Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-10 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 10, 1999 February 11, 1999 Call to Order. AGENDA ITEM/ACTION Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Kevin Cox presented a set of petitions and asked the Board to fund public bus service to the Pantops Shopping Center. (He did not leave the petitions.) Mr. Bowerman said he thought there was supposed to be bus service to Walmart, but he understands that the service only goes to Lowes. North Garden Volunteer Fire Company Service Agreement. APPROVED. SP-98-66. University Montessori (Sign #63). APPROVED subject to conditions recommended by Planning commission. SP-96-67. Charlottesville Catholic School (Sign #64). APPROVED subject to conditions recommended by Planning Commission. Carter's Bridge and Lanark A/F Districts. ADOPTED Ordinance to add acreage to each district. Ms. Thomas asked what staff was doing to encourage more people to join A/F districts and the status of the new brochure. ZMA-98-12. Forest Lakes South - Minor Amendment (Signs #4,5,19&92). SP-98-46. Springridge Stream Crossing (Sign #96). ZMA-98-13. Springridge PRD (Sign #14). DEFERRED until May 12, 1999 (this is the date SP-99-02, Springridge Stream Crossing, is scheduled for the Board). Ms. Thomas again mentioned the need for better quality maps induded with the staff reports. Statement for 1999 Primary Road Plan Preallocation Public Hearing in Culpeper. ADOPTED with changes, for presentation by the Chairman on March 15~. Mr. Tucker indicated that the starting time of the Board's March 15 budget work session may need to be changed due to the preallocation hearing in Culpeper. ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m., by Mr. Tucker. (All Board members were )resent.) County Executive staff: Provide information during budget work sessions. County Attorney: Forward agreement to County Executive for signature. Cleric Forward in action letter to Planning Department and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward in action letter to Planning Department and copy appropriate persons. Cleric Forward in action letter to Planning Department and memo to County Attorney's office for inclusion with next update of County Code. Cleric Forward in action letter to Planning Department and copy appropriate persons. Cleric Forward in action letter to Planning Department and include recommended changes. Planning staff: Prepare final statement to go on March 3rd agenda. Find out where Albemarle County is on the list for the hearing Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas said there will be a workshop on Route 29, Phase II and Phase III, south of Charlottesville to the North Carolina border, on March 5, from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., in the Department of Forestry Building. Ms. Thomas said she received an opportunity to talk about our Sustainability Council on March 22. The Board is scheduled to have a budget work session. She asked if this date could be changed. There was not a consensus by the Board to change this date. APPOINTED Mr. Gordon Gledhill to the Route 250 East Corridor Study Advisory Committee. Cleric Prepare appointment letter for Chairman's signature and update Boards and Commission's book. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Carey, February 11, 1999 Board Actions of February 10, 1999 At its meeting on February 11, 1999, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Item No. 5.2. SP-98-61. Triton Communications (deferred from February 3, 1999) DEFERRED SP-98-61 until February 17, 1999. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-98-66. University Montessori (Sign #65). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow expansion of existing daycare on 1.775 acs from 37 children to 44 in accord w/ '15.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for day care, child care or nursery facility w/a special use permit. Loc at 1034 Reservoir Rd (Rt 702) approx 1,800' from inter of Rts 702 & 29. Znd R-4. TM76,P1 SA. Samuel Miller Dist. APPROVED SP-98-66 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Enrollment shall be limited to forty-four (44) children; Approval from the Health Department of septic system adequate to serve this expanded use; Not fewer than two (2) employees shall be present at all times during operation of day care center; Fire Office approval to include compliance with all requirements and recommendations listed in the December 22, 1989 letter to Michele Mattioli from Jay Schlothauer (Attachment E); Compliance with Virginia Department of Transportation comments of February 20, 1990 (Attachment F) and VDOT's comments dated December 16, 1998 (Attachment D); Staff approval and recordation of plat showing required sight easements within ninety (90) days from approval from the Board of Supervisors. Removal of existing vegetation to the west to improve sight line; Compliance with Sect/on 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to Mkmo To: V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February I 1, 1999 Page 2. notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non- compliance of this ordinance; b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance; c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to predude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state, or federal agency. The A-frame is limited to single-family, residential use. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-67. Charlottesville Catholic School (Sign #64). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow a shifting of improvements from the original SP plan in accord w/ '15.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for private schools in R-4 zones. Property containing 17 acs is loc at 655 Rio Road E (Rt 631) approx 0.10 mis from inter of Rio Road & Penn Park Lane (Rt 768). TM61A, P29. Znd R-4. Rio Dist. APPROVED sp-98-67 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: The site plan shall conform generally to the conceptual plan, dated January 13, 1999, submitted with this petition. Relationships of recreational areas to property boundaries, buildings to recreational areas, and provision of pedestrian access parallel to Rio Road and from Rio Road into the parcel shall be maintained. Pedestrian access shall be provided from parking lots to the school buildings; Enrollment will be limited to not more than 600 students; Use of temporary units is allowed until permanent facilities are constructed. A full site development plan will be required for the facility regardless of the use of temporary units or permanent construction; A walkway or pedestrian path will be provided with the first phase of the proiect, if the County is able to fund adjoining connections to Pen Park Lane and Pen Park Road. If such connections cannot be made at that time, then the school will bond pathway improvements to be constructed by the school when the County is able to fund the adjoining connections. If those improvements have not been constructed by completion of the second entrance to the school, the bond will be released and the pathway not installed; and Screening meeting Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be provided where driveways and parking areas shown on the site are adjacent to residences. Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of The Code of The County of Albemarle, Virginia: a) §3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal Dist, to add 42.0 acs. Loc off Rt 708 near Blenheim. Property is designated RA in Comp Plan & Land Use Plans, and is zoned RP~ TM114,P68. Scottsville Dist. b) §3-221, Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District, to add 39.71 acs. Loc at inter of Rts 627 & 795. Property is designated RA in Comp Plan & Land Use Plan. Znd 1LA_ TM103,Pds43L&43L1. Scottsville Dist. M~mo To: V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February 11, 1999 Page 3. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Agenda Item No. ZMA-98-12. Forest Lakes South- Minor Amendment (Signs #4,5,19&92). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to modify the area shown on the original application plan as a pedestrian trail to permit construction of public or private road. Property is comprised of the residue of TM47-97A1 &portion of TM46BS,P1. Loc at end of Powell Creek Drive on E side of Hollymead Lake dam. Znd Forest Lakes South PUD. In the Hollymead Community, it is recom for neighborhood density of 3-6 du/ac. Rivanna Dist. Agenda Item No. SP-98-46. Springridge Stream Crossing (Sign #96). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow stream crossing over Powell Creek to serve proposed Springridge PRD. Loc immediately downstream (E) of Hollymead Dam. Znd. R-1. TM46,P35. Rivanna Dist. Agenda Item No. ZMA-98-13. Springridge PRD (Sign #14). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone 75 acs from R-I& RA to PRD. TMP46,P35. The PRD is a planned residential community w/a proposed density of 135 homes, which may be a mix of single-family detached, single- fanfily attached, and townhouses. Should Springridge be developed as all single family detached, the max # of houses will not exceed 100, of which 50 will be small (< or = 70' wide) lots. Loc adjacent to the neighborhoods along Copper Knoll Drive, Echo Ridge, & Ridgefield in the Forest Lakes North development Access would be provided from Timberwood Parkway. Existing use of property is vacant, & the Comp Plan shows this property to be of a neighborhood density (3-6 du/ac) & RA (1 du/ac). Proposed density is 1.8 du/ac. Rivanna Dist. DEFERRED ZMA-98-12, SP-98-46 and ZMA-98-13 until May 12, 1999 (this is the date SP- 99-02, Springridge Crossing, is scheduled to be heard by the Board). This deferral is to allow staff time to study the implications of a connection to Timberwood only; and to get information on the vote taken by the Forest Lakes Homeowners Assodation in March. Agenda Item No. 12. Albemarle County Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan - Statement for 1999 Primary Road Plan Preallocation Public Hearing in Culpeper (deferred from February 3, 1999). ADOPTED the statement with the following recommended changes: Page 1, Ist paragraph, "ISTEA' should be "TEA-21 "... Page 1, Item # 1, 5~ line, "The Parkway is the County's next highest priority..." needs to be reworded to clarify. Also include a statement that this is the 8~' year the County has requested funding for the Parkway. Page 2, Item #2, "The Route 29 North Corridor...' should read "The Route 29 Phase I Corridor...' The next to the last sentence, "The Route 29 South Corridor...' should read, "The Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor ..." Page 2, Item #5, restate to make more specific, possibly include parenthesis to indicate which roads we are talking about. Page 3, bottom of page, Item #2, "... and the 1-64 interchange at Fifth Street" should read "... and the 1-64 interchange ramps at Fifth Street". Ms. Thomas asked that a reference be made to mass transit. She suggested that there be some shifting of funds for this purpose. M~mo To: V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February II, 1999 Page 4. Page 3, Item # 1, last line stating "Residents have raised concerns ..." should be made stronger since the residents are not the only ones who are concerned. Mr. Cilimberg suggested the sentence read: "There is great concern with the safety of walking along this segment as currently constructed." The final statement will be put back on the March 3, 1999 consent agenda. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Ms. Thomas said there will be a workshop on Route 29, Phase II and Phase III, south of Charlottesville to the North Carolina border, on March 5, from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., in the Department of Forestry Building. Ms. Thomas said she received an opportunity to talk about our Sustainability Council on March 22. The Board is scheduled to have a budget work session. She asked if this date could be changed. There was not a consensus by the Board to change this date. APPOINTED Mr. Gordon Gledhill to the Route 250 East Corridor Study Advisory Committee. Agenda Item N°. 15. Adjourn. At 9:06 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. /ewc Attachments CC: Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Sharon Taylor Jan Sprinkle John Grady Dan Mahon Janice Farrar File SERVICE AGREEMENT SUPERVISORS THIS AGREEMENT, made this t').-~a day of F~: ~ u t~/t 7' ,1999, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, (the "County"), and the NORTH GARDEN VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the "Fire Department"). WHEREAS, the Fire Department agrees to continue to provide valuable fire protection services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Operations Center ("Service Area"); and WHEREAS, the Fire Department desires the County to contribute Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for the addition and expansion of the fire department building in said Service Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the County and Fire Department agree, as follows: 1. The County shall contribute to the Fire Department Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) to be used for the addition and expansion of the fire department building in Albemarle County. The funds shall be allocated from the County's Fire Fund ("Fund") and shall be made available upon execution of this agreement. 2. The Fire Department agrees that the County will withhold Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars and Thirty-Three Cents ($13,333.33 ) from the County's annual appropriation to the Fire Department's operating budget beginning July 1, 1999, and ending after a final withholding in the amount of Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars and Thirty-Eight Cents ($13,333.38) in July 2013. Thus at the end of fifteen (15) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of $200,000 shall be withheld. This withholding may be used by the County to replenish the Fund for so long as the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding shall be in addition to the withholding pursuant to the preexisting December 1995 Service Agreement. 3. The Fire Department agrees that the Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) contribution shall be used only for the addition and expansion of the fire department building located at 4907 Plank Road, North Garden, Virginia 22959, in the Service Area in Albemarle County. The Fire Department further agrees that said land and improvements shall not be sold, encumbered, or otherwise transferred prior to July 1, 2013 without the express written consent of the County. In addition, the Fire Department agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to the property shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the property or the improvements thereon unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such proceeds. 4. The Fire Department agrees that at any time it no longer provides voluntary fire protection services in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey all of its interest in the property described in paragraph 3, including all appurtenances thereto and improvements thereon, to the County at no additional cost to the County upon the County's request. 5. The County and Fire Department agree that the covenants set forth in their prior agreements dated May 7, 1987, September 14, 1988, March 22, 1993, and December 6, 1995, to the extent they are not in conflict with this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to the Fire Department, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Fire Department. 2 Wimess the following signatures and seals. Date Date Approved as to Form: z5555~nty ~mey ALBI COMPANY, INC. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing instrument was signed and sworn to and acknowledged before me this day of ~ ~.~x,t.-. ,1999 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr. My Commission Expires: Not~'y Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing instrument was signe~ and sworn to and acknowledged before me this //dc day of . ~4~'.e.~'-aXa_k,c~.-. 1999 by John Shif~flett. ~ar~ Pt~blic My Commission Expires: ~Y C6~n-~-'Exps.~2001 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ::~-'!-:*".'~ ~:?~'~: ~'~ AGENDA TITLE: North Garden Volunteer Fire Company Service Agreement SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREQUEST: Approval of North Garden Volunteer Fire Company Service Agreement to allocate $200,000 from Fire Fund. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker/Huff/Davis AGENDA DATE: ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Service Agreement REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The North Garden Volunteer Fire Company wishes to obtain $200,000 from the County's Fire Fund to use for the addition and expansion of its .fire station. DISCUSSION: A Service Agreement to provide the terms for the use of the Fire Fund has been executed by North Garden. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Service Agreement on behalf of the County. 99.020 January 11, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax 1804) 972 - 4035 Michele Mattioli University Montessori School 1034 Reservior Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 SP-98-66 University Montessori School Tax Map 76, Parcel 15A CORRECTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE Dear Ms. Mattioli: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 5, 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. Enrollment shall be limited to 44 children. 2. Approval from the Health Department of septic system adequate to serve this expanded use. 3. Not fewer than 2 employees shall be present at all times during operation of day care center; Fire Office. approval to include compliance with all requirements and recommendations listed in the December 22, 1989 letter to Michele Mattioli from Jay Schlothauer (Attachment E); 5. Compliance with Virginia Department of Transportation comments of February 20, 1990 (Attachment F) and VDOT's comments dated December 16, 1998(Attachemnt D); Staff approval and recordation of plat showing reqUired sight easements within 90 days from approval from the Board of Supervisors. Removal of existing vegetation to the west to improve sight line. Page 2 January 11, 1999 7. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance of this ordinance; b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance; c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state, or federal agency. 8. The A-frame is limited to single-family, residential use. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on February 10~ 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, ,-~ ~,.,, Transportation Planner JW/jcf CC: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JUANDIEG O WADE JANUARY 5, 1998 FEBRUARY 13, 1998 SP 98-66 UNIVERSITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to increase enrollment from 37 to 44. The University Montessori School is currently a pre-school. Petition: Proposal to amend an approved Special Use Permit to increase the number of children they serve from 37 to 44 (Attachment A). This use requires a special use permit in accord with the provisions of Section 10.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 1SA and consists of 1.775 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. This site is located on the north side of Route 702, three-tenths ora mile west of U.S. Rt. 29 Bypass in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District (Attachment B & C) and in Urban Neighborhood Six. Character of the Area: The character of the area can be described as rural residential. Across from the school is a church and on each side are homes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning History~: In March 1990 the applicant was granted a special use permit for a daycare at this site with conditions. Comprehensive Plan: This area is located in Urban Neighborhood Six. STAFF COMMENT: 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 has visited the site and is of the opinion that there will be no detrimental impact on the surrounding uses. The seven additional children will generate a maximum of 14 additional vehicle trips per day. Staff does not believe this traffic increase creates a substantial detriment. The most current traffic count (1992) on this section of road is 1,792. This section of Route 702 is paved. The number of teachers will remain the same. The hours of operation will remain the same. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The character of the district should not be changed in any way. The building has been in existence for many years and used as a pre-school. The surrounding properties should not experience any changes in character. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6. Staff finds no conflict with these provisions of the ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The operation of a pre-school is permitted in this district with a special use permit. This use should not conflict with by-right uses as it will remain in the same building. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.1.06 of the ordinance provides regulations for day care and nursery facilities. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff has not identified any component of this proposal which is inconsistent with the public health, safety and general welfare. The Health Department must approve the septic system to insure it can handle the additional usage. The applicant and staff have been working with the Health Department. Based on theses conversation and meetings, staff anticipates the Health Department's approval. The site is connected to public water. VDOT's comments can be found on Attachment D. VDOT requested the applicant to record a sight line easement and improve sight line to the west by removing existing vegetation. The applicant has obtained the sight line easement, but it has not been recorded. SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to change from one class of 12 two-year olds and one class of 25 three-to-six year olds to two classes of 22 three-to-six year olds for a total of 44 children. This will allow them to better meet the community needs. Staff has identified the following factor(s) which is favorable to this request: The applicant will not be expanding the building. The site has been used as a preschool for many years. There will be minimal impact on traffic. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 1, Enrollment shall be limited to 44 children. 2. Approval from the Health Department of septic system adequate to serve this expanded use. 3. Not fewer than 2 employees shall be present at all times during operation of day care center; Fire Office approval to include compliance with all requirements and recommendations listed in the December 22, 1989 letter to Michele Mattioli from Jay Schlothauer (Attachment E); 5. Compliance with Virginia Department of Transportation comments of February 20, 1990 (Attachment F) and VDOT's comments dated December 16, 1998(Attachemnt D); Staff approval and recordation of plat showing required sight easements within 90 days from approval from the Board of Supervisors. Removal of existing vegetation to the west to improve sight line. 7. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance of this ordinance; b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance; c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state, or federal agency. 9. The A-frame is limited to single-family, residential use. ATTACHMENTS: A- Application B - Location Map C - Tax Map D - VDOT comments E - Letter from Department of Inspections F - VDOT 1990 comments AAsp9866 report, doc "Cotinty of Albemarle ':'Department of Building Code and 7_ [OFFICF. USE ()N[,~ ,~ / ATTACHMENT A .. i~.,,, .... _;.9,_~. ~_ ~ ........... ~m,, ~ '~ (- o~__ _~_ ~ .9 ,~ -~ .... I ng Mag. Dist. -~ L,, 'iTM Date Tax map and parcel -~:_2 I';,~ ./i Application for Special Use Permit ....... , ................... *Existing Use ~ L{ *ZoningOrdimmcc Section number requested *Zoning District (*staff will assist you with these items) [ Are you sulmnlhng a rote develol)menl l)hm with this .q)l)hcahon. ~Yes~ u~ .... ~ 1 ............................. ""'~"~:FV~-~-~-( Daytime Phone ( %Oq ) q qq -.Oqg 5 Fax ~ q qD-~ffg 5 E-mail ' o'~ Fax # E-mail Applicant (W ho is fl,c c,mtact person ,'cprcscnling? W ho is ,'cqucsti.g the special usc?): DaytimePhone(r}Cq) ;~q.-~¢'g3 Fax~ 4q"t~°583 E-mail Physical Address ~ifassigned) Location of property (landmarks, inlcrscctmns,or other) Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abt, tting property'?. If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers OFFICI,; USE ()NI,Y ,':~e ,,,,,,,,,,,, $ ~ t'~ pc, rote ,..,id II. l U'cI~ Check ~1 Variallces: Concurrent review of Site l)cvclopmenl Phm'! CI t.ctter of ..,~allhorization L.l Yes LM"No 401 Mclntire Road + Charlottesville. VA 22902 + Voice: 296-5832 ':' Fax: 972-4126 Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "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, 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 ir~formation 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 dcsigwttion for dfis property'? Flow will the proposed special usc affccl adjacent property'? _% How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property'? How is thc use in harmony with the purpose anti intent of thc Zoning Ordinance? How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district'? What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use'? How will this use promote the public health, safety, anti general wellhre of the community'? 2 Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, ant! any unique features of the. use: 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 inlbrmation - 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. Ii' 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, it' 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 · //[jo(, /¢r/g Date Daytime phone number of Signatory 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depl. o~ Planning & Communily Development 401 Mclntire [{(:,ad Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 March 28, 1990 Anti-Inflamatory Drug Study Group c./o Pharm Research Associates 1290 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22901-1736 RE: SP-90-01 Michele Mattioli Tax Map 76, Parcel 15A Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on March 21, 1990, unanimously approved the above-noted request to allow a day care to be located on 1.775 acres zoned R-4, Residential. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 702, three-tenths of a mile west of the U.S. Rt. 29 Bypass. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Enrollment shall be limited to 37 children; 2. Not fewer than 2 employees shall be present at all times during operation of day care center; 3. Fire Office approval to include compliance with all requirements and recommendations listed in the December 22, 1989 letter to Michele Mattioli from Jay Schlotahuer (copy attached); 4. Compliance with Virginia Department of Transportation comments of February 20, 1990; 5. Staff approval of plat showing required sight easements; Health Department approval of septic system: Connection to public water; Anti-Inflamatory Drug Study Group Page 2 March 28, 1990 Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: bo c° No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance of this ordinance; Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance; These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state, or federal agency. Staff approval of final site plan to be in general accord with sketch plan prepared by Frederick Schneider dated January ].8, 1990. Staff may recommend additional plantings and relocation of recreation area at the time of final site plan review. 10. The A-frame is limited to single-family, residential US~. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, VWC/j cw cc: Michele M~ttioli Richard Morlng Kathy Dodson Jay Schlotahuer Jeff Echols TIll5 IS 1'O CEI~IIFY ll,IAT OH ,! A N i~ .4 h Y I 2 . 9 Il, I . I SUi'I,VEYE[) Tl,lE PI{OPERTY SIIOWN OH Tills PLAT AND TIIAf fill':' I'ITLE I. INE'S AND '¢IAI. I.S OF Tl,l~ [lLJll DINGS ARE SIIOWN 1ll¥{1~/9,,,~,,'~ ., /'"~ /"! P A R C E L c al ~ : f : 50' P !t Y ~ I C A [. S U I',~ V E Y .$ I O W I N O I 5 A O N S H [-.: E T 7 6 C O U N T Y A t. t~ E M A R L. E C 0 H N T Y v I p G N I P, B. AUBfJEY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. CIVIl ['N(UN[:I:I]IN(;, - lAND ',-;IJFIVEYIN(~ - I.AND PI_ANNIN('~ TAX M A P S d a ,'~ u a f y 1,.,° 1911 I BUCK MTN. $1ere SP 98-66 University Montessori ~rmlngto~ C ~ 7 CHARLOTTES- . ~ILLE ...... .. / ATTACHMENT B f SP 98-66 University Montessori ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT C 75 25% CITY SAMUEL MILLER, SGOTTSVILLE AND dACK JOUETT DISTRICTS '~ - -' "" SECTION DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of V 'RGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 2013 CHARLO'FI'ESVlLLE. 22902~2013 ATTACHMENT D A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Dece~foer 16, 1998 January Public Hearing Submittals Mr. Ron Keeler Dept. of Planning & Community pevelopment 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Keeler: Please find our comments for the January Public Hearings listed below: SP-98-67 Charlottesville Catholic School, Route 631 In addition to our March 25, 1998 comments to Mr. Keeler, we supplement with the following: We recommend that full frontage Improvements with right of dedication to Rio Road between the southern entrance and Pen Park Road. However tkis has been talked about in several meetings to phase this with the proposed entrance onto Rio Road. We will require the extension of the existing right turn lane if traffic queues in the mainline of NBL back beyond the existing turn lane. We had understood that Wilbur Smith and Associates were reviewing this along with the adequacy of the SBL left turn lane. We have also discussed possible contributions uo planned signal, although the percentage has not been determined. In one meeting we had estimated the total cost of signal to be $60,000.00. SP-98-66 University Montessorit Route 702 We issued a permit for this entrance in June 1990 and the attached plan to this permit indicated a 300 foot sight line easement across Lot 15B and Lot 15 had been obtained, but not recorded. Has this sight line easement been recorded, if so please furnish plat? There is a need to improve sight line to the west by remov!ng existing vegetation. ,~c: j1. H. Kesterson RECEIVED If you have any questions, please advise before releasing to the developer. R~M/ldw ~'Assistant Resident Engineer Planning Deut. ATTACHMENT E ' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Inspections 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5832 December 22, 1989 Ms. Michelle Mattioli 322 Monte Vista Ave. Charlottesville, Va. 229O1 Re: Structure at Tax Map 76, Parcel 15A Dear Ms. Mattioli: On December 20, 1989, an evaluation of the referenced structure was performed in order to determine its suitability for use as a nursery school. It is understood that the proposed nursery school would have a maximum occupant load of 40, and that the children would be at least 2 1/2 years old. Based on this information, the proposed use of this building is classified as Use Group B, in accordance with Section 304.0 of the 1987 BOCA National Building Code. The site visit, by Bob Jenkins of this office, revealed that this building is currently classified as Use Group B, due to its occupancy by Pharmaceutical Research Associates. If the Use Group of a building does not change, the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code does not require that any modifications or alterations be made to the structure. This building falls into this category, and therefore it may be occupied for use as a nursery, as described above, without any modifications or upgrading. Before you commit to this project, it is strongly advised that you contact the Albemarle County Zoning Department to see if they have any concerns regarding this proposal. Upon occupancy, this building will be subject to inspections by the Fire Official, in accordance with the 1987 Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. The Fire Official's representative will be Bob Jenkins, Fire Prevention Officer for Albemarle County. He, of course, is familiar with your situation,' and has informed me that the Fire Prevention Code will require several actions upon his inspection. These are: 1. Install portable fire extinguishers. Have the hot water boiler inspected by the Department of Labor and Industry's representative. Establish an evacuation procedure. Remove any double-cylinder dead bolt latches and card-activated locks, so that all door locks are able to be manually operated. Please contact Mr. Jenkins, at 296-5832, if you have questions concerning these items. Mr. Jenkins also observed some situations which he feels should be addressed as recommendations. Please be advised that compliance with these recommendations, while beneficial, is not required for the occupancy and operation of this building as a nursery. Briefly, thse recommendations are: Enclose the interior stairway with one-hour rated fir·resistive construction to reduce the hazard of fire and smoke movement between floors. Exposed paper-backed thermal insulation to be covered with gypsum board, or have the paper-backing removed. 3. A second exit from the building is recommended. 4. Install smoke detectors. Have an electrician evaluate the suitability of existing wiring. This recommendation may become a requirement if hazardous conditions are detected by the Fire PreVention Officer. Please contact Bob Jenkins, or me, if you have questions concerning this survey. Thank you for your concern and cooperation. Sincerely, Jay Schlothauer Deputy Director of Inspections JS:wmh cc: Jesse Hurt ~ob Jenkins JAmelia Patterson Reading File COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA PL.~NNI~G DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 2013 RAY D. PETHTEL CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902 COMMiSSIO,E, February 21, 1990 ATTACHMENT F D. S, ROOSEVELT RESIDENT ENGINEER Special Use Permits. & Rezonings March1990 Mr. Ron Keeler County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22901 Dear Mr. Keeler: The following are our con~nents: 1. ZMA-90-O1 Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership~ goute 866 - This section of Route 866 is currently tolerable. This request would probably result in some increase in traffic since a fast food restaurant is one of the higher generators in the HC zoning. 2. ZMA-89-02 Horace F. Jackson~ Route 250 E. - The Department has plans to widen Route 250 with the section where this property is located to be a 4-lane divided highway. A 15 foot wide utility easement is shown on the preliminary plans along the frontage of the property on Route 250 and the Department recon~nends that this be dedicated or at least reserved. A crossover is shown at the intersection of Routes 250 and 1117 (State Farm Boulevard). Therefore, all of the access to Route 250 to this property would be right turns in and right turns out. The western property line for this property on Route 250 is approximately 480 feet from the future crossover at State Farm Boulevard. The Comprehensive Plan shows this property would be high density residential and this request is for HC. The HC zoning generates more traffic than residential property would. Since this request is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and would generate more traffic than would be anticipated under the current zoning or proposed zoning (high density residential) the Department does not support this request. Should this request be approved, the Department recommends that all of the access to this property be near the western property line on Route 250 and that there be no access to North Pantops Drive, due to its proximity (approximately 180') to the future crossover with State Farm Boulevard.  3. SP-90-O1 Mi.'chelle Ma. ttiole~ Route 702 - This section of Route 702 is currently non-tolerable and Route 702 is one of the non-hard surface TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Mr. Ron Keeler Special Use Permits & Rezonings Page 2 February 21, 1990 roads with the highest traffic count. This request is for 37 children and this would certainly result in an increase in traffic. The existing entrance to this property is paved and wide enough to accoranodate Z-way traffic. There is only 75 feet of sight distance to the west and the problem is due to vegetation in this direction along adjacent properties. Adequate sight distance can be obtained in this direction with the removal of vegetation and either right of way dedication or sight easements along the other properties. Upgrading of the entrance to better handle the drainage along Route 702 is also recommended. 4. SP-90-07 Curtis L. Byers~ Route 712 - This section of Route 712 is currently non-tolerable. The existing private driveway, serving this property has very little sight distance existing in either direction. To obtain adequate sight distance in each direction would require grading of the bank and removing trees along this property and possibly the adjoining properties. Sight and/or grading easements may be needed to insure that the sight distance is maintained and obtained. The Department also recon~nends that the entrance be widened to commercial standards to accommodate 2-way traffic. There may be a slight increase in traffic due to this request. Yours truly, D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer By: J. A. Echols Ass' t. Resident Engineer JAE/ldw cc: D. E. Ogle J. F. Coates January 28, 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 Yom Keogh Train & Spencer Archictects 107 Second St Charlottesville, VA 22902 SP-98-67 Charlottesville Catholic SchoOl Tax Map 6lA, parcel 29 Dear Mr. Keogh: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 26, 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 site plan shall conform generally to the conceptual plan, dated January 13, 1999, submitted with this petition. Relationships of recreational areas to property boundaries, buildings to recreational areas, and provision of pedestrian access parallel to Rio Road and from Rio Road into the parcel shall be maintained. Pedestrian access shall be provided from parking lots to the school buildings. 2. Enrollment will be limited to not more than 600 students. 3. Use oftemporary units is allowed until permanent facilities are constructed. A full site development plan will be required for the facility regardless of the use of temporary units or permanent construction. A walkway or pedestrian path will be provided with the first phase of the project, if the County is able to fund adjoining connections to Pen Park Lane and Penn Park Road. If such connections cannot be made at that time, then the school will bond pathway improvements to be constructed by the school when the County is able to fund the adjoining connections. If those improvements have not been constructed by completion of the second entrance to the school, the bond will be released and the pathway not installed. 5. Screening meeting Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be provided where driveways and parking areas shown on the site are adjacent to residences. Page 2 January 28, 1999 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on February 10, 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 EDE/jcf Cc~ Ella Carey Ruby & Cecil Ballard, Est Charlottesville Catholic School Amelia McCulley lack Kelsey Steve Allshouse COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 98-67 Charlottesville Catholic School SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to amend SP 98-12 to reorient the school buildings and playing fields on TMP 61A, Parcel 29 STAFF CONTACT{S): Echols; Benish; Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: Planning commi~si0n - January 26, ' 1999; Board of Supervisors- February 10, 1999 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: A3-rACHMENTS: yes INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On July 8, 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit to allow construction of a private school and recreational facilities for up to 600 students on the "Ballard" property (Attachment A). The Ballard property is located on the east side of Rio Road between Penn Park Road and Pen Park Lane. In the development of the site plan for the school, the. applicant ascertained that less grading would be required and optimum sun orientation could be achievedif the playing fields were reoriented on the site. Because of the conditions of the special use permit, the reorientation could not take place without an amendment to the special use permit. DISCUSSION: The original design for the proposed campus to house grades K through 12 had a school facility and two playing fields proposed on either side of a building cluster (Attachment B). The proposed design would move the playing fields to the front of the building cluster, from the sides that adjoin the residential properties. Driveways would be constructed adjacent to residential lots on both the north and south sides of the school parcel. The applicant will provide additional buffer area between the immediate residential area and the building. He has said that the impact of a two-story building will be lessened by taking advantage of the fall in grade to the east and south. From the north and northwest residential areas, the building would look like a one story structure. Impacts on adjoining residential properties are not anticipated because of vegetative screening to' be provided between the residences and the driveways. Stormwater management will be provided on-site and final plans will be provided with a final site plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions, which are the same conditions of the previous special use permit, with the exception of the changed conceptual plan and clarification of the proposed screening: The site plan shall conform generally to the conceptual plan, dated January 13, 1999, submitted with this petition. Relationships of recreational areas to property boundaries, buildings to recreational areas, and provision of pedestrian access parallel to Rio Road and from Rio Road into'the parcel shall be maintained. Pedestrian access shall be provided from parking lots to the school buildings. 2. Enrollment will be limited to not more than 600 students. 3. Use of temporary units is allowed until permanent facilities are constructed. A full site development plan will be required for the facility regardless of the use of temporary units or permanent construction. 4. A walkway or pedestrian path will be provided with the first phase of the project, if the County is able to fund adjoining connections to Pen Park Lane and Penn Park Road. If such connections cannot be made at that time, then the school will bond pathway improvements to be constructed by the school when the County is able to fund the adjoining connections. If those improvements have not been constructed by completion of the second entrance to the school, the bond will be released and the pathway not installed. Screening meeting Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be provided where driveways and parking areas shown on the site are adjacent to residences. , ./ V ©0© OOO © O © 0 © © From: Subject: Date: Marsha Davis M~_~/ Ella Washington Carey, Clerk, C Ordinance Adopted by Board on February I0, 1999 March 1, 1999 The attached ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February I0, 1999. The ordinance is forwarded to you for inclusion in your next update of the County Code. (~) Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of The Code of The County of Albemarle, Virginia: a) b) §3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal Dist, to add 42.0 acs. Loc off Rt 708 near Blenheim. Property is designated RA in Comp Plan & Land Use Plans, and is zoned R~ TM ! 14,P68. Scottsville Dist. §3-221, Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District, to add 39.7 ! acs. Loc at inter of Rts 627 & 795. Property is designated RA in Comp Plan &Land Use Plan. Znd RA. TMi03,Pcls43L&43L1. Scottsville Dist. /EWC Attachments (1) CC: V. Wayne Cilimberg Mary Joy Scala Larry Davis File ORDINANCE NO. 99-3(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE 2, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article 2, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District and Section 3-221, Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows: Sec. 3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 101, parcels 55A, 60; tax map 102, parcels 17A, 17B, 17B1, 17D, 18, 19, 19A, 19C, 20B; tax map 112, parcels 3, 15, 16, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 17, 18H, 20, 21, 33A, 37D; tax map 113, parcels 1, lA, 6A, 11, 1 lA; tax map 114, parcels 25A, 30, 51, 55, 56, 68, 69, 70; tax map 115, parcel 10; tax map 122, parcels 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 12N, 33, 33A, 36; tax map 124, parcel 11. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008. (Code 1988, § 2.1-40); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(2), 2-10-99) Sec. 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 90B, parcel A- 11; tax map 91, parcels 21, 21 A, 21 B, 31; tax map 92, parcels 64, 64A; tax map 102, parcels 33, 35B, 37, 40, 40A, 40B; tax map 103, parcels 1, lA, lB, lC, ID, 1E, 1F, IG, 1H, 1J, 1K, IL, 1M, 2A, 3, 5, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 43, 43L, 43L1. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008. (Code 1988, § 2.1-4(k); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; ord. 99-3(2), 2-10-99) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on February 10, 1999 . Aye Mr. Bowerman X Ms. Humphris X Mr. Marshall X Mr. Martin X Mr. Perkins X Ms. Thomas X Nay January 7, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 John J. Purcell, Jr 103 Pinehurst Drive Louisa, VA 23093 Addition to Carter's Bridge AgriculturalfForestal District Tax Map 114, Parcel 68 Dear Mr. Purcell: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 5, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted request to add 42.0 acres to the Carter's Bridge Agricultural/ForestaI District. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on February 10, 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, Senior Planner MJS/jcf Cc: Ella Carey January 7, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 Robert G. Rash 2857 Carter Mountain Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Addition to Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District Tax Map 103, Parcels 43L and 43L1 Dear Mr. Rash: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its. meeting on January 5, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted request to add 39.71 acres to the Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on February 10, 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, Mary Joy Scala Senior Planner MJS/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Draft: 2/1/99 ORDINANCE NO. 99-3( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE 2, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article 2, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestat District and Section 3-221, Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows: Sec. 3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 101, parcels 55A, 60; tax map 102, parcelS 17A, 17B, 17B1, 17D, 18, 19, 19A, 19C, 20B; tax map 112, parcels 3, 15, 16, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 17, 18H, 20, 21, 33A, and 37D; tax map 113, parcels 1, lA, 6A, 11, 1 IA; tax map 114, parcels 25A, 30, 51, 55, 56, 68, 69, 70; tax map 115, parcel 10; tax map 122, parcels 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, I2N, 33, 33A, 36; tax map 124, parcel 11. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008. (Code 1988, § 2.1-40); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98) Sec. 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 90B, parcel A-I I; tax map 91, parcels 21, 2lA, 2lB, 31; tax map 92, parcels 64, 64A; tax map 102, parcels 33, 35B, 37, 40, 40A, 40B; tax map 103, parcels 1, lA, lB, lC, ID, IE, 1F, 1G, IH, 1J, 1K, 1L, 1M, 2A, 3, 5, 9, i0, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 43, 43L, 43L1. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008. (Code 1988, '§ 2.1-40c); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9,98) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of'Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Clerk, Board of County Supervisors STAFF PERSON: ADVISORY COMMITTEE: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Mary Joy Scala November 30, 1998 January 5, 1999 February 10, 1999 ADDITION TO LANARK AND ADDITION TO CARTER'S BRIDGE AGRICULTURALfFORESTAL DISTRICTS Purpose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal district is "to conserve and protect and to encourage the development and improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural/forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural and forestal products..." and "to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open space for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes." Factors to Consider: The following factors must be considered by the Advisory Committee and at any public hearing when a proposed district is being considered: The agricultural and forestal significance of land within the district and in areas adjacent thereto; The presence of any significant agricultural lands or significant forestal lands within the district and in areas adjacent thereto that are not now in active agricultural of forestal production; The nature and extent of land uses other than active farming or forestry within the district and in areas adjacent thereto; 4. Local development patterns and needs; 5. The Comprehensive Plan and, if applicable, the zoning regulations; The environmental benefits of retaining the lands in the district for agricultural and forestal uses; and 7. Any other matter which may be relevant. Effects of a District: The proposed district provides a community benefit by conserving and protecting farmlands and forest; environmental resources such as watersheds, air quality, open space, and wildlife habitat; and scenic and historic resources. The State Code stipulates that the landowner receive certain tax benefits*, and restrictions on public utilities and government action (such as land acquisition and local nuisance laws) to protect the agricultural/forestal use of the land. In exchange, the landowner agrees not to develop the property to a "more intensive use" during the specified number of years the district is in effect. *Since Albemarle County currently permits all four categories of use value assessment, a district designation may not provide any additional real estate tax deductions. Land in a district is protected fi.om special utility assessments or taxes. The State Code stipulates that, "Local ordinances, comprehensive plans, land use planning decisions, administrative decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land adjacent to any district shall take into account the existence of such district and the purposes of this chapter." The district may have no effect on adjacent development by right, but could restrict proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit which are determined to be in conflict with the adjacent agricultural/forestal uses. Districts must now be shown on the official Comprehensive Plan map each time it is updated. In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The property owners in the district are making a statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area to remain in the agricultural and forestal uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue agricultural uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands. ADDITION TO LANARK DISTRICT: Lanark District was created April 20, 1988. An Addition occurred on September 16, 1992. The District was reviewed on September 9, 1998, and was continued for ten years. Location.: Lanark District is located near Carter Mountain, Overton, and along Route 627. The proposed addition is located at the intersection of Route 627 and Route 795. Acreage: The Lanark District contains 5,633.522 acres in 36 parcels. The proposed addition contains 39.71 acres in two parcels. Time Period: The proposed time period for the addition is the same time period established when the district was reviewed, or ten years from April 20, 1998. A.. gricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the addition is used as forestry. .Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal-Production: The use value assessment program is a good indicator of the actual use of the property. 38.71 acres are enrolled under forestry and the remaining acre is classified as a non-qualifying use for a residence. Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: There is one dwelling on the parcel. 2 Local Development Patterns and Need. s: The area surrounding the Lanark district is very rural. There are many large farms as well as scattered dwellings. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Lanark District and the proposed addition are located within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest development area is the Urban Area, a distance of about one mile west. A Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development." (p.203). A strategy is, "Actively promote and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/forestal districts .... "(p. 53) The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important farmlands and forests. A major stream valley, Slate Quarry Creek, traverses the property. Environmental Benefits: This district lies within the Rivanna River watershed. Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, the historic landscape, and open space. Staff.Recommendation: Staff.recommends approval of the addition to the Lanark District as proposed. Advisory_ Committee Recommendation: The Advisory Committee at its meeting on November 30, 1998, unanimously recommended the approval of the addition to the Lanark District as proposed. ADDITION TO CARTER'S BRIDGE: Carter's Bridge District was created on April 20, 1988. Additions occurred on October 31, 1990 and May 21, 1997. The District was reviewed on September 9, 1998, and was continued for ten years. Location: Carter's Bridge District is located east of Route 20 South, and on State Routes 618, 627, 708, 727, 761 and 795, in the vicinity of Carter's Bridge, Blenheim and Woodridge. This proposed addition is located near Blenheim, offRoute 708. Acreage: The Carter's Bridge District contains 9004.16 acres in 50 parcels. The proposed addition contains 42 acres in one parcel. Time Period: The proposed time period for the addition is the same time period established when the district was reviewed, or ten years from April 20, 1998. _Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the proposed addition is being used for forestry. Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use value taxation program is a good indication of the actual use of the properties. The entire 42 acres are being used for forestry. Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry_: There are no dwellings on the proposed addition. Local Development Patterns and Needs: The Carter's Bridge area is very rural. There are many large farms as well as scattered dwellings. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Carter's Bridge District and the proposed addition are located within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest development area is the Urban Area, a distance of about three miles north. A Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest.of the four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development." (p:203). A strategy is to "Actively promote and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/forestal districts .... "(p. 53) The Open Space Plan shows this area designated as important farmlands and forests. Many historic resources are in the district, including Redlands. Several of the parcels in the district are located within an area on Carter's Mountain recommended for mountain protection. There are also critical slopes in this area. Environmental Benefits: The district lies within the Hardware River watershed. Several creeks, Eppes, Harris, Murphy, and Turkey Creek, also traverse through various properties in the district. Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of valuable resources such as critical slopes, open space, and the historic landscape. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the addition to the Carter's Bridge District as proposed: Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Advisory Committee at its meeting on November 30, 1998, unanimously recommended the approval of the addition to the Carter's Bridge District as proposed. I:\...\add to Lanark.doc 4 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ADDITION TO LA.LNARK LANARK AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT TMIP TOTAL USE VALUE ACREAGE OWNER DWELLINGS ACREAGE AG FOR HORT NQ 103 - 1M 266.700 81.5 180.2 5.00 Benjamin Brewster 4 103 ~ 1J 333.424 114.1 218.324 Benjamin Brewster 2 103 - 1L 16.027 16.027 Benjamin Brewster 0 103 lA 33.756 20.824 12.932 Benjamin Brewster 0 103 2A 200 87 113 Benjamin Brewster 0 103 1K 147.14 147.14 Benjamin Brewster 0 90B A-11 15.260 J W K Prol3erties 0 91 21; 97.194 53 33.214 10.98 J W K Properties' 3, 91 21AI 821.580 121.75 674,54 25,29 J W K ProPerties 4! 91 21B 381.110 190.5 174.88 13.73 J W K Properties 81 91 31 488.500 151.4 337.1 J W K Properties 1 92 64 378.912 378.912 J W K Properties 92 -. Co4A 672.795 64,85 608.145 J W K Properties 3 102 .. 33 43.545 21.545 22 J W K Properties 102 -. 35B 61.950 44.281 17.669 Oregon Land Trust 102 37 78.125 13.4 64.725 J W K Properties 1 102 40 174.010 174.01 J W K Prol~erties 3 102 40A 10.042 J W K Prol3erties 1 102 ~ 40B 9.120 8.025 1.095 J W K Prol3erties 103 lB 173.040 146.1 26.94 J W K Properties 0 103 lC 1.420 J W K ,Properties 1 103 1D 7.180 7.18 J W K Properties 1 103 1E 326.630 147.5 179.13 J W K Properties 1 103 1F 3.010 3.01 J W K Properties 1 103 -. 1G 4.140 J W K Properties 1 103 1H 10.820 10.82 J W K Properties 0 103' I 144.270 28.896 ,115.374 J W K Properties 0 103 3 123.116 123.116 J W K Properties 0 103 5 36.952 J W K Properties 0 103 9 12.722 J W K Properties 0 103 - 10 229.118 37.336 191.782 J W K Properties 1 103 - 10A 22.753 22.753 Oregon Land Trust ' 0i 103 - 10B 22.110 13.754 8.356 Lowell and Claudia Weicker 21 103 - 10C 12.681 J W K Properties 103 - 10D 20.470 Edith Grey Land Trust 1 103 - 43 253.9 160.837 93.063 J W K Properties 3 TOTALS 5633.522 1848.556 3613.277 55.00 42 103 43L 22.13 21.13 1.00 Robert G. & Kathleen L. Rash 1 103 43L1 · 17,58 17.58 Robert G. & Kathleen L. Rash TOTAL 39.71 38.71 1.00 ALBEMARLE COUNTY :':. ,4, ,-x,- ~-~. · '5 ...../ .... .,"~ ., . "'"~t x.,,,,~.. ~ ..j- ... ., ~ .: . " · .. ,/ ....~.~ .,..~ · .?. \'~ ,,,," ,,_::' ...'"'. ~'.' .,.,' I -- .'-'Z~' / / L".,,'~ ,. ;~. ..-' · ,'"' j / I ' . '"~ ." .'" o., ~, t ',, , · ~ .v / / \ "-, ,," ~, ('-~.~,-_ '-~ :' -~.:'-'-~ I / ,~' ./ ! ', ~.,,~;" \ \ "',~::" .,,.,Z_..'x~ ~ ~:\ ' / .',, / ! -t-' .,;. ~ ) '~, '~.~':"r. ~ -~J ~"- ·" ' } ...'.; / L\.:: i. ~ .',' :~';,,~'.. J ..',' / /\ .~,,' / ~ / '~,= b° · I ~...,;, , :/,,z,..... ,'--:x.' '~,/'f-- '~-/ ,,'! 2, · '\ I . . ~.. ////~:.M / x i ,,', ~: , ',~"1. !t11//./1~:.CARTER'S BRIDCE ' / · 't ., .. ? . I ' '~\ ',\ / -" --- .-~ \ .. . /' .:,;- // * ,, $COTTSVILLE DISTRI(~T SECTION 114. CARTER'S BRIDGE AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT TM/P TOTAL USE VALUE ACREAGE OWNER DWELLINGS ACREAGE AG FOR HORT NQ. 113 - la 94.580 92.000 0.580 2.0 Mill Quarter LP 1 102 - 18 277.800 70.600 207.200 Mary Ross Carter 0 102 - 17B 117.470 33.300 84.170 Mary Ross Carter 0 113 - 11 824.340 219.000 604.340 1.0 Peter Nielsen 1 114 - 30 5,508 Bryant and Karen Bibb 0 102 - 17A 91.600 91.600 Dr John B. Carter 0 101 - 55A 43.860 22,000 21.860 John and Andrew Carter , 0 102 - 17D 195.070 34.739 148.290 12.041 Andrew Carter 0 102 - 17B1 11.530 4.000 7.530 John Carter 0 113 - 1 682.690 67.111 598.710 7.869 9.0 DrRobert H Carter 6 113 - 1 la 300.000 300.000 Patricia Purcell 0 124 - 11 80.000 80.000 John J Purcell Est 0 115 - 10 48.500 48.500 John J Purcell Est 0 114 - 25A 2.61 James and Marcia Shaker 0 114 - 70 1728.001 1728.001 John J Purcell Est 0 114 - 56 14.800 14.800 John J Purcell Est 0 114 - 55 89.000 89.000 John J Purcell Est 0 114 - 51 113,000 113.000 John J Purcell Est 0 114 - 69 42.000 42.000 John J Purcell Est 0 112 - 15 293.790 170.000 117.790 6.0 W11iam orSusan S Dave¥ · 4 112 - 20 787.427 422.604 364.823 J W K Properties, Inc 1 112 - 21 22.500 13.600 8.900 J W K Properties, Inc 0 112 - 37D 43.000 43.000 J W K Properties, Inc 0 113 - 6A 22.200 13,606 8,594 J W K Properties, Inc 0 122 - 4 162,860 149.381 13,479 J W K Properties, Inc 0 122 - 4A 85.160 85.160 J W K Properties, Inc 2 122 - 6 371.0501 275.680 95.370 J W K Properties, Inc 2 122 - 7 203.250 153.714 49.536 J W K Properties, Inc 2 122 - 8 51.127 34.000 17.127 J W K Properties, Inc 0 122 - 9 114.620 87.420 27.200 J W K Properties, Inc 1 122 - 10 272.640 130.309 142.331 J W K Properties, Inc 1 102 - 20B 67.220 67.220 Mary Ross Carter Hutci~,eson 0 112 - 18H 10.008 5.008 3.000 . 2.0 Anne Louise Turner 2 122 - 12N 2.000 James M or Anne M. Liddell 1 122 - 12 23.069 23.069 James M or Anne M. Liddell 0 122 - 33 64.840 63.840 1.0 James C or Madon Sams 1 112 - 33A 0.250 0.250 J W K Properties, Inc 0 122 - 36 7.000 '7.000 James C or Madon Sams 0 122 - 33A 12.240 James W Sams or Kathryn M Rander 1 112 - 17 136.750 106.750 30.000 Dods R,Coles and Anne Barnes, Trs 0 112 - 16C 97.000 52.000 45,000 Dods R Coles and Anne Bames, Trs 0 112 - 16D 98.000 98.000 Dods R Coles and Anne Bames, Trs 0 112 - 16E 96.000 96.000 Robert Coles, Jr 01 112 - 3 50,630 50.630 John Roberts Coles, Jr 0i 112 - 16 414.000i 414.000 Robert Coles 1 112 - 16F 311.490 191.490 120.000 Robet Coles 0 101 - 60 252,360 172,000 80.360 DodsR. Coles 0 102 - 19 29,960 27.960 2.0 Lucius H Bracey, Jr 2 102 - 19A 46.490 45.490 1.01Virginia Ann Klumpp 1: 102 - 19C 92.870 18.998 72.872 1.0 Kathleen Morgan Klumpp 1~ TOTALS 9004.160 2697.920 6238.972 19.910 25.0 31i REQUEST FOR ADDITION 114 - 68 42.000 John J. Purcell, Jr. Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes November 30, 1998 Stephen Murray, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Other members present were Joseph Jones, Vice-Chair, Walter Perkins, David vanRoijen, Rosemary Dent, Robert Bloch, Sherry Buttrick, and Jacquelyne Huckle. Staff member present was Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner. Members absent were Bruce Hogue, and Bruce Woodzell. Addition to Carter's Brid~e District Staff presented the staff report recommending the Addition to Carter's Bridge District. Staff noted that the property owner requesting the addition currently has property in the district and that he is engaged in active forestry. Mr. vanRoijen asked why the owner was adding the parcel at this time. He also asked why there were several additions proposed at the same time. He was interested since the Committee had previously talked about incentives to encourage property owners to jo. in a district~ Staff replied that the property owners had probably received notices during the recent reviews of the Carter's Bridge, Lanark and Panorama Districts and had then decided to add on. Staff explained that the review process for Additions to Districts and new Districts, is longer than for Reviews of Districts, meaning they cannot be done simultaneously. The Chair asked for the soils report and staff noted it had not been received. Ms. Huclde moved to recommend approval ~of the Addition to Carter's Bridge District as proposed. Mr. vanRoijen made a second to the motion. The committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Addition to Carter's Bridge District. Addition to Lanark District Staff presented the staff report recommending the Addition to Lanark District. Mr. vanRoijen asked a question about the land use of the property. Staff replied that it is enrolled under the forestry category, and that there is one dwelling on the property. Mr. Jones made a motion to recommend approval of the Addition to Lanark District. Mr. Bloch made a second to the motion. The committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Addition to Lanark District. Addition to Panorama District Mr. Murray remained Chair during the discussion, but stated that he did not intend to vote on the propoSed Addition, which is adj,/cent to his farm. Staff presented the staff report recommending approval of the Addition to Panorama District. Staffnoted that Panorama Farm had been withdrawn from the District during the last review. Now, the Riviere Farm forms the core of the District, with property in Ardwood (which is held under conservation easement) also in the District. There was discussion about the property in Ardwood. Mr. vanRoijen asked if there is a minimum acreage requirement to join an agricultural district. Staff said there is not; the County has a policy of not accepting subdivision lots. Staff noted that the proposed Addition to Panorama consists of a seven- acre parcel, within a mile of the core, not in a subdivision, not enrolled in land use, and with no development rights. The property is wooded. Mr. Perkins asked if the parcel could qualify for land use by joining the district. Staff replied that it could not because it did not meet the acreage requirements. Both open space and forestry require 20 acres. There was discussion about the intent of the property owner. Staff said the applicant wanted the area to remain rural, and was concerned about the furore of Panorama Farm. Staffnoted that it was hoped that Panorama Farm would rejoin the district at some point. Ms. Huclde and Mr. Jones agreed that if the proposed addition meets the criteria, it should be allowed to join. Mr. vanRoijen made a motion to recommend approval of the Addition to Panorama as proposed. Ms. Dent made a second to the motion. The committee' voted 7-0-1 to recommend approval of the Addition to Panorama. Mr. Murray abstained. Review of Buck Mountain District Staff presented the staff report recommending the continuation of the Buck Mountain District for ten years. Staff noted that the Gibsons requested withdrawal. Mr. Jones asked Ms. Buttrick if she knew the Gibsons. She did, and said she would try to find out why they want to withdraw. Ms. Buttrick said if they are older, and may be. lapsing on the agricultural use, it would be good to be in the district so that they could continue to receive land use. Mr. vanRoijen said there needs to be a simple explanation available to people so they could understand the roles; the current explanation is complicated. Ms. Buttrick said she would call about the Gibsons. There was discussion whether the Gibsons could add back in. Staff said they could add back in until the Board hearing date. The Committee's motion could reflect this. Ms. But-trick made a motion to continue the district for ten years, with the provision that if Tommy [Mr. Gibson] wants to come back in before the Board meeting he can. Mr. vanRoijen made a second to the motion. The committee unanimously voted to recommend continuing the Buck Mountain District for ten years, w/th the.provision about Mr. Gibson coming back in as staied in the motion. Review of Yellow Mountain District Staff presented the staff report recommending the continuation of the Yellow Mountain District for ten years. Staff noted that the heirs of Greenwood Farm had withdrawn upon the death of the property owner, and it left a large gap in the district. Ms. Buttrick noted that Seven Oaks Farm had been sold, and that the new property owner should be contacted. There was discussion about who are the owners of certain properties. Mr. vanRoijen asked ifreaitors have to disclose that a property is enrolled in an agricultural and forestal district. It was believed that they do not. Staff noted that there has been interest from adjacent property owners in joining this district. Ms. Buttrick made a motion to recommend that the Yellow Mountain District be continued for ten years. Mr. Bloch made a second to the motion. The committee unanimously voted to recommend continuing the Yellow Mountain District for ten years. Discussion on how to encourage landowners to |oin/remain in a district Ms. Scala told the committee that she had no prepared report, but asked if the Committee wanted to continue the discussion from its previous meeting. Mx. vanRoijen talked about more strict enforcement of land use. He wondered why we don't make use of the open space easement (located in the land use tax handbook) for property owners who needed more flexibility than aa agriculturaFforestal district. He suggested that property owners should be able to show that they have made a certain income from farming, otherwise they could not qualify for land use tax unless they joined an agricultural/forestal district or signed an open space agreement. He said that other counties have to show tax records, production records, etc. to get land use taxation. Shenandoah County hired someone specifically to tighten the land use program. Mx. Perkins said if land stays green for one more year then we get a benefit. The consensus seemed to be against Mx. vanRoijen's suggestion; it was thought that it was not an incentive. Ms. Buttrick asked if the County has any latitude in its policies to provide greater protection from adjacent properties? beef it up a little. She also suggested that the brochure be updated and beautified. Say how you can get in and get out of a district - the brochure is Convoluted right now. She also suggested inviting Jim Riddell from Louisa County to speak to the group. Mx. Jones said that the tax base should be taken off real estate and put on income. Mx. Perk/ns agreed. He said the farmer gets taxed on his land, then gets taxed on his. income. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 pm. Danny L. & Sue Ann Carr 2035 Whispering Woods Drive * Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 * 804-973-9150 * E-Mail: CRESV~cwix. com February 6, 1999 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: New Subdivision / Roads Between Hollymead and Forest Lakes North There are many considerations with the development of Springridge. Being new to Forest Lakes Noah, I don't understand all the controversy over access or why the Board of Supervisors would allow this area to be developed without more than one access. The recommendation from the FLCA is that Spfingridge only gain access through Forest Lakes North. I disagree. If there is ever a serious accident at the T in Forest Lakes North, there is no way in or out. There was an accident on Route 29 recently that caused the left turn lane from Route 29 south to Hollymead Drive to be closed. It occurred at 6 pm when parents were on their way to Sutherland Middle School to pick up their children after a dance. Traffic was backed up for quite a while as several parents stopped to talk to policemen and get directions to the school through Forest Lakes South. This situation is ridiculous. There is no reason for a school function to tie up traffic on Rome 29 when a road over the dam would allow us to go to the neighborhood school without ever going near Rome 29. Several people think that increased traffic on Powell Creek Drive in from of the Hollymead Elementary and Sutherland Middle Schools is unacceptable. I believe that most of the traffic there at this point is because of the schools. The schools are not close to Powell Creek Drive and with crossing guards, I don't see this as a major problem. I think there should be a three-way stop at Hollymead and Powell Creek Drives. Maybe a sign pointing to 29 from that intersection would help deter traffic through FOrest Lakes South. Please look at the map and imagine getting om of the parking lot after a school function. Most people are turning left. If the road went over the darn, a lot of the traffic could turn right. The reduced traffic on Hollymead Drive would be significant. The reduction in traffic on Route 29 between Hollymead Drive and Forest Lakes North would also be significant. There are no houses on Timberwood Boulevard in Forest Lakes North facing the road, but there are a lot of houses that face Hollymead Drive. ~om Route 29 to Proffit Road. Springridge, and other buffers. negative thing. The studies seem to show that traffic would increase significantly because of people "cutting through" Surely there are ways to deter that with stop signs, a "v" into Please take into consideration that not everyone thinks more access is a Forest Lakes North Resident STATEMENT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD PRE-ALLOCATION HEARING ON INTERSTATE AND PRIMARY SYSTEMS CULPEPER DISTRICT (MARCH 15, 1999) GOOD MORNING, I AM , CHAIRMAN OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS ABOUT OUR PRIMARY ROAD NEEDS. MY COMMENTS FOCUS ON THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND ARE GENERALLY PRIORITIES SUBMITTED TO YOU LAST YEAR. THEY PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY CONSISTENT WITH THE ARE FOUNDED ON THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATIONBOARD REGARDING THE PHASING OF THESE AND OTHER ROAD PROJECTS. ADHERENCE TO THESE PLANS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO ADDRESSING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. (CATS) AND ON THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND SURFACE TRANSPOR TA TION PROGRAM THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE OFFER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ARE MORE DEFINITIVELY ADDRESSED IN A REPORT WE WILL LEAVE WITH YOUR STAFF. THEY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) PROJECTS: STANDARD PROJECTS INCLUDE: UNDERTAKING CATS PROJECTS AS OUTLINED IN OUR MUTUAL AGREEMENT, WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY. IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO ROUTE 29 FROM HYDRAULIC ROAD TO AIRPORT ROAD, THE PARKWAY IS THE COUNTY'S HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECT. WITH THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD'S DECISION NOT TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERCHANGES ON ROUTE 29, THE NEED FOR THE PARKWAY WILL BECOME EVEN MORE CRITICAL TO MAINTAINING AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF SERVICE ON ROUTE 29. THE COUNTY HAS REQUESTED CONSIDERATION OF THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY FOR PRIMARY FUNDING FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS. THE COUNTY WOULD SUPPORT ANY INITIATIVES TO REOPEN CONSIDERATION OF THE ROUTE 29 INTERCHANGES AT HYDRAULIC, GREENBRIER AND RIO, POSSIBLY UNDER MODIFIED DESIGN CONCEPTS. FINALLY, THE COUNTY REQUESTS THAT PARK LANDS LOST DUE TO ROAD CONSTRUCTION, SUCH AS IN MICINTIRE PARK AS PART OF THE 2 MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY PHASE I PROJECT, BE REPLACED WITH SUITABLE ADJACENT LANDS WHEN POSSIBLE. THE COUNTY IS CLOSELY FOLLOWING THE ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR STUDIES. IT IS THE BOARD'S HOPE THAT THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD WILL FAVORABLY INCORPORATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROUTE 29 PHASE I CORRIDOR STUDY INTO ROUTE 29 NORTH IMPROVEMENTS. IT IS ALSO THE BOARD'S HOPE THAT THE ROUTE 29 PHASE II AND III CORRIDOR STUDY WILL CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE PUBLIC INPUT IN THE STUDY PROCESS. AND FURTHER, THAT THE STUDY WILL BE TRULY MULTI- MODAL IN SCOPE AND GIVE PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION TO THE BENEFITS OF RAIL SERVICE TO THE CORRIDOR. IN THIS REGARD, THE COUNTY SUPPORTS THE "BRISTOL RAIL PASSENGER STUDY" AS A MULTI-MODAL MEANS TO ADDRESS ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE CORRIDOR STUDIES. UNDERTAKING THE WIDENING OF ROUTE 20 SOUTH FROM 1-64 TO MILL CREEK DRIVE, INCLUDING SIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANES. UNDERTAKING ROAD PROJECTS ADJACENT TO THE ROUTE 29 NORTH CORRIDOR THAT WILL RELIEVE TRAFFIC ON ROUTE 29 BY PROVIDING BETTER SERVICE TO LOCAL TRAFFIC. INCORPORATING SIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANE FACILITIES INTO ALL pARALLEL STREET IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROUTE 29 NORTH CORRIDOR. o WIDENING ROUTE 250 WEST FROM EMMET STREET TO ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS. THIS SECTION IS COVERED BY A JOINT CITY, COUNTY, AND UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA APPROVED DESIGN STUDY, THE IVY ROAD DESIGN STUDY. THIS STUDY SHOULD BE USED AS A GUIDE IN THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT. o FINISHING THE ROUTE 240 FUNCTIONAL STUDY IN CROZET AND IMPROVIING ROUE 240 IN ACCORD WITH COUNTY RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THIS STUDY. UNDERTAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO FONTAINE AVENUE FROM JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE TO THE IMPROVEMENT ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT. THESE IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD REFLECT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FONTAINE AVENUE TASK FORCE. UNDERTAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BELLAIR/ROUTE 250 WEST INTERSECTION. 10. UNDERTAKING THE WIDENING OF ROUTE 20 NORTH TO THE ELKS DRIVE/FONTANA DRIVE INTERSECTION, INCLUDING SIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANES. 11. RECOGNIZING THAT MASS TRANSIT CAN BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND SHIFTING FUNDS FROM CONSTRUCTION INTO MASS TRANSIT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. SAFETY PROJECTS INCLUDE: CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS ALONG VARIOUS PRIMARY ROUTES WITHIN THE COUNTY'S URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS ESPECIALLY ALONG ROUTE 20 NORTH FROM ROUTE 250 TO WILTON FARM APARTMENTS AND DARDEN TOWE PARK. INSTALLING TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT ROUTE 22 AND ROUTE 250 AND THE 1-64 INTERCHANGE RAMPS AT FIFTH STREET. IMPROVING ROUTE 250 WEST ALONG THE BUSINESS CORRIDOR IN IVY IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN THE ROUTE 250 WEST CORRIDOR STUDY. 4. IMPROVING THE ROUTE 240 UNDERPASS AT THE CSX RAILROAD IN CROZET. o DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL PLANS FOR ROUTE 20 NORTH AND SOUTH, AND ROUTES 22 AND 231, FOR ALIGNMENT AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. ENHANCEMENT PR OJECTS INCLUDE: THE COUNTY SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS: SIDEWALK/WALKWAY CONNECTION PROJECT IN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AREAS, BEAUTIFICATION OF ENTRANCE CORRIDORS, COMPLETION OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION TRAIL PROJECT, CONSTRUCTING BIKEWAY FACILITIES, DEVELOPING A GREENWAY PATH SYSTEM, AND REMOVING NON- CONFORMIING BILLBOARDS. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE MPG POLICY BOARD APPROVED THE NHS AS PROPOSED BY VDOT IN THIS AREA EXCLUDING THE ROUTE 29 BYPASS. THE FHWA HAS APPROVED A NHS WHICH INCLUDED THE EXISTING ROUTE 29 AND THE ROUTE 29 BYPASS. THE COUNTY'S HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECT IN THE PROPOSED NHS IS THE WIDENING OF ROUTE 29 NORTH FROM THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TO AIRPORT ROAD. THE COUNTY DESIRES TO CONTINUE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR STUDIES, AND IMPLEMENTATIN OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROUTE 29 NORTH CORRIDOR STUDY. WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THESE ISSUES AND IF 'QUESTIONS ARISE, OR IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED REGARDING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT ME OR A MEMBER OF OUR COUNTY STAFF. A:\PRI-STAT.99.doc 7 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: . ZMA 98-12 Forest Lakes PUD South Minor Amendment ZMA 98-13 Springridge PRD SP 98-46 Springridge Stream Crossing SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to approve Springridge PRD to allow a mixed residential development on 50 acres near Forest Lakes and Hollymead; request to amend Forest Lakes South PUD to allow a roadway to Springridge and a path where only a path was approved for the PUD; request to approve a stream crossing over Powell Creek to construct an entrance road into the Springridge development STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Echols, Messrs. Cilimberg,Tucker, Huff AGENDA DATE: February 10, 1999 ACTION: ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~ ~'"'"'""'"'-~ BACKGROUND: On October 27, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed these proposals and recommended unanimous approval of all three requests. In its deliberations and decisions, the Planning Commission noted the need for the connection between the developments that the road over the dam would provide. The Planning Commission asked the applicant, though, to vigorously pursue the less direct connection (called the '~/" connection) between Forest Lakes (North) and Forest Lakes South that had been proffered by the applicant. Copies of the original staff reports (with revisions and corrections) are attached. After the Planning Commission meeting, the developer met with the Forest Lakes Community Association (FLCA) to discuss acquisition of property from the FLCA to make the "V" connection. The FLCA Board opposed the "V" connection and asked the developer to consider modifying his proposal to allow for access from Forest Lakes (North) only. The applicant has submitted a letter dated January 28, 1999 outlining the discussions between the FLCA and himself. He has submitted an alternate set of proffers that would allow for access to the property from Timberwood Parkway only, if the FLCA votes to approve the sale of land for that purpose. The FLCA plans to vote on this item in March. The FLCA Board has given permission to the applicant to apply for a special use permit for the stream crossing needed for access from Timberwood Parkway into the site. The stream crossing request at this location is being reviewed by the staff at present; a Planning Commission date for the public hearing has not yet been set. DISCUSSION: Because the alternative set of proffers was received only last Friday, January 29, staff has been unable to complete its review to offer substantive comment or recommendation at this time. Staff hopes to be able to comment at the Board Meeting on the effects of the alternative proposal and set of proffers. The letter from the applicant and the alternative proffers are attached as "Alternative 2". What is known at this time is that Alternative 2 would allow the applicant to choose to build the road Over the dam or to provide access solely from Timberwood Parkway. With access solely from Timberwood Parkway, traffic to the development would avoid Powell Creek Drive and Hollymead Drive. It would reduce the potential number of trips in front of the school complex by approximately 1700 vehicle trips per day. It would add approximately 700 more trips to Timberwood Parkway than with the road open over the dam. Powell Creek Drive and Hollymead Drive would continue to carry school traffic from Forest Lakes (north) and would also carry school traffic from Springridge with Hollymead Drive supporting moSt of the trips. The issue of provision of a second point of access has not been resolved at this time, although the applicant has suggested in the attached letter to John McDonald that it might be provided over the dam. Staff will continue to look into this item as well as the other effects of Alternative 2 before the Board meeting. AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 98-12 Forest Lakes PUD South Minor Amendment ZMA 98-13 Springridge PRD SP 98-46 Springridge Stream Crossing February 10, 1999 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the existing applications and corrected proffers for the original proposals. Additional ce mment on the known effects of the alternative proposal and proffers will be offered at the Board meeting to the extent that the staff is able to complete its review. The special use permit for the stream crossing from Timberwood Parkway, which would be necessary to accomplish the alternative proposal, will require review and recommendation from the Planning Commission. It would appear that if the Board would like to consider "Alternative 2", in lieu of the original proposal recommended by the staff and Planning Commission, a deferral of action on this alternative may be in order. Such a deferral would allow staff and Planning Commission to complete a review of the proposal and proffers and allow the special use permit to come to the Board of Supervisors. 99.019 To: From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Cler.,~? Reading List for February I 0, 1999 February 4, 1999 March 18(A), 1996 March 18, 1998 August 5, 1998 Ms. Humphris Ms. Thomas Ms. Thomas /ewc D~vid R Bowerm~ Charlotte Y. Humphris Forr~t R. Mar~l~ Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARL~ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charloffesville, Vkginia 229024596 · (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Wal~r E Perk/m Sally FI. Thomas February ll, 1999 Mr. A. Gordon Gledhill 1960 Tremond Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr. Gledhill: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 10, 1999, the Board appointed you to the Route 250 East Corridor Stud3~ Advisory Committee, with said term effective February 10, 1999, and term expiration date to be determined. I have enclosed a copy of the committee's roster for your assistance. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this oppommity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh Enclosure CC: Jennifer B. DeBruhl Juan Wade Angela Tucker James Camblos Larry Davis Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Office of Board of Coun.ty Supervisors 401 Mclntire Rbad Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMTYYEE (please type or print) Board/ Commission/ Committee Home Address Magisterial District in which your home re~sidence is located Employer ~-~~. F__5~. Phone Business Address Date of Employment Occupation / Title Years Resident in Albemarle County S~u~'.N~ ~~ N~ro~Chi~n Education (Degrees ~d G~uafion Da~s) Memberships in Fraternal.. Business, Church and/or Social Groups The information prowded on th~s apphcatton will be ~'e~e~sed to tli~'~u~uup~n request; Signature Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests Re.on(s) for Desire to Se~ this Bo~d / Commission / Commi~e Date Return to: Cl~rk,Bqar~ of .County Supervisors ~,(~pe.m.a. rle. ~,. o~q nty. ~ Jla r l~oC~t~ts~ 1 ~ q 0t 2290Z-4596 October 28, 1998 · .Dept. of Planning & Commun!tY~ Development ' ........ ~' """ ~"' 401 Mclnt{re'R~'d~;~''':''''~''''~:~'-: Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (8O4) 296-5823 'Don Franco Forest Lakes Associates P O Box 5207 Charlottesville, VA 22905 ZMA-9g-12 Forest Lake~ - Minor Amendment SP-98-46 Springridge- Stream Crossing Dear Mx. Franco: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting October 27, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA 98-12 as submitted. The Commission aisc unanimously recommended approval of SP 9846 with the following conditions: I. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan. Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with State and Federal agencies regulating activities within jurisdictional streams and wetlands. This will include ~ondenee with FEMA for changes to floodway or floodplai~ 3. Engineering Department approval of mitigation plans. Engineering Department approval of culvert crossing plans and hydrologic and hydraulic computations demonstrating no increase in 100 year flood levels. Please be ~vised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review these petitions and receive public eon,anent at their meeting on November 18, 1998. 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. Ifyou should have any questions or comments regarding the aboTM noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Senior Planner Ella Carey Amelia McCulley 3ack Kelsey COMMENTS RE SPRINGRJDGE REZUi~L~t¢ STEPHEN N. RUNKLE, FOREST LAKES ASSOCIATES ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 1999 LET ME START BY SAYING THAT WE ARE HAPPY wrrH STAFF'S CONCLUSION' THAT OUR PROPOSED PLAN FOR SPRINGRIDGE MEETS ALMOST ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH THE PRIMARY EXCEPTION BEING A PROPOSED GROSS DENSITY LOWER THAN THE RECOMMENDED MININR.~I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GROSS DENSITY OF THREE U~'NITS PER ACRE, OR 150 UNITS. WE HAVE WORKED HARD FOR ~IORE TI-LMXI THREE YEARS TO DEVELOP A PLAN' THAT B~iLANCES/}{E MANY GO,aLS OF THE COMPREH~NSrv'E PI,AN; iS CONSISTENT WITH SLrRROLIN'DLNIG DE~v~_I_OP/vlENT, ,a2~'D IS Ag ACCRPT.Ai:II_I~_ Ag POSSIBLE TO EXISTh'qG RESIDENTS. WI4II E THE PLAN PROPOSED DOES NOT MEET THE M/NIMLrM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GROSS DENSITY, IT IS MORE NEOTRADITIONAL IN FOP, aM AND PROVIDES FOR A TIGHTER MIX OF HOUSING PRODUCT TYPES ANT), THUS, A HIGI--IER GROSS DENSITY THAN HAS BEEN TYPICAL IN OUR MARKET AND L%I FOREST LAKES. YET, DESPITE THE HIGHER DENSITY, WE FEEL THAT SPRINGRIDGE Wll J. OFFER HOUSING PRODUCT THAT WILL BE AN ATT1L~,CTI%~ ALTERN-A'I-T'V~ TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACI4F~D PRODUCT IN OUR RURAL AREAS. TIlE PROPOSED PLAN INCLUDES BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVJkTE PARK AREAS, BUFFERS TO EXISTING NEIGi-~ORHOODS, A SiGN~iCANT BUFFER TO TH~ RURAL AREA, PROVIDES FOR P.EAR LOADING OF AUTOMOBII_I~.S FOR APPROXIA,£4~TELY 50% OF THE UNITS TH'US CREATING A MORE DESIRABLE STREETSCAPE, AND STRONGLY EMPHASIZES PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THROUGH AN EXTENSrv'E NETWORK OF SIDEWALKS AND PAVED PEDESTRIAN TRAILS. IN FACT, AS SHOW2xl ON THE ATTACHMENT TO THESE COB/SMENTS, WE ESTIMATE THAT FEATLrR~S OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS PARKS, SIDEWALKS, )J~LEYS AND STREET TREES Wtl I. ADD AT LEAST $650,000, OR ABOUT $5.000 PER LOT, OVER THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED FOR MORE CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT. SIDEWALKS ALONE ADD $260,000, OR ABOUT $2.000 PER LOT. IN DEVELOPING/'HE PROPOSED PLAN' WE HAVE TRIED TO REMAIN FLEXIBLE AND BE SENSITIVE TO CONCERNS RAISED BY RESIDENTS OF FOREST LAKES AND HOLLYMEAD. BECAUSE WE I<xNEW ACCESS TO SPREqGRIDGE WOUTID BE A SENSITIVE ISSUE. WE INTIALI,Y, IN JULY OF 1996, PROPOSED TO THE FOREST LAKES CO~¥5'v~ ASSOCL4.TION THAT 'II-IEY SELL US COMMON AREA FOR $100,000 TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO SPRINGRIDGE FROM TLMBERWOOD PARKWAY IN FOREST LAKES NORTH, AND, AS PART OF TI-L'kT PROPOSAL, AGREED NOT TO MAKE THE ROAD CONNECTION ACROSS HOLLYMEAD LAKE DAM. THAT PROPOSAL WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSOCIATION, AND, TH-o'S, WE PROCEEDED TO DEVELOP THE PLAN AS APPROVED BY Tt-IE PLANNhNG COMMISSION WITH ACCESS FROM POWELL CREEK DRIVE AND THE ROAD COiNqN-ECTION ACROSS THE HOJ.!.YM~AD LAKE DA1VI.. PRIOR TO TIlE REZONING SLq3MISSION FOR SPREWGRIDGE IN APRIL OF 1998 NUMERIOUS STEPS WERE TAKEN IN AN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS RESIDENT CONCERNS. IN APRIL OF i997 ~ (2ENTER FOR SEJffi¥-~Y RESEARCH AT TI-I~ UNTVERSITY OF VIRGINIA WAS HIRED TO DESIGN AND CONDUCT A COMMU2qlTY SURVEY OF HOLLYMEAD AND FOREST LAKES FOCUSING ON THE ACCESS AND DEVELOPMENT OF SPRINGRIDGE. IN APRIL OF 1998 TI-IF. FINAL REPORT, AT A COST OF MORE TEL~N $40,000, WAS RECEIVED AaND HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO COU-N~Y STAFF AS WELL AS THE HOLLYMEAD AND FOREST LAKES ASSOCIATIONS. REVIEW OF THE FLNAL REPORT PROVIDES DETAILED 12qFORNLiTION BY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALLOWS ONE TO FORM HIS OR HER OWN OPINION AS TO ~ MEANING OF THE RESULTS, BUT WE FEEL A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THOSE RESULTS IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. RESPONDEN~rs GENE,RALLY AGREED, 83% EITHER SOMEWHAT OR COMPLETELY, WITH TIIE GROWTH MANAGEMENT GOAL OF CONCENT1LITLNG GROWTH IN DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT AREAS. 2. ON~,Y ABOU l ~% o~ RESPON~EN~rs FAVORED CON'i'~Nu~u TO ACCOMODATE GROWTH IN TI-IE ROUTE 29 NORTH A_REA. 3. THE MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS, 56°& OPPOSE, EITHER STRONGLY OR SO~vlEXl/XqAT, LN~rEtL'qAI I .Y CONNECTING NEIGHBORHOODS AS STANDARD DEVELOPMENT POLICY. 4. ONLY ABOUT 36% OF RESPONDENTS FAVORED THE ROAD CONNECTION ACROSS THE HOLLYMEAD LAKE DAM. BY NEIGHBORHOOD THE RESULTS INDICATED 53% OF FOREST LAKES SOUTI-L 40% OF HOLLYMEAD. AND 24% OF FOREST LAKES NORTH RESPON-DENTS FAVORED THE CONNECTION. 5. THE ~X~EGATIVE I~vIPACTS MOST OFTEN MENTIONED REGARD~G ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT WERE TILIFFIC (80%) .&N-D SCHOOLS (39%). 6. REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF SPRINGRIDGE, RESPONDENTS FAVORED FEW'ER (50) AS OPPOSED TO MORE (100) LOTS, WITH LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CLUSTER PLAN WTI~rI OPEN SPACE OR AN EQUIVALENT N~U~'IBER OF LARGER LOTS. OBVIOUSLY, THESE FENDINGS CONFIRMED WHAT WE AI_I~,~Y KNEW; THAT DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO RESIDEN~I'S AaNnD MEET THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WOULD BE DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE. * MULTII:)LE PUBLIC MEETINGS WERE I~J-D I-XT ~i,iR.CI~ A~XYD APRIL OF 199g AND VARIOU'S DEVELOPMEN~r PLANS WERE PRESENTED COMMENTS INVITED. GROSq DENSITY FOP,. TIlE PLANS PR.ERENTED RANGED FROM ONE TO THREE UNITS PER ACRE (50 TO 150). ABOUT FORTY PEOPLE ATTENDED THE MEEITNGS, AND, AS EXPECTED, THE LEAST DENSE PLANS WERE PREFERRED. AGAIN, THE MAJOR CONCElhX4 EXPRESSED WAS LNCREASED TRAFFIC. * LN FEBRUARY OF 1998 WILBL..~R S,.~ffi'-H ASSOCL~I~S WAS HIKED TO ACCESS THE TRAFFIC hN,fPACTS OF SPREX/GRIDGE AS WELL AS TI-tE ROAD CONNECTION ACROSS HOLLYN~,zLD L,~.E D,~M. THE STUDY CONCLUDED THAT INTERSECTION CAPACITY IS SUFFICIEI, Cr TO HANDLE THE CONNECTION OVER THE D.&M AND DEVELOPMENT OF SPRINGRIDGE. Rou2q'DABOUTS AS TRAFFIC CAI~¥112,4G ~MF_ ASLrf~S WERE RECOMMENDED AT TIlE INrrERSECTION WITH POWELL CREEK CREATED BY THE ACCESS ROAD TO SPR~GRIDGE AND AT THE POWELL CREEK DRIVE AND HOLLYMEAD DRIVE INTERSECTION, AND RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS WERE RECOiYk'vlENDED IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOLS. IN JULY OF 1998 WE HAD A WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PROVII)ED 8OIvlZ LNPLW RELATYv~ TO T-I~ DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPRINGRIDGE, BUT WITH PUBLIC INPUT PRIMARE.Y ADDRESSING TRAFFIC CONCE1CNS AN'D QUESTIONING TFLX_, VALIDITY OF THE WILBUR SMII'H TRAFFIC NUMBERS. FOLLOWING THE WORKSESSION WE MET WITH HOLLYMEAD AND FOREST LAKES P,.EPRESENTITIVES FOR THE pLrR.POSE OF REACHING AGRERMENT ON TRAFFIC VOLUME NUMERS, AND AGREEMENT WAS REACHED. HOWEYER, AGREEMENT ON THE NUMBERS DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS AGRRF. N'fENT ON THE IMPACTS. WE DID HAVE WILBUR SMITH REEVALUATE THE TK,~C IMPACTS BASED ON THE REVISED, AGREED TO NI~fi3ERS, AND THEIR CONCLUSIONS WERE THE SAME AS PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED. AS YOU IQ'qOW, 12',? OCTOBER OF 1998 TI-rE PLz4MN~'~,rG CONLMISSION UNANr~IOUSLY APPROVED THE REZONING OF SPRINGRIDGE WITH THE ROAD CONNrE. CTION ACROSS THE t-IOLL~x~iEAD LAKE DMvL HOWEVER, t~t-~_,Y D~ ENCOURAGE US TO WORK WITH THE FOREST LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO SEE IF A MORE INDIRECT CON~"ECTION, T~r[E SO CALLED "V" CON2qECTION, COULD BE MADE INSTEAD OF THE ROAD ACROSS THE DAM. FOLLOWING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I CONTACTED THE FOREST LAKES COMI¥~~ ASSOCIATION A~ND IT WAS INDICATED THEY WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE .ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS WITH US. THEY REQUESTED WE DEFER OUR 3lEETING WITH YOU FROM NOVEMBER YokNTIL TONIGHT IN ORDER TO WORK OLrI' AN' AGREEMENT, AND WE NOW HAVE A PROPOSED AGREEMENT WHICH I8 TO BE VOTED ON BY TB~ FOREST LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ON MARCH 4, 1999. THIS PROPOSED AGREEMENT, A COPY OF WI{ICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED YOU BY STAFF, PROVIDES ACCESS TO SPP, KNGRIDGE BY EXTENTION OF T~IBERWOOD BOUI ~F. VAR.D IN FOREST ~LAK. ES NORTH WITH NO CONNECTION BETWEEN FOREST L,4I<ES NORTH AND HOLLY/v~AD OR FOREST LAKES SOUTH. IN ESSENCE, THE PROPOSED ACCESS IS THE SAM~ AS PROPOSED TO THE ASSOCIATION IN JULY OF 1996. AS WE HAVE INDICATED ON MA~x~' OCCASIONS, WE ARE AGREEABLE TO EITI4E~R THE PLAN AS 'APPROVED BY THE PL.4~NN~G CO~EViISSION WITH THE ROAD CONNECTION ACROSS THE DAM. OR THE SINGLE ACCESS FROM FOREST LAKES NORTH WITH NO INTERCONNECTLNG ROAD. WHILE A COMPREt~NSIVE PLAN GOAL KS TO INTERCON~-NECT N~EIGHBORHOODS, THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO CONSIDER THE SINGLE ACCESS WITH NO CONN'ECTION IF Al'PROVED BY 2I-IE ASSOCIATION'. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMEN~I' BY THE FOREST LAKES CO1VB/KJNITY ASSOCIATION. WHICH INCLUDES BOTH FOREST LAKES NORTH ,kNrD SOUTH, REQU'IRF_,S A 759/0 AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, .~ND, THUS, WOULD BE A STRONG' ]2~"DICATION OF SUPPORT FOR NO CONNECTION'. THE CEN-FER FOR SU-RVEY RESEARCH WORK INDICATES A MAJORITY OF FOREST LAKES AND HOLLYMEAD RESIDE,XfTS, 64%, DO NOT SUPPORT INTERCON'NECTION OF THE N~EIGHBORHOODS. FROM A DESIGN' STANDPOEqT THE ROADS IN FOREST LAKES NORTH, TIMBERWOOD P.aJLKWAY AND TEvlBERWOOD BOULEVARD, ARE EASILY CAPABI .g. OF tlAN.D~G THE TRAFFIC FROM SP1LINGRK)GE. * NO ~qTERCONNECTION WOULD MOST LIKELY REDUCE FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLU~'MES IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOLS. THE STREAM CROSSING FOR AN ACCESS FROM FOREST LAKES NORTH IS PROBABLY LESS SIGNIFICAiN-T Tl-ix~q THE ONE P,.EQUIR~D WI'IH ACC-ESg FROM POWEI J- CREEK DRIVE, AND, THUS, WOULD MOST LIKELY CALrSE LESS EN~vTRO.X~,IENTAL DEGtLkDATION. WH]I_JE, AS I HAVE !krDICATED, '~-E ARE I-L~PPY TO PROCEED WITH EITHER ME,4aNS OF ACCESS, WE DO HOPE THAT A DECISION' IS REACHED TONIGHT. IF YOU' FEEL ACCESS FROM FOREST LAKES NORTH WITH NO INTERCONN-ECTION IS ACCEPTABI,F., WE ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THE PLAN AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNIN@ COM2MISSION WTrI-{ THE CONNECTION ACROSS THE DAM, BUT REQUXP, E THAT ACCESS BE FROM FOREST LAKES NORTH wrrH NO CON~'NECTION IF THE FOREST LAKES CO~hMLrNITY ASSOCIATION APPROVES TI-IE PROPOSAL TO BE VOTED ON MARCH 4, I999. IF YOU FEE!. ACCESS FROM FOREST LAKES NORTH WTrH NO INTERCONN-ECTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, WE ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THE REZONLNG AS APPROVED BY THE PLAN.'5~G COM/vKSSiON. SPRINGRIDGE ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR 135 LOT PLAN - 124 LOTS ESTIMATED FEBRUARY 9, 1999 FILE: SRC2 ESTIMATED ITEM COST COST/LOT COST/LOT ADDITIONAL COST/LOT COST/LOT ¢~ 135 LOTS ~ 124 LOTS PER PLAN ~ 135 LOTS ~ 124 LOTS LAND ROAD OVER DAM SOUTH ENTRANCE RDJWATER NORTH ENTRANCE RD./WATER LOOP AREA MASS GRADING INTERNAL ROADS: PUBLIC PRIVATE ALLEYS/PARKING INTERNAL STORM ~NTERNAL WATER SANITARY SEVVER S I D E'WAL KS/PATHS SOIL EROSION LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE/LIGHTING OFF SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PLANNING/ENGINEERING BONDS, ETC, POST OFFICE ADMIN.IACCOUNTING GENERAL LEGAL LOT CLOSING PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSURANCE PROPERTY TAXES MOWING/MAINTENANCE ROAO ACCEPTANCE MISCELLANEOUS SUBTOTAL FINANCING COSTS TOTAL $800,000 S5,926 $6,452 $155,000 $1,148 $1,250 $200,000 $1,481 $1,613 $600,000 $520,000 $28,000 $60,000 $151,000 $264,000 $417,000 $332,000 $250,000 $130,000 $100 000 $250 000 $80 000 $80 000 $50 000 $50000 $58 000 $291 000 $30 000 $83000 $30 000 $20 000 S50 000 $5,079,000 $310,000 $5,389,000 $4,444 $4,839 $125,000 $926 $1,008 $3,852 $4,194 $61,200 $453 $494 $207 $226 $14,000 $104 $113 $444 $484 $60,000 $444 $484 $1,119 $1,218 $1,956 $2,129 $60,000 $444 $484 $3,089 $3,363 $2,459 $2,677 $260.000 $1,926 $2,097 $1,852 $2,016 $963 $1,048 $70,000 $519 $565 $741 $806 $1,852 $2,016 $593 $645 $17,000 $126 $137 $593 $645 $370 $4O3 $370 $403 $430 $468 $2,156 $2,347 $222 $242 $615 $669 $222 $242 $148 $161 S370 $4O3 $37,622 $40,960 $667,200 $4,942 $5,381 $2,296 $2,500 $38,000 $281 $306 $39,919 $43,460 $705,200 $5,224 $5,687 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ELAINE K. ECHOLS OCTOBER 27, 1998 NOVEMBER 18, 1998 ZMA 98-12 PRD MINOR AMENDMENT TO FOREST LAKES SOUTH PRD and SP 98-46 STREAM CROSSING AND CONSTRUCTION IN FLOODPLAIN OF POWELL CREEK Applicant's Proposal: Forest Lakes Associates has requested a minor amendment to the Forest Lakes South PRD arid a special use permit to obtain road access into the "Brown" property. The minor amendment consists of' a modification to the Forest Lakes South application plan to allow for a road and a pedestrian path in a portion of' open space previously planned for pedestrian access 'only. The applicant has proffered to construct the road and reconstruct the pedestrian path with this modified application plan. The special use permit would allow for grading and construction in the floodplain to construct a road across Powell Creek for road access into the Brown property. These requests are being heard in conjunction with the rezoning request for Springridge PR/); however, they are separate and independent requests from Springridge. Regardless of the Springridge request, the applicant is requesting approval of.the minor amendment and special use permit for access to the Brown property. Any development of the Brown property requires special permission for access and a stream crossing. Access from Proffit Road necessitates the acquisition of additional r.o.w, from adjoining owners along Proffit Road. A Proffit Road entrance to the property requires a stream crossing at a different location. Access from Timberwood Parkway means acquisition of r.o.w. would have to be made from the Forest Lakes Homeowners' Association. A stream crossing would also be required to access the property from Forest Lakes North. The applicant already owns the property adjacent to the Brown property in which the request is made for a road. A stream crossing is needed at this location as well, in order for any development to occur on the Brown property. Petition for Minor Amendment to Forest Lakes South PRD: The petition is to modify by minor amendment the area shown on the original application plan dated June 5, 1991 that was approved as a part of Forest Lakes South in October of 1991. The property for the minor amendment is described as residue of Tax Map 47-97A1 and a portion of Tax Map 46B5 Parcel 1. The area for modification is located at the end of Powell Creek Drive on the east side of the Hollymead Lake dam. (See Attachments A & B.) The length of the road modification would be 300 feet for a total square footage changed of approximately 15,000 square feet. (See Attachment C.) It is zoned Forest Lakes South PRD. In the Hollymead Community, it is recommended for neighborhood density of 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre. Petition for Special Use Permit: This petition is to approve a special use permit for a stream crossing over Powell Creek for road access to Tax Map Parcel 46-35 in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. This property is described as a portion of Tax Map 46-35 located at the end of Powell Creek Drive, east of the Hollymead dam along Powell Creek. (See Attachment B.) It is presently zoned R-1 but is requested for approval as Springridge PRD. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant is making the request in order to provide for public or private road access to the property described as Tax Map 46-35, also known as the "Brown" property. Character of the Area: The area in which the modification would occur has a pedestrian path along wooded and open areas. Nearby are apartments and single family homes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposals for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of Z/VIA 98-12 as requested and SP 98-46 with conditions. Plannin~ and Zoning History_: The Forest Lakes South property is part of an area of open space designated on the application plan for pedestrian access. It is owned by the applicant and has not been conveyed to the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association. There is no subdivision or zoning history on the Brown property. Comprehensive Plan: The Forest Lakes South PUD is shown as an area for development at a neighborhood density of 3 - 6 dwellings per acre in the Hollymead Community. The Comprehensive Plan speaks extensively to "infill" in the development areas. Regarding natural resources and stream crossings, the Plan says that encroachment into the floodplain by manmade structures should be avoided to prevent flooding. The Plan recommends protection of significant resources associated with major stream valleys. (Powell Creek is identified as a major stream valley on the County's Open Space Plan.) But it also recognizes that floodplain crossings may be necessary to access property for development. Where floodplain crossings cannot be avoided, all efforts are to be made to mitigate environmental impacts from disturbance of the floodplain. STAFF COMMENT: Purpose for rezoning a portion of Forest Lakes South - The 75 acre parcel, known as the "Brown" property is, in some ways, a "landlocked" parcel. It has legal access from Proffit Road through a 15 foot easement but has no public or private road frontage. Since it is surrounded by other property, the only available road frontage would be through a portion of the Forest Lakes South development designated for a path in open space on the Application Plan. A path exists at this location that leads to English Oaks in Forest Lakes South. The area to be affected by the rezoning is approximately 50 feet wide by 300 feet long. The 2 proposal by the applicant is to construct a 24 foot wide road with a replacement path adjacent to the road for 300 feet down the hill. The road would then veer off to the east and the path would continue as it does now. The rezoning of Forest Lakes South, if approved, makes possible access to the parcel through the development area. Public need and justification for the change - The public need and justification for altering the application plan is to provide legal access to a developable parcel in a County neighborhood designated for neighborhood density of 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre. Access from either road requires decisions to be made by entities other than the applicant. Additional fight-of-way would have to be obtained from an adjoining property owner along Proffit Road for access to be taken from Proffit Road. The requested modification to Forest Lakes South PRD is the other option. As the applicant owns the property in Forest Lakes South and because the access for development would be in the development area, rather than in the rural area, the Powell Creek modification is viewed as the more advantageous. Anticipated impact on services and facilities - The modification in the application plan for Forest Lakes South makes possible the development of the Brown property. At by-fight densities, an increase in traffic will occur along Powell Creek Drive once the Brown property is developed. As shown in the Comprehensive Plan, the Brown property should be developed at a density of 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre or 150 - 300 units. By-fight use would be approximately 70 units. The Springridge rezoning would result in 100 - 135 dwelling units with associated traffic impacts. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources - No impact is anticipated on natural, cultural, and historic resources. The trail to be replaced will be reconstructed in the same fight-of-way and another trail will be built that will lead into the proposed development Anticipated impact on nearby and surroundin_e properties - Very little impact from the construction of the road and replacement of the path is anticipated on nearby and surrounding properties. The path is not located adjacent to or near residences, schools, or active recreation areas. The ability to place a roadway in this area, however, enables the Brown property to be developed. Development of the Brown property would have a transportation impact on nearby and surrounding properties. This impact was anticipated with the designation of the area for development. Specific impacts associated with the Brown rezoning request are assessed in the staff report for Springridge PRD. For special use.permits the following analysis is made in accordance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: 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 3 upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_. The applicant has indicated that there will likely be a minor mount of backwater flooding on the adjacent upstream property but that this property is unused open space associated with Forest Lakes North. The ability to use open space for drainage purposes was retained by Forest Lakes Associates when they conveyed the property to the Homeowners Association. There are no improvements in this open space and no damage to recreational areas is anticipated with the backwater flooding. Staff concurs that this minor backup will not be a substantial detriment to the open space of Forest Lakes or to adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The addition of a stream crossing should not change the character of the district since there are streams, stream crossings, and dams that are part of the two existing developments nearby. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Section 30.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the purpose and intent of the Flood Hazard Overlay District to provide safety and protection from flooding. More specifically, the provisions of this section of the ordinance are to "restrict the unwise use, development and occupancy of lands subject to inundation 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". The only property that will experience flooding from this bridge crossing will be open space which has no improvements. No improvements are proposed in this area for Forest Lakes North. As a result, neither homes nor public infrastructure should be affected by minor backup resulting from the stream crossing. The water protection ordinance and other environmental permits should ensure protection from soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation, and pollution of water resources. with the uses permitted by right in the district,,. The by-right uses are residential and the proposed uses are also residential. The floodplain crossing would be viewed as compatible with these uses and also permit many of the uses. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which limits stream crossing to places where a property owner has 4 no reasonable use of her/his property, except with a stream crossing. Stream crossings are also approved where their construction would prevent environmental degradation and flooding. Stream crossings are also approved to advance the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The Engineering Department of the County helps determine the environmental as well as safety impacts these changes may have (See Attachment D). Their comments follow: The applicant has requested a culvert type stream crossing for a road to access the main development area of Springridge. Fill will be placed in the floOdplain to raise the road elevation high enough to remain dry during flood events. A preliminary road alignment was submitted with the application that indicates maximum fill depths of 10 - 15 feet. With 2:1 slopes there will be areas of disturbance of approximately 60 feet in the widest area. They have concluded that care must be taken with the placement of the culvert and upstream and downstream channel bank protection in order to avoid excessive erosion in the downstream bends. They have noted that this stream crossing will have a significant unavoidable impact to the stream buffer areas because of the wideness of the floodplain at this location. They have also noted that, given the existing access alternatives to the Brown property, there does not seem to any other choice. They recommend approval of the stream crossing with conditions stated at the end of the report. Staff believes that for any development of the property a stream crossing is needed. Without a stream crossing, five lots could be developed in the 25 acre rural area portion of the property. On the remaining 50 acres, two homes could be constructed as long as they shared a driveway that crosses the creek. The driveway would have to be installed without grading, culverts, or bridges. This type of development would not be in keeping with the current density allowed for the zoning district or in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. SUMMARY The proposed modification to the application plan and the special use permit make possible the development of an area shown on the Comprehensive Plan for neighborhood density development. Without this rezoning and a stream crossing, lack of suitable access prohibits development from occurring in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Development in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan requires these modifications, regardless of the proposed Springridge rezoning. Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: · The application plan can be easily modified to retain the pedestrian path as well as provide for vehicular access. · The modification to the application plan and the special use permit make possible development that is in keeping with the recommendations for infill in the Comprehensive Plan. The floodplain crossing will be designed to have the least environmental impact possible. Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: · The modification will provide for access to an undeveloped property which, when developed, will have impacts on nearby neighborhoods. · The floodplain crossing will cause fill which will result in minor flooding in an open space area of the Forest Lakes North development. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 98-12 Minor Amendment to Forest Lakes South PRD in order to provide for legal access to the adjoining parcel TMP 46-35. Staff recommends approval of the stream crossing with the following conditions: Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan. Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with State and Federal agencies regulating activities within jurisdictional streams and wetlands. This will include correspondence with FEMA for changes to floodway or floodplain. Engineering Department approval of mitigation plans. Engineering Department approval of culvert crossing plans and hydrologic and hydraulic computations demonstrating no increase in 100 year flood levels. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Parcel Map C - Amended Application Plan D - Engineering Comments regarding the Stream Crossing A:Xzma9812 and sp9846-forestlakes, doc 6 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT B 30~ ~. 3~ 4§ ~e tSC 22 C CHARLOTTESVILLE AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS 34A 35 ZrvlA 98-12 FOREST LAKES SOUTH ~\ 47 ~/95J 146 I SECTION 46 '' ill / / // ATTACHMENT D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer ~ 13 August 1998 Spring Ridge, floodplain crossing for entry road, special use permit The special use permit application for a stream crossing in the floodplain received on 31 July 1998 has been reviewed. A field visit to the site was made on 11 August 1998. This area is a Iow, flat, wooded stream valley with many mature poplars, heavy undergrowth and some Iow lying wetland areas. Attached is a topography sheet showing the approximate alignment of the proposed road and a descriptive sketch of the existing stream valley cross-section based on field measurements. The stream is a perennial tributary to Powell Creek. It receives flows from .Lake Hollymead as well as the lakes in Forest Lakes North. The upstream dams provide significant attenuation of the flows in this stream. This has probably reduced the frequency with which this stream overtops its banks. The banks vary significantly, from sharply cut outside bends to [ow sediment deposited inside bends. The stream is very sinuous at this location. The applicant is proposing a roadway across this stream valley with a culvert in the stream channel. Fill will be placed in the floodplain to raise the road elevation high enough to remain dry during flood events. A preliminary road alignment submitted by the applicant (attached) indicates maximum fill depths of 10-15'. With 2:1 slopes this will create a disturbance approximately 60' wide at its widest. The floodplain in this area has been determined by FEMA with a detailed study, and a cross section has been provided at the approximate stream crossing location indicating flood levels at contour 400'. In addition, wetlands have been identified near the stream crossing location as noted on the attached topography sheet. Note that the applicant is proposing to take the road around the identified wetland area, and has indicated a desire to conserve this area. Affects to the stream and floodplain are anticipated to be a constriction of flow at the culvert, and the disturbance of clearing and fill for the road. The flood level must not increase with the development, according to Zoning Ordinance section 30.3.3.2. The applicant has indicated that it is possible to achieve this by modifications to the outlet structures at Hollymead Dam, or in Forest Lakes, as well as installation of a large enough culvert at the crossing. The disturbance of the forested stream buffer area must be mitigated by a mitigation plan according to the Water Protection Ordinance. Mitigation proposals' have not been made. Usually, these take the form of plantings along the roadway and stream banks, and additional erosion control measures during construction. One possible affect of a culvert placed in this winding channel, which straightens the portion of the stream through the crossing and prevents that section of channel from shifting, is a long term downstream affect of excessive erosion in the downstream bends in the channel as the stream morphology compensates for the energy of flow through the culvert. This can be mitigated somewhat by careful placement of the culvert and upstream and downstream channel bank protection. From an overall development standpoint, there would be less impact to stream buffer areas by locating the primary access road from Proffit Road, or from Forest Lakes North. However, this does not appear possible given the parcel boundaries. Based on the review above, the Engineering Department recommends approval of the stream crossing and fill in the floodplain as proposed by the applicant, with the following conditions: o [32. 74. 3, WP Ord.] Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan. [Dept. Policy] Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with State and Federal agencies regulating activities within jurisdictional streams and wetlands. This will include correspondence with FEMA for changes to floodway or floodplain. [Water Protection Ord.] Engineering Department approval of mitigation plans. [30. 3. 3] Engineering Department approval of culvert crossing plans and hydrologic and hydraulic computations demonstrating no increase in 100 year flood levels. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. GEB/ Copy: ZMA-98-013 SP-98-? File: spridgex.doe 'T, HE KESSLER GROUP Stephen N. Runkle President Mr. John MacDonald President Forest Lakes Community Association 1824 Timberwood Boulevard Charlotteswille, Vkginia 22911 January 25, 1999 Dear John: As you requested during our telephone conversation Friday, January 22nd, I have amended the terms of a possible agreement between Forest Lakes Associates and the FLCA regarding a single road access to Springridge by extension of Timberwood Parkway through common area owned by FLCA~ Forest Lakes Associates shall agree to the following: * To not construct a road across Hollymead Lake Dam. We may, however, be required to provide emergency access across the dam as a requirement of the rezoning. * Deed Area A and B as shown in Figure I to FLCA simultaneously with FLCA deeding. to Forest Lakes Associates land required for the access road from within Area C in Figure 1. Area A will be deeded subject to the agreement between Forest Lakes..~ Associates and United Dominion Realty Trust dated October 7, 1998. It is assumed the transfer of land will occur with recordation of the subdivision plat of Phase I of Springridge since that will require approval of the final plans for the access road. Of course, Area B will be deeded net of the land required for approval and acceptance of the public road access to Springridge. To not build a connecting road from Powell Creek Drive or English Oaks Circle North to Springridge (that portion of Springridge north east of Powell Creek) through Area A, D or E as shown in Figure 1 in such a manner that would provide a continuous road connection from Forest Lakes North to Forest Lakes South and/or Hollymead. * To maintain a minimum 100' distance between the road fight of way to the basketball courts. To extensively landscape the access road. We would provide a staggered row of evergreen trees 15' on center where they do not currently exist to the rear of Cove Pointe homes, and street trees 50' on center on both sides of the road in areas P.O. Box 5207, Charlottesville Va. 22905 (804) 979-9500 FAX (804) 979-8055 where evergreens are not planted. Additionally, we will agr~ to plant evergr~n trees in the open area on the east side of Timberwood Parkway across fi'om the enUance to Cove Pointe ifFLA and FI, CA mutually agree it is desirable to do so. To seek ways to calm/slow traffic on Timberwood Parkway, particularly at path crossings. Such traffic calming measures could include such things as raised and/or textured and/or marked and/or signed path crossings and/or intersections, but any such measures must be approved by VDOT and, thus, cannot be guaranteed by FLA. To construct paved walking paths as indicated in Figure 2. Path 1 will connect to the existing path by the basketball courts and to the sidewalk system in Springridge. Path 2 will connect to the existing path between Hollymead Lake and English Oaks and the sidewalk system in Springridge. FLCA shall agree to the following: To deed fi.om within Area C to Forest Lakes Associates, or the party designated by Forest Lakes Associates, land sufficient for the approval and acceptance by VDOT of a public road access to Springridge. Based on the alignment of the proposed road as shown in Figure 1, the mount of land required is estimated to be approximately 50' wide by 400' long, or about 0.46 acres. The mount of land may vary depending on the final ali~tmment and fight of way width required by VDOT. To provide in the deed to FLA that FLA may grant over the remaining common area any easements for the construction and acceptance of the access road by VDOT, as well as Special Use Permits or other items that may be required by Albemarle County in the rezoning and subdivision approval processes for Springridge. Finally, any agreement must be contingent on approval of the Springridge rezoning with the single road access fi.om Forest Lakes North by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. I hope the above correctly represents our discussion. If not, please advise where you feel adjustments are appropriate. Stephen N. Runlde Partner, Forest Lakes Associates Sg/js End. THE KESSLER GROUP J \ \ THE KESSLER GROUP BOARD OF .... Don Franco, P.E. Ms. Ella Carey Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 November 11, 1998 Re: ZMA 98-12 SP 98-46 ZMA 98-13 Forest Lakes South PUD - Minor Amendment Springridge PRD - Stream Crossing Springridge PRD Dear Ms. Carey: Last night, Charles Martin, Wayne Cilimberg, Vyte Kavolius (President, Forest Lakes Community Association), Vince Nelson (Director, Forest Lakes Community Association), SteVe Runkle (Forest Lakes Associates) and I met to discuss the referenced items. ~ ' Insummary, the Association expressed their desire to eliminate the proffered road over the dam and to revisit accessing Springridge solely from Forest Lakes North along the alignment we formally proposed in December 1996. They also requested that the above referenced petitions be deferred ,so that a detailed proposal can be developed and presented in late January to the property owners in Forest Lakes. To foster the spirit of cooperation and for reasons to be outlined in a follow-up letter, I hereby request, on behalf of Forest Lakes Associates, that the above referenced items be deferred to the February 10, 1999 Meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Sincerely, Don Franco Copy Steve Runkle Vyte Kavolius Wayne Cilimberg Jose Gomez Charles Martin - Vince NelsOn P.O. Box 5207, Charlottesville Va. 22905 (804) 979-9500 FAX (804) 979-8055 David P. Bowerman Rio Charlotte Y. Humphris Formst R. M~rshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 November 12, 1998 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas S~muel ~ TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LISTED ON ATTACHED PAGES Re: ZMA-98-12 - Forest Lakes South - Minor Amendment ZMA-98-13 - Springridge PRE) SP-98-46 - Springridge Stream Cossing. Dear Sir or Madam: This tetter is to notifyyou that at its meeting on Novembe~ 11, 1998, the Board of Supervisors deferred the above-referenced petitions until February 10, 1999. These petitions are described as: ZMA-98-12, Forest Lakes South- Minor .Amendment (Signs #4,5,19&92). A request by Forest Lakes Associates to modify the application plan to permit construction of road in area designated for pedestrian trail near Hollymead Dr. Property comprised of residue of TM46, P97A-1 & TM46BS, P1 currently znd Forest Lalces South PUD. (The Land Use Plan shows this area to be in the Hollymead Community & designated for neighborhood density residential development (3-6 du/ac). Rivanna Dist. ZMA-98-13. Springridge PRD. A request by Forest Lakes Associates to rezone 75 acs from R-1 & RA to PRD for either 135 d/u of mixed types or I00 single family detached units. TM46, P35. Located approx 200' fkom end of Powell Creek Dr near Hollymead Dam, Existing use of the property is vacant; the Comp Plan shows the density to be 3-6 du/ac in the area shown for neighborhood density and 1 &'u;'per 21":ac in the area shown as RA. Proposed density is 2.0-2.7 du/ac in the area shown for neighborhood density. No dwellings are proposed in the area shown as RA. Rivanna Dist. SP-98-46. Springridge Stream Crossing. A request to allow a stream crossing over Powell Creek to provide access to TM46, P35. Located approx 200' from the end of Powell Creek Dr near Hollymead Dam. Currently znd R-1. The Land Use Plan shows this property for neighborhood density in the Hollymead Community w/a density of 3-6 du/ac. Rivanna Dist. Printed on recycled paper November 12, 1998 Page 2. These public heatings will be held at 7:00 p.m., in Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office :Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. If you need any additional information, please contact the undersigned. /ewc Sincerely, Attachment: LISTING OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg -Elai.ne Echols Amelia McCulley "Jack Kelsey ZMA-98-12 FOREST LAKES SOUTH MINOR AMENDMENT RESIDENT - 1410 ASHLAND DRIVE RESIDENT - 1600 PEPPERIDGE LANE 1650 POETS LANE LAND TRUST ABADIE, RICHRD T JR OR JULIE D ABOUZEID, KAMAL M OR'MARY P ALBEE, MICHAEL D OR MELANIE L ANNE, ANTHARVEDI & LEELAVATHI ARDAN HOMES INC ARMSTRONG, CHARLES S OR MARY LEE ARNOLD, PETER B OR ANNE RUTH UNGAR BADYNA, MICHAEL J OR ANDREA M BAFS, PAMELA F BAILEY, R RIVES OR CAREY F BAKER, VERNON M OR LISA L BALLAS, JOHN D OR ATHENA M BARBER, MARK E OR.MARGARET ~O BARRY,. CHRISTOPHER D OR HEATHER A BATTEN, RICHARD E OR ROBIN H BEHAL, DANIEL L OR CAROL J BERGHUIS, PETER L OR CYNTHIA J BILLINGS; RICHARD D OR DONNA Y BIRCKHEAD, WILLARD H 8,: FRANCES B BLOW,'~ OSBERT OR BARBARA B BOGDAN~ JAMES P BOJARSKI, GARY P OR MARGARET M BOSCHERT, KERMIT V OR MARY ANN BOWERMAN, DAVID W OR JANICE H BOWLES, RUSSELL L JR OR GWENDOLYN B BRADY, WILLIAM J OR JO ANN P BRANDERMILL INVESTMENT, INC. BRANSFIELD, RICHARD W OR NANCY M BREHM, JOHN J OR MARY ELLEN BROWN, MAGGIE L BROWN, WILLIAM J OR MARJANKA BROWN, LYNN K BURROUGHS, GREGORY L OR ANGELA B BUTTON, ROBERT L OR NANCY K CAGGIANO, MICHAEL G OR SUSAN S CALDWELL, THOMAS A CALHOUN, ROBERT L AND PHYLLIS M CAREY, RAYMOND L SR OR JOYCE B -1- CARPENTER, RICHARD A OR ELIZABETH C CARROLL, JOHN A OR RUTH CARTER, ROBERT F OR MAY T CETTA, VITO OR BEVIN CHAMBERLEN, ROBERT E OR JANET A CHANA, CARRIE E CHILDS, KENNETH P JR OR DEBORAH L CHRISTOPULOS, JAMES L OR N BETH CLARK, JOHN DOUGLAS CLEPPER, LINDA F CLIFTON, DAVID W OR MARGARET M CLIFTON, KEITH R OR GILLIAN M L CLINE, GREGORY M OR JILL J COATS, DAVID LEMAY OR ANN KIRKLAND COBEY, CHERYL ANNE, TRUSTEE FOR THE COFFINDAFFER, JOHN & BARBARA COFFINDAFFER & CAROL FRAZER COLES, DANIEL COLLINS, ROBERT P AS TRUSTEE FOR COMPTON; FRELIN R OR HELGA COMPTON, SUSAN J CONROY, JOHN J & EVELYN M CONROY, CONROY, NANCY M COULLING, CHRISTOPHER J OR VICKI H COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SCHOOL BOARD COUSINS, CARL M OR ALTHEA L C. COX, SCOTT M OR AMY B CROCKETT CORPORATION CROSS, GEORGE F & ANITA M CROSS CUNARD, MANUEL R OR DONNA L CURRIER, WILLIAM M CZUMAK, LINDA M DACUNHA, JOSE NOLASCO OR ANELUCI DAHL, RUTH N DAUGHERTY, PAUL F OR NIKKI L DAVENJAY, ANNE M DAWN MAHONEY DELP, DONALD E OR SUSAN R DIGIACOMO, DAVID MK OR VALINA DIANE DIKE, BRADLEY D DILLAWAY, ANDREW W OR ELEANOR W DOWD, JAMES OR SHIRLEY DROZDA, WILLIAM P OR PAMELA A -2- DUFAULT, RAYMOND F OR PAULA DUKES, ERNEST F JR OR MARIE ANNE D DUMITRU, ROBERT A OR JANICE E DURVE, RUHUL ARUN EARWOOD, KENNETH E OR PATRICIA C EBERSOLD, JO ANNE ERNST, WANNA M 8,: ROBERT C ERNST JR EXETER HOMES OF VIRGINIA INC FAN, KAISHENG OR XUANYUAN WANG FARANDA, WILLIAM J OR JILL D FARD, MIKE OR CYNTHIA FARINHOLT, JOSEPH JOHN OR LINDA M FARRENKOPF, MARION F FEHSE, ROBERT C OR BARBARA A FELTES, MICHAEL J OR CATHY P FERGUSON, CHRISTOPHER R OR MONICA C FERGUSON, CHESTER L OR CHERYL M -FIRTH, EDITH B FITZHUGH, EUGENE P JR OR CAWOOD B FLORA,' LILLIAN E FLORA, CHARLIE R SR FOREST LAKES ASSOCIATES FOSTER, JOSEPH T OR WENDI C FOWLER, AARON J JR OR CATHERINE FRANCO, ANDRES C III OR JUDITH L FREDRICK, JAMES M OR RUTH M BALL GAFFNEY, JOHN F OR MONTANA K GAMACHE, DAVID ESR OR JACQUELYN G GARDNER, THOMAS A OR JILL A GARRISON, JERRY MARTIN GASPAR, DOUGLAS M OR KAREN M GAZEWOOD, JOHN D OR PATRICIA A GELNOVATCH, GEORGE GEORGE; 'DAVID JOHN OR LINDA ANN GERSBACH, JOHN E OR JOANNE C GHOSH, SUBHAS OR INDRANI GIZIENSKI, TERRI ANN GOLDEN, JOAN K GOSS, FRANCIS L & FAITH A GOSS GREEN, JOHN H OR DONNA R GRIFFIN, MIKE D OR YVONNE T GURANY, ERNIE OR LILA HAGY, MARGARET B -3- HALL, MARK J OR DAWN E HAMMOND, STEVEN P OR TAMERA K HANCOCK, BARBARA R HANSEN, MARTIN W OR PATRICIA A BRENNAN HANSON, ROLF H L OR ELIZABETH C HAPGOOD, CHRISTOPHER OR PASCALE A HARLOS, HARRY A OR HELEN L HARRIS, JOSEPH A OR CHERYL A HARTSFIELD, ROGER B OR CYNTHIA R HEFREN, ARTHUR L OR LAVERNE S HEFREN, MARK E OR JANET L HELDRETH, ROBERT L OR JOANNE P HENRY, MARK B OR PAULA P HERRION, THOMAS P HESS, BLANCHE M OR FRANK M HEUER, ALFRED P & JEANNETTE M HEUER HINTON, BARRY T OR DEBRA E HOCKENSMITH, ROBERT J OR CARLOYN D HOLLYMEAD CITIZENS ASSOCIATION INC HONOUR, CRAIG G OR SHERRY A HORBALY, WILLIAM GEORGE OR DENISE LOUISE HORNE LAND CORPORATION HORNER, RICHARD V OR APRIL C HORTON, MADELINE M & PETER F BURNS HOWELL, SUSAN M HOWIE, GARY A HUDGINS, ROBERT G JR OR DAWN L HUGHES, JEFFREY E OR KATHERINE E TILLAR-HUGHES HUGHLETT, JAMES O OR NANETTE S HUMPHREY, MARTY A OR CHRISTINA E HUNT, ROBERT T OR FRANCES M HUTSON, CHARLES E OR LINDA D IACHETTA, FULVIO A & LYNETTE E JACKSON, . SCOTT C OR LISA M JACKSON, JOHN BARRINGTON JR OR SHEILA E JARED, JERRY R OR LESLIE L JOHNSON, WILLIAM STEPHEN OR PAMELA C JOHNSON, GREGORY ALAN OR LESLIE JOHNSON, J JOSEPH III OR KATHY O JOHNSON, WILLIAM STEPHEN ORPAMELA C JOHNSTON, TESS JOHNSTON, THOMAS F OR SALLY S JONES, CHARLES L OR PATRICIA B -4- KAESTNER, RONALD E OR LUCIA A KAISER, VOLKER KAPLAN, HARVEY OR SUSAN KARRIKER, TODD A OR JOY E KASTAN, MARK P OR LINDA S KATSTRA, DIRK P OR MICHELLE'M KAYTON, JACK T' III :OR KAHTRA M KEATHLEY, JAMES P OR JANE D KEPHART, FENTON OR MILDRED KETCHIE LAND TRUST KIM, RICHARD Y OR SLING A KIMCO, L C KIRPEKAR, ABHAY C OR SADHANA A KIRSCHNER, RICHARD L OR WENDY B KNIGHTON, CONNIE M KOERNERT, CHRISTOPHER C OR PRISCILLA B KOHLER, ROBERT G OR BETH K KRAFT, TRACY J OR ANDREA H KREITZMAN, JOHN OR JOYCE KU,-KEITH Y OR CAROLINE W KUYKENDALL, SCOTT C OR CYNTHIA S KYLE, MARTYN R OR CINDY A LANE, CANDACE S LAVIN, FRANCIS I JR OR ROSANNA C LEE, BEATRIZ E LEGGETT, SUSAN W LEHMAN, RICHARD M OR BETTY P LEMONS, KENNETH E OR SUSAN E BURNS LESLIE, ROBERT C OR JOY ELIZABETH LIAO, YONGBO OR XIAOPU LIU LIBERMAN, STEPHEN P OR MARY A LIVINGSTON, RONALD LEE LIZALOWSKI, BEVERLEY S LONGO, FRANK R OR DIANE V LONJIN, TERRY L OR TAMMY L LUGAR, LARRY EDWARD OR SHARON MACKNIGHT, JOHN MARK OR MELISSA .MAHONEY, MARY BETH & COLLEEN A MAHONEY & RONALD J COTTRELL OR MALONE, SYLVIA N OR PATRICIA A MALONE MANN, JOHN D OR ILANA W MARCO, LUCY AS TRUSTEE FOR THELUCY MARCO TRUST MARSHALL, DEBORAH C -5- MARTIN, FRANCOIS J OR KATHERINE E MATHIAS, RICHARD L OR NAZNIN S MAXWELL, JOHN THOMAS II OR ROBIN MAY, ALFRED & MELBA M MAYO, RICHARD C OR DEBORAH L MCCARRICK., THOMAS E OR MARY JO MCCARTHY, DAVID J OR MARY E MCCOLLOUGH, MARC OR KARLA MCDANIEL, A WAYNE OR SUSAN MCGEE, ELEANOR J MCGEE, WILLIAM T MCGOWAN, DOUGLAS J OR DEBORAH JO MCKEEL, ROBERT A OR PATRICE B MCLAIN, R. FERRELL TRUSTEE FOR THE MCLELLAN, RODERICK OR CHRISTINE MCPHERSON, JOHN A OR CHRIS ANN MCSHERRY, JAMES T OR LISA D MELCHER, DONALD E & LINDA H MELCHER MERREL, PAUL K OR PENNY M MICHEL, ROBERT S & ANN M MILLER, JEFFREY S OR ANGELA MONTGOMERY, GERARD J OR VICTORIA M MOORE, TOMMY L OR KATHLEEN A MORRIS, FRANKLIN L OR DORIS M MORRIS, PRESTON J MORSE, RONALD W OR HEIDI J MOURING, JOHN L III OR PATTI H MULLINS, R WAYNE OR MARY A MURRAY, KEVIN OR TAMARA MURRAY, ROBERT A OR SUZANNE MUXWORTHY, DAVID G OR CAROL LYNNE NEESE, A SCOTT OR PATRICE Y NELSON, H VINCENT OR CYNTHIA R NELSON;ROBERT H OR SUSAN B NGUYEN, CHRISTOPHER OR SANDRA NGUYEN, DUY NGOC OR THUY LY NGUYEN, HUNG M OR TUANH H NHP HOLLYMEAD L P NOLAN, JOSEPH M OR DEANNA C NOOTBAAR, JANET L NYC LAND TRUST O'BRIEN, WILLIAM J OR THERESA A O'LAUGHLIN, THOMAS W OR MARY ELLEN -6- O'NEILL, ANN J OLDENBURG, SUZANNE M OLSZEWSKI, SIGMUND V OR BARBARA A OVERTON, FRANCES W OWENS, WILLIAM A OR TONIE A OyDEA, PAUL OR MARY KAY PAIGE, STEVE M OR LINDA R PANGILINAN, JOSE H OR NELIA S PANNUNZIO, MICHAEL E OR TRACY G PARK, SEOK HEE OR SU YEON HWANG PARK, STEPHEN S OR EILEEN K PEDDADA, SHYAMAL D PELTZ, MARTIN OR JUDITH G PERRAULT, RICHARD L OR ANGELA L PHATH, SAMNANG OR SIVANNA MAU PIPAN, BERNARD M JR OR JOAN H POGENSKY, BERNARD OR THELMA POLLACK, HOWARD I OR SUSAN POMPEO, JEFFREY R OR LISA A POPOVSKY, PETER T PRASAD, DHEERENDRA OR KOMAL PRIAMO, DANIEL A OR KATHERINE R D WADE BUILDER INC RAYMOND, SHERI D REID, CHRISTOPHER W OR MICHELLE M RENNIE, NAN P RICE, RODNEY B OR KAREN J RICH, TIMOTHY O OR DEBRA BRUNS RICH RICHARDS, DONNA W OR WILLIAM S ROBERT HAUSER HOMES INC ROBERTS, DAVID L OR HELEN B ROEBER, JOHN F OR SONDRA H RONAN, JOEL D OR JANA L ROSSER, MICHAEL S OR KAREN L ROTH, GAVIN OR CHRISTY RUCINSKI, ROBERT A OR DENISE M RUSH, GEORGE W JR OR ALLEAN B RUSSELL, EDWARD D JR OR ELLEN F SALINAS, MAXIMO H OR LISA S SAMLEY, CHRISTOPHER C OR DEBORAH S SANDRIDGE, J.T. OR ELIZABETH B SANUSI, H AUGUST OR MARTH W SAVAGE, JUDY L -7- SAVINSKY, JAMES M OR DONNA W SCHMITZ, ERIC H OR NANCY A SELLEN, KEITH L OR DEBORAH J SHEEHAN, JONAS M OR MARYELLEN B SHRINER, JO ANN P SIBERT, WILLIAM L OR E JANE SIGMON, TIMOTHY MILLER SILVER, JOSEPH W OR ANNETTE Z SIMMONS, WILLIAM G OR SANDRA G SIMMONS, JAMES E OR ALLISON D SINGHVI, VIREN S OR REENA SIX STAR ASSOCIATES & WENDELL W WOOD SKELTON, EDWIN D OR JENNIFER S SKRYBAILO, STEPHAN OR MARTA SLATER, BRUCE H OR IRENE F SLONAKER, E THOMAS JR OR MADELINE SMITH, RANDALL R OR FRANCINE FINK 'SMITH, JOSEPH W OR DONNA H SMITH, JOHN N OR MARY ANN SMITH, KENNETH W JR OR MELINDA S SMYTH, FREDERICK L OR KATHERINE M SOLEM, CHRISTINE OR JOHN S COLES SOUTH FORK LAND TRUST; CHARLES WM SOUTHLAND HOMES INC SPANGLER, CONRAD T III OR PEGGY H SPATZ, MICHAEL R OR DAWN M SPICER, DORIS F STARR, MICHAEL A OR KIMBERLEY A STEINER, PHILIP OR JUNE A STILLEY, WILLIAM B OR ANNE T STILLWATER GROUP LAND TRUST; JAMES STRAUSS, PHILIP B OR LORI J STRICKLAND, WILLIAM D OR SUSAN C SURY, WESLEY D OR PATRICIA L TAKHOUNTS, ERIK G. OR MARIE TARBELL, RICHARD E OR MARY C TAYLOR, JONATHAN D THOMPSON, STEVEN T OR ANGELA R THORNE, FREDERICK W OR KAREN M THURSTON, RICHARD G OR CAROL M TINGLEY, WARREN H TINSLEY, MARY P TINSLEY, WILLIAM & MARY P -8- TOFFERI, ROBERT E OR GAYLE G TOPPING, LAWRENCE C OR DEBORAH E TRENT, STANLEY C OR MIRANDA C TROUTMAN, THOMAS C SR & PENNY S TUCKER, LAWRENCE A OR PAMELA D TURNBULL, JOHN R JR OR ELLEN T TURNER, BRETT RANDALL OR MICHELE CRAFT T. ULAN, PAUL KURT OR KIMBERLEY ANN VALEIDI S, FOTIOS OR FOTINI VAN DER LINDE HOUSING INC VARMA, TILAK R OR SUDHA T WADE, RANDOLPH D WALSH, WILLIAM M III OR DENISE E WALTON, CALVIN OWENS OR ARLENE LOUISE WALWORTH, WILLIAM J OR NANCY M WARD, GEORGE W III WATTS, JEFFREY W OR PAMELA K WEBB, JOHN GREGORY OR SUSAN THERESA WHEELER, RICHARD M JR OR SANDRA K WHORLEY, MICHAEL W WILLIAMS, MICHAEL L OR KRISTEN M WILLIAMS, LEWIS E JR OR MELANIE H WILSON, PAMELA G WILSON, LAWRENCE E OR TERESKA A ROBERTS WIMMER, RUTH W WOLFE, JOHN F JR OR JOAN H OR M AMIE WOLFE WOLFREY, DIANE L WOMBACHER, JOHN JR OR CEANN WOODCOCK, RICHARD J JR OR ELIZABETH W ZMA-98-13 SPRINGRIDGE ANDERSON, GARTH T OR MARGARET A COOPER-ANDERSON BETTNER, MARY A BIRCKHEAD, RAYDOLPH L. BOWDEN, KARL A OR KATHRYN R BROWN, ROBERT D JR CHARBACK, MICHAEL J OR SUSAN L COLES, DANIEL DAVIS, RALPH W OR MARYJO E DIXON, GREGORY A OR LORETHA D EPPELE, TIMOTHY E OR LAUDINA M FOREST LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOREST LAKES ASSOCIATES GINSBERG, MATTHEW E OR DONNA AMATO GORDON, CHRISTOPHER S HARRIS, VICTORIA G HOSTETTER, ROY G OR MARY K KIMCO, L C MASLOFF, JAMES M OR EVA D MAY, ALFRED & MELBA M MCPHAIL, WILLIAM L III OR DEBORAH B MINTON, J ANDREW III OR SHELBY DAVIS-MINTON MITCHEM, BETTY L MORRIS, KATHERINE MCM MORRIS, KATHERINE MCM MORRIS, SCOTT RICHARD OR SUSAN ELIZABETH NEWBERRY YVONNE OR LINDA A EASTHAM NOLAN, ROBERT E OR KAREN LEE OLIVER, JOHN OR ROBIN PADGETT, ALAN V OR JULIE K PETTIT, DON BRADLEY OR TRACY C PULLEN, JANET J REA, DONALD OR DARLENE M SAUER, ROBERT F OR CONNIE I SCHMIDT, JAMES T OR MELISSA K SCHUETT, ROBERT J OR DOREEN V SILVANETTO, ERLINDA P SKLANY, THEODORE J & SHIRLEY S SPANGLER, THOMAS E OR MARY M STALLARD, SONDRA F -1- SUNDERJI, NAZIR OR MUNIRA N UNITED DOMINION REALTY TRUST, INC VEACH, SUSAN L VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO WEAVER, JOSEPH M OR KAREN S WOOD, BALDWIN J OR MICHELE J -2- David R ~owennan Charlotte Y. Humphris Formst R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMA~I F_ Office o~ Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntim Road Charlottesville, VL,'ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 November 12, 1998 Charles S. Marlin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Don Franco The Kessler Group PO Box 5207 Charlottesville, V~ 22905 ZMA-98-12 Forest Lakes South Minor Amendment ZMA-98-13 Springridge PRD SP-98-46 Springridge Stream Crossing Dear Mr. Franco: Thi~ letter is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on November 11, 1998, at your request, deferred the above-referenced petitions until February 10, 1999. This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., in Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING. Any new or additional information must be submitted to the Clerk at least seven days prior to the scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. /ewc CC: V. Wayne Cilimberg Elaine Echols Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Sincerely, Ella W~. Carey, CMC, Clerk PHnted on recycled paper AFFIDAVIT DATE - November 13, 1998 I, Ella W. Carey, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) was sent on the above date to all persons listed on said notice. EII~ W. Carey, Clerk 7 Board of County Supervisor/~ Given under my hand in the County of Albemarle, State of Virginia this 13th. day of November, 1998. My commission expires Notary Public FILE: ZMA-98-'I2 FOREST LAKES SOUTH MINOR AMENDMENT AFFIDAVIT DATE - November 13, 1998 I, Ella W. Carey, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) was sent on the above date to all persons listed on said notice. Board of County Supervisor~' I Given under my hand in the County of Albemarle, State of Virginia this 13th. day of November, 1998. Notary Public FILE: ZMA-98-13 SPRINGRIDGE PRD AFFIDAVIT DATE - November 13, 1998 I, Ella W. Carey, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) was sent on the above date to all persons listed on said notice. Ella W. Carey, Clerk Board of County Supervisor~/ Given under my hand in the County of Albemarle, State of Virginia this 13th. day of November, 1998. Notary Public My commission expires FILE: SP-98-46 SPRINGRIDGE STREAM CROSSING PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON ZMA-98-13. Springridge PRD (Sign #14) (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) The following guidelines will be used for this public hearing: EACH SPEAKER ISALLOTTED 3 MINUTES. INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK. PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS NAME (Please print clearly) 9 10 11 12 13 t4 15 16 PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional) PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON ZMA-98-13. Springridge PRD (Sign #14) (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) The following guidelines will be used for this public hearing: EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES. INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK. PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 2 · COUNTY OF -ALBEMARLE .... :~,..:~,,:,~ ~..:. ~ ::::~.. ,~ . Dept. of Plannin~ & Community Development !~.:.:!,q:~::,~.. . , .:-::~..: 40! Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virgi~iia 22902-4596 (8O4) 296-5823 October 28, 1998 Don Franco Forest Lakes Associates P O Box 5207 Charlottesville, VA 22905 ZMA-98-13 Springridge PRD Tax Map 46, Parcel 35 Dear Mr. Franco: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 27, 1998, uanimonsly recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Modification of the public road standard within the ~al ConditiOns to allow for a 30 foot r.o.w, if required by V.D.O.T. and/or recommended by Engineering during final design. 2. Modifications of the ~%-rs to clarify or refine BMP's, scheduled improvements, traffic calming, and escrow funds. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will .review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 18, 1998. 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 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 'L Elaine K. Eehols, AICP Senior Planner ce: EHa Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelscy SPRINGRIDGE PROFFERS AL TERNA TIVE 2 THE KESSLER GROUP Stephen N. Runkle Pr~s~dem Mr. John MacDonald President Forest Lakes Community Association 1824 Timberwood Boulevard Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 January 25, 1999 Dear John: As you requested during our telephone conversation Friday, January 22nd, I have amended the terms of a possible agreemem between Forest Lakes Associates and the FLCA regarding a single road access to Springridge by extension of Timberwood Parkway through common area owned by FLCA. Forest Lakes Associates shall agree to the following: * To not construct a road across Hollymead Lake Dam. We may, however, be required to provide emergency access across the dam as a requirement of the rezoning, * Deed Area A and B as shown in Figure 1 to FLCA simultaneously with FI,CA deeding to Forest Lakes Associates land required for the access road from within Area C in Figure 1. Area A will be deeded subject to the agreement between Forest Lakes ..... Associates and United Dominion Realty Trust dated October 7, 1998. It is assumed the transfer of land will occur with recordation of the subdivision plat of Phase 1 of Springridge since that will require approval of the final plans for the access road. Of course, Area B will be deeded net of the land required for approval and acceptance of the public road access to Springridge. To not build a connecting road from Powell Creek Drive or English Oaks Circle North to Springridge (that portion of Springridge north east of Powell Creek) through Area & D or E as shown in Figure 1 in such a manner that would provide a continuous road connection from Forest Lakes North to Forest Lakes South and/or Hollymead. * To maintain a minimum 100' distance between the road fight of way to the basketball courts. To extensively landscape the access road. We would provide a staggered row of evergreen trees 15' on center where they do not currently exist to the rear of Cove Pointe homes, and street trees 50' on center on both sides of the road in areas EO. Box 5207, Charlottesville, Va. 22905 (804) 979-9500 FAX (804) 979-8055 ATTACHMENT 3 where evergreens are not planted. Additionally, we will agree to plant evergreen trees in the open area on the east side of Timberwood Parkway across from the entrance to Cove Pointe ifFLA and FLCA mutually agree it is desirable to do so. To seek ways to calm/slow traffic on Timberwood Parkway, particularly at path crossings. Such traffic calming measures could include such things as raised and/or textured and/or marked and/or signed path crossings and/or intersections, but any such measures must be approved by VDOT and, thus, cannot be guaranteed by FLA. To construct paved walking paths as indicated in Figure 2. Path 1 will connect to the existing path by the basketball courts and to the sidewalk system in Springridge. Path 2 will connect to the existing path between Hollymead Lake and English Oaks and the sidewalk system in Springridge. FLCA shall agree to the following: To deed from within Area C to Forest Lakes Associates, or the party designated by Forest Lakes Associates, land sufficient for the approval and acceptance by VDOT of a public road access to Springridge. Based on the alignment of the proposed road as shown in Figure 1, the amount of land required is estimated to be approximately 50' wide by 400' long, or about 0.46 acres. The amount of land may vary depending on the final alignment and right of way width required by VDOT. To provide in the deed to FLA that FLA may grant over the remaining common area any easements for the construction and acceptance of the access road by VDOT, as well as Special Use Permits or other items that may be required by Albemarle County in the rezoning and subdivision approval processes for Springridge. Finally, any agreement must be contingent on approval of the Springridge rezoning with.the single road access from Forest Lakes North by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. I hope the above correctly represents our discussion. If not, please advise where you feel adjustments are appropriate. Stephen N. Runlde Partner, Forest Lakes Associates SPas Encl. THE KESSLER GROUP Proffers (a) For the purpose of satisfying comprehensive plan objectives for provision of active/passive recreation and provision of a buffer between the development area and the adjacent rural area, to designate the 25 acres east of Poweli Creek as common area open space. The area shall be maintained in its natural state, except as provided for in Proffer 1 (b). (b) Public utilities, stormwater management devices and erosion control measures necessary for development of the residential areas shown .on the Application plan (dated October 7, 1998), associated infrastructure and the nature trail described in Proffer 7 are deemed appropfi~-te uses and hereby pertained within this common area open space. Development of other uses within this area shall be subject to Section 4.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordi~,ance, in effect on October 7, 1998. For the purpose of satisfying comprehensive plan rscommendations for new development within an existing subdivision, to limit development of the 50 acres west of Powell Creek to no more than 135 total units which can be a mix of single family detached, single family attached, and townhome units as described in the Application Plan (dated October 7, 1998). Should development be exclusively single family detached, to limit development to no more than I00 units. ATTACHMENT 4 (a) For the purpose of satisfying the comprehensive plan goal for interconnection of neighborhoods, to construct a 2 lane, 24' wide rural section road to VDOT standards for a projected traffic volume of up to 4000 ADT, from the end of state maintenance for the northern terminus of Powell Creek Drive across the Hollymead Dam to the southern terminus of Timberwood Parkway, provided Albemarle County agrees to provide guarantee of the dam sufficient for acceptance of the road by VDOT. (b) To reconstruct that portion of the existing pedestrian path disturbed by construction of proffer 3(a). (c) To donate by gift in fee simple to Albemarle County, upon construction of the road described in Proffer 3(a), the 120' wide strip of land containing the Hollymead Dam. (d) Improvements described in Proffer 3(a) to be in usable condition no later than start of building construction for fiftieth residential unit. (e) Proffers 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) shall expire and be replaced by Proffer 5 should the necessary right-of-way and easements, as described in Proffer 5(b), be obtained. (a) To contribute $100,000, per the schedule established in Proffer 4(b), to an escrow fund to be established by Albemarle County for (1) installation of traffic calming measures along Poweli Creek Drive and Timberwood Parkway between their intersections with Ashwood Boulevard and Cove Pointe Road, (2) construction of road improvements along the same section of road, and (3) any other projects, from the County's list of CIPs within the Hollymead Community and mutually agreeable by both the County and Owner. (b) $50,000 will be contributed at the time the 1st residential lot is recorded and $1,000/lot at the time of closing for first 50 lots. (c) Except as provided for in Proffer 4(a)(4), 4(c) and 4(d), the. County will be solely responsible for allocation of funds subject to this proffer. Any funds, remaining in escrow two years after approval of the final subdivision plat for the last area designated on the Application Plan (dated October 7, 1998) for residential development, shall be retumed to Forest Lakes Associates or its designee. (d) Proffers 4(a), (b), and (c) shall expire and be replaced by Proffer 6 should the necessary right-of-way and easements, as described in Proffer 5(b), be obtained. Spdngddge Application Plan January 28, 1999 (a) For the purpose of maximizing a sense of community within the individual developments, to eliminate the road described in Proffer 3 and primary access connecting to Powell Creek Drive south of the Hollymead Dam and provide a single point of access to Springridge via a public road beginning at the southern terminus of Timberwood Parkway. (b) Proffer 5 is the result of discussions with the Board of Directors of the Forest Lakes Community Association and is subject to securing the right-of-way and easements necessary to construct and dedicate the public road described in Proffer 5(a) within 90 days of the approval of this rezoning. (c) Proffers 5(a) and (b) shall expire if the necessary right-of-way and easements described in Proffer 5(b) are not obtained within 90 days of the approval of this rezoning. (a) To contribute $100,000, per the schedule established in Proffer 6(b), to an escrow, fund to be established by Albemarle County for (1) installation of traffic calming measures within the Hollymead Community, and (2) construction of road improvements along Timberwood Parkway, and (3) any other projects, from the County's list of CIPs within the Hoilymead Community and mutually agreeable by both the County and Owner. (b) $1,000/lot at the time of closing for first 100 lots. (c) Except as provided for in Proffer 6(a)(3), 6(c) and 6(d), the County will be solely responsible for allocation of funds subject to this proffer. Any funds, remaining in escrow two years after approval of the final subdivision plat for the last area designated on the Application Plan (dated October 7, 1998) for residential development, shall be returned to Forest Lakes Associates or its designee. (d) Proffers 6(a), (b) and (c) shall expire if the necessary right-of-way and easements described in Proffer $(b) are not obtained within 90 days of the approval of this rezoning (a) For the purpose of establishing the greenway along Poweii Creek as described in the Comprehensive Plan, to establish a nature trail along Powell Creek, defined as stream separating development/rural areas from where it enters the property to where it exits the property. The location of this trail shall be at the discretion of the Owner, any or all of which may be on either side of Poweli Creek. (b) To donate by gift in fee simple to Albemarle County, the trail and a minimum 100' wide strip of land, whose limits shall be determined by the Owner at the time of platting of this property but will at a minimum include the nature trail described in 7(a) and access to Poweli Creek. Spdngridge Application Plan January 28, 1999 (c) Proffer 7(b) may be deeded to the County anytime after the trail in Proffer 7(a) is established, but shall be offered to the County no later than final approval of the subdivision plat for the last area designated on the Application Plan Idated October 7, 1998) for residential development. (d) Should the County abandon the greenway in this area during some future revision of the comprehensive plan or after acceptance, the donated land shall be deeded, at the County's expense, to the owner of record, at the time of the abandonment, of the adjacent common area open space described in Proffer 1. o (a) For the purpose of providing design elements recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, to plant street trees along both sides of the loop road, within the proposed 5' planting strip between the road and the sidewalk, spaced roughly 50' apart. (b) The County agrees to work with the appiicant to 1) obtain approval for trees within the public right-of-way or 2) to obtain approval for trees within the utility easements (i.e., water, sewer, phone, electric) or 3) to obtain agreement by the applicable utilities to work within a narrower area between the planting strip and the building area or at some other location agreeable to the Owner. Such trees shall be shown on the final road plans and bonded with road improvements. (c) Proffer 8(a) expires upon the submittal of the first final subdivision plat for an area designated on the Application Plan (dated October 7, 1998) for residential development if the approvals described in Proffer 8(b) have not been obtained. It is envisioned, but not to the exclusion of any other acceptable physical measure or management practice, that the water quality requirements for the project will be accomplished through the retrofit of structural measures installed to control sediment during construction, especially at the outfalls from the storm sewerage from the roads and within the stream buffer of Powell Creek, and through the use of non-structural BMPs, such as rain gardens, extended detention and enhancement of existing stream buffers. Springddge Application Plan January 28, 1999 General Conditions A minimum 20' wide common area open space will be provided along the rear of those lots backing to Copper Knoll and Echo Ridge. This area is intended to serve as a buffer between Springridge and these adjacent neighborhoods, as such it will be maintained in its natural forested state wherever possible. Common area open space shall be maintained in a natural state wherever possible. Man-made features may be constructed for erosion control, stormwater management and for providing public utilities. This condition is subordinate to, and therefore does not exclude uses and conditions detailed in Proffer 1 and Specific Conditions 7, 11, 12, 16, 19, and 23. Areas of critical slope, 25% grade, have been identified on the Application Plan based on ACSA topographic maps. Critical slopes west of Powelt Creek are within areas proposed for residential deveiopment, as such the provisions of Section 4.2.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (adopted 12/10/80 and its subsequent revisions) are applied at the time of this rezoning to modify Section 4.2 criteria allowing the proposed construction. (a) The road system shown on the Application Plan consists of public street, private roads and alleys to be designed and constructed as follows. Sections of the Albemarle County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, which specify road design criteria (i.e., intersection angles, right-of-way widths, minimum cul-de-sac radii) in excess of those allowed by this application shall not apply. (b) The public streets within the neighborhood shall be 28' (face-of-curb to face-of-curb) in width and constructed in accordance with the VDOT 1996 Subdivision Street Requirements. (c) The public street between the neighborhood and Powell Creek Drive shall be a 22' wide rural section road and constructed in accordance with the VDOT 1996 Subdivision Street Requirements. (d) Private roads within the neighborhood shall be designed in accordance with the vertical and horizontal criteria in the VDOT 1996 Subdivision Street Requirements for projected traffic volumes up to 250 ADT. The roads shall be, at a minimum, 18' wide rural designs with a minimum pavement section consisting of 8" of stone with a prime and double seal. (e) Alleys shall be, at a minimum, a 12' wide rural section consisting of 6" of stone with a prime and double seal. (f) Horizontal and vertical design standards for the alleys shall be limited to establishing a minimum 100' stopping sight distance, 100' intersection sight distance, and shall include a minimum clear zone of 3' on each side of the travelway to accommodate two-way traffic. Spdngddge Application Plan January 28, 1999 o 10. II. The paved walking path between the loop road and the basketball courts shall serve as the second point of emergency access for the proposed development. As such, the paved walking path shall consist a minimum of 6" of stone and 1.5" of asphalt constructed a minimum of 8' in width, with a minimum 2' clear zone on either side, and have a maximum grade of 20%. If Proffer 5 is executed, this path shall still be provided, but per the specifications outlined in General Condition 14(b). Sidewalks shall be provided along both sides of the loop road and other areas as shown on the Application Plan. The preferred design is a 5' planting strip between the curb and the sidewalk. However, if required by VDOT for state acceptance, the Owner may opt to locate the walkway adjacent to the curb. If the state does not maintain the sidewalks, the Owner may substitute a paved walking paths design along the same general alignment. Paved walking paths shall be provided as generally shown on the Application Plan to provide connection between the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths along Timberwood Parkway/Powell Creek Drive, the basketball courts, and the paved walking path to English Oaks in Forest Lakes South. At the discretion of the Owner, vehicular access along the paved walking path between the loop road and the basketball courts may be discouraged with design features, including but not limited to removable bollards, a removable chain, or mountable curbing. Pedestrian access shall be provided between the internal network and the greenway nature trail, described in the Proffer 7(a). At a minimum, this connection shall be provided by extension of a nature trail through Area 7. Raised crosswalks are proposed in 6 locations to calm traffic and Provide safe road crossing at key pedestrian links. If approved for construction by the County and VDOT, they will be installed as part of the construction of the loop road. (a) The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 10'. (b) On detached lots, the side yard setback for primary and secondary structures shall be a minimum of 3'. (c) On attached lots, a zero side yard setback shall apply along common walls and for any accessory structures along the respective propertyline. (d) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 20'. Where lots are rear loaded from a private road or alley, the rear yard setback may be reduced to 3'. (e) Where shared driveways are constructed, the setback from the shared access easement shall be a minimum of 3'. (f) Within Areas 18 and 21 of the Application Plan, the setback from Area 19 shsll be 10'; the setback from the adjacent private road shall be 3'. 12. Flag lots shall be permitted. Springddge Application Plan January 28, 1999 13. The areas identified on Application Plan shall be developed in accordance with the following table and the Special Conditions provided in the Textual Statement. Area Use/Feature I SFD Lots ' 2 SFD Lots 3 SFD Lots 4 SFD Lots 5 SFD Lots 6 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 7 Central Mail Pickup Area 8 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 9 SFD Lots~ 10 Raised Cross Walk 11 Median 1 ;2 Park 2 13 Raised Cross Walk 14 Raised Cross Walk 15 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 16 Park 17 Raised Cross Walk 18 SFDISFA/'I'H Lots 19 Park 20 Raised Cross Walk 21 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 22 SFDISFA/TH Lots 23 Park 24 Raised Cross Walk ~ Should Proffer 5 be accepted, SFA and TH Lots shall also be permitted in these areas. 2 Should Proffer 5 be accepted, the location and configuration of the entrance park maybe adjusted at the Owner's discretion to maximize the area as an entry statement in to the community. Such adjustments include, but are not be limited to, relocation of the park to an area adjacent to (versus inside the loop) the entrance road. Spnngndge Application Plan January 28, 1999 14. Within the Proffers, General Conditions and Specific Conditions the following terms are defined: (a) sidewalk - a minimum 4' wide pedestrian travelway built to VDOT standards within the public right-of-way. (b) path - a minimum 5' wide pedestrian travelway constructed with a minimum of 4" of stone and 2" asphalt. (c) trail - a pedestrian travelway loosely defined by a mulch surface or through periodic maintenance, such as clearing and mowing. 1.5. At the discretion of the Owner and subject to approval of the appropriate drainage calculations by the County, stormwater management requirements may be provided for off-site within the Hoilymead Lake and common area lakes within Forest Lakes. 16. A protected area will be established along Powell Creek. The protected area will be. an average of 200' wide plus the width of Poweli Creek, and will be protected within common area under enforceable easement or deed restriction. This measure will be given credit for and considered a component of the project's stormwater management plan. interpretations and clarifications of this application may be made by the Director of Planning, without necessity for amendment provided that adherence is made to the general intent, concept, densities and design elements described in the General Conditions and Application Plan. Spfingddge Application Plan January 28, 1999 Specific Conditions The following specific conditions apply to areas referenced on the Application Plan (dated October 7, 1998). Area I: Area 2: Area 3: A.,'e a 4: Area 5: Area 6: Area 7: Area 8: (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) Should Proffer 4 be accepted by the Count, SFA and TH lots shall also be permitted. (c) May be cul-de-sac design if approved by CountyNDOT, othe~,ise lots will front on loop road. (d) Lots shall be frOnt loaded from public s[reet. (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD tots. (b) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) Minimum lot size shall be 0.2'7 acres. (c) A minimum 20' wide common area shall be provided along the rear propertyline. (d) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) Minimum lot size shall be 0.35 acres. (c) A minimum 20' wide common area shall be provided along the rear propertyline. (d) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. (e) May be cut-de-sac design if approved by County and VDOT, otherwise iots will front on loop road. (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) Minimum lot size shall be 0.27 acres. (c) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. (a) At the discretion of the Owner, residential development may be any mix of SFD/SFA/TH lots. (b) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. (a) A central mail pickup area may be provided in lieu of individual mailboxes and subject to approval by the local postmaster general. (D) At the discretion of the Owner, parking may be provided within Area 7 and/or the eastern end of Area 19. (a) Residential development may be any mix of SFD/SFAFFH lots (b) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. Spfingridge ApplicalJon Plan January 28; 1999 Are~ 9: (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) Should Proffer 4 be accepted by the County, SFA and TH lots shall also be permitted. (c) Lots shall be front loaded from public street or rear loaded from alley. Are~ I O: (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed and constructed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk. (a) This median area near the intersection with the loop road may be provided if approved bythe County and VDOT, otherwise the access road will be a 2 lane public street throughout its entire length. (b) Landscaping, signage, and entrance features may be placed within the median subject to permitting by VDOT. Area 12: (a) The entry park shall be approximately 0.25 acres in size. (b) Should Proffer 4 be accepted, the location and configuration of the entrance park maybe adjusted at the Owner's discretion to maximize the area as an entry statement in to the community. Such adjustments include, but are not be limited to, relocation of the park to an area adjacent to (versus inside the loop) the entrance road. (c) A sidewalk shall be provided along the loop road perimeter. (d) At the discretion of the Owner, park like structures (i.e., gazebo, benches, tables), landscaping and signage may be constructed in this common area. Area 13: (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. Area 14: (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to Count, and VDOT approval, to calm tra~c ~nd tc help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. Springridge Application Plan January 28, 1999 Area 15: (a) May be any mix of SFD/SFA/TH Lots. (b) Lots shall be rear loaded from private road or alley. Are~ 16: (a) This interior park will be designed to provide a buffer between the alleys and shall be approximately 0.5 acres. (b) At the Owners discretion, and subject to County approval, parking areas, a tot lot and landscaping may be constructed within this .common area. Area 17: (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed subje~ to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. Area 18: (a) May be any mix of SFD/SFA/TH Lots. (b) Lots shall be rear loaded from private road or alley. Area 19: (a) This central green will be designed as the primary public space for the neighborhood and shall be approximately 0.9 acres. (b) Sidewalks or paved walking paths shall be provided along all 4 sides. (c) Bench seating shall be provided at a minimum of 4 locations. (d) At the Owners discretion, and subject to County approval, parking areas, lighting, and landscaping may be constructed within this common area. Area 20: (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. Area 2 I: (a) May be any mix of SFD/SFAFFH Lots. (b) Lots shal~ be rear loaded from private road or alley. Area 22: (,~j May be any mix of SFD/SFA/TH Lots. (b) Lots shall be rear loaded from private road or alley. Area 23: (a) This interior park will be designed to provide a buffer between .the alleys and shall be approximately 0.5 acres. (b) At the Owners discretion, and subject to County approval, parking areas, a tot lot and landscaping may be constructed within this common area. Springfidge Application Plan January 28, 1999 Are~ 24: (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian rOad crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in -general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and instalied during construction of the loop road. Spdngddge Application Plan January 28, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARI,E MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Elaine Echols Steven A. Allshouse /~ November 4, 1998 Revised ZMA 98-013 (Springridge) Fiscal Impact Analysis I ran a second scenario for Springridge. In this second scenario, I assumed the maximum by-right development of 70 single family detached residences, with 14 units to be built each year over a five year period of time. I also assumed that these units would have an average market value of $275,000. Below are CRIM's estimates of the annual fiscal impact of the Springridge project after full build out. Fiscal Impact Scenario #2 Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $113,000 125,000 $238,000 $348,000 45,000 $393,000 ($ISS,O00) This scenario indicates that the by-right development of Springridge would result in a net cash outflow from the County. Pupil generation is the biggest factor causing residential development to have a negative fiscal impact. In the case of the by-right development of Springridge, CRIM estimated that after full build out, i.e., after year 5, the project would account for 33 students enrolled in the County's schools. Of this figure, 16 would be elementary students, 8 would be middle school students, and 9 would be high school students. ZMA 98-013 November 4, 1998 Page Two In terms of the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), CRIM estimated that after full build out the by-right development of Springridge would have the impact shown below. CIP Impact Scenario #2 Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total County CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact ($o) (130,000) ($130,000) ($o) (o) ($o) ($130,000) Note that this Net Annual CIP Impact figure accounts for the overwhelming majority of the negative $155,000 net annual fiscal impact mentioned on the previous page. The $25,000 difference represents the annual operating deficit to the County of the by-right development of Springridge. Caution must be exercised in interpreting the CIP Impact figure mentioned above. CRIM's average cost model, which has been approved by the County's Fiscal Impact Committee and which was used to mn both Springridge scenarios, apparently does not take into account the completion of capital projects. CRIM's marginal cost model might be a more appropriate tool to use for calculating CIP impacts than is the average cost model. The County's Fiscal Impact Committee, however, has not yet approved the use of the marginal cost model for fiscal impact analysis. A comparison of Scenario # 2 (on page one of this memo) with Scenario #1 (on page two of my memo dated October 14, 1998) is in order since such a comparison would give the BOS an idea of the relative cost to the County of approving the Springridge ZMA. Under Scenario #1, the net annual fiscal impact of the proposed Springridge development would be a negative $253,000 of which $218,000 would be C[P costs and $35,000 would be operating costs. Under Scenario #2, the net annual fiscal impact of the by-right development of Springridge would be a negative $155,000 of which $130,000 would be CIP costs and $25,000 would be operating costs. According to CRIM's average cost model, the approval of ZMA 98-013, therefore, would represent a relative net annual fiscal impact of negative $98,000, of which $88,000 would be related to CIP costs and $10,000 would be related to operating costs. STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP OCTOBER 27, 1998 NOVEMBER 18, 1998 ZMA 98-13 SPRINGRIDGE PRD Revised November 11, 1998 Applicant's Proposal: Forest Lakes Associates has requested a rezoning of the "Brown" property located near the Hollymead and Forest Lakes North Development to Planned Residential Development (PRD). As shown on Attachments A and B, the property is situated at the end of Powell Creek Drive to the east of the Hollymead Lake Dam. The rezoning would allow for the development of 100 single family detached homes or a combination of 135 single family detached, attached, or townhomes on 50 acres of land which is currently zoned R-1. An additional 25 acres of land in the rural areas would be zoned PRD but is proposed as undeveloped open space. Attachment B also shows the area in Forest Lakes South proposed for primary road access to the site. A minor amendment to the Forest Lakes South PRD (ZMA 98- 12) to allow for this road and a corresponding special use permit for a stream crossing (SP 98-46) are required for this rezoning. They are discussed in a corresponding but separate report. Petition: The petition is to rezone 75 acres from R-1 and RA to PRD with proffers. The property, described as Tax Map 46-35, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District in the R-1 Residential and RA Rural Areas zoning district. It is located at the end of Powell Creek Drive on the east side of the Hollymead dam. In the Hollymead Community, it is recommended for neighborhood density of 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre on the Land Use Plan. Character of the Area: At present, the property is heavily wooded with some steep slopes and floodplain along Powell Creek. It is undeveloped but surrounded by Forest Lakes North and Hollymead residents on the north and south; by the Hollymead Lake on the west and by the low density rural development along Proffit Road on the east. By-right Use of the Property: By-right, with approval of a stream crossing over the floodplain, and approval of the Forest Lakes South minor amendment, the property could be developed into 48 lots. Forty-three lots could be established in the development area portion of the property; five lots could be developed in the rural area. With private roads, which requires Planning Commission approval, 53 lots could be established. With environmental bonuses (preservation of 20% of the property as wooded area and provision of street trees), 60 lots could be created. With an internal road system which has sole access to existing state maintained roads, land dedicated for public use, and off-site road improvements, a total of 70 lots could be developed on the property. For low-to-moderate income provision of 30% of the total homes, 62 lots could be developed by-right. As a basis for comparison between by-right traffic impacts and traffic impacts with the rezoning, the traffic analysis has been based on the maximum number of by-right lots available with bonuses, which is 70. Planning and Zoning History: The Brown property has no subdivision or zoning history. Specifies of the Proposal: As presented, the proposal would be governed by the general layout shown in Attachment C and the General & Specific Conditions and Proffers, shown in Attachments D and E, respectively. The general layout consists of a loop road, several private roads, and alleys. The design is neo-traditional with characteristics that include clustering of homes around a central green area, houses set close to the roads, sidewalks, and, potentially, a mixed housing product. Primary road access to the site is proposed from Powell Creek Drive where there is a pedestrian path at present. The pedestrian path would be relocated adjacent to the main road into the development (ZMA 98-12). The path would extend to a sidewalk along the loop road, then continue south along Powell Creek as a nature trail in keeping the County's greenway proposal for Powell Creek. The General and Specific Conditions describe and commit to a perpetual buffer between Springridge and the lots on Copper Knoll and Echo Ridge and to the maintenance of 25 acres of open undeveloped common area on the eastern side of Powell Creek in the rural area. The open space would be retained in other open space shown on the plan in a natural state except for erosion control, stormwater management, and utilities. The General Conditions acknowledge a waiver for development on critical slopes [the Planning Commission must grant this waiver.] They describe the road standards, path and sidewalk standards, and internal traffic calming devices to be Used. They describe the locations for the different types of uses and describe the different setbacks to be used. Through these conditions the developer is committing to compensate for detention in the upstream lakes, as has been done in the other Forest Lakes developments. They are committing to protection of the stream buffer by making efforts to avoid creating lots in the stream buffer. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant is making the request in order to provide for neighborhood development that is in keeping with the Land Use Plan. Attachment F contains the applicant's justification for the request. In summary, the developer has said, "It is felt that the proposed plan provides maximum utilization of a 50-acre portion of Springridge in a way that continues to provide single family detached product in a Development Area that will be considered as an attractive alternative to single family detached product in the Rural Areas." RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The internal development as a mixed housing development is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The design as proffered meets almost all recommendations of the Plan with the exception of density. Density suggested by the Plan is 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre. Density proposed in this development is 2.0 or 2.7 dwelling units per acre. Although the density is not as high as that recommended in the Plan, the design provides for a unified development with pedestrian access, road interconnections, building orientation to the street, and preservation of open space. Off-site proffers have been made to support the development and help correct existing traffic problems and mitigate the future traffic impacts in the community. As a result of the proposed design, the off-site proffers, and the Comprehensive 2 Plan recommendations, staff recommends approval of ZMA 98-13 and recommends modifications to proffers submitted by the applicant. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan: The areas of the property proposed for development are designated for Neighborhood Density Residential (3 - 6 du/acre) in the Hollymead Community. Specific recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan applicable to this proposal were included in the previous report for the Planning Commission worksession. This report highlights how the proposal is or is not in conformity with the Land Use Plan. Land Use Plan for Hollymead Community (Hollymead £rofile pp. 79 - 83) The Hollymead community is to provide for a wide variety of housing types; this development provides for single family detached homes, single family attached homes, and townhouses. · The Hollymead community shouM not be dependent on the automobile but have pedestrian and bicycle facilities that connect the residential and transit nodes to the employment, shopping, and service areas. Springridge provides pedestrian and bicycle connections to Hollymead, Forest Lakes North, and Forest Lakes South which, in turn, are connected to the shopping and service areas. · The Hollymead community should have linkages not only with pedestrian facilities but with streets, greenways, and other transit alternatives. The Springridge proposal provides for interconnecting streets to all three adjoining residential developments as well as providing a portion of the Powell Creek greenway. · The stream valleys and their tributary drainage ways, plus adjacent areas of steeply sloping terrain, are to be preserved as an open space/greenway network in Hollymead. The 100 foot greenway strip proffered by the developer preserves this significant area of open space. · A full-range of housing types and costs is to be provided within the Community. This development does not provide for that range. The Community, as a whole, does. Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20- 22) · Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. Springridge protects environmental features through open space designations. The Application Plan shows clusters of development away from these features. · Existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions should be maintained. Springridge seeks to maintain these buffers, especially where lots in Forest Lakes North back up to lots in Springridge. The impact of development on major roads should be minimized by limiting access points. Springridge does not front on any major roads. With the crossing over the dam, the traffic in and through the three existing neighborhoods will be redistributed to the major intersection points with Route 29 north. 3 · A sense of community should be maximized byproviding connections between developments; such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools, parks, and other public facilities. In all but the area of public transit, Springridge will do these things. · Underground utilities should be provided in new developments. Springridge will provide utilities underground. · Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided. BMP requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance will ensure that these features are provided. · Building orientation should be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located exclusively in front of buildings. This development, different than many other subdivisions, adopts many nco-traditional characteristics which include closer front setbacks, orientation to public streets and to greens. Parking shown on the application plan is perpendicular to the public streets. Alleys help to provide rear access to the residential units in the center. · Where site illumination is proposed down-directed and shielded lights should be used This proposal does not call for any lighting; however lighting provided at the site plan phase will need to meet the County's new lighting ordinance requirements. · Historic buildings should be adaptively reused There are no historic buildings on the site. · The phasing of developments should match service and infrastructure availability and capacity. Service and infrastructure availability exists. School construction for a new elementary school should coincide with year 3 of the project buildout. · Overall development density should be as high a level as is practical. Development density in this proposal is 2 - 2.7 dwelling units per acre. The Land Use Plan suggests 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre. Nearby subdivision density in Forest Lakes and Hollymead is slightly less than 2 dwelling units per acre. Density at 2.7 dwelling units per acre is viewed as being as high a level as practical given the surrounding residential development. · The integrity of adjacent residential areas should be maintained through use of buffering, screening, and separation of adjacent non-residential uses. The integrity of the adjacent residential areas should be maintained with the use of undeveloped heavily vegetated open space which will ensure the privacy of the existing developed lots. · Developments should be designed with an internal orientation to foster a sense ofplace and avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl. Springridge, in particular, is designed with an internal orientation which is centered on a green. It is different from the surrounding developments with its dependence on a loop road with interconnecting streets rather than cul- de-sacs feeding out onto a collector road. It is believed that this internally oriented design will foster a greater sense of place than conVentional development because of the increased opportunities for social interaction. Privacy is also ensured with provisions for yards and open space. · Provisions should be made for innovative design that reduces housing costs. No indications for reduced housing costs have been found with this proposal. · Lot design and residential layout should be based on a rational use of land that reflects topographic and other physical features rather than massive grading to eliminate or counteract those features. In this development, some grading will be needed for road construction and lot development. Some encroachment into critical slopes will occur for road 4 grading and house construction.. A stream crossing or crossings for a road or roads into the site will be required for the development. Evaluations of these crossings will take place prior to construction so that the least environmentally degrading construction will take place. Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Land Uses (Residential Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses; Residential Development Design, pp. 22 - 23) · In rezoning deliberations, the county should be mindful of the intent to encourage infill development, contain most future growth within designated Development Areas, and avoid rural development pressure. Unless contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehensive Plan recommended'land use density ranges should be favored even if the density exceeds that of surrounding developments. In Springridge, the rezoning proposed approximates the lower end of the Comprehensive Plan for density,. · Maintenance of the integrity of residential areas should be accomplished using buffering, screening, and physical separation of adjacent nonresidential uses. The open space at the exterior of the development will contain buffering and screening to maintain and protect the integrity of the adjacent Forest Lakes North development. · For larger developments, layout and design shouldprovide for varying building orientation and setback dwelling unit type, faqade treatment, and lot size to avoid repetitiveness. Open space should be employed as a design feature to establish and define smaller neighborhood areas within the larger developments. The PRD/PUD approach is particularly applicable for larger developments. Springridge provides all of these features with the exception of a commitment to different faqade treatments. Land Use Designation ('Residential Land Use pp. 25-26) · Neighborhood density residential areas should have a gross density of between 3 - 6 dwellings per acre. Springridge proposes a. density of either 2.0 or 2.7 dwellings per acre. · Neighborhood density residential areas are intended to accommodate all dwelling types. Springridge would accommodate, potentially, three dwelling types. · Any new development within an existing subdivision is to be in keeping with the character and density of the existing development. New developments adjacent to existing subdivisions are to be developed at higher densities to support infill development efforts. Springridge provides for a higher density than the adjacent development but allows for a transition from Forest Lakes North into the denser parts of the development by matching lot sizes at the perimeter. Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zonin~ district The purpose and intent of the Planned Residential Development is to: encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on the surrounding area in land development promote economical and efficient land use · provide an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design · provide flexibility and a variety of development opportunities for residential purposes · use open space for recreation, protection of areas sensitive to development, provide buffering between dissimilar uses and preserve agricultural activity The proposed rezoning meets the purpose of the district in every way but the preservation of agricultural activity. Proffers for maintaining the rural area land in open space help to preserve that land, even though it is not being used agriculturally. Public need and justification for the change The Comprehensive Plan promotes "infill" development in the designated neighborhoods, communities, and the Village of Rivanna. It further describes characteristics which new developments should have. Housing demands in the community are to be filled in the development areas. This property is suggested for housing development with a density of 3 -6 dwelling units per acre. The design and development plan contains most of the characteristics recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the needs of the community would appear to justify this rezoning proposal. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Transportation- Site Related: Staff provides detailed information on the neighborhood transportation issues later in this report. This section deals with transportation internal to the development. Within the Springridge development, a series of public and private roads are proposed. Public roads are proposed into the development and for the loop road. The proposal, at present is for a 28 foot wide street with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides. Private roads are proposed for the alleys to the rear of the sections identified as Area 15 and Area 22 in the Application Plan. Private roads are also proposed adjacent to Area 18 and Area 21. The reason for these private roads and the 28 foot public road section is to provide for a more compact, nco-traditional type development design. Engineering and Fire and Rescue believe that public safety needs can be met with these roadway plans. VDOT will need to approve the 28 foot public road section but has reviewed the proposal and is willing to consider a waiver of the 36 foot road standard because of the low traffic generation anticipated. 6 Schools: Students from the development would attend Hollymead Elementary School, Sutherland Middle School, and Albemarle High School. Using the County's multipliers, the Brown property is expected to produce approximately 47 new students (with 100 single family detached units) or 64 new students (with 135 single family attached, detached or townhouse units). Of the 64 new students, 31 would be elementary school students; 15 would go to Sutherland Middle School; and 18 would go to Albemarle High School. Of the 47 new students, 23 would go to Hollymead Elementary school; 11 would go to Sutherland; and 13 would go to Albemarle High School. Sutherland Middle School and Albemarle High School have capacity to serve this development; but Hollymead Elementary is already over capacity. By-right use of the property would produce 33 new students to the schools. If the rezoning is approved but only single family residential units are built, the impact would be an additional 14 students. With 135 units, there would be 31 additional students over the by-right use. A new Northern Elementary School is scheduled to be constructed in 2000 and open in August of 2001. With a five year buildout, the new school would be open in year three of the five year bulldout. There is a perception that students from the Springridge neighborhood would "bump" students from Forest Lakes North into the Northern Elementary School. At present, students at Hollymead are bussed from Proffit Road, Forest Lakes North, the east side of Route 29 North to Greene County and the west side of Route 29 down to Camelot. The Schools Division of Albemarle County has indicated that, when the new elementary school is built and redistricting occurs, efforts will be made to enable children to attend the school which is closest and most accessible to his/her neighborhood. Time travel and distance are both included when making decisions about school districting. Water and Sewer:_The applicant intends to provide public water and sewer to the development. According to the Service Authority, capacity is available. Water lines are adjacent to the property; extension of sewer lines will be necessary to serve the development. Stormwater Management: No on-site stormwater management is proposed; the applicant intends to use the existing lakes in Forest Lakes and Hollymead to compensate for detention. This method has been used for the previous developments. BMP's and other water protection measures will be provided during the subdivision and site plan process. The stream buffer along Powell Creek will be put into open space rather than included as pan of yard area. Public recreational facilities: No public recreational facilities are proposed with this development. Private recreational facilities that are used by the Forest Lakes communities are offered for use by Springridge residents. Twenty-five acres of undeveloped open space will also be deeded to the community. 7 Fiscal impact to public facilities - A fiscal impact analysis was performed on this project which is described in the memo, Attachment G. The impacts indicated are a cost to the County of $253,000 per year; most of that cost is in capital improvements. Proffers for off-site road improvements have been made in the form of approximately $300,000. Additional open space would be given to the County and to the Homeowners Association. As with all residential developments, it costs more to provide services to residential developments than taxes taken in. The proffers made with this rezoning are somewhat higher than the amount generally seen with rezoning proposals. It should be noted that, given population projections for the County, new residential development will take place to accommodate those projected populations. Development proposals within the designated development areas are consistent with County growth management planning to provide the most efficient land use patterns of development for the provision of public services. It is important to balance the need for having development occur in the development areas with the costs to provide services to those areas. Incentives for lower density development or development in the rural areas often exist when exactions for off-site improvements are too large. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources Existing environmental resources: Environmental resources at this site include woods, steep slopes, streams, wetlands, and floodplain. Woods - The property is very heavily wooded and these woods are identified on the County's Open Space Plan. Much of this resource will be lost due to the proposed density of development. As Springridge is in a designated development area, loss of wooded land is anticipated. Woodlands will be retained, however, as a buffer between existing Forest Lakes North neighborhoods and the single family parts of Springridge, as a buffer to the rural area, and in the greenway along Powell Creek. Steep slopes - Steep slopes are present in several places on the property -- on the eastern part of the property which slopes down to an intermittent stream feeding into Powell Creek and on the slopes of Powell Creek. The applicant has requested a waiver of the critical slopes requirements to allow for house construction in the slopes. Minimal grading, is proposed. The primary reason for the requested waiver is to achieve density in this development as part of the County's infill policy. Some of the steep slopes are considered a critical environmental feature shown on the County's Open Space Plan near the stream crossing of Powell Creek. As a rule, staff recommends approval of waivers of steep slope requirements where steep slopes are not identified in the Open Space Plan or are not a part of a "system" of steep slopes. Near the stream crossing at Powell Creek, the slopes will have to be modified for the road construction. Grading is supported as part of the special use permit for the stream crossing. Near the intermittent streams, the slopes are part of a system near a stream valley which 8 might not be supported by the staff for building. In looking at the proposed road system- and lots in relation to these critical slopes, it would appear that only 3 - 4 lots would have construction in the critical slopes. In Area 7, near the centralized mall pick-up area, construction of homes with walkout basements are anticipated on the critical slopes. In all of these locations, allowing for the higher density of the development is considered preferable to prohibiting construction on the lots and staff supports the critical slopes waiver. Staff recommends, however, that the developer take extra precautions for erosion and sediment control on these lots to prevent soil runoff into the creek. Streams - Powell Creek flows through the property and traverses the length of the parcel. Where it parallels Proffit Road, it is a perennial stream that flows south to the Rivanna River, outside of the County's water supply watershed. It is considered a significant stream valley in the Open Space Plan. It is recommended for preservation and retention as it acts as a Growth Area boundary. A greenway along Powell Creek is also recommended in the Open Space Plan to connect the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Forest Lakes/Jefferson Village area. With the greenway proffer, the stream buffer protections indicated, and the open space proffer for the 25 acres in the rural, the stream should be protected in almost all areas. One place where it will be impacted is with the stream crossing that is discussed in the floodplain section below. Wetlands - Wetlands may exist on the property near Powell Creek. They will be identified during the permitting process for the stream crossing and any major impacts mitigated as a federal requirement. Floodplain - The floodplain along Powell Creek will be left undisturbed, eXcept where the culvert crossing will take place. A special use permit for this floodplain crossing is analyzed and considered the report for SP 98-46. The Proffers: The proffers, shown in Attachment E, describe the commitments made for the development. They are summarized below: · Proffer 1 (a) and (b) designates the 25 acres east of Powell Creek as common area open space for active and passive recreation (including a nature trail), public utilities; stormwater detention and flood control. · Proffer 2 limits the total number of units to 100 single family detached homes or a combination of 135 single family detached, single family attached, and townhomes. 9 · Proffer 3 contains the offer to build the road over the dam and donate it to the County with the 120 foot wide strip containing the dam. Proffer 3 (b) indicates that the path will be reconstructed in the same r.o.w. Proffer 3 (d) says that this road over the dam will be built before approval of the 100m lot. Proffer 3 (e) places an expiration on the offer to build the road over the dam if the right-of-way can be obtained from the Homeowners' Association to build an alternate connection. · Proffer 4 proffers to work with the County to obtain fight-of-way through the Homeowners Association land to build a road connection from Forest Lakes North to Springridge as an alternative to the road over the dam. This road has been referred to informally in the community as the "V" road. Proffer 4 (b) puts a sunset of 90 days on the offer to obtain the fight-of-way and easements, unless agreed to in writing by the County and the applicant. · Proffer 5 offers $100,000 in 4 payments to be used for the costs of additional costs for the "V" road or for safety improvements such as traffic circles, reworked intersections, raised crosswalks, or other traffic calming methods. · Proffer 6 offers the greenway to the County. If the County ever decides to dispose of the greenway, it would go to whoever owns the adjacent open space (the Homeowners Association). · Proffer 7 offers to plant street trees in the fight-of-way of the loop road if approval can be obtained from VDOT and the utility companies. · Proffer 8 indicates how the BMP's are envisioned to be installed. The Traffic Issue: Staff has analyzed the request for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and impacts on nearby and adjoining properties. A discussion of each of the issues is contained in earlier pages of this report. With minor changes to the proffers, the project meets most of the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for development. The outstanding area for discussion, though, is traffic. There are three issues relating to traffic: roads to provide access to the property and their impacts on the Hollymead Community; secondary access to the property; and safety near the school complex. This section of the report addresses traffic impacts, alternatives, and mitigation. Access to the property and impacts on the Hollymead Community - As proposed, Powell Creek Drive would provide the only access into the Springridge property. The road into the parcel would depart Powell Creek Drive through a proposed 50 foot section of open space in Forest Lakes South. This section of open space in Forest Lakes South contains a pedestrian path that would be relocated, to one side of the proposed roadway into the development ifZMA 98-12 is approved. The road would cross Powell Creek (if SP 97-48 is approved) and enter into Springridge. Because the Comprehensive Plan strongly recommends interconnections of residential neighborhoods, the applicant has proffered to connect the Springridge neighborhood to the other two Forest Lakes neighborhoods with a road over the Hollymead Lake dam. Major concerns have been raised by residents of Powell Creek Drive and Forest Lakes North about the results of connecting Powell Creek Drive to Timberwood Parkway. These residents worry that the change in traffic patterns resulting from these connections will cause unsafe situations near the school complex as well as increase traffic on the roads in their neighborhoods or in front of their houses. 10 Residents of Hollymead Drive and and the Hollymead development have raised concerns that Hollymead Drive is already bearing more than its fair share of traffic and that a third "Forest Lakes" development should take access from Forest Lakes North or Proffit Road. Hollymead Drive should not be asked to solely take the additional traffic, they have said. Residents of Forest Lakes South have raised concerns for Powell Creek Drive, especially where existing houses front along Powell Creek Drive. Congestion is severe in this area in the morning when traffic to the school backs up. These residents have indicated that speeding is a problem when congestion is not a problem. All three neighborhoods have suggested that Proffit Road is a more suitable access for the parcel. Staff believes that Proffit Road would not support the additional traffic from the development as it is already non-tolerable. The applicant does not have reasonable access to Proffit Road at this time. Additionally, Proffit Road is in the rural area and the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend that access to developments in the urban neighborhoods be made from the rural areas. Residents of Proffit Road have expressed equal concern for the impacts. A part of the Proffit neighborhood has recently been designated as a historic district. Attachment H contains letters from citizens of the different neighborhoods describing their concerns for the traffic impacts. A number of traffic studies were provided by the applicant to enhance an understanding of the effects of Springridge on the existing neighborhoods and the road network. The first traffic study was completed by Wilbur Smith Associates, a traffic consulting firm. This study was reviewed by the Planning Commission and when clarification was requested by residents of Forest Lakes, the applicant undertook a more detailed analysis with those residents. A second study was completed which was endorsed by representatives of Forest Lakes North, Forest Lakes South, and Hollymead. Highlights from that study are contained in Attachment I. County police recently used the "smart sign" near the school complex to obtain information about traffic near the schools. The survey indicated a traffic figure approximately 1200 vpd higher than the traffic study. Staff has concerns about adding this figure to the agreed to traffic figures since the survey shows a one-time count. No measures at different locations were made to determine how much traffic was intemeighborhood traffic or if the volume near the school is consistently higher than the amount agreed to in the second study. It is not included in the analysis; but, it highlights the need for further verification with the traffic calming activities already planned by the County for this area. The smart sign indicated that, on the day in which the measurements were made, the average speed was 21.2 mph; 85% of the cars were travelling at 30 mph or less. From the figures in Attachment I, one can see that the impact of the rezoning compared to the ultimate by-right development in the Hollymead community is small (comparing column 2 with column 3). It is the by-right development which makes the most substantial difference in traffic in the Hollymead community (comparing column 1 with column 2). Adding the road over the dam to (comparing columns 2 and 4) ultimately gives Hollymead Drive fewer vehicles, Timberwood more vehicles, and Ashwood Boulevard substantially more vehicles than it 11 currently carries. Neither Timberwood nor Ashwood Boulevard have houses which front on these roads. Houses do front on Hollymead Drive and Powell Creek Drive. Powell Creek Drive between Hollymead Drive and Ashwood Boulevard is least affected by the Springridge development (comparing column 2 to column 3) and most affected by the road over the dam (comparing column 2 to column 4). Powell Creek Drive in front of the schools shows the biggest increase with the road over the dam (comparing column 3 to column 4). With or without the road over the dam, traffic will increase. Hollymead Drive will bear the most impacts without a road over the dam. Ashwood Boulevard will experience a large increase, regardless. Powell Creek Drive between Hollymead Drive and Ashwood Boulevard will have more trips with the dam than without as will the area by the schools. It is important to note, here, that traffic modeling is not an exact science. As a result, the actual numbers of vehicle trips in front of the school may not be what this analysis predicts. The analysis did not take into account the "dual trips" which will be reduced to "single trips" from Forest Lakes North to the school complex if the road over the dam is opened. These trips would be reduced for school use as well as after-school recreational activities. It also doesn't explain the additional 1200 trips indicated by the smart sign. For this reason, before undertaking traffic calming activities, which are already planned by the County and additional ones recommended by the applicant, the County should perform a more refined analysis near the school. From the traffic figures in Attachment I and this analysis, it is clear that there are community wide impacts for opening the road over the dam. With buildout of all other undeveloped parcels, leaving closed the road over the dam, Hollymead Drive experiences the most increase of all. With the road open over the dam, Hollymead Drive's traffic is reduced, but Powell Creek Drive takes significantly more of the trips. It is believed that, for the area in front of the school, the impact of these trips can be mitigated with traffic calming measures. 12 It is believed that, with traffic calming, there are more advantages of having the road over the dam opened than closed. These advantages are viewed as follows: It provides the opportunity to interconnect neighborhoods in the Hollymead Community It allows school buses and traffic from Forest Lakes North to access the schools and recreational areas at the school complex without traveling on Route 29 It provides for residents of Springridge to access either recreational area in Forest Lakes without traveling on Route 29 It allows for all three neighborhoods to share more in the impacts of future development of all undeveloped parcels It provides oppommities for residents of Hollymead and Forest Lakes South to access commercial areas near Forest Lakes North without traveling on Route 29. It provides opportunities for residents o£Forest Lakes North to access Route 29 at three locations, rather than just one It ultimately results in less traffic on Hollymead Drive than would result from by-right development It improves response times for emergency services The disadvantages of having the road open over the dam are as follows: It redistributes traffic throughout the neighborhoods and takes traffic where additional traffic did not previously exist It causes the County to take over the maintenance of the dam which results in an extra $2000 per year in liability insurance It would require that the County replace the dam at a cost of $$00,000 if the entire dam were to fail, although total dan, failure is unlikely. It increases traffic in front of the school and along Powell Creek It adds traffic on Timberwood Parkway and Timberwood Boulevard It disrupts what is now exclusively pedestrian and bicycle use of the dam It was not supported by the County Board when the project was removed from the CIP several years ago As indicated in the section on the "proffers", to decrease the impacts of the road over the dam but provide for the interconnection, the applicant has proffered to work with the County to find an alternative intercormection. This interconnection would link the neighborhoods but be less direct than the road over the dam. It requires conveyance of a right-of-way from the Forest Lakes Homeowners' Association, but, if achieved, would remove the dam issues and potentially have less traffic in front of the school than if the road over the dam were opened. 13 The "V" connection would extend Timberwood Parkway north of the dam into the Brown property through open space to the proposed subdivision. The road would connect to a subdivision street in Springridge. The general location of where this road would be located is shown on the application plan. If the construction costs for this road exceed the anticipated construction costs of the road across the dam, though, the developer has retained the right to use the $100,000 in traffic calming improvements near the school (see next section) for the "V" connection. Even with the need to use the proffered traffic calming money for this road, it is the road which staff believes provides the most advantages to the project which are listed below: It provides the opportunity to indirectly interconnect neighborhoods in Hollymead It allows school buses and traffic from Forest Lakes North to access the schools and recreational areas at the school complex without traveling on Route 29 It provides for residents of Springridge to access either recreational area in Forest Lakes without traveling on Route 29 If allows for all three neighborhoods to share more in the impacts of future development of all undeveloped parcels It provides oppommities for residents of Forest Lakes North to access Route 29 at three locations, rather than just one It ultimately results in less traffic on Hollymead Drive than would result from by-right development It improves response times for emergency services Liability of and insurance for the dam remains with the developer or its designee It would not disrupt pedestrian and bicycle use of the dam It removes the need for the secondary emergency access and makes the responsibility for maintenance of that access public rather than by the homeowners association It would be in keeping with previous decisions made by the Board regarding a road over the dam Disadvantages are seen as follows: Itreduces the opportunity for residents of Hollymead and Forest Lakes South to access commercial areas near Forest Lakes North without travelling on Route 29 It adds traffic on Timberwood Parkway and Timberwood Boulevard As proffered, the $100,000 in traffic calming improvements could be used to fund this road rather than provide safety improvements near the school If $100,000 is not sufficient to fund the difference in costs between the two roads, the County may be asked to absorb that difference or this option may be abandoned 14 Secondary Access to the Property - The zoning ordinance requires that any residential development serving 50 or more residential units have at least two public street connections. The application plan shows a second point of vehicular access to be provided through open space belonging to the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association. This access would be "emergency access" only. The applicant has provided information to the County indicating that this open space may be used for ingress and egress. The applicant cannot convey the ingress and egress as a public road. While the County legal staff has not done detailed research on ownership and restrictions, it is satisfied from the documents provided that the applicant has legal standing to proceed with this rezoning and to place improvements for emergency ingress and egress in this area. The Fire and Rescue Division of Emergency Services in the County has asked that assurances be made for this secondary point of access so that the path is kept clear of snow, ice and debris. These assurances can be obtained during the subdivision process. If the Homeowners Association conveys a right- of-way in this area, as described in the section above, the second point of public road access will be provided and the emergency access provision dropped. It will also remove the need for an additional interconnecting road from Timberwood to Powell Creek. Safety near the School Complex - The most pressing issue relating to this rezoning and traffic is the impact of Springridge and the road over the dam on Powell Creek at the school complex. From the analysis above, it is clear that the addition of Springridge will add traffe near the schools as will any connection between Forest Lake North and the neighborhoods to the south. At present, about one-third of the traffic at this location on Powell Creek is present during school drop-off times in the morning. There are many potential conflict points between pedestrians, cars, and buses. The circulation pattern on site does not improve traffic flow or safety. Additionally, the curve in the road at Hollymead and Powell Creek Drive near the school is considered to be an additional conflict point in need of correction. To counteract these effects, the applicant has proffered $100,000 in four installments, for traffic calming or safety improvements. Known possible traffic improvements for safety near the school include: · realigning Hollymead Drive with Powell Creek Drive to make a "T" intersection and remove the curve in the road · redoing the internal drop-off system at Hollymead Elementary School to bring cars and busses off of Powell Drive more quickly and reduce the queues along Powell Creek Drive · addition of a pedestrian path along Powell Creek Drive on the south side of the Road near Springridge to encourage walking to school from Springridge Other possibilities which have been suggested by the applicant but which are still under review by Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) include: · Providing raised crosswalks near the school for better visibility and to slow traffic near the schools 15 · Providing a traffic circle at Hollymead Drive and Powell Creek to slow traffic and ensure opportunities for entering and exiting Powell Creek Drive · Installing a traffic circle at the intersection of the main road to Springridge and Powell Creek Drive to slow traffic from the north as it approaches the school complex. VDOT has recommended the following improvements for traffic and pedestrian safety near the school: · Increase the width of Powell Creek Drive between Ashwood Boulevard and Hollymead Drive to 38 feet with a curb and gutter cross-section along with sidewalks. The 38 foot section will allow for on-street parking which VDOT believes will help to slow traffic. · Install bikepaths and sidewalks that will be in concert with existing walkways along existing roads · Reconstruct the intersection of Powell Creek Drive and Hol!ymead Drive to improve the geometric design and to meet mining movements for additional traffic (potentially providing additional mining lanes) Staff does not favor increasing the width of Powell Creek Drive to a 38 foot section. To increase the width of the road at this location may encourage increased traffic speeds near the school complex. To be effective as a traffic calming method, off-street parking must be constant. Since homes at this location have at least two on-street parking spaces, on-street parking would be expected to be used periodically rather than constantly. Additional bikepaths and sidewalks would be welcome; warrants for additional turning lanes would be assessed at the subdivision phase of the development. The applicant has indicated that his off-site proffer money could be used for this improvement as well. Traffic calming on Powell Creek and Hollymead Drive has been discussed with residents and VDOT for the past two years and staff is currently working with VDOT for approval to install traffic calming devices in the neighborhood. At present, approximately $150,000 has been shown on the CIP to help fund these improvements. Coupled with the applicant's proffer of $100,000 in safety improvements, the area near the school should be able to be improved significantly to protect children, parents, faculty, and staff travelling to and from the school and recreational events. If the Board of Supervisors approves this rezoning as proposed, the safety improvements need to put in place concurrent with construction of the first roads in Springridge. This would be the responsibility of the County. In summary, any additional development in the Hollymead Community will increase traffic in the existing neighborhoods. Staff's view is that the traffic option that provides for neighborhood connections will provide the most benefit to the most people. The "V" connection is viewed by the staff as the best option in this case. Since neither the County nor the applicant own the land for the "V" connection, this choice may not be possible. Should the "V" connection not be available, opening the road over the dam would appears to provide the next best option for the community as a whole. 16 To approve the proposed rezoning without the road over the darn will have the least impact to all roads in the short mn. In the long mn, however, with all of the by-right development, a second public road connection would appear to provide more benefit to the community. It must be stressed that the "V' connection, in addition to the already needed traffic calming improvements for the neighborhood, requires major safety improvements near the schools. SUMMARY The proposed rezoning represents a development plan for a new kind of neighborhood in the County. The development, if approved, would provide a variety of housing types, pedestrian access throughout the neighborhood and to adjoining neighborhoods, interconnected streets with adjoining developments, access to recreational amenities, and houses with a street focus and internal set of greens and parks. The development preserves 25 acres of rural area land and open space. It provides for a greenway along Powell Creek. All of these items are in keeping with recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 2. 3. 4. The development design is in keeping with almost all of the recommendations for infill in the Comprehensive Plan. Safety improvements have been offered to mitigate impacts near the schools; cash proffers have been made to see that these improvements are made. Open space of 25 acres has been offered to the homeowners; a greenway has been offered to the County. Density proposed is slightly higher than density in the surrounding neighborhoods; yet the design offered allows for positive transitions between the single family detached uses of the adjoining neighborhoods and the mixed use of this development. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: The density is not at the lowest level recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, i.e., 3 dwelling units per acre. The road over the dam has not been included as a project in the Land Use Plan and was dropped from the Land Use Plan just two years ago due to public opposition. An alternative "V" connection requires approval from a third party and the costs for the "V" connection have not been totally assessed. If the "V" connection is possible because r.o.w, is made available, yet the cost for the "V" connection exceeds the amount proffered by the developer, the County may be asked to fund a portion of the road. Access to the Springridge Development requires a stream crossing which will cause some environmental degradation; however any development of the Brown property requires a stream crossing. The stream crossing proposed Provides for the least amount of environmental degradation possible. 17 RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Staff recommends approval of the PRD with proffers. ATTACHMENTS A -- Location Map B -- Tax Parcel Map C - Application Plan D - General and Specific Conditions E - Proffers F --Applicant's Justification G - Fiscal Impacts H - Letters from Residents I -- Summary of Traffic Impacts A:Xzana9813-springridge.doc 18¸ rD t ...... :" ?-'v.: ..... l/ / t~ i! / ~ ATTACHMENT D General Conditions A minimum 20' wide common area open space will be provided along the rear of those lots backing to Copper Knoll and Echo Ridge. This area is intended to serve as a buffer between Spfingridge and these adjacent neighborhoods, as such it will be maintained in ~ natural forested state wherever possible. Common area open space shall be maintained in a natural state wherever possible. Man-made features may be constructed for erosion control, stormwater management and for providing public utilities. This condition is subordinate to, and therefore does not exclude uses and conditions detailed in Proffer 1 and Specific Conditions 7, 11, 12, 16, 19, and 23. Areas of critical slope, 25% grade, have been identified on the Application Plan based on ACSA topographic maps. Critical slopes west of Poweil Creek are within areas proposed for residential development, as such the provisions of Section 4.2.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (adopted 12/10/80 and its subsequent revisions) are applied at the time of this rezoning to modify Section 4.2 cfiteda allowing the proposed construction. (a) The road system shown on the Application Plan consists of public streets, private roads and alleys to be designed and constructed as follows. Sections of the Albemarle County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, which specify road design criteria (i.e., intersection angles, right-of-way widths, minimum cul-de-sac radii) in excess of those allowed by this application shall not apply. (b) The public streets within the neighborhood shall be 28' (Pace-of-curb to face-of-curb) in width and constructed in accordance with the VDOT 1996 Subdivision Street Requirements. (c) The public street between the neighborhood and Powell Creek Drive shall be a 22' wide rural section road and constructed in accordance with the VDOT 1996 Subdivision Street Requirements. (d) Private roads within the neighborhood shall be designed in accordance with the vertical and horizontal criteria in the VDOT 1996 Subdivision Street Requirements for projected traffic volumes up to 250 ADT. The roads shall be, at a minimum, 18' wide rural designs with a minimum pavement section consisting of 8" of stone with a pdme and double sea[. (e) Alleys shall be, at a minimum, a 12' wide rural section consisting of 6" of stone with a prime and double seal. (f) Horizontal and vertical design standards for the alleys shall be limited to establishing a minimum 100' stopping sight distance, 100' intersection sight distance, and shall include a minimum clear zone of 3' on each side of the travelway to accommodate two-way traffic. Springridge Application Plan January 27, 1999 e The paved walking path between the loop road and the basketball courts shall serve as the second point of emergency access for the proposed development. As such, the paved walking path shall consist a minimum of 6" of stone and 1.5" of asphalt constructed a minimum of 8, in width, with a minimum 2' clear zone on either side, and have a maximum grade of 20%. If Proffer 4 is executed, this path shall still be provided, but per the specifications outlined in General Condition 14(b). Sidewalks shall be provided along both sides of the loop road and other areas as shown on the Application Plan. The preferred design is a 5' planting strip between the curb and the sidewalk. However, if required by VDOT for state acceptance, the Owner may opt to locate the walkway adjacent to the curb. If the state does not maintain the sidewalks, the Owner may subStitute a paved walking paths design along the same general alignment. Paved walking paths shall be provided as generally shown on the Application Plan to provide connection between the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths along Timberwood Parkway/Poweil Creek Drive, the basketball courts, and the paved walking path to English Oaks in Forest Lakes South. At the discretion of the Owner, vehicular access along the paved walking path between the loop road and the basketball courts may be discouraged with design features, including but not limited to removable boilards, a removable chain, or mountable curbing. Pedestrian access shall be provided between the internal network and the greenway nature trail, described in the Proffer 6(a). At a minimum, this connection shall be provided by extension of a nature trail through Area 7. 10. Raised crosswalks are proposed in 6 locations to calm traffic and provide safe road crossing at key pedestrian links, if approved for Construction by the County and VDOT, they will be installed as part of the construction of the loop road. !I. (a) The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 10'. (b) On detached lots, the side yard setback for primary and secondary structures shall be a minimum of 3'. (c) On attached lots, a zero side yard setback shall apply along common walls and for any accessory structures along the respective propertyline. (cD The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 20'. Where lots are rear loaded from a pdvate road or alley, the rear yard setback may be reduced to 3'. (e) Where shared driveways are constructed, the setback from the shared access easement shall be a minimum of 3'. (f) Within Areas 18 and 21 of the Application Plan, the setback from Area 19 shall be 10'; the setback from the adjacent pdvate road shall be 3'. 12_ Flag lots shall be permitted. Springridge Apl~caaon Plan January 27,. 1999 13. The areas identified on Application Plan shall be developed in accordance with the following table and the Special Conditions provided in the Textual Statement. Area Use/Feature 1 SFD Lots 2 SFD Lots 3 SFD Lots 4 SFD Lots 5 SFD Lots 6 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 7 Central Mail Pickup Area 8 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 9 SFD Lots 10 Raised Cross Walk 11 Median 12 Park 13 Raised Cross Walk 14 Raised Cross Walk 15 SFD/SFAFFH Lots 16 Park 17 Raised Cross Walk 18 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 19 Park 20 Raised Cross Walk 21 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 22 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 23 Park 24 Raised Cross Walk 14. Wrahin the Proffers, General Conditions and Specific Conditions the following terms are defined: (a) sidewalk - a minimum 4' wide pedestrian traveiway built to VDOT standards within the public right-of-way. (b) path - a minimum 5' wide pedestrian travelway constructed with a minimum of 4" of stone and 2" asphalt. (c) fi'ail - a pedestrian travelway loosely defined by a mulch surface or through periodic maintenance, such as clearing and mowing. Springridge Apptca~on Plan Jalluary 27, 1999 1.5. 16. 17. At the discretion of the Owner and subject to approval of the appropriate drainage calculations by the County, stormwater management requirements may be provided for off-site within the Hollymead Lake and common area lakes within Forest Lakes. A protected area will be established along Powell Creek. The protected area will be an average of 200' wide plus the width of Powell Creek, and will be protected within common area under enforceable easement or deed restriction. This measure will be given credit for and considered a component of the proj~=t's stormwater management plan. Interpretations and clarifications of this application may be made by the Director of Planning, without necessity for amendment provided that adherence is made to the general intent, concept, densities and design elements described in the General Conditions and Application Plan. Specific Conditions The following specific conditions apply to areas referenced on the Application Plan (dated October 7, 1998). Area I: Area 3: Area 4: Area Area 7: (a) Residential development shall, be limited to SFD lots. (b) May be cul-de-sac design if approved by County/VDOT, otherwise lots will front on loop road. (c) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) Minimum lot size shall be 0.27 acres. (c) A minimum 20' wide common area shall be provided along the rear propertyline. (d) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) Minimum lot size shall be 0.35 acres. (c) A minimum 20' wide common area shall be provided along the rear propertyline. (d) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. (e) May be cut-de-sac design if approved by County and VDOT, otherwise lots will front on loop road. (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) Minimum lot size shall be 0.27 acres. (c) Lots shall, be front loaded from public street. (a) At the discretion of the Owner, SFD/SFA/TH lots. (b) Lots shall be front loaded from residential development may be any mix of public street. (a) A central mail pickup area may be provided in lieu of individual mailboxes and subject to approval by the local postmaster general. (b) At the discretion of the Owner, parking may be provided within Area 7 and/or the eastern end of Area 19. (a) Residential development may be any mix of SFD/SFA/TH lots (b) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) Lots shall be front loaded from public street or rear loaded from alley. S~n~d~Apl~a~Ptan January~,1999 Area 12: Area (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed and constructed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk. (a) This median area near the intersection with the loop road may be provided if approved by the County and VDOT, otherwise the access road will be a 2 lane public street throughout its entire length. (b) Landscaping, signage, and entrance features may be placed within the median subject to permitting by VDOT. (a) The entry park shall be approximately 0.25 acres in size. (b) A sidewalk shall be provided along the loop road perimeter. (c) At the discretion of the Owner, park like structures (i.e., gazebo, benches, tables), landscaping and signage may be constructed in this common area. (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject'to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help ptovtcte a safe pecfes~an mad ¢~ossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. (a) May be any mix of SFD/SFA/TH Lots. (b) Lots shall be rear loaded from private road or alley. (a) This interior park will be designed to provide a buffer between the alleys and shall be approximately 0.5 acres. (b) At the Owners discretion, and subject to County approval, parking areas, a tot lot and landscaping may be constructed within this common area. Springddge ApplicalJOn Plan January 27, 1999 Area 17: (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. Area 18: (a) May be any mix of SFD/SFAFI'H Lots. (b) Lots shall be rear loaded from private road or alley. (a) This central green will be designed as the primary public space for the neighborhood and shall be approximately 0.9 acres. (b) Sidewalks or paved walking paths shall be provided along ali 4 sides. (c) Bench seating shall be provided at a minimum of 4 locations. (d) At the Owners discretion, and subject to County approval, parking areas, lighting, and landscaping may be constructed within this common area. Area 20: ' (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. Area 2 I: (a) May be any mix of SFDISFA/TH Lots. (b) Lots shall be rear loaded from private road or alley. Area 22: (a) May be any mix of SFDISFA/'I'H Lots. (b) Lots shall be rear loaded from private road or alley. Area 23: (a) This interior park will be designed to provide a buffer between the alleys and shall be approximately 0.5 acres. (b) At the Owners discretion, and subject to County approval, parking areas, a tot lot and landscaping may be constructed within this common area. Area 24: (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised Crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. Springddge Apptical~on Plan January 27, 1999 unglnal ~ro]Ter Amended Proffer (Amendment # PROFFER FORM ATT,LCHMENT E Date: 1/28/99 ZMA # 98-13 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 46-35 75 Acres to be rezoned from R-1 & RAto PRD in .accordance wit~ Application Plan dated 10/7/98 and General and Specific Conditior da'ced 1/28/99. Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duty authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be appliec~ to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. Proffers (a) For the purpose of satisfying comprehensive plan objectives for provision of active/passive recreation and provision of a buffer between the development area and the adjacent rural area, to designate the 25 acres east of Poweil Creek as common area open space. The area shall be maintained in its natural state, except as provided for in Proffer 1 (b). (b) Public utilities, stormwater management devices and erosion control measures necessa~/for development of the residential areas shown on the Application plan (dated October 7, 1998), associated infrasfl~cture and the nature trail described in Proffer 6 are deemed appropriate uses and hereby permitted within this common area open space. Development of other uses within this area shall be subject to Section 4.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, in effect on October 7, 1998. For the purpose of satisfying comprehensive plan recommendations for new development within an existing subdivision, to limit development of the 50 acres west of Powell creek to no more than 135 total units which can be a mix of single family detached, single family attached, and townhome units as described in the Application Plan (dated October 7, 1998). Should development be exclusively single family detached, to limit development to no more than 100 units. ATTACHMENT 1 (a) For the purpose of satisfying the comprehensive plan goal for interconnection of neighborhoods, to construct a 2 lane, 24' wide rural section road to VDOT standards for a projected traffic volume of up to 4000 ADT, from the end of state maintenance for the northern terminus of Powell Creek Drive across the Hollymead Dam to the southern terminus of Timberwood Parkway, provided Albemarle County agrees to provide guarantee of the dam sufficient for acceptance of the road by VDOT. (b) To reconstruct that portion of the existing pedestrian path disturbed by construction of proffer 3(a)~ (c) To donate by gift in fee simple to Albemarle County, upon construction of the road described in Proffer 3(a), the 120' wide strip of land containing the Hoilymead Dam. (d) Improvements described in Proffer 3(a) to be in usable condition no later than start of building construction for fiftieth residential unit. (e) Proffers 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) shall expire and be replaced by Proffer 4 should the necessary right-of-way and easements, as described in Proffer 4(a), be obtained. (a) For the purpose of replacing the road described in Proffer 3 with a less direct link between Powell Creek Drive and Timberwood Parkway, to aggressively pursue this option and work with the County to obtain the right-of-way and easements necessary to construct a road from Springridge to the southern terminus of Timberwood Parkway. Should the right-of-way and easements be obtained, the Owner's total contribution to the construction of this road shall not exceed $300,000. This amount shall equal the anticipated road cost of the road described in Proffer 3 plus the $100,000 proffered amount if Proffer 5. The owner may, at his discretion, increase his total contribution. (b) In lieu of the road described in Proffer 3, the road described in Proffer 4(a) shall be In usable condition no later than start of building construction for fiftieth residential lot. (c) Proffers 4(a) and (b) shall expire if the necessary right-of-way and easements are not obtained within 90 days of the approval of this rezoning, unless an extension is agreed to in writing to the Board of Supervisors by both the County and Owner. (a) To contribute $100,000, per the schedule established in Proffer 5(b), to an escrow fund to be established by Albemarle County for (1) reimbursement of additional costs incurred by the Owner to execute Proffer 4, (2) installation of traffic calming measures along Poweli Creek Drive and Timberwood Parkway between their intersections with Ashwood Boulevard and Cove Pointe Road, (3) construction of road improvements along the same section of road, and (4) any other projects, from the County's list of ClPs within the Hollymead Community and mutually agreeable by both the County and Owner. Springridge Applicalion Plan January 27, 1999 (b) $50,000 will be contributed at the time the 1st residential lot is recorded and $1,000/lot at the time of closing for first 50 lots. (c) If Proffer 4 is executed, the owner may submit information documenting expenses described in Proffer 5(a)(1) in lieu of an equal amount, as part of the scheduled contribution outlined in Proffer 5(b). (d) Except as provided for in Proffer 5 (a)(4), 5 (c) and 5 (d), the County will be solely responsible for allocation of funds subject to this proffer. Any funds, remaining in escrow two years after approval of the final subdivision plat for the last area designated on the Application Plan (dated October 7, 1998) for residential development, shall be returned to Forest Lakes.Associates or its designee. (a) For the purpose of establishing the greenway along Poweli Creek as described in the Comprehensive Plan, to establish a nature trail along Powell Creek, defined as stream separating development/rural areas from where it enters the property to where it exits the property. The location of this trail shall be at the discretion of the Owner, any or ali of which may be on either side of Powell Creek. (b) To donate by gift in fee simple to Albemarle County, the trail and a minimum 100' wide strip of land, whose limits shall be determined by the Owner at the time of pla~ng of this property but will at a minimum include the nature trail described in 6(a) and access to Powell Creek. (c) Proffer 6(b) may be' deeded to the County anytime after the trail in Proffer 6(a) is established, but shall be offered to the County no later than final approval of the subdivision plat for the last area designated on the Application Plan (dated October 7, 1998) for residential development. (d) Should the County abandon the greenway in this area during some future revision of the comprehensive plan or after acceptance, the donated land shall be deeded, at the County's expense, to the owner of record, at the time of the abandonment, of the adjacent common area open space described in Proffer 1. (a) For the purpose of providing design elements recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, to plant street trees along both sides of the loop road, within the proposed 5' planting strip between the road and the sidewalk, spaced roughly 50' apart. (b) The County agrees to work with the applicant to 1) obtain approval for trees within the public right.of-way or 2) to obtain approval for trees-within the utility easements (i.e., water, sewer, phone, electric) or 3) to obtain agreement by the applicable utilities to work within a narrower area between the planting strip and the building area or at some other location agreeable to the Owner. Such trees shall be shown on the final road plans and bonded with road improvements. Springridge App~icaaon Plan January 27, 1999 (c) Proffer 7(a) expires upon the submittal of the first final subdivision plat for an area designated on the Application Plan (dated October 7, 1998) for residential development if the approvals described in Proffer 7(b) have not been obtained. It is envisioned, but not to the exclusion of any other acceptable physical measure or management practice, that the water quality requirements for the project will be accomplished through the retrofit of stru~uml measures installed to control sediment during construction, especially at the outfalls from the storm sewerage from the roads and within the stream buffer of Poweli Creek, and through the use of non-structural BMPs, such as rain gardens, extended detention and enhancement of existing stream buffers. S~~/~uCes of All Ow~ Stephen N. Runkle 1/28/99 Printed NamesofAIlOwners General Par~ner,Fores~ Lakes AssociaTes OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact PROFFORM .WPO Rev. December 1994 ATTACHMENT F Section 15.1- 490 of the Code of Virginia states that, "Zoning ordinances and restricts snm~ oe arawn and applied with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of the property, the comprehensive plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the. trends of growth or change, the current and future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services, the conservation of natural resources, the preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the 'conservation of properties and their values, and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county or municipality." These are the items which will be reviewed by. the staff in their analysis of your request. Please provide any additional information you feel is necessary to assist the County in its review of your request. If you portion is within Hollymead need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. Ri What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Commun i t y Whatpublicneextorbenefitdoesthisrezoningserve? This proposal accommodates residential growth within a designated development area and creates a significant _ ~4~,~ open space buf*'er~the Hollymead Community and adjacent re~al area. Are public water, sewer, and roads available to serve this site? Will there be any impact on these facilities? Pub I i c r o ad s, water and sewer are available under this proposal.- Impacts to this infrastructure are discusse~ in the attached document. WhatimpactwilltherebeontheCoun~'snam~,scenic, andhistoficresoumes? By focusing growth within a designated development area, this project will serve to protect The County's rural area resources. ~PTI~NAL:D~y~uhavep~anst~deve~pthepr~pertyif~erez~ningisap~r~ved?~s~p~easedesc~be: approved, development of the property will proceed in accordance with the attached Master Plan. If you would like to proffer any restrictions on the development of the property, please list these proffers on the following optional attachment entitled, "PROFFER FORM". Proffers are ~ offers to use property in a more restrictive way than the overall zoning district classification would allow. By State Code, proffers must have a reasonable relationship to the rezoning and are not mandatory. The rezoning must give rise to the need for the proffers; the proffers must be related to the physical development or physical operation of the property; and the proffers must be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. 2 ' ' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTACHMENT G TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Elaine Echols Steven A. Allshouse October 14, 1998 ZMA 98-013 (Springridge) Fiscal Impact Analysis Staff ran one scenario for Springridge. Under this scenario, the project would have a total of 135 dwelling units; 60 of these dwelling units would be single family detached residences with an average market value of $275,000; 47 dwelling units would be single family attached residences (duplexes) valued at $170,000 on average; 28 dwelling units would be townhouses, with an aver- age value of $150,000. Note: because CRIM does not distinguish between duplexes and town- houses, a weighted average of the 75 dwelling units that fell into either of these two categories was constructed. The resulting average price for these 75 units was calculated at $162,533. A five year build out was assumed, with 12 single family detached residences and 15 "dup/houses" constructed in each of the five years. The scenario that staff ran used CRIM's approved role that single family detached residences (SFD's) result in 0.23 elementary students, 0.11 middle school students, and 0.13 high school students, for a total of 0.47 students per SFD. As for single family attached resi- den6es/townhouses (SFA/TH's), CRIM assumes generation factors of 0.15 elementary students, 0.07 middle school students, and 0.06 high school students, for a total of 0.28 students per SFA/TH. The next page shows CRIM's estimates of the annual fiscal impact of the Springridge project at full build out (Year 5). ZMA 98-013 October 14, 1998 Page Two Fiscal Impact Scenario Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $168,000 207,000 $375,000 ($527,000) (101,000) ($628,000) ($253,000) This scenario indicates that the proposed development of Springridge would result in a net cash outflow from the County. Keep in mind that residential developments of this sort generally do not pay for themselves and that there is nothing unusual about this particular residential project which forces the fiscal impacts to be negative. Pupil generation is the biggest factor causing resi- dential development to have a negative fiscal impact. In the case of Springridge, CRIM esti- mated that at full build out, Year 5, the project would account for 49 students enrolled in the County's schools. Of this figure, 25 would be elementary students, 12 would be middle school students, and 12 would be high school students. In terms of the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), at full build out the Springridge development would have the impact shown below. CIP Impact Scenario Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total County CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact ($ 8,000) (192,000) (200,000) ($18,ooo) (o) ($18,000) ($218,000) ZMA 98-013 October 14, 1998 Page Three Note: The Net Annual CIP Impact figure is a subset of the Net Annual Fiscal Impact figure. Clearly, expenses related to the CIP make up a large share of the negative fiscal impact which the Springridge project would generate. I should mention that a more complete approach to analyzing the Springridge project would in- volve calculating the fiscal impacts that would occur if the property were developed under its present by-fight zoning and then comparing the results to those found above. Forest Lakes Transportation Committee To the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors: November 4, 1998 David Bowerman Charlotte Humphds Forrest Marshall, Jr. Chades Martin Walter Perkins Sally Thomas The attached memorandum outlines our reaction to the manner in which the open session of the Albemarle Planning Commission was conducted on October 27, 1998. We hope you can find time to read this as soon as is practical for you. Yours very truly Forest Lakes Transportation Committee Kellie Bishop Peter Bromann Tony Browning Byron Dalton Jo Anne Ebersold Thomas Hoelscher Allen Hughes Tipple Koenig Warren Laws David Madigan Jack McDonald Vince Nelson Brad Pettit Bruce Rose William Sibert Roger Wilson Copies: Wayne Cilimberg Jared Loewenstein Forest Lakes Transportation Committee To the Albermarle County Board of Supervisors: November 4, 1998 This purpose of this letter is to express our dismay at the way in which the issue of the safety of our children was given short shrift by certain members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission at the public hearing held on 10-27-98. The hearing concerned the proposed Spdngddge development in the Hollymead growth area. Local residents were allowed to comment (3 minutes each) on the proposal, and every single resident expressed opposition. But at the end we felt that, in the minds of several commissioners, we had been unwanted guests at a party -- a party organized for the purpose of honoring the developer for his contributions to Albemarle County. We have nothing against the developer who has done a good job developing Forest Lakes and who has publicly stated that he is neutral in this controversy over the connector roads to his property and the density of the housing. But a review of the situation is in order. Springridge can be developed with 70 houses, by right, or with a maximum of 135 houses, by rezoning. It is located between Forest Lakes North and Hollymead and the developer plans to make it part of the Forest Lakes community. He owns land which can be used to construct a road access to Hollymead, and land on top of the Hollymead Lake Dam which can be used to construct a road between Hollymead and Forest Lakes North. (This dam road is Proffer #3 of the developer's application). Springridge will obviously produce traffic, and an ad hoc traffic committee was therefore formed consisting of representatives from the developer, Forest Lakes and Hollymead. The committee made exhaustive analyses, and from this work, the develo per produced a '"Table of Estimated. Traffic Volumes" at various locations and under several housing and access scenarios. We, representing the residents of Forest Lakes, participated in the development of the numbers in this table, and we agree with them entirely. We do NOT agree with the apparent unwillingness of certain of the commissioners to acknowledge the importance of the numbers. Of the locations analyzed, three in particular involve safety issues that medted greater recognition. In front of the Hollymead Schools. (Parents and school employees both think that even today the traffic volume is dangerous for children). The path running from the Hollymead side of Hollymead Lake to the entrance to Cove Pointe in Forest Lakes North. (Children walk and bicycle to the schools along this path). t The NARROW road through the Powell Creek neighborhood in Forest Lakes South. This road is already, over-trafficked, because motorists use it as a "corridor" between Hollymead and Forest Lakes South. (For two years the residents, fearing for the safety of their children, have been pleading with VDOT and others for relief from the impact of the excessive number of vehicles). The "Table of Estimated Traffic Volumes" provides us with the traffic numbers shown below for the three key locations (expressed in Vehicles per Day, or VPD): Scenario ^ - Actual situation - Spring/Summer 1997 2,832 VPD at Location #1 (by Schools) Reflect planned further development largely in Forest Lakes South' and with 70 by-dght units in Spdngddge (but without a road over the dam). 3,673 Reflect planned further development, largely in Forest Lakes South, but with Spdngddge up to 135 units (still without a road over the dam). 4,090 D - Same as C, but also reflecting traffic redistribution to be 5,371 caused by the existence of a road over the dam. Two things are apparent. First, a very substantial traffic increase will occur simply as a result of new homes being built. Second, the effect of this already heavy increase will be seriously exacerbated if the road over the dam goes in, providing motorists with a "back-way" route not presently available to them. Effects on the other two key locations, again using the ''Table of Estimated Traffic Volumes" prepared by the developer, are shown below. Location 2 Location 3 (Powell Scenado ~JJ:LbY_D.A~ Creek neighbrhood) A - Actual situation - Spring/Summer 1997 0 1,517 Reflect planned further development with 70 by-dght units in Springddge (but without a road over the dam). 0 2,090 Reflect planned further development and with 135 units in Spdngddge (still without a road over the dam). 0 2,221 D - Same as C, but also reflecting effect 3,035 3,132 of existence of road over the dam In the case of the Powell Creek neighborhood we see the same pattern as with the schools. An ALREADY unreasonable burden is increased by 46%, merely by planned development ... and that huge increase is then compounded by the existence of a road over the dam. We believe that In this rush to implement infill in the growth areas and to connect neighborhoods, without examining the consequences of these actions, the Planning Commission has its pdodfies inverted. Why do we believe this ? At the public hearing, the commissioners heard appeals from many parents of children attending the Hollymead schools, and they were given a petition with 657 signatures opposing the road over the dam. Nevertheless, in the session which followed public comment, several commissioners gave the safety issue mere lip service in favor of complimenting the developer on his "terrific proposal". To repeat, we have no quarrel with the developer himself, but we were particularly offended by remarks from certain of the commissioners such as "This traffic is nothing compared to Georgetown Road" and "1 grew up in an urban neighborhood and never knew anyone who was hit by a car". The irony here is obvious. First, these commissioners lavish praise on the developer for creating non-urban neighbor- hoods which generally offer a high quality of life and a high degree of child safety. Then they criticize the residents for wishing to preserve the character of those very neighborhoods. There was also considerable discussion of a '%/connection" which would lessen (but hardly eliminate) the effect of the road over the dam. This connection would cost the developer quite a bit more than the simple dam road, and one commissioner actually suggested that the residents of Forest Lakes might contribute their own money to offset part of this extra cost. In fairness, of course, we must observe that this dismissive attitude was not displayed by the entire Commission. Hilda Lee Washington, in particular, expressed sedous concern over the issue of child safety. And Chairman Loewenstein's remarks on the need for better planning to meet long range infrastructure requirements were right on target. Still, the outcome of the meeting suggests that the priorities of the Commission, (taken as a whole), are not reflective of the sequence listed below ... a sequence we strongly endorse. 2- 3- 4- Safety of children Quality of life Density and type of infill housing Connecting neighborhoods Unfortunately, the Plan ning Commission's vote appears to place #3 and ~4 ahead of #1. But there is still one more opportunity for the County to get its priorities in the proper order. The Board of Supervisors meets on 11-18-98 to consider this matter, and we strongly urge the Supervisors to do the following: Cap all development at "by right" until the safety of children can be guaranteed at the three locations discussed above. Take immediate traffic-cai ming measures to compensate for the increased traffic volumes which will inevitably occur in the near future regardless of Springddge or any read over the dam. Allow Springridge to increase from the by-right 70 units to the requested 135 only if further measures are taken to guarantee the safety of children. Flatly reject Proffer #3 (the read over the dam). It clearly adds more life-threatening traffic than any form of traffic-calming could ever corn pensate for. We are confident that the steps above can be taken without jeopardizing in any way the County's goal of managing growth in as intelligent a way as possible. The Forest Lakes Transportation Committee William H Adams Cl~arlot~d, VA, 22911-7420 The Honorable Forrest Marshall, Jr. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville~ VA 22902 Dear Mr. Marshall, The Albemarle Planning Commission is meeting on October 27 to discuss the building of a full-scale two lane road across the Hollymead dam to connect with Forest Lakes North. I am opposed_to building a road over the Hollymead dam. I am oppose, d_to widening Hollymead Drive to 4 lanes to accommodate the additional traffic load of the Brown property sub-division and the Forest Lakes South-Hollymead-Forest Lakes North-Proffit Road connector. I am oppose_d to rezoning the Brown property to increase the number of homes allowed, I am ~ to the "Rte 29 / Hollymead By-Pass" connecting Forest Lakes South through Hollymead and Forest Lakes North to Proffit Road. We hope that you will take my concerns into consideration when this matter comes up before the Board in November. Sincerely yours, ,10/21~1998 09:35 8045751583 HONTELL USA PAGE 82 R.D. Billings 1605 Pepperidge Lane Charlottesville VA 22911 Home Phone 804-975-1523 October 21, 1998 Mr, Jared Lowenstein Chmn. CIO Elaine Nichols County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Lowenstein, We are wdting you today, with respect to the proposals ZMA 98-12, ZMA 98-13 and SP98.46. All of these are proposals relate directly to Forest Lakes Associates requests to access additional development into what has been known as the Brown and Springridge properties. We are absolutely not in agreement with these proposals, as they will exacerbate traffic issues along the already congested Hollymead Drive and Powell Creek Road. The intersection of Hollymead and Poweil Creek is currently a problem where we have personally experienced two near accidents. Most important of all, these proposals will lead to significant increases in traffic and compromise the safety of our neighborhood children who use the HollymeadlSutherland schools. For any problem there must exist alternatives. We are not convinced that Forest Lakes Associates have thoroughly explored those. As long time residents of both Hollymead and Forest Lakes SOuth, we would ask your support in this effort to keep our neighborhoods safe for all. n/"'~incerely' d~Do~n~Billings The Honorable Forrest Marshall, Jr. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Marshall, The Albemarle Planning Commission is meeting on October 27 to discuss the building of a full-scale two lane road across the Hollymead dam to connect with Forest Lakes North. I am opposed to building a road over the Hollymead dam. I am opposed to widening Hollymead Drive to 4 lanes to accommodate the additional traffic load of the Brown property sub-division and the Forest Lakes South-Hollymead-Forest Lakes North-Proffit Road connector. I am .opposed to rezoning the Brown property to increase the number of homes allowed. I am opposed to the "Rte 29 / Hollymead By-Pass" connecting Forest Lakes South through Hollymead and Forest Lakes North to Proffit Road. We hope that you will take my concerns into consideration when this matter comes up before the Board in November. Sincerely yours, /5- 70 {:he~¢ :,l, ~,],{ I:""' cctV. ,,t 'ii, ~ d, cec"i ,on I,~,.,~e. -il, e. doc', ,,o'¢ ko,~e~-t.l? ~.,{.dre~'~ d:h.e ye,'/ r,,a.} conr. er,ns ~ Mr. & Mrs. IL W. Crouter 3232 Gateway Circle Charlottesville. VA 22901 28 November 1998 The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, 401 ~cintire Road, Charlottesville, VA z2901 Dear County Supervisors: ~ IZ-3 RECEIVEO DEC U: Plannin9 Dept. As current homeowners in Forest Lakes North, we are writing to express our concern about plans currently afoot to provide access to the proposed Sprlngridge development on the Brown property located southeast ot Forest Lakes North. At a recent public meeting attended by over 300 Forest Lakes homeowners, three possible access routes were presented. Any one of the three would greatly increase the already heavy traffic through Forest Lakes North. One owner who as knowledgeable in local real estate matters, asked the most obvious question, which was on the tips of many other tongues: "Why is access to the property from Proffitt Road not even being considered as one of the options, when there is already an existing legally deeded right-of-way to the property from Proffitt Road and the access distance there is shorter?" Many of the homeowners loudly applauded his implied suggestion. When pressed, the spokesperson presenting the other options stated that the developer has the "right" to decide where he wants the access to go as long as the county and state authorities agree to his plan. The developer has so far refused to consider access from Proffitt Road. Our question: Does the developer's "right" supercede ~ne rights of hundreds of homeowners ~n Forest Lakes? We all pa~ a premium and continue to pay annual community fees in addition to our real estate taxes to live in a planned residential community which offers a certain level of domestic tranquility not always available elsewhere. The Constitution was ordained "to ensure domestic tranquility," among other things. Adding the traffic of over 100 more homes will do grave damage to the domestic tranquility which our community values highly and has paid a premium to maintain. At the public meeting, we heard two rumored "reasons" why access via Proffitt Road has been ignored in the planning process. In the first rumored "reason" the developer would prefer to bring prospective buyers to his 'IOU-plus new homes vaa Forest Lakes ~orth to showcase our established community en route. This i.s apparently preferable to Proffitt Road, which has only a ~ew smaller houses and a couple of small churches, occupied by seemingly Less affluent people. The secon~rumored "reason" was at first simply dismissed as "politics.'" When questioned further, this turned out to be the rumor that some local politico who lives in the vicinity of Proffitt Road Goes not want the added traffic an his backyard. We trust that both of these rumors a~ false, but the entire matter of ",~ny not access via Proffitt Road?" should be fully and fairly explored before any decisions are made which cause dramatic increases in traffic throuqh ~'orest Lakes. One developer's concern for "snob appeal" ~o maximize profit, or one politico's concern for his own domestic tranquility at the expense of that of hundreds of his constituents would trample all over our idea of aemocracy. '£o reemphasize the point,this matter shOuld-be-fully aired to discover the real reason, if any, why the existing legal right-of-way from Proffitt Road to the Brown property is not even being considered in the planning process, when it seems to be the most logical route~ to do the least overall damage.Would someone please explain to us, "Why not have the grand entrance to 'Forest Lakes East' on Proffitt ~oad in much the same way that 'Forest Lakes South'is entered from Route 29?" Very respectfully yours, 0 ' Alyc~ and Robert Crouter ~opy to: Albemarle County Planning Commission The Editor, 'the Charlottesville uaily Progress. The Editor, The Charlottesville and Albemarle Observer, The Editor, ECHO, The Editor, The Weekly ~-VILLE ATTACHMENT I SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS BASED ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 ANALYSIS WITH CITIZENS OF HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY Exits at Route 29 Existing Ultimate PRD w/ PRD buildout- other with dam By-right* buildout** and buildout Ashwood Blvd. 2841 6457 6588 6906 Hollymead Dr. 4014 5251 5536 4913 Timberwood Blvd. 3931 4053 4053 4436 Powell Creek between Hollymead Dr. & Ashwood Blvd. 1566 2138 2269 3180 by schools 2832 3673 4090 5733 * - contains Farenhold property of 20 SFD; Cosner property of 15 SFD; and Hurt property of 76 Townhouses plus Springridge at 70 by-right with bonuses ** - adds 65 additional units for rezoning ofSpringridge PRD Traffic information taken from Applicant's Summary of Estimated VPD dated September 22, 1998 Based on assumptions agreed upon by John McDonald, Bill Sibert & Forest Lakes Associates; endorsed by Jose Gomez and Vytas Kavolius The Honorable Forrest Marshall, Jr. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Marshall, The Albemarle Planning Commission is meeting on October 27 to discuss the .building of a full-scale two lane road across the Hollymead dam to connect with Forest Lakes North. I am opposed to building a road over the Hollymead dam. I am opposed to widening Hollymead Drive to 4 lanes to accommodate the additional traffic load of the Brown property sub-division and the' Forest Lakes South-Hollymead-Forest Lakes North-Proffit Road connector. I am opposed to rezoning the Brown property to increase the number of homes allowed. I am opposed to the "Rte 29 / Hollymead By-Pass" connecting Forest Lakes South through Hollymead and Forest Lakes North to Proffit Road. We hope that you will take my concerns into consideration when this matter comes up before the Board in November. Sincerely yours, FIGURE 4.1 ESN 1143 ESN 1146 I · 'A.. ,~6C ESN ~1282 I I I I I I I I I I I # I ',, i ESN October 17, 1998 Marian Ellen Dudley 1820 Tinkers Cove Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 Home Phone 804-973-1 ~44 Mr. Jared Lowenstein C/O Ms. Elaine Echols Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22903-4596 ACCESS TO THE BROWN AND SPRINGRIDGE PROPERTIES Dear Mr. Lowenstein and others in the Planning Dept., I am writing regarding the access to the Brown and Springridge properties located in the back of Hollymead and Forest Lakes North and South. I am very much opposed to the access coming from Powell Creek Drive. I believe that there is a danger and the safety of our families and our households wil/be affected by this increased traffic and congestion that the impact of the increased traffic pattern will make. There are other ways to access these properties and I talked to the folks who did the study at the Tayloe Murphy Institute a few months ago about. There is a lot easier access that could be provided directly offofProffitt Road. Also the owners of these properties are part of Forest Lakes so there could be an access from there. These options make the most sense to all of us, espec/ally the one from Proffitt Road Less traffic at the schools and less traffic by anyone houses. Please take into consideration these issues and do ~vhat provides us with what is in the best interest of our tam/I/es and households in the Holl~xnead subdivision. Thanks for your time and efforts. M. EHen Dudley Ho~ymead Resident ~d concerned pm'ent ~d prope~ o~mer 10/~/98 09:46 '~804 293 6527 ROY WEEELBRRLTY ~OOl/OOl . Marian Ellen Dudley 1820 ~nkers Cove Road Charkl0.esvi~. VA 22911 Home Phone 804-973-1644 October' 17. 1998 Mr. Jared Lowenstein ./ OdO Ms. Elaine Echols Dept. of Plar~ and Community Development 401 Mclnfife Road Cha~lottesvffie, VA 22~3-4596 ACCESS TO THE BROWN AND SPKINGR/DGE PROPERTIES Dear Mr. LoWenst~n arid others in the Planning Dept., 1 am writing regarding the aoccss to the Brown and Sp~dge proper~ located in the baok of Hollymead and · Forest Lakes North and South. I am very much opposed to the a:cess coming from Powell Creek Drive. I believe that there is a danger and the safety of our families and o~tr households will be affected by this increased tra~ and oongcstlon that the impact of the increased traffic pattern will make. There are other ways to access these properties and I talked to the folks who did the study at the Tayioe Murphy Institute a few months ago about. There is a lot easier access that could be provided direly offofProffitt Road. Also the owners o£these properties are part of Forest Lakes so the~e could be an access from them, These options make the most sense to all of us, especially the one from Proffitt Road. Less tralEc at the schools and less traffic by anyone houses. Please take into consideaation these issues and do what provides us with what is in the best interest of our f-amflies and households in the I-Iollym~ad subdivision. Than~ for your time and efforts. M. Ellen Dudley Hollym~ad Resident and concerned parent and property owner The Honorable Forrest Marshall, Jr. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Marshall, The Albemarle Planning Commission is meeting on October 27 to discuss the building of a full-scale two lane road across the Hollymead dam to connect with Forest Lakes North. I am opposed to building a road over the Hollymead dam. I am opposed to widening Hollymead Drive to 4 lanes to accommodate the additional traffic load of the Brown property sub-division and the Forest Lakes South-Hollymead-Forest Lakes North-Proffit Road connector. I am opposed to rezoning the Brown property to increase the number of homes allowed. I am opposed to the "Rte 29 / Hollymead By-Pass" connecting Forest Lakes South through Hollymead and Forest Lakes North to Proffit Road. We hope that you will take my concerns into consideration when this matter comes up before the Board in November. Sincerely yours, The Honorable Forrest Marshall, Jr. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Marshall, The Albemarle Pl~ning Commission is meeting on October 27 to discuss the building of a full-scale two lane road across the Hollymead dam to connect with Forest Lakes North. I am opposed to building a road over the Hollymead dam. .I am opposed to widening Hollymead Drive to 4 lanes to accommodate the additional traffic load of the Brown property sub-division and the Forest Lakes South-Hollymead-Forest Lakes North-Proffit Road connector. I am opposed to rezoning the Brown property to increase the number of homes allowed. I am opposed to the "Rte 29 / Hollymead By-Pass" connecting Forest Lakes South through Hollymead and Forest Lakes North to Proffit Road. We hope that you will take my concerns into consideration when this matter comes up before the Board in November. Sincerely yours, The Honorable Forrest Marshall, Ir. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Marshall, The Albemarle PI.arming Commission is meeting on October 27 to discuss the building of a full-scale two lane road across the Hollymead dam to connect with Forest Lakes North. I am opposed to building a road over the Hollymead dam. I am opposed to widening Hollymead Drive to 4 lanes to accommodate the additional traffic load of the Brown property subdivision and the Forest Lakes South-Hollymead-Forest Lakes North-Proffit Road connector. I am opposed to rezoning the Brown property to increase the number of homes allowed. I am opposed to the "Rte 29 / Hollymead By-Pass" connecting Forest Lakes South through Hollymead and Forest Lakes North to Proffit Road. We hope that you will take my concerns into consideration when this matter comes up before the Board in November. Sincerely yours, The Honorable Forrest Marshall, Jr. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Marshall, The Albemarle Planning Commission is meeting on October 27 to discuss the building of a full-scale two lane road across the Hollymead dam to connect with Forest Lakes North. I am opposed to building a road over the Hollymead dam. I am opposed to widening Hollymead Drive to 4 lanes to accommodate the additional traffic load of the Brown property sub-division and the Forest Lakes South-Hollymead-Forest Lakes North-Proffit Road connector. I am opposed to rezoning the Brown property to increase the number of homes allowed. I am opposed to the "Rte 29 / Hollymead By-Pass" connecting Forest Lakes South through Hollymead and Forest Lakes North to Proffit Road. We hope that you will take my concerns into consideration when this matter comes up before the Board in November. Sincerely yours, ATTACHMENT H RECEIVED JUL 1 5 199, July 14, 1998 Planning Dept, County of Albemarle Department of Planning & Community. Development 401 Mclntyre Road Charlottesville. Va. 22902 To Whom it May Concern, This letter is to express my concern over the potential connector road for the "Brown Property". The "Road over the Dam" would connect Forest Lakes North, Hollymead, and Forest Lakes South. This connection would create a by - pass to Route 29. increase traffic and noise levels on streets designed for residential use. and endanger children and people who use these streets for walking and running. This road would also be used to access the "Brown Property" with additional construcuon traffic and residential traffic as the new homes are completed and sold. There will also be additional traffic through these developments fiom parents bringing children to school events fiom outside areas. There are alternative routes for accessing the "Brown Property" that leave the present roads as they are and utilize Proffit Road and Route 29. These roads are designed for this traffic and can more effectively handle it. It is believed that this "Over the Dam Road" is being considered for the convenience and .increased profitability of the "Brown Property" developer. This is not acceptable to most residents of the affected developments. Please take this letter as an expression of my concern. I hope that the county will study this matter carefully and consider all viable alternatives. Quality of life and safety, are of great concern to residents of the affected developments. [ would appreciate notification of when the public hearing will be held on these proposals. Thank you for your time and consideration of the above points. Sincerely, ~.,~_ o,~e .d.~ my The Honorable Forrest Marshall, Jr. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Marshall, The Albemarle Planning Commission is meeting on October 27 to discuss the building of a full-scale two lane road across the Hollymead dam to connect with Forest Lakes North. I am opposed to building a road over the Hollymead dam. I am opposed to widening Hollymead Drive to 4 lanes to accommodate the additional traffic load of the Brown property sub-division and the Forest Lakes South-Hollymead-Forest Lakes North-Proffit Road connector. I am opposed to rezoning the Brown property to increase the number of homes allowed. I am opposed to the "Rte 29 / Hollymead By-Pass" connecting Forest Lakes South through Hollymead and Forest Lakes North to Proffit Road. We hope that you will take my concerns into consideration when this matter comes up before the Board in November. Sincerely yours, The Honorable Forrest Marshall, Jr. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville} VA 22902 Dear Mr. Marshall, The Albemarle Planning Commission is meeting on October 27 to discuss the building of a full-scale two lane road across the Hollymead dam to connect with Forest Lakes North. I am opposed to building a road over the Hollymead dam. I am opposed to widening Hollymead Drive to 4 lanes to accommodate the additional traffic load of the Brown property sub-division and the Forest Lakes South-Hollymead-Forest Lakes North-Proffit Road connector. I am opposed to rezoning the Brown property to increase the number of homes allowed. I am opposed to the "Rte 29 / Hollymead By-Pass" connecting Forest Lakes South through Hollymead and Forest Lakes North to Proffit Road. We hope that you will take my concerns into consideration when this matter comes up before the Board in November. Sincerely yours, To: From: Sated Lowenstein Chair, Albemarle County Planning Commission e/o Elaine K. Nichols, AICP County Office Building 401 Melntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dee Walsh 1440 Birchcrest Lane Charlottesville, VA 2291 I (Forest Lakes South, Teakwood Subdivision) 978-4887//deewalsh(~_.rlc. n~ Construction of Road in Lieu of Pedestrian Trail ZMA-98-12 Forest Lakes South B Minor Amendment (Sign ~4, 5, 19 & 92) Date: 10/13/98 I have no particular objections to opening the road mentioned in your memo of 9/4/98, and I am certain that the Planning Commission members have given a great deal of thought to the pros and cons of this proposal. I would like to strongly suggest, however, that you implement - without delay - effective traffic- calming measures on that stretch of road. The traffic on Powell Creek Drive is already uncomfortably fast-paced, and the speeds that many ears reach on Ashwood Boulevard are simply unsafe. I personally prefer the types of traffic-calming barriers seen on many European roads, which consist of landscaped areas (or boxed planters/trees) which project deeply into the road at alternating intervals. This method ensures that drivers slow down to a 15 - 20 mph pace and is also aesthetically pleasing to both Pedestrians and drivers. Please feel free to contact me if you desire further information from our family regarding this matter. October 27, 1998 Albemarle County Planning Commission RE: Brown Property Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen: My name is Robert Walters. I am a homeowner and resident of the Hollymead Subdivision. I am here tonight to ask you to DENY THE REZONING REQUEST to allow construction of a road on the property currently zoned for a walking path. HOLLYMEAD SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY the consequences for the developers' business mistake. The Brown Property will become a part of Forest Lakes North. The developer should have retained access to the property instead of maximizing profits by converting and transferring it to common property with the Forest Lakes North development plan. It will be the residents for Hollymead who have to put up with the additional safety hazards, traffic, and development - NOT the residents of Forest Lakes. This same developer built roads at less than VDOT requirements to maximize lots in English Oaks Circle North and now those residents are paying the consequences. Hollymead roads are not designed or built to handle this volume of traffic. Eventual access to Profit Road will provide a major shortcut through Hollymead. Hollymead should not be forced to pay the price for the developers' mistake. The roads in the Hollymead subdivision are used by many nonresidents. Between 12 & 13% of the students in Albemarle County attend either Hollymead Elementary or Sutherland Middle Schools. The majority of the students are not residents of Hollymead. The school playfields and other facilities are used by many additional nonresidents of Hollymead. The dangers presented by the excess and unsafe traffic from people dropping their kids off or picking them up during rush hours is borne by Hollymead children and residents, not the nonresidents who use our roads. The path proposed to be eliminated now offers an environmentally friendly and safe method of accessing 2 neighborhoods. This will not be the case if it is eliminated and replaced by a road. Hollymead currently has 2 apartment complexes. We do not need or deserve the additional apartments and other high-density housing envisioned by the development of the Brown Property. Access to the Bi'own Property should be built through Forest Lakes North. Their roads are designed and built for additional traffic. Timberwood is straight, twice as wide as Hollymead Drive, and has no houses built facing the road. If access to the Brown Property is approved/then the road over the dam must be built and Forest Lakes forced to accept their own traffic reducing the burden on Hollymead. If access to the Brown Property is not approved, we will have undeveloped open space in the middle of one of the most developed areas in the County. Thank you for listening to me and considering my concerns. Robert Walters 1645 Ravens P1 Charlottesville, VA 22911-7527