HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-21 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of July 21, 1999
July 23, 1999
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
1. Call to order.
4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
· Mr. Paul Grady submitted a plan to redefine the boundaries
between the City and the County and asked the Board to
revisit the idea of consolidation.
5.1 Appropriation: Comprehensive Community Corrections Act
Grant, $501,711 (Form ~99003). ADOPTED.
5.2 Appropriation: Criminal History Records Improvement Grant
98B9065CR96, $176,850 (Form #99004). ADOPTED.
5.3 Appropriation: Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant,
$51,944 (Form #99005). ADOPTED.
5.4 Appropriation: Crime Prevention Coordinator Grant 00-C9783,
$36,516 (Form #99006). ADOPTED.
5.5 Appropriation: EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant,
$7,330 (Form #99007). ADOPTED.
5.6 Resolution Supporting Funding Acquisition of Conservation
Land and Easements in Virginia. ADOPTED attached
resolution.
6. SP-99-13. Guaranty Bank at Forest Lakes (Signs #79&80).
APPROVED w/2 conditions.
7. SP-99-27. Rug Depot (Sign #45). APPROVED wi5 conditions.
8. SP-99-28. Boat Dock (Signs #46&56). APPROVED w/3
conditions.
9. SP 99-30. Adwell Infosystems (Sign #75). APPROVED wi4
conditions.
11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
It was the consensus of the Board to send a letter of response
to the City proposing the City rescind its Notice of Termination
and amend the Fire Service Contract to allow it to be
terminated on 6/30/00, if notice of termination is given by
12/31/99.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned a letter from the City regarding the
Meadow Creek Parkway. It was the consensus of the Board
to discuss this matter further at the 8~4~99 Board meeting.
ASSIGNMENT
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman. All BOS members present except
Marshall and Thomas.
Clerk: Acknowledge his comments.
Clerk: Include in appropriations letter to
Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Clerk: Include in appropriations letter to
Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Clerk: Include in appropriations letter to
Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Clerk: Include in aPpropriations letter to
Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Clerk: Include in appropriations letter to
Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Clerk: Send letter and signed resolution to
Governor's office. (see attachment A).
Clerk: Attach conditions (see attachment B).
Clerk: Attach conditions (see attachment B).
Clerk: Attach conditions (see attachment B).
Clerk: Attach conditions (see attachment B).
County Attorney:
City.
Prepare and send letter to the
Clerk: Place on 8/4/99 BOS agenda.
Attachment A
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FUNDING FOR ACQUISITION
OF CONSERVATION LAND AND EASEMENTS IN VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Albemarle County desires to protect its farm and forest resource base, its open-
space, its natural resources including its drinking water supply watershed and natural
habitat, and its rural historic settings; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has lost 25,000 acres of farmland from 1974 to 1992 and 12,898
acres in the decade from 1982 to 1992; and
WHEREAS, 31.7 percent of Albemarle's 283,652 acres of forest land
Department of Forestry as too densely populated to be viable
production; and
is classified by the
for long-term timber
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has developed a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program
to protect open-space, and has earmarked $1.0 million for the program in FY 2000; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County, recognizing that such a PDR program is a long term commitment
requiring a secure and reliable source of funding, desires a partnership with the
Commonwealth of Virginia through a state matching fund for the purchase of easements
and other conservation needs; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly created in its 1998-99 session the Virginia Land
Conservation Foundation, an act supported by resolution of the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, that Foundation is empowered to provide matching funds to localities for purchase of
conservation easements and other conservation needs;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
strongly supports full and dedicated funding for the Virginia Conservation Foundation as
a source of matching funds for localities, and calls upon the Governor and the General
Assembly to appropriate such funding beginning in the year 2000.
Adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors this 21st day of July, 1999.
Clerk, Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors
Attachment B
CONDITIONS
SP-99-13. Guaranty Bank at Forest Lakes (Si.qns #79&80).
Drive-in windows will be limited to four (4) [three (3) traditional teller operated windows
and one (1) ATM station]; and
ARB approval of the preliminary site plan including the location of drive-in windows.
SP-99-27. Ru.q Depot (Siqn ~45).
Display shall only occur during daylight business hours. Rugs shall be removed from
view of Rt. 29 traffic after business hours;
Display shall be limited to two (2) frames;
Display frames shall be no larger than the current size - 6' x 8';
Display shall not occur within the Rt. 29 right-of-way, and shall not restrict sight distance
at site entrances along Rt. 29. The frames shall be located no closer than sixty (60) feet
to the Rt. 29 right-of-way; and
The display shall not be illuminated.
SP-99-28. Boat Dock (Siqns #46&56).
The dock shall be substantially in accord with the letter from James Ogg and the plan
entitled, "Hickory Hill Boat Dock" dated 5/15/99;
The mulched area surrounding the platform to which the dock is attached shall be no
wider than four (4) feet on any side of the platform to act as an access path; and
There shall be no lighting within twenty-five (25) horizontal feet of the Reservoir.
SP 99-30. Adwell Infosystems (Si.qn #75).
This permit is issued for computer systems consulting, sales and service use and
professional office use only;
Total building square footage shall be limited to four thousand (4,000) square feet gross
floor area;
Any additions to the existing building shall be a similar residential design; and
Any additions to the building or site will require Planning Department approval of a site
plan amendment. The adequacy of the entrance location will be reviewed at such time.
INTER
OFFICE
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk
ApprOpriations APPrOved on JUly 21, 1999
July 23, 1999
Attached are the original appropriation forms for the following items which were approved by the
Board at its meeting on July 23, 1999:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
AppropriaUon: Comprehensive Community'Corrections Act Grant, $501,711 (Form ~99003).
AppropdaUon: Criminal History Records Improvement Grant 98B9065CR96, $176,850 (Form
~39004).
Appropriation: Victim W'~ness Assistance Program Grant, $51,944 (Form ~39005).
AppropriaUon: CHine Prevention Coordinator Grant 00-C9783, $36,516 (Form f~99006).
AppropriaUon: EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant, $7,330 (Form ~99007).
Attachments
cc:
Roxanne White
Robert Walters
John Miller
Jon Isom
Carl Pumphrey
APPROPR~TION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER
99003
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITYCORRECTIONS GRANT(00-06~8).
GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
I 152o 29406 566120 OAR $ 380,759.00
I 1520 29406 566140 CENTRAL VA. JAIL 33,066.00
1 1520 29406 566150 REGION TEN 85,886.00
I 1520 29406 562500 TF PLANNING DISTRICT 2,000.00
TOTAL $ 501,711.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1520 24000 240440 COMP. COMM. CORRECTIONS GRANT $ 501,711.00
TOTAL $501,711.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER 99004
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES GRANT. (98-B9065)
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
I :1520 93010 930200 TRANSFER TO REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY $ 176,850.00
TOTAL $ 176,850.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOIJ NT
2 1520 33000 330402 FEDERAL GRANT $ 176,850.00
TOTAL $176~ B50.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
FISCAL YEAR: ~
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VICTIM WITNESS GRANT FOR FY gg/00.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
99/00 NUMBER 99005
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
YES
NO X
GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
I 1225 31012 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR $ 38,084.00
1 1225 31012 210000 FICA 2,913.00
I 1225 31012 221000 VRS 1,476.00
1 1225 31012 231000 HEALTH INS 2,716.00
I 1225 31012 232000 DENTAL INS 82.00
1 1225 31012 550000 TRAVEL 1,533.00
I 1225 31012 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 900.00
I 1225 31012 550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION 440.00
I 1225 31012 580100 DUES & MEMBERSHIPS 200.00
1 1225 31012 601400 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES 3,600~00
TOTAL $ 51,944.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1225 24000 240500 STATE GRANT REVENUE $ 51,944.00
TOTAL $51.944.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
7-zZ
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99~00
NUMBER
99006
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND:
GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
CRIME PREVENTION GRANT: (00-C9783)
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1525 31011 110000 WAGES $26,533.00
1 1525 31011 210000 FICA 2,030.00
1 1525 31011 221000 VRS 2,977.00
1 1525 31011 231000 HEALTH INS 2,716.00
1 1525 31011 232000 DENTAL INS 82.00
1 1525 31011 550600 TRAVEL 1,323.00
1 1525 31011 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 855.00
TOTAL $36,516.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1525 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT REVENUE $27,387.00
1525 51000 512004 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER 9,129.00
TOTAL $36,516.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:,
DIRECTOR Of FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EMERGENCY SERVICES RECRUITMENT GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
99007
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
YES
NO X
GRANT
AMOUNT
1 1555 32011 300000 PURCHASED SERVICES $7,330.00
TOTAL $7,330.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1555 24000 240425 EMS GRANT $7,330.00
TOTAL $7,330.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FIRE/RESCUE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
! f' /
David R ~werm~n
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Forrest R. Marshall Jr.
COUNTY OF At REMAIql F.
Office of Board of Supervi~m
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, t/aginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
June 23,1999
Charles $. Martin
Walter E ~ki~
Sally H. Thomas
Mr. Paul Grady
5678 Brownsville Road
Charlo~esville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Grady:
Thank you for your recent comments to the Board of Supervisors on July 21, 1999, concerning
the boundaries between the City and the County, and consolidation. The Board appreciates you taking the
time to appear and make your views known
CSM/Ibh
Again, thank you for your comments.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Comprehensive Community Corrections Act
Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST:
Request approval of APpropriation #99003 in the amount of
$501,711.00~
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
July 21, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
IN FORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The County of Albemarle serves as fiscal agent for the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB). In that
capacity, the County receives and appropriates funds awarded to the CCJB by the Department of Criminal Justice Services
(DCJS). The County contracts with community agencies to provide the services stipulated in the grant.
DISCUSSION:
For FY 99/00, DCJS awarded $501,711.00 to the CCJB to be allocated as follows:
Offender Aid and RestoratiOn for pretrial and community corrections services at the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail and community corrections services
at the Central Virginia Regional Jail
Central Virginia Regional Jail for pretrial services
:Region Ten Community Services Board for substance abuse treatment
Community Criminal Justice Board for office expenses
$380,759.00
33,066.00
85,886.00
2,000.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99003 in the amount of $501,711.00.
99.121
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Criminal History Records Improvement Grant
98B9065CR96
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 99004 in the amount of
$176,850.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller, Isom, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
July 21, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes ///
£
The Criminal History Records Improvement Grant was originally approved November 1, 1995. It has been extended to
September 30, 1999.
This grant is being used to establish an Automated Intake Center at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. It will include
the installation of a local area network, the installation of a records management system, and the installation of a document
imaging system within the jail. This project is part of the larger regional criminal justice system.
DISCUSSION:
The $235,800.00 records system will be funded by a $176,850.00 federal pass-thru grant and a $58,950.00 local jail match.
The local jail match was approved by the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority on December 11, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99004 in the amount of $176,850.00.
99.122
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 99005 in the amount of
$51,944.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
July 21, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACH M E NTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes
This is the second renewal of the Victim Witness Grant. This grant funds personnel to provide quality service to victims
particularly in the area of property crime. It also assists with implementation of the Crime Victim Rights Act.
DISCUSSION:
The state grant totals $51,944.00. There is no local match.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99005 in the amount of $51,944.00.
99.120
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Crime Prevention Coordinator
Grant 00-C9783
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 99006 in the amount of
$36,516.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs.: Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
July 21, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Police Department has received a renewed grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services to fund a full
time Crime Prevention Coordinator. This is the third year of the grant. A civilian employee will fil this position. The employee
will coordinate and manage crime prevention initiatives within the department, as well as coordinate activities with the
community and neighborhood team.
DISCUSSION:
A $27,387.00 Department of Criminal Justice Service's grant and $9,129.00 local match will fund the Crime Prevention
Coordinator position. The local match is funded from current operations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99006 in the amount of $36,516.00.
99.125
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Request approval of Appropriation 99007 in the amount of
$7,330.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Ms.White,, Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Pumphrey
AGENDA DATE:
July 21, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
IN FORMATION:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant providing funds to
assist with recruitment efforts.
DI.,SCUSSION:
The mini-grant is funded by a $7,330.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant. There is no local match.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation 99007 in the amount of $7,330.0 o.
99. 128
David P. Bowerman
Cha~ot~ Y. Humphris
J~ck~
Formst R. Marshan, Jr.
COUNTY OF AI_REMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Vh-~inia 22902-4,596
(804) 2965843 FAX (804) 2965800
July 29, 1999
Chafie~ S. Martin
Walter F.. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
The Honorable James S. Gilmore, III
Governor of Virginia
State Capitol, Third Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Governor Gilmore:
Last year during the 1999 legislative session, there was growing support among several counties for
state funding for those localities that have an active purchase of development rights (PDR) program. In
pursuit of similar funding from the 2000 General Assembly, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
has adopted the attached resolution.
In a desire to protect its open space, the County developed a PDR program and earmarked $1.0
million to the program for FY 2000. Albemarle recognizes that such a PDR program is a long-term
commitment requiring a secure and reliable source of funding.
As indicated in the resolution, the Board of Supervisors strongly supports full and dedicated funding
for the Virginia Conservation Foundation as a source of matching funds for localities, and requests your
support, and that of the General Assembly, to appropriate such funding beginning in the year 2000.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/ec
Printed on recycled paper
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FUNDING FOR ACQUISITION
OF CONSERVATION LAND AND EASEMENTS IN VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Albemarle County desires to protect its farm and forest resource base, its
open-space, its natural resources including its drinking water supply watershed and
natural habitat, and its rural historic settings; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has lost 25,000 acres of farmland from 1974 to 1992 and
12,898 acres in the decade from 1982 to 1992; and
WHEREAS, 31.7 percent of Albemarle's 283,652 acres of forest land is classified by the
Department of Forestry as too densely populated to be viable for long-term timber
production; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has developed a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
program to protect open-space, and has earmarked $1.0 million for the program in
FY 2000; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County, recognizing that such a PDR program is a long term
commitment requiring a secure and reliable source of funding, desires a partnership
with the Commonwealth of Virginia through a state matching fund for the purchase
of easements and other conservation needs; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly created in its 1998-99 session the Virginia
Land Conservation Foundation, an act supported by resolution of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, that Foundation is empowered to provide matching funds to localities for
purchase of conservation easements and other conservation needs;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
strongly supports full and dedicated funding for the Virginia Conservation
Foundation as a source of matching funds for localities, and calls upon the
Governor and the General Assembly to appropriate such funding beginning in the
year 2000.
Adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors this 21st day of July, 1999.
Clerk, Albemarle County B~ard
Su perviso~.~/
of
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
PurchaSe of Development Rights (PDR) Resolution
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST:
Request approval of PDR Resolution
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White
AGENDA DATE:
July 21, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Y~,// ~.----~
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Last year during the 1999 legislative session, there was growing support among several counties to request state
funding for those localities that have an active PDR program. In pursuit of similar funding from the 2000 General
Assembly, the attached resolution has been proposed by the County's' PDR Committee.
DISCUSSION:
The attached resolution requests the Board's support for state funding for an Acquisition of Conservation Land
and Easements program in Virginia. It acknowledges that much of the County's farmland has been lost, that
forest land is too densely populated to be viable for long term timber production and that in response to these
conditions, the County has developed a PDR program and earmarked $1 million dollars in FY2000. It further
states that the Board fully supports dedicated state funding for the Virginia Conservation Foundation as a source
of matching funds for localities for these programs.
RECOMMENDATION:
If adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the resolution will be sent to the Governor with a request to include PDR
funding in his proposed budget.
99.127
7/21199 meeting
County of Albemarle 1998 DeveloPment Activity Report
THIS ITEM WAS SCANNED UNDER LAND USE REPORTS 1999
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
May 1999 Financial Report
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
May 1999 Financial Report for the General, School, and
Capital Funds
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
July 21, 1999
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Ms. White, Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Attached are the May 31, 1999 Monthly Financial Reports for the General, School, and Capital Funds.
General Fund revenue projections were last revised as part of the 1999/2000 budget process.
General Fund expenditure projections have not been revised at this time.
Education revenue projectionS have been revised to reflect the final ADM. State revenues should exceed budget by $63,000.
Local and federal revenues should be approximately equal to budget.
Education expenditure projections reflect release of the full operating expense holdback, net compensation adjustment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of the May 1999 Financial Report.
99~123
REVENUES:
LOCAL(GENERAL FUND)
LOCAL(SCHOOLS)
SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS
STATE
FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES
TRANSFERS IN
TOTAL WITH TRANSFERS
EXPENSES:
GENERAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
TRANSFERS
SUBTOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT
SCHOOL FUND OPERATIONS
SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS
SUBTOTAL SCHOOL DIVISION
TOTAL EXPENSES
BALANCE OF REVENUES OVER EXPENSES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY OPERATIONS
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
MAY 31, 1999
ADOPTED MID-YEAR
BUDGET APPROPS.
$92,242 287
612 099
6,746 260
3O,960 497
3,554 282
134,115 425
1,305 563
135,420,988
35,352,278
6,049,666
9,881,748
51,283,692
77,391,036
6,746,260
84,137,296
135,420,988
$25,733
33,383
926,610
1,660,013
51,412
2,697,151
1,563,072
4,260,223
1,672,081
(140,407)
1.531,674
1,801,939
926,610
2,728,548
4,260,223
($0)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~:~:~:~;~~~:~~~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~:~:~:~:~:::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:..:.: .:-:..,:.. :. :.:.:. '. '.::::::::' .::: :::'::::;:::. :.:: :.::. ::: :. ::: :.:. :::. :: :. :::::-'.' .. :. :. :. :.: :. :. :.: .:: :.:: :.:: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
PERCENT
YTDIBUD
70.82%
81.02%
72.34%
89.35%
76.75%
75.53%
50.96%
75.02%
87.44%
95:17%
94.02%
89.53%
80,72%
90.14%
81.55%
84.57%
Totals may not balance due to rounding
REVENUES:
LOCAL
STATE
FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES
TRANSFERSIN
TOTAL WITH TRANSFERS
EXPENSES:
GENERAL GOVT ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION
PARKS/RECREATION/CULTURE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NONDEPARTMENTAL
TRANSFERS
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
BALANCE OF REVENUES OVER EXPENSES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY GENERAL FUND
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
MAY 31, 1999
ADOPTED MID-YEAR
BUDGET APPROPS.
$92,242,287 $25,733
5,410,678 150,150
2,607,834 (30,000)
100,260,799 145,883
69,916 1,378,791
100,330,715 1,524,674
5,779,233 168,636
2,106,855 99,991
11,113,901 113,100
2,289,742 325,673
7,632,929 458,668
49,047,023 (7,000)
3,751,919 17,103
2,677,699 488,912
6,049,666 (140,407)
9,881,748 Q
100,330,715 1,524,674
PERCENT
YTD/BUD
70.82%
91.22%
83.48%
72.28%
101.49%
72.69%
85.67%
91.98%
89.79%
85.83%
88.98%
83,35%
77.12%
88,89%
95.17%
94.02%
86.55%
Totals may not balance due to rounding
REVENUES:
LOCAL-SCHOOLS
STATE
FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES
TRANSFERS IN
TOTAL WITH TRANSFERS
EXPENSES: INSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION, ATTENDANCE, HEALTH
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
FACI LITI ES OPE RATION/MAI NTAI NANCE
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION/MODIFICATIO
TRANSFERS
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
BALANCE OF REVENUES OVER EXPENSES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOL FUND
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
MAY 31, 1999
ADOPTED MID-YEAR
BUDGET APPROPS.
$612,099 $33,383
25,549,819 1,509,863
946,448 81,412
27,108,366 1,624,658
50.282.670 177,281
77,391,036 1,801,939
59,998,552 1,005,849
3,543,079 107,378
5,064,906 (1,288)
7,746,337 3,265
25,600 0
1,012,562 686,735
77,391,036 1,801,939
PERCENT
YTDIBUD
81.02%
88.97%
59,88%
87.75%
80.99%
83.44%
80.31%
87.76%
82.99%
88.33%
232.30%
36.57%
80.72%
Totals may not balance due to rounding
ALBEMARLE COUNTY OPERATIONS
FUND BALANCE REPORT
MAY 31, t999
GENERAL
FUND
CAPITAL
GENERAL
SCHOOL
FUND
CAPITAL
EDUCATION
AUDITED FUND BALANCE 06-30-98
APPROVED APPROPRIATIONS:
BUDGETED ANTICIPATED FUND BALANCE
CARRYOVER
REAPPROPRIATIONS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT
SOIL CONSERVATION STAFFING
BAILIFF JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT
SHERIFF'S OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSE
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES
FIRST NIGHT
$14,874,757
(69,916)
(354,130)
(463,314)
(72,250)
(10,834)
(25,733)
(8,439)
(407,091)
(7,000)
$4,126,767
(365,000)
(3,761,653)
$1,908,647
(1,035,512)
(177,281)
$10,698,652
(100,000)
(9,873,332)
TOTALAPPROVED APPROPRIATIONS
(1,418,707)
(4,126,653)
(1,212,793)
FUND BALANCE
$13,456.050
$114
$695,854
Totals may not balance due to rounding
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
July 9, 1999
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
Brent Nelson
C/o Roudabush, Gale & Associates
914 Monticello Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
SP-99-13 Guaranty Bank at Forest lakes
Tax Map 46B4, Parcel 1D
Dear Mr. Nelson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 6, 1999, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following condition:
Drive-in windows will be limited to four(three traditional teller operated windows and
one ATM station).
2. ARB approval of the preliminary site plan including the location of drive-in windows.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on July 21, 1999. 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.
The Commission also approved a waiver for one-way internal circulation subject to the following
conditions:
Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of appropriate control devices
such as by-pass lanes, signage, and pavement makings which shall be approved by the
Site Review Committee and shown on all subsequent site plans; and
2. Issuance ora Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB.
Page 2
July 9, 1999
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
David B. Benish
Chief of Communtiy Development
DBB/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: SP-99-13 Guarantee
Bank atForest Lakes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for approval of drive-in windows.
STAFF CONTACT(S): Mayn.~d Sipe,
Planner
AGENDA DATE: June 29, 1999
ITEM NUMBER:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: Yes
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This item originally was presented at the June 1, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. A staff report was prepared
and distributed to the Commissioners prior to that meeting while additional information was presented at the
meeting. The Commission voted to defer consideration of the request until June 29, 1999 with the expectation that
the applicant would address comments given by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and meet with the ARB
again.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant resubmitted materials to the ARB on June 7, 1999. Review of the resubmitted materials was
expedited by staff and presented to the Architectural Review Board at their meeting on Monday, June 21, 1999.
l'he applicant chose not to make any changes to the orientation of the building and the size and location of the drive-
in windows offering only to provide landscaping along the Entrance Corridor, Seminole Trail (Route 29). The
applicant proposed plantings of evergreens to screen the building and drive-in windows fi:om the entrance corridor
in an attempt to soften the impact of the proposed building and drive-in windows. The ARB commented that
screening a site from the Entrance Corridor is not appropriate and that the landscaping should follow the standard
landscaping requirements of large street trees, shrubs and interspersed ornamental trees. The ARB reinterated its
earlier comments regarding the building orientation and the size and number of drive-in windows (see ARB
comments previously provided). The ARB defered action to allow the applicant another oppommity to address the
ARB's comments. The ARB offered to let the applicant present a revised proposal at their worksession on Monday
lune 28, 1999. Staff expects the applicant to present a revised proposal at that time.
SUMMARY:
Staff has not received any information providing further explanation or justification for the number of drive-in
windows. Staff will present to the Planning Commission at their meeting, a summary of any discussion and/or
action that may transpire at the ARB's June 28th worksession.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MAYNARD SIPE
JUNE 1, 1999
JULY 14, 1999
SP- 99-013 GUARANTEE BANK AT FOREST LAKES
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to build a new bank of approximately 3,000 square feet with five
drive-in windows (four standard windows and one automatic teller station). This proposal
requires two actions: Board of Supervisors approval of a Special Use Permit to allow drive-in
windows and Planning Commission approval of a waiver to allow internal one-way circulation.
PETITION:
Applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for drive-in
windows associated with a bank [Sections 31.2.4 and 24.2.2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance], to
be constructed on a 1.080 acre parcel zoned Highway Commercial (HC) and Entrance
Corridor (EC). Property, described as Tax Map 46B4, Parcel 1D is located on the east side of
Seminole Trail (Route 29), just south of the intersection with Timberwood Parkway
(Attachments A and B). This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is
designated by the Comprehensive Plan for Community Service in the Hollymeade
Community Development Area.
SDP-99-036 Guarantee Bank Preliminary Site Plan Internal Circulation Waiver
Applicant also seeks Planning Commission authorization of an internal circulation waiver
[Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance] to construct a branch bank with drive-in windows
and an automated teller machine as described above.
CHARACTER OF AREA:
The site is adjacent to commercial property zoned Highway Commercial on three sides while the
fourth side of the property abutts a highway, Seminole Trail (Route 29). There are three adjacent
uses with drive-through facilities: McDonalds, First Citizens Bank, and the Forest Lakes Car
Wash.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
This area is recommended for Community Service in the Hollymead Community Development
Area. Banks are a commercial use listed as appropriate in such areas. This proposal is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
The drive-through aspect of this proposal requires a special use permit to be approved by the
Board of Supervisors. In accord with the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission must act on the
applicant's request for a modification to allow one-way circulation [4.12.6.?-].
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will comment on the special use permit and waiver request separately.
SP- 99-013 Guarantee Bank Drive-In Windows
Staff.Analysis:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31 .T4.1 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 a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property,...
The proposed use will not have a detrimental.affect to other by-right uses on adjacent properties
and is clearly in keeping with the general nature of commercial uses on adjacent properties.
...that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,...
The proposed site is located within a suburban commercial district. As stated previously, there '
are three adjacent uses with drive-through facilities.
The site is also subject to Albemarle County Architectural Review Board [ARB] review. Thc
applicant is currently in the ARB review process. Staff has included a condition for ARB
issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to the Planning Staff approval of the
Preliminary Site Plan.
...and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,...
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance of Section 1.4, Section 1.5, and Section 1.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance and finds no conflict.
...with the uses permitted by right in the distfic, t,...
Staff has identified that the proposed drive-in is a common accessory use to the by-right use
proposed (a bank) and is in harmony with other by-right uses located in this commercial district.
2
...with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,...
Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance provides no additional regulations.
...and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Staff has found no adverse affect on public health, safety, and general welfare. Department of
Engineering approval of the preliminary site plan and internal traffic circulation is recommended
as a condition of approgal. The Department of Engineering and the Virginia Department of
Transportation [V.D.O.T] has not identified any major internal traffic concerns in the course of
their review of the proposed preliminary site plan.
Summary:
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. Consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. Consistent with Section 32.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. Consistent with other adjacent uses;
4. The proposed use will not cause substantial detriment to adjacent properties; and,
5. The proposed use will not change the character of the district.
Staff has not identified any factors which are unfavorable to this request. Staff finds that the
proposed use of drive-in windows is an acceptable and expected accessory use to a bank.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed special use permit for drive-in windows with the
following conditions:
1. Drive-in windows will be limited to five (four traditional teller operated windows and one
ATM station).
2. ARB approval of the preliminary site plan including the location of drive-in windows.
3
SDP-99-036 Guarantee Bank Preliminary Site Plan Internal Circulation Waiver
Staff Comment:
The applicant is requesting a waiver for one-way internal circulation, due to the use of the drive-
in windows (Attachment E). Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states "One-way
circulation aisles shall nOt be permitted, except that the commission may approve one-way
circulation in such case where the same is necessitated by the peculiar character of the site or of
the proposed use such as but not limited to uses involving drive-in windows and automobile
laundries". Staff aknowledges that one way circulation is inherent in the design of drive-in
windows. Should the special use permit for drive-in windows meet with a favorable
recommendation by the Planning Commission, Staff recommends approval of the waiver request.
Should this waiver be approved, the Site Review Committee will review the applicant's
preliminary site plan to ensure appropriate control devices such as bypass lanes, signage, and
pavement markings are shown on the site plan. Staff will proceed with administrative approval
of the preliminary site plan.
Recommended Action:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and
recommends approval of the internal circulation waiver request subject to the following
conditions:
Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of appropriate control devices
such as by-pass lanes, signage, and pavement makings which shall be approved by the
Site Review Committee and shown on all subsequent site plans; and
2. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Site Plan
A - Tax Map
B - Location Map
C - Proposed Preliminary Site Plan
D - Applicant's Special Use Permit Request and Justification
E - Applicant's Request For Internal Circulation Waiver
ATTACHMENT A
5
<3
TO RUCKERSVILLE
/
SP-99-13 Guaranty Bank at F~rest Lakes
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT B
' "'" ~ '~°'~P-99-13. Guaran - Bank at Forest Lakes
- /
SEE TAXM~*P .32
//
//
//
RIVANNA DISTRICT
SECTION 46 B4
· 8u!uu ld
U. S. R
NORTH
OUTE 2
80UND L,4NE
9
SIM
OWNER=
ZONE~HC
PRE~ENT USE, FAST
SEMINOLE· TRAIL
TC
t~9'05' 20'E
lie
,/
FMP 4684-10!
O~INEq: FIRSt' cIrIZEN$ 8,4NK
ZONE: H~.
PRESENT USE: ~IANK
1
5t4.88
FORTUNE
~XIs?ING PvM'T wtOTH, 34'
TMP 4684- IO2
OWNER ' FOREST LAKES AsSoC.
ZONE: HC
PRESENT USE= VACANT
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
ATTACHMENT C
REVISIONS
OATE
SCALE
2 FEET
FILE
70 t6
SHEET
2/2
ATTACHMENT D
March 22, 1999
Guaranty Bank @ Forest Lakes
TMP 46B4 - 1D
Application for Special Use Permit: Zoning Section 18-22.2.2 (10)
Attachment to sheets 2 and 3 of the application
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?
The land use designation for this parcel is non-residential Community Service.
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?
The following is a list of the adjacent properties:
* McDonald's fast food Restaurant - with drive-in window
* First Citizens Bank - with drive-in windows
* Car Wash - with it's inherent drive-thru mechanism
* U.S. Route 29, n.b.1.
Because the adjoining businesses offer drive-in services as well, we feel that our drive-in
windows will only benefit the adjoining businesses. The drive-in for Guaranty Bank will
be at an elevation approximately 4 feet lower than that section of U.S. Rt 29 situated
directly in front of this site. This grade change along with the planting of street shrubs
between the drive-in area and Rt 29 should prevent headlight glare from being a
problem.
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the
property?
The fact that there are 3 existing businesses with drive-in services seems to indicate that
there exists a consumer's desire for that style of service in a Community Service Land Use
location such as this one. The fact that the adjoining First Citizens Bank was granted a
special use permit for their drive-in windows, seems to indicate that the County has
recognized this additional use as something that compliments the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan as it relates to this district.
How ia the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The purpose of the Highway Commercial zone, as outlined in Section 18-24.1, is to allow
for the development of commercial establishments that would be primarily oriented
towards major highways within the urban areas. Such establishments are to be accessed
by side streets' that are in turn accessible to U.S ROute 29. The site that we are refering
to in this application fullfills all of these criteria.
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
In examining the existing uses that are permitted by right in this district, it appeares that
one of the reasons for creating such a district, had been to provide highway access to
businesses that can provide a rapid turnover of trade for Community Service style
businesses. The fact that the County has already approved three existing drive-in uses in
the same part of the district (close to US Rt 29), would seem to indicate that the County
believes that such a use can exist in harmony as long as the design and overall location
of a drive-in site relates properly to other non drive-in related businesses in the same
district. We feel that this proposed site fills all of the aforementioned criteria
l&hat additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this
use?
None
How will this use promote the public health safety, and general welfare of the community?
Banking customers, being in a hurry like everyone else, have come to expect drive-in
services from their banks. Since this is one of Albemarle County's largest groWth areas,
we anticipate the need for 4 drive-in lanes and one drive-in ATM. This particular service
adds to the general welfare of the community in that the bank's location should help
keep some vehicular traffic from having to drive farther in to the more congested urban
areas just to obtain basic banking services.
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of
persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use:
As previously mentioned, this request is for a drive-in facility for a proposed Guaranty
Bank branch. The application is asking for four 'regular drive-in lanes and one. outside
drive-to ATM machine. There will be approximately 7 employees per working shift.
The bank will have the following operating hours:
Monday thru Thursday: 9am to 5 pm (lobby), 9am to 6pm (drive-in)
Friday: 9am to 6pm (lobby and drive-in)
Saturday: 10am to lpm (lobby and drive-in)
LAND SURVEYORS
J. THOI~ AS GALE,
MARII,.YNN R, GAL.F.. L.-'~.
WILl. lAM ¢, ROUDABUe-H. L.~.
ROUDABUSIt, ~ & ASSOC., INC.
'~ P'ROFESSIONAI. ~ORPOR&?ION
9~4 MONTI~E~ ROAD
CHARLO~ESVIL~, VlRGIHIA 2~90~
ATTACHMENT E
DAVID L COLLINS,
DIANA P, DALE, ia,E.
WILL.lAM J. L.F. DBETTER, L.$.
EDWARD D. C,-AMPBI'LL III,.L,S,
Memorandum
To:
F=om:
Mainard Sips
Planner
Departnnent of Plannin~ & Cc--~unity Development
County of Albemarle
Brent W. Nelson
Date:
May 24, 1999
su j es=:
Guaranty Bank @ Forest Lakes, SDP 99-036
Request for a waiver of Section 4.12.6.2.of the Zoning
Ordinance, allowing one-way circulation for the
bank drive-in windows.
We are requesting a variance of Section 4.12.6.2 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, thereby permitting us to provide one way
vehicular circulation for the portion of our site that serves the
bank drive-in windows. One-way vehicular circulation is an
inherent design element anytime you have a bank drive-in window.
This waiver request is being made in conjunction with a Special
Use Permit application (SP 99-13) that is currently being
reviewed for this site. This permit would allow us to p=ovide 4
drive-thru windows and an ATM machine in an HC Zone.
June 17, 1999
Dept.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4,596
(804) 296-$823
Mahmood Pashazadeh
2165 Seminole Trail
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-99-27 Rug Depot; Tax Map 45B1, Parcel 13
Dear Mr. Pashazadeh:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 15, 1999, unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to
the following conditions:
1. Display shall only occur during daylight business hours. Rugs shall be removed from view of Route 29
traffic after business hours.
2. Display shall be limited to tWo frames.
3. Display frames shall be no larger than the current size - 6' x 8'.
4. Display shall not occur within the US 29 right-of-way, and shall not restrict sight distance at site
entrances along Rt. 29. The frames shah be located no closer than 60' to the Route 29 right-of-way.
5. The display shall not be illuminated.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on July 21, 1999. 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.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Pickart
Design Planner
Cc:
Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley
Steve Allshouse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Margaret M.M. Pickart
June 15, 1999
July 21, 1999
SP-99-27 RUG DEPOT OUTDOOR DISPLAY
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to display rugs for sale outdoors. Rugs would be displayed
on two wooden A-frame structures that are approximately 6' high and 6' wide. The frames would be located
in the grass area between the building and Route 29. The applicant has painted the frames green. The
applicant also proposes to display rugs on the building; the rugs would be hung on the front wall. The
applicant does not want to limit the hours of display. Consequently, he has indicated that display 'would
occur approximately 7 days a week, from 9:00 am to 7:00 PM.
Petition: Request for a special use permit to allow outdoor display of merchandise in accordance with
Section 30.6.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for outdoor display :in the Entrance Corridors. The
property contains less than 1 acre and is described as Tax Map 45B1, Section 5, Block A, Parcel 14. It is
located in the Rio Magisterial District at 2165 Seminole Trail, on the east side of Route 29N, just south of
Hilton Heights Road. The property is zoned HC Highway Commercial and EC Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Community Service in Neighborhood 2.
Character of the Area: The immediate area is extensively developed with a variety of businesses. The
parcel across Route 29 to the west is occupied by the Wal-Mart store, which displays lawn and garden
merchandise outdoors. The Carrsbrook residential development is situated directly to the east. An office
building (Real Estate III), the Garden Patch landscape center (which displays garden merchandise outdoors),
a shopping center (Antiquers Mall), a Sam's Club store, and a hotel (Doubletree) are all located nearby. Car
dealerships with outdoor automobile display are also located in the vicinity, including Jim Price Chevrolet
across Rt. 29 to the south, and Dan's Automart to the north of this site. Traffic on this section of Route 29
is heavy and fast-moving.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance Sections 31.2.4.1 and 30.6.3.2.b. Based on the Architectural Review Board's recommendation
on this proposal, SP 99-27 is recommended for approval with conditions. However, staff is concerned about
compliance with these conditions based on facts that are noted in this report.
Planning, and Zonin~ I-Iistorv:
1979: SDP-79-055: John Deere/T.D.R. Sales: Site plan approved.
1983: BP-89-210: Building permit issued for rear addition.
March 15, 1999: ARB-F(SIGN)-99-21: Rug Depot Sign and Merchandise Display: Proposal for two new
wall signs and for outdoor display of merchandise (rugs) in the Entrance Corridor. The ARB unanimously
approved one wall sign with the following conditions.
1. The sign shall be installed so that it is centered above the entrance to the store, and is located
below the second story windows and above the first story "roof'.
2. The shutters shall be reinstalled.
3. No light fixtures may be installed without ARB approval.
The ARB voted 3 to 1 to recommend approval of the special use permit for the outdoor display of
merchandise in the EC with the .following conditions:
1. Display shall only occur during daylight business hours. Frames shall be removed from view of
the EC after business hours.
2.Display shall be limited to two frames.
3.Frames shall not. be displayed without rugs.
4.Display frames shall be no larger than the current size - 6' x 6'.
5.The frames shall be located no closer to the Entrance Corridor than is shown in the photo - 60'.
6.The display shall not be illuminated.
NOTE: The ARB's review of the proposal assumed that display would occur primarily on weekends. The
proposal reviewed by the ARB did not include rugs hung from the walls of the building.
March 26, 1999: Notice of Official Determination of Violation letter: Violation letter sent
regarding "Rugs displayed outside on wooden frames and the building without a special use
permit." See Attachment E.
May 3, 1999: ARB-F(SIGN)-99-21: Rug Depot Sign and Merchandise Display: The ARB noted
that the Rug Depot applicant was displaying rugs at the site, but not in accord with the intent of
the ARB's recommended approval of the special use permit. In particular, it was noted that the
display frames were not removed from view after use, and that rugs were hung from the exterior
walls of the building. It was also noted that the sign was not located in the approved position, and
that the shutters had not been replaced as requested by the Board and agreed to by the applicant.
The Board indicated that they had wanted to show support for the businessman in their
recommendation of approval for the special use permit, but they stressed their disappointment in
his violating the spirit of the ARB approval. They asked that their position and the intent of their
previous approval be clarified to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, and they
asked that their discomfort in maintaining support of the proposal given the recent actions of the
applicant also be conveyed 'to the Commission and Board.
May 27, 1999: Zoning Department Comments on Status of Violation and Previous Outdoor Display
on Site: See Attachment F.
Comprehensive Plan:
This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends community-scale commercial, professional, and office uses providing
retail, wholesale, business, medical offices, small office buildings, mixed-use core communities and/or
employment services in this service designation.
STAFF COMMENT:
1. 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 issued .upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
It is anticipated that the outdoor display of merchandise at the scale proposed by the applicant will have a
negative impact on the surrounding area. The proposed display is of a type that is appropriate to commercial
areas of a different scale than that which is present on Rt. 29 North. The display frames are similar in type
to sandwich board style signs and display racks that are often found in "downtown" commercial areas where
pedestrian traffic predominates. This type of display is also typically found in open-air markets, flea
markets, and sidewalk sales, which likewise exhibit a different scale, feeling, and atmosphere than that which
is evoked by the Route 29 North Entrance Corridor. The inappropriate scale and character of the display
would have a negative impact on the surroundings.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Applicant's Comment:
The applicant has indicated that the color of the oriental rugs proposed for display would beautify
the area.
Staff Comment:
The staff report for the ARB's review of the special use permit addressed the potential change in the
character of the district. The report stated: "This type of display is not compatible with the
traditional architecture of the County .... [It] would not promote orderly and attractive development
within the Entrance Corridor." The report also noted that the size and type of the display frames,
the location of the proposed display, and the scale of the surroundings were inappropriate for this
type of display. The display appears temporary and disorderly. Consequently, the character of the
area would be changed by the proposed display. (The staff report is included as Attachment .)
On March 15, 1999, the ARB reviewed the proposal for outdoor display. In its discussions of the
proposal, the ARB noted its hesitancy to recommend approval of the proposal, indicating that other
similar types of display - oil-on-velvet'paintings, for example -would not likely be approved. The
board also noted its desire to support the applicant in his business venture. Despite staff's
recommendation for denial, the ARB voted 3 to I to recommend approval of the special use permit,
with the following conditions.
1. Display shall only occur during daylight business hours. Frames shall be removed from
view of the EC after business hours.
2. Display shall be limited to two frames.
3. Frames shall not be displayed-without rugs.
4. Display frames shall be no larger than the current size - 6' x 6'.
5. The frames shall be located no closer to the Entrance Corridor than is shown .in the photo -
60'.
6. The display shall not be illuminated.
Subsequent to the ARB's approval, the ARB noted that the display was occurring, but not in accord
with the intent of the ARB's recommended approval and conditions. In particular, it was noted that
the'display frames were not removed from view after use, and that rugs were hung from the exterior
walls of the building. It was also noted that the conditions of approval related to the sign had not
been met. The Board stressed its disappointment in the applicant violating the spirit of the ARB
approval. They asked that their position and the intent of their previous approval be clarified to the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, and they asked that their discomfort in maintaining
support of the proposal given the recent actions of the applicant also be conveyed to the Commission
and Board.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Applicant's Comment:
The applicant has indicated that the proposed display is in harmony with the other outdoor display
already established in the area, including automobile display and lawn and garden merchandise
display. The applicant adds that tractors were displayed at this site in the past.
Staff Comment:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and the EC Overlay District. The ordinance requires ARB review of proposals for outdoor display
in the Entrance Corridors. The ARB completed a review of the proposal. The results of that review
are described above. Should the request be approved, staff recommends that approval be subject to
the conditions outlined by the ARB.
Staff notes that the display of merchandise at the Wal-Mart store is contained primarily within
screening walls. Display not contained within screening walls is situated approximately 450 feet
from the EC. In addition, standard Entrance Corridor landscaping exists to help screen and soften
the view from Route 29. Those distance and screening conditions are not present at the Rug Depot
site.
Staff also notes that a 1979 site plan sl~ows an area for outdoor display of tractors on this site. The
Zoning Department has determined that "when the EC district was adopted in 1990, the display
shown would have become nonconforming. Any nonconforming use which is discontinued for more
than 2 years is deemed abandoned and must then conform to the provisions of the ordinance. Since
we know that this display has not been used in more than 2 years, any current display is in violation
of the ordinance and must have an SP approved under section 30.6 prior to starting the use." (See
Attachment F.)
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
Applicant's Comment:
The applicant has indicated that the proposed display is necessary for survival of his business.
Staff Comment:
It is not anticipated that the proposed display will restrict permitted uses on adjacent property. Other
types of outdoor display occur in the immediate viciniW.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 specifically addressing the rental or display of vehicles.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
It is not anticipated that the proposed use will impact the public health, safety, or welfare.
OTHER FACTORS
Staff notes that the proposed outdoor display has been occurring without the required special use permit.
Notice of the violation was sent to both the applicant and the property owner, and the violation has
continued. (See Attachments E and F.) In addition, the ARB-recommended conditions of approval have not
been followed during this violation. Staff's opinion is that the ongoing violation and the disregard for the
recommended conditions of approval indicate that the display may never be conducted in an appropriate
manner. This assessment is supported by the ARB's comments made on May 3, 1999.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request:
1. Other outdoor display occurs in the immediate area.
2. The proposed display on wooden frames is small in comparison to other displays in the area.
3. The ARB has recommended approval of the rug display on 2 freestanding frames during a limited
time frame, subject to conditions.
Staff'has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request:
1. The freestanding display has a temporary appearance that is inappropriate for the EC.
2. The display appears disorderly, which is inappropriate for the EC.
3. The wall display is an inappropriate use of building surfaces. It appears temporary and is inap?ropriate
for the EC.
4. ' The ARB did not comment on the proposed display on the walls of the building. Given the ARB's
comments made on May 3, 1999, it does not seem likely that the ARB would approve that form of
display.
5. The ARB review assumed that the display would occur primarily on weekends, not 7 days a week.
6. The applicant has been displaying rugs in violation for an extended period of time.
7. Following the ARB's approval of the proposal, the ARB noted that the display was being conducted in
violation and indicated that the nature of the violation strongly suggested that the display could not be
conducted in a manner appropriate to the Entrance Corridor.
The Zoning Ordinance charges the ARB with the responsibility of determining the impact of outdoor display
on the Entrance Corridors. The ARB's initial review of the proposal resulted in a recommendation of
approval subject to conditions. However, as stated in this report, there exist concerns regarding compliance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The ARB has recommended approval with conditions. Should the Commission wish to approve the request,
staff recommends that approval be subject to the following conditions, including those recommended by the
ARB:
1. Display shall only occur during daylight business hours. Display frames shall be removed from view
of the EC after business hours.
2. Display shall fie limited to two frames.
3. Frames shall not be displayed without rugs.
4. Display frames shall be no larger than the current size - 6' x 6'.
5. Display shall not occur within the US 29 right-of-way, and shall not restrict sight distance at site
entrances along Rt. 29. The frames shall be located no closer than 60' to the Entrance Corridor.
6. The display shall not be illuminated.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Architectural Review Board Staff Report
D - Architectural Review Board Action Letter
E - Violation Letter
F - Zoning Department Comments on Display and Violation
G - Photos of Display
~OUNTAIN
6
Farrni~gton
Count~/ClUb
I
ATTACHMENT A
STLE ROCK
~COtt$
~ITAINS
TO
RT, 29 ~,
TOP
TOM
Bungletown
~ '
Esmont
Carters
Bridge
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT
/ ®
OSECTION A
SECTION B
SECTION C BLOCKS AS~B
SECTION C
SECTION D
i~) PARCEL D
(~ SECTION G
) SECTION E
=% _o ........ ?o CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 45B(I)
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT
APPLICATION NAME: RUG DEPOT PAGE 1
APPLICATION TYPE: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SIGN AND
ADVISORY REVIEW FOR OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE
Project # ARB-F(SIGN)-99-21
Location 2165 Seminole Trail, across from Wal-Mart
Parcel Identification Tax Map 45B 1, Section 5, Block A, Parcel 14
Zoned Highway Commercial (HC) and Entrance Corridor (EC)
Magisterial District Rio
Proposal Review for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 2 new wall signs, and advisory
review of a proposal for outdoor display of merchandise in the EC
ARB Meeting Date iMarch 15, 1999
Date of Staff Review March 9; 1999
Staff Contact Margaret Pickart
PROJECT BACKGROUND
,lac ARB approved a channel letter wall sign for this building on September 8, 1998. The sign was approved with
conditions and has been installed at the north end of the western elevation of the building.
The current application is for two wall signs, one of which has already been installed, and for the display of
merchandise (rugs). The applicant has been displaying merchandise at this property for some time without the
appropriate approvals and permits.
PROJECT DETAILS
Sign Details:
Sign type: Painted Boards
Illumination: External
Sign Size: Height: 3' Length: 7'
Sign Shape: Oval
Colors: Black letters, Aqua background, and Gold accents. Sign is painted to appear "antiqued".
Number of Signs: 2
Location: Southern half of western elevation, between the second story windows.
Text: RUG DEPOT
Merchandise Display Details:
The applicant proposes to display rugs for sale on three wooden A-frame structures. The frames are approximately
~ tall and 6' wide. They would be located in the grass area between the building and the EC.
ARB 3/15/99 Rug Depot Sign and Advisory Review of Outdoor Display - Page 1
ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT C
PAGE 2
Wall Signs:
·
·
Painted wood signs are appropriate for the EC. The colors and overall design of the proposed signs are acceptable.
The location of the signs is inappropriate. The proposed location requires the removal of some of the shutters from the
windows, which removes elements that otherwise help provide consistency in the overall building design. Also, the
proposed location is not coordinated with the "Hightech Signs" sign already installed on the building.
A single sign centered over the entrance, below the second story windows, would be more appropriate than two signs.
External illumination may be appropriate, but details on the proposed fixtures must be provided.
Merchandise Display:
· There is no precedent for this type of display in the Entrance Corridors of the County.'
· The display frames are similar in type to sandwich board style signs that are often found in "downtown" commercial
areas; however, the size and type of display are very different, as is the location and the scale of the surroundings.
· This type of display is .not compatible with the traditional architecture of the County. It includes no elements that are
characteristic of the significant historic landmarks of the area.
· This type of display would not promote orderly and attractive development within the Entrance Corridor.
· A more appropriate addition to the site would be the addition of large shade trees and other landscaping along the
Entrance Corridor.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Wall Sign: ~
Staff recommends approval of one (1) wall sign of the design currently installed on the building, with the following
conditions:
1. The sign shall be installed so that it is centered above the entrance to the store, and is located below the second
story windows and above the first story "roof'.
2. The shutters shall be reinstalled.
3. No light fixtures may be installed without ARB (or staff administrative) approval.
Merchandise Display:
Staff recommends that the ARB recommend that the request for outdoor displ',y of merchandise be denied, based
on the finding that such display would not promote orderly and attractive development within the Entrance Corridor, and
would not be compatible with the traditional architecture of'the County.
ARB 3/15/99 Rug Depot Sign and Advisory Review of Outdoor Display - Page 2
ATTACHMENT E
PAGE 1
March 22, 1999
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Mahmood Pashazadeh
2165 Seminole Trail
Charlottesville, VA 22901
ARB-F(SIGN)-99-21 Rug Depot
Tax Map 45B1, Section 5, Parcel Al4
Dear Mr. Pashazadeh:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on March 15, 1999,
reviewed the above-noted request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 2 new wall
signs, and advisory review of a proposal for outdoor display of merchandise in the EC.
The Board took the following actions:
Wall Sien: The Board unanimously approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for one
wall sign of the design currently installed on the building, with the following conditions:
1. The sign shall be installed so that it is centered above the entrance to the store, and is
located below the second story windows and above the first story "roof".
2. The shutters shall be reinstalled.
3. No light fixtures may .be installed without ARB approval.
Merchandise Display: The Board recommended, with a vote of 3 to 1, approval of the
Special Use Permit for outdoor display of merchandise in the EC, with the following
conditions:
1. Display shall only occur during daylight business hours. Frames shall be removed
from view of the EC after business hours.
2. Display shall.be limited to two frames.
3. Frames shall not be displayed without rugs.
4. Display frames shall be no larger than the current size - 6' x 6'.
5. The flames Shall be located no closer to the Entrance Corridor than is shown in the
photo - 60'.
6. The display shall not be illuminated.
Page 2
March 22, 1999
ATTACHMENT
PAGE 2
You may consider this your Certificate of Appropriateness for your sign.
Approval received fi.om the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board is predicated
on the fact that the design and materials, as proposed and exhibited for review, will be
used. The acceptance of approval implies that the applicant has agreed to use the
materials as indicated on the site plan, attachments, and samples submitted. Any change
in the approved design or materials will require an amendment to the plan and must be
reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
Display may not commence until you have received approval fi'om the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
If you have any questions regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret M. M. Pickart
Design Planner
MMMP/jcf
· Cc: File
Building Code Information
(804) 296-5832
COUNTY OF AI_BEMA~I F
Department of Building Code ahd Zoning Services
401 Mclntre Road, Room 223
Charlotlesville. Virginia 22902-4596
FAX (804} 972-4126
TTD (80,1) 972-4012
ATTACHMENT E
PAGE 1
Zoning Information
(804) 296-5875
NOTICE OF OFFICIAl, DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION
Date Notice of Determination is Given:
CERTIFIED MAIL # Z 397 027 006
March 26, 1999 No: V-99-036/DCF
CERTIFIED MAIL tl Z 397 027 007
Mahrnood Pashazadch
T/A Rug Depot
2165 Seminole Trail
Charlottesville, VA 22901
David A. Harrison, II1
1000 Flowerdew Hundred Road
Hopewell, VA 23860
Property: 45B I 05-0A- 14
Tax Map Number Parcel Number
David A. Harrison, 1II
Owner of Record
Yot, are hereby notified that, ariel' art investigation of the above-described property, tile Zoning
Administrator has determined that the following use or activity constitutes a violation of the following
section(s) of tile Albemarle Cot, nty Zor/ing Ordinance. _
Sectiou 30.6.3.2 By Special Use Permit
b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales servi~ or associated with permitted uses, any
portion of which would be visible from an EC street; provided that review shall be limited to the intent of
this section. Residential, agricultural and forestal uses shall be exempt from this provision.
(Amended 9-9-92)
Rugs a're displayed outside on wooden frames and the building without a special use permit.
Section 36.1: Violations--Generally;
...any use of any building or land which is conducted, operated or maintained
contrary to any provisions of this ordinance .... shall be a violation of this ordinance and
the same is hereby declared to be unlawful.
You are hereby ordered to cease and'desist fi'om tile above described use or activity immediately. Your
failure to comply with this order may result in legal action being taken against you.
If you are aggrieved by this dete,'mir~ation, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the
dale nonce of this determination is given, ill accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you
do ,lot file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by
filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of'appeal which specifi~s the
grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date
notice of this deten'nination was given is specified above.
March 26, 1999
ATTACHMENT E~
PAGE 2
If you have any questions, please con..v0ct Dennis C. Friedrich or the Zoning Administrator at 804-296-5832.
Xme'lfaV~:McCulley ~ ~''~,~
Zoning Administrator'
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Cc: Reading File V-99-036/DCF TM 45B 1/P 05-0A-14
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN SubmiSsion and Comments
Zoning SP99~27
S P-1999-027
Rug Depot
ATTACHMENT F
revision 1
reviewer received reviewed decision
Jan Sprinkle 4/27/99 5/27/99
1. SDP 79-55 shoWed a display on this lot that is visible from Rt. 29. When the EC distdct was adopted in
1990, the display shown would have become nonconforming. Any nonconforming usewhich is
discontinued for more than 2 years is deemed abandoned and must then conform to the provisions of the
ordinance. Since we know that this display has not been used in more than 2 years, any current display
is ~n violation of the ordinance and must have an SP approved under section 30.6 prior to starting the use.
2. Notice of violation concerning the 'current use of the display area was sent to both this applicant, Mr.
Mahmood Pashazadeh, and the property owner, Mr. David A. Harrison on March 26, 1999. Although the
applicant is not dis playing his rugs daily, the violation has been continuing to occur on a intermittent basis
as of 5/22/99. We will be continuing to pursue this matter.
3. The applicant also received approval from the'ARB for a wall sign on the front wall on March 15,
1999. The sign is currently being displayed-ir1 an area which does not complY with that approval. This
constitutes yet another violation which we Will be pursuing.
5/28/99 10:03 AM Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT G."
IIII
I1~
II
Rug Depot. Top Photo: Rugs on display, 5/22/99. Bottom Photo: Display flames without rugs, 3/5/99.
June 17, 1999
Dept.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
James D. or S. Kay egg
405 Balbion Drive
Earlysville, VA 22936
RE: SP-99-28 Boat Dept at Hickory Hill; Tax Map 45, Parcel 40E
Dear Mr. & Mrs. egg:
/he Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 15, 1999, unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to
the following conditions:
The dock shall be substantially in accord with thc letter from James egg and the plan entitled,
"Hickory Hill Boat Dock" dated 5/15/99.
The mulched area surrounding the platform to which the dock is attached shall be no wider than 4
feet on any side of the platform to act as an access path.
There shall be no lighting within 25 horizontal feet of the Reservoir.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on July 21, 1999. 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.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc: Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley
Steve Allshouse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
JUNE 15, 1999
JULY21, 1999
Revised 6/15/99
SP 99-28 Boat Dock at Hicko~ Hill
Applicant's Proposal: The applicants, James and Kay Ogg, would like to build a private
residential dock for canoeing and birdwatching near their home along the Rivanna Reservoir (See
Attachment A). The dock meets the specifications of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
for boat dock/landings no larger than 4 feet by 6 feet and a 4 feet by 12 feet unhinged floating
pier. The Ogg's house is located at the end of Balbion Drive in the Sycamore Subdivision near
Earlysville.
Petition: The request is for a special use permit to allow a boat dock on the Rivanna Reservoir
for a residential use in accordance with Section 10.2.2.29 and Section 30.3.5.2.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows for boat landings and canoe liveries in the Rural Areas and within the
floodplain. The property, described as Tax Map 45 Parcel 40E, contains 4.93 acres, and is
located in the Rio Magisterial District on Balbion Drive, which is a private road, approximately
0.25 miles from the intersection of Balbion Drive and Earlysville Road [State Route 743]. (See
Attachments B, C, and D.) The property is zoned RA Rural Areas and the deck would be in the
Flood Hazard Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
A request has also been made for approval of the dock and a deck in the 200 foot setback.
adjacent to a drinking water supply reservoir. This request requires a waiver of the requirements
of Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.2.3.1. The Planning Commission is authorized to make this type
of Waiver under Section 4.2.5.
Character of the Area: Nearby and surrounding land uses consist of the Rivanna Reservoir,
low density single family development, and open space.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria
listed in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the request.
Planning and Zoning History_: The Ogg's property is zoned RA Rural Area. The house was
recently completed but a freestanding deck was added at the rear of the home. Although the
freestanding deck was constructed without a valid building permit, such a building permit would
have been disapproved because the deck is located within the 200-foot stream buffer of the
Reservoir.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes protection of the County's surface
water through the rural areas zoning, critical slope regulations, runoff control ordinance,
stormwater detention and soil erosion ordinance, flood hazard overlay regulations, and other
protections. As no adverse impacts are anticipated from the construction of a deck, the proposed
boat dock and landing are not viewed as being in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Policies and Regulations Regarding Reservoir Protection: The County, the City of
Charlottesville, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority jointly control access to the surface
of the Reservoir and use of the Reservoir. Through zoning of the adjacent land and the County
Code, which restricts activities on the Reservoir, the County regulates the land and water uses.
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority ensures that water quality'and quantity is maintained by
restricting the recreational use to only incidental activities which would have no impact on the
County and City water supply.
RiVanna Water and Sewer Authority's policy allows for "incidental recreational usage consistent
with~ahe best management practices for a drinking water supply". The Authority gives the
privilege of constructing and maintaining a boat dock on the Reservoir to adjacent riparian
property owners for their individual use and requires that construction methods, materials,
design, and size be limited to that which the Authority has authorized. (See Attachment E.) The
proposed dock meets the Authority's requirements for administrative approval.
STAFF COMMENT:
As in all Special Use Permit reports, staff addresses each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance. These provisions are stated below:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permim
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a fmding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adiacent property_,
The proposed boat dock would not appear to be detrimental to either the Rivanna Reservoir or
nearby or surrounding properties. A number of homes along the Reservoir have boat docks for
personal recreational use. There have been few requests for residential boat docks in recent
years. The last request was made in 1994 and it was withdrawn. The Virginia Rowing
Association, whose boathouse and dock supports the UVA Crew, received approval for
nonresidential boat dock in 1994. The Rivanna Rowing request for a commercial facility was
disapproved by the Board of Supervisors in 1998 for several reasons. In addition to its size,
location, and safety concerns, and a determination was made that it would change the character
of the Reservoir from a water facility to a recreational facility.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Neighbors have contacted the Planning Department with concerns about the addition of a boat
dock and lighting that might change the character and appearance of the Reservoir. At present,
there are a number of residential boat docks along the Reservoir. By and large, these boat docks
do not detract from the primary use of the Reservoir as a water supply reservoir because of their
size, materials, and periodic usage. This proposed boat dock would not appear to change the
character of the Rural Areas zoning district or the character of the use of the Reservoir. A
proliferation of residential boat docks, however, would change the appearance of the reservoir
and potentially provide for a more recreational character than water supply character.
Regarding lighting, th6 Watershed Manager has indicated that installation of lights would not be
allowed in thefirst 25feet of the stream buffer. He has said that the Reservoir is not to be used
for recreational activities after dark in any case.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of thi~q ordinance,
The ~urpose and intent of the zoning ordinance for the rural areas is to preserve agricultural and
forestal lands and activities; protect the water supply; limit service delivery to the rural areas; and
conserve the natural, scenic, and historic resources of the County. For the floodplain, the intent
and purpose is to restrict development in the floodplain which may result in danger to life and
property; public costs for flood control measures and/or rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion,
sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources; and general degradation of the natural
and man-made environment.
For the floodplain, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The floating dock is designed to respond
to changes in flood levels and not impede the natural flow of water, unless it were to break loose
and travel downstream to the dam. The dock will be well anchored in order to avoid being
broken loose by floods.
Regarding protection of the water supply, the proposed use should have no direct impact on
water quality. The dock can be constructed with minimal change to the shoreline. The Rivarma
Water and Sewer Authority has determined that there will be no detrimental effects to the water
supply with this use. The use would be neutral in terms of being in harmony with the purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance for the Rural Areas and use of the floodplain.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
Uses permitted by right in the district include single family uses and duplex uses, public uses and
buildings, agricultural, forestry, boating, and fishery uses. This incidental recreational use
would appear to be in keeping with the other uses permitted by right in the district.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
There are no additional regulations relating to boat docks in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.
and with the public health, safe~ and general welfare.
The 200-foot stream buffer from the Rivarma Reservoir exists to help protect one of the drinking
water supply reservoirs. Both the dock and the deck (which was previously constructed) are
prohibited within the 200-foot stream buffer. The Water Resource manager can modify this
requirement through approval of a mitigation plan. Because language wasn't changed in the
Zoning Ordinance to correspond with the recently adopted Water Protection Ordinance, the
Planning Commission must also approve a waiver of a 200-foot setback requirement from a
drinking water reservoir. A set of ordinance amendments, including this one, is being prepared
by the Planning Department to correct omissions from the recodification that recently took place.
Section 4.2.3.1, which says that no structure or improvement may be located in an area other than
a building site, must also be waived for the dock. Docks, by definition, must be located on a
body of water.
For the dock, the Watershed Manager has recommended approval, provided that the mulched
perimeter around the dock be no wider than four feet on either side. No adverse impact is
expected on the public health and safety of the residents of the community with the dock and
small mulched area. For the deck, minor mitigation will be needed in order to approve of this
construction in the stream buffer. (See Attachment F.)
Neighbors have asked if the proposed length of the dock presents a safety problem for rowers
along the Reservoir. Staff has asked Kevin Sauer, the head coach of the UVA Women's Rowing
Team, about this issue and he has indicated that there should be no problem with the dock. and
the rowers.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. No direct impact to the water supply is expected as a result of the special use permit.
2. No increase in flood levels will result from the adding of the dock.
3. The proposed dock meets the requirements of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for
residential boat docks and is recommended for approval by the Watershed Manager with a
smaller mulched area than requested.
4. The deck within the stream buffer was constructed in such a way as to make mitigation of the
impacts possible.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. There is existing reasonable use of the property does not necessitate the addition of a boat
dock.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit for the residential boat dock with the
following conditions:
The dock shall be substantially in accord with the letter from James Ogg and the plan
entitled, "Hickory Hill Boat Dock" dated 5/15/99.
The mulched area surrounding the platform to which the dock is attached shall be no
wider than 4'feet on any side of the platform to act as an access path.
There shall be no lighting within 25 horizontal feet of the Reservoir.
Staff recommends waivers of the requirement of Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.2.3.1 for the already
constructed deck and to allow construction of a boat dock within the 200-foot setback from a
drinking water reservoir and a boat dock in an area that is not a building site, with the following
contlitions:
A mitigation plan for the deck shall approved by the Watershed Manager prior to
approval of the building permit for the dock and the deck.
The waiver for the deck is for the existing deck only and a building permit is required
for this deck. No furore structures are waived under this authority.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Letter and proposed plan from applicant
B - Location Map
C - Tax Parcel Map
D - Property Map showing Location of Dock
E - Letter from Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
F - Letter from Stephen Bowler to the Oggs
Hickory Hill
~m & Kay Ogg
405 Balln'on Drive Ear!ysville, VA 22936
Tel: 804.975.0123 Fax: 804.975,0024
F-Mail: grandoakjtn~aol-com
ATTACHMENT A
May 15, 1999
Mr. Ben Blankenship
Development Review Manager
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Building Code & Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Re: Special Use Permit Application
Boat Dock-Hickory Hill~ Earlysville, VA- Revisions
Dea~ Mr. Blanken.~hip:
As a result of site visits by Mr. Gene Potter and Stephen Bowler, Watershed Manager, of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as well as two representatives from the Department (Mr.
Waller and one other), we have modified the specifications of the Special Use Permit application
for a Boat Dock on the Rivanna Reservoir submitted to your office on April 19, 1999 as follows:
1. Reduced the size of the Dock/Landing from 15'x30' to 4'x6'
2. Reduced the floating pier from 4'x15' hinged to 4'x12' unhinged
3. Eliminated the 2na pier
I am attaching a revised document (3 page sketch) to provide the Department with the details of
what we are now planning. We believe that these modifications will be acceptable to both the
County as well as the RWSA as a result of the site visit.
Please consider this revision as a modification only, to our submission for the April 19, 1999
cycle start for Special Use Permits as originally received and recorded by Ms. Sharon Taylor of
your office. We understand that the first Planning Committe~ meeting at which this is scheduled
is June15th. We trust that we have now complied with all appropriate regulations and processes,
but if we've missed something, please call us at the above numbers.
We await the County's review and approval.
~'o,~
405 fS/~,~ DR.
~L~5~/ILuE ,VA
LOT G
s%
SIDE VIEW '
,~-- -. '~: ~---- :% ..... , ,'~, , ' '-~ N ~ .:1
I; .... ;; ..... ~ _~_ ,, 2 ' Z ' '~' - -u'- '
" "' ",ql ~I ~'~
.t/2"x 15 1/2" carriage
bolt
I Or Lot;er.)
FLEXIBLE JOINT
1'o Fl~f,~q ~,~:t
J~~' ' '(1 gal. conc.)
L
~nchor "'
~ gal. concrete
I[oot _+), ..
i~OUN'TAIN
TOP
STLE ROCK
~ITAINS
Lei(e
Albemarle
I
!
8 ~
I
TOM
MOUNTAIN
Cross Ro~ds
~o7
Bung~etown
Old Dominion
No~h Garden
Alberene.
Store
SP-99-28 Boat Dock%
Farmington
Coun¢~ Club
Porter
Bridge
31endower ~
Carters Mtn.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
3;
ATTACHMENT C
:SP-99-28 Boat Dock
5F3
32
G3
58
70
~ AGRLCULTU,~,L 5. FO~ESTA~_ DV~T,'~!CT ._ , ·
Gl
. CHARLOTTESVILLE*, RIVANNA
JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SECTION 45 .;
NTS.
WOOD I ~ I DEc~ N
2 STORY FRAME bi ~
WITH BASEMENT ¢1 /
85% COMPLETE ~L.J 26.20'
b 7.80'
I ~ ~ 21.gO
SLATE
PORCH I 26.20'
LOT 7
TMP 45-4OF
THOMAS H. AND DIANA FOSTER JONES
D.B. 1516 P. 720
D.B. 782 P. 363
D.B. 782 P. 356 PLAT
TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL
50' RADIUS
BALBION
3O' ACCESS
EASEMENT
UNDERGROUND
PROPANE ORMER
OC~TANK TELEP PEDESTAL
'tO
-9 OWELL
.2 ST.ORY FRAME
WITH BASEMENT
% COMPLETE
// 405
,RAVEL
DRIVEWAY
657-661
356-360 PLAT
389'
467
I
77
290.00'
N89o42'35"W
DWELLING ¢/''~
TMP 45-58A
dAMES L. dESSUP, dR. AND
KAREN A. dESSUP
D.B. 965 P. 403-405
D.B. 882 P. 525-527 PLAT
LOI 5
TMP 45-4OD
ASHOK D. AND GITA AJGAONKAR
D.B. 835 P. 210
D.B. 782 P. 356 PLAT
PLAT SHOWING A PHYSICAL SURVEY OF
LOT 6
SYCAMORE SUBDIVISION
ON BALBION DRIVE
CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY,. VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1" = 100' APRIL 22, 1997
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
JAMES OGG [OWNER)
A PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY,
INCLUDING IMPROVEMENTS, LIES IN AN AREA
DESIGNATED AS ZONE C (AREA OF
MINIMAL FLOODING) AS SHOWN ON
MAPS BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
DATED: DECEMBER 16, 1980
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON
APRIL 22, 1997, I
SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN
ON THIS PLAT AND THE TITLE
LINES AND WALLS OF THE
BUILDING ARE SHOWN HEREON,
A PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY
EXCLUDING IMPROVEMENTS, LIES IN
AN AREA DESIGNATED AS ZONE A
AREA OF 100 YEAR FLOODING,
AS SHOWN ON MAPS BY THE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY.
DATED: DECEMBER 16, 1980
THOMAS B. LINCOLN LAND SURVEYOR INC.
671 BERKMAR CIRCLE
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
TMODEL COMAQ C:\DATA8\95007901PRO 95-0079-01
ATTACHMENT
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
BOX 18 · CHArLOTTeSVILLE. VIRGINIA ~2gO2-~OlS · (804)
May 21, 1999
Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Ms. Echols:
Several years ago, representatives of the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle and Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority met to develop guidelines whereby riparian landowners to the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir could obtain permission to construct boat docks on the reservoir which is owned
by the City and operated by the Authority. This effort resulted in a policy adopted by the Authority
Board of Directors on May 22, 1989. The City's interest in these matters is reflected in the policy
statement and the application process which requires the City to be named as an additional insured
on the applicant's homeowners policy.
Please call ifI may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Eugene K. Potter
.Director, Water & Sewer
(2) Enclosures
cc: Jim Palmborg
RECEIVED
MAY
PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SERVING CHARLOTTESVILLE & ALBEMARLE COUNTY
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
~=~. O. BOX 18 · CHARLC)TTESVILLE. VIRGINIA ~.2S02-0018 · (804) 977°2970
TO:
FROH:
DATE:
GEORGE No WILLIAHS
EXECUTIYE DIIk~CTOR
EUGENE K. POTTER, JRo, CHAIP./~A~
AD HOC CO~4ITTEE ON RIYANNA BOAT DOCK POLICY
MAY 16, 1989
BOAT DOCK POLICY
The Committee recommends the attached procedures for issuance and
moniLoring of permits for boat docks. A suggesLed policy
statement has been drafted as a basis for the permitting process.
Dock construction will be limited to the design and materials in
the aLtached brochure.
EKP/rw
SERVING CHARLOTTESVILLE: & ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Boat Dock Policy Statement
~oard of Directors
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
The Board o~ Directors (Board) of the Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority (Authority) with ex officio representation ~rom the
C~ty of Charlottesville and County o~ Albemarle, has delegate~
approval authority for the construction and malntenance of docks
on the Soutn Rivanna Reservoir (Reservoir) to the Executive
Director of the Authority in accordance w~th procedures approved
by the Board.
The South Rivanna Reservoir ~s the major source of drinking water
supply for the citizens of Charlottesville and ALbemarle. Any
~ncidental recreational usage is to De .consistent with the best
management practices for a drinking water supply.
The privilege of constructing and maintaining a boat dock on ~ne
Reservoir ~s restricted to adjacent riparian property owners ~or
their individual use. For jointly owned riparian land, a single
boa~ dock may be constructed for the collective use of all
owners. The owners of existing docks and structures are exempted
from the Construction Requirements ~n affect at t~e time o~
adoption of t~is policy, but shall wlthin 2 years ~rom date of
adoption comply with all other provisions of ~e Permi~
Agreement. The Authority may, at ~ts sole option, remove any
structures for w~ch a property owner tails to obtain a Boat Dock
Use Permit and Agreement (Permit). Requests for a Permit shall
be made to the Executive Director, R~vanna Water & Sewer
Authorlty, P. O. Box 18, Charlottesville, VA 22902.
Each request shall include the name, address, and telephone
number o~ the applicant and shall be supported by a curren~ plat
snowing the location of the property with respect to the
reservoir, the ~ntended location o~ the dock with respec~ to the
property l~nes, and identify the Tax Map and parcel number of the
property.
Construction methods, materials, design, and s~ze wall be limited
to those ~n effect at the time o~ application.
Two signed copies of the a~ Permlt, evidence of the required
liability ~nsurance and an application ~ee of $30 shall be
~ncluded with the request.
Upon approval of the request, the Executive Director will return
one copy of the Permit with [he assigned permit number which is
~o be d~splayed on the boat dock. Applicatlon for a building
permit s~ould then be made to the County of Albemarle.
An annual inspection fee may be assessed by t~e Authority ~or the
administration of t~is policy. Failure o~ t~e property owner to
pay the ~ee will De grounds ~or revoking the Permit.
ATTACHMENT F
COUNTY Of Al R~I F
Department of Engineering & Public Works
401 Mcintire Road, Room 211
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804} 296-5861
14May1999
James and Kay Ooo
405 Balbion Drive
Earlysville, VA 22936
Re: Building Code Violation V-1999-71/TMP 45-40E
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ogg:
Thank you for allowing a small army of government and utility staff to visit your house on
Monday and discuss the building and buffer issues there. In this letter, I am addressing one of
those issues, mitigation of the disturbance to the buffer of the nearly completed deck that is
roughly 100 feet from the reservoir.
[ believe it is possible to mitigate the disturbance to the buffer caused by the deck for the
following reasons:
1. Most importantly, this work may have been allowed had a proper mitigation plan
been developed before the work was done.
2. The disturbance to vegetation by the project was modest. It does not appear that any
trees greater than 6 inches in diameter were cut. The deck was built around two large
trees.
3..The disturbance to th6 soil was modest. The deck was built on the hill without any
grading.
4. The path to the deck was built in a manner that should minimize erosion problems.
5. Fgr the most part, the 200~foot buffer zone on the property is a good example of the
intentions of the Water Protection Ordinance concerning buffers.
For these reasons, the deck can be authorized within the buffer area in accordance with Section
17-321 (7) of the Water Protection Ordinance. This section allows for limited redevelopment
(e.g., decks/additions associated with existing structures) in conjunction with an approved
mitigation plan.
I have enclosed a mitigation plan application, a copy of the Water Protection Ordinance, an
excerpt from the Interim DeSign Manual concerning mitigation plans, and a plant list. Note the
required elements of the mitigation plan on Page V-14. Approval of a mitigation plan will
satisfy the requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. Stephen Wailer in the office of
Building Code and Zoning Services (296-5832) can assist you with the additional requirements
o f his office.
FAX (804) 972-4035
James and Kay Ogg
14 May 1999
Page Two
I have two suggestions for your mitigation plan:
1..Plant shade tolerant shrubs in a mulch bed around the deck, particularly on the
downhill side, to prevent erosion. Planting an area around the deck roughly equal to
the area of the deck would provide a large portion of the mitigation.
2. There is an erosion swale below the deck that reaches most of the way to the
reservoir. To reduce erosion potential during large storms, installation of a few water
bars constructed from rock or treated wood (si~milar to those used on hiking trails)
along the swale would benefit the reservoir.
The elements suggested above would meet the requirements of mitigation. You are fi:ce to
consider other alternatives, a few of which are in the Interim Design Manual. Feel free to
contact me with any quest.ions.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Bowler
Watershed Manager
SPB/ctj
Enclosures
Copy:
Stephen Waller, Building Code and Zoning Services
Elaine Echols, Planning and Community Development
Gene Potter, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
File: bowlcr/DockJimOggMiogation.doc
COUNTY OF AL.BF_.MAgt_~
Department of Engineering & Public Works
401 Mclntire Road, Room 211
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5861
14May1999
James and Kay Ogg
405 Balbion Drive
Earlysville, VA 22936
Re: Building Code ,Violation V-1999-71/TMP 45-40E
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ogg:
Thank you for allowing a small army of government and utility staffto visit your house on
Monday and discuss the building and buffer issues there. In this letter, I am addressing one of
those issues, mitigation of the disturbance to the buffer of the nearly completed deck that is
roughly 100 feet from the reservoir.
I believe it is possible to mitigate the disturbance to the buffer caused by the deck for the
following reasons:
- 1. Most importantly, this work may have been allowed had a proper mitigation plan.
been developed before the work was done.
2. The disturbance to vegetation by the project was modest. It does not appear that any
trees greater than 6 inches in diameter were cut. The deck was built around two large
trees.
3. The disturbance to the soil was modest. The deck was built on the hill without any
grading.
4. The path to the deck was built in a manner that should minimize erosion problems.
5. For the most part, the 200-foot buffer zone on the property is a good example of the
intentions of the Water Protection Ordinance concerning buffers.
For these reasons, the deck can be authorized within the buffer area in accordance with Section
17-321 (7) of the Water Protection Ordinance. This section allows for limited redevelopment
(e.g., decks/additions associated with existing structures) in conjunction with an approved
mitigation plan.
I have .enclosed a mitigation plan application, a copy of the Water Protection Ordinance, an
excerpt fi.om the Interim Design Manual concerning mitigation plans, and a plant list. Note the
required elements of the mitigation plan on Page V-14. Approval of a mitigation plan will
satisfy the requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. Stephen Waller in the office of
Building Code and Zoning Services (296-5832) can assist you with the additional requirements
of his office.
FAX (804) 972-4035
BOARD OF
J~y 1,1999
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
Win Adler
P. O. Box 7423
Charlottesville, VA
22906
RE: SP 99-30 Adwell Infosystems
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Adler:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 29, 1999, unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the
following conditions:
This pennit is issued for computer systems consulting, sales and service use and professional office use
only;
2. Total building square footage shall be limited to 4,000 square feet gross floor area;
3. Any additions to the existing building shall be a similar residential design;
Any additions to the building or site Will require Planning Department approval of a site plan
amendment. The adequacy of the entrance location will be reviewed at such time.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on July 21, 1999. 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.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me 296-5823 ext. 3249
Sincerely,
Eric L. Morrisette
Senior Planner
ELM/blb
/-
Cc: vE~a Carey
Jack Kelsey
Winfried & Elizabeth Adler
Amelia McCulley
Steve Allshouse
ALBEMARLE
45
COUNTY
SP 99-30 Adwel
6C
OF
CHARLO'I'TESVlLLE
dACK JOUETT, RIVANNA AND
CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS
SECTION
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Eric L. Morrisette
June 29, 1999
July 21, 1999
SDP 99-030 ADWELL INFOSYSTEMS
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting to amend the conditions of approval (1 and 2) for SP 89-07 Winfried
Adler to allow for additional office uses and an expansion of building square footage to 5,000
total square feet (Attachment A). Attachment B is a reduced copy of the existing site plan.
PETITION:
Adwell Infosystems petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend conditions 1 and 2 of SP 89-07
Winfried Adler to allow for additional office uses and an ~xpansion of building square footage to
a total of 5,000 square feet [Sections 18.2.2.11 and 18.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance].
Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 129A, consists of .7 acres and is zoned R-15,
Residential (Attachment C). This property is recommended for Urban Density in Urban
Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan
CHARACTER OF AREA:
The property is located on the northwestern comer of the Hillsdale Drive/Rio Road East
intersection, at the entrance to the Squire Hill Apartments. The site is adjacent to the residential
development of Squire Hill, zoned R-15 to the north, west, and south. The Northfields
residential development, zoned Ro2 is adjacent to the east. The nearest office use is an office
building, zoned Commercial Office, which is located approximately 400 feet to the north, across
Rio Road East.
This site is occupied by an office building of residential design. The office building was
reconstructed in 1992 as a result of structural damage. The building originally served as a
residence prior to 1992. The property entrance is directly off of Hillsdale Drive, approximately
150 feet west of Rio Road East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
This area is recommended for Urban Density in Neighborhood 2. The Comprehensive Plan does
not specifically speak to non-residential uses in designated residential districts. The
Comprehensive Plan does suggest that adequate buffering, screening, and physical separation of
non-residential uses be accomplished to alleviate relational problems. This site, as well as the
use, has existed in harmony with the surrounding residential community for a number of years.
Any further site improvements would require an amendment to the approved site plan, which the
suggested relational guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan can be adhered to at such time.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP 89-07 Winfried Adler - On April 05, 1989 the Board of Supervisors approved [5-1] a
request to allow computer consulting, sales, and service use in an existing single family
residence. The conditions of approval are attached as Attachment D.
SP 81-71 Betty K. Kaigh-Lawson (Top 100 Video) -The Planning Commission
recommended denial to the Board of Supervisors on September 15, 1987. The applicant
withdrew the request prior to the Board of Supervisor's review.
SDP 8%040 Adwell Infosystems Final Site Plan - In accord with SP 89-07, the applicant
requested site plan approval to allow for conversion of a 1,600 square foot residence into
a computer office building. No action was ever taken as issues of entrance and sewer
connection delayed approval.
SDP 91-024 Adwell Infosystems Office Final Site Plan - The Planning Department
signed for approval on April 04, 1991 to allow for the conversion of a 1,600 square foot
residence into an office building.
o
SDP-91-005 Adwell Infosystems Minor Site Plan Amendment - The applicant requested
approval to remove the existing residential structure, due to structural damage, and
replace it with a new office building totaling 2,500 square feet. The new office building
structurally retained the residential appearance. The Planning Department signed the
amendment on April 4, 1992.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
The applicant is requesting Board of Supervisor's approval to amend conditions 1 and 2 of SP
89-07 Winfried Adler to allow for additional office uses and for an additional 2,500 square feet
of expansion (Section 18.2.2.11 and 18.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance). Attachment D is a copy
of the conditions of Approval for SP 89-07.
STAFF COMMENT:
Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 18.2.2.11,
18.2.2.12, and 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to conditions.
Staff Analysis:
Sections 18.2.2. I1 and 18.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance:
By special use permit, non-residential commercial uses in the R-15 Residential zone are limited
to "Retail stores and shops on a single floor, compatible with the residential characteristics of the
district, with a gross floor area not exceeding four thousand (4,000) square feet". Professional
offices are also provided by special use permit. These provisions are intended to permit limited-
scale commercial uses as convenience to large-scale residential developments, while general
broader-market commercial uses are accommodating in the various commercial districts.
Historically, as was the case with the prior special use permit SP 89-07, staff has recommended
denial whereas limited scale commercial uses are not accommodating to the adjacent large scale
residential developments. During the initial special permit review, staff did not view "computer
systems consulting, sales, and service" as convenience to or supportive of the immediate
residential district. The Board of Supervisors approved the use by determining that the use is
partially supportive of the surrounding residential district, but more importantly the urban area.
The Zoning Administrator has reviewed the applicant's request for additional office uses and has
provided analysis as Attachment E. The Zoning Department encounters difficulty in managing
zoning clearances for a building that has multiple types of uses. Therefore the Zoning
Department can support the applicant's request to allow for additional office uses only, such as
"professional, administrative, or medical offices". Planning Staff concurs with the Zoning
Department's determination and can additionally support this request.
The Zoning Department has also provided analysis regarding the applicant's request to increase
the building size from 2,500 square feet to 5,000 total square feet (Attachment E). "Section 9
allows that in village and neighborhood service areas no single use can exceed 4,000 s.f."
Should the applicant be allowed to expand the building to the requested 5,000 total square feet,
the Zoning Department would have a difficult time trying to ensure that no single tenant exceed
4,000 square feet internal to the building. Therefore, the Zoning Department recommends that
the applicant be allowed to construct an additional 1,500 square feet to allow for an office
building no greater than 4,000 total square feet. Planning Staff finds the Zoning Department's
determination to limit the building's total square footage to 4,000 square feet to be satisfactory
and has incorporated it into the Conditions of Approval (Condition 2).
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 a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property_,
Staff notes that the existing office use has existed in harmony with the adjacent properties for
over seven years. Staff does not view additional office uses as a detriment to the adjacent
properties. Any increase in building size would require site plan approval, and therefore any
adverse relational impacts due to the increase in use can be mitigated at such time.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The proposed site is located in a high-density residential district. An increase in additional office
uses will not change the character of the district. The increase in building square footage may
have a potential impact, on the character of the residential district. Therefore, staff has included a
condition that any additions must be of a similar residential design as the existing building
(Condition 3).
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance of Section 1.4, Section 1.5, and Section 1.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance and finds no conflict.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
As previously stated, the existing office use has existed in harmony with the residential district
for multiple years. Since the current use is limited only to "computer systems consulting, sales
and service", any additional office use may actually be more supportive of the permitted by right
uses in the district. Also, commercial office buildings have been constructed approximately 400
feet north of the subject site. Therefore, staff finds the proposed increase in office use and
building size to be in harmony with other by right uses in this primarily residential district.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance provides no additional regulations.
and with the public health, safe _ty and general welfare.
The Site Review Committee has identified no adverse affect on public health, safety, and general
welfare. The Virginia Department of Transportation [V.D.O.T] has not identified any major
traffic concerns associated with the additional office uses (Attachment F). V. D. O. T. has
indicated that any expansion of the building will likely increase site traffic and therefore
recommends that the current entrance be relocated further away from Rio Road. Any expansion
of the building will warrant a site plan amendment, which at that time V. D. O. T. may provide
additional recommendations or requirements.
Summary:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
Additional professional office uses may be. viewed as more supportive of the surrounding
residential district;
Any addition to the existing office building will be of a similar residential design;
The current use has existed in harmony with the surrounding residential district for over
seven years;
Consistent with Sections 18.2.2.11 and 18.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and,
Consistent with~Section 32.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff has identified the following factor, which is not favorable to this request:
The requested additional 2,500 square feet of office building would increase the total
building square footage to 5,000 square feet, therefore, making it difficult for the Zoning
Department to ensure that no single tenant exceeds the 4,000 square feet limit setforth by
Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has included a condition to limit the total
building square footage to 4,000 square feet (Condition 2).
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval for additional office uses and an addition 1,500 square feet of
building (4,000 total square feet).
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. This permit is issued for professional office use only;
2. Total building square footage shall be limited to 4,000 total square feet;
3. Any additions to the existing building shall be of a similar residential design;
Any additions to the building or site will require Planning Department approval of a site
plan amendment. The adequecy of the entrance location will be reviewed at such time.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Applicant's Special Use Permit Request and Justification
B - Current Site Plan Reduction
C - Tax Map
D - SP 89-07 Winfried Adler Conditions of Approval
E -Zoning Administrator's Memo Dated June 02, 1999
F -V. D. O. T. Comments
- ~.oun[y oI Aloemarle -:. Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
OFFICE U N ~ --
Application for Special Use Permit
*Zo~ngD~ct ~ - I~ , ., *Zo~ngO~inanceSecfionnumberrequ~ted
(*stuff will ~sist you ~i~ ~ items)
Number of ac~ to be c6vered by SpedM Use Pe~it ora ~ a ~m ~ ~.~ ~ ~ao O.
Is thi~ an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a site development plan with thi~ application?
El Yes~o
Contact Person (Whom should we cali/writ~ ¢onoemiag this project?): ~;o]~/ A ~ ~.- ~ ~
Address /~.O. /~o~ '~'~:2.~ . City ~.~~~ State
Daytime Phone ( '~09 ) ~ - ~ ¢~ F~ ~ f~ - ~/~ E-m~l
Zip
Owner of land (As listad in the County's recordO: /n.~/',LJ/'~/~f~.O ,~ ~/'&~&~-~H ~ff/ef
Address ~ ~eff~O~D ~ City ~~/~mte~Zip 227&
Daytime Phone (~) ~ ~~F~ g ~) ~- ~// E-mail
Applicant (Who is the contact person representing? Who is requesting the special usc?):
Address' City
Daytime Phone ( . ) Fax #
._C.~-~ ¢ 4:~lJ 7"~C r
State' Zip __
E-mail
Tax,~apanql p~vel T'~ Pt,. ~1 - t°Ot'ce/ ' / 2. ~A Physical Address (it'assign~)~
Lomtion of prope~y (l~dm~ks, inte~cfions, or ot~r) . _ . [
Do~s th~ owner of this prope~y own (or have any ownership ~nt~rest in) ~]
· ~ose ~ map andp~cel numbers ~ ~
OFFICE USE ONLY ......,-..
Fee amount $ ~' '~ ' ~atc Paid
History: I:l Special Use Permits:
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan?
Check # q95~ Receipt#
[~ ZMAs and Proffers:
Letter of Authorization
401 Mclntire Road -:o Charlottesville, VA 22902 o:- Voice: 296-5832 o:- Fax: 972-4126
, ',TIATTACHMEi~IT, '~ !
· Sec[ion 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, e 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 a finding by the board of supervisors
that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district
will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section
5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete
this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request.
If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation forthis property? ffJY~O~, ,~'~'. 3~:/'~ /r~J't°tSY~'~'~ lr/?t2't/'
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property7 ~)0
I
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property?
d ~ /
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning OrdinanceT
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
What ~didonal regulations provided in S,ction 5.0 of ~e Zoning Ordinance apply to this
How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?
2
.Desqribe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use:
Aaq *-oo
ATTACHMENTS'REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each:
Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it
needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing.
Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal
entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation; partnership
or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to
the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority
to do so.
If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted containing the.owner's written consent to the application.
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
Drawings or conceptual plans, if any.
Additional Information, if any.
I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in
filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
Signature
Printed Name
I? I???
/
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
3
DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
EXISTING..
/ /
, o.~-/
!
PROPOSED
/
/
/
/
/
APPROVED:
~PL&N#I#G AND C~MMURITY DEVELOPMENTF
(ZONING)
(FI~E OFFICIAL~
EROSION CO~ROL LEGEND
~I~EMpORARY GRAVEL ~ ~ ~
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
ATTACHPIENT C -
OF
CHARLOTTESVIM.E
77
~IAOK ~IOUETT, RIVANNA AND
· " RIO DISTRICTS
SECTION 6 t
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Cornrauaity Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804} 296-5823
April 17, i989
ATTACHMENT D J
Mr. Winfried Adler
P. O. Box 7423
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE:
SP-89-07 Winfried Adler
Tax Map 61, Parcel 129A
Dear Mr. Adler:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
April 5, 1989, unanimously approved the above-noted request
to allow computer consulting, sales and service to be
located in an existing single family residence. Property,
located on the west side of Rio Road (Rt. 631) between
Hillsdale and Old Brook Roads. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
This permit is issued for computer systems consulting,
sales and service use only;
Building area limited to 2,500 square feet, to include
maintaining the residential structure;
Access limited to Hillsdale Drive;
Site plan approval to include preservation of mature
trees, to the extent possible.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
~ce~ely, / ~
(.roctor of Plann±ng & Community
Development
Eric MerHsette
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jan Sprinkle
Wednesday, June 02, 1999 5:18 PM
Edc Mordsette
SP 99-30, Adwell
IATTACHMENT E I
To keep enforcement manageable, we would ask that the bu,!lding either be restricted to one type of business, as it is now,
or open to any "professional, administrative or medical office. If there are multiple types of offices, we must be more alert
and careful with each clearance - restricting to simply offices will help.
Regarding the size~ it would help us to use the 4000 square feet maximum so that there is no question of how much space
is for one user. Section 9 allows that in village and neighborhood service areas no single use can exceed 4000 sf. If the
building were allowecl to expand beyond that number, again, we would have to watch more closely the internal space and
never let one user have the entire building. If the building is allowed to expand to 5000sf, please consider adding language
that would allow a single user even though it would be in conflict with neighborhood service areas.
Please note if former conditions 3 and 4 will still apply. Will a site plan amendment or new site plan waiver request be
required? If the building is allowed to expand, the parking requirement will also expand which may require some site plan
approval.
Jan Spdnkle
Chief of Zoning Administration
Albemarle County Building Code and Zoning Services
SDdn kled~albemarle.org
IATTACHMENT F!
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22911
A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
May 27, 1999
June Public Hearing Submittals
Mr. Ron Keeler
Dept. of Planning &Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Keeler
Please find our comments for the June public., hearings listed below:
SP-99-26 Jones Stream Crossing, Route 614 t.~' ' -.~-
No comment at this time for continued farm use.
SP-99-27 RuR Depot, Route 29N
Memhandlse displays are not allowed within US 29 ROW, and should not restrict sight distance
at site entrances along US 29.
SP-99-28 Boat Dock, Balbion Drive (private drive at Route 743)
No comment at this time.
SP-99-29 Michie Tavern, Route 53 - 3C. gL*~'c c,
No comment at this time
SP-99-30 Adwel Infosystems, Route 631
The site entrance must meet VDOT commercial entrance standards.
It appears that the proposed expansion would approximately double the current building size,
with a likely similar increase in site traffic. It is recommended that the current entrance be
relocated farther away from Rio Road.
SP-99-31 Happy Valley Swim & Tennis, Route 743
Access. to any recreation facility must occur along internal site roadways, and must not interfere
with the operation of Happy Valley!s major entrance (proposed Happy Valley Way) along Route
743. We recommend that this recreation facility's entrance not occur along the proposed Happy
Valley Way entrance road.
The HapPy Valley main entrance must adhere to VDOT commercial entrance standards. At this
entrance, a leR mm lane and right turn lane with 200 feet storage and 200 feet taper is required
along Route 743. Two outbound lanes are recommended at this entrance.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Members, Board of Supervisors ..~ ,~_.~
Ella Washington Carey, CMC, CI
Reading List for July 2 I, 1999
July 15, 1999
March I 0 (A), 1997- Ms. Thomas
July I, 1998 ~ Mr. Martin
April 21, t 999 - Ms. Thomas
lewc
I
July 9, 1999
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
Mark Keller
McKee/Carson
301 East High St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
ZMA-99-01 Pantops Place
Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A1 and 55A
Dear Mr. Keller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 6, 1999, indefinitely
deferred the above-noted petition due to unresolved issues.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Senior Planner
EKE/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
~ a ~r) OF SUPERVISORS
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
City Council
P.O. Box 911 · Charlottesville, Virginia · 22902
Telephone (804) 970-3113
July 19, 1999
BOARDOF
Charles Martin
Chair, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
411 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Charles:
Please find attached a copy of our comments provided to the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) on the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway. We attach this letter so that the
Board may have a detailed explanation of our concerns and comments, as this road is a part of
the regional transportation network affecting both City and County.
As you know, there has been considerable discussion of this road and its impact on the
City. Some of this discussion has focused on how the City and the County can better cooperate
on design of the road, and how better to design a regional transportation network for the next
twenty years. With this in mind, we are interested in exploring, with the County, the following
issues:
First, the Council is interested in revisiting the previous CATS and the regional
network of roads. There has been considerable discussion about a "eastern
connector", a "near eastern connector", and other additional roads, both north and
south of the City, that would complete the regional network. The Council is not
committed to any particular road, but is very interested in discussing the regional
network and particularly interested in facilitating better means for traffic to move
from areas north of the City to Pantops and the eastern part of the County-.
o
Second, we wish to explore a further acquiring additional parkland over and
above the acreage necessary to replace land taken for the road. This parkland
could be acquired between the 250 By-Pass and Rio Road, and perhaps all the
way to the Rivanna River. We think that considerable discussion should occur on
this idea, and are willing to commit capital funds to the acquisition of land with
the County to make this concept a reality. Perhaps the City and County should
consider jointly applying for federal grants to supplement and enhance our local
funding of any possible initiative. We are open to a wide variety of approaches,
including the notion of a park land commission and/or a model similar to the
Towe Park City/County arrangement.
Page Two
July 19, 1999
Third, in its letter to VDOT, the City states that it may hire a technical consultant
to monitor design and construction of the City portion of the Meadowcreek
Parkway. We think that it might be useful for the City and the County to
cooperate in the hiring of a consultant and setting forth a charge that includes
design consultation for the County portion of the road. In that way, we would get
some consistency of design and be better able to integrate the County and the City
portion of the road. We do not wish to slow construction of the road but instead
improve its design.
Fourth, the City has requested that VDOT give up any right that it may have to
facilitate the construction of cellular towers in and along the right-of-way for the
Parkway. Given Albemarle's previous position on these matters, we thought it
might be appropriate for us to join together in setting forth our concern about cell
towers in the right-of-way, and to jointly seek agreement with VDOT on this
issue.
Fifth, we are concerned about how the County portion of the road integrates with
the City portion, particularly at Melbourne Road. It is in the interest of both the
City and the County to have safe pedestrian access across the road at that point.
Consequently, we would ask that you join with us to approach VDOT about that
critical intersection.
We appreciate your interest in working with us on the above matters and eagerly await
your responses with your suggestions as to how to move forward.
Sincerely,
Virginia Daugherty
Mayor
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Office of the Mayor
P.O. Box 911 · Charlottesville, Virginia · 22902
Telephone (804) 970-3113
July 20, 1999
Scott Hollis
Reginald H. Beasley, Jr.
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219-1939
Re: Mclntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway)
VDOT Project No. U000-104-102; 0631-002-128
City of Charlottesville
Gentlemen:
Preliminary road plans presented by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT),
propose four motor vehicle travel lanes crossing the eastern portion of Mclntire Park at a design
speed of 70km/hr (43.5 MPH). VDOT sought public comment on this proposal at a hearing held
May 27, 1999. We have been given the right to submit written comment in behalf of the City.
This letter is delivered to VDOT only after Council has received considerable input from
many of its citizens about this project, before, during, and after a public hearing held by Council on
June 21, 1999. We also have carefully reViewed the work of the City's consultant, a report done by
Rieley and Associates entitled "A Study of Roadway Alternatives for the Meadow Creek Parkway
in Mclntire Park" dated April 27, 1999, (hereinafter "the Rieley Report"). An extra copy of that
report is enclosed for VDOT's reference. The City's formal position or comment, item by item, for
which there is majority support of this Council, is as follows:
1, Design Speed. Each and every member of Council opposes the roadway design speed proposed
by VDOT of 70 km/hr. Instead, Council asks that the Meadow Creek Parkway be designed for a
maximum speed of 6Okm/hr or 37.25 MPH. In conjunction with its suggestion to lower the road's
design speed, Council also asks that the proposed road be sized and aligned in a manner consistent
with the Rieley Report so that the road will be "blended as gracefully as possible into the existing
land form." This should help to reduce the project's impact on Mclntire Park.
2. Number of Lanes. Council requests that two (2) primary (north-south) motor vehicle travel lanes,
rather than four (4), be constructed (between the 250 By-pass and Rio Road). The footprint for the
Scott Hollis
Reginald H. Beasley, Jr.
RE: Meadow Creek Parkway
July 20, 1999
Page 2
Parkway acquisition must have a centerline, curves, and size to match approximately the "study
alignment" referred to in the Rieley Report as 4-Lane Divided (4-D), pp. 4-5, If and when a future
City Council were to approve an additional two lanes, new primary travel lanes could then be
constructed with a minimum of disruption to the Park, its landscape, and greenery and at lower costs
for the State and the City.
3. Sufficient Right, of-Way for Four (4) Lanes. Right of way for four (4) lanes of motor vehicle
travel should be acquired at the outset as part of the current project.
4. The Intersection at Route 250. Proper design of this intersection is critical if this project is to
succeed without considerable damage to the Park. In our opinion, any final design has to include
a tightly drawn intersection with a relatively small footprint. The initial VDOT design is far too
large. We believe that the total number of lanes created by the intersection should not exceed
seventeen (17).
Access for pedestrians and bicycle travel to Mclntire Park through and around the proposed
intersection from the south and east also must be accommodated at grade in an effective manner for
the intersection to work as we desire.
5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel. Council endorses the construction of dedicated "on road" bicycle
lanes on each side of the Parkway' s north-south travel lanes to serve high speed cyclists. In addition
and in accord with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (the MPO ) recommendation, Council
also supports construction of a shared pedestrian/bicycle path much like the one proposed by the
YDOT design, but eight rather than five feet in width.
6. A New Lake or Pond for the Park. Combination of the storm water management facilities into one
pond or "lake", as inthe Rieley report, makes sense to all of us. The City will do everything within
reason to expand this concept in cooperation with VDOT. Everyone will benefit, park and outdoors
enthusiasts, and motorists using the Parkway.
7. Additional Park Land. The City respectfully requests that VDOT acquire and donate to the City
and County, as part of this project opportunity, the greatest amount of additional land as is possible
north and south of Melbourne Road. Our objectives are several. These include replacing any park
land losses resulting from this project, enhancing and expanding the northern and eastern sides of
Mclntire Park, and joining with the County in seeing that park land north of Melbourne, through a
linear park or otherwise, becomes a reality before acquisition of additional land in that location
becomes occupied or too expensive. These acquisitions should be made easier through VDOT's use
of money saved from.the City's requested design changes, including those seeking a reduced design
Scott Hollis
Reginald H. Beasley, dr.
RE: Meadow Creek Parkway
July 20, 1999
Page 3
speed, two rather than four lanes, and combination of the storm water detention facilities.
8. Cell Towers. To supplement its reVenues, VDOT has begun leasing portions of the public rights-
of-way that VDOT now "owns" - property originally acquired solely for traditional road system
purposes. Such leases transfer long term use of various sites to private companies who then construct
wireless telecommunication towers ("Cell toWers'') on the sites along our highways.
Cell towers are just as unsightly as billboards, perhaps more so, because they are larger or taller
or both. Yet, construction of these towers continues to proliferate in Virginia. This new cell tower-
highway program has occurred without any local government zoning or land use oversight or
permission, and without any meaningful opportunity for the public to participate in deciding where
the next tower will appear. For these reasons, the City is opposed to any construction of such towers
anywhere along Phase I of this project without the express permission of this Council and the Board
of Supervisors of Albemarle County. We wish to see VDOT's agreement to this local government
involvement memorialized in a formal document as the project moves forward.
9. Limited Access. Council endorses the concept ora limited access Parkway for this road as it travels
through Mclntire Park. It should be engineered for passenger traffic only, and signed to prevent truck
traffic. Council chooses not to recommend fencing the right of way as is conventional in many limited
access highways. As the Rieley Report indicates, "with the lower speed design and the objective of
making this roadway as much a part of the park as is possible" fencing is not "necessary or desirable".
10. Regional Transportation and The Eastern Connector. While the Council supports construction of
a two lane version of the Meadow Creek Parkway as described in this letter, Council has no interest
in this Parkway's becoming a de facto "eastern connector", i.e., being used by the public to travel
from Route 29 North to Pantops-Route 20 North. The Parkway should be viewed as only one part
of the regional transportation solution. We urge VDOT, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and
the County,of Albemarle to develop new regional approaches to solve our traffic problems.
11. The MPO Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory_ Committee. This Committee is commended
by Council for its extensive work on the preliminary Parkway designs heretofore put forward by
VDOT. We urge VDOT to continue to work with this Committee to ensure "that the road is
compatible with the community's natural and built environment, and enhances the multi-modal
mobility for area residents". To the extent that the Advisory Committee needs assistance in the future
from the City in these continuing efforts, the City may hire a technical consultant to monitor design
and construction, and seeks VDOT cooperation in addressing legitimate concerns of this Council and
City staff as the process moves forward.
Scott Hollis
Reginald It. Beasley, Jr.
RE:' Meadow Creek Parkway
July 20, 1999
Page 4
12. Vietnam War Memorial. As final design plans evolve, proper measures must be taken by VDOT
in cooperation with the City to protect, preserve, and care for the War Memorial which currently is
located on a hill in Mclntire Park near the proposed intersection of the ParkwaY and the 250 By-Pass.
The foregoing items - one by one -are each in their own right important, crucial, elements in
any final design that the City and this Council will support. These components were coupled together
in order for Council to build a consensus. To the extent that the City has any right, by law or
practice, to approve the final design, we ask and expect that VDOT will remember this linkage.
Finally, if there are questions that VDOT has about Council's position as stated in this letter,
please let us know, through contact with City staff or directly. We stand ready to cooperate with
VDOT in moving this project from the proverbial drawing board to construction.
Sincerely yours,
Virginia Daugherty
Mayor
CC:
Donald R. Askew, District Administrator, Culpeper
Carter Myers
From: Kevin Cox [kpc4p@virginia.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 1:34 PM
To: ecarey@albemarle.org
Subject: City Council, Meadowcreek Parkway
Dear Ella,
Please pass this letter on to the members of the Board of Supervisors.
Thanks,
Kevin Cox
To the members of The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
I attended the meeting of The Charlottesville City Council on Monday July 19. Here is a brief
summary of the discussion that took place concerning the Meadowcreek Parkway. It was very
anti-climatic. Mayor Daugherty summarized the letter to VDOT outlining the City's formal position
on the MCP and made the motion to approve. David Toscano seconded it. Mayor Daugherty
asked if there was any discussion and no one said a word! There was a long pause, everyone in
the room waited for Maurice Cox or Blake Caravati to say something and they stayed silent as
stones. Meredith Richards and Mayor Daugherty asked if they were certain that they didn't have
anything to say and they said nothing. The vote was called and it was 3 to 2 in favor of the road.
City Council also wrote a letter to the Albemarle BOS and enclosed a copy of the letter to VDOT.
David Toscano introduced the letter to the County, saying that it was necessary to write since the
road also goes through Albemarle. He then summarized the five points in the letter, a motion was
made and seconded to send it and a brief discussion ensued. Blake Caravati asked if the City
would pay the enire cost of hiring a technical consultant for the City's MCP Design Advisory.
Committee if the County balked at sharing the cost. David Toscano answered that since Council
had agreed in the work session that they wanted a technical consultant then they would pay the
whole cost if necessary. Maurice Cox made a few bitter comments including, "You have already
given away the future of that Park." and, Our silence is in frustration that we haven't changed your
minds. Referring to the plan to build the MCP he said, "We hope that it will change in the future."
He did not give any clues as to how he might try and make that hope come true.
The letter to VDOT has 12 points. They are:
1 City Council opposes a design speed of 70km/hr and requests that the MCP be designed for
60km/hr and that the road be sized and aligned in a manner consistent with the Rieley
Report.
2. Council request that a 2 lane rather than a 4 lane road be built and that the footprint for the 2
lane road match Rieley's 4 lane design.
3. Right of way for 4 lanes should be acquired at the outset.
4. States Council's opinion and belief that the intersection with 250 must be a tight intersection
with no more than 17 lanes.
5. Endorses bike lanes o.n the road and a shared pedestrian/bike path that is 8' wide rather than
5' as shown in VDOT's plan.
6. Supports construction of a lake in the Park.
7. "The City respectfully requests that VDOT acquire and donate to the City and County, as part
of this project opportunity, the greastest amount of additional land as is possible north and
south of Melbourne Road." The letter suggests that this can be feasible through VDOT's use
of money saved from the change in design from VDOT's larger road to Rieley's smaller one.
8. Requests that VDOT give up any right to unilaterally approve any new cell towers in the MCP
right of way and that the City have authority over cell towers.
9. Supports the construction of the MCP as a limited access highway with signs to prevent truck
traffic.
10. Titled, "Regional Transportation and The Eastern Connector" this point supports the
development of "new regional approaches to solve our traffic problems."
11. Requests that VDOT continue to work with the Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory
Committee. The City may hire a technical consultant to monitor design and construction if the
MCP Design Advisory Committee needs it.
12. Encourages VDOT "to protect, preserve, and care for the War Memorial which currently is
located on a hill in Mclntire Prk near the proposed intersection of the Parkway and the 250
Bypass."
Here is a summary of the five points in the letter to the County:
1. Mentions an eastern connector and other additional roads that could be part of a regional
network. Doesn't support any specific roads but does voice support for a "better means for
traffic to move from areas north of the City to Pantops and the eastern part of the County."
2. Expresses the Council's interest in acquiring additional parkland "over and above the acreage
necessary to replace land taken for the road." Suggests that the Park run all the way to "Rio
Road and possibly to the Rivanna River." States that the City is "willing to commit Capital
funds to the acquisition of land with the County to make this concept a reality."
3. Suggests that the City and County "cooperate in the hiring of a consultant and setting forth a
charge that includes design consultation for the COunty portion of the road. In that way, we
would get some consistency of design and be better able to integrate the County and the City
portion of the road. We do not wish to slow construction of the road but instead improve its
design."
4. Requests that the County join the City in requesting that VDOT give up any right to build cell
towers in the MCP right of way.
5. Expresses concern over the safety of pedestrians at the intersection of the MCP with
Melbourne Road and asks the to "join with us to approach VDOT about that critical
intersection,
Thank You,
Kevin Cox
David R Bowerman
Chadotte Y. Humphris
COUNTY OF ,~i REMA~I .E
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Vh'ginia 22902.4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
July 22, 1999
Charles S. Martin
Waiter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
The Honorable Virginia Daugherty, Mayor
City of Charlottesville
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Fire Services Contract
Dear Virginia:
The Board of Supervisors has received the Notice of Termination dated July 20, 1999 terminating the Fire
Services Contract effective June 30, 2000. The County continues to believe that cooperation between the
City and County is important to provide the most effective fire services for the community. We are
encouraged that the City is considering our proposal for the firefighters with the assistance of a mediator,
if needed, to examine how fire service delivery should be structured and provided. However, to allow this
proposal to work, adequate time must be given to the professionals examining this complex issue.
To prov/de time for good faith negotiations, we propose that the City rescind its Notice of Termination.
In return, the County is agreeable to amend the Fire Service Contract to allow the Contract to be
terminated on June 30, 2000 if notice of termination is given by December 31, 1999. This will allow the
City and County additional time to explore a mutually agreeable solution before either party must
affirmatively act to terminate the Contract.
Please advise as soon as possible whether City Council is receptive to this approach.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/md
99.014
XB/"oard of Supervisors
Chiefs & Captains
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. Larry W. Davis, Esq.
Mr. Carl J. Pumphrey
Printed on recycled paper
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Office of the City Manager
P.O. Bor~ 911 · Charlottesville, Virginia · 22902
Telephone (804) 970-3101
Fax (804) 970-3890
July 20, 1999
Robert Tucker, County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
By certified mail
Notice of Termination
Dear Bob:
Pursuant to Paragraph (6) of the City/County Fire Service Contract (the "Fire Service
Contract") dated May 16, 1986, the City hereby notifies the County of Albemarle that the City will
terminate the existing Fire Service Contract at the end of this fiscal year, June 30, 2000. Fire
protection services delivered by the City to the County under that contract will cease at that time.
We appreciate working with the County over the years, but, as you know, based on our past
correspondence and efforts at working out a new, longer term arrangement, we now know that a new
agreement will not be forthcoming by July 30th, which is the end of the term for notification. This
Notice still leaves the localities with almost 12 months to reach a new agreement before the existing
contract ends. We are encouraged by the County's latest proposal for a firefighter committee
utilizing a mediator, and we think that can be productive. Since the current year-to-year contract
leaves both parties without the ability to do any effective long range planning, City Council remains
open to these future discussions. This notice is intended to keep open all options for the City
Council, but a mutually agreeable long-term contract is our continuing desire. Under certain terms
and conditions, Council may consider rescinding this Notice prior to July 30, 1999.
Sincerely,
City
3~Connell
{anager
CC:
City Council
Clyde Gouldman
Chief Julian Taliaferro
COUNTY OF ALBEM3~P. LE
EX~CU't'iVE