1, 1996 - June 30, 1998 Source 1. Beginning Balance Capital Improvement Fund 2. FY '97 Sm~ll Capital Improvement Funds 3. FY '98 Small Capital Improvement Funds 4. FY '97 Depreciation 5. FY '98 Depreciation Water $861,920 271,740 271,740 396,000 396,000 Purpose Sewer $912,701 188,836 188,836 504,000 504,000 TOTAL $2,197,400 $2,298,373 ~T,REMABT~ COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JULY 1, 1996 - JUNE 30, 1998 Project' Water Project Cost/Type Sewer New Replacement New Replacement 1. Utility Mapping $40,000 2. Painting Ednam Tank $42,000 3. Nob Hill Water Repl. 28,000 4. Albemarle Square Sewer 5. Camelot Sewer Replacement 6. PRV Vault Repl. 44,000 7. Woodbrook Sewer 8. Berkeley Sewer Repl. 9. Deerwood Sewer, Phase I 10. Miscellaneous 95,000 11. Flordon-Farmington Water 147,675 299,825 12. Crutchfield Water 64,000 13. Airport Acres Water 275,000 14. Oak Hill Water 100,000 15. Pig Ragged Mtn. Line 44,000 16. West Leigh Water 131,000 118,000 17. Developer Participation/ Contingency 384,450 $525,000 340,560 $147,600 248,000 427,000 384,450 305,106 305,107 Cost By Project Type $1,142,125 $1,055,275 $1,170,666 $1,127,707 Total Projects $2,197,400 $2,298,373 Available Resources $2,197,400 $2,298,373 Balance/Deficiency $0 $0 Projected Revenues For Capital Projects July 1, 1998 - June 30, 2001 Source (1) FY '99 Small'Capital Improvement Funds (2) FY 2000 Small Capital Improvement Funds (3) FY 2001 sm~ll Capital Improvement Funds (4) FY '99 Depreciation (5) FY 2000 Depreciation (6) FY 2001 Depreciatlon Purpose Water $ 271,740 $ 271,740 $ 271,740 $ 396,000 $ 396,000 $ 396,000 Sewer $ 188,836 $ 188,836 $ 188,836 $ 504,000 $ 504,000 $ 504,000 $2,003,220 $2,078,508 ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JULY 1, 1998 - JUNE 30, 2001 PROJECT WATER NEW PROJECT COST/TYPE REPLACEMENT NEW SEWER REPLACEMENT 1. Ednam Forest Water 24,600 2. Northfields Water 3. Mapping 100,000 4. Crozet Sewer Completion 5. Miscellaneous 6. Northfields Sewer Phase II 7. Developer Participation/ Contingency 714,310 Cost by Project Type $838,910 250,000 200,000 714,310 $1,16~, 310 Total Projects $2,003,220 Available Resources $2,003,220 Balance Deficiency $0 100,000 116,000 1,150,000 356,254 356,254 $1,722,.254 $356,254 $2,078,508 $2,078,508 $0 AGENDA ITEM NO. ,~, ~,~' DATE: ff ITEM NAME: PAPERWORK AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: ITEM NAME: -THIS i'i:~-~'~-i~2A~-rqG PAPERWORK,/~//~c~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Communit~ Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-Zl,596 (804} 296-5823 May I7,1996 Jo Higgins Director of Engineering 401 MeIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: ZMA-96-08 Monticello High School Tax Map 91, Parcel 2 Dear Ms. Higgins: The Albemarle Cotmty Planning Conunission, at its meeting on May 14, 1996~ unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this was approved as proposed except excluded that part of the property between the proposed connector road and the Tandem School property (Tax Map 91, Parcels 2A and 2B). Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 12,_1996. 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, Ron. ald A. Lilly Semor Planner RAL/jcf cc: Ella Carey Amelia MeCulley STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: RON LH~LEY MAY 14, 1996 JUNE 12, 1996 ZMA 96-08..alhamarle County_ Board of Su_nervisors fApplicam~ Monticello l-lioh School and Associated Public Facilities SDP 96-024. Monticello High School ~ Albemarle County intends to locate a new high school and other public facilities on the 107 acre parcel just south of Piedmont Virginia Community College. Since the high school is designed to be taller than the 35' maximum height allowed in the R-1 district (the present zoning of the parcel), a rezoning to the R-15 district, which has a 65' maximum height, would allow for the high school as designed. The entire County property is approximately 107 acres and the high school site would use approximately 67 acres of that. About 6 acres of the County property are planned for the new Connector Road from Route 20 to Avon Street. The remaining acreage (approximately 34 acres) is imended for other public facilities, which would be allowed in any zoning district and are not expected to need more height allowance than the present zoning provides, but for purposes of consistency and simplicity on the zoning map, the remaining County property, is also included in this request for R-15 zoning. Petition: To rezone Tax Map 91, Parcel 2 from R-I, Residential to R-15, Residential and to grant preliminary site plan approval for the High School site plan. The property is located just south of Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC), between Avon Street Extended and State Route 20, south of Interstate 64, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is currently designated for Low Density Residential use in Urban Area Neighborhood 4 and is proposed for Institutional use in the draft update of the Land Use Plan (see Attachment A). Character of the Area: The property is presently vacant, with soma open space, some substantial stands of trees, and a substantial pond on the property, and is surrounded by a variety of uses, including Willow Lake townhouses and Lakeside Apartments, PVCC, the Tandem School. and some Industrial uses along Avon Street.. A neighborhood-scale shopping center has been proposed for the property immediately west of the subject property along Avon Street. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval, including approval of several site plan modification/waiver requests. The high school design calls for portions of the building to be on the order of 50' above the finiahed grade (with:variations in grade, some portions may be considered more than 50' above grade). The possibility of obtaining a variance for the height was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator m consultation with the County Attorney and was considered an undesirable approach for resolving the height problem and an alternative of rezoning the property to a more appropriate zoning district has been recommended (see Attachment B). Based on an evaluation of other zoning districts in light of height allowances, the existing and proposed Land Use Plan recommendations, inter-disttict buffer requirements, and existing traffic studies, the R-15, Residential District has been recommended by Count), staff as the most appropriate district for the County property. While all districts allow public facilities, the R-15 district allows a building height of 65'. and requires only a 15' side yard (with a possible reduction to 10'), whereas districts such as CO, Commercial Office require a 50' buffer from adjacent residential districts, which account for the majority of the adjacent properties in this case, which could have the unintended consequence of rendering certain areas of the property unusable. Also, the R-15 district is more in keeping with existing zoning in the area and with the assumptions of the traffic study supporting the Avon Street/Route 20 Connector Road. The major issues for this rezonlng are: - consistency with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan - impact on adjoining properties These will be addressed in mm. Issues of impac~ on public facilities and of fiscal impact are not addressed in this report since no residential facilities are proposed and infrastructure impacts (roads, water/sewer) have already been considered as part of the review of the public facilities for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The specific site development plan issues are addressed following the rezonmg comments. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed public facilities on this site for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (15.1-456 Review) on December 19, 1995 and unanimously found the proposal to be in compliance with the Plan. While the zoning district itself was not reviewed at that time, the uses would be the sarae regardless of zoning district. As noted, the Comprehensive Plan presently designates this area for Low Density Residential use, with the draft update of the Plan designating the area for Institutional use. While the R-15 district is not in keeping with the Low Density recommendation, the uses proposed are consistent. Also, of the districts that allow building heights of more than 35', R-15 is considered the most consistent with the districts nearby (Lakeside Apa~mtents is zoned PRD with an R-10 density and Willow Lake is zoned R4). Also, the R-15 district is in keeping with the assumptions of the traffic study supporting the Avon Street/Route 20 Connecwr Road. Imnact on Adioinine Prooerties In terms of expected uses on this property, the impact to adjoining properties from this zoning district as opposed to the present zoning district is unchanged. The height of the high school would not be allowed to exceed 35' in the R-1 district, but given the 2 setbacks, buffers, and overall design, the height allowed under R-15 is not expected to adversely impact adjoining properties. There should still be adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, which are cited in the Zoning Ordinance as purposes of height restrictions. The height of the high school is largely due to sustainable design features such as clerestory levels for natural fighting and the higher building allows for a smaller overall footprint, allowing less grading and greater setbacks from adjoining properties than would be achievable otherwise. Therefore, staff opinion is that this rezoning will not adversely impact adjoining properties. SITE PLAN COMMENT~; A reduced version of the site plan is included as Attachment C. The primary issues for the high school site plan are the proximity of the playfields to Willow Lake and several modifications/waivers of Zoning Ordinance design standards. The Architectural Review Board has also considered this site plan and noted concerns about lighting and landscaping. Regarding the proximity to Willow Lake, the competition play fields are located about 80' from the Willow Lake property line, with some trees and a fence between the fields and Willow Lake, with the fields being approximately 10' below the property line elevation. A resident of Willow Lake has expressed serious concern about the potential effect on the residents of Willow Lake due to this proximity and concern about the loss of an existing stand of trees on the school property along the Willow Lake property line. Those comments are provided as Attachment D. The school design team has indicated that the number and location of play fields has been carefully determined and that there xs very little room for relocation. Staff opinion is that, given the trees that will remain and the fence that will be installed and the elevation and nature of the uses on the play fields, there should not be an unreasonable level of impact on the Willow Lake residents. No lights or bleachers are planned for these fields. Regarding the waivers/modifications, the following waivers are necessary: - grading of critical slopes [section 4.2.2.2] - one-way circulation [ section 4.12.6.2] - parking space distance from entrances [section 4.12.3.4] - curvilinear parking [section 4.12.6.5] ~ The request for allowance of grading on critical slopes is provided as Attachmem E and the Engineering Depa~haent's comments on the request are provided as Attachment F. The Engineering Depaxtment is supportive of the request. Planning staff opinion is that the resources that would be disturbed are not identified as important in the Open Space Plan except for a small part of the drainage swale leading to the stormwater pond, where the stadium is proposed to be located. The design team has indicated that the swale area would be engineered and graded to mininuze the degradation of the channel, and staff opinion is that, based on the criteria for waiver identified in 4.2.5.2 (comparable protection afforded by design solution, topography of site provides little alternative, and a greater public purpose will be served by the provision of a public school), the purposeg of the Zoning Ordinance would not be furthered by the strict application of this standard. One- Way Circulation The request for allowance of one-way circulation for the bus loop and the parem drop-off area is provided as Attachmem G and the Engineering Deparunent comments on the request are included with as Attachment F. The Engineering Depatiment is supportive of the request provided that adequate directional controls are in place. Planning staff opinion is that such arrangements are related to the peculiar character of the proposed use and are not uncommon for public schools and therefore supports the request. Parking Space Distance to Entrances The first phase of the high school requires 333 parking spaces, all of which are supposed to be within 500 feet of an entrance to the budding. For the first phase, 258 spaces are provided within 500' of the building and 232 additional spaces are provided at the stadium area, which is 800'-1000' feet from the nearest building entrance. The second phase requires 500 spaces and would provide 422 within 500' of the building. The design team indicates that the parking areas are phased to provide a reasonable balance of spaces near the school budding and spaces near the stadium and ballfields, as well as to limit the grading necessary for parking pads for the first phase. The design team also notes that achieving the required number of spaces within the normally required distance from the building is not typical for County high schools, particularly with the need to have a bus loading area near the school. Staff opinion is that, for the portion of required spaces not located within 500' of a building entrance, the public interest and convenience would be equally or better served by the proposed arrangemem and would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice, and therefore supports the modification. ~]Jllgtt~L~lJl~ Areas of the parking lots adjacent to the proposed connector road follow the curve of the road and an area of the lot adjacent to the bus loop also has a mild curve. The design team indicates that this is an attempt to use the available space on the site as efficiently as possible and follow the contours of the site as much as possible. The curved areas are mild curves and do not pose any hazard for circulation in the lots so staff supports this modification as well. Building Height If the R-15 zoning request is approved, the building height will meet the maximum height regulations of the zoning district. Architectural Review Board The ARB reviewed this site plan on May 6, 1996 and a copy of their action letter is provided as Attachment H. The ARB has reserved the right to review the final lighting plan and the final landscaping plan. SUMMARY: Based on the types of uses intended for this property, the general compatibility with nearby zoning districts, and consistency with previous traffic study assumptions, staff opinion is that the proposed zoning is appropriate. Staff opinion ~s that the requested site plan waivers/modifications for grading on critical slopes, one-way circulation, distance of parking to entrances, and curvilinear parking, as shown on the preliminary site plan, can all be supported with the understanding that adequate directional devices will be provided to control the one-way circulation areas, and that preliminary site plan approval can be granted. Recommended Actions: Approval of the rezoning (ZMA 96-08) and approval of the preliminary site plan (SDP 96-024) with approval of the four waiver/modification requests (critical slopes, one- way circulation, distance of parking spaces to building enmmces, and curvilinear parking, as shown on the preliminary site plan). ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Zoning Administrator letter regard'rog variance C - Site Plan reduction D - Letter from Adjoiner E - Critical Slopes waiver request F - Eng. Dept. comments on waiver requests G - One-way circulation request H - ARB action letter i:\generaBshare\lilley~ighsch2.rez [ ,A,'r'rAc:Ht4..'r.I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning, Room 22~ 401 Mclntim Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972403~ TDD (8O4) 972-4012 TO: FROM: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ron Lilley, Planner Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator~'01/~ DATE: April 9, 1996 Monticello High School Height Variance This is to confirm in writing our separate conversations regarding varying the building height requirement for Monticello High School within the current zoning district. As I understand, the proposed building will exceed the 35 foot height maximum by approximately 20 feet. I have mentioned that my preliminary conclusion in reviewing such a request would result in negative findings of the satisfaction of the criteria necessary for approval of the variance. [, therefore, recommend that this property either be rezoned to a more appropriate zoning district or that a zoning text amendment be reviewed for pubic uses such as this. The State Code specifies that approval of a variance necessitates findings of special conditions unique to the property itself. The property owner must show that the property is of exceptional narrowness, size, shape, exceptional topographic condition or other extraordinary situation, such that strict application of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or restrict the use of the propemy. In addition to undue hardship, review under the State Code requires finding that the hardship is not shared generally and will not change the character of the district nor be detrimental to adjacent properties. The facts of this situation would not satisfy all the criteria. Design goals influenced building location and features. Planning based on enrollment and facility needs guided site plan development. These do not satisfy all of the variance criteria as were dictated by the State Code. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. AGM/st cc: Reading File l:\general\s hare~zoningXamelia\mhighseh.mem 966~ ~ ~ 1996 ATTACHMENT,. D1 1296 Maple View Drive Charlottesville VA 22902 (804) 979-1761 TO: Men~oers of the Planning Co~mmission Members of the Board of Education My nam~ is Eileen Brand. I live at 1296 Maple View Drive in the Willow Lake Subdivision. I have lived in that beautiful setting for ten years. This memo is to inform Planning Commission members of concerns relevant to Monticello High School, It is also to bring Board of Education members up to date on 'infoz~nation I didn't yet have when I spoke to their meeting on April 1, and to thank them for their courtesies. First, though~ let me repeat that I am delighted that A~bemarte county is about to have a new high school and I congratulate all responsible for the plans for the new building. It is, as Mr. Reaser says, a ~wonderful and exciting design." I am especially grateful for the Sustainable Design Strategies, which offer economies in operation and will utilize and protect our environment. THE PROBLEM IN A NUTSHELL. The new Monticello High School will be adjacent to portions of the Willow Lake cor~nunity (hereafter, Willow Lake). Plans for the grounds of Monticello High School show that most of the woods behind our service road for Maple View Drive are to be ripped down, and a ~Competition Field" is to be installed just 20 feet behind our boundary line. THE WOODS TO BE DESTROYED: The woods behind me and my neighbors' homes are from 140 to 150 fee~ deep. Present plans call BUT A 20-FOOT STRIP OF WOODS TO BE CLEAR-CUT. The natural buffer of woods in their present depth of 140-50 feet looks just fine. A 20-foot strip of the existing trees would look more scraggly than a teen-ager's mustache. Because this a natural forest, with majestic trees and stripling trees and fallen trees, it is not dense--20 or even 40 feet will not fulfill the function of buffer and screen. F~r aesthetic as well as utilitarian and ecological reasons, the full depth of 140-150 feet is essential. The environmental loss (laying waste to several acres of trees) would be incalculable. As I said in my April 1 memo, it is ironic that, while ecological safeguards permeate the building plans, this environmental desecration (razing the forest, raping the land) is projected. What becomes of the wildlife? What about the birds? How much more air pollution will we get from taking those trees down? What of the expense of killing and removing all those trees? Why not keep the trees and bushes that exist and save money? Why not preserve this natural buffer that will help protect our community from noise pollution, light pollution, air pollution, and maybe worse? THE WOODS ARE TO BE DESTROYED FOR PLAYING FIELDS: Several acres of woods are doomed in favor of soccer fields. The University of Virginia has ten soccer fields (8 recreational fields and 2 primary practice fields for the UVA teams) for some students. Compare this with 4 soccer fields for Monticello High School with a projected 1,000 students--ultimately 1,500. Some would say it's disproportionate--that so many soccer fields don't warrant killing several acres of t~ees--and would call for eliminating one or two soccer fields. But perhaps neither trees nor soccer fields need be sacrificed. Suppose, for example, your service road was only half as long as it is diagramed. It would still allow access to all four fields but it would shorten by half the land set aside for service road (which on the small ~p looks to be about half the width of a soccer field). Also it appears that the soccer fields could be moved farther toward Avon. Surely some solution can be found that won't involve destroying forest land. THE BOUNDARY LINE SEPARATING MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL GROUNDS FROM THE WILLOW LAKE DEVELOPMENT: Willow Lake residents have had experience already with an institutional boundary line. Here is what some Willow Lake homeowners suffered from baseball games played across the service road from them at Piedmont until eventually we hired an attorney 'to protect our rights and the peace of our community: (1) People used our community as a car park. (2) People used our porches as urinals. (3) Houses were damaged by foul balls. Sometimes still are. Automobiles sustained dents and broken windows. Residents feared personal injury. (4) There was unavoidably a lot of noise and light pollution. It should go without saying that adequate toilet facilities need to be accessible to the playing fields, and the playing fields should be far enough away that noise and lights (if they may be znstalled) will not keep small children awake at night and disturb nearby householders at Willow Lake. WE~NEED A FENCE so students can't treat Willow Lake as an extension of their campus and set up patterns of trespassing that will be hard to eradicate. Without a high, strong fence there is a potential for additional insurance costs, for disciplinary issues, for police intervention, for friction and litigation, that will work a hardship on school authorities, students, County officials, law enforcement officers, and our residents. I propose that we have an eight-foot ~ vinyl-coated Cyclone fence so situated that students cannot trespass on Willow Lake environs. According to Orme Fence Co., Il-gauge galvanized fence eight feet high with green vinyl coating is about equal in strength and durability to 9-gauge galvanized fence eight feet high without vinyl coating, and IT IS ONE DOLLAR PER LINEAR FOOT LESS EXPENSIVE than 9-gauge galvanized fence. In other words it would be cheaper to use a green vinyl-coated fence than the re_cular calvanized fence, and it would look a In addition, the boundary should be marked with, first, fL3J~_SCD/~ D_~ and, behind that row of trees, the green vinyl-coated fence. And behind that the existing 140- to 150-foot-deep woods everywhere it now appears. Example: Young, small, fast-growing Leyland cypress trees could be planted six feet apart for $500 to $600 (or less) per 100 feet around the Monticello High School-Willow Lake boundary. Such a line of trees in front of a green fence is important to the beauty of the high school grounds as well as to the Willow Lake community, so neither students nor Willow Lake residents will look out on a prison-like scene. It would offer aid to people living near parts of the boundary where there is now no existing strip of trees {for example, Willow Lake Drive residents, some of whom will be exceedingly close to the school buildings). Planting trees along the boundary also will help make amends for environmental damages caused wherever trees are sacrificed for the high school and grounds. Maybe the following diagram of my boundary proposal and the enclosed rough map will be helpful. MONTICELLO SOCCER FIELDS 140-50 foot-deep * ** ** * ** ** * ** *** ** ** ** * * * existing-tree * * * * * ** ** ** *** ** ** ** * * * Green Fence New-Planted Trees * Boundary Line ============================================== Service Road for Maple View Drive Willow Lake tow~uhomes 1296,1294,1291,1290,1286,1284,1282,1280,1276,1274,1272,1270 I greatly appreciate all you have done to insure a beautiful school design. I hope your decisions on the grounds and boundary issues will reflect everything the school design offers: a love of beauty, meticulous attention to environmental concerns, and dedication to the needs of the students and the community. Sincerely, Eileen Brand Again, I invite you to stop in for a cup of tea if you come to see the area I've been describing, and I'll show you the lovely garden I've been working in for a decade. I hope it never gets trampled over. Waiver Request DATE: TO: FROM: RE: March 25, 1996 Albemarle County Planning Department Stephen D. Hostetler P.E,; TIMMONS Monticello High School - Critical Slope Waiver The purpose of this memo is to request a waiver from the eritical slope ordinance (section 32.3,11,4) prohibiting construction on steep sloped areas for the referenced project. ~Pae following concerns and explanations are submitted for your consideration: Cortcem over raoid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock. · The project will ulilize permanent stabilization measures mad well established construction practices to prevent this movement, Concern over excessive stormwater nm-offi · The project site includes an existing stormwater managom~at pond which will be modifi~l to accommodate this project as well as future development within its drainage area. Concern over siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water. The construction wilt utilize proper erosion comrol and permanent stabilization measures, The existing pond, which is to be upgraded as part of this proJect, will act as a buffer for downstream bodies of water. Concern of loss of aesthetic resources. · The project will involve considerable effort and expense in making this an attractive site to match with it's surrounding. Concern over the danger of sentic swstem failure. · The project will involve the construction of a public sanitary sewer system; therefore, drainfield failure will not be an issue, If you should have any questions or comments concerning this request, please fe~I free to contact me at (804) 379 - 6161. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE IATTACHPIENT F 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Ron Lilley, Senior Planner /~ Jack M. Kelsey, P.E., Chief of Engineering~ 7 May 1996 RE: Monticello Itigh School, SDP 964124 One Way Circulation Aisle Waiver The Engineering Department has reviewed the request for one way circulation through the bus loop and the drop-off area. This type of circulation is typically used at school facilities because it provides for the most efficient flow of traffic during peak times. In the mornings, buses and passenger vehicles are able to conveniently enter their designated loops, discharge their passengers, and then exit quickly and smoothly. In the afternoons, this pattern allows the loaded buses to exit in a rapid, orderly fashion and minimize the period of interference with street traffic. This request is consistent with the application of good engineering judgement and with the practices of other school facilities within the County. Therefore, the Engineering Department recommends approval of this request for one way circulation. The areas of critical slopes that will be impacted by this project are located primarily within em'sting swales and gullies or are embankments along the existing access roads. Most of the final slopes will be much flatter than the existing slopes and will alleviate the concerns for rapid, large scale movement of soil and provide better control of the On the west side of the northern projection of the proposed school a fall slope will be constructed on the existing critical slope area~ On the final site plan and the erosion & sediment control plan, provisions shall be made to: minimize the mount of stormwater runoff that may flow over this slope; stabilize the ~lope with a good stand of vegetation; and to protect the downstream areas from large scale movement of soil and sedimentation. MI~.MORANDUM RE: Monticello High School, SDP 96-024 7 May 1996 Page Two Page 21 In regard to the loss of an aesthetic resource, most of the critical slope areas impacted are small gullies and access road embankments. We do not view these as aesthetic resources. We do feel that the critical slopes adjacent to the stormwater management pond do have an aesthetic value. In the design ofthis site, a great deal of effort has been expended to minimize the impact on these critical slope areas. The Engineering Department is satisfied that the concerns specified in Section 4.2 Critical Slopes have been adequately addressed. Therefore, we recommend approval of this request for modification of the regulations. Please contact me, at your earliest convenience, should you have questions or require additional information regarding any of the matters discussed above. Waiver Request DATE: TO: FROM: RE: March 25, 1996 Albemarle County Planning Department Stephen D. Hostefler P.E.; 'rIMMONS Monticello High School -One Way Circulation Aisle Waiver The purpose of this memo is to request a vtaiwr from the intexnal circulation ordinance (section 4.12.6 ~,) prohibiting consWactinn of one-way circulation aisles in the parking lot for the refarenced project. There are two areas proposed to have one-way circulation: the bus loop and the parent drop off area, The bus loop area will not have public access during the times that busses are using it, therefore the traffic pattern should not create any confusion to the general public. Th~ minimum lane width proposed for the bus loop aisle is 24'. The parent drop off loop will be a one way aisle fed off of the incoming lane of the boulevard entrance to the school. There should be little confusion with this are~, since it will be clearly signed. The minimum lane width for the parent drop offinop is 26', which wRl allow a vehicle to pass another vehicle that is stopped for a pickup. If you should have any questions or commen~ concerning this request, please feel flee to contact me a~ (804) 379 ~ 6161. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zo~ng, Room 223 401 Mclntire Road Chaflottesville~ Vir~ia 22902-4596 (8041 296.5875 FAX I804) 972-4035 TDD (804] 972-4012 May 7, 1996 Andy Sterling Engineering and Public Works Department Re: Monticello High School Site and Building Plans Dear Andy: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted plans at its meeting on Monday, May 6, 1996. The board offered the following suggestions: 1) They reserved the right to review the external lighting proposed for all purposes on the site. 2) They would like the Planning Commission to consider maximizing the buffer between Willow Lake and the high school site, 3) They would like the designer to explore moving the parking near the playing fields to allow for more green space between the parking areas. 4) They spoke to reducing the impact of the parking in the front of the building by placing more planting areas within the parking area 5) They requested a continuation of street tree planting to include the area in front of the stadium. 6) They would like to explore including this new road into the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. 7) They e×pressed a concern about the number of playing fields proposed on the site. 8) They expressed concern about the pressures that may occur on this road for rezoning requests. The board also expressed the sentiment that the site design and building represent a very good }ob of trying to fit a multi purpose mandate on a d'ffiicult site, and still respecting some of the larger trees. The building was also described as one that can be used as an example for other developers proposing large scale buildings in the community, If you have questions concerning any of the above, please call me. Monticello High School May 7, 19962 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 {804) 296-5843 FAX [804 296-5800 May 24, 1996 Charles S. Martin Walter F Perkin.~ Sail. H. Thomas Albemarle County Service Authority Hurt investment Co, Susan L. Jaber Elizabeth B. Smatl Sandra W. Scarr Linde J. Har['ison or Donald I=. Rami Luis Alejandro Ferrste Pedro or Teresa Sbanez Maw Alice Ftynn Hiiicrest Land Trust RepubLic Homes Investment Co. Calvary Baptist Church Brandermi~l Investments. inc, GLenn or Bonnie Bailey Eileen S. Brand The House Land Trust Sandra L. Gubin Roy 0. Brewer Michael or Christie Graf Hossein Etemad L. C. Kimco The Tandem School Commonwealth of Virginia Gin Deangelis Sharon Kelly Barbara Louise Hobbs Jerry or Melissa Rainey Christine Beston Leslie P. Diggs Richard or Toni Vines Mike D, or Yvonne T. Griffin Lakeside Associates Liability WilLow Lake Owners Assoc Re: ZMA-96-08, Monticello High School and Associated Facilities Monticello High School Preliminary Site Plan ApPeal Ladies and Gentlemen: This will give notice that the above noted petitions have been scheduled to be heard by the Board of County Supervisors on JUNE 19, 1996, at its meeting which begins at 7:00 P.M. in Room 235, Albemarle County Office BuildinG. Please note that this is a different meeting time from that originally sent to you. If you have any questions, please call me at 296-5843, Sincerely, _ Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cle'~ Board of County Superwsors EWC:len CC,* V. Wayne Cilimberg Kevin Castner Larry Davis Printed on recgc[ed paper ALBEMARLE couNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY P O BOX ;1009 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 HURT INVESTMENT CO P O BOX 8147 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH OF CHARLOI-r ESVILLE CIO NORMAN R MITCHELL 1675 AVON ST EXTD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 BRNADERMILL INVESTMENTS, INC 2401 HYDRAULIC RD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 COMMONWF_ALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE BD OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES RT. 6 BOX lA CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 GIA DEANGELIS 1420 WILLOW LAKE DRIVE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 SUSAN L JABER 1430 WILLOW LAKE DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 GLENN OR BONNIE BAILEY 1440 WILLOW LAKE DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 SHARON KELLY 1450 WILLOW LAKE DR CHARLO~I '1ESVILLE, VA 22902 ELIZABETH B. sMALL 1460 WILLOW LAKE DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 EILEEN S BRAND 1296 MAPLE VIEW DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 BARBARA LOUISE HOBBS 850 HUNTING LODGE DR MIAMI SPRING, FL 33166 SANDRA W SCARR 2636 CAPSTONE DR MONTGOMERY, AL 36106 THE HOUSE LAND TR MARY C HUEY, 'IR 1215 MAPLE VIEW DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 JERRY OR MELISSA RAINEY P O BOX 7945 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 UNDA J HARRISON OR DONALD E. RAMI 1284 MAPLE VIEW DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 SANDRA L GUBIN 1282 MAPLE VIEW DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 CHRISTINE BEETON 1280 MAPLE VIEW DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LUIS ALEJANDRO FERRATE 1946 MICAHEL PL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 ROY D BREWER 1274 MAPLE VIEW DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LESLIE P. DIGGS 1272 MAPLE VIEW DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 PEDRO OR TERESA IBANEZ 1270 MAPLE'ViEW DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 MICHAEL OR CHRISTIE GRAF 1266 MAPLE VIEW DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 RICHARD OR TONI VINES 1264 MAPLE VIEW DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 MARY ALICE FLYNN CIO MARY ALICE BOND 1262 MAPLE VIEW DR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 HOSSEIN ETEMAD 1260 MAPLE VIEW DR CHARLTOTESVILLE, VA 22902 GRIFFIN, MIKE D OR YVONNE T 1480 WILLOW LAKE DR CHARLO'rI'EVILLE, VA 22901 HILLCREST LAND TR P O BOX 8147 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 KIMCO, L C 1510 E HIGH ST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 LAKESIDE ASSOCIATES LTD LIASlUTY COMPANY P O BOX 744 CHARLOTTESILLE, VA 22902 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. ot Planning & Community Developmen£ 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 May 17,1996 Jo Higgins Director of Engineenng 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: SDP-96-024 Monticello High School Preliminary Site Plan Tax Map 91, Parcel 2 Dear Ms. Higgins: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 14, 1996, unanimously approved the above~noted preliminary site plan. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Preservation of a minimum 100' tree buffer, together with a fence at least 8 feet in heightt along the border of the townhouse portion of the Willow Lake Subdivision. 2. Installation of Best Management Practices, to include constructed wetlands to filter the runoff from paved surfaces. 3. Create wetlands in the margin of the take to mitigate the filling of the wetlands. 4. 'Reduce the number of soccer fields by one. Relocate the football fields to preserve the natural drainage, unless mitigation is conducted by installation ora forebay and weltands in the end of the lake to filter the runoff. 6. Planning Commission approval of the final plan. Please note that also unanimously approved were the four modifications related to this plan: Section 4.2.2.2 Grading on critical slopes; Section 4.12.6.2 One-way circulation; Section 4.12.3,4 Parking space distance from entrances; and, Section 4.12.6.5 Curvilinear parking. -5. Page 2 May17,1996 Should you desire to appeal this decision to the Board of Supervisors, Section 32.3.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, stipulates you may do so by filing a tuques[ therefor in writing with the Director of Planning & Commanity Development, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision by the Planning Commission. In order to be eligible for administrative approval by the agent, a final site development plan shall be submitted on a submittal deadline with the appropriate fee within six (6) months of Planning Commission approval of the preliminary plan. In any case, the final site development plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the Planning Commission's approval of the preliminary plan or the approval shall expire. During the above time period, the applicant shall work to satisfy the requirements for final plan approval. The applicant shall have the appropriate agency notify this Department in writing that the applicable conditions have been met and tentative approval granted. To obtain tentative approvals for the final site development plan, the applicant shall submit the appropriate plans and materials to the applicable department or agencies: individually, for their review. Once tentative approvals are secured, the final plan shall be submitted to this Department, as stated above. The final plan mylar can be signed at the scheduled Site Review Meeting if after staff review, the final plm~ meets gJl ordinances and conditions of approval. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ronald A. Lilley Senior Planner RAL/jcf cc: Amelia McCulley ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of the School Board 401 Mckttire Road CharIoCtesville, Virginia 22902-4596 May 21, 1996 Ms. Jo M. Higgins, Director, Department of Engineering and Public Works 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Higgins: The Albemarle County School Board met on May 20, 1996, and adopted a resolution to appeal the conditions placed on the Monticello High School Site Plan by the Planning Commission on May 14. Attached is the resolution. If there are questions, please call the Clerk's office at 972-4055. Sinc~rely, Clerk ce: Dr. Kevin C. Casmer Mr. Frank Morgan Mr. A1 Reaser "We Expect Success" RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Planning Commission voted to approve the Monticello High School Site Plan on May 14, 1996 with conditions; WHEREAS, an appeal of these conditions must be filed within 10 days of the Planning Commission's decision NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the School Board of the County of Albemarle hereby authorizes an appeal of the conditions placed on the Monticello High School Site Plan by the Planning Commission on May 14, 1996, and hereby authorizes staff and consultants to prepare the necessao, supporting documents and rev/sed site plan for the June 12, 1996 Board of Supervisors meeting. I, Tina Fuller, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the School Board of Albemarle County by a vote of I Clerk, School Board In addition, retrieving a stray ball that enters the fbli~ge would be hazardous to the students due to the underbrush, thorns, and bramble. The cumulative height based upon the difference in grade from the p/ay .field to the top of the slope together with the fence is 25 feet. The distance from the property boundary to the practice field is 125 feet. In addition, the play field has been dewnsized from a competition reid to a practice fielc~ With a 100' buffer, the school would be losing the use of. 88 acres by fencing it OUT of the school property. With a 50' buffer, the school loses the use of.44 acres. As an aside, Mr. Mullenay and I visited the site and discussed the justification to put in a CIP request to replace the existing lights on the PVCC playfields. Since the existing lighting is visible from the entrance corridor, both 1-64 and Route 20, it would reduce the impact to have longer poles to direct the lighting down and lights that are shielded to minimize overflow to adjacent properties. This is to request that this condition be modified to recognize the compromise which it to preserve a 50'buffer. Condition ~4 - Reduce the number of soccer fields by one. Background: (t am addres~ng these out of order due to the relationship to Condition There were two issues discussed that related to the reduction of the number of fields. First was the concerns of the adjacent property owners. The second concern was the "intently" of the development related to this site and whether the total number of fields was justified. With respect to the WZ. concerns and as stated above, the proposal is to downsize one field from a competition size ~o a practice size. See Attachment B which shows the proposed configuration with the 50' buffer. The reduction in size of field number 5 from competition to practice s~e and shifting the competi~on field down to field :number 3 will allow for the 50' buffer. The field configuration wi//then be 2 competition fie/ds and 4 practice fields instead of 3 competition fields and 3 practice felds. Therefore, the school would lose one competition size field. The total number of fields would remain at six. Attachment C is a letter provided by the Director of Parks &Recreat/on addressing the need for these fields. Attachment D is a letter from the Assistant Principal at WAHS addressing the justification for the quantity of fie/ds. The issue rela~d to the intensity of the development on this site was discussed in re/ab'on to the sustainable design issues. In my opinion, the high school site plan cannot in itself address the preservation aspects of "sustainabi~ty". "Sustainabllity" needs to be a regional approach. There should be areas des~Jnated for development that would be developed to a higher intensity in order to allow for other areas to be preserved. By locating six playfields at the high school site, the supporting pavement for parking and restrooms need not be constructed at another location. Overall, there is a reduction in cos~, impact, and/rnpervious area with assoc/ated runoff for the same number of playfields. When you considerthe intensity of development, a grassed play field compares favorably if you look at the adjacent uses such as Lakeside or Willow Lake. In general, there has been a defined need to provide additional playfields for community use. The Community Facilities Plan supports locating playfields at schools for the combined use of the community. The alternative to construct playfie/ds at other locations is more costly due to the suppo~ng facilities such as restrooms and parking that would be needed. In addition, the students would not have to be bused in order to participate in the athletic program at the peak time in the spring. One ~fher point to acknowledge is that the four tennis courts are to be constructed on the PVCC campus adjacent to the existing tennis courts. The tennis courts are to be lighted. This is being done through a cooperative effort with PVCC. This is to request that this condition be deleted. Conditions #2, #3, and #5 are related to water quality issues. Background: At the time this site was selected for the new high school, the supporting justification involved a review of existing improvements to the site, The existing storm water management facifity is a regional tacit*fy that was considered an improvement to the site that added value (and cost to the purchase). This existing sw facility prov'~es detention for more than just the high school site. It provides detention for approximately 100 acres not including the school site. This offsite area includes Lakeside Apartments, the parcels along Avon Street proposed for commercial use, a portion of Avon Street, the Connector Road and the residue of the land purchased by the County for other public use. The school site is approximately 67 acres which is t/3 of the total. In fact, only 17% of the school site is impervious while an R-6 development would be 40% impervious and R-15 would be 54%. These conditions were discussed in light of the sustainable design concerns and were geared towards reducing the impact to the pond caused by the high school development. They are consistent with the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance which requires BMP's be implemented to protect designated streams in the County, From one perspective, the cost to the County is doubled in that the price for the land included the improvements thereon and now there will be additional cost to protect the sw facility that would have been required if none had existed. The cost of the improvements described in these conditions has been estimated to exceed $100~000. The cost for condition #5 (forbay) is between $60,000 ~ ~70,000. The cost for con~tion #2 is approyJmately $42,000, These are very rough estimates to give an idea of the magnitude of the cost and would need to be refined once the design is complete. There is one concern that I have for consistency in the community re/ated to sw management, The Engineering Department supports stormwater management using the regional approach. This reduces the cost of building individual facilities for each site, This , COUNTY OF ALBEMLARLE Parks and Recreation Depar~men~ Countp Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4~96 Telephone (804) 2966844 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and May 23, 1996 Monticello High School Field Space Recreation~ I am very happy the School Board has decided to appeal Planning Commission's requiremen% to eliminate one of the proposed fields au Monticello High School. the The Board of Supervisors is ~lready aware of the need for more recreational field space in the County. Whil~ this need can hOC be met at Monticello High School alone, I was at least hopeful that the development there could be a positive step towards meeting this need. The time of year when additional recreational field space is mosu critical is in the spring. In past years, we have been just able ~0 accommodate the fall youth soccer program at tolerable levels. Now the spring youth soccer program has grown to where it is nearly as large as the fall program. When you add the needs of the various area baseball programs and the needs of the high school spr!ng athletic teams, we can no5 properly accommodate the spring field needs. During the spring it is common, all over the County, to have 3 or more soccer teams practicing on one soccer field. On a baseball field it is common to have a baseball team practicing in the infield, while a soccer team is practIcIng in the outfield. Spring teams are practicing in traffic circles and any relatively flat grassy areas they can find. I think the point people have been missing in previous discussions has been that in the spring, all 6 of these fields are going uo be needed for the high school program. I~ a field is eliminated, then student athletes will need to be bussed to other County fields, such as Burley Middle School or Darden Towe Park. This will further cut into time available ~o the various recreational athletic programs. So here we take this great opportunity for a positive step, and end up with a negative impact. As you already know, I don'u know a lot about a lot of things. I can't give you the definition of sustainability. I never heard of a charette u/~til this process and I'm still not sure how to spell it. There is one thing I do know. The most important issue is what is best for our kids. As far as the land goes, we've committed to build a high school on it. I agree that we need to meet the needs of that high school program in the most environmentally sensitive way we can. However, withouu that sixth field, we are not meeting those needs. This new high school will have a life span of 50 years. In my opinion, if we open this new high school and we have to bus kids off site for school activities that first spring, then somewhere we have done something terribly wrong! If we do this in the name of sustainability, then we are not seeing the forest for the ~rees! I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this. Western Alb High School ATHLk~TIC DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE (804) 823-4310 FAX (8(34) 523-6251 May 8, 1996 5941 ROCKFISH GAP TURNPIKE ,CROZET VIRGiNiA 22932 Mr. L. Ao Reaser, Director Building Services 2751 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Al, This letter is a follow-up to our earlier recommendation that there should be a minimum of six multi-purpose practice fields at Monticello High School. Here at Western, we are currently using seven fields, this is in addition to the baseball and softball fields and the stadium field which is used only for contests. The seven fields, which includes three at Henley, are used by: 1) Varsity boys' lacrosse, 2) J.V. boys' lacrosse, 3) Varsity boys' soccer, 4) J.V. boys' soccer, 5) Varsity girls' soccer, 6) J.V. girls' soccer, and 7) Varsity & J.V. girls' lacrosse. The J.V. and Varsity lacrosse teams practicing on the same field is not ideal from a safety standpoint, but that is the best we can do with only seven fields. The above mentioned teams need at least six multi-purpose fields and ideally eight. In the spring, we have an additiona~ nine teams: four track teams (J.V. and Varsity, boys and girls) practicing each day on the track, two tennis teams on four courts, one softball team on a softball field, and two baseball t~ams, both practicing on the one baseball field. Al, I am sure that the Monticello High School community will expect to be provided the same opportunities that are provided at Western Albemarle for athletic participation. Sincerely, JHB/sdm To: Al Reaser From: Lettie Neher Subject: High School Correction Date: 6/24/96 Time: 13:37 After talking To every staff member who was at the Board meeting last week, there follows what has been determined to be the final set of conditions. A couple of changes have been made since this morning. I also changed the description. Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal - SDP-96-024. Monticello High School Preliminary Site Plan. Proposal to construct a public high school with core facilities for approx 1500 students with teaching space for 1000 students, with approx 180,000 so. ft & associated athletic facilities & parking on site of approx 67 acs. Same description as ZMA~96-08. APPROVED with the following conditions: Preservation of a minimum 100-foot tree buffer, together with a fence at least eight feet in height on the school side of the buffer along the border of the townhouse portion of the Willow Lake Subdivision; Installation of Best Managemerrt Practices to include constructed wetlands to filter the runofffrom paved surfaces: Create wetlands in the margin of the lake to mitigate the filling of the wetlands; Retain the six fields relocating one practice field to the area on the south- west side of the lake (competition fields may be increased to three in num- ber); *Relocate the football field to preserve the natural drainage, unless mitiga- lion is conducted by installation of a forebay and wetJands in the end of the lake to filter the runoff; 6. Planning Commission approval of the final plan; and 7. There shall be no lighted fields between the high school and Piedmont Virginia Community College. 2 *Although not included in the motion, the record will confirm that the football field wilt not have to be relocated because the Board agreed, by consensus, to the expense of the mitigation techniques. Le~ie E, Neher, Chief Deputy Clerk To: Lettie Neher From: Angela Welch Subject: NOTE: Al Reaser Date: 6/2z~/96 Time: II :52 Form: Telephone Message From: Al Reaser of: Phone: Message: Ms, Lettie: Al Reaser called for you regarding the email sent to him. There were 2 mistakes he wanted to talk to you about, I put him through to your voice mail. I just wanted to let you know to check your voice mail for his message. Thanks. Angle Call back: No Will call again: No Returned call: No Urgent!: No To: Al Reaser From: Lettie Neher Subject: Monticello High Conditions of Approval Date: 6/24/96 Time: II :26 There follows the listing of conditions for the High School Preliminary Site Plan: Agenda Item No. I 0. Appeal - SDP-96~024. Monticello High School Prelimi- nary Site Plan. Proposal to construct public high school for approx 1500 students with approx 135,000 sq ft & associated athletic facilities & parking on site of approx 67 acs. Same description as ZMA-96-08. APPROVED with the following conditions: Preservation of a minimum 1004oot tree buffer, together with a fence at least eight feet in height on the school side of the buffer along the border of the townhouse portion of the Willow Lake Subdivision; 2. Installation of Best Management Practices to include constructed wetlands to filter the runofffrom paved surfaces; 3. Create wetlands in the margin of the lake to mitigate the filling of the wetlands; Retair the six fields relocating one practice field to the area on the southwest side of the lake (competition fields may be increased to three Jn number); *Relocate the football field to preserve the natural drainage, unless mitigation is conducted by installation of a forebay and wetlands in the end of the lake to filter the runoff; 6. Planning Commission approval of the final plan; and 7. There shall be no lighted fields between the high school and Piedmont Virginia Community College. *Although not included in the motion, the record will show that the Board agreed by consensus to mitigation techniques. To: Ron Keeler From: Lettie Neher Subject: Monticello rli~h School Date: 6/24/96 Time: 10:Il I have forwarded to you a message from Bob Tucker referring to the conditions on the high school. Please check that message and the message forwarded from Wayne and let me know what to do about wording the conditions. Al Reaser needs them for a memo he is writing for the School Board meeting tonight. Lettie E. Neher, Chief Deputy Clerk To: Wayne Cilimberg, Larry Davis, Bob Tucker From: Let-tie Neher Subject: Monticello High School Site Plan Date: 6/21/96 Time: 17:24 Because exact words were not put on all conditions by the Board, I have come up with the following after talking to Al Reaser. 4. Retain the six fields relocating one field to the area on the southwest side of the lake; 7. There shall be no lighted fields between the high school and Piedmont Virginia Community College. *Note to No. 5, Although not included in the motion, the record will show that the Board agreed by consensus to mitigation techniques, Let me know if you agree so I can send out the Action letter on Monday, Lettie E. Neher, Chief Deputy Clerk To: Lettie Neher @ acva (Lettie Neher) Cc: RON KEELER, LARRY DAVIS,WAYNE CILIMBERG From: Bob Tucker Subject: Re: Monticello High Schoo, Site Plan Date: 6/22/96 Time: 12:49 Originated by: Lettie Neher ~ acva on 6/21/96 i7:24 Replied by: Bob Tucker @ acva on 6/22/96 12:49 ESTELLE: THEY ALSO INCREASED TH E NUMBER OF COMPETITION FIELDS FROM 2 TO 3 PLACING A PRACTICE FIELD IN THE SW CORNER OF THE PROPERTY BETWEEN THE LAKE AND LAKESIDE APTS, THAN~,BOB ORDINANCE NO. 96-20(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, ~s hereby amended and reordained by: Amending: Section 4.15.3 Section 31.2.4.2 Section 33.7 Section 33.8 Section 33,8.1 Section 33.8.2 Definitions Special Use Permits -- Application Withdrawal of Petitions Posting of Property Posting of Preperty -- Planning Commission Hearing Maintenance and Removal of Signs Adding: Section 31.2.4.2.1 Section 31.2.4.2.2 Section 33.8.2 Limitation on Filing New Application After Original Denial Withdrawal of Application Validation of Prior Notice Requirements Repealing: Section 33.8.2 Posting of Pro perty -- Board of Supervisors Hearing 4 ,¸0 4.15,3 GENERAL REGULATIONS DEFINITIONS Public Sign: Any temporary or permanent sign erected and maintained by a town, city, county, state or federal government or an authority thereof. 31.0 31.2.4.2 31.2.4.2.1 ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION APPLICATION Application for a special use permit shall be made by the filing thereof by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property with the zoning administrator, together with a fee as set forth in section 35.0 of this ordinance. No such permit shall be issued unless the board of~supervisors shall have referred the application therefor to the commission for its recommendations. Failure of the commission to report its recommendations to the board of supervisors within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission after the app!ication has been referred to the commission shall be deemed a recommendation of approval. Provided, however, any day between the date an applicant requests or consents to a deferral or continuance of the consideration of the application by the commission until the date of the deferred or continued hearing by the commission shall not be counted in computing the ninety (90) day review periOd. The board of supervisors may extend the review period upon a request by the commission. The board of supervisors shall act upon such application and render a decision within a reasonable time period~ No such permit shall be issued except after notice and hearing as provided by section 15.t-431 of the Code and section 33.8 POSTING OF PROPERTY. (Amended 5°5-82) LIMITATION OF FILING NEW APPLICATION AFTER ORIGINAL DENIAL Upon denial by the board of supervisors of any application filed pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 above, substantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of denial. Ordinance No. 96-20(2) Page 2 31.2.4.2.2 33.0 33.7 33.8 WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION Any application filed pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 above may be withdrawn upon written request by the applicant. The written request must be received by the body considering the application prior to it beginning consideration of the matter on the meeting agenda. Upon receipt of the request for withdrawal, processing of the application shaft cease without further action by the commission or the board. Substantially the same application shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of the withdrawal unless the body considering the application at the time of withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. AMENDMENTS WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS Any petition filed pursuant to section 33.2.1 above, may be withdrawn upon written request by the applicant. The written request must be received by the body considering the application pdor to it beginning its consideration of the matter on the meeting agenda. Upon receipt of the request for withdrawal, processing of the petition shall cease without further action by the commission or the board. Substantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of withdrawal unless the body considering the application at the time of withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. POSTING OF PROPERTY Additional notice regarding zoning map amendments initiated pursuant to section 33.2.1 above or special use permit applications initiated pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 shall be provided by posting signs on the subject property in the manner prescribed in section 33.8.1 and section 33.8.3. However, failure to corn ply with the posting requirements of this section shall not invalidate any action by the commission or the board of supervisors. Ordinance No. 96-20(2) Page 3 33.8.1 33.8.2 33.8.3 POSTING OF PROPERTY - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public hearing, the zoning administrator or designee shall erect on the property specified in section 33.8 above, a sign or signs indicating the property is to be subject to public hearing and referencing how to obtain additional information regarding such hearing. The sign shall be erected within ten (10) feet of whatever boundary line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road. If more than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as above on at least two boundaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. The filing of the petition or application shall be deemed to grant consent to the zoning administrator or designee to enter upon the property and to erect the signs. Upon a finding by the board of supervisors that failure to comply with the posting requirements of this section has denied the public reasonable notice of the public hearing, the board may defer action on the petition or application until reasonable notice by posting is given. VALIDATION OF PRIOR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS The adoption or amendment of any zoning map amendment or the approval of any special use permit shall not be declared invalid by reason of a failure to post notice as may have been required under prior provisions of section 31.2.4.2 and section 33.8, provided a public hearing was conducted by the board of supervisors prior to such adoption, amendment, or approval. MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF SIGNS The applicant shall exercise due diligence to protect the sign or signs erected pursuant to section 33.8 from vandalism and theft; maintain the sign or signs in the location or, locations in an erect position as placed by the zoning administrator or designee; and ensure that such sign or signs remain legible, Failure to comply Ordinance No. 96-20(2) Page 4 with these responsibilities may be grounds for the commission or the board of supervisors to defer action on the Petition or application until there is reasonable compliance. Any sign erected pursuant to section 33.8 shall remain the property of the board of supervisors. It shall be unlawful for any person, except the applicant performing maintenance required by this section Or the zoning administrator or an authorized agent of either, to remove or tamper with any sign erected pUrsuant to section 33.8. All such signs shall be removed by the zoning administrator or designee within fifteen (15) days following the board of supervisors' final action on the petition or application or the applicant's withdrawal of the petition or application. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held On June 19, 1996. Clerk, Board of County S~bpervisors Ordinance NO. 96-20(2) Page 5 33.8.1 POSTING OF PROPERTY- PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public heating on a ....... ~ **,~ ............... the ~,~**~.,~ zonine administrator or desitmee shall erect on ~e pr peRy p,~ ............... d ~ 33.8 above, a sl~ or si~s ~...~;.k~ ~_..~ .... :_~ _~:~: ....... indicatin e change ~.~ .......................... p,=.~ ...... publ~c ~hcarlng properw is to be subject to public hearing and referencing how to obtain additional information re~arding such hearinF. ~e si~ sh~l be erected by z~kc appli~nt ~thin ten (10) feet of whatever bo~d~ line of such land abuts a public road ~d sh~ be so placed as to be dearly ~sibte horn ~e road ,~,~. ~ ~ ........ a~, not less than two ~d one-half (2 ~) ~ .... k .....~ ...... ~ ............. s ....... If more than one such road abuts the prope~y, then a si~ shall be erected ~ the same m~er as above for each such abutting road. If no public road abuts ~ereon, ~en si~s sh~. be erected in the same m~e~ as above on at lcast two boundaries of the prope~y abutting land not o~ed by the applicant. Yhe filing of the petition or appl~tion shall be deemed to Rrant consent to the zonin.~ administrator or desi.~ee ~o enter upon the prope~v and to erect ~e si~s. Upon a findin¢ by the board of supe~sors ~at failure to comply ~th the postinK requirements of ~is se~ion h~ denied the public reaso~ble notice of the public he~in¢~ ~e bo~d may defer action on the pe~tion or application until reasonable notice bv postin¢ is ~ven. STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ZTA-96-01 - POSTING OF SIGNS Origin: Resolution of intent by Planning Commission RON KEELER JUNE 18, 1996 JUNE 19, 1996 Public purpose to be served: To provide for improved posting of public notice signs for rezoning and special use permit hearings. Background: The Code of Va. Contains no requirement that properties subject to rezoning or special use permit petitions be posted with public notice signs. Under County ordinance, the applicant is responsible for posting and maintaining notice signs. These disposable cardboard signs were deemed inadequate and the County purchased durable reusable signs similar to real estate signs. Posting by County staffwould provide for more uniform method, reduce paperwork, and relieve the applicant of this responsibility. The County Attorney's office has prepared amendments to various sections of the zoning ordinance to implement the new procedures. Staff recommends approval. I :\GENERAL\SHAREXIANICE~ZTA96-01 .RPT DRAFT: June 11, 1996 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING. ARTICLE II. BASIC REGULATIONS. AND ARTICLE IV. PROCEDURE OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations and Article IV, Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained by: Amending: Section 4.15.3 Section 31.2.4.2 Section 33.7 Section 33.8 Section 33.8.1 Section 33.8.2 Definitions Special Use Permits - Application Withdrawal of Petitions Posting of Property Posting of Property -- Plaxming Commission Hearing Maintenance and Removal of Signs Adding: Section 31.2.4.2. l Section 31.2.4.2.2 Section 33.8.2 Limitation on Filing New Application After Original Denial Withdrawal of Application Validation of Prior Notice Requirements Repealing: Section 33.8.2 Posting of Property -- Board of Supervisors Hearing 4.0 GENERAL REGUI~TIONS 4.15.3 DEFINITIONS Public Sign: Any temporary or permanent sign erected and maintained by a town, city, county, state or federal government or an authoriW thereof ............................ 8 ........................... Y - 31.0 ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION 31.2.4.2 APPLICATION Application for a special use permit shall be made by the filing thereof by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property with the zoning administrator, together with a fee as set forth in section 35.0 of this ordinance. No such permit shall be issued unless the board of supervisors shall have referred the application therefor to the commission for its recommendations. Failure of the commission to report its recommendations to the board of supervisors within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission after the application has been referred to the commission shall be deemed a recommendation of approval. Provided. however, any day between the date an applicant requests or consents to a deferral or continuance of the consideration of the avolication by the commission until the date of the deferred or continued hearin~ by the commission shall not be counted in computinv the ninety (90) day review vetiod. The board of super~sors may extend the review t)eriod uvon a request by the commission. The board of suvervisors shall act uvon such apvlication and render decision within a reasonable time period. No such permit shall be issued except after notice and hearing as provided by section 15.1-431 of the Code and section 33 8 POSTING (~ended 5-5-82) LIMITATION OF FILING NEW APPLICATION AFTER ORIGINAl DENIAL Uvon denial by the board of supervisors of any application filed oursuant to section 31.2.4.2 above, substantinlly the same petition sbnll not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of denial. 31.2.4.2.2 WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION Any avnlication filed vursuam to section 31.2.4.2 above may be withdrawn ur)on written reouest by the applicant. The written request m_ust be received by the body considerin~ the application prior to it .b.e.m.'nnin~ consideration of the matter on the meetine aEenda. Uoon .r..eceipt of the reouest for withdrawal, vrocessing of the application shall cease without further action by the commission or the board. Substantially the same application shall not be reconsidered within !welve (12 ~ months of the date of the withdrawal unless the body considerin~ the apvlication at the time ofwkhdrawal spedfies that the time limitation shall not apply. 33.0 AMENDMENTS 33.7 WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS 33.8 Any petition filed pursuant to section 33.2. i above, may be withdrawn upon written request by the applicant. The written request must _be r,_ece~ved by the body considering the at)nlication vrior to it be.m.'nnin~ irs consideration of the matter on the meetine a~enda. Upon receipt of the reouest for withdrawal, processing of the petition shall cease without ~rther action bv the commission or the board, ar:/tin~c ~ ..... o ~h ~,,~.**~.o,,.:~ +~,~^ hcaNr, g, and Substantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of action withdrawal__ unless the rcspcctivc body considering the application at the time of apprc,;~ng withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. POSTING OF PROPERTY Additional notice of public hcarlngs irc;oN4ng ~ zoning map amendments initiated pursuant to section 33.2. l above ~ permit am)lications initiated vursuant to secdon 31.2.4.2 shah be provided by mcans of vostin~ signs pc, stcd on the s.ub!ect property pro- pos~f~i%~, in the manner prescribed in ~ section 33.8.1 and section 33.8.3. Ho,never, failure to com~lv with the r)ostin~ 3 33.8.1 requirements of this section shall not invalidate any action by the commission or the board of supervisors. POSTING OF PROPERTY - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 33.8.2 At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public hearing on a -^-: ......... ~ .... the appl2cant zoning administrator or designee shall erect on the property proposcd to bc rczoncd specified in section 33.8 above., a sign or s~gns fu .......... y ........... 8 admlnistratcr indicating the -~ ........... '~ p ............ ~ property is to be subiect to public hearine and referencim~ how to obtain additional information reeardine such hearing. The sign shall be erected by tk, c aFpllcant within ten (I0) feet of whatever boundary line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be de msible from the road such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as above on at least two botmdaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. The filin~ of the petition or aunlication shall be deemed to erant consent to the zoninq administrator or desigmee to enter upon the DroDertv &nd to erect the sirras__ VALIDATION OF PRIOR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS The adoption or amendment of any zoning mad amendment or the approval of any special use Permit shall not be declared invalid by reason of a failure to DOSt notice as may have been required under prior provisions of section 31.2.4.2 and section 33.8, provided a public 4 heating was conducted by the board of supervisors t~rior to such adoption, amendment, or arc,royal. 33.8.3 MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF SIGNS The at~vlicant shall exercise due dilig, ence ro protect the si.tm or siEns erected oursuant to section 33.8 from vandalism and theft; mai tain the sign or sirras in the location or Iocations in, an erect position as placed by the zonin~ administrator or designee: and ensure that such sign or signs remain legible. Failure to comply with these responsibilities may be grounds for the commission or the board of supervisors ro defer action on the petition or anulication until there is reasonable compliance. Any sign erected pursuant to section 33.8 shall remain the property of the board of supervisors. It shall be unlawful for any person, except .the applicant t)erforming maintenance required by this section or the zoning administrator or an authorized agent of either, to remove or tamper with any sign P~rnlshcd &c~br, g t~c pc~ad it ia rcqulrcd to Lc maintained undcr u~ba acaion erected pursuant to section 33.8. All such signs crcctcd u~-dcr t~ba scctlon shall be removed by the applica~qt zomng administrator or designee within fifteen (15) days following the board of supervisors' final action on the petition or application or the applicant's withdrawal of the petition or application, tkc public hcarlng far v;hlcPL it waa crccted. ZTA96~01 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME PETITION W~. TI~ UN])~RSIGI~D RESIDeNtS OF ALB~R COUlee, VIRGINIA. PETITION TH~ BOPPED OF SUPERVISORS TO IMPROI~ PUBLIC AWAI~I~SS ~ PARTICIPATION IN LO~L~ GOV~N~'~ PROCEEDINGS BY TAKING ~ FOLLOWING STEPS: 1. REQUIRE TI{E APPROVAL OF MINUTES AT THE SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS OF T~tE PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITSELF. 2. LIMIT ANY -"~ACCELERATED" lqEARINGS OF ISSUES BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO BE NOT LESS THAN FIVE WORKING DA~S AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REC0~94ENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES OR COMMISSIONS. 3. BROADCAST ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CABLE CPIANN-ELS THE PUBLIC MEETINGS OF TPIE PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. RE- BROADCAST EACH MEETING AT LEAST ONCE WIT~{IN ONE WEEK OF THE MEETING. 4. MAKE A REQUIREMENT FOR LARGE PUBLIC DISPLAY NOTICES (AT LEAST 3 'X3') TO BE PLACED ON ALL PROPERTIES AFI~ECTED BY EIT}i~ AMENDMENTS TO TPIE COMPRFJ-~NSIVE PLAN OR REZONINGS. 5. FORMALLY REQUEST THAT THE DAILY PROGRESS CONSISTENTLY USE ~ SA~E SPACES AND TPIE SAME PAGE OF THE PAPER FOR PUBLIC NOTICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS AND MEETING AGENDAS. 6. REQUIRE THAT EACH BOARD MEMBER HOLD A WELL-PUBLICIZED PUBLIC MEETING AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR WITHIN HIS/HER RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS. 7. REQUIRE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRODUCE AN ANNUAL NEWSLETTER THAT SUMMARIZES EVERY APPROVED MOTION DECIDED DURING THE PAST YEAR. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, PETITION THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING STEPS: 1. REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES AT THE SUBSEQUENT ~RF. TINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITSELF. 2. LIMIT ANY "ACCELERATED" HEARINGS OF ISSUES BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO BE NOT LESS THAN FIVE WORKING DAYS AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES OR COMMISSIONS. 3. BROADCAST ON GO~ITNMENT ACCESS CABLE CHANNELS ~ PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. BROADCAST EACH MEETING AT LEAST ONCE WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THE MEETING. 4. MAKE A REQUIREMENT FOR LARGE PUBLIC DISPLAY NOTICES (AT LEAST 3 'X3') TO BE PLACED ON ALL PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY EIT~/f~R AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR REZONINGS. 5. FORMALLY REQUEST THAT TPIE DAILY PROGRESS CONSISTENTLY USE THE SAME SPACES AND TPIE SAME PAGE OF ~ PAPER FOR PUBLIC NOTICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS AND MEETING AGENDAS. 6. REQUIRE THAT EACH BOARD MEMBER HOLD A WELL-PUBLICIZED PUBLIC MEETING AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR WITHIN HIS/HER RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS. 7. REQUIRE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRODUCE AN ANNUAL NEWSLETTER THAT SUMMARIZES EVERY APPROVED MOTION DECIDED DURING THE PAST YEAR. NAME ADDRESS ~ PHO,~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITI:ON WE, THE U~DFmSIGNED RESIDENTS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA', BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T~O IMPROVE'PUBLIC AWAr{ENESS AN~,. :~ARTICIPATIeN IN ~50CAL GOVERNMENt, iPROCEEDINGS'~ BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING sTEPS? 1. REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES~AT THE S~UBSE~QUENT MEETINGS OF~TH~; PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL~BOARD, AND BOARD OF'SUPERVISORS ITSELF. ,2. LIMIT ANY' "AC~2ELERATED" ~ARINGS OF ~SSUES BY THE BOARD' OF SUPERVISORS TO BE NOT LESS THAN FIVE WORKING DAYS AFTER THE ESTAB~ISP~4ENT. OF RECOMMENDATIONb% FROM COMMIT'I-'EmS OR COMMISSIONS. 3. BROADCAST ON GO~k.'RNMENT ACCESS CABLE CHANNELS THEji~UBLIC MEETINGS OF TPIE PLANNING COMMisSION, SC~qOOL BOARD, AND~ BOARD OF, SU, PERVtSORS. RE- BROADCAST EACH MEETING AT r. RAST ONCE WITHIN~ ONE WEEK 0F THE MEETING. 4. MAKE A REQUIREMENT FOR LAi~GE PUBLIC DISPLAY NOTICES (AT LEAST 3 'X3 ') 'TO BE PLACED ON ALL PROPERTIES A~'FECTED BY~ EITHER AMENDMENTS TO THE COMP~SIVE PLAN OR REZONINGS. 5, FORMALLY REQUEST T~L~T THE DAILY PROGRESS CONSISTENTLY USE THE SAME SPACES AND THE SAME PAGE OF THE PAPER FOR PUBLIC NOTICE OF LOCAL GoVERNMENT MEETINGS AND MEETING AGENDAS. 6. REQUIRE TPbAT EACH BOARD MEMBER HOLD A WELL-PUBLICIZED PUBLIC MEETING AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR WITHIN HIS/HER RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS. 3 7. ~ REQUIRE. THAT THE BOARD tOF SUPERVISORS PRODUCE AN ANNUAL NEWSLETTER THAT SUMMARIZES EVERY APPROVED MOTION-DECIDED D~TRING THE PAST YEAR. ADDHESS PHONE ADDRESS PHONE P TITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF ALBEMAP, LE C~DUNTY, VIRGINIA, PETITION THE BOARD OF SUPE~VISORS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVerNMENT PI~J~FiOINGS BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING .STEPS: 1. REQUIRE TH]3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES AT THE SUBSEQUENT ~TINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITSELF. 2. LIMIT ANY "ACCEnR~ATED" HEARINGS OF ISSUES BY 'rkn~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO BE NOT LESS TF~%N FIVE WORKING DAYS AFTER ESTABLISI~MENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES OR COt94ISSIONS. 3. BROADCAST ON ~OVba{RMENT ACCESS CABLE CI4ANNELS THE PUBLIC ~w.~.TINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. RE- BROADCAST EACH MEETING AT LEAST ONCE WITHIN ONE W~,.'K OF THE MEETING. 4. MAKE A REQUIREMENT FOR LARGE PUBLIC DISPLAY NOTICES (AT F.RAST 3 'X3 ') TO BE PLACED ON ALL PROPERTIES A~'~'~CTED BY EITDJsi¢ AMENDMENT~ TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR REZONINGS. 5. FO1AMALLY REQUEST THAT THE DAILY PROGRESS CONSIST~z/~TLY USE THE SAME SPACES AND THE SAME PAGE OF THE PAPER FOR PUBLIC NOTICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS AND MEETING AGENDAS. 6. REQUIRE THAT EACH BOARD MEMBER HOLD A WELL-PUBLICIZED PUBLIC MEETING AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR WITHIN HIS/I~__~ RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS. 7. REQUIRE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRODU~J~. AN ANNUAL NEWSLETTER THAT SUMMARIZES EVW/{Y APPROVED MOTION DECIDED DURING THE PAST YEAR. tAME ADD~..qS PHO~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE _L PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED HESIDENTS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, PETITION THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR~m'~_.~I~{T~lt0~=PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS BY TAKING T~E FOLLOWING STEPS: 1. REQUIRE ~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES AT T~E SUBSEQUENT ~":TINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITSELF. 2. LIMIT ANY "ACCELERATED" HEARINGS OF ISSUES BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO BE NOT LESS THAN FIVE WORKING DAYS AFTER THE ESTABLIS~14ENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES OR COMMISSIONS. 3- BROADCAST ON GOVEkdNMENT ACCESS CABLE CHANNELS THE PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. RE- BROADCAST EACH MEETING AT LF_~ST ONCE WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THE MEETING. 4. MAKE A REQUIREMENT FOR LARGE PUBLIC DISPLAY NOTICES (AT LEAST 3'X3' ) TO BE PLACED ON ALL PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY EITHER AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR NEZONINGS. 5. FOP, MALLY REQUEST THAT THE DAILY PROG~ESS CONSISTENTLY USE THE SAME SPACES AND T~E SAME PAGE OF THE PAPER FOR PUBLIC NOTICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS AND MEETING AGENDAS. 6 · REQUIRE THAT EACH BOARD MEMBER HOLD A WELL-PUBLICIZED PUBLIC MEETING AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR 'WITHIN MIS/B/~'~ RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS. 7. REQUIRE TI-IAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRODUCE AN ANNUAL NEWSLETTER THAT SUMMARIZES EVERY APPROVED MOTION DECIDED DURING THE PAST YEAR. N~E -- o ADDRESS /7 ~ PHONE NAM~E ADDRESS PHONE PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, PETITION THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~0 I~~--~'~]~RENE~ ~NIr~A%RTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING STEPS: 1. REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES AT TBE. SUBSEQUENT ~RRTINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITSELF. 2. LIMIT ANY "ACCELERATED" BEARINGS OF ISSUES BY THE ~BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO BE NOT LESS TtLAN FIVE WORKING DA~S AFTER THE ESTABLISt~4ENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES OR COMMISSIONS. 3. BROADCAST ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CABLE CHANNELS THE PUBLIC MEETINGS OF TNE PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. I~E-~ BROADCAST EACH MEETING AT LEAST ONCE WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THE MEETING. 4. MAKE A REQUIREMENT FOR LARGE PUBLIC DISPLAY NOTICES (AT r. RAST 3 'X3' ) TO BE PLACED ON ALL PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY EITHER AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR REZONTNGS. 5. FORMALLY REQUEST THAT THE DAILY PROGRESS CONSISTENTLY USE THE SAME SPACES AND TITE SAME PAGE OF THE PAPER FOR PUBLIC NOTICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS AND ~E. ETING AGENDAS. 6. REQUIRE T~T EACH BOARD MEMBER HOLD A WELL-PUBLICIZED PUBLIC MSETING AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR WITHIN HIS/HER RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS. 7. REQUIRE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRODUCE AN ANNUAL NEWSLETTER THAT SUMbL~qIZES EVERY APPROVED MOTION DECIDED DURING THE PAST YEAR. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION WE, TI-IE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF ALB~ COUNTY, VIRGINIA, PETITION THE B0~%RD OF SUPERVISORS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTIC__IpATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING STEPS: ~. REQUI~E~THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES AT THE ~SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING cOM~IS~IO~,-~S~HOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITSELF. 2. LIMIT ANY--~-"i~TED" HEARINGS OF ISSUES BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO BE NOT LESS :~'TI4_A~ FIVE WOI{KING DAYS AFTER THE ESTABLISBMENT OF P~ECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES OR COMMISSIONS. 3. BROADCAST ON GO~ ACCESS CABLE CHANNELS THE PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SCHOOL BOARD, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. RE- BROADCAST EACH MEETING AT LEAST ONCE WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THE MEETING. 4. MAKE A REQUIREMENT FOR LARGE PUBLIC DISPLAY NOTICES (AT LEAST 3'X3') TO BE PLACED ON ALL PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY EITI~-~I{ AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR REZONINGS. 5. FORMALLY REQUEST THAT THE DAILY PROGRESS CONSISTENTLY USE ~ SAME SPACES AND TItE SAME PAGE OF TItE PAPER FOR PUBLIC NOTICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS AND MEETING AGENDAS. 6. REQUIRE THAT EACH BOARD MEMBER HOLD A WELL-PUBLICIZED PUBLIC MEETING AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR WITHIN HIS/HER RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS. -7_. REQUIRE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRODUCE AN ANNUAL NEWSLETTER THAT SUMMARIZES EVERY APPROVED MOTION DECIDED DURING THE PAST YEAR. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE ORDINANCE NO, 96-20(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained by: Amending: Section 4.15.3 Section 31.2.4.2 Section 33.7 Section 33.8 Section 33.8.1 Section 33.8.2 Definitions Special Use Permits -- Application Withdrawal of Petitions Posting of Property Posting of Property -- Planning Commission Hearing Maintenance and Removal of Signs Adding: Section 31.2.4.2.1 Section 31.2.4.2.2 Section 33.8.2 Limitation on Filing New Application After Original Denial Withdrawal of Application Validation of Prior Notice Requirements Repealing: Section 33.8.2 Posting of Property -- Board of Supervisors Hearing 4.0 4.15.3 GENERAL REGULATIONS DEFINITIONS Public Sign: Any temporary or p ~nd maintained by a £own, city, cour ___~rnment or an authority thereof, j__ -f-~- 31,0 31.2.4.2 31.2.4.2.1 ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION APPLICATION Application for a special use permit shall be made by the filing thereof by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property with the zoning administrator, together with a fee as set forth in section 35.0 of this ordinance. No such permit shall be issued unless the board of supervisors shall have referred the application therefor to the commission for its recommendations, Failure of the commission to report its recommendations to the board of supervisors within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission after the application has been referred to the commission shall be deemed a recommendation of approval. Provided, however, any day between the date an applicant requests or consents to a deferral or continuance of the consideration of the application by the commission until the date of the deferred or continued hearing by the commission shall not be counted in computing the ninety (90) day review period. The board of supervisors may extend the review period upon a request by the commission. The board of supervisors shall act upon such application and render a decision within a reasonable time period, No such permit shall be issued except after notice and hearing as provided by section 15.1-431 of the Code and section 33.8 POSTING OF PROPERTY. (Amended 5-5-82) LIMITATION OF FILING NEW APPLICATION AFTER ORIGINAL DENIAL Upon denial by the board of supervisors of any application filed pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 above, substantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of denial. Ordinance No. 96-20(2) Page 2 31.2.4.2.2 WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION Any application filed pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 above may be withdrawn upon written request by the applicant. The written request must be received by the body considering the application prior to it beginning consideration of the matter on the meeting agenda. Upon receipt of the request for withdrawal, processing of the application shall cease without further action by the commission or the board. Substantially the same application shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of the withdrawal unless the body considering the application at the time of withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. 33.0 AMENDMENTS 33.7 WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS Any petition filed pursuant to section 33.2.1 above, may be withdrawn upon written request by the applicant. The written request must be received by the body considering the application prior to it beginning its consideration of the matter on the meeting agenda. Upon receipt of the request for withdrawal, processing of the petition shall cease without further action by the commission or the board. Substantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of withdrawal unless the body considering the application at the time of withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. 33.8 POSTING OF PROPERTY Additional notice regarding zoning map amendments initiated pursuant to section 33.2.1 above or special use permit applications initiated pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 shall be provided by posting signs on the subject property in the manner prescribed in section 33.8.1 and section 33.8.3. However, failure to comply with the posting requirements of this section shall not invalidate any action by the commission or the board of supervisors. Ordinance No. 96-20(2) Page 3 33.8.1 POSTING OF PROPERTY - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public hearing, the zoning administrator or designee shall erect on the property specified in section 33.8 above, a sign or signs indicating the property is to be subject to public hearing and referencing how to obtain additional information regarding such hearing. The sign shall be erected within ten (10) feet of whatever boundary line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road. If more than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as above on at least two boundaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. The filing of the petition or application shall be deemed to grant consent to the zoning administrator or designee to enter upon the property and to erect the signs. Upon a finding by the board of supervisors that failure to corn ply with the posting requIrements of this section has denied the public reasonable notice of the public hearing, the board may defer action on the petition or application until reasonable notice by posting is given. 33.8.2 VALIDATION OF PRIOR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS The ade ption or amendment of any zoning map amendment or the approval of any special use permit shall not be declared '~nvalid by reason of a failure to post notice as may have been required under prior provisions of section 31.2.4.2 and section 33.8, provided a public hearing was conducted by the board of supervisors prior to such adoption, amendment, or approval. 33.8.3 MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF SIGNS The applicant shall exercme due diligence to protect the s~gn or signs erected pursuant to section 33.8 from vandalism and theft; maintain the sign or signs in the location or locations in an erect position as placed by the zoning administrator or designee; and ensure that such sign or signs remain legible. Failure to comply Ordinance No. 96-20(2) Page 4 with these responsibilities may be grounds for the commission or the board of supervisors to defer action on the petition or application until there is reasonable compliance. Any sign erected pursuant to section 33.8 shall remain the property of the board of supervisors. It shall be unlawful for any person, except the applicant performing maintenance required by this section or the zoning administrator or an authorized agent of either, to remove or tamper with any sign erected pursuant to section 33.8. All such signs shall be removed by the zoning administrator or designee within fifteen (15) days following the board of supervisors' final action on the petition or application or the applicant's withdrawal of the petition or application. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on June 19, 1996. Clerk, Board of County SCpervisors Ordinance No. 96-20(2) Page 5 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804~ 296-5843 FAX [804) 296-8800 ~rles S. Martin Waiter F. Perkins Sall~ H. Thomas MEMO TO= FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, June 24, 1996 Supplement No. Clerk, CMC 83 to the Zoning Ordinance Attached are amended sheets to be placed xn your copy of the Zoning Ordinance from the amendments adopted on June 19, 1996. A list of replacement sheets follows: Old Sheets New Sheets 51 Supp. ~67, 7-8-92 51 Supp. ~83, 6-19-96 202 Supp. ~68, 9-9-92 202 Supp. ~83, 6-19-96 202.1 Supp. ~83, 6-19-96 221 Supp. ~54, 4-4-90 221 Supp. ~83, 6-19-96 222 Supp. ~54, 4-4-90 222 Supp. ~83, 6-19-96 223 223 Supp. ~83, 6-19-96 EWC/len cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1) Richard Huff, II (1) Larry W. Davis (6) Water Resources Manager (1) V. Wayne cilimberg (12) Amelia McCulley (160) Clerk (3) Printed on recycled paper Pennant: A series of two (2) or more sections of plastic, fabric or other material, whether or not c~ntaining a message of any kind, suspended from a fixed structure, rope, wire or string, designed to move in the wind such as stres/~ers, tinsel and the like. Pole Sign: A freestanding sign which is supported from the ground by a pole or a similar support structure of narrow width. Political Sign: A sign representing a candidate or issue subject to a federal, state or local government plebiscite. Poztable Sign: Any sign not permanently attached to the ground or other permanent structure, or a sign designed to be transported, including, but not limited to, signs de- signed to be transported by means of trailers or wheels; signs converted to A-shaped or T-shaped frames; including advertising vehicles. Projectin~ Sign: A sign, other than a wall sign, which is not mounted horizontally to the building wall surface, but extends beyond it. Public Sign: Any temporary or permanent sign erected and maintained by a town, city, county, state or federal govern- ment for traffic direction or for designation of or direc- tion to any school, hospital, historical site or public service, property or facility. Real Estate.Sign: Any sign which is used to offer for sale, lease, rent and/or development, the property upon which the sign is placed. Roof Sign: Any sign erected and constructed wholly on and over the top of the fascia or mansard of the building. Service Road: An access primarily to a service area for loading of refuse and the like. Sight Distance Triangle: An area designated at an inter- section of a site where signs are not permitted. This is a sign setback as calculated in section 4.15.7.3. Sign: Any object, device or structure, or part thereof, which exists primarily to advertise, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object, person, institu- tion, organization, business, product, service, event or location by any means, including words, letters, figures, designs, proDected images, symbols, fixtures, colors, illumination, minerals, pictures or any part or combination thereof, which display is visible beyond the boundariesof -51- (Supp. $67, 7-8-92) 31,2.4.3 31.2.4.4 31.2.4.5 the board of supervisors shall have referred the application therefor to the commission for its reconm~endations. Failure of the commission to report within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission after the application has been referred to the commission shall be deemed a reeom~aendation of approval. No such permit shall be issued except after notice and hearing as provided by section 15.1-431 of the Code. klso, a notification sign shall be posted by the appli- cant upon the subject property and adjacent to the nearest state highway at the point of access to the subject property for a period of twenty-one (21) days prior to the first public hearing of the commis- sion. (Amended 5-5-82) CONDITIONS The board of supervisors may impose upon any such permit such condi- tions relating to the use for which such permit is granted as it may deem necessary in the public interest and may require a bond with surety or other approved security to ensure that the conditions so imposed shall be complied wit_h. Such conditions shall relate to the purposes of this ordinance, including, but mot l~mited top the preven- tion of smoke, dust, noise, traffic congestion, flood and/or other hazardous, deleterious or otherwise undesirable substance or condi- tion; the provision of adequate police and fire protection, transpor- tation, water, sewerage, drainage, recreation, landscaping and/or screening or buffering; the establishment of special requirements relating to the building setbacks, front, side and rear yards, off- street parking, ingress and egress, hours of operation, outside storage of materials, duration and intensity of use, building height and/or other particular aspects of occupancy or use. Except as the board of supervisors may otherwise specifically provide in a partic- ular case, any condition imposed under the authority of this section shall be deemed to be essential to and nonserverable from the issuance of the permit itself. REVOCATION Any permit issued pursuant to this ordinance may be revoked by. the board of supervisors, after notice and hearing pursuant to section 15.1-431 of the Code, for wilful noncompliance with this ordinance or any conditions imposed under the authority of this section, in the event that the use, structure or activity for which any such permit is issued shall not be commenced within eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminane. ~or purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary To the use of such permit within two (2) years from the date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year; provided that the board of supervisors may, as a condition of approval, impose such alternative time limits as may be reasonable in a particular (Repealed 9-21-88) -202- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) 33.3 33.3.1 33.3.2 33.3.3 33.4 33.5 PROFFER OF CONDITIONS Prior to any public hearing before the board of supervisors any applicant for rezoning may voluntarily proffer, in writing, reasonable conditions to be applied to such rezon- lng as part thereof. Such conditions shall comply with the provlslons of section 15.1-491.2:1 of the Code; provided that the proffering thereof by the applicant shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such compliance. (Amended 4-4-90) EFFECT OF CONDITIONS Once proffered and accepted as par~ of an amendment to the zoning ordinance, such conditions shall continue in effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the property covered by such conditions; however, such condi- tions shall continue if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance. All such conditions shall be ~n addition to the regulations provided for the district by the ordinance. (Amended 4-4-90) ZONING MAP NOTATION Each such rezoning shall be designated on the zoning map by an appropriate symbol designed by the zoning administrator. In addition, the zoning administrator shall keep and main- tain the conditional zoning index which shall provide ready access to the ordinance creating such conditions. AUTHORITY OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR The zoning administrator shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the board of supervisors of the county to administer and enforce conditions attached to a rezoning including the ordering in writing of the remedy of any noncompliance with such conditions and the bringing of legal action for injunction, abatement or other appropriate action or proceeding. PUBLIC HEARING - NOTICE The commission shall hold a public hearing on petition or resolution as provided by section the Code, after notice as required by section said Code. any such 15.1-493 of 15.1-431 of REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AFTER HEARING After the conclusion of the hearing provided for in this section, unless the proceedings are terminated as provided herein, the commission shall report to the board of super- visors its recommendation with respect to the proposed -221- (Supp. ~54, 4-4-90) 33.6 33.7 amendment. Failure of the commission to report to the board of supervisors within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission following the date the proposed amendment has been referred to the commission shall be deemed approval by the commission. In acting favorably with respect to a proposed amendment initiated by the petition of a property owner or owners, the commission need not confine its recommendation to the proposed amendment as set forth in the petition, but may reduce or enlarge the extent of land that it recommends be rezoned or may recommend that land be rezoned to a different zoning classification than that petitioned for, if, the commission is of the opinion that such revision is in accord with public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice and is in further- ance of the purposes of this ordinance and section; provided that before recommending an enlargement of the extent of land or a rezoning to a less restricted classification than was set forth in the petition, the commission shall hold a further hearing on the matter, pursuant to the requirements of section 15.1-431 of the Code. No amendment to the zoning map shall be approved for a change in zoning classification different from that applied for and contained in the public notice of hearing nor for any land not included therein without referring said change to the commission for its review and recommendations and proceedings pursuant to this section and section 33.3; provided, however, that an amend- ment may be approved for only a portion of the area proposed for rezoning if the portion rezoned is accurately and sufficiently delimited in the approval action, or if a portion is reclassified pursuant to section 30.3. LIMITATION ON FILING NEW PETITION AFTER ORIGINAL DENIAL Upon the denial by the board of supervisors of any petition filed pursuant to section 33.2.1 above, substantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of denial. WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS Any petition filed pursuant to section 33.2.1 above, may be withdrawn upon written request by the applicant any time prior to the submission of any public hearing notice for advertisement; provided, that if the request for withdrawal is made after the publication of the notice of hearing, such withdrawal shall be only with the consent of either the commission or the board of supervisors, whichever body has advertised the hearing, and substantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of action, unless the respective body approving with- drawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. -222- (Supp. ~54, 4-4-90) 33.8 33.8.1 33.8.2 33.8.3 POSTING OF PROPERTY Additional notice of public hearings involving zoning map amendments initiated pursuant to section 33.2.1 above shall be provided by means of signs posted on the property pro- posed for rezoning, in the manner prescribed in this sec- tion. POSTING OF PROPERTY - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public hearing on a zoning map ataendment, the applicant shall erect on the property proposed to be rezoned, a sign or signs furnished by the zoning administrator indicating the change proposed and the date, time and place of the public hearing. The sign shall be erected by the applicant within ~en (10) feet of whatever boundary lane of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road with the bottom of the sign not less than two and one-half (2 1/2) feet above the ground. If more than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as above on at least two boundaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. POSTING OF PROPERTY - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING Upon receipt of written notice that a public hearing has been scheduled before the board of supervisors for his zoning map amendment, the applicant shall erect, at least fifteen (15) days preceding such hearing, a sign or signs furnished b¥ the zoning administrator indicating the change proposed and the date, time and place of the public hearing. Such sign or signs shall be erected in the same manner as prescribed in section 33.8.1 above. MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF SIGNS Any sign erected in compliance with this section shall be maintained at all times by the applicant up to the time of the hearing and it shall be the duty of the applicant at the hearing to prove by affidavit that he has fully complied with the requirements of this section and has consinuously maintained the sign or signs up to the time of the hearing. It shall be unlawful for any person, except the applicant or the zoning administrator or an authorized agent of either, ~o remove or tamper with any sign furnished during the period it is required to be maintained under this section. All signs erected under this section shall be removed by the applicant within fifteen (15) days following the public hearing for which it was erected. -223- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Superwsors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Vir~rfia 22902~1696 (804,296-5843 FAX ~804) 296-5800 Char~s S, Marti~ Walter F Perkm-~ MEMO TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, DATE: June 24, 1996 SUBJECT: Supplement No. CMC 83 to the Zoning Ordinance Attached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the Zoning Ordinance from the amendments adopted on June 19, 1996. A list of replacement sheets follows: Old Sheets New Sheets 51 Supp. ~67, 7-8-92 51 Supp. ~83, 6-19-96 202 Supp. #68, 9-9-92 202 Supp. #83, 6-19-96 202.1 Supp. #83, 6-19-96 221 Supp. ~54, 4-4-90 221 Supp. ~83, 6-19-96 222 Supp. #54, 4-4-90 222 Supp. ~83, 6-19-96 223 223 Supp. ~83, 6-19-96 EWC/len OC: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1) Richard Huff, II (1) Larry W. Davis (6) Water Resources Manager (1) V. Wayne Cilimberg (12) Amelia McCulley (160) Clerk (3) P~inted on recycled paper Pennant: A series of two (2) or more sections of plastic, fabric or other material, whether or not containing a message of any kind, suspended from a fixed structure, rope, wire or string, designed to move in the wind such as streamers, tinsel and the like. Pole Siqn: A freestanding sign which is supported from the ground by a pole or a similar suppor= structure of narrow width. Political Sian: A sign representing a candidate or issue subject to a federal, state or local government plebiscite. Portable Siqn: Any sign not permanently attached to the ground or other permanent s=ruc=ure, or a sign designed to be Transported, including, but not limited to, signs designed to be transported by means of trailers or wheels; signs converted to A-shaped or T-shaped frames; including advertising vehicles. Projectinq Siqn: A sign, other than a wall sign, which is no= mounted horizontally to the building wall surface, but extends beyond it. Public Sian: Any =emporary or permanent sign erected and maintained by a town, city, county, state or federal government or an authority thereof. (Amended 6-19-96) Real Estate Si~n: Any sign which is used to offer for sale, lease, rent and/or development, the property upon which the sign is placed. Roof Siqn: Any sign erected and constructed wholly on and over the top of the fascia or mansard of the building. Service Road: An access primarily to a service area for loading of refuse and the like. Siqht Distance Triangle: signs are not permitted. 4.15.7.3. An area designated at an intersection of a~site where This is a sign setback as calculated in sec=ion Si~n: Any object, device or structure, or par= thereof, which exists primarily to advertise, identify, display, direct or attract attention =o an object, person, institution, organization, business, product, service, event or location by any means, including words, letters, figures, designs, pro3ected images, symbols, fixtures, colors, illumination, minerals, pictures or any part or combination thereof, which display ~s visible beyond the boundaries of -51- (Supp. #83, 6-19-96) 31.2.4.2.1 31.2.4.2.2 31.2.4.3 the board of supervisors shall have referred the application therefor to the corm~ission for its reconanendations. Failure of the commission to report within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission after the application has been referred to the commission shall be dee~ed a recommendation of approval. Provided, however, any day between the date an applicant requests or consents to a deferral or continuance of the consideration of the application by the commission until the date of the deferred or continued hearing by the commission shall not be counted in computing the ninety (90) day review period. The board of super- visors may extend the review period upon a request by the commis- sion. The board of supervisors shall act upon such application and render a decision within a reasonable time period. No such permit shall be issued except after notice and hearing as provided by section 15.1-431 of the Code and section 33.8 POSTING OF PROPERTY. (Amended 5-5-82; 6-19-96) LIMITATION OF FILING NEW APPLICATION AFTER ORIGINAL DENIAL Upon denial by the board of supervisors of any application filed pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 above, substantially the same peti- tion shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of denial. (Added 6-19-96) WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION Any application filed pursuan~ to section 31.2.4.2 above may be withdrawn upon written request by the applicant. The written request must be received by the body considering the application prior to it beginning consideration of the matter on the meeting agenda. Upon receipt of the request for withdrawal, processing of the application shall cease without further action by the commis- sion or the board. Substantially the same application shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of the withdrawal unless the body considering the application a~ the time of withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. (Added 6-19-96) CONDITIONS The board of supervisors may impose upon any such permit such conditions relating to the use for which such permit is granted as it may deem necessary in the public interest and may require a bond with surety or other approved security =o ensure that the conditions so imposed shall be complied with. Such conditions shall relate to the purposes of this ordinance, including, but not limited to, the prevention of smoke, dust, noise, traffic conges- tion, flood and/or other hazardous, deleterious or otherwise undesirable substance or condition; the provision of adequate police and fire protection, transportation, water, sewerage, drainage, recreation, landscaping and/or screening or buffering; the establishment of special requirements relating to the building setbacks, front, side and rear yards, off-street parking, ingress and egress, hours of operation, outside storage of materials, duration and intensity of use, building height and/or other particular aspects of occupancy or use. Except as the board of 202 (Supp. #83, 6-19-96) 31.2.4.4 31.2.4.5 supervisors may otherwise specifically provide in a particular case, any condition imposed under the authority of this section shall be deemed to be essential to and nonserverable from the issuance of the permit itself. REVOCATION Any permit issued pursuant to this ordinance may be revoked by the board of supervisors, after notice and hearing pursuan~ to section 15.1-431 of the Code, for wilful noncompliance with this ordinance or any conditions imposed under the authority of this section. In the event that the use, structure or activity for which any such permit is issued shall not be commenced within eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall be :onstrued to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years from the date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year; provided that the board of supervi- sors may, as a condition of approval, impose such alternative time limits as may be reasonable in a particular case. (Repealed 9-21-88) -202.1- (Supp. #83, 6-19-96) 33.3 33.3.1 33.3.2 33.3.3 33.4 33.5 PROFFER OF CONDITIONS Prior to any public hearing befo~ the board of supervisors any applicant for rezoning may voluntarily proffer, in writing, reasonableconditione to be applied =o such rezoning as part thereof. Such conditions shall comply with the provisions of section 15.1-491,2:1 of the Code; provided that the proffering thereof by the applicant shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such compliance. (Amended 4-4-90) EFFECT OF CONDITIONS Once proffered and accepted as part of an amendment to the zoning ordinance, such conditions shall continue in effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the property covered by such conditions; however, such conditions shall continue if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance. ~A~i such condi- tions shall be in addition to the regulations provided for the district by the ordinance. (Amended 4-4-90) ZONING MAP NOTATION Each such rezoning shall be designated on the zoning map by an appropriate symbol designed by the zoning administrator. In addition, the zoning administrator shall keep and maintain the conditional zonlng index which shall provide ready access to the ordinance creating such conditions. AUTHORITY OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR The zoning administrator shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the board of supervisors of the county =o administer and enforce conditions attached to a rezoning including the ordering in writing of the remedy of any noncompliance with such conditions and the bringing of legal action for injunction, abatement or other appropriate action or proceeding. PUBLIC HEARING - NOTICE The commission shall hold a public hearing on any such petition or resolution as provided by section 15.1-493 of the Code, after notice as required by section 15.1-431 of said code. REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AFTER HEARING After the conclusion of the hearing provided for in this section, unless the proceedings are terminated as provided herein, the commission shall report to the board of supervisors its recommen- dation with respect to the proposed -221- (Supp. #83, 6-19-96) 33.6 33.7 amendment. Failure of the commission to report to the board of supervisors within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission following the date the proposed amendment has been referred to the commission shall be deemed approval by the cormuis- sion. In acting favorably with respect to a proposed amendment initiated by the petition of a property owner or owners, the commission need not confine its recommendation to the proposed amendment as set forth in the petition, but may reduce or enlarge the extent of land that it recommends be rezoned or may reco~end that land be rezoned =o a different zonln9 classification than that petitioned for, if, the commission is of the opinion that such revision is in accord with public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice and is in furtherance of the purposes of this ordinance and section; provided that before recommending an enlargement of the extent of land or a rezoning to a less restricted classification than was set forth in the peti- tion, the commission shall hold a further hearing on the matter, pursuant ro the requirements of section 15.1-431 of the Code. No amendment to the zoning map shall be approved for a change in zoning classification different from that applied for and con- tained in the public notice of hearing nor for any land not included therein without referring said change to the commission for its review and recommendations and proceedings pursuant to this section and section 33.3; provided, however, that an amend- men= may be approved for only a portion of the area proposed for rezoning if the portion rezoned is accurately and sufficiently delimited in the approval action, or if a portion is reclassified pursuant to section 30.3. LIMITATION ON FILING NEW PETITION AFTER ORIGINAL DENIAL Upon the denial by the board of supervisors of any petition filed pursuant to section 33.2.1 above, substantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of denial. WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS Any petition filed pursuant to section 33.2.1 above, may be withdrawn upon written request by the applicant. The written request mus= be received by the body considering the application prior to it beginning its consideration of the matter on the meeting agenda. Upon receipt of the request for withdrawal, processing of the petition shall cease without further action by the commission or the board. Substantially the same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of withdrawal unless the body considering the application at the time of withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. [Amended 6-19-96) -222- (Supp. #83, 6-19-96) 33.8 33.8.1 33.8.2 33.8.3 POSTING OF PROPERTY Additional notice regarding zoning map amendmen=s initiated pursuant to section 33.2.1 above or special use permit applica- tions initiated pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 shall be provided by posting signs on the subject property in the manner prescribed in section 33.8.1 and section 33.8.3. However, failure to comply with the posting requirements of this section shall not invalidate any action by the commission or the board of supervisors. [Amend- ed 6-19-96) POSTING OF PROPERTY - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public hearing, the zoning administrator or designee shall erect on the property specified in section 33.8 above, a sign or signs indicat- ing the property is to be subject to public hearing and referenc- ing how to obtain additional information regarding such hearing. The sign shall be erected within ten (10) feet of whatever bound- ary line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road. If more than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as above on at least two boundaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. The filing of the petition or application shall be deemed to grant consent to the zoning administrator or designee to enter upon the property and to erect the signs. Upon a finding by the board of supervisors that failure to comply with the posting requirements of this section has denied the public reasonable notice of the public hearing, the board may defer action on the petition or application un=il reasonable notice by posting is given. (Amended 6-19-96) VALIDATION OF PRIOR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (Amended 6-19-96) The adoption or amendment of any zoning map amendment or the approval of any special use permit shall not be declared invalid by reason of a failure to post notice as may have been required under prior provisions of section 31.2.4.2 and section 33.8, provided a public hearing was conducted by the board of supervi- sors prior to such adoption, amendment, or approval. (Amended 6-19-96) MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF SIGNS The applicant shall exercise due diligence to protect the sign or signs erected pursuant to section 33.8 from vandalism and theft; maintain the sign or signs in the location or locations in an erect position as placed by the zoning administrator or designee; and ensure that such sign or signs remain legible. Failure to comply with these responsibilities may be grounds for the commis- sion or the board of supervisors to defer action on the petition or application until there is reasonable compliance. Any sign erected pursuant to section 33.8 shall remain the proper- ty of the board of supervisors. It shall be unlawful for any person, except the applicant performing maintenance required by this section or the zoning administrator or an authorized agent of either, to remove or tamper with any sign erected pursuant to section 33.8. All such signs shall be removed by the zoning administrator or designee within fifteen (15) days following the board of supervisors' final action on the petition or application or the applicant's withdrawal of the petition or application. (Amended 6-19-96) -223- (Supp. ~83, 6-19-9S) David P. Bo~nnan Chariot t~ville Charlotte Y, Humphris Forrest R. t'~rshall. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Superwsors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 t804) 296-58Zk3 FAX (804) 296-5800 MEMORANDUM Charles S. Martin Waiter F. Pcrkir~ Sally H. Thomas TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~~-~ DATE: June 14, 1996 SUBJECT: Reading List for June 19, 1996 April. 5, 1995 - pages 1 - 12 Item ~11) - Mr. Martin pages 12(Item ~12) - 28(Item ~16) - Mr. Bowerman Pages 28(Item #16) - end - Mr. Perkins EWC: mms Printed on recycled paper JUNE 19, 1996 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PursuaNT tO SECTION 2. I -344(/0 Of the CODE OF VirgiNIA UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO REVERSION AND TO DISCUSS PROBABLE LITIGATION REGARDING AN INSURANCE AGREEMENT. TRIGON MOTION I MOVE THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY BE AUTHORIZED TO RETAIN COUNSEL AND INITIATE LITIGATION TO RECOVER HOSPITAL BISOOUNTS IMPROPERLY RETAINED BY TRIGON.