Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-15F IN A I~ NOVEMBER 15, 1995 1) la) lb) 2) 3) 5:15 P.M,, ROOM 235 (TOTIER ROOM) Call to Order Executive Session: Legal and Personnel. Certify Executive Session. Joint Meeting with Charlottesville City Council a) Discussion: Town Reversion. b) Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Adjourn, 7:00 P.M. ROOM 241, COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 6) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). Public Hearing: Initiatives for 1996-97 Operating Budget, ZTA-95-05, Commercial Stables, Public Hearing on a proposal to amend Section 10,0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit commercial stables by right, and to include all necessary supplementary regulations related thereto (deferred from October 11, 1995), ZMA-95-17. Wendell Wood. Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers of ZMA-93-06 to allow establishment of outdoor storage and display of autos on 11.3 ac zoned HC & EC, Located on W sd of Rt 29 Near Timberwood Bird; is location of Maupin Store. Site recommended for Regional Service in the Community of HoJlymead. TM32,P's 43&43A. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from November 8, 1995.) SP-95-31. Wendell Wood. Public Hearing on a request to establish outdoor storage & display of autos on property described in ZMA-95-17 above. (Deferred from November 8, 1995,} ZMA-95-13. University Real Estate Foundation. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 5 ac from R-1 to R-10. Located on N sd of Ivy Rd on access road to University Village. Site recommended for High Density Residential (10.01 - 34 du/ac). TM60,P45. Jack Jouett Dist. SP-9§-27. University Real Estate Foundation. Public Hearing on a request to establish professional office on 5.0 ac zoned R-10 subject to approval of ZMA-95-13 above. SP-95-32. Tiger Fuel Company. Public Hearing on a request to establish a drive-in window on 0.9 ac zoned HC & EC on property located in NW corner of inters of Rts 250/20. TM7$,P4. Rivanna Dist. E~ccvtJvc ~ccslon: Percc~,qc], Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD, Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Resolution of Intent to rezone properties adjacent to Berkmer Drive. FOR INFORMATION: 5.2 Status of efforts to address utilities during develooment of sites. 5.3 Notice dated November 2, 1995, of an application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Hyperion Telecommunications of Virginia, Inc,, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide intere×change telecommunications services and to have its rates determined competitively. 5.4 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for October 31 and November 7, 1995. 5,5 Copy of letter dated November 10, 1995, from David J, Hirschman, Water Resources Manager to Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, re: report on Route 614'road improvements - Sugar Hollow. AMENDED 11-28-95 IN ITEM SP-95-27 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~4596 (804 296-584~ FAX ~804) 296-5800 ME MO ~ ANDUM Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thoma.~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executiv9 Ella W. Carey, Clerk Noveraber 16, 1995 Board Actions of November 15, 1995 The following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors a= its mee=ing on November 15, 1995: Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 4. other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Present to speak about the new high school was Mr. John Carter saying the idea of having cross ventilation in the classrooms (now known as studios) has created the need for three separate buildings instead of one. Mr. Jim Eddins from the County's Historic Preservation committee was present to request that the cost of a staff planner for historic preservation be included in the next budge~. Item 5.1. Resolution of Intent to rezone properties adjacent =o Berkmar Drive. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Initiatives for 1996-97 Operating Budget. Mr. John Carter suggested the County give a tax refund to the citizens when there are excess funds left over at the end of the fiscal year. Mrs. Betty Newell suggested the Board consider funding some of the unmet health needs of the community, particularly adult dental care, psychiatric drugs for non-indigents, medicine for low-income seniors, a less restrictive shelter for the homeless in the community, and also to consider the effect changes in funding from the state and federal government will have on the locality, i.e., address problems before they become too much of a burden =o bear. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-95-05. Commercial Stables. Public Hearing on a proposal to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, P~A, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit commercial stables by right, and to include all necessary supplementary regulations related thereto (deferred from October ll, 1995). ADOPTED the attached ordinance. Printed on recycled paper Robert W. Tucker, Jr. November 16, 1995 (Page 2) Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-95-17. Wendell Wood. Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers of ZMA-93-06 to allow establishment of outdoor storage and display of autos on 11.3 ac zoned HC & EC. Located on W sd of Rt 29 Near Ti~berwood Blvd; is location of Maupin Store. Site recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. TM32,P's 43&43A. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from November 8, 1995.) APPROVED ZMA-95-17 subject to the following proffers: PROFFER Date: 11-2-95 ZMA # 95-17 Tax Map Parcels(s) # 32-43 & 43A 7.9 Acres to be rezoned from HC to HC Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezonlng and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise ~o the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) The area outlined in yellow (350' x 180') on the attached plan titled "Pine Grove" dated 8/29/95 (on file in the Planning Office), may be used as a convenience/grocery store and gasoline sales. In addition this area may be used for mobile home sales and/or automobile sales subject to approval of the appropriate special use permits. The remainder of the site may be used only for mobile home sales subject to the approval of the appropriate special use permits; (2) The entrances on this site will be closed or altered if required by the future plan of development for the remaining adjacent areas designated office and regional service in the Comprehensive Plan; (3) The frontage on Route 29 containing Tax Map 32, Parcels 43A, 43, 42E, 42D, 42B, 42A and Tax Map 46, Parcel 5 shall contain not more than three combination entrance & exits. The County may require closure of any existing entrances at the time of establishment of any new entrances such that the total number of entrances does not exceed three; (4) An access road between the mobile home sales area and mobile home park shall be developed at the time of the establishment of any mobile home sales use. This access road shall be used only for the movement of mobile homes between the two uses and for emergency (Signed) for River Heights Associates by W. W. Wood, General Partner, 11-2-95 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. November 16, 1995 (Page 3) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-95-31. Wendell Wood. Public Hearing on a request no establish outdoor storage & display of autos on property described in ZMA-95- 17 above. (Deferred from November 8, 1995.) APPROVED SP-95-31, subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove existing signage from the site; 2. Construct a berm topped with screening trees between the entrance corridor on the southernmost part of the parking area. The parking ~n this area shall be screened from the entrance corridor; 3. Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval of landscape location, sizes and species type. Trees are to be large street trees (3 1/2" caliper); 4. No elevated vehicle display; 5. The lighting shall be directed down onto the site with the source of the light shielded from v~ew from the entrance corridor; 6. No attention-getting devices shall be attached to any vehicle or structure on the site. This shall prohibit the use of balloons, spinners, streamers and the like; 7. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required prior to approval of the site plan; 8. Lighting of the site shall be limited to between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M.; 9. Remove the gas pumps from the curren~ location. Reestablishment of the gas pumps shall be permitted subject ~o site plan approval and approval by the ARB; and 10. Vehicle sales and display shall be limited to the parking area shown on Attachment D (on file in the Planning Office). Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-95-13. University Real Estate Foundation. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 5 az from R-1 to R-10. Located on N sd of Ivy Rd on access road to University Village. Site recommended for High Density Residential [10.01 - 34 du/ac). TM60,P45. Jack Jouett Dist. APPROVED ZMA-95-13 subject to the following proffers: University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Applicant"), the fee simple owner of that certain property described ~n rezon~ng application #ZMA-95-13, and special use permit application #SP-95-27 (Tax Map Reference 60-45) (the "Property") hereby voluntarily proffers that in the event the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to R-10 in substantial accordance with Applicant's application dated July 26, 1995, Applicant's development of the Property shall be in substantial conformance with the following proffers. The proffers are made pursuant To Section 15.1-491 et seq of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, (the "Code") and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). All of these proffers ~re voluntarily offered pursuant to the Ordinance ~nd relevant sections of the Code. These proffers shall no~ be interpreted ~o authorize any person to vary from state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards. Vehicular access to and from State Route 601 (Old Ivy Road) shall be restricted to existing shared access over Crestwood Drive. Building improvements shall be limited ~o 3,500 square feet of gross floor area of space until such time as either: i) State Route 601 (Old Ivy Road) is improved to accommodate additional vehicle trips generated from increased development, as determined by the Virginia Robert W. Tucker, Jr. November 16, 1995 (Page 4) Department of Transportation and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County or ii) an alternative vehicular access to the Property (other than v~a State Route 601) is provided. (Signed) University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation By: Tim R. Rose, Chief Operating Executive Agenda Item No. 11. SP-95-27. University Real Estate Foundation. Public Hearing on a request ~o establish professional office on 5.0 ac zoned R-10 subjec~ to approval of ZMA-95-13 above. APPROVED SP-95-27 subject ~o the following conditions (Note: amended by the Board): 1. Compliance with the requirements of Section 21.0 of the #4 was Zoning Ordinance; Office space limited ~o the existing residence and amendments to the building not to result in a building larger than 3,500 square feet gross floor area; Use shall not commence until site plan approval has been obtained; and At such time as alternative access to the property is established, the Crestwood Drive access shall be limited to emergency access only. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-95-32. Tiger Fuel Company. Public Hearing on a request ~o establish a drive-in window on 0.9 ac zoned HC & EC on proper~y located in NW corner of inters of Rts 250/20. TM78,P4. Rivanna Dist. DEFEPd~ED this petition to December 13, 1995, without closing the public hearing. This was done so the applicant could submit a revised site plan for review by the Highway Department and staff as To an entrance off of Route 20. Mrs. Humphris wants more information on why access to McDonald's was originally required, and the number of parking spaces that are needed. Agenda Item NO. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. By consensus, the Board reaffirmed appointment of Mr. Jerry Jones to the Library Board to replace Mrs. Christine Baker. Term will expire on June 30, 1996. Mrs. Thomas mentioned a letter from Mr. David Booth, who has resigned from the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee. She requested that he receive a letter of appreciation. Mrs. Thomas suggested that staff follow federal legislation about flow control and communication towers. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that ~he Secretary of Natural Resources may contact the County regarding a letter from the Southern Environmental Law Center about the Rivanna River. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. ADJOURNED this meeting until November 29, 1995, at 3:00 P.M., in the County Executive's Conference Room for an execu=ive session. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. November 16, 1995 (Page 5) AGENDA I~EM NO. 2A FROM THE AFTERNOON AGENDA. Joint Meeting with Charlottesville City Council to discuss Town Reversion, on the afternoon agenda. CONSENSUS that the County Executive and the City Manager prepare a joint resolution using such words as "encourage" and "suggest" that the respective school divisions study the cooperative efforts outlined in the attached report. DECIDED to mee= again on December 12, 1995, a= 5:30 p.m. in the Basement Conference Room in city Hall. LEN/mms Attachments (3) cc= Richard E. Huff Roxanne White Jo Higgins Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Amelia McCulley Jan Sprinkle Larry Davis Wayne Cilimberg File ORDINANCE NO. 95-20(5) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ANDARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby emended and reordained by amending Section 3.0, Definitions, Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, and Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, HA, as follows: 3.0 DEFINITIONS 5.0 Stable, Commercial: A building, group of buildings, or use of land, or any combination thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary or goods, provision is made for horses or ponies for hire or instruction in riding. SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS 5.1.3 COMMERCIAL STABLE Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material to minimize dust and erosion; Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times. 10.0 RURAL AREAS DISTRICT~ RA 10.2.1 BY RIGHT 10.2.1.20 10.2.2 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 10.2.2.16 (Repealed 11-15-95) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a nrue, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted by the Board of Counny Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on November 15, 1995. ~r ,~Board~of Country S pervieors RESOLUTION OF ~NTENT BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, does hereby state its intent =o amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map to change the zoning district designation for certain parcels of land adjacent ~o and on the eastern side of Berkmar Drive between woodbrook Drive and Hilton Heights Road. These cha~ges are necessary due to the Berkmar Drive right- of-way acquisition which divided parcels by zoning districts. The alignment of the road divided two residential zoning districts, thereby creating "strips" of R-6 and R-15 zoning that were added to parcels zoned HC, Highway Commercial. This amendment will rezone those strips so that the effected parcels will not be split by zoning districts. Parts of Parcels 68, 68C, 68C1, 112B, and 109E on Tax Map 45 will be considered, as follows: 1. TMP45-68: Parcel A of 7453.87 sq. ft. (shown on a Wiley and Wilson plat recorded a= Deed Book 1446, page 129) zoned R-15 was added to Parcel 68 on 12/16/94. This area is proposed to be rezoned =o HC. (TMP45-68E ~o 68) 2. TMP45-68C: An unidentified strip of R-15 zoning (estimated to be 9400 sq. ft.) is now on the east side of Berkmar Drive and is part of what is identified as Residue A on ~ plat by Wiley and Wilson recorded in Deed Book 1439, page 196. This area is proposed to be rezoned to HC. (TMP45-68C [divided into 68C and C2]) 3. TMP45-68Cl: Parcel A of 1636.34 sq. ft. (shown on a Wiley & Wilson plat recorded at Deed Book 1447, page 668), zoned R-6 was added =o Parcel 68Cl on 12/27/94. This area is proposed to be rezoned to HC. (TMP45-80 to 68Cl) 4. TMP45-112B: A strip of R-6 zoning was split into three pieces. Two of these were added to parcels which are zoned HC while the third piece was added to a parcel also zoned R-6. Parcel Z of 2637.44 sq. ft. was added to parcel 68Cl and parcel Y of 4691.21 sq. ft. was added to parcel l12B (both shown on a plat by Thomas B. Lincoln recorded at Deed Book 1380, page 493). These two pieces are proposed to be rezoned to HC. (TMP45-81 =o 68Cl & l12B) 5. TMP 109E: A strip of approximately one acre of R-6 zoning is now on the east side of Berkmar Drive and is currently identified as parcel 109E. (The right-of-way was shown on a Wiley and Wilson plat recorded at Deed Book 1428, page 546, and was taken from what was then parcel 109.) The other 3.18 acres of 109E is zoned HC. The estimated one acre is proposed to be rezoned to HC. (TMP45-109 to 109E) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on November 15, 1995. ~oard of County Suue~sors Clerk, COOPERATIVE SCHOOL EFFORTS Partnership Declaration by the Albemarle and Charlottesville Schools. The Declarations includes: Cooperative staff development Cooperative adult education Cooperative summer schools and alternative schools, e,g., seats at Murray Schools for Charlottesville students and seats at Opportunity School for Albemarle students Joint purchasing efforts Sharing of teachers in courses with low enrollment Opening seats at CHS for Atbemafle students to enroll in Fine Arts programs and Advanced Placement classes and seats for Charlottesville studenB at a similarly speciati~_~l program to be established at Monticello High School. Computer hook-ups between the two jurisdictions and joint computer projects between city and county classrooms. Consolidated recruitment and hiring of teachers. Joint summer enrichment programs at a county school and a city school Still to be resolved: F-.~tablishing a mechanism for ongoing initiation and evaluation o£joim efforts, such as a Joint School Committee on Consolidation Efforts. COUNTY OF ALBEMARI_ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of Intent to Rezone Properties Adjacent to Berkmar Drive SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Properties to he rezoned are strips of residential zoning that are on the eastern side of Berkmar Drive between Woodbr0ok Drive and Hilton Heights Road. The strips were created when the right-of-way for Berkmar Drive was taken. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Ms. McCulley, Ms. Sprinkle AGENDA DATE: November 15, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: , REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Resolution of Intent ! BACKGROUND: All plats for the Berkmar Drive right-of-way have now been put to record and the road is open making the adjacent properties available for development. The previously stated intent of the Board of Supervisors was to have the road divide the zoning with commercial zoning on the eastern side and residential zoning on the western side of Berkmar Drive DISCUSSION: The plats that were put to record last year divided zoning districts and lc~ff several parcels with strips of residential zoning alongside the larger portions of HC, Highway Commercial zoning on the eastern side of the road. Iflefi, the residential zoning adjacent to commercial zoning would regulate certain setbacks for both structures and parking in the commercial portions of these properties. Staffhas notified all property owners by letter that thins rezoning is proposed. There is no public purpose in leaving the zoning the way it is now. It only hinders the owners when they attempt to develop. Therefore, it is a benefit to both the property owners and the county for tts to und~ake the rezoning in one proc2dure rather than the individual owners dealing with it on a piecemeal basis. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution of Intent. The public hearing will be scheduled in the near future. 95.192 RESOLUTION OF ~'NTENT BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map to change the zoning district designation for certain parcels of land adjacent to and on the eastern side of Berkmar Drive between Woodbrook Drive and Hilton Heights Road. These changes are necessary due to the Berkmar Drive right- of-way acquisition which divided parcels by zoning districts. The alignment of the road divided two residential zoning districts, thereby creating "strips" of R-6 and R-15 zoning that were added to parcels zoned HC, Highway Commercial. This amendment will rezone those strips so that the effected parcels will not be split by zoning districts. Parts of Parcels 68, 68C, 68C1, 112B, and 109E on Tax Map 45 will be considered, as follows: 1. TMP45-68: Parcel A of 7453.87 sq. ft. (shown on a Wiley and Wilson plat recorded at Deed Book 1446, page 129} zoned R-15 was added to Parcel 68 on 12/16/94. This area is proposed to be rezoned to HO. (TMP45-68E to 68) 2. TMP45-68C: An unidentified strip of R-15 zoning (estimated to be 9400 sq. ft.) is now on the east side of Berkmar Drive and is part of what is identified as Residue A on a plat by Wiley and Wilson recorded in Deed Book 1439, page 196. This area is proposed to be rezoned to HC. (TMP45-68C [divided into 68C and C2]) 3. TMP45-68C1: Parcel A of 1636.34 sq. ft. (shown on a Wiley & Wilson plat ._ r recorded at Deed Book 1447, page 668), zoned R-6 was added to _ -.-~ ~.~ -~-~ . ~. .. ~ r~ Parcel 68Cl on~12/27/9~,t This area is proposed~o-be~rezoned to HC. (TMP45-80 to 68Cl) - 4. TMP45-112B: A strip of R-6 zoning was split ~nto three pieces. Two of these were added to parcels which-are~zoned-HC while the third piece was added to a parcel also zoned R-6. Parcel Z of 2637.44 sq. ft. was added to parcel 68C1 and parcel Y of 4691.21 sq. ft. was added to parcel ll~B (both shown on a plat by Thomas B. Lincoln recorded at Deed Book 1380, page 493). These two pieces are proposed to be rezoned to HC. (TMP45-81 to 68C1 & 112B) A~strip-of approximately one acreof-R-6 zoning Ks now on the - east side of Berkmar Drive and is .currently identified as parcel 109E. (The right-of-way was shown on a Wiley and Wilson plat recorded at Deed Book 1428, page 546, and was taken from what was then parcel 109.) The other 3.18 acres of 109E is zoned HC. The estimated one acre is proposed to be rezoned to HC. (TMP45-109 to 109E} I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correc= copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on November 15, 1995. Clerk, Board of County Suner~sors RESOLUTION OF INTENT BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for purposes of pt~]ic necessity, convent,'nee, genial welfare and ~oo~ zonln~ practices, do~ ~ere~ state its intent to amend t~e ~bemarl¢ Co~ Zoning Map to chan~e t~e zoning ~istfiot ~e~i~nation for ce~ain parc~b dhnd adjac~t to and on tk eastern side of Berkmar D~e between Woodbrook Drive and Hilton Haghts Road. These e~an~es are neoessa~ due to the Berkmar D~ve acquisition w~ch dMded parcels by zoning districts. Th~ ~ignment of tk mad ~ded ~d~al z~ng &t~cts, th~eby c~tlng "s~ps" d R6 and R15 zo~ng that wer~ added to parcels zoned HC, Highway Commercial. This amendment ~11 ~zo~ tho~ strips so that the effected parcels ~H not be split by Zon~g dist~cts. Parts of Parcel~ 68, 68C, 68C1, 112B, and 109E on Tax Map 45 will be considered, as follows: 1. TMP45-68: Parcel A of 7,453.87 scI. ft. (shown on a wiley and Wilson plat recorded at Deed Book 1446 page 129) zoned R15 was added to Parcel 68 on 12/16/94. Tl~s area is proposed to he rezoned to HC. (TMP45-68E to 68) 2. TMP45-68C: An unidentified strip of Ri5 zoning (estimated to be 9400 scI. ft.) is now on the east side of Berkmar Dffve and is part of what is identi~ed as Residue A on a plat by Wiley and wilson recorded in Deed Book 1439 Page 196. This area is proposed to be rezoned to HC. [TMP45-68C (divided into 68C and 3. TMP45,68Cl: Parcel A of 1636:34 sq. ft. (shown on a Wiley &' Wilson plat recorded at Deed Book 1447 page 668), zoned R6 was added to Parcel 68C1 on 12/27/94. This area is proposed to be rezoned 4o HC. (TMP45-80 to 68C1) 4. TMP45-112B: A strip of R6 zoning was split into 3 pieces. Two of these were added to parcels which are zoned HC while the third piece was added to a parcel also zoned R6. Parcel Z of 2637.44 sq: ft. was added to parcel 68C1 and parcel Y of 4691.21 scI. ft. was added to parcel 112B (both shown on a plat by Thomas B. IAncoln recorded at Deed Book 1380 Page 493). These two pieces are proposed to be rezoned to HC. ( TMP45-81 to 68C1 ,~ 112B) 5. TMP 109E: A strip of approximately one acre of R6 zoning is now on the east side of B~rIanar and is currently identified as parcel I09E. (The right-of-way was: shown on a Wiley and Wilson plat recorded at Deed Book 1428 page 546 and was taken from what was then parcel 109.) The other 3.18 acres of 109E is zoned HC. Tt~e esHmated one acre is proposed to he rezoned to HC. (TMP45-109 to 109E) 39~. 35 3~ ' 34C 31U 3'¢, , '3ITl 31w -- 69 29. -61 7O ~,£ SEE $cc 46 - 18,C 27 6f :E oV 1 LL~-,; ' :R.I YANNA QUETT 'n':i.s m' ~1 ¢~S ENTRANCE CORRIDOR SECTION 45 / / / [ - ~ARC~ 'x' $§4 °48 ' OA 'E I N6! RESIDUE 'A' 2. 665 ACRES PLAT S.O.ING RIGHT-OF-WAY , , HERESY DEDICATEO FOR PUBLIC USE "~lp. B37.,44 S.F.) [~"~-~-.~.~-~.~mm~ ALSO SHOWING ~0 FOOT WATERLINE EASEMENTS HEREBY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE ,-~B.U~ ALSO SHOWI"~ ' A PORTION OF PROPERTY ~ELONG~NG TO ' zs - }nON SET AS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK Ji75 PAGE 447 LOCATED ON AN EXTENSION OF BERKNAR DRIVE ~ ~'~ ~ARLOTTESVILLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 15~6 STATE FARM BOULEVARD ALBEMA~E COUNTY, VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIROINIA 22901 SCALE: t'=60' JANUARY i7. 1994 ~EET ~ OF 2 TNODEL X~ ~ ~DATAB~g300890J.~ 93--0089--0i 'x % COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISOF Utilities in Site Development Status of Efforts to Address STAFF C. ONT A CT (S)~' Messrs. Tucker, Cllimborg, Ms. Higgius November 15, 1995 ACTION: ACTION: A~T A~_~NT~: IN'FORMATIOn-- Yes NO Mr. Bowerman has previously asked staff to look into possible ways to better plan for ntilit'ms and ut'dity structures in development of new projects. This had been raised as a citizou concern regarding the proliferat[ou of utility boxes in residential areas. Staffhas discussed this both in terms of regulation and vohmtary measures. Regulatory measures, such as requirements for screening of stmcvares or sharing of under~x)oud corridors and easements, are not advisable. Larry Davis advised against such based on his exponenee with such an effort in Stafford County, There were legal questions raised as well as concerns about resulting easement widths and their affect on bua~l[~ area and other landscaping. Voluntary measures may hold more promise. For some time now the County staff has been discussing with VDOT the pos~ib'flity of relaxing nt'dity restrictions in VDOT fight of way, In addition to the ACSA, Virginia Power and Spriot/Cee~l ate interested in d~scussing utility placement issues as they migl~ relate to both VDOT mad other development issues. There is an oppofom~3~ in this venue to discuss overall consideration for utilities that could result in better pl~un~g and coordination, Pursue better overall planning for utilities through aa expansion of efforts already underway m address ufflities in VDOT right of way. UTILREG.EXE 95.193 D©W, LOHNES .& ALBEIRT$©N November 2, 1995 Mr. Walter Perkins Chai~xnan Board of Supervisors for the County of Albermale 401 Mclndre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Application of Hyperion Telecommunications of Virginia, Inc. For a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity -- Case No. PUC 950064 Dear Mr~ Perkins: This letter is to inform you that on August 4, 1995 Hyperion Telecommunications of Vh:g'mia, Inc.("Hyperion") applied to the State Corporation Commission (the "Commission") for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide interLATA, interexchange telecommunications service to the public within the Charlottesville Metropolitan area, including the County of Albemarle, and to have its rates determined competitively. On October 31, 1995, Hyperion filed a supplement to its application expanding the scope of authority requested to include intraLATA interexchange services. Hyperion proposes to be a competitive access provider offering dedicated cimuits between interexchange carriers ("IXCs"), between end users and IXCs and between IXCs and other common carriers. On October 24, 1995 the Commission issued an Order Proscribing Notice which docketed the case and assigned it Case No. PUC 950064. This order also directed Hyperion to provJdepmhlienoticenfk~app!ieatio~n~nclestab!JshedDecember8 ! 995 .~s the deadL;ne for Lhe filing of objections to the application. A copy of the Order Prescribing Notice is attached. Should you have any questions with regard to Hyperion's application, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, r~St~ven F. Morris Enclosure 040159 STATE CORPORATION CO~SSION AT R~CHMOND, OCTOBER 24, OOCUMEHT OH, APPLICATION OF HYP~ION TE~OO~I~TIONS OF VIRGINIA, INC. 1995 CASE NO. PUC950064 For a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide interexchange telecommunications services and to have its rates determined competitively QRDERPRESCRIBING NOTICE On August 4, 1995, Hyperion Telecommunications of Virginia, Inc. ("Hyperion" or "Applicant") filed its application with the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide inter-LATA, interexchange telecommunications service to the public within the areas around Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and to have its rates de~ermined competitively. NOW, upon consideration of the application, the Commission is of the opinion that Hyperion's application should be docketed, public notice of the application should be given, and, if substantive objections are received, a public hearing to consider the application should be scheduled. Accordingly~ IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) This case is docketed and assigned Case NO. PUC950064. (2} The Applicant forthwith give notice of its application to the public by publishing, as display advertising, not classified, in newspapers having general circulation throughout the area of Charlottesville and Albemarle County the following notice: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION BY HYPERION TELECOM~TJNICATIONS OF VIRGINIA, INC., FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO PROVIDE LONG-DISTANCE T~L~COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE WITHIN VIRGINIA AND TO HAVE ITS RATES D~TERMINED COMPETITIVELY - CASE NO. PUC950064 On August 4, 1995, Hyperion Telecommunications of Virginia, Inc. ("Hyperion" or "Applicant") filed an application with the Virginia State Corporation Commission ("Commission") for a certificate of public convenience and necessity, authorizing it to provide inter- LATA, interexchange telecommunications service throughout the Charlottesville and Albemarle County areas, with its rates to be determined competitively. Hyperion proposes to be a competitive access provider, offering dedicated circuits between interexchange carriers (#IXCs#), between end users and IXCs, and between IXCs and other common carriers. The State Corporation Commission will schedule a public hearing on Hyperion's application if substantive objections are lodged against the application; otherwise, the Commission may grant the requested certificate and authority for competitive rates without 'conducting a hearing. copies of the application are available for public inspection in the Commission's Document Control Center located on the first floor cf the Ty!~r Bui].di~g~ 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, between the hours of 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., or can be ordered from Hyperion's attorney, Steven F. Morris, Esquire, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Suite 500, 1255 Twenty-Third Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. Any person wishing to lodge an objection to Hyperion's application should submit an original and fifteen (15) copies of the objection, in writing, to William J. Bridge, Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23216, on or before 2 December $, 1995, and should refer to Case No. PUC950064. Written objections must state with specificity why a bearing is necessary. HYPERION TELECOMMUNICATIONS OF VIRGINIA, INC. (3) On or before November 8, 1995, Applicant shall give notice of its application to each local exchange telephone company operating in Virginia and each interexchange carrier certificated in Virginia by personal delivery or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the Customary place of business or residence of the person served. (4) On or before November 8, 1995, the Applicant shall furnish a copy of this Order to the chairman of the board of supervisors of the counties and the mayor or city manager of each city or town within the service territory sought (or to equivalent officials in counties,' cities, and towns having alternate forms of government) by personal delivery, or first- class mail, postage prepaid,~ to the customary place of business- or residence of the per,on served. (5) On or before December 8, 1995, any person wishing to lodge an objection to Hyperion's application shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of its objection, in writing, with William J. Bridge, Clerk of the State Corporation commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23216. Written objections shall refer to Case No. PUC950064 and shall state with specificity why a hearing on Hyperion's application is necessary. (6) If substantive objections to Hyperion's application are received on or before December 8,~ 1995, the Commission shall schedule a public hearing on'~his application; otherwise, ~he Commission may grant the requested certificate and authority for competitive rates without conducting a hearing. (?) On or before December 8, 1995, Applicant file with the Clerk of the Commission proof of publication of the notice prescribed herein. AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to: Leonard J. Kennedy, Esquire, Steven F. Morris, Esquire, and ~hristina H. Burro~, Esquire Dows Lohnes & Albertson, 1255 Twenty-third Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20037~ the Division of Consumer Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, Second Floor, Richmond, virginia 23219; the Commission's Office of General Counsel; and the Commission's Divisions of Communications, Public Utility Accounting, Economics and Finance, and Public Service Taxation. 4 November 10, 1995 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineer/ng 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5861 Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Post Office Box 2013 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Report on Route 614 Road Improvements - Sugar Hollow Dear Ms. Tucker: This letter is follow-up on al/previous correspondence related to this matter, including the County Executive's October 6 letter ro you and me, my October 12 letter to you, and your October 30 letter to the Board of Supervisors. UPDATE OF PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS First, I would like to update my October 12 comments in light of your letter to the Board. I will address each item in mm. 1. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Reservoir Clean-Out: I know that you have been in touch with RWSA about their reservoir clean-out plans. My current understanding is that a contract for debris removal will be in place by the end of the year, and that the work is expected to take approximately 180 days. 2. Stormwater Runoff: My October 12 letter suggests capturing and treating the first one-half inch of road runoff in areas where runoff must be concentrated (as opposed to spreading it into vegetated buffer areas). The objective is to filter or infiltrate the "frrst flush" of stormwater runoff, which is understood to carry the heaviest concentration of pollutants. As you and I have discussed, these BMP's can be retrofit into stormwarer conveyance systems after the construction of the systems are completed. Design considerations are site-specific. Important factors include flood plain elevations, depth to water table, slope, and soil. The placement and maintenance of the BMP's are also critical factors to address. Attachment 1 contains some conceptual ideas on how to accomplish this first flush treamaem. 3. Leaching of Pollutants From Plant Mix: As with many environmental issues, one can find scientific research to reinforce opposing points of view. After weighing the literature, it is my professional opinion that wash-off of pollutants in stormwater, as addressed above, far outweighs the potential of pollutants leaching from plant mix as a water quality concern. Based on this judgement, the best way to protect water quality is to address seriously the previous comments about stormwater runoff and the implementation of BMP's. FAX [804) 972-4035 Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation November 10, 1995 Page Two 4. Vegetation on Fill Slopes: Your letter adequately addresses this topic. I will continue to inspect these areas and make additional site-specific recommendations if warranted. 5. Stream Channel Restoration: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) will not be doing any additional channel projects on the Moormans. Other agencies, including the Virginia Depmtment of Forestry, may be interested in offering technical assistance. We will continue to communicate about any further work in the stream channel. 6. Work in the Vicinity of the Buxton's Low-Water Bridge: It is not clear in your letter whether the cedar trees to be removed will be replaced with hardwoods, as previously recommended. Please provide clarification of this point (see my October 12 letter for more details). I understand that the rock berm west of the large sycamore will be lowered to allow for sheet flow from the edge of pavement, and a grass shoulder established between the pavement and the berm. Finally, thank you for your prompt attention to the sycamore tree. [ look forward to seeing the report from the :ontractor. 7. Upper Cabeil Property: As previously recommended., any tree replacement in this area is to be decided between your agency and the property owner. 8. Section Along Puppy Run Farm: I understand that a waiver of the road standard will be necessary to exercise flexibility along this section, as recommended in my October 12 letter. The recommendation to "fit" the road within existing topographic constraints is based on concerns about substantial grading, cutting of trees, and the resultant "daylighting" of the road and river corridor. The scenic river corridor would best be served by minimizing these impacts. This was the consensus of opinion at our September 19 site visit involving various agencies and interests. At this point, I need to know in specific terms how this "fitting" can be accomplished. I expect that this issue will be resolved prior to proceeding with work along this section. In light of the Board's motion, I feel that items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 above have become resolved to a satisfactory level. Items 2, 6, and 8 need to be clarified and resolved. Due to the sensitive nature of this issue and its critical timeline, I am requesting a response from you on the outstanding items by Wednesday, November 15. Please advise me if this is not possible. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation November 10, 1995 Page Three RESPONSE TO CITIZEN LETTERS As you know, you and I have also been asked to prepare responses to letters from Lorerta Cummings (Commonwealth Environmental Consult'rog, Inc.) and the Friends of the Moormans River. This request came from the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on October 4. I have done my best m synthesize responses m concerns raised in these letters. I have received input from the Depamuent of Planning and Community, the Department of Finance, and Shenandoah National Park on several of the issues. 9. Will Additional Toxins Enter the River Due to Paving? Both letters raise a concern of toxins entering the river from runoff and from leaching of the pavement. As we know, various research abstracts and articles have been presented. Of the two water quality concerns (runoff and leaching), I believe that runoff is the primary concern, as discussed earlier in this letter. It would be difficult to quantify the difference in runoff quality between a paved surface and a gravel surface (most comparisons in the literature are between paved surfaces and grass or forest). There is evidence that water quality and ecological deterioration does take place once 10-15 % of a watershed becomes covered with impervious surfaces (roads, driveways, rooftops, etc.) (Watershed Protection Techniques, The Importance of Imperviousness, Volume 1, No. 3, pp. 100-111 ). At present, the imperviousness of the Moormans watershed (between Route 674 and the reservoir) appears to be less than 1%. This calculation includes the surface area of Route 614. t My conclusion is that we are dealing with an incremental change that is difficult m put a number on. Considering that this a State Scenic River and a County Scenic Stream. the best response to a change of unknown dimension is to reduce the risk by implementing BMP's for runoff. ~The Moormans River watershed from Route 674 to the reservoir is approximately 5.3 square miles, or 3420 acres. I calculated the road surface as 2.5 miles long and 18' feet wide, for a total of 5.5. acres. Based on recent E-911 maps, there are 27 residences in this watershed. I assumed each residence to have 2500 square feet of impervious area for the house and 0.25 miles of impervious driveway (12' wide). The total impervious cover for the 27 residences is 11.4 acres. Therefore, the total watershed imperviousness is approximately 16.9 acres, or 0.5% of the 3420 acre watershed. Analysis of aerial photographs would yield a more accurate result. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation November 10, 1995 Page Four 10. Will Paving Encourage More Development and Increase the Value of Road Frontage? I received input from the Planning and Finance Departments on this topic. Those responses are contained in Attachments 2 and 3. Typically in Albemarle County, paving of unpaved roads is in response to citizen requests based on development that has already taken place. Theoretical/y, paving can make areas more attractive for residential development, although there are no records to confn'm or deny this. Paving the road will not increase the number of perm/tted lots in this Rural Area (RA) zone, and all future development will be subject m County ordinances, including those for reservoir protection. In general, the Rural Area zone is a resource conservation zone, and development is not encouraged. As for the value of road frontage for paved versus unpaved roads, the County Assessor reports that the assessed value of land is based on data gathered from the real estate sales market. The Assessor's Office is currently assessing road frontages on Route 614 and Route 674. Land along the paved portion of Route 614 (up to its intersection with Route 674) and the partially-unpaved Route 674 is assessed at the same rate. Route 614 beyond its intersection with Route 674 is currently unpaved, and land is assessed at a somewhat lower value. However, it is the County Assessor's opinion that this difference can be attributed more to road narrowness and topography than to whether the road is paved or not. He believes that values may increase slightly, or not at all, due m paving (please see Attachment 3 for more detail). In the end, future real estate sales will be used to reach a final conclusion, although that will be after the fact. A related question that arises from this analysis is the effect of road width on property values. Unfortunately, [ am not in a position at this time m provide any comment on this topic. 11. Will Paving Diminish the Safety of Non-Vehicular Traffic (Pedestrians, Bicycles, etc.) Along Route 614 Due to Increased Traffic and Higher Speeds? Again, I polled the Planning Department for a response. There are other factors in addition to paving that will affect safety, including volume of use and the design of the road. I know that VDOT concerns itself very seriously with safety issues. I feel that additional elaboration on this topic should come from your office as you deem necessary. 12. What Is the Position of Shenandoah National Park on this Issue, Considering Recreational Use and the Related Lands Study? I wrote a letter to the Park asking for their comments. I ascertain from the response (Attachment 4) that the Park adminis~'ation does not want to become actively involved in this issue, since it relates to a matter outside the Park's boundaries. The response goes on to say that they anticipate a similar number of visitors to this area whether or not the road is paved. The Related Lands Study raises concerns about land uses adjacent to the Park. However, the Park's letter to me indicates that other factors in addition to road paving will come to bear on future development. 13. How Does Paving the Road Relate to the Comprehensive Plan? The area will remain designated a Rural Area, and there is no anticipated change to this status (see attached memo from Planning Department). The goals of the Comprehensive Plan for Rural Areas will continue to apply. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation November 10, 1995 Page Five 14. How Will Paving Alter the Qualities of the Area Which Led to Its Designation as a State Scenic River and County Scenic Stream? This concern led tc the Board's motion on September 13 to have the County and other agencies involved in VDOT's process. Our site meeting on September 19 included representation from the County, the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Committee, the City of Charlottesville, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. and Iocal residents. This process identified some of the changes that paving may bring about, as well as specific ways to reduce negative impacts. Obviously, one could address this question from many different angles. Since this is not a road that the County has ever considered paving, it has not been fully evaluated by County staff (Planning Department, etc.) for appropriate design in keeping with the qualities of the area (see attached memo from Planning). 15. How Will Shoulder and Graded Areas Be Stabilized? This topic has been addressed in previous correspondence. Stabilization will be inspected to ensure success. The most important aspect of seeding is to stabilize disturbed areas before winter, as most have been. [ anticipate that fill slopes will be colonized with native vegetation beginning next spring. 16. Can Flood Relief Funding be Used for Restoration of the River and Its Edge Vegetation to a More Natural State? Flood damaged areas are a natural state. As noted in my October 12 letter, the river valley is very unstable geologically because of all the bedload poised to become resuspended in future floods. Restoration projects should be designed with the goal of helping the river restore itself by creating stable channels, and should only be undertaken in a very few critical or high-priority areas. This position is based on the belief that the f~ver knows best how to "restore" itself, and that human interference is likely to botch the matter if undertaken on too grand a scale. In situations where them were borrow areas in the channel or floodplain or the post-flood channel dimensions have been altered, my recommendation would be a multi-agency effort to assess the feasibility of restoration and to design and carry out projects based on available funding. Flood relief funding should be explored as one option. 17. What About a Public Hearing or Meeting? Both letters request a public hearing or meeting. This type of decision rests with the Board of Supervisors. To date, no hearing or meeting is scheduled, although the matter has been addressed at three successive Board meetings. I have tried to address all of the issues raised in the two letters. I apologize to authors of the letters, to the Board, and to you if I have omitted any items. Obviously some of these items could be discussed and debated at great length, as they are complex issues that require a blend'mg of land use planning, transportation, and ecological sciences. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation November 10, 1995 Page Six If I can offer a take-home message from this experience, it is that VDOT and the County should work more closely together on issues that effect the people and resources of Albemarle County. In the future, issues may arise related to the capacity of the bridges along Route 614 or how to respond to future flood events. It ii my hope that at those times we can use guidance from the Comprehensive Plan and other County initiatives m a more proactive fashion. Please comacr me to discuss any of the items addressed in this letter. /"~xSincerely, David J. lClirschman Water Resources Manager DJH/ctj Attachments copy: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Loretta B. Cummings, Commonwealth Environmental Consulting. Inc. Friends of the Moormans John Kaufman, Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Jack Marshall, Moormans Scenic River Advisory Committee Marcia Joseph, Albemarle County Zoning Deparrmem David Vanaman, City of Charlottesville Engineer Donna and Jim Bennett, Sugar Hollow residents Richard and Hayden Cabell, Sugar Hollow residents Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering & Public Works Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Commuulty Development Bruce Woodzell, County Assessor m m A) Capturing the Water Quality Volume The WQ~ may be computed using data from Calculations Work- sheets A or B from Chapter t as follows: WQV = Ia x 43,560 x 0.0417 (2-1) where: WQV is the Water Quality Volume in cubic feet, Ia is the Area of impervious surface on the contributing watershed in acres, 43,560 is the number of square feet in an acre, and 0.0417 feet is the first half-inch of runoff. Reducing the constants yields: WQV = 1816 Ia (2-2) Capture and isolation of the WQV is typically achieved by isolation and diversion baffles and weirs. A typical ap- proach for achieving isolation of the WQV is to construct an isolation/diversion weir in the stormwater channel or pipe such that the height of the weir equals the height of the water in the BMP when the entire WQV is being held. When additional runoff greater than the WQV enters the stormwater channel or pipe, it will spill over the isolation/diversion weir, and mixing with water stored in the BMP will be mini- mal. Figure 2-2 shows two examples of these structures (Source: City of Austin, Texas).(19 In many instances, it may be more efficient to build a flow splitter/bypass facility into the structure of the BMP itself by providing an overflow weir or orifice or a bypass pipe which conveys overflow from a collection/sedimentation chamber to a clearwell and thence to the storm sewer. Where retention of hydrocarbons is a concern, provision of a hooded (inverted elbow) pipe or orifice or the use of a commercial catch basin trap is usually required. Inverted elbows or catchbasin traps should penetrate the pool surface by 1/3 of the pool depth but at least one foot. In Alexandria, bypass weirs, orifices, or pipes shall be designed to pass the peak flow rate of the 10-year storm (7 in./hr., 10 min. TOC). BMP SUPPLEMENT (REVISION 1) 8/1/93 Page 2-3 PIPE INTERCEPTOR ISOLATION/DIVERSION STRUCTURE SURFACE CHANNEL INTERCEPTOR ISOLATION/DIVERSION STRUCTURE FIGITEE 2-2 -- EXamPLES OF iSOL~TION/DIVERSION STRUCTURES BMP SUPPLEMENT (REVISION 1) 8/1/93 Page 2-4 & ~CR'~TENT~ON AREA 8~C l-lON A-A' &TTACtR~IENT 2 ~ To: David Hirschman From: Wayne Cilimberg Date: November 7, 1995 RE: Response to David Hirschman's Questions About the Moormans River £oretta B. Cummings' Questions: Will paving encourage more development in Sugar Hollow by increasing the value of road frontage? Will a greater population in the valley put more stress on the watershed? The question of whether increased value of road frontage results from paving of unpaved roads should be posed with Bruce Woodzell. (David I understand you are doing that.) Our department has not kept records as ro development trends on unpaved roads that are paved, so I cannot say whether or not development activity, increases. II~eorectically, public improvements can make areas more attractive for residential development. Typically in Albemarle County, however, unpaved roads get paved in the Rural Area at citizen request which usually is a result of new development (and thus new residents) demanding such improvements, in other words, paving of roads many times is a result of increased growth that has already taken place. The Rural Areas zone (RA) development right provisions are no different for unpaved roads than for paved roads in the RA, so paving of the road will not increase the number of permitted lots. Should development activity increase, k will be subject to the Runoff Control Ordinance as this area is in the water supply watershed. In general, development in any part of the Rural Area zone is not encouraged as this is considered a resource conservation zone rather than a residential zone. Will paving diminish the safety of non-vehicular traffic along Route 614 because of increased traffic and higher speeds? I carmot say if paving alone would result in increased traffic and higher speeds. Other factors such as recreational use of Sugar Hollow and the Shenandoah Park and roadway geomerrics are gmng to affect traffic and speeds. Roadway design with adequate shoulders in mm affects overall safety, includ'mg that for pedestrians and bikes. How does paving the road relate to County, plans for development (Comprehensive Plan), considering the fact that paving was not a priority before the flood? I anticipate no resulting recommendations for changing the Comprehensive Plan designations and recommendations for this area that would result from paving. As with other Rural Areas of the County where roads have been paved, this would remain designated Rural Areas. Friends of Moormans Questions: What is the likelihood that paving SR 614 would lead to increased development of this area, and is that in the County's best interests? See above responses - I believe they cover tl~s question. What insights can the Related Lands Study provide (I am also asking the Park to respond to this)? I think the Park can best respond to this. I believe there greatest concern would be with the possibility of increased development near the Park if it were to result. I also know the Park is interested in having suitable points of access to the Park from adjacent lands. This is one of those points. How will paving alter the qualities of the area which led to its designation as a State Scenic River and County Scenic Stream? I think the State Scenic River Committee for the Moormans should 'and I believe have) commented on this. Any man-made alteration of the natural features of the area would be of concern. Th/s is nor a road that the County has ever considered for paving so it has not been evaluated from a planning standpoint for appropriate design in keeping with the area should it be paved. Normally that would result from the public hearing process for a road project. It needs to be recognized, of course, that the natural features of this area have already been sigrfificantly altered by the flooding. However, road improvements should not be an excuse for further alteration. I:\GEN~ERAL\SHARE\CILIMB\RT614.ANS ATTAL"I~EI~ 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Finance Real Estate Division 401 Mctn~r¢ Road Charlot~esville, Virginia 229014596 $04) 296-5856 MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: David Hirschman, Water Resource Manager Brace Woodzell, County, Assessor ~t~ November 9, 1995 Paved Roads You have inquired as to whether property values will increase after semi-~mproved roads (dirt & gavel) are converted to hard surface. First, let me emphasis that the Assessor's office creates value based on data gathered from the real estate sales market. For example, if property on semMmproved roads sells for less than propny on hard surface roads, this office will reflect that in our assessment. To specifically address your question, the assessor's office ss currendy assess/rig road frontages on Rt. 614 (hard surface) and Rt. 674 t'hard surface from Rt. 810, then changing to semi-improved from intersection with Rt. 673 to intersection with Rt. 614) at the same rate, $5500 per acre. Commencing with the intersection of State Rt. 674 & 614, to the end o£ Sugar Holl6w Road, the frontage is assessed at $5000 per acre. [n conclusion, I am of the opinion that this reducnon m value from 2200 to 5000 is more ora result of the road narrowness & the topogaphy of the land rather than the paved road vs. the unpaved road issue. Thus, if the decision to pave a road causes property to increase, the increase in this case would be slight, or may nor materialize at ali. Again sales would be used to determine whether property owners would pay more for parcels on parcel vs. unpaved roads. , oa-a5 THU 14:E4 SIN ONS OaP .... F .%2 2174 IN REPLY REFE~ TO ATTACHMENT 4 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Sh~,,a~.mcloah Natio=aI Pazk La.ray. 'Vita. mia 2P.~S~-9051 November 2, 1995 Mr. Eavid J. Hirscb-man Water Resources Manager County Of Albemarle 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-5496 Dear Mr- Hirschman: Superintendent Bill Wade has asked me =o respond to your recent lo%tAr to the park regarding the paving of route 614 along the North Fork of the Moormans River balew the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. This area is outside the boundaries of Shenandoah National Park, and as I indicated in my recent presentation to the board at the October meeting, it is not one that we feel ws should become actively involved in- We feel that the same or similar number of visitors will con=inue to visit this area to the park whether the road is paved or not. Also, while your letter indicated that the paving of the road may lead no increased developmen~ along the boundary of the park, the paving of the road is non the only factor which could increase this possibility. we appreciate your keeping the park informed of this activity near the park, and providing us the opportunity ~o comment. If you have any questionsz please feel Cree to contact me an 804- 985-7293. Sincerely, Sandy Rives District Leader CLk~RK, ~OARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Agenda Item No. not change This sheet Item Name Note: his n= er does if this item is deferred to some future date. Ks moved forward with all of the paperwork. ) Presentor (For County Executive's information, please note name of person who will be making presentation to the Board. ) Request Made By ~~7 On (Date) INStRUCtIONS FOR USE: This form zs to be used when scheduling an item for a Board of Supervisors' agenda. This form will NOT be distributed to anyone, but is intended only for use by the Clerk mn scheduling the agenda. Please fill out one copy of this work sheet (it may be handwritten) and return with the orig- inal of any paperwork yo~ wish to have forwarded to the Board. For Clerk's Use: Appointment Confirmed with on (Date) By (Name) Telephone? Mail? Materials Materials Note: On (name) Received with Request? (Yes) (No) Photocopied? appeal of site plans or subdivision plats, be sure to include Planning Commission minutes with paperwork. Form. 2 7/2g/86 Understanding the Budget Process Total County'EXpenditures, 1981-1996 120,000,000 100,000,000 80,000,000 §0,000,000 40,000,000 20,000,000 0 Cost of Inflation Fiscal Year Total County Revenues, 1988 - 1996 State Revenues 35% 1988 Federal Reveauee 2% Other Loc~! Taxes 24% Local Prop Taxes 39% Revenues 26% Other Local Taxes 25% 1996 Fede['al 2% Local Prop Taxes 47oA Understanding the Budget Process The major purpose of budgeting is to formally convert the County's long range plans and policies into services and programs. The budget provides detailed financial informa- tion on the costs of services and the expected revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. The budget process also provides a forum for a review of progress made in the current ye~'and for a review of ihe levels of service provided by local government. The budget is divided into three major parts, each with separate documents and public hearings. The ~ ~ is the total and complete budget used to finance all &the day to day operations of local government and schools. The total operating budget consists of several major sections including general government operations, school operations, school debt service, CIP transfer, and tho City-County reve- nue sharing. Funding for this budget is derived from taxes, fees, licenses, fines, and State and Federal revenue. The ~ is used to completely describe tho operations of the County's schools. The School Budget is prepared the Superintendent's office and is approved by the School Board. Theschools have their own budget calendar which is separate from that of other budgets. Funding for the School Budget is derived from transfers from the Operating Budget, fees. and intergovernmental revenue (i.e. State and Federal funding). The Capital Improvements Program (CIP~ is used to pur- chase or finance the construction of capital goods from the building of schools, parks, and roads to the upgrading of computer and phone system equipment. Funding for these projects is obtained from bond issues (long term debt which is only borrowed for the. building of school projects) and from transfers from the Operating Budget. What are the State requirements? The Commonwealth of Virginia requires that all localities meet certain budget guidelines. All localities within Virginia must have a fiscal year beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30 and must approve a balanced budget. The School Board must approve the School Budget by May 1 or within 15 days of receiving estimates of State funding, whichever shall later occur. The Board of Supervisors must approve the Operating 13 adget and set the tax rate by July 1. The adoption of the Operating Budget and the tax rate requires the Board to hold a public hearing and to advertise this hearing no less titan 7 days in advtmce. Although these are the minimum State requirements, the County has traditionally adopted the budget by April 15 in order to establish teacher contracts and to set the personal property tax prior to the tax bill mailing date. The official appropriation of funds generally takes place prior to July 1. When are the budget decisions made and how can I participate in the process? The County each year develops a schedule of events which describe the dates of public and Board participation ia the budget process. Each year the Board is asked to approve the schedule of the budget process in order to establish firm dates for meetings and provide the public with as much notice as possible. Listed below is a copy of the tentative budget schedule. Nov. 1 - Budget Guidance from Board of Supervisors Nov. 15 - Public Hearing on Budget Needs/Priorities Jan. 10 - Public Hearing on CIP Feb, 28 - Recommended Budget Distributed to Board Mar. 6 - Public Hearing on Recommended Budget Mar. 11, 13, 18, & 20 - Board Worksessions Apr. 3 - Public Hearing on Proposed Budget/Tax Levy Apr. 10 - Board Adopts 96/97 Budget/Sets Tax Levy What is the budgetprocess? The County's Operating Budget schedule begins on No- vember 1, when the Board provides the County Executive with financial guidelines for the development of the budget. On November 15, a public hearing is held on the commu- nity's needs in the coming fiscal year In the middle of November, the County Executive's Office develops budget instructions, based upon the Board's guidance to the County Executive, and sends these instructions to all departments. In the middle of December, all depamnants must submit Understanding the Budget Process budgets to the County Executive's Office. From the middle of December m the middle of January, the executive staff reviews budget requests and develops budget related ques- tions. In January through February, all departments arc scheduled to meet with the executive budget staffto review and answer all questions relating to their budget requests. From these discussions, the executive staff develops recommendations ranging from the funding of new programs to the reduction of funding of current programs. On February 14, the School Superintendent submits the School Budget to the County Executive and the executive staffreviews the School Budget. At the end of February, the County Executive makes thc necessary adjustments to balance the budget and staffprin~ the County Exeentive's Recommended Budget. This budget is presented to the Board on February 28 and a public hearing on the CountyExecntive's recommendation is held on March 6. After the public hearing on March 6, the Board begins a detailed review of each area of thc budget and recommends specific cuts or additions to the County Executive's Recom- mended Budget. After all the budget changes have been agreed upon, a public hearing on the Board of Supervisors Proposed Budget and the tax rate is tentatively scheduled for April 3 and the adoption hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 10. How much is the current budget (FY1995/96)? The total adopted operating budget for the County of Al- bemarle in FY 95/96 is $110,753,130. This total expenditure is divided into the functional areas listed below: Expenditures General Government Schools Debt Service Capital Program Revenue Sharing Other $26,533,452 $69,670,681 $6,845,880 $2,300,000 $5,049,991 $3531126 $110,753,130 A visual representation of this funding is listed below in a pie chart. ' FY t995196 Expendltures Program Sharing 2% 5% General / Schools 63% What are the ma/or categories o_f expenditures _for General Governraent? Geanral Government is broken.down' into 7 major func- tional areas: Administration, Judicial, Public Safety, Public Works, Human Development, Parks and Recreation, and Community Development. The Administration functional area provides oversight of overall county services via the County Executive's Office and the Board of Supervisors, provision of information technology and data processing via the Information Services department, legal advice from the County Attorney, payroll, tax assessment and collection, accounting, and purchasing for the county from the Finance Department, and the registration of voters by the Registrar. The Judicial area includes all court related'services from the serving of warrants, to prosecution, to the actual running ofth~ courts tbemsalves. Funding is provided for the each of the local courts, the Circuit Court, the General District Court, and thc Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The Clerk of the Court, Commonwealth Attorney, and the Sheriff are also funded in this functional area. Public Safety includes all Police services such as patrol, investigations and animal control, but it also encompasses other areas as well. Emergency Operations (E-911), fire prevention services, inspections, supplemental funding for the rescue squads and volunteer fire department~, and fund- Understanding the Budget Process ~ng for local agencies such as the SPCA, Joint Security (the regional jail), and other related agencies are also included. The Public Works area performs the duties of public build- ing maintenance and custodial services, water resources managemear, erosion control, and engineering oversight of residential and commercial construction within the County. Departments inalude StaffServices and Engineering. The Human Development area includes Social Services, the Health Department, Region Ten Commmfity Services, and funding for many local social service agencies. The services provided include the oversight and implementation of State and Federal social programs, the provision of local health services, the provision of mental health services, outreach services, transportation services, services for the elderly, and funding other.local social benefits. Parks and Recreation includes the Parks and Recreation department, the regional' library, and various local cultural and recreational agencies. The services provided include park maintenance, the summer swim programs, the commu- nity center, the teen center, athletic programs, and resources for local agencies such as Piedmont Council of the Arts, the Virginia Discovery Museum, and the Literacy Volunteers program. The final functional area is that of Community 'D%velop- ment. The departments in this area include Planning, Zoning, Redevelopment and Housing, the Soil and Water Conserva- tion office, and the Cooperative Extension Service. The services provided include zoning enforcement, long term planning for community development, review of develop- ment applications, the implementation and development of housing programs, funding for local transit, the provision of extension services, and funding for other services provided by local agencies. Where do the Revenues come_from? Most of the revenues come from local taxes such as prop- erty taxes, personal property taxes, business licenses, and other fees. More than 65% of the County's budget is paid by local taxpayers. Below is an illustration of the revenue stream for the County. FY t995/96 Revenues SelfSu$~ining Funds FedemlReVenue ~% Local Properly Taxes 48% Revenue How have the expenditures changed over the ion~ term? The total budget of the County has grown over the past several years, however much of this growth since 1988 is due to 2 major factors; inflation and population growth. Since 1988 inflation has increased by more that 33%. During the same period the County experienced more than a 18% growth in population. On the nex~ page is an illustration of the County's budget since 1981 and the costs of inflation and the costs &population growth. How have the revenues changed over the long term? The major way that revenues hav¢changed over time is that the State and Federal funding, as a percentage of the overall budget, has decreased dramatically. Two pie charts on the next page, one from 1988 and one from the current year, illustrate the relative decline in State revenues and an in- crease in the County's dependence upon local revenues. ORDINANCE NO. 95-20(5) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN C~APTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED Dy the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby emended and reordained by amending Section 3.0, Definitions, Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, and Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, as follows: 3.0 DEFINITIONS 5.0 Stable, Commercial: A building, group of buildings, or use of land, or any combination thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary or goods, provision is made for horses or ponies for hire or instruction an riding. SUPPL~ARy REGULATIONS 5.1.3 COMMERCIAL STABLE b. Fencing and other means of animal maintained at all times. 10o0 RURAL AREAS D~STRICT~ RA . 10.2.1 BY RIGHT 10.2.1.20 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). 10.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered end maintained with a material to minimize dust and erosion; sonfinemen= shall be 10.2.2.16 (Repealed 11-15-95) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on November 15, 1995. ;~OA~D OF SUPER~lSO~ DRA'F I: uctober 31, 1995 Alternative A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20_ ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 I, General Provisions~ Article Ii, Basic ReguIations and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained by amending section 3.0, Definitions, section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations and section 10.0, Rural Areas District, PA, as follows: 3.0 DEFINITIONS Stable, Commercial: A building, o~ group of buildings, or use. of land, or any combination thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary or ~oods, ~L,-~*LO~O G*c *~' ~ , ,~,~ ~, .... ~ ,~ t~ ............. promslon ss made for more than ten horses or ponies for hire, ,~ ........................ t~orscs an&~ ar Ic3aor~ instruction in riding, or for boardin~ when the horses or ponies are also used for hire or instruction. 5.0 5.1.3 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS COMMERCIAL STABLE a. Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material 3uc~L as t~ ......... to minimize dust mad erosion; b, Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times; cz A site plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with Section 32.2.2. d_~. A commercial stable buildin~ or indoor riding rin~ shall be considered a primary use for setback/yard determination. An outdoor riding ring and parkin~ area shall meet front yard requirements for a primary use, shall not be located doser than 50 feet from any adioinint properw not under the same ownershil~, and shall be screened with existing or new landscapine if determined necessary to serve the public interest. e. If the proposed faciliW is located on a private road, the site plan shall include plans for up~rade of the road to meet anticipated increased traffic and shall require a maintenance agreement acceotable to the CotmW which assures the maintenance of the road for so lone as the ~ropert¥ is used for a commercial stable. In the event of a waiver of site plan requirements, the aforementioned shall be a condition of the waiver approval. No events or shows solidting the general public shall be allowed. 10.0 10.2, i 10,2.1.20 10.2.2 10.2.2.16 RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA BY RIGHT Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3~__ BY SPECL~L USE PERMIT DRAFT: October 31, 1995 Alternative B ORDINANCE NO, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ?aND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20. ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, W~rgania, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Artide II, Basic Regulations and Article II1, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained by amending section 3.0, Definitions, section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations and section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, as follows: 3.0 DEFINITIONS Stable, Commercial: A building, or group of buildings, or use of land, o any combination thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary .. · ................ p ........ ~ ............. ro~ision is made for horses or ponies for h~re ...................................... d/0r [caaona instruction in riding or for boarding when the horses or ponies are als_o used for hirer instruction. 5.0 5.1.3 10.0 10.2.1 i0.2.1.20 10.2.2 10.2.2.16 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS COMMERCIAL STABLE a. Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material ~dc~, a~ plnc ~ark to minimize dust and erosion; b. Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times; RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA BY RIGHT Commerdal stable (reference 5.1.3 ). BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT DRAFT: October 10. 1995 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 I, General Provisions, Article I1, Basic Regulations and Artide III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained by amending section 3.0, Definitions, section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations and section 10,0, Rural Areas District, PA, as follows: 3.0 DEFINITIONS Stable, Commercial: A building, o~ group of buildings, or use of land. o~ any combination thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary or ~oods ................ v .......v ............ vrov~s~on ~s made for more than ten horses or ponies for hire ....... ~Lv.~o ...... .~,~' v.-- ~oov.,o* ...... instruction in tiding, or for boarding when the horses or ponies are also used for hire or instruction. In the event of a waiver of site ulan reauirements, the aforementioned shall be a condition of the waiver anvroval. No events or shows soliciting the general public shall be allowed. lO.O 10.2.1 10.2.1.20 10.2.2 10.2.2.16 RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA BY RIGHT Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept, of Plannincj & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, 9'ir ~inia (804) 296-5823 so o SUPER S. O,,,a i MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: · RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner September 22, 1995 ZTA-95-05 Commercial Stables The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on September 19, 1995, recommended U~i'anim0usly ihat:staff~ ~co~endaiion regarding ZTA-95-05 be approved. Attached is a copy of the September 19, 1995 staff report, with attachments of the August I, 1995 and August 29, 1995 staff reports. Also attached are twelve letters from citizens. ATTACHMENTS A:~ZTA9505.LTR STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD of SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 (DEFERRED FROM AUGUST 29, 1995) OCTOBER 11, 1995 ZTA-95-05 COMMERCIAL STABLES At its meeting on August 29, 1995, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to defer this proposed amendment until September 19, 1995 with the following direction to staff: Them are two thoughts on this, 1) to keep commercial stables by special use permit, clean up the definition, and make sure that the,supplementary regulations meet some of the concetms expressed by Commissioners Dotson and Nitchman; and 2) that Commissioner Imhoffstill believes that this should be a use by-right but with supplementary regulations. Ms. Huckle suggested, in discussion about the motion, that staff include some of the standards mad by Ms. Taylor. Commissioners Dotson and Nitchman expressed concerns regarding: Clarification of the definition: At what point (number of horses) the commemial stable designation would apply. Staff has developed a new definition. Traffic generation. This is addressed through site plan review which includes VDOT approval of the entrance, and supplementary regulation "e" which addresses private road concerns. · Remove "pine bark mulch" from supplementary regulation "a." This has been removed. Maintain the special use pemfit. Staff opinion is that commercial stables should be permitted as a use by right in the Rural Area, based on the Compre)tensive Plan language which states, "...give highestpriority to agricultural and forestal activities in the Rural Area, and firmly establish these activities as the primary land use, rather than residential dewlopment. " (p. 203) In addition, the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee has made recommendations to the Board of StJpervisors on ways to support and promote agriculture and forestry in the County. One recommendation states, "County policies and regulations should support agricultural and forestal interests." Ms. Taylor's standards include: ' · Planning Commission approval of site plans. Supplementary regulation "c" reqyires a site plan unless waived (by the Commission), in accordance with Section 32.2.2. Setback of 100 feet from any boundary lines, and screening, for outdoor riding areas, courses, indoor arenas and other structures and uses thereof. Supplementary regulation "d" addresses setback/yard requirements. Barn-like structures such as the stable and indoor riding ring are proposed to meet primary use setback/yards (75 or 25 ft. front/25 fL side/35 ft. rear) rather than accessory use setback/yards (6ft. side and rear). The outdoor riding ring and parking area must be located at least 50ft. from adjoining properties, and screened if determined necessary. No facilities or activities for spectators. Supplementary regulation '~' originally stated that a commercial stable does not constitute a horse show grounds, (which now requires, and would continue to require, a special use permiO. Staff has suggested an alternate wording to address the concern regarding spectators because we currently have no definition of horse show grounds. The zoning administrator has proposed a definition, but it would have to be advertised before it can be considered Health Department approval in accordance with requirements for {~ommereial use. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance. Any grading plan to be reviewed by a Watershed Management Official'in addition to a review by the County Engineer. These items are addressed under the site plan review. No commercial activity except that associated with a commercial stable. No facilities for sale of goods to the public. These activities are not permitted by the definition of commercial stables. In general, commercial activities are not permitted in the RA zoning district unless a permit is obtained for the specific use. Examples would be a wayside stand (by~righO or a country store (by special use permit). Fences maintained at all times. All riding surfaces covered with a material to pyevent dust. Maintain screening from road and adjacent properties. These items are addressed by the supplementary regulations. Staff Recommendation: Amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Section 3.0 ~: Stable, Commercial: A building, o~. group of buildings, or use of land. or ~mv combination thereofi where, for compensation, whether monetary or goods ................. ~ ....... pravi~cd -,~St~, provision is made for more than ten horses or ponies for hire, . . ._ ~ : .- ......................... instruction m riding, or for boarding when the horses or ponies an also used for hire or instruction. Add to RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA, BY RIGHT: Section 10.2.1.20 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). Delete from RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA, BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT: Section 10.2.2; 16 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). 2 - Amend the SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS: Section 5.1.3 COMMERCIAL STABLE a. Riding tings and other tiding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material suc~,, a~ p~z,c bark to minimize dust and erosion; Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times; A site plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with Section 32.2.2. A cotrlmereial stable building or indoor ridin~ ring shall be considered a 'primary_ use for Setback/yard determination. An oh[door riding ting and parking area shall weet front yard requirements for a primary_ use, shall got be located closer than 50 feet from any adjoining property not under the same ownership, and shall be screened with existing or new landscaping if determined necessa~_ to serve the public interest. If the proposed facility is located on a private road. the site plan shall not be approved until plan~ for up_made of the road to meet anticipated increased traffic have been approved, and a maintenance agreement has been submitted which reflects the proposed use of the property for a commercial stable. In the event of a waiver of site plan requirements, the aforementioned shall be a condition of the waiver approval. No events or shows soliciting the general public shall be allowed. l:\General\Share~_scalaXZTA05b, rrm 3 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD of SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA AUGUST 29, 1995 (DEFERRED FROM AUGUST 1, 1995) OCTOBER 1I, 1995 ZTA-95-0fi COMMERCIAL STABLES (Amended August 29, 1995) Attached are seven letters received from the public regarding this proposed amendment. At its meeting on August 1, 1995, the Planning Commission asked that the supplementary regulations be changed to reflect comments made at that meeting. The following Planning Commission concerns have been addressed: I. Include setback requirements for outdoor riding ring. Address screening. See proposed supplementary regulation "d." 2. Address spectators. See "f." Staff Recommendation: Amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS: Stable, Commercial: A building, o~ group of buildings_, and/or use of land where, for compensation, members of the public are provided with horses or ponies for hire, accommodations for their horses or ponies and/or lessons in riding. Add to RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA, BY RIGHT: Section 10.2.1.20 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). Delete from RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA, BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT: Section 10.2.2.16 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). Add to SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS: Section 5.1.3 COMMERCIAL STABLE a. R/ding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material such as pine bark to minimize dust and erosion; b. Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times; A site plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with Section 32.2.2. I AT' ACH ENT A commercial stable building or indoor tiding ting shall be considered a primary use for setback determination. An outdoor riding ring and parking area shall meet front yard setbacks for a primary use. shall not be located closer than 50 feet from any adjoining property not under the same ownership, and shall be screened with existing or new landscaping if determined necessary to serve the public interest. If the proposed facility is located on a private road, the site plan shall not be approved until plans for upgrade of the road to meet anticipated increased traffic have been approved, and a maintenance agreement has been submitted which reflects the proposed use of the property for a commercial stable. In the event of a waiver of site plan requirements, the aforementioned shall be a condition of the waiver approval. This use does not constitute a horse show grounds. C:\Scala\ZTA05a.frm 2 STAFF PERSON: ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD of SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA JULY 24, 1995 AUGUST 1, 1995 AUGUST 16, 1995 [~TTACHMENT B I ZTA-95-05 COMMERCIAL STABLES Board of Supervisors resolution on June 14, 1995. Public Purpose to be Served: To encourage and support the preservation of agricultural lands and activities in the Rural Area through provision of commercial stables, t Proposal: To amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning O~dinance, to permit commercial stables by right, and to include all necessary supplementary regulations related thereto. ~ The 1992 U.S. Census of Agriculture reported that Albemarle ranked first in the · state in sales of horses, and third in the state in number of horses, following Loudoun and Fauquier Counties. The regulations of those two counties related to commercial stables are discussed below, Staff has received two specific requests for commercial stables to be permitted by right. Commercial stables are currently permitted by special use permit in the Rural Areas, RA District Stable, Commercial is defined as, "A building or group of bnildings where, for compensation. members of the public are provided with horses for hire, accommodations for their horses and/or lessons in riding." Current supplementary regulations (5,1.3) are: a. Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material such as.piue bark to minimize dust and erosion; and b. Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times. Some related zoning provisions are: Horse show erounds, permanem are currently permitted by special use permit in the Rural Areas, RA District. Horse shows may also qualify as a Temporary_ event sponsored by local nonprofit organizations, which is permitted by special use permit in Rural Areas, RA District. No changes, are proposed to these provisions. The RA District provides for three general categories of commercial/service uses: agriculturoVforestal uses, tourism uses, and basic support uses. A commercial stable is considered an agricultural use, and is only permitted in the RA District. Since 1980 there have been slx requests for commercial stables by special use permit. All [ATTAC HPI£NT B'I IPage 21 applications were approved with conditions, except one which was withdrawn after zoning determined that a permit was not required. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan gives highest priority to the preservation of agricultural and forestal activities in the Rural Area. It states, "For agricultural and forestal resources to be successfully preserved from a land use standpoint, they must be successful as a business/industry." (p.55) The Comprehensive Plan is silent on commemial uses in general in the Rural Area because commercial land use designations are confined to the Growth Areas. As part of the Plan review, · Rural Area Standards are now being written which will discuss limited commercial uses appropriate to the Rural Area. In the past, staffhas noted a lack of policy guidelines to use when reviewing support uses in the RA District. Discussion: The advantages of this proposed use are: · It is appropriately located in the Rural Area; It would support the local horse industry; · It would encourage the agricultural use of land; It would provide a benefit to residents by providing tiding and boarding facilities; and, It would promote tourism. Disadvantages are: * There is potential for conflicts with residential development in the Rural Area; · It may cause an increase of traffic on rural roads. The Agticultural and Forestai Districts Advisory Committee at its meeting on March 6, 1995, discussed the idea of permitting commemial stables by tight, and expressed some reservations. (Those minutes are Attachment #1 .) The Agticultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee reviewed ZTA-95-05 on July 24, 1995. The committee was in favor of allowing commercial Stables by tight. (Those minutes will be mailed under separate cover.) Loudoun County permits Eauestrian facility by tight in A-25 or A-50 Districts. Lots must be minimum 50 acres, and the facility must be located on a state maintained mad. Loudoun defines Equesttian facili _ty as having more than 20 boarding horses, and three or more active tiding instmctors. Fauquier County permits Equestrian facilities, boardin_e and instruction, non-spectator, by right in RA, and by special use permit in RC, RR-2, V, and R-1 Districts. Their supplementary regulations include: No facilities or activities intended for spectators allowed; 5 acre minimum lot size; no structure associated with a riding or boarding stable or indoor tiding facility~located closer than 100 feet to any lot line. The recommended supplementary regulations state that a site plan is required unless it is waived. A fee of $215 is charged for a site plan waiver. 2 Our current parking requirement for Commercial stable is one space per three StaffReeommendation: Amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Add to RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA, BY RIGHT: Section 10.2.1,20 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). Delete from RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA, BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT: Section 10.2,2.16 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). Add to SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS: Section 5.1.3 COMMERCIAL STABLE a, Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and. maintained with a material such as pine bark to minimize dust and erosion; Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times; A site plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with Section 32.2.2. A commercial stable or indoor riding ring shall be considered a primary use for setback determination. No parking space shall be located closer than 10 feet to any public or private street right-of-way; If the proposed facility is located on a private road, the site plan shall not be approved until plans for upgrade of the mad to meet anticipated increased traffic have been approved, and a maintenance agreement has been submitted which reflects the proposed use of the property for a commercial stable. In the event of a waiver of site plan requirements, the aforementioned shall be a condition of the waiver approval, C:\Scala~ZTA05.frm E The Pennsylvania State UniversiD' College of Agricultural Sciences Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Final Report on PDA Contract No. ME449219 Pennsylvania Horse Industry Profile January 31. 1993 Presented By: Cathy A. Hanflett, Assistant Professor, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Kelly M. Smith-Wells. Research Technologist, Health and Human Development C. A. Hamlett. ProJect Leader Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Brookhfll Farm 2163 Scottsville Rd. Charlottesville, Va. 22902 3 October. 1995 Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Dear Board of Supervisor member. Due to the fact that I might be out of state during the Board of Supervisor meeting which is to be held 11 October 1995. this letter is written to express my concerns about the Commercial Stables proposal passed on to the Board by the Planning Commission. Some of' the points which I wish to stress are: a.) Horses are a ma~or industry in every state, deserving of respect and attention. According to an American Horse Council study, there are approximately 5.25 million economically productive equines in the United States. The horse industry makes $15.2 billion in contribution to the agricultural sector of the U.S. Gross National Project through the purchase Of horses, feed. veterinary care and other products and services. b.) _The equine community is important to maintaining open space and aesthetic benefits. In a state with many areas of rapid urbanization, maintaining open space through private activities is vital. To quote a study done by the equine community in Pennsylvania, "Horses are generally close to the people who own them which means that urbanization tends to bring more equine, and these equine help the ama cling to open fields and aesthetically appealing settings." c.) The equine community contributes greatly to recreation and travel. Opportunities for recreation include riding trails. 4-H programs, therapeutic tiding for the handicapped, local shows, horse racing, polo and countless other recreational outlets. According to some preliminary data from a study on the equine industry in Albemarle County, there are approximately 5000 horses in this area. Albemarle places among the top three equine counties in The Commonwealth of Virginia. Equine expenditures average $2.882 per horse (See attached data sheet). Five thousand horses times the average expenditure of $2,882 per horse equals over 14 million dollars spent by the equine community per year. This does not include the money that is brought in by Foxfield Races The equine business is big business. Care needs to be taken m encourage the industry. ]?he future of the industry rests upon the young riders taking tnstmction today. From this pool. numbers will elect to go on in the horse industry. The generation of this interest is imperative for the future of the industry, and in turn. the preservation of open and aesthetically appealing space. Much of our present open space in Albemarle County is owned by people who are 55 years of age or older. Over the next fifteen to twenty years thousands of acres in Albemarle will change hands. Open space and its traditional uses and enjoyment in this county are threatened. It is important to encourage the next generation of horse owners for the preservation of open space. To require a commercial license could have a negative impact on maintaining a stable for instruction. Taxing gross receipts places a burden on tiding tnstmctors. Although the gross receipts could be high, the overhead is so great that the margin of profit is small. If instructors go out of the business, what will happen to the pool of potential horse owners of the future? When you look at other agricultural practice in the county, how many other livestock owners have to have a site plan? Fencing is taken care of with your concern for liability if an animal should get out. The road issue is raised because of one stable in the county. Should that one problem impact on the rest of a large industry? To require special permits for horse shows. events, polo. etc. creates problems for the industry and for policing.the regulations. When a hunt club or 4~H group wants to have a show, how does that hurt the community? How does it differ from a softball game or other sporting activity? Regulations! Regulations! At present, a $100.000 study is underway in Virginia to gather data on the economics of the horse industry. Information will be broken down county by county. These data could be useful to local politicians deliberating on zomng regulations. It is unfortunate when a few neighbors near two farms out of the entire horse community can push issues that will impact so greatly in the horse industry. In closing, I would like to support the staff of the planning department and commissioner Imhoff to have commercial stables by tight. I would, however, like to encourage the board to wmt to develop stipulations for commemial stables until the Virginia Equine Study is completed in January. These data should help decision makers deliberate in an informed manner. Sincerely, /~~ Charles W. Beegle Equine expenditures average per equine 1990 Feed 465.00 Bedding 83.00 Grooming Supplies 34.00 Tack 93.00 Boarding of Equine 113.00 Equipment 402.00 Pumhases of Equine 299.00 Farrier 94.00 Breeding Fees 87.00 Health 112.00 Training Fees 143.00 Professional Fees 30.00 Hired Labor 230.00 Capital Improvements 266.00 Utilities 48.00 Rent/Lease 28.00 Insurance 57.00 Taxes 93.00 Equine Transportation 44.00 Human Travel and Lodging 53.00 Sales and Promotion 28.00 Stakes 36.00 Miscellaneous 43.00 Total 2.882.00 Hay consumed per horse per year 1.6 T Different Counties in Pennsylvania averaged value of horse per head from $1 ~380 to $7.550 (From the Pennsylvania Horse Industry Profile) VENHBLE MINOR ~ RSSOC. lEL:80~-g71-7SS9 Sep 19,95 11:05 ~6.001P.01 0 ZTA 95-05 Commercial Stables - To amend'Section 10.0,. Rural Areas District. PA. of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit commercial stables by right, and to include all necessary supplementary regulations related thereto. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Public comment was invited. Colonel David M. Taylor, owner of Cedar Hill Farm, addressed the Commission. He described what he believed to be the definition of a commercial stable. He pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance does not define a commercial stable. He said there are presently no setback requirements for an outdoor dding ring because it is not. considered a structure. He also noted that horses are not considered as livestock in the County Zoning Ordinance, though they are by the State. The following persons, all involved in stabte businesses, expressed support for the amendment: Ms. Lynn Beagle; Ms. Christy Ballender; Ms. Christina Beagle; Ms. Janet Haden; and Mr. Bronson Smith. 8-1-95 16 Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council. expressed support for the amendment. She felt the proposed supplementary regulations would go a long way to meeting some concerns which have been associated with commercial stables. Ms, Mary Taylor expressed concern about the lack of discussion about outdoor tings and riding areas. She stressed that it is in these areas where children riding are most at risk. She pointed out that there is no mention of setbacks or screening. She felt the safety issue is a very important aspect of a stable operation which needs to be' addressed with this amendment. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said he had no problem with this amendment. "with a little more work on the supplementary regulations," He agreed that the placement of outdoor riding rings needs to be carefully considered and that the setback requirements need to be defined. He felt both indoor and outdoor riding rings should be addressed He also felt screening should be addressed, He thought it might make sense to "push outdoor rings a little deeper into the. property." Ms. Imhoff commented: "1 think it is going to be very difficult to explain to people in court why having horses, and doing things with horses, isn't going to be covered at some point by that same agricultural by-right. I find it extremely difficult to distinguish why a horse farm would be treated different from a Polled Hereford farm or any of those." 'Ms. Imhoff thought some of the language used by the LOUdon County regulations might address some of Mr. Nitchmann's concerns, Mr. Dotson cbmmented: "It seems that the reason to do this is partly a demonstration of loyalty to agriculture as represented by horaes, It's also to limit the NIMBY opportunity and to reduce the site plan waiver costs. Those aren't, in my opinion, really compelling (reasons). I would be interested in looking at a revision, but I've got some reason for concern based on what I've heard tonight. Maybe at a certain point you do need a special permit." Ms. Imhoff agreed there is a lot of "NIMBYism." She sai~l: "So it is compelling to me, now that we've said all these other uses are by-right-agriculturally you can do a hog farm or a commemial feed lot-but you are going to do a commercial stable by special permit. This becomes almost ridiculous," - 8-1-95 17 MOTION: MS. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Huckte, that ZTA-95-05 for Commercial Stables, be deferred to August 15, 1995, with the understanding that. depending on the workload of staff, the item may be deferred again at that time. The motion for deferral passed unanimously. There being no further business, 'the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. DB V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary Ruth Dalsky Keswick. Va 804-295-4557 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS j Oct 9. 1995 To the Board of Supervisors: This letter is in response m the Sept. t9th passing of the 'new' zoning regulations for horse farms in Virginia to be discussed at the meeting on Oct 11. Having attended both zoning meetings in which the regulations were drafted, what has become apparent m me is that the County of Albemarle is unfamiliar with the needs of the home industry in this area. With all due respect, I believe that the zoning officers were trying to be fair; however. I am not convinced that the new wording of the current ordinance is in the best interest of the horse community. I find a few points ambiguous, and I am not sure what kind of financial impact that limiting the number to "ten" homes will have on the industry. It was obvious at the meetings that the county felt pressure from a few home owners who have complained about the horse farms which are interfering with their sub-division bliss. However, both of the farms that have drawn complaints in the last two years have been in existence for years upholding the long tradition of horse farms in Albemarle County. I sincerely hope that the Board of Supervisors will do more research into the needs of the horse community before passing the current wording of the new ordinance. The horse community has already felt the pressures of encroaching development and the financial hardships associated with limits on the industry. Albemarle County is one the most respected horse communities in the country; and hence, has attracted some of the world's finest equestrians and trainers. I hope to see this tradition continue! Christie Bolender Alta Mira Farm Keswick, VA Oct 8, 1995 !BOARD OF SUPERVISORS To the Board of Supervisors: As indicated in the original comm-nications with regard to the 'By Right' movement for "commercial" stables, we are seeking to acquire the same kind of status that all of the other sectors of agriculture enjoy in Albemarle County. What is the purpose of limiting income or imposing the commercial use criteria on horse farms that serve to promote health and recreation to the occupants of Albemarle County? How many counties in Virginia, which are blessed with such a large segment of the industry as is Albemarle are issuing regulations to restrict horse farm owners, or in the alternative, require horse farm owners to produce expensive site plan documentation, and pursue time- involved hearings to operate? THIS IS ALBEMARLE COUNTY! Pride and reputation of this area has encouraged growth in the horse industry and all other attending vocations. Hay growers, grain producers, veterinarians, farriers and blacksmiths, trainers, grooms, tack makers, and instructors of every aspect of equestrian pursuits abound in Albemarle Gountyl ! feel that the county needs to consider the needs of the horse industry before issuing further regulations. Respectfully Yours, Amelia G. McCulley, Page 10 January 31, 1995 A.I.C.P. our farm for a fee, because they do not have sufficient land or their own land to keep their horses t~ 6. Polo lesson~ which are not ~offered to the public, are frequently conducted in groups because that is the best way for individuals to learn the sport. As noted above, the farm does not pay the instructors who give theses~ons~ ey a~e pa~~ ~~eoe-~v±ng~~st~ctlo'--~-~n. ~h? gm does assist in the scheduling of group lessons so as to ensure that there will be enough people on hand at the time of the lesson that the lesson particlpant_~an~game during the lesson. // 7. My clients have indicated that there are- ho rl~-~g shows conducted on the property. Once in the past they had a "games day" (i.e. a gymkhana) for fun and enjoyment with their friends. They have described the activities as "barrel racing, dismounting and eating a peanut cracker while tryingi to whistle and remount, ~icking up and putting down flags." That was an activity engaged in for fun, not profit. 8. ' There is a business license for Alta Mira which states that it is for "animal hospital, grooming or lodging." According to my clients, it does not mention "stable" at all. A business license is a necessary incident to a business operated in the County with an expectation to make a profit. As noted in the opening paragraphs of this letter, that expectation in an agricultural setting does not render a horse farm "commercial stable" under the definition set forth in the zoning ordinance. facilities on 9. The same concerns expressed in the answer to question Number 8 above, apply to question Number 9. Alta Mira does file a tax return as a business, but that does not in any way indicate that it is open to the public for the activities which define a commercial stable. 10. The inquiry made in Number 10 again raises the same issues as the previous two~ questions ~nd the introductory paragraphs df.this %etter..any~of the activities described in ~he brochure mentioned zn questzon 1~ can be conducted without opening the farm's doors to the public. ~I am advised by my clients that when the property was listed for sale, it was characterized as a horse farm with equestrian'related activities possible. Since it has an historic polo field, the Realtor was obviously trying to attract that segment of the purchasing population who may have looked upon that as an asset to a horse farm. / Amelia G. McCulley, Page 6 January 31, 1995 A.I.C.P. of this "Club" defies any form of organization. The individuals who have indicated a willingness to play as a team frequently decline requests to do so, given their bu~y schedules, the weather, their health at the time of the request or the soundness of their horses. There are no elected officers, ~o committee members, and no group meetings other than social gatherings of these individuals as friends. People .bt Alta Mira who are interested in playing a game, as they frequently do on Sundays, will not know what individuals will be playing until a few hours before the game. At that point, the people who are available to show up will be divided up by their skill levels not by their virtue of their being members of any particular "Club" or team. There are absolutely no structures or standards, as a "Club" meetiDg the definition of that term in the zoning ordinance would be expected to have. The name "Alta Mira Polo Club" is registered with the United StateR Polo Association, merely because some name has to be given in or~er to receive the U.S.P.A. publications and other information in return for the membership fee ~aid to the U.S.P.A. It would be more accurate to say Alta Mira is a member of a club (i.e. the U.S.P.A.), but it is not a club itself. 2. There is no membership roster. 3. Boarders and other acquaintances of the 'farm owners who play on · !~ · _'s :o_- ' d do pay a fee_~ but this fee is not ~d to be a ~ue sou~ perpetuate the activities of any organized group of members. .Instead, the fee helps to defray the maintenance costs for the field which result from its use. Unlike a soccer game played by humans, a polo gam9 played by humans riding 1,200 pound horses tears up a grass field considerably. There are constant expenses for maintenance, machine~y, labor, reseeding, and conditioning associated w~th the field soithat it ~s not destroyed ( by frequent use. There has never been any!~urplus revenue from the payment of thes~ ~e~"which the people' ,.,~e ulay n~ the field ~. People e~ther pay the'fee~each t~me they use the \ /~iel~; or ~ey pay a lump sum in advance ~or the use of the field / for the entire season." Last season~' th~ 'lump sum was $450. The · total of all such fees did not co¥~ !~!1 of the maintenance~ expenses. 4. The farm managem6nt does no~ authorize any advertisement to the general public of polo play, nor~of the "Polo Club." 5. My clients find it diff~cult'~to respond to question Number 5 because the question appears to assume that the "group" is WOMENS C~LENGE JAMBOREE September 10, 1994 11:00 A.M. - u~til ~ AltaMira Polo Club All day fieM and arena chukkers An event for the entire family Bring a picmc lunch Don't miss it.t! We are going to have.fun with this one. Sponsored by Southern States and Orange Madison Coop. For more details call 295-POLO. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE De~t. of Planning & Cm'fimunity Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (8.O4) 2%-5823 November 8, 1995 River Heights Associates Wendell W. Wood P. O~ Box 5548 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: ZMA-95-17 & SP-95-31 River Heights Associates Tax Map 32, Parcels 43 and 43A Dear Mr~ Wood: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 7, 1995, by a vote of 4-3, recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that the Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their NOVEMBER 8. 1995 meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D.Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf cc: Ella Carey Jo Higgms Amelia McCulley _COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. Dept. of Plannir~ & c~m~unity Development 401 Mdntire Road Charlottes~ville, Virginia, 22902-4596 1804) 296-5823 November 8, 1995 United Land Corporation ATTN: Wendell Wood P. O. Box 5548 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: 8P-95-31 River Heights Associates Dear Mr. Wood: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 7, 1995, took no action on the abovemoted request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, j William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcw ~ x~: Ella Carey [OA~D OF SUPERVISORS October 31, 1995 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept, of Planning & Community Developmem 401 Mclntire Road Charloltesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 River Heights Associates Wendell W. Wood P. O. Box 5548 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: ZMA-95~I7 & SP-95-31 River Heights Associates Tax Map 32, Parcels 43 and 43A Dear Mr. Wood: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 24, 1995, by a vote of 5:0:1, deferred the above-noted petitions to its November 7, 1995 meeting. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf cc: Joseph S. Lombardo Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley Lettie E. Neher STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ OCTOBER 24, 1995 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 ZMA 95-17 AND SP 95-31 RIVER HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to amend the existing proffers and obtain a special use permit in order to use the site for the sate of antos. PETITION: ZMA-95q 7 - Petition to amend the proffers of ZMA-93-06 to allow establishment ofqoutd~o0r s. torag9 ~d display of OUtos on ! 1;3 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corrid°r'0Ve~l~y District. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 43 and 43A, is located on the west side of Route 29 near Timber'Nood Blvd. In the Rivauna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. SP-95-31_ - Petition to establish outdo0r kt6mge and display of autos oh 11.3 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [30.6.3.2b]. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 43 and 43A, is located on the west side of Route 29 near Timberwood Blvd. In the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This site is the location of the old MaupinStt)re/Pine Grove Store: The site contains a small store building, gas pumps and parking area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has rewewed the:pr6posed amendment to 'the pr6ffe~S and ~ec0mrri~nds:ff~hial: Staff has reviewed the special use permit for compliance With the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and, if ZMA 95-17 is approved, assuming approval of the revised proffer and recommends approval. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: This site was rezoned subject to proffers on July 13, 1993 (ZMA-93-06). A special use permit (SP-93-14) was approved atthe same time. The rezoning contained several proffers, one of which states: "The mobile~home sa~s lot-use will be limited to mobile ho~e ~a[e~'afid exi~iing'gr0eery itom and gasoline sales". The special use permit which was approved authorized the sale of mobile homes within the entrance corridor district. This special use permqt contains one condition which stated "The inventory shall include mobile homes which meet the noise attenuatign standards of ZMA-92-14". COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: A Comprehengive Plan Amendment was approved in 1992 which designated this area as Regional Service. In the previous staffreport for this site (ZMA-92- 14 and SP-93-14) staff stated the following: The Comprehensive Plan Amendment calls for an overall plan to be approved prior to development of the commercial area. Also, the commercial area development is intended to occur after development of the minimum I00 mobile home sitos. Therefore, on its face, the sales area development is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the sales area use is directly related to the mobile home park development and therefore is considered appropriate for development prior to an overall plan of development of the rest of the area. Any further developmem or change in use in the regional service area would require a development plan. Staffopinion is that the current proposal for this site is not in keeping with th6 statements of the Plan. No overall plan for development of the commercial area has been provided. Furthermore, and that the previously existing relationship which allowed approval of commercial use of the site no longer exists. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has reviewed the special use permit to provide analysis and recommendation should the Board approve the rezoning request. The proposed use, auto sales, is by special use permit due only to its location in the EC district. Therefore, staffcommentis limited to the impact of the use on the EC district. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4,1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon ~ finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_. Staffhas not focused on the impact on adjacent property as this use is by special use permit only due to the EC district. However, impact on adjacent property is anticipated to be limited due to the existing commercial development of the property and the designation of the area for commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Impact on the character ofthe district is addressed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ARB has reviewed this request and recommended approval subject to conditions. Those conditions are reflected in the conditions of approval for the special use permit. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed this request for compliance only with the purpose and intent of the EC district. Staffrelies on the ARB m provide an analysis of the appropriateness of the use and based on the comments ofthe ARB staff opinion is that this use is/is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the EC district. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use will have no impact on permitted uses in the area. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 contains no additional recommendations. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. This use will have no impact on public health, safety or general welfare. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that the proposed amendment of the proffer is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and previous actions on this property and therefore staff recommends denial of ZMA-95-17. Should the Board choose to approve this request staffrecommends acceptance &the applicant's revised proffer. Staff and the ARB have reviewed SP-95-31 should the rezoning be approved. Based on the actions of the ARB staff is able to recommend approval of SP-95-31 subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 1. Remove existing s~gnage from the site; '3. Construct a berm topped with screening trees between the entrance corridor on the southern most part of the parking area. The parking in this area shall be screened from the entrance corridor; ARB approval of landscape location, sizes and species type. Trees are to be large street trees (3 ½" caliper); No elevated vehicle display; o 10. The lighting shall be directed down oiato the site with the soume of the light shielded from view from the entrance corridor; No attention getting devices shall be attached to any vehicle or structure on the site. This shall prohibit the use of balloons, spinners, streamers and the like: A certificate of appropriateness shall be required prior to approval of the site plan; Lighting of the site shall be limited to between the hours of 10 am and 9pm; Remove the gas pumps from the current location. Reestablishment of the gas pumps shall permitted subject to site plan approval and approval by the ARB; Vehicle sales and display shall be limited to the parking area shown on Attachment D. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicant's proffers D - Sketch Plan A:~SP9531.RPT October 17, 1995 ZMA'95-17 WENDELL Wo WOOD TOM MOUNTAIN Vll i I ? July 22, 1993 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 United Land Corporation ATTN: Wendell Wood P. O. Box 5548 Charlottesville,'VA 22905 RE: ZMA-93-06 United Land Corporation Dear Mr. Wood£ The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on July 14, 1993, approved the above-noted request to rezone 7.9 acres from Rural Area to Highway Commercial-(proffered), property located on the west side of Rte. 29 approximately 600 feet south of Timberwood Blvd. The site is located in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for regional service in the Comprehensive Plan. Please note that this approval is subject to the following proffers: The mobile home sales lot use will be limited to mobile home sales and existing grocery store and gasoline sales. The mob~l~ home sales lot entrance will be closed or altered if required by the future plan of development ~or the. re- maining area designated office and regional service in the Comprehensive Plan. The frontage on Route 29 containing Tax Map 32, Parcels 43A, 43, 42E, 42D, 42B, 42C, 42A and Tax Map 46, Parcel 5 shall contain not more than three entrances. The County may require closure of any existing entrances at the time of establishment of any new entrances such that the total number of entrances does not exceed three. IIATTACH PI EN'i¢-C 1 Original Proffer ~ Amended Profl:er. (Amendment PROFFER FORM Dale: 9/27/95 ZMA# 93-06 TaxMapParcel(s)# 32-43 Acres 1o be rezoned fram to Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, lhe owner, or its duly authorized agenl, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions lisled below which shall be applied to the properly, if rezoned. These condilions are proffered.as a pad o[ lhe requesled rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning ilself giges, rise to the need for the conditions and (2) such condilions have a reasonable relalio'n Io the rezoning requested. (1) The mobile home sales lot use will be mobile home sales, used automobile s~les grocery store and gasoline sales. limited to and existing River Heights Associates Printed Names of All Owners Date, Signature of Attomey-in-Facl (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) OR Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact PROFFORM WpD Rev. December 1994 United Land Corporation Page 2 July 22, 1993 ATTACHMENT Page 31 The site plan for the mobile home sales lot will not be signed until the site plan for a minimum of 100 mobile home units is signed. An access road between the mobile home sales area and mobile home park shall be developed at the time of establishment of the mobile home sales use. This access road shall be used only for the movement of mobile homes between the two uses and for emergency access. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above- noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me; Sincerely, Director of Plannin &~c~munity vwc/:j cw Development cc: Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Tom Muncaster il* PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ?rorec~mg Tt~e Envirorimenr Is Everybody's Business Statement regarding ZMA-95-17 River Heights Associates The PEC is opposed to ZMA-95-17 for all the reasons stated by staff. In addition, the PEC was actively involved in the negotiations which lead to the Comprehensive Plan designation of the area of which this parcel is a portion. At that time PEC supported designation of approximately 50 acres of commercial in this area in consideration of the owner's commitment to first provide a substantial and well-designed mobile home park on land adjacent to this area. The developer stated that he needed the additional commercial to make the economics of the mobile home park work. It was expressly provided in the Plan that the commercial could not be developed until the mobile home park was established just to insure that the park would be built. Also, expansion of the then existing commercial area on Route 29, of which the parcel subject to this ZMA is a part, was justified because the owner was agreeing to a comprehensive planned development of the entire 50 acres as opposed to a piecemeal development of the frontage, To date, no mobile home park has been established, an express provision of the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, no plan for the development of this 50 acre commercial area has been presented. This ZMA represents exactly the kind of p~ecemeal commercialization and fragmentation of this area which the Plan specifically directs be avoided. And the provisions of the Plan for this area were developed at the request of the owner and after careful negotiations intended to avoid precisely this result. We urge you to accept the staff recommendation regarding ZMA-95-17. 45 Hornet Street. Box 46( Warrenton. Virginia 22186~703-347-2334/Fax 349-9003 Rose Hill Drive, Suite [, Claarlorresville Virginia 22903/804-977-2033/Fax 977-6306 F E'CEiVED I,tOV 0 5 1995 Planning Drd'P'~?' FFER FORM Date: Original Proffer . Amended Proffer (Amendment ~., ZMA#, 95-'17 TaxMapParcel(s)# .32-43 & 43A X 7.9 Acres to be rezoned from He to He Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of {he requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; 'and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (l) The area outk, ined tn yellow (350' x l~]O') on the attached plan titled "Pine Grove" dated 8/29/95, may be used as a convenience/grocery store and gasoline sales. In addition this area ma}' be used for mobile home sales'and/or automobile sales subject to approval of th~ appropriate special use permits. The remainder of the site may be used only for mobile home sales subject to the approval of the appropriate special use permits; (2) The entrances on this site will be closed or altered if required by the future plan of development for the remaining adjacent areas designated office and regional service in the Comprehensive Plan; (3) The frontage on Route 29 containing Tax Map 32, Parcels ~3A, 43, h2E, ~2D, #2B, ~2A and Tax Map ~6, Parcel 5 shall contain not ~lore than three combination entrance & exits. The County may require closure of any existing entrances at the time of establishment of any new entrances such thai the total number of entrances does not exceed three; (/~) An access road between the mobile home sales area and mobile home park shall be develope.d at the time of the establishment of any mobile home sales use. This access road shall be used only for the movement of mobile homes between the two uses and for emergency access. Signatures of All Owners i.-~ ~-~ 'P~ -~l~t~rinled Names of Al Owners Date OR Signature of Atl~r~ey-t~-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Prinled Name of Attorney-in-Fact PROFFORM,WPD Rev, December 1994 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Developmem 401 McInt re Road ~--~ Charlottesville, Virginia fl~2-4596 (804) 296-5fl~3 November 20, 1995 / James M. Wilson / University of Virghfia Real Estate Foundation 108 Cresap Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: SP-95-27 University Real Estate Foundatio M'~T~5~arcel Dear Mr. Wilson: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on November 15, 1995, approved the above-noted request m establish professional office on 5.0 acres zoned R-10, Residential. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements of Section 21.0 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Office space limited to the existing residence and amendments to the building not to result in a building larger than 3,500 square feet gross floor area; 3. Use shall not commence until site plan approval has been obtained; and 4. At such time as alternativ~access~is established, ~ood Drive[~hall be limited to emergency access only. /~,ln~ ~ f,,,,~,~ ~N44~ ~t~t~ Before beginmng this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5875. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~elopment VWCJcf cc: Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Joseph Lombardo November 8, 1995 _COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DepL of Planning & Comrfiunity Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 James M. Wilson University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation 108 Cresap Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: ZMA-95-13 and SP-95-27 University Real Estate Foundation Tax Map 60, Parcel 45 Dear Mr. Wilson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 7, 1995, took the following actions: ZMA-95-13 - Unanimously recommended approval subject to acceptance of applicant's proffers. SP-95-27 - Recommended approval (6~1) subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements of Section 21.0 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Office space limited to the existing residence and amendments to the building not to result in a building larger than 3,500 square feet gross floor area; 3. Use shall not commence until site plan approval has been obtained; 4. At such time as alternative access to Crestwood Drive is provided, access shall be limited m emergency access only. Page 2 November 9, 1995 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on NOVEMBER 15, 1995. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supermsors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf cc: Ella Carey Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mc[ntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4~96 (804) 296-5823 October 31, 1995 James M. Wilson University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation 108 Cresap Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: ZMA-95-13 and SP-95-27 University Real Estate Foundation Tax Map 60, Parcel 45 Dear Mr. Wilson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 24, 1995, unanimously deferred the above-noted petitions to its November 7 meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcw cc: Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley ~L~ettie E. Neher PROFFER STATEMENT ZMA 95-13 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Applicant"), the fee simple owner of that certain property described in rezoning application #ZMA-95-13, and special use permit application #SP-95-27 (Tax Map Reference 6045) (the "Property") hereby voluntarily proffers that in the event the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to R-10 ~ in substantial accordance with Applicant's application dated July 26, 1995, Applicant s development of the Property shall be in substantial conformance with the following proffers. The proffers are made pursuant to Section 15.1-49t et seq of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, (the "Code") and applicable p. ortions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). All of these proffers are voluntarily offered pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sect'tons of the Code. These proffers shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to vary from state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards. Vehicular access to and from State Route 601 (Old Ivy Road) shall be restricted to existing shared access over Crestwood Drive. Building improvements shall be limited m 3,500 square feet of gross floor area of space until such time as either: i) State Route 601 (Old Ivy Road) is improved to accommodate additional vehicle trips generated from increased development, as determined by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County or ii) an alternative vehicular access to the Property (other than via State Route 601) is provided. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION ~Y/COUNTY OF (~~f-e-.. The foregoing instmment.was~acl~owledged before me this /fi'~..day of '-~7./JJ'X~Z.~J , 1995, by~,~ A~,, .~_~(-- , Chief Operating Executwe of the University of Virginia Real Estatd Foundation on behalf of the Foundation. My commission expires: ~t~J~J~ 3/. Iqq~. / I ' [SEAL] NOTARY PUBLIC U:\2588\UREF.DOC\Proff. Ivy PROFFER STATEMENT University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Applicant"), the fee simple owner of that certain property described in rezoning application #ZMA-95 y~, and special use permit application #SP-95-27 (Tax Map Reference 60-45) (the "Property") hereby voluntarily proffers that in the event the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Co to R-10 a ............... re ......... v ........ permit is issued in substantial accordance with Applicant's- appl:,ca~cng ~ dated July 26, 1995, Applicant's development of the Property shall be in substantial conformance with the following proffers. The proffers are made pursuant to Section 15.1491 e_t seq of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, (the "Code") and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). All of these proffers are voluntarily offered pursuant tO the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. These proffers shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to vary from state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards. Vehicular access to and from State Route 601 (Old Ivy Road) shall be restricted to existing shared access over Crestwood Drive. Building improvements shall be limited to 3,500 square feet of prcfc:::mnal ...... ~Z~.~{:I~t~i~:~ space until such time as either: i) State Route 601 (Old Ivy Road) is ~mproved to accommodate additional vehicle trips generated ., '.:1 ii,",'.,,',' d,...'l. I'BI;,:~ - ,',~1,~:.;11.'..,I .'y .h,' \ :.,.'h. a I).'l,:l:n'.," . ]' ,Z'j% i',...-,11 ..iM ~J'.. J'[,:..:.! ::1 ',Ul'c; I-.qn II \ ?.hii".i2'. ~.',:ll.fi, ~': lil .Ill .I.~h. ',. '..~h .Ilia' .~,','.'.. h' I', P' .ffJ:.~'..VI; .' ~h:lll ' .. %1..I.' R, ..:c ~,,.9 is provided. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION Title: STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this' day of , 1995, by , Chief Operating Executive of the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation on behalf of the Foundation. My commission expires: [SEAL] NOTARY PUBLIC U:\2588\UREF.DOC~Proff. Ivy STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ NOVEMBER 7, 1995 NOVEMBER 15, 1995 ZMA- 95-13 AND SP-95-27 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to rezone this site to R-10 in order to allow for a special use permit to be approved for professional offices. The offices proposed would occupy the exisfmg house and be used as the main administrative offices for the UVA Foundation. The applicant has submitted a letter describing the intended use of this site. PETITION: ZMA -95-13 - Petition to rezone 5 acres from R-I, Residential to R-10, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 45 is located on the north side of Old Ivy Road on the access road to University Village in the'Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential (t0.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 7. SP-95-27 - Petition to establish a professional office on 5 acres zoned R-10, Residential [17.2.2(11)]. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 45 is located on the north side of Old Ivy Road on the access road to University Village in the JackJouett Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential (10.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 7. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This site is currently developed with a single family dwelling. Adjacent properties are developed with multi-family residential units. The access to this site serves the University Village development. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the rezoning request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. Staffhas reviewed the special use permit for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: No history is available for this site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site is recommended for High Density Residential Use (10.01-34 dwelling units per acre). The Comprehensive Plan identifies Ivy Road as receiving road improvements. Old Ivy Road improvements are included in the six year road plan with the improvements scheduled to go to bid in January 2000. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will revie~v the rezoning and special use permit request as separate items. The Planning Commission and Board must act on these requests individually. ZMA 95-13: The adjacent University Village site was rezoned from R-1 to R-10 in 1982. The approval of that request included a proffer which limited the traffic generation from the property to a level comparable to the previous zomng. This approach was taken due to the existing condition of Old Ivy Road. At the time the rezoning was approved no in~provemems to Old Ivy Road were identified in the Comprehensive Plan or the six year road plan. The applicant is aware of the approach taken to address traffic concerns on adjacent properties and has provided a proffer intended to address these concerns. (At the time of'the preparation of this report the proffers were being amended to address concerns raised by staff and the County Attorney's office. These revision do not impact the intent of the proffers to limit trip generation on Old Ivy Road.) The Department of Transportation has stated that approval of this request should have minimal impact on Old Ivy Road due to the small increase in traffic generated by this use. The Department of Transportation has noted that Old Ivy Road is not geometrically compatible for the current daily traffic. However, with the improvements to the access m the Bypass, traffic volumes on the road have held steady or decreased slightly since the 1992 count. (The traffic count on Old Ivy Road at the time of the University Village rezoning in 1982 was 2,950 vtpd. However, the traffic count in 1986 for this for this portion of Old Ivy Road was 1,149 vtpd. The 1988 count was 4,373, xrrpd, the 1990 count was 3,931 vtpd and the 1994 count was 4,358 vtpd.) Staff opinion is that the approach to limit traffic generation from this site is compatible with the approach taken on the adjacent property. In addition, staff notes as changes in circumstance since the approval of the rezordng for the University Village the improvement of Old Ivy Road near the intersection with the Bypass and the inclusion of the road in the six year road plan. This request is to rezone 5 acres from R-1 to R-10. The existing zoning permits a maximum of 4 dwelling units under conventional zoning this could result in 40 vtpd. (A maximum of 7 units could be permitted with the use of bonus provisions which could result in 70 vtpd.) With the proffer provided by the applicant minimal additional impact is anticipated. The proffered zoning would allow for only the use of the existing structure which would result in 10 vtpd. Approval of the special use permit could result in approximately 110 vtpd. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the comprehensive plan and past zoning actions in this area. Therefore, staff can support approval of the rezoning request subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffer. 2 SP-95~27 Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the riaht to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued u_non a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to ad_latent property. This site is adjacent to both residential and University property. However, the only access proposed to this site is through the residential area and; therefore, no relationship between this use and the University can be identified. (The applicant has indicated that access to the University will be provided upon completion of the plans for the Rome 29 Bypass.) The proposed use of this site for office space will represem the introdudtion of a non-residential activity into a residential area. The hours of operation for the offices would be normal business hours, which reduces the impact of the use on the adjacent sites. The proposed improvements to the site to accommodate the office use would be limited to minor building improvements and provision of adequate parking areas. The appearance of the site would not result in a detriment to the adjacent property. The level of activity and hours of operation proposed is such that minimal impact on adjacent property is anticipated. Therefore, this use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, As stated previously approval of this request would introduce non-residential use into a purely residential area. Access to this site is currently anticipated only from Old Ivy Road. At some point in the future access to the University may be provided. If access were provided through the University this site could be considered an extension of the University and as a buffer between the residential development and the more intensely developed portions of the University. With access only through the residential area this site does not serve the same buffer function. Commercial uses in residentially areas are typically limited to those activities which are supportive of the residential uses. (The neighborhood service designation in the Comprehensive Plan is in recognition of this.) The introduction of commercial use which is not directly supportive of the residential uses will change the character of this residential district. HOwever, the use of the existing structure, with limited improvement, will not result in a substantial change in the visual appearance of the area. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose an~ intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. The location of offices in residential districts has been used in past actions to provide buffers or support services for nearby residential areas. This approach is consistent with the development [Sections 1.4.1, 1.4.3]. This application does not provide support services to the nearby residential property nor does il provide a buffer between the residential development and other commercial areas. Staff is unable to find this request in compliance with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, While the proposal is not consistent with the district's by right uses, the adjacent properties are largely developed and approval of this request will have limited impact on the permitted uses on those properties or the property under review. with additional re_eulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations. and with the ~ublic health, safety and _general welfare. This site will be served by the existing University Village entrance. This entrance is adequate to serve the proposed use. No negative impact on the public health, safety or general welfare is anticipated. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: ZMA-95-13 This area is recommended for high density residential use in the comprehensive plan and the requested density, R-10, is consistent with that recommendation. The primary concern in past rezoning reviews in this area is the impact on Old Ivy Road. The applicant as provided proffers which limit the potential increase in and the Department of Transportation is able to support this application. Based on the Comprehensive Plan and recommendations of the Department of Transportation staff is able to support the rezoning request subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer. SP_-95-27 Staff has identified the following factors which 'are favorable to this request: 1. The use of the existing building will not result in a substantial change in the visual appearance of the area; The use will result in a minimal increase in traffic over what could be generated under existing zoning; Approval of this use will not affect the permitted uses on adjacent properties which are largely developed. Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 1. The proposed use is inconsistent with the purpose and intern of the ordinance; Approval of this use will result in a change in the character of the district due to the introduction of a non-residential use. Staff review of this request has provided mixed findings. However, in tho opinion of staff the intent of providing professional offices in residential districts is to provide support services for nearby residential activities (i.e. doctors, dentist) or to buffer residential areas from more intensive commercial areas. This application is to provide office space for the University of Virginia Foundation main administrative offices. This use provides no direct support for the nearby residential uses and represents an office use which would more appropriately be located in a commercial district. 'Approval of this request would be a departure from past actions. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this request. Should the Board choose m approve this request staff offers the following conditions of approval: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Compliance with the requirements of Section 21.0 of the Zoning Ordinance; Office space limited to the existing residence and amendments to the building not to result in a building larger than 3,500 square feet gross floor area; 3. Use shall not commence until site plan approval has been obtained. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - ' Tax Map C - Applicant's information D - VDOT comment A:~ZMA9513.RPT October 17, 1995 SP'95,27 U.V,R.E.F. ALBEMARLE COUNT SP-95-27 U.V.R.E.F. 76 SAMUEL MILLER, JACK dOUETT AND GHARLOTTESVILL E DISTRIGTS ~ Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville Virginia 22902-1288 Felephone/TDD(804)977-2500 · Fax(804)980-2222 Steven W. Blaine Ms. Amelia McCulley Zoning Administrator County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Jtme 30, 1995 Writer's Direct Dial (804} 977-2588 Re: University of Virginia Foundation; Property Located at 2333 Old Ivy Road; Albemarle County Tax Map Parcel 60-45 Dear Ms. McCulley: This is to request on behalf of our client, thc UVA Foundation, &n Official Determination to provide an interpretation of "professional office" use for the purposes of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The UVA Foundation wishes to occupy as its main administrative offices an existing residence located on the referenced property. The Foundation wishes to confirm that its proposed use fits within the del'tuition of professional office use under the County's Ordinance. The property is zoned residential (R-l) under the Ordinance. The property lies within an area designated for high density residential under the Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding properties are currently zoned high density residential (R-15 or R-10). If the proposed use fits within "professional office," the Foundation would seek a rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and seek a special use permit under the appropriate zoning. The UVA Foundation would employ fifteen to twenty employees at this location. location would replace the Foundation's current location on Cresap Road in the City of Charlottesville. The UVA Foundation oversees several subsidiary organizations which are affiliated with the University of Virginia. Several members of the Foundation's Board also serve on the Board of Visitors of the University. Through its subsidiaries, like the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, the UVA Foundation provides services to the University and its various departments and organizations. Services include acquisition consulting, property ALEXANDRIA · BALTIMOR[ - BRUSSEL$ · C~&RLOTIESVILL~ · JACKS0~¥KLE - NORFOL[ · RICHMOND' T¥SO~$ CORNER · WASBINGTON, DC · Z~RICB Ms. Amelia McCulley June 30, 1995 Page 2 management, bookkeeping, financial analysis and planning. The services provided in the area of real estate and property management do not include contracting services. Contractors are hired independently by the Foundation. No contractors would share the use of the office space. We respectfully request that you determine whether the Foundation's proposed use fits within "professional offices" for the purposes of the Ordinance. Please contact the undersigned if you require anything further, urs, SWB/itm cc: Mr. Tim R. Rose Mr. Jim Wilson U:\2588\ 1995LTRXAM5629,swb ~TTACHI~IL~;~NT CI ii ~'~- a. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. CI~L ENGINEERINg · ~ND SURVEYING · L~O PLANNING McGumEWOoDS BATTLE ~BOOTHE Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-1288 Telep~hone/TDD(804)977-2500 · Fax(804)980-2222 ~TTA~ItM E..N'~ ~ {JCl J.j 199§ SievenW. Blaine Mr. William Fritz Zoning Department County of Albemarle. 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 October 9, 1995 Writer's Direct Dial t804) 977-2588 Re: UREF Rezoning and Special Use Permit Application for Property Located at 2333 Old Ivy Road; Albemarle County Tax Map 60, Parcel 45 Dear Bill: Attached please find a Proffer Statement for the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation. I was uncertain of the rezoning application number so I have simply left a blank for that information. Please call me when you have had a chance to review the attached. Very truly yours, Steven W. Blaine SWB/itm ~ Enc. cc: Mr. Jim Wilson (w/enclosure) U:\2588\ 1995LTRXBF51009.$wb PROFFER STATEMENT ZMA 95- ; SP-95-27 EC:EIVED 1995 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Applicant"), the fee simple oxvner of that certain property described in rezoning application #ZMA-95-__., and special use permit application #SP-95-27 (Tax Map Reference 60-45) (the "Property") hereby voluntarily proffers that in the event the..Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to R-10 and in the event that Applicant's special use permit is issued in substantial accordance with Applicant's applications dated July 26, 1995, Applicant's development of the Property shall be in substantial conformance with the following proffers. The proffers are made pursuant to Section 15.1-491 ~ se..~_q of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, (the "Code") and applical~le portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ord{~ance (the "Ordinance"). All of these proffers are voluntarily offered pursuant to the. Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. These proffers shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to vary from state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards. Vehicular access to and from State Route 601 (Old Ivy Road) shall be restricted to existing shared access over Crestwood Drive. Building improvements shall be limited to 3,500 square feet of professional office space until such time as either: i) State Route 601 (Old Ivy Road) is improved to accommodate additional vehicle trips generated from increased development, or ii) an alternative vehicular access to the Property (other than via State Route 601) is provided. In the event that an alternative access IS provided as set forth in 2 ii) above, these proffers shall be released and extinguished, and such release and extinguishment shall be self-executing. The uneforceability or illegality of any proffers set forth herein, in whole or in part, shall not affect the validity of the R.-10 zoning or the special nsc permit issued herein, or the validity or enforceability of any other proffers or the unaffected portion of any such proffer and any such proffer or portion of a proffer herein finally found to be unenforceable or illegal shall be severed from the balance of the proffers and deleted. The Applicants agrees that it will in no way contest the validity, legality or enforceability of any proffer offered to thc County herein. DAVID R. GEHR J ATTACHMENT RECEIVED 1995 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 2013 CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902-2013 A, G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER September 20, 1995 Submittals for October Public Hearings Mr Ron Keeler Dept. of Planning & Community Development County Office Bldg. 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Keeler: Listed below are our comments for October Public Hearings: SP~95-27 University Real Estate Foundation, Route 601 It is our understanding that the existing b~ilding is to be used for 3,500 square feet of office space. This roughly estimates a usage of 110+/- vehicle trips per day. This would be approximately 60 VPD more than is allowed under current zoning. The additional traffic does not seem to ~ignificantly impact Route 601, although this section of road is not geometrically compatible for the current daily traffic of 4300+/- VPH (1994 T.C.) . Route 601 is currently difficult to access from the east or west intersections The 1994 traffic count was approximately 10 percent less than the 1992 T. C., which may be the result of changes made at the west end of Route 601 and the ramp from Route 250. Traffic counts would possibly fluctuate from day to day, so the addition of 60 VPD beyond the existing zoning is not significant. There should be limitation for additional trips beyond this number for future development until Route 601 is improved or another access is allowed. SP-95-29 Christopher M. Yates, Route 250 E. This should not have any significant impact to infrastructure of locat~roads. Sight distance is adequate and private driveway is paved. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY I ATTACHMENT D j -Page Mr. Ron Keeler October Public Hearings Page 2 September 20, 1995 SP-95-30 Crozet Church of God, Route 824 This location was recently improved under a Site plan and permit for daylighting sight distance to new entrance. The area of sight line to the east is hampered by several new locusts that have grow~ since grading was done. The trees should be cut and scumps sprayed to keep locusts from coming back. SP-95-31 Wendell Wood, Route 29 N. The two existing entrance~ do not meet sight distance requirements as they currently exist. We recommend that only one encrance be allowed with turn and caper lane provided. The existing lot is 7"-8" below the grade of Route 29 SBL, causing the insufficient sight distance. The sight distance requirement can be met if grade is raised. Any outdoor storage should not impede sight distance or be placed on VDOT right of way. SP-95-32 Ti~er Fuel Company, Route 250 E. Access only throug~ McDonalds site from Route 20 One entrance is recommended off of Route 250. Internal movements should be designed to meet proposed entrances with minimum disruption. ZMA- 95 UREF See SP-95-27, Route 601. ZMA~95-14 Ivy Creek ETAI, Route 677 Proposal to rezone from PRD to rural areas should lessen impact on local roads. ZMA-95-15 Peter Easter, Route 631 Ail access should be to old Route 631 connection where the current business exists. As a minimum the new connection may be allowed along the western boundary of the propermy. Mr. Ron Keeler October Public Hearings PaDe 3 Septe~oer 20, 1995 ZFL~-95-16 Commonwealth Central Investments, Route 1403 The proposal for pole mounted lightin9 is unclear in where the poles would be located in relation to the roadways. We would like to review plans for levels of illumination and distribution pattern. Even though the lightin~ is not roadway lighting, it may have significant impact on motorists. ZTA-95-06 Pavilion At Riverbend LLC Does not appear to be an impact, since we would review proposed site plan area. you have any questions, please advise. Since. rely, Assistant Resident EnDineer HWM/ldw cc: Wanda Moore Irma vonKutzelben J. H. KesLerson MEMORANDUM COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. ot Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Item ~io ..... TO: Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development FROM: William D. Fritz, Senior Planner DATE: December 8, 1995 SP-95-32 Star Enterprise The Board of Supervisors, at its meeting of November 15, 1995, defen'ed action in order to allow additional review of a design alternative for access to this site. This design alternative makes use ora "slip ramp" offof Route 20 onto the site allowing for right in only movements. (Attachment A) The Engineering Department has prepared a detailed analysis of the various options and impacts of Route 20 access to addresses the Board's concerns. The Engineering Department and VDOT do not recommend the "slip ramp" as proposed and continue to support the original conditions of approval. (Attachment B) The Board also requested additional information on how vehicles exiting this site would access Route 250 East and Route 20 North without making use of the McDonalds site. All vehicles leaving this site and wanting to go east on Route 250 or north on Route 20 would need to exit the site and travel west on Route 250 to the River Road/Route 250 intersection located in the city and then make a U-turn. The Board requested information on any discussion which occurred during the review of the McDonalds site plan/special use permit which addressed the provision of access through McDonalds to this site. During the review of McDonalds access to the property under review was required to aid future development. The layout of the drive thru at McDonalds is such that it allows for the access to the adjacent property to function. The minutes of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings for McDonalds are attached. Page 2 December 8, 1995 A question regarding the adequacy of parking was raised by the Board. The site plan for this project has not been accepted for review by the site review committee. A determination of the required parking will occur with the review of the site plan. The parking calculations provided on the site plan are in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Revision to the parking layout will likely occur if the entrance to Route 20 is closed/modifies and if access to the McDonalds site is provided. Should you have additional questions please feel free to contact me. cc: David Sutton I:\GENEKAL\SHARE\FRITZ\SP9532.LTR I / / I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Bill Fritz - Senior Planner Jack M. Kelsey, PE - Chief of Engineering /' December 6, 1995 Tiger Fuel Company; SP 95-032 As requested by the Board of Supervisors, this Department has reviewed the sketch of a proposed "Slip Entrance" or "Entrance Only" design provided by the applicant. We have examined the existing intersection and a variety of entrance/access scenarios. Our comments on the scenarios are provided below, and a sketch of the intersection has been attached for your reference. We have determined that this entrance design does not address our concerns for "safe and convenient access m public streets," nor will it facilitate the complicated internal traffic circulation on this site. It is our opinion that the best interest of the public would be served by closing the Route 20 entrance and providing access to Route 20 through the provisions made on the McDonald's property. Therefore, we continue to support the conditions of approval provided in the 17 October 1995 Staff Report. A. Existing Entrance to Route 20 with No Internal Connection Route 20 northbound traffic entering the site would have to cross three southbound traffic lanes (see attached sketch). In addition, a protected left turn lane is not feasible due to the small separation between the intersection and the entrance. Exiting traffic with northern destinations would also have to cross three southbound lanes to access Route 20 North (see attached sketch). Exiting traffic with eastern destinations would have to cross two southbound lanes and maneuver into the left turn lane within a very short distance (see attached sketch). This movement combined with vehicles stacked in the turn lane will interfere with through traffic. The only other alternative would be to exit west, cross the Rivanna River bridge, and make a u-mm at the signal. MEMORANDUM Tiger Fuel Company; SP 95-032 December 6, 1995 Page Two Exiting traffic heading for the shopping center would have to cross the Route 20 South right turn lane and maneuver into the through lane at the signal within a short distance (see attached sketch). This movement combined with stacked vehicles will also interfere with traffic. B. Existing Entrance to Route 20 and Include the Internal Connection Does not eliminate the problems with exiting and entering traffic described in "A" above. Provision of four entrances into the site fttrther complicates the already difficult internal traffic circulation. C. New "Slip Lane"from Route 20 with No Interttal Connection No exit is provided for northern or eastern destinations. Drivers would have to exit west, cross the Rivanna River bridge, and make a u-turn at the signal and return to the Route 250/20 intersection or make an illegal exit from the "Slip Lane." The design as provided will not prohibit illegal exits. A longer lane would be necessary in order to give the driver the sense of entering the wrong way into a one-way lane or "ramp." It is not absolutely necessary for vehicles southbound on Route 20 to enter the site from Route 20 since the entrances on Route 250 could adequately serve this traffic. D. New "Slip Lane"from Route 20 and Include the Internal Connection The design as provided will not prohibit illegal exits. A longer lane would be necessary in order to give the driver the sense of entering the wrong way into a one-way lane or ramp. Provision of four entrances into the site further complicates the already difficult internal traffic circulation. Vehicles southbound on Route 20 could enter the site by the internal connection, which utilizes the existing McDonald's entrance. The existing entrances on Route 250 could also adequately serve this traffic. The public interest would not be served any better by the provision of a "Slip Lane" access from Route 20. MEMORANDUM Tiger Fuel Company, SP 95-032 December 6, 1995 Page Three E. Remove the Existing Entrance to Route 20 and Include the Internal Connection Tkis scenario eliminates the exiting and entering traffic problems at the existing Route 20 entrance as described in the scenarios above (refer to the attached sketch). a. Traffic with the shopping center or eastern destinations can utilize the McDonald's entrance and have plenty of room to maneuver into the appropriate traffic lane. b. Drivers with northern destinations can cross or take advantage of the shared turn lane centered in Route 20. c. Traffic southbound on Route 20 has the option of entering at McDonald's or at the Route 250 entrances. 2. Traffic northbound on Route 250 has the option of using the McDonald's entrance on Route 20 rather than making a u-turn and using the Route 250 entrances. In a meeting held Tuesday, 5 December 1995 with the applicant at the Virginia Department of Transportation, VDOT concurred with our determination and observations. A copy of their comments is attached for your use. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. JMK\ctj Attachments CC: Andr6 Williams, Engineering Department Glenn Brooks, Engineering Department Bill Mills, Virginia Department of Transportation DEG.-O$'95tTUEi t4:15 VDOT DAVID R, GEHR TEL:804 979 5759 COMMONWEALTH of VtRC INIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 2013 P. 001 A,G. TUCKER December $, 1995 Route 20 & 250 Albemarle County Mr. Jack M. Kelsey Dept. of Engineering County Office Bldg. 401 McIntir~ Road Char!ottesville, VA, 22902 Dear Mr. Kelsey: The Depar:ment concurs with your comments regarding the closing of the Route 20 entrance and that access he provided through tt~ McDonalds site. If you should have a~y questions or require additional information, please advise. Sincerely, Per. & Sub. Spec. Supv.. JEK,/ldw Post-It" brand faz tran~mittaJ memo M.B. 42, Pg. 43 July 8, 1992 (Regula~ Night Meeting) (Page 43) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's repots: 25C East'widening projecg, which includes improvements to Route 20 4.422 square foot restaurant with 59 parking spaces on a 1.76 acre site. Aireduced copy of the site plan is included herein as compliance with Section 31.2~4~1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to conditions. lng this isite was a special use permit (SP-88-07) request ~o allow fill in the floodway fringe of the Rivanna River as part of a plan denied by the Board of Supervisors on March 22, 1988. A full list of paso applications is included herein as Attachment D. an Urban Neighborhood 3. The Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines (Table 4~ of ~he Comprehensive Plan, p.161) indicate the resgau- rang is an appropriate use in the Regional Service Areas by referenc~ to the Community Service and Neigkborhood Service designations. Staff opinion is ~ke existing adjacent land uses and the physical constraints of ~his site lend the propergy go a smaller slcale developmen~ than the 250,000 square foot gross floor acres zoned C-I, Commercial {see Attachment B)~ In the HC dis- 5rmc~ faist food res~aurangs are permitted by-right [Section 24.2.1.~01] with the drive-through window allowed by special use permit [s~ctmon 24,2.2.13]. In the C-1 district, both the fast food resgmuranc and the drive-throu~hwindow require special use per, it approval [Sections 22.2.2.~ and 22,2.2.10]. The Architectural Review Board has issued a Certificate of Appro- priateness for this project see Attachment C) The preliminary site planihas been reviewed concurrently with this petition. Site site plan! has been substantially revised to address these concerns * Improved on-site circulation pa~uerns. DurinS the ~eview of the original site plan submittal for ghis entering traffic anticipated to ~urn left from Route 20 into the site, it will be difficult for a ~eft turn go be provided at the Obtainingla sufficien~ left gurn lane length for this access still providing sufficient length for the left tur~ lane M.B. 42, Pg. 44 July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) fPage 44) provide for adequate though minimal lefb ~urn lanes ~o serve both Mr. Cilimber9 said the Planming Commission, at zns meetin~ on J%kue 9, 1992, by a vote of 6-1, recommended approval of SP-92-42 subject to the condition recommended by staff Mr. Cilimber9 added than the ARB has issued a Certificate of Appropri- ateness for the project, and a site plan was reviewed by the Commission, a~ the same time as the special use permmu was reviewed He said the site plan wilt be approved per the supervisors' approval of the special use permzg tonight. He commented that plans for the entrance have bee~ chan~ed, due ~o concerns regarding access and circulation pauuerns of traffic. Mr. Bain asked if the chan~es were made before the Commission's action. Mr. Cilimber9 answered, "yes". He noted that this applicatioa dates over more than a year, and durin~ that mmme with VDOT, the applicant has made two chan~es. He wenu on no describe the changes, and said that the commission requested the applicant nog no pug in a deadend nub. He added that a decision would be made am some future point, with the development Of the adjozning szue whether uo make that connection. He said the applicant was agreeable ¢o the Plarn~in~ Commission's req~esE. M.B. 42, Pg. 45 July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting; (Page 45) Mr. Bowerman asked if this change is covered either in the site plan or in the conditions. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this particular change ~s cov- ered in the site plan. Mr. Bowerman asked what is the terminology on the site plan regarding this change. Mr. Citimberg answered that the change will occur based on the Commission's meeulnS and when the site plan is approved, the nub will be removed from the slue plan. He said that it does no= have =o be covered in the special use permit. Mr. Bain snaued that when he read the Commission's minutes, he was concerned about the discussion of these ~ypes of conneenlons. He said these uypes of connections have been encouraged for a long time. He pointed out that Bill Nitchma~u% made comments about this situation, and Mr. Bain thinks it would be good to elaborate on it. He said this needs to be encouraged at Commission level. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that he mentioned this at the Commission meeulng durin9 the site plan discussion He said that closin9 off this portlon of the properuy is bo problem because the allowance is still there, and the req~lrement can suii1 be made with the other site's develop- menu. He did specifically tell the Commission that he felt it would be very impor=ant to keep that allowance, even if it is non built as a nub, because there has been experience in other ~ocations where the opportunity to access adjacenn slues is non available through existing sites. 5e added that this causes a proliferation of entrances on main roads, and in this case, the Texaco proper=y will have no crossover on Route 250. He said the Texaco property's business will be based either on U-turn ~ovemen=s on Route 250 or people taking a left and comlng in another entrance. He likened this to a situation a~ Hio Road and Route 29 with ~ardee's and Bojan~les Restaurants, where there is an interconnection provided there. He added that if this interconnection was no= provided, there would be a lot more trouble in accessing those two businesses. He pointed ouu that the Commission did foreclose this access, but the Commission did no~ wann ~o give the impression that this was automatic by having the nub there. He noted that this was the Commission's opl~ion, b~t it was not the staff's opinion, and the staff did non Dffer this as a suggested change. Mr. Bowerman stated that the supervisors may choose to disagree with the Commission on this point. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that the staff also chose to disagree with the Commission about this matter. =o a cerua%n ex~enu. He said the supervisors can call the site plan if they feel that this zs a concern. Mr. Bain mennioned that this is the preliminary plan and no= the final sine plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he can take the supervisors' message back uo the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked about a cerualn property on the map. Mr. Citimberg replied that the property to which Mr. Bowerman referred was flood plain. He showed, with use of the map, the fill area for the McDonald's parking lot and the vegetation area He said the applicant is filling the area to the edge of the flood plain. Mr. Bowerman wondered what the zoning is north of that slue. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the zonzng north of the McDonald's site, on the other side of the flood plain, ~s residential. Mr. Cilimberg added that ~he dissenting vone on the Commission was due addressing with VDOT for more than a year. He said the ARB wanted the Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Ms. Lisa Barnett, with McDonald's Corporation, said she would discuss was non extended all the way, so ~hat in the future, if the adjacent properuy M.B. 42, Pg. 46 July 8, 1992 {Regular ~i~ht Meeting) (Page 46) Mr. Bowerman stated that whenever a road is no~ approved, and it is to be built later, it never ge~s built. He is ~rymn~ to make it as clear as possible what this Board thinks about good planning. There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. At this time, Mr~ Martin made a motion Eo approve SP~91-42 stfojec~ Eo the condition recommended by the Planning commission. :Mr. Bain seconded the Mrs. Humphris stated that she ms a regular user of all three of the local McDonald's Restaurants, Prom the first time she heard of the building of a McDonald's on this site, however, she thought it would not work. She went on to say fhat every time she went by the site, she was concernedJ She recalled that the McDonald's ~n Shopper's World accesses from inside the shopping Johnson's comments from the Commission minutes, he echoed her feeling exactly. She read in the staff report that, "It bas been determined that the proposed discussion about what it would be like when all of the apartment complexes g~n Center was there, and she thought about all of the undeveloped space up the will have on that particular site. She knows she will be a minority of one, such a good reputation. She thinks, however, that approval of this special Mr. Marshall agreed with Mrs. Humphris. He loves and also used McDon- ald's Restaurants, but he thinks that this is a poor location. He would accessibility. There is a bad curve an the proposed site. He uses that area a grean deal. and it is extremely difficult negotiating under the presenn because he has no go across Free Bridge to get in and to get out of there. He emphasized that this is a terribly congested area, and this proposed restau- rant will pull more volumes of traffic into that intersection. He will non Mr. Marti~ stated that he understands the problem involved with this site, and he thinks that, an times, there will be a traffic 1ssue there. He added, however, that he believes VDoT has done its job and the staff has done its job, and both of them feel comfortable that traffic can be accommodated. Be nravels the road a lot, and he understands the problems there, but he is assummng the roads will be changed to meen ~DoT's specifications. Mr. Perkins commented that he believes that if a McDonald's Restaurant does not locate an this site, there will just be something else there six months or a year from now. He said something will be built there, because if is ~oo valuable a plece of property to just sit there· Mr. Bain responded that this may be nrue, but it may no= be something with as much traffic volume as McDonald's. He added that Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall have pointed ou5 how much business is involved with McDonald's that another business can be located there, but there would non be the traffic problem. He then asked Mr. Cilimberg what is the =oral distance for the entrance when it is moved up 100 feet, He asked how far north from the there is a notal of 250 feen involved with the entrance. Mr Cilimberg lane for northbound traffic. He added than the total would be approximately M.B. 42, Pg. 47 July 8. 1992 {Regular Night Meetlng) AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Martin ~nd Perkins. Mrs. Humphris and Mr~ Marshall. (The condition of approval is seu ouu below:) The site plan shall he developed in general accord with the plan prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Incorporated, prepared August 19, 1991, and last revised April 3, 1992. Agenda Item NO. 13. Approval of Minutes: October 9 and November 13, 199t. Mr. Bowerman bed read October 9, 1991, pages 1 - 13 (end at #10) and found them ~o be in order. Mr. Bain had read November 13, 1991 pages 15 ($?d) - 26, and found them Eo be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, se¢o:ded by Mrs. Humphris, ko approve the minutes as read Boil w~s called and the motion carried by the following recorded roue: AYES: Mr. Bain. ~Lr. Bowerman, N~S. Humphris a~d Mr. Berki~s. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr, Marshall and Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No, 14 Other Matters Not 5isted on the Agenda from the Mr. Tucker said the staff had been requested uo look into the question of the redistricting proposed by the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo). As could have been expected, the redistricting ms completed and the VACO Board of Directors has made all of the decisions Mr. Tucker ~oted that through Mrs. Numphris and Mr. Drewary Brown, staff had been made aware of a gran~ fr~ the state for a summer youth program. The CoUnty will be able Eo use about 25 young people in Parks and BecreaEmo~ and Staff Services. Mr. Tucker said that a dilemma had armsen concerning the proposed addi- tion co the Joint Securaty Complex (Jail) properuy. Physically, the county owns one-half of the properuy and ~he other half ~s ov~ed by the City. The new addition would straddle that line. He has talked to the County Attorney about this situation, and they are proposzng that the property be jointly SDP-91-074 McDo~? 's Corporation~Site Plan Proposal to construct a 2,8~ ~quare foot fast food ret ant with a drive-through window on a 1.76 acre site. Froperty, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 4 (part) and 4A, are located on the west side of Rt. 20 approximately 280 feet north of Rt. 250. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial, C-l, commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the 6-9-92 13 Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area ('Neighborhood 3). Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Huckle expressed a lack of understanding of the applicant's statement that "the stormwater detention facility has been designed to address the 2-year storm, the 10-year storm and the 100-year storm." Mr. Keeler explained that there are two ordinances in effect--Stormwater Detention Ordinance and Soil Erosion Ordinance. Both the Soil Erosion Ordinance and the Stormwater Detention Ordinance require that channels be adequate to accommodate runoff from a 10-year storm. Mr. Keeler could not explain the reference to the 100-year storm. Mr. Blue ~dded that the reference to the 100-year floodplain probably means that it is designed so that'it isn't going to wash away. Ms. Huckle also asked for an explanation of the "rubble area" and "potential contaminants" referred to in the applicant's letter of May 14, 1992. Mr. Blue interpreted that the applicant was saying that after development and proper storm drainage, the pollution potential will be improved. Mr. Johnson asked if the County had the authority to require that the property owners maintain the detention basin. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Department of Engineering is now requiring, as standard practice, a maintenance agreement. [This would come under condition l(b).] Mr. Tarbell stated he would check with Engineering to ensure that this is correct and if it is not, staff will add it as a condition. [NOTE: Staff decided later that the following would be added to condition l(b): "...to include approval of a maintenance agreement for the stormwater facilities.] The Issue of the access to the Texaco site was discussed at length. Mr. Blue questioned how the owner of the adjacent property could be required to let McDonald's traffic exit across their site. Mr. Tarbell explained that reservation for a joint easement could be required. Mr. Tarbell stressed that it might be determined, after a site plan comes in on the Texaco site, that the connection between the two sites is not desirable, _but it is felt that it is wise to make provision for the Dossibility of a connection at this time in the event it is needed. Mr. Cilimberg added that cross easements can be required as part of the "safe and convenient access" issue with the cost being borne~by the developer. Mr. Bowling confirmed that it could be required as a condition of site development. Mr. Johnson stated: "But we can't force one property owner to give up access to another without compensation." Mr. Bowling responded: "You can require safe and convenient access and 6-9-92 14 if (a developer) can't get that access, that's his problem, for whatever his proposed use is." Mr. Cilimberg was under the impression that the applicant has offered to provide the easement willingly. [Mr. Bill'Savage, representing McDonald's, interjected: "The access is provided as a part of the purchase agreement."] Mr. Nitchmann expressed that he was concerned about the access inviting persons to stack beyond the five-car space allowance to make a left turn onto the site from Rt. 250 (before getting to the main entrance). Mr. Tarbell stated that the "stub" did not have to be shown on the site plan if that was the Commission's desire. This would mean that each site would exit onto Rt. 250. He again stressed that showing the connection on the site plan was just to provide future options and to try to prevent Rt. 250 from developing in the same manner as Rt. 29 North where there a~e curb cuts for every business. Mr. Nitchmann felt the connection should be "shut off permanently" because he felt two businesses using the same access could create problems. Mr. Johnson suggested the possibility of closing the connection now with the understanding that it can be re-evaluated in the future if needed. It was determined that the inclusion of the connection to the adjacent property on the site plan had been at staff's suggestion. Regarding plans for the Texaco site, Mr. Savage commented: "There is no agreement as to what is going to go on except that the right of access across that parcel that is owned by Starr Enterprises will be there for McDonald's~ If a site plan that is approved for that corner parcel gets approved--right now there is. no use on it--if driveways and acoessways are developed, our customers will have the right to use it subject to your site plan approval for that corner parcel. In fact we altered it, as a part of the revisions to the site plan." Mr. Savage suggested that additional landscaping could be added so as to block the usage of the connection "until such time as another plan comes in." Mr. Cilimberg clarified: "You're not asking that the possibility for this cross access be removed. You still would like to look at that when a new plan comes in?" The Commission agreed that was correct but felt that the applicant should not be required to build curb and gutter at this time which may not be used. [It was later decided that the following condition would be added: "Reconfiguration of the southeast curbing to delete the extension into the Texaco site with the addition of one large shade tree in that location."] Mr. Johnson described a scenario where persons going east on Rt. 250, but wanting to take advantage of the low cost gas prices aL the existing service station (name unknown) will 6-9-92 15 have to turn left at the light onto Rt. 20 and then go left across the McDonald's site and the adjoining site to get to the existing station. Mr. Jenkins did not think this would happen too often because those persons would then have to go back towards Charlottesville to find a place to turn around in order to continue east on Rt. 250. Mr. Jenkins wondered if there would be problems caused by car lights at the drive-through window shining into traffic on Rt. 250. It was felt that landscaping should alleviate this concern. The applicant, Ms. Lisa Barnett, stated that the applicant understood the Commission's concern regarding the connection to the Texaco site and is "willing to work with that." Regarding the possibility of toxic materials in.the "rubble" she stated that soils reports had discovered only. construction-type debris. No toxic materials were discovered. She also stated that the applicant would change the spelling of "Stony" on the plan. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Andersen moved that the McDonald's Corporation Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Departmemt of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations to include approval of a maintenance agreement for the stormwater facilities; c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements to include a commercial entrance and full frontage improvements of curb and gutter with appropriate storm sewer system; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans~ f. Albemarle County Service Authority and Fire Official approval of fire hydrant location; g. Inspections Department approval of new curb cut for the northernmost handicapped parking space access aisle; h. Staff approval of final landscape plan to include relocation of the four shrubs shown in the proposed right-of-way, conservation plan for the undisturbed buffer, 6-9-92 16 and consistency with the Architectural Review Board approval; i. Planning staff approval of a final plat. j. Reconfiguration of the~ southeast curbing to delete the extension into the Texaco site with the addition of one large shade tree in that location. 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan. 3. Board of Supervisors approval of SP-91-42. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire Official final approval. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson stated he supported the motion "bu~ with significant concern relative to the potential and probable use of McDonald's entry as an entry to whatever ultimately is established on the corner property as this site plan stands." The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that a similar situation currently exists with the shared access and parking areas of Hardee's and Bojangles on Rt. 29 North. The situation works far better than would two entrances onto Rt. 29. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community D~velopmen! 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 October 31, 1995 Tiger Fuel Company ATTN: David G. Sutton P. O. Box 1607 Charlottesville, VA 22902 SP-95-32 Tiger Fuel Company Tax Map 78, Parcel 4 Dear Mr. Sutton: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 24, 1995, by a vote of 4-2, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted; 2. Access to Route 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site) shall be required; 3. Provision of ~ raised curb to separate the drive-tlm~ lane from the travel lanes; Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled Pantops Texaco dated August 14, 1995, except as the plan shall be amended to address the above conditions mad the recommendations of the site review committee. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on NOVEMBER 13, 1995.. 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 scheduled hearing date. Page 2 October 31, 1995 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcw ~c.' Letfie E. Neher Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ OCTOBER 24, 1995 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 SP 95-32 TIGER FUEL COMPANY Applicant's Pronosal: The applicant is proposing ro consh'uet a fast food restaurant, convenience store and gas pumps. The fast food restaurant would be served by two drive-thru windows. The first window would be used as a cash ~Sndow. The second window would be used to deliver the food to the customers. A conceptual plan has been submitted. This plan has been reviewed by the appropriate site review committee members. Petition: Petition to establish a drive-thru window on 0.9 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Con-idor Overlay District [24.2.2(13)]. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 4 is located in the northwest comer of the intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 3. Character of the Area: This site is the former location ora Texaco gas station. The adjacent uses include McDonald's (to the north) and the Wilco gas station (to the west). RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to conditions. Plannine and Zonine History_: This site was used previously as a Texaco gas station. The adjacent site, McDonald's, has been reviewed for a special use permit for a drive-thru window. As a condition of approval of the McDonald's development an access-way was required allowing connection of the site under review and the McDonald's site. Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation provides for the widest range of commercial uses. The comprehensive plan states as recommendations for Neighborhood Three: "Widen Route 250 East to accommodate increased local traffic. Properties along this corridor are to be accessed through joint access points, frontage roads, and side streets to maintain roadway efficiency". With the use of the access-way on adjacent property, the closing of the entrant9 on Route 20 (discussed later in this report) this application meets this criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this.ordinance may be _ifisued u_pon a findin~ by the Board of Su_pervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, This property has been developed commercially and all adjacent parcels are developed commercially. In the opinion of staff use of this site for a drive thru will not result in a detriment to adjacent property. During the review of the adjacent site access to this property was anticipated and the design of the site accommodates this access. The Planning and Engineering Departments have reviewed the layout proposed on this site and are of the opinion that it will not adversely impact the circulation of the adjacent property. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Use of this site as a drive thru will not result in a change in the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent ofthis ordinance. Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. With appropriate conditions the proposed use will not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The conditions recommended by staff are intended to provide for adequate circulation and safety in travel. Provision of adequate circulation and safety in travel is consistent with Sections 1.4.1, 1.4.2 and 1.4.6. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use will have no impact on the permitted uses of this or adjacent property. with additional regulations ~rovided. in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations for this type of use. and with the public health, safety and general, welfare. In the review of the site plan for the adjacent McDonald's provision of access to this property under review was required. This access'allows the site under review to access Route 20 at a point farther from the intersection with Route 250. The property trader review is currently served by three entrances. Two entrances are located on Route 250 and one entrance is located on Route 20. In the review of the special use permit application the Department of Transportation has provided comments, (Attachment C). The Department of Transportation will require closure of the Rotae 20 entrance and recommends consolidation of the two entrances on Route 250. Staff does not support the Department of Transportations recommendation for consolidation of the entrances on Route 250. The applicant intends to include gasoline sales as part of the use. The provision of two entrances allows for superior circulation when gasoline sales are involved. In this application the provision of two entrances also allows for the flow of traffic generated by the drive-thru window to be accommodated. Staff is aware that consolidation of the two entrances on Route 250 would allow for the entrance to be moved farther from the Rt.250/Rt. 20 intersection and would eliminate one entrance on Route 250. Route 20 does not intersect Rt. 250 at a 90 degree angle. This causes the fight mm lane on Rt. 20 to function much like a slip ramp resulting in relatively high speeds for turning vehicles and a tendency to not make a full stop before turmng right on red. By moving the entrance farther from this intersection congestion may be reduced. Staff opinion however, is that due to the relatively short frontage of this site on 2 Route 250 that moving the entrance westward would hage limited benefits and ma.v in fact result in increased on-site congestion and make tanker truck access more difficult. It is due to the minimal benefits of consolidating the entrance and the potential for on-site congestion caused by the consolidation that staff does not support the Department of Transportation recommendations. Staff supports the Department of Transportation requirement of closure of the Route 20 entrance. This entrance is located in close proximity to the intersection with Route 250. This fact could result in congestion on site caused by vehicles trying to enter Route 20 at a po'mt where blockage of the entrance can be anticipated due,to normal stacking atthe Route 20/250 signal. Congestion could also occur due to north bound Route 20 traffic attempt'rog to mm left to enter the site. Staff is also concerned that individuals exiting the site on Route 20 and attempfmg to travel east, on Route 20 will attempt to cross all lanes of traffic in order to reach the left mm lane on Route 20 allowing east travel on Route 250. The use of the McDonald's entrance on Route 20 will provide reasonable Route 20 access for this site and will allow for safe and convenient access. The McDonald's site plan was reviewed with access to this site in mind. The applicant prefers to have an independent access to Route 20 as McDonald's is a competitor. The applicant has proposed a raised median in Route 20 in order to prevent left tums into and out of the site. This proposal addresses only a portion ofstaffand Department of Transportation concerns. In additional the existing pavement design is insufficient to permit the installation of a raised median. The Department of Transportation has not provided written comments on the proposal for a raised median. The above comments were prepared with the help of phone conversations with VDOT. The applicant has also proposed the use of a fight in only for the access to Route 20. Staff has discussed this proposal with the Department of Transportation, written comments are not available. While an entrance only would reduce the congestion experienced on-site and potentially on Route 20 caused by mining movements, Any entrance near the intersection of Route 250 provides for an increase in congestion and possible conflicts. As the site can obtain access to Route 20 in a location more desirable from a general transportation viewpoint direct access to or from Route 20 from this site does not appear warranted. Based on the comments of staff and the Department of Transportation direct access to Route 20 would not be in harmony with the public health, safety, or general welfare. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: This type of use is required by special use permit due to the high level of traffic generated by the use and the special needs such high traffic volumes generate. The conditions of approval for this type of use are directly related to and intended to address these f~atures. Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The site can obtain access to Route 20 and Rome 250 which are high volume roadways capable of handiing the traffic generated from this type of use; 2. The use generally complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4,1. Staffhas identified,the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 1. Access to Route 20 on the site under review would result in on-site and off-site congestion. Staff opinion is that this site can accommodate the proposed use with appropriate conditions. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted; 2. Access to Route 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A {McDonald's site) shall be required; 3. Provision of a raised curb to separate the drive-thru lane from the travel lanes; 4. Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled Pantops Texaco dated August 14, 1995, except as the plan shall be amended to address the above conditions and the recommendations of the site review committee. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - VDOT comments D - Site Plan A:\SP9532.RPT O~tober 17, 1995 Hall rOM [~ SP-95-32 STAR ENTERPRISE :CNARLOTi'ES: _/ SP-95-32 STAR ENTERPRISE MONT CELLO ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCOTTSVILLI:' AND RIVANN,~ DISTRICTS IATTACHME'~IT B I Mr. Ron Keeler October Public Hearings Page 2 SeptemJ~er 20, 1995 SP-95-30 Crozet Church of God, Route 824 This location was recently improved under a site plan and permit for daylighting sight distance to new entrance. The area of sight line to the east is hampered by several new locusts that have grown s~nce grading was done. The trees should be cut and stumps sprayed to keep locusts from coming back. SP-95-31 Wendell Wood, Route 29 N. The two existing entrances do not meet sight distance requirements as they currently exist. We recommend that only on~ entrance be allowed with turn and taper lane provided. The existing lot is 7"-8" below the grade of Route 29 SBL, causing the insufficient sighfi distance The sight distance requirement can be meE if grade is raised. Any outdoor storage should not impede slqht distance~or be placed on VDOT right of way. SP-95-32 T±~er Fuel Company, Route 250 E. Access only through McDonalds site from Route 20. On~ entrance is recommsnded off of Route 250.' Internal movements should be designed to meet proposed entrances with minimum disruption. ZMA- 95 UREF See SP-95-27, Route 601. Ivy Creek ETA.L, Route 677 Proposal 5o rezone from PRD to rural areas should lessen impact on local roads. Z~LA-95-15 Peter Easter, Route 631 Ail access should be to old Route 631 connection where the current business exists. As ~ minimum the new connection may be allowed along the western boundary of the property. c Mr. Jack Kelsey ~ Site Plan'Review 5~eeting Page 2 August 23, 1995 SDP-95-065 Blue Ridge Health Alliance & Grand Piano Site Plan, Route 29 Revise site plan co coincide with current project plan for Route 29 improvements. {see attached copy of plan) Pantops Texaco Route 20/250 Require removal of entrance on Route 20. Access from Route 20 should be provided through McDonalds site. A~ entrance on Route 20 creates major problems ac the Route 20 & 250 intersection. Left turns would, cause traffic to stack into Route 250 and disrupt th~ intersection. Recommend one entrance on Route 250 with minimum radii of 12.5'. Tractor trailer access should be given consideration when adjusting the entrance and the site to accommodate one entrance. If you should have any questions or require any additional information, please advise Sincerely, J. H. Kesterson Per. & Sub. Spec. Supv JMK/ldw cc: Wands Moore q: ~ Z ~L L© COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (8041 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Waiter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas MEMO TO= FROM= DATE= SUBJECT= Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~~ November 16, 1995 Supplement No. 81 to the Zoning Ordinance Attached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the Zonin~ Ordinance. These changes are occasioned by the amendments adopted on November 15, 1995. Replace sheets in your copy of the ordinance as follows: Old Sheet New Sheet 20 (Supp ~67, 7-8-92) 20 (SuDp ~81, 11-15-95) 60 60 (Supp ~81, 11-15-95) 90 (Supp ~70, 11-11-92) 90 (Supp ~81, 11-15-95) 91 (Supp ~51, 11-8-89) 91 (Supp ~81, 11-15-95) EWC/len Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1) Richard Huff, II (1) Larry W. Davis (6) Water Resources Manager (1) V. Wayne Cilimberg (12) Amelia McCulley (187) Clerk (3) Printed on recycled paper sign, Subdivision: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, Temporary Directional: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, Temporary Event: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, Wall: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign(s): Reference section 4.15. (Added 7-8-92) Slaughterhouse, Custom: An establishment for the slaughter of livestock, including cattle, sheep, swine, goats and poultry, as a service, and from which there is sold no meat or other product of such slaughter other than materials generally considered inedible for humans and which are generated as waste and/or by-products of such slaughter, including, but nou limited to, blood, bones, viscera, hides, etc., which may be sold for purposes of removal from the site. Spring Water: Water derived at the surface from an underground formation which flows to the surface through natural cracks and fissures under natural pressure. (Added 6-10-92) Stable, Commercial: A building or group of buildings where, for compensation, members of the public are provided with horses for hire, accommodations for their horses and/or lessons in riding. Story: That portion of a building, other than the basement, included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor nex~ above it. If there be no floor above it, the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it. Story, Half: A space under a sloping roof, which has the line of intersection of roof decking and wall face not more than three (3) feet above the top floor level, and in which space not more than two-thirds (2/3) of the floor area is finished off for use. Street: A public or private thoroughfare which affords access to abutting property. Street Line: The dividing line between a street or road right-of-way and the contiguous property. Structure: Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground, or attach- ment to something having a permanent location on the ground. This includes, among other things, dwellings, buildings, etc. For the purpose of the determination of setback, signs shall be excluded as a structure. (Amended 7-8-92) -20- (Supp. $67, 7-8-92) 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 CLUBS, LODGES Regardless of provisions of individual zoning districts, gun clubs and shooting ranges shall be permitted by special use permit only; Such subordinate uses and fund-raising activities as bingo, raffles, auctions, etc., shall be conducted in enclosed buildings only. Noise generated from such activity shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line. No such activity shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. COMMERCIAL STABLE Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material such as pzne bark to minimize dust and erosion; Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times. COMMUNITY CENTER Any such use seeking public funding shall be reviewed by the commission in accordance with section 31.2.5. Specifically, the commission shall find that the proposed service area ms not already adequately served by another such facility. In addition, the commisszon shall be mindful that such use is appropriate to villages, communities and the urban area of the comprehensive plan. DAY CAMP, BOARDING CAMP Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site development plan is required; Ail such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establish- ment Sanitation and other applicable requirements. DAY CARE, NURSERY FACILITY No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the zoning administrator of any license expira- tion, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure ~o do so shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; -60- 10.2.2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). Veterinary services - off-site treatment only. Agricultuzal service occupation (subject to performance standards in 4.14). Divisions of lend zn accordance with section 10.3. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17). Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the following require- ments (reference 5.6): A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to place a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural employee. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can be issued in this event noL to exceed twelve (12) months. The zoning administrator shall be authorized to issue permits in accordence with the intent of this ordinance end shall be authorized to require or seek any information which he may determine necessary in making a determination of cases "a" and "b" of the aforementioned uses. Temporary mobile home in accordence with section 5.7. (Amended 11-8-89) Farm winery (reference 5.1.25). (Added 12-16-81) Borrow area, borrow pit, not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000) cubic yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on any one parcel of record on the adoption date of this provision (reference 5.1.28). (Added 7-6-83) 19. Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). (Added 11-11-92) BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1. Community center (reference 5.1.4). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.2). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. -90- (Supp. ~70, 11-11-92) 16. Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). 17. Commercial kennel (reference 5.i.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 18. Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 19. Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.1). 20. Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.5). 21. Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14). 22. Country store. 23. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. (Amended 11-8-89) 24. (Repealed 11-8-89) 25. Flood control dams and impoundments. 26. (Repealed 11-8-89) 27. Restaurants and inns located within an historic land- mark as designated in the comprehensive plan provided such structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; in such case the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith. (Amended 11-8-89) 28. Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5. 29. Boat landings and canoe livery. 30. Permitted residential uses as provided in section 10.5. 31. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 32. Cemetery. 33. Crematorium. 34. Multi-crypt mausoleum. 35. Church building and adjunct cemetery. 36. Gift, craft and antique shops. 37. Public garage. (Added 3-18-81) -91- (Supp. ~51, 11-8-89) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX 1804) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins MEMO TO= FROM= DATE= SUBJECT= Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~~ November 16, 1995 Supplement No. 81 to the Zoning Ordinance Attached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the Zoning Ordinance. These changes are occasioned by the amendments adopted on November 15, 1995. Replace sheets in your copy of the ordinance as follows: Old Sheet New Sheet 20 (Supp ~67, 7-8-92) 20 (Supp ~81, 11-15-95) 60 60 (Supp ~81, 11-15-95) 90 (Supp ~70, 11-11-92) 90 (Supp ~81, 11-15-95) 91 (Supp ~51, 11-8-89) 91 (Supp ~81, 11-15-95) 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 (187) Clerk (3) Printed on recycled paper Sign, Subdivision: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, Temporary Directional: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, Temporary Event: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, Wall: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign(s): Reference section 4.15. (Added 7-8-92) Slaughterhouse, Custom: An establishment for the slaughter of livestock, including cattle, sheep, swine, goats and poultry, as a service, and from which there is sold no meau or other product of such slaughter other than materials generally considered inedible for humans and which are generated as waste and/or by-products of such slaughter, including, but not limited to, blood~ bones, v~scera, hides, etc., which may be sold for purposes of removal from the site. Spring Water: Water derived au the surface from an underground formation which flows to the surface through natural cracks and fissures under natural pressure. (Added 6-10-92) Stable, Commercial: A building, group of buildings, or use of land, or any combination thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary or goods, provision is made for horses or ponies for hire or instruction in riding. (Amended 11-15-95) Story: That portion of a building, other than the basement, included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it. If there be no floor above it, the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it. Story, Half: A space under a sloping roof, which has the line of intersection of roof decking and wall face not more than three (3) feet above the top floor level, and in which space not more than two-thirds (2/3) of the floor area is finished off for use. Street: A public or private thoroughfare which affords access to abutting property. Street Line: The dividing line b~tween a street or road right-of-way and the contiguous property. Structure: Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanen= location on the ground, or attachment to something having a perma- nent location on the ground. This includes, among other things, dwellings, buildings, euc. For the purpose of the determination of setback, signs shall be excluded as a struc=ure. (Amended 7-8-92) -20- (Supp. #81, 11-15-95) 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 CLUBS, LODGES Regardless of provisions of individual zoning districts, gun clubs and shooting ranges shall be permitted by special use permit only; Such subordinate uses and fund-raising activities as bingo, raffles, auctions, etc., shall be conducted in enclosed buildings only. Noise generated from such activity shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential proper=y line. No such activity shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. COMMERCIAL STABLE a4 Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material to minimize dust and erosion; (Amended 11-15-95) bo Fencing and o=ner means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times. COMMUNITY CENTER Any such use seeking public funding shall be reviewed by the commission in accordance with section 31.2.5. Specifically, the commission shall find that the proposed service area is not already adequately served by another such facility. In addition, the commission shall be mindful that such use is appropriate to villages, communities and the urban area of the comprehensive plan. DAY CAMP, BOARDING CAMP Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site developmen= plan is required; Ail such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements. DAY CARE, NURSERY FACILITY No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care cen=er. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning administra=or a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such even=. Failure to do so shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; -60- (Supp. #81, 11-15-95) 10.2.2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). Veterinary services - off-site treatment only. Agricultural service occupation (subject ~o performance standards in 4.14). Divisions of land in accordance with section 10.3. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17). Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the following requirements (reference 5.6): A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to place a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural employee. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can be issued in this even= not =o exceed twelve (12) months. The soning administra=or shall be authorized to issue permits in accordance with the intent of this ordinance and shall be authorized to requlre or seek any information which he may determine necessary in making a determination of cases "a" and "b" of the aforementioned uses. Temporary mobile home in accordance with section 5.7. (Amended 11-8-89) Farm winery (reference 5.1.25). (Added 12-16-81) Borrow area, borrow pit, not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000) cubic yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on any one parcel of record on the adoption date of this provision (reference 5.1.28). (Added 7-6-83) Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). (Added 11- 11-92) 20. Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1. 2. 3. 4. (Added 11-15-95) Community center (reference 5.1.4). Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.2). Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). Swi~, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). Private schools. -90- (Supp. #81, 11-15-95) 16. (Repealed 11-15-95) 17. Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.1t and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 18. Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 19. Private airport, helistop, helipor=, flight strip (reference 5.1.1). 20. Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.5). 21. Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14). 22. Country s=ore. 23. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. (Amended 11-8-89) 24. (Repealed 11-8-89) 25. Flood control dams and impoundments. 26. (Repealed 11-8-89) 27. Restaurants and inns located within an historic landmark as designated in the comprehensive plan provided such s=ructure has been used as a restaurant, Tavern or inn; in such case the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith. (Amended 11-8-89) 28. Divisions of land ss provided in section 10.5. 29. Boat landings and canoe livery. 30. Permitted residential uses as provided in section 10.5. 31. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 32. Cemetery. 33. Crematorium. 34. Multi-crypt mausoleum. 35. Church building and adjunct ceme=ery. 36. Gift, craft and antique shops. 37. Public garage. (Added 3-18-81) (Supp. #81, 11-15-95) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804 296-5843 FAX f804~ 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins MEMO TO= FROM= DATE= SUBJECT= Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~~/ November 16, 1995 Supplement No. 81 to the Zoning Ordinance Attached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the Zoning Ordinance. These changes are occasioned by the amendments adopted on November 15, 1995. Replace sheets in your copy of the ordinance as follows: Old Sheet New Sheet 20 (Supp ~67, 7-8-92) 20 60 60 90 (Supp #70, 11-11-92) 90 91 (Supp ~51, 11-8-89) 91 (Supp $81, 11-15-95) (Supp #81, 11-15-95) (Supp #81, 11-15-95) (Supp #81, 11-15-95) EWC/len CC: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1) Richard Huff, II (1) Larry W. Davis (6) Water Resources Manager (1) V. Wayne Cilimberg (12) A~elia McCulley (187) Clerk (3) Printed on recycled paper Sign, Subdivision: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, Temporary Directional: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, Temporary Event: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, wall: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign(s): Reference section 4.15. (Added 7-8-92) Slaughterhouse, Custom: An establishment for the slaughter of livestock, including cattle, sheep, swine, goats and poultry, as a service, and from which there is sold no meat or other product of such slaughter other than materials generally considered inedible for humans and which are generated as was=e and/or by-products of such slaughter, including, but not limited to, blood, bones, v~scera, hides, e~c., which may be sold for purposes of removal from the site. Spring Water: Water derived at the surface from an underground formation which flows =o the surface through natural cracks and fissures under natural pressure. (Added 6-10-92) Stable, Commercial: A building, group of buildings, or use of land, or any combination thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary or goods, provlsion iS made for horses or ponies for hire or instruction in riding. (Amended 11-15-95) Story: That portion of a building, other than the basement, included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it. If there be no floor above it, the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it. Story, Half: A space under a sloping roof, which has the line of intersection of roof decking and wall face not more than three (3) feet above the =op floor level, and in which space not more than two-thirds (2/3) of the floor area is finished off for use. Street: A public or private thoroughfare which affords access to abutting property. Street Line: The dividing line between a street or road right-of-way and the contiguous proper=y. Structure: Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanen= location on the ground, or attachment to something having a perma- nent location on the ground. This includes, among other things, dwellings, buildings, etc. For the purpose of the determination of setback, signs shall be excluded as a structure. (Amended 7-8-92) -20- (Supp. #81, 11-15-95) 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 CLUBS, LODGES Regardless of provisions of individual zoning districts, gun clubs and shooting ranges shall be permitted by special use permit only~ Such subordinate uses and fund-raising activities as bingo, raffles, auctions, etc., shall be conducted in enclosed buildings only. Noise generated from such activity shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line. No such activity shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. COMMERCIAL STABLE ac Riding rings and other ~iding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material to m~nimize dust and erosion; (Amended 11-15-95) Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times. COMMUNITY CENTER Any such use seeking public funding shall be reviewed by the commission in accordance with section 31.2.5. Specifically, the commission shall find that the proposed service area ls not already adequately served by another such facility. In addition, the commission shall be mindful that such use is appropriate to villages, communities and the urban area of the comprehensive plan. DAY CAMP, HOARDING CAMP Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site development plan is required; bo Ail such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements. DAY CARE, NURSERY FACILITY NO such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit uo the zoning administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; -60- (Supp. #81, 11-15-95) 10.2.2 10. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 andsubject to performance standards in 4.14). 11. Veterinary services - off-site treatment only. 12. Agricultural service occupation (subject =o standards in 4.14). performance 13. Divisions of land in accordance with section 10.3. 14. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17). 15. Mobile homes, individual, qualifying requirements (reference 5.6): under the following A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to place a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural employee. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can be issued in this event not to exceed twelve (12) months. The zoning administrator shall be authorized to issue permits in accordance with the intent of this ordinance and shall be authorized to require or seek any information which he may determine necessary in making a determination of cases "a" and "b" of the aforementioned uses. 16. Temporary mobile home in accordance with section 5.7. (Amended 11-8-89) 17. Farm w~nery (reference 5.1.25). (Added 12-16-81) 18. 19. Borrow area, borrow pit, not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000) cubic yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on any one parcel of record on the adoption date of this provision (reference 5.1.28). (Added 7-6-83) Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). (Added 11- 11-92) 20. commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). (Added 11-15-95) BY SPECIAL USE pERMIT 1. Community center (reference 5.1.4). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.2). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. -90- (Supp. ~81, 11-15-95) 16. (Repealed 11-15-95) 17. Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 18. Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 19. Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.1). 20. Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.5). 21. Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14). 22. Country ssore. 23. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. (Amended 11-8-89) 24. (Repealed 11-8-89) 25. Flood control dams and impoundments. 26. (Repealed 11-8-89) 27. Restaurants and inns located within an historic landmark as designated in the comprehensive plan provided such structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; in such case the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character cf the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith. (Amended 11-8-89) 28. Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5. 29. Boat landings and canoe livery. 30. Permitted residential uses as provided in section 10.5. 31. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 32. Cemetery. 33. Crematorium. 34. Multi-crypt mausoleum. 35. Church building and adjunct cemetery. 36. Gift, craft and antique shops. 37. Public garage. (Added 3-~8-81) -91- (Supp. ~81, 11-15-95) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 ~804] 296-584S FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S~ Martin Walter F, Perkins MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~~'~ November 16, 1995 Supplement No. 81 to the Zoning Ordinance Attached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the Zoning Ordinance. These changes are occasioned by the amendments adopted on November 15, 1995. Replace sheets in your copy of the ordinance as follows: Old Sheet New Sheet 20 (Supp ~67, 7-8-92) 20 (Supp #81, 11-15-95) 60 60 (Supp ~81, 11-15-95) 90 (Supp ~70, 11-11-92) 90 (Supp ~81, 11-15-95) 91 (Supp ~51, 11-8-89) 91 (Supp ~81, 11-15-95) 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 (187) Clerk (3) Printed on recycled paper Sign, Subdivision: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, Temporary Directional: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, Temporary Event: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign, Wall: (Repealed 7-8-92) Sign(s): Reference section 4.15. (Added 7-8-92) Slaughterhouse, Custom: An establishment for the slaughter of livestock, including cattle, sheep, swine, goats and poultry, as a service, and from which there is sold no meat or other product of such slaughter other than materials generally considered inedible for humans and which are generated as waste and/or by-products of such slaughter, including, but not limited ~o, blood, bones, viscera, hides, etc., which may be sold for purposes of removal from the site. Spring Water: Water derived at the surface from an underground formation which flows to the surface through natural cracks and fissures under natural pressure. (Added 6-10-92) Stable, Commercial: A building, group of buildings, or use of land, or any combination thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary or goods, provision is made for horses or ponies for hire or instruction in riding. (Amended 11-15-95) Story: That portion of a building, other than the basement, included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it. If there be no floor above it, the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it. Story, Half: A space under a sloping roof, which has the line of intersection of roof decking and wall face no~ more than three (3) feet above the top floor level, and in which space not more than two-thirds (2/3) of the floor area is finished off for use. Street: A public or private thoroughfare which affords access to abutting proper~y. Street Line: The dividing line between a street or road right-of-way and the contiguous property. Structure: Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanen~ location on the ground, or attachment to something having a perma- nen~ location on the ground. This includes, among other things, dwellings, buildings, etc. For the purpose of the determination of setback, signs shall be excluded as a structure. (Amended 7-8-92) -20- (Supp. #81, 11-15-95) 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 CLUBS, LODGES Regardless of provisions of individual zoning districts, gun clubs and shooting ranges shall be permitted by special use permit only; Such subordinate uses and fund-raising activities as bingo, raffles, auctions, etc., shall be conducted in enclosed buildings only. Noise generated from such activity shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line. NO such activity shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. COMMERCIAL STABLE bo Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material to minimize dust and erosion; (Amended 11-15-95) Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times. COMMUNITY CENTER Any such use seeking public funding shall be reviewed by the commission in accordance with section 31.2.5. Specifically, the commission shall find that the proposed service area is not already adequately served by another such facility. In addition, the commission shall be mindful that such use is appropriate to villages, communities and the urban area of the comprehensive plan. DAY CAMP, BOARDING CAMP Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subjec= to Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site development plan is required; Ail such uses shall conform To the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements. DAY CARE, NURSERY FACILITY No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator =o transmit =o the zoning administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and =o notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; -60- (Supp. #81, 11-15-95) 10.2.2 10. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). il. Veterinary services - off-site ~rea~ment only. 12. Agricultural service occupation (subject to performance standards in 4.14). 13. Divisions of land in accordance with section 10.3. 14. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17). 15. Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the following requirements (reference 5.6): a. A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to place a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural employee. b. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can be issued in this event not to exceed twelve (12) months. The zoning administrator shall be authorized =o issue permits in accordance with the intent of this ordinance and shall be authorized to require or seek any information which he may determine necessary in making a determination of cases "a" and "b" of the aforementioned uses. 16. Temporary mobile home in accordance with section 5.7. (Amended 11-8-89) 17. Farm winery (reference 5.1.25). (Added 12-16-81) 18. Borrow area, borrow pit, no~ exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000) cubic yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on any one parcel of record on the adoption date of this provision (reference 5.1.28). (Added 7-6-83) 19. Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). (Added 11- 11-92) 20. Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). (Added 11-15-95) SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1. Community cen=er (reference 5.1.4). 2. Clubs, lodges, c~v~c, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.2). Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. -90- (Supp. 281, 11-15-95) t6. (Repealed 11-15-95) 17. Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subjec~ to performance standards in 4.14). 18. Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 19. Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.1). 20. Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.5). 21. Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14). 22. Country store. 23. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. (Amended 11-8-89) 24. (Repealed 11-8-89) 25. Flood control dams and impoundments. 26. (Repealed 11-8-89) 27. Restaurants and inns located within an historic landmark as designated in the comprehensive plan provided such structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; in such case the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith. (Amended 11-8-89) 28. Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5. 29. Boat landings and canoe livery. 30. Permitted residential uses ~s provided in section 10.5. 31. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 32. Cemetery, 33. Crematorium. 34. Multi-crypt mausoleum. 35. Church building and adjunct cemetery. 36. Gift, craft and antique shops. 37. Public garage. (Added 3-18-81) -91- (Supp. #81, 11-15-95) e David P. Boatman Charlotte Y. Hurnphris Forrest R Marshall..Ir COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 1804~ 296-5843 FAX (804} 972-4060 MEMORANDUM Charles S. Martin Waiter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas TO: Members, Board of Supervisors PROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk~~-~ DATE: November 10, 1995 SUBJECT: Library Board Appointment There is one vacan5 position to be filled on the Library Board. The current appointees on this Board are Ms. Jacqueline Rice (Rivanna District) and Ms. Marian Schwartz (Samuel Miller District). The vacancy occurred when Ms. Christine Baker moved out-of- sEaEe and resigned from the Library Board. We have Ewo apptican5s - Mr. Jerry Jones (Rivanna District) and Ms. Karen Hayden (White Hall District) from which 5o make an appointment. EWC/mms Printed on recycled paper David P. Bo~erman Charlotte Y, Humphris Forrest R, Marshalk dr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 1804~ 296-5843 FAX f804 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sall~ H. Thomas MEMO TO= FROM: DATE= SUBJECT: Members of the Board of Supervisors j / Lettie E. Neher, Chief Deputy Cler~'- October 11, 1995 Library Board Appointment Another glaring error has come to my attention today in the matter of an appointment to the Library Board (let me say at this point that I normally have no responsbility for appointments; it is a duty of the deputy clerk). Its seems that the Board made two appointments to the Library Board on February 1, 1995, which were not to be effective until July 1, 1995. These were: Marian Schwartz to replace Cindy Caughron and Jacqueline A. Rice to replace Shirley Dorrier. Letters were mailed to the new appointees, and they have been sworn in as members of the Board of Trustees. The mistake came about because no one remembered these appoint- ments. Instead of putting these new names on the sheet in the Boards and Commission book, Jill made a new sheet and inserted in behind the old sheet, probably feeling she would remember to change the sheets on July 1. Jill left and a new person took over her duties with appoint- ments. Going by the old sheet, two vacancies were advertised and interviews conducted. On October 4 you appointed Jerry Jones and Karen Hayden to these vacancies. However, because I have been in the office by myself now for about two months, the letters have not gone out advising of the appointments, although Mr. Jones was told on the telelphone that he had been appointed. What does the Board wish to do at this point? LEN:mms Attachments (2) cc: Robert W. Tucker, Larry Davis Jr. Printed on recycled paper COPY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Superwsors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804. 296-5843 FAX f804~ 972-4060 November 17, 1995 Charles S. Martin Rivannz Waiter F. Perkin~ Sally H. Thomas Mr. Jerry E~ Jones 116 Wild Flower Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Jones: This letter is to reaffirm your appointment to the Library Board, no fill out the unexpired nerm of Ms. Christine Baker. This term will expire on June 30, 1996. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Walter_F. Perkins Chairman WFP:ec cc: The Honorable James ~. Camblos Donna M~ Selle Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of Court_fy S.uporvi$ors 401 Mclntir~ Rbad Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION ! GOMMITTEE (please typo or print) Board / Conunission 1Conunittce J effers on-Madis on Regional Library Board Applicant's Name .Tom,,y '1~. .Ton~s Home Phone ~77-6n!3 Home Addross 116 Wild t,'lower Drive Magisterial Dis~'ict in which your home residence is located t~j,¥.Dnna Employer computer Wizards Phone . 973-2810 BusinessAddrcss 2237 Banbury Street, Chario~;tesville, VA Date of Employmem Jan, 15, 1995 Occupation/Title .Computer c0nsultant Years Resident in Albemarle County 2. 1/2 Spous~'sNarae Adelaide L. Jones Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates.) BS, U. N~ IA, Prev~mP. esidence Annandale, VA Num~rofChildren 2 S. Naval Academy 1956 The George:WashingTon University 1978 Mem~mhipsinFmtemal. Business. Churchand/orS~ialGro,~ Key West Civic Assoc., Key West Club Navy League of the U:S. (Ch'ville Chapter), College Alumni Associations, Former member in American & Virginia Library Associations, PubHc. CivicandCh~imbl¢ O~cea~d/orOtherActiviticsorlntem~s Director, Jordan Development Corp., Election Officer for Albemarle county, Former trustee of ,Fairfax County Hegional Libraz~y System (Budget Conhm. Chair), · Kolunteer, consultan~ (Manase~e~t? to Jeff_erson-l~adison Regional Library, Volunteer Consultant to Senior Center (Computers), Past President of Homeowners' Assoc. Reason/s~ ~rDcs~etoSe~¢eonth~sBoard/Commlssion/Commi~e~ Strongly support the role of the public libraries in contributing to their communi$ies... From three years of recent experience (1990-1993) as a trustee of the Fairfax County Hegional Library, I feel I have a good grasp of the issues tod~'~ The in~rmafionprovidedon ~isapplic~ion will~ rele, ase, d~tl~publicuponreques~ Return ~: Clerk, Board o£Co~n~ Albem~l~ Coun~ 401 Mdnfiro Road Ch~lo~esville, VA 229024596 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charloftesville, Virginia 22902-4596 f804. 296 584.3 FAX (804) 972-4060 FAX(804) 296-5800 September 22, 1995 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkivs Sally H. Thomas Mr. Jerry E. Jones 116 Wildflower Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 DearMr. Jones: This letter is to confirm that you have an imerview with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, October 4, 1995 at 1:30 p.m. for the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board. The interview will be held on the fourth floor of the County Office Building in Room 435, the Executive Conference Room. If you have any qtiestions, please contact our office at 296-5843. Sincerely, Lettie E. Neher, CMC Chief Deputy Clerk LEN/bt 95-4A Printed on recycled paper NOVEMBER EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT tO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF ThE CODE OF VIRGINia UNDEr SUBSeCTiON ( I ) tO DISCUSS APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS ANd COMMISSIONS ANd UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSUlt WITh LEGAL COUNSEl AND STAFF REGARdiNG SPECIFIC LeGAl MATTERS CONCERNING REVERSION,