The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-06-09 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FIN A L JUNE 9, 2004 6:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 241 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 5. Consent Agenda (on next page). 6. SP-2003-052. Larry Hawkins Home Occupation (Signs # 63&65). Public hearing on a request to allow Home Occupation Class B for Excavation Contractor in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 ofthe Zoning Ord. TM 94, P 7B, contains 2 acs. Znd RA. Loc on 3117 Hearns Lane, approx .25 miles from intersec of Hearns Lane & Running Dear Rd (Rt 808). Scottsville Dist. 7. SP-2003-079. The Rock Amendment (Signs #49.52&53). Public hearing on a request to amend existing special use permit for rural preservation development of more than 20 lots to: (1) amend the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract (TM 74, P 18); (2) amend the boundaries ofTM 74, Ps 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3; (3) amend access to TM 74, Ps 18, 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3; & (4) allot development rights not used in the original proposal. This request is made in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.28 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for 20 or more Development Lots in a Rural Preservation Development. TM 74, Ps 18, 18C, 18C1, 18C2, 18C3, 18D, 18D1, 18D4, 18D7, 18D8, 18D9, 18E, 18E1,18E2,18E3,18E4,18E5,18E8,18E9,18F,18F1,18F2,18F3,18F9,18G,18G1,18G3, 18G4, 18G5, 18G6, 18G7, 18G8, contains approx 645 acs. Znd RA. Loc off of Rt 637 (Dick Woods Rd), at its intersect wn-64. Samuel Miller Dist. 8. ZMA-2003-012. Stillfried Lane Townhouses (Signs #21&51). Public hearing on a requestto rezone 6.652 acs from R-1 to PRD to allow 26 townhouse units. TM 60, Ps 31,32,33, & 34. Loc on Stillfried Lane off Rt 250W (Ivy Rd) behind Kluge Children's Rehabilitation Center. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Residential in Neighborhood 6.) Jack Jouett Dist. 9. ADDeal: ARB-2004-031: Seminole Place Sign Refacing. Request to reface internally illuminated freestanding sign. TM 061 W, Sec 3, P 18. Loc at Comdial property on W side of Rt 29 N, a short distance S of Greenbrier Dr. 10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 11. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Set public hearing on an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 12, Sections 12-201 and 202 regarding Dance Hall permits. 5.2 Adopt resolution approving Gilbert Station Road (Route 640) as Rural Rustic Paving Project. 5.3 Authorize County Executive to sign future construction agreement related to Hollymead Town Center Area B. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TENTATI VE JUNE 9, 2004 6:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 241 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1 . Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 5. Consent Agenda (on next page). 6. SP-2003-052. Larrv Hawkins Home Occupation (Sians # 63&65). Public hearing on a request to allow Home Occupation Class B for Excavation Contractor in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord. TM 94, P 7B, contains 2 acs. Znd RA. Loc on 3117 Hearns Lane, approx .25 miles from intersec of Hearns Lane & Running Dear Rd (Rt SOS). Scottsville Dist. 7. SP-2003-079. The Rock Amendment (Sians #49.52&53). Public hearing on a request to amend existing special use permit for rural preservation development of more than 20 lots to: (1) amend the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract (TM 74, P 1S); (2) amend the boundaries ofTM 74, Ps 1SC, 1SC1, 1SC2 and 1SC3; (3) amend access to TM 74, Ps 1S, 1SC, 18C1, 1SC2 and 18C3; & (4) allot development rights not used in the original proposal. This request is made in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.28 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for 20 or more Development Lots in a Rural Preservation Development. TM 74, Ps 18, 18C, 18C1, 18C2, 18C3, 18D, 18D1, 18D4, 18D7, 18D8, 18D9, 18E, 18E1, 18E2,18E3,18E4,18E5,18E8,18E9,18F,18F1,1SF2,18F3, 18F9, 18G,18G1,18G3, 18G4, 18G5, 18G6, 18G7, 18G8, contains approx 645 acs. Znd RA. Loc off of Rt 637 (Dick Woods Rd), at its intersect wn-64. Samuel Miller Dist. 8. ZMA-2003-012. Stillfried Lane Townhouses (Signs #21&51). Public hearing on a requestto rezone 6.652 acs from R-1 to PRD to allow 26 townhouse units. TM 60, Ps 31,32,33, & 34. Loc on Stillfried Lane off Rt 250W (Ivy Rd) behind Kluge Children's Rehabilitation Center. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Residential in Neighborhood 6.) Jack JOJett Dist. 9. Appeal: ARB-2004-031: Seminole Place Sign Refacing. Request to reface internally illuminated freestanding sign. TM 061W, See 3, P 18. Loc at Comdial property on W side of Rt 29 N, a short distance S of Greenbrier Dr. 10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 11. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Set public hearing on an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 12, Sections 12-201 and 202 regarding Dance Hall permits. 5.2 Adopt resolution approving Gilbert Station Road (Route 640) as Rural Rustic Paving Project. 5.3 Authorize County Executive to sign future construction agreement related to Hollymead Town Center Area B. ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of June 9, 2004 June 10, 2004 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT 1. Call to Order. · Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Domer. All BOS members were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and Ella Carev. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · Neil Williamson, Executive Director of the Free Enterprise Forum, presented proposed language for the Board's consideration regarding interconnectivity (This is in reference to the Subdivision Text Amendment). · John Cruickshank, representing the Piedmont Group of the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, asked the Board to take an official position in opposition to the construction of two new nuclear power plants at the North Anna site in Louisa County. · Elena Day, a resident of 151 Buckingham Circle, asked the Board to oppose the nuclear power plants at North Anna. · Abhaya Thiele, a resident of 406 Key West Drive, representing the People's Alliance for Clean Energy, also spoke regarding the proposed nuclear power plants at North Anna. · Elizabeth Helmke, owner of Char10ttesville Jazzercise Center, addressed the Board concerning her special permit application which was approved by the Board on May 1ih. She asked the Board to relieve her of condition #2 requiring the owner to correct a violation on the property. Mr. Davis said the Board cannot take the action Ms. Helmke is requesting tonight. In addition the Zoning Administrator cannot issue a zoning clearance until the violation is corrected. He noted that Ms. Helmke began her operation prior to Board approval of the special permit. He added that the Zoning Administrator will work with Ms. Helmke to insure that she is not unreasonably affected by this condition. · Nancy Verell, on behalf of the Minor Hill Manor Homeowners Association, addressed the Board regarding the proposed earthen dam project in Whitewood Park. She asked that the Board make sure the natural environment of the Park continues to be preserved. · Gerald Gill, President of the Minor Hill Manor Homeowners Association, echoed the concerns expressed by Ms. Verell. · John Martin, a resident of Ear1ysville, suggested the Board review the second restated Articles of Incorporation for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, relative to the structure of the Board 1 of Directors. He suggested the Board appoint the Director of Cornmunity Development to the Rivanna Board. 5.1 Set public hearing on an Ordinance to Amend Clerk: Advertise public hearing. Chapter 12, Sections 12-201 and 202 regarding Dance Hall permits. · SET public hearing for July 7,2004. 5.2 Adopt resolution approving Gilbert Station Road Clerk: Forward resolution to Jim Bryan with (Route 640) as Rural Rustic Paving Project. copy to Juandiego Wade (Attachment 1). · ADOPTED resolution. 5.3 Authorize County Executive to sign future construe- County Attorney's office: Provide Clerk's office tion agreement related to Hollymead Town Center with copy of agreement after it has been Area B. finalized and signed. · AUTHORIZED County Executive to sign the Future Construction Agreement on behalf of the County after final language acceptable to the Department of Community Development and the County Attorney is agree upon, and the Agreement is approved as to form by the County Attorney. 6. SP-2003-052. Larrv Hawkins Home Occupation Clerk: Set out conditions of approval (Sions #63&65). (Attachment 2). · APPROVED SP-2003-052, by a vote of 6:0, to grant the waiver for 2200 square feet to be reflective in condition #1, and subject to the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and amended at the Board meetina. 7. SP-2003-079. The Rock Amendment (Sians #49. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval 52&53). (Attachment 2). · APPROVED SP-2003-079, by a vote of 6:0, subject to 20 conditions. 8. ZMA-2003-012. Stillfried Lane Townhouses Clerk: Set out proffers (Attachment 2). (Sions #21&51). · APPROVED ZMA-2003-012, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the revised proffers, APPROVED a reduction in the internal setbacks, and RECOMMENDED that the Planning Commission review the request for a critical slopes waiver. 9. Appeal: ARB-2004-031 - Seminole Place Sian Refacina. · AFFIRMED the decision of the ARB. 10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. David Wyant: · Asked that the Board discuss what action they will be taking on the Crozet Master Plan. He needs an understanding of what they will be voting on. Mr. Tucker suggested he and staff meet with Mr. Wyant and Mr. Boyd. David Bowerman: · Updated Board members on the Birnam Basin. Lindsav Dorrier: · Suggested that when the Board discuss economic development, it include a discussion on the wine industry. · At 9:15 p.m., the Board went into Closed Session. 2 . At 9:45 p.m., the Board reconvened into Open Session and certified the Closed Session. 11. Adjourned. . The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 c.m. lewc Attachment 1 - Resolution - Gilbert Station Road Attachment 2 - Conditions of Approval 3 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to revise §33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hard surfacing of certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and WHEREAS, such roads must be located in a low-density development area and have a minimum of 50 vehicles per day (vpd), and have no more than 500 vpd; and WHEREAS, this Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the existing traffic on the road; and WHEREAS, the citizens that utilize this road have been aware of this road being paved with minimal improvements; and WHEREAS, this Board believes Route 640 - Gilbert Station Road should be designated a Rural Rustic Road, from Route 784 to Route 20 owing to its qualifying characteristics; and WHEREAS, the road aforesaid is in this Board's six-year plan for improvements to its secondary system of state highways: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board hereby designates and requests VDOT's Resident Engineer to concur in the aforesaid road as a Rural Rustic Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests that this road be hard surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right of way and ditch-lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the road in their current state. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. 4 ATTACHMENT 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agenda Item NO.6. SP-2003-052. Larrv Hawkins Home Occupation (Sians # 63&65). Public hearing on a request to allow Horne Occupation Class B for Excavation Contractor in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord. TM 94, P 7B, contains 2 acs. Znd RA. Loc on 3117 Hearns Lane, approx .25 miles from intersec of Hearns Lane & Running Dear Rd (Rt 808). Scottsville Dist. 1. A storage shed or garage, not to exceed twenty-two hundred (2200) square feet shall be constructed for the purpose of storing all equipment and materials related to the approved use; 2. All on site repair or maintenance of vehicles or equipment related to the approved use shall occur within the storage shed or garage; 3. No outside storage of equipment, parts, mulch, inoperable vehicles, scrap or other construction materials shall be permitted. Any outdoor storage existing on the date of the approval of this permit by the Board of Supervisors' approval shall comply with this condition within one hundred twenty (120) days of the Board of Supervisors' approval of this special use permit; 4. The new storage shed or garage shall meet the minimum yard requirements for commercial structures, found in Section 21.7.2 of the ordinance. (No portion of any structure shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any residential or rural areas district.) 5. The storage shed or garage must meet the minimum landscaping and screening requirements for commercial and industrial uses, found in Section 32.7.9 of the ordinance; and 6. Before this permit may be used, the zoning administrator shall confirm that no junk is being stored on the property. Agenda Item NO.7. SP-2003-079. The Rock Amendment (Sions #49.52&53). Public hearing on a request to amend existing special use permit for rural preservation development of more than 20 lots to: (1) amend the boundaries ofthe Rural Preservation Tract (TM 74, P 18); (2) amend the boundaries of TM 74, Ps 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3; (3) amend access to TM 74, Ps 18, 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3; & (4) allot development rights not used in the original proposal. This request is made in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.28 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for 20 or more Development Lots in a Rural Preservation Development. TM 74, Ps 18, 18C, 18C1, 18C2, 18C3, 18D, 18D1, 18D4, 18D7, 18D8, 18D9, 18E, 18E1, 18E2, 18E3, 18E4, 18E5,18E8,18E9,18F,18F1, 18F2, 18F3,18F9, 18G,18G1,18G3, 18G4, 18G5, 18G6, 18G7, 18G8, contains approx 645 acs. Znd RA. Loc off of Rt 637 (Dick Woods Rd), at its intersect w/'-64. Samuel Miller Dist. 1. Except as otherwise provided herein development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the "Special Use Permit Plan..." prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2, 2004. For purposes of these conditions the plan shall heretofore be referred to as "The Application Plan;" 2. Except for minor boundary adjustments, (as determined by the Agent), the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified only as shown on "The Application Plan;" 3. Within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1, there shall be allowed a total of four (4) dwelling units or four (4) lots. Before a building permit is issued for a second dwelling unit, or before a subdivision plat is approved creating a new lot(s) within the boundaries of Lot 1, a new application plan shall be reviewed and approved administratively by the County authorizing the dwelling units or lots. For purposes of these conditions the term "subdivision" shall also mean family divisions; 4. All subdivisions within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 shall meet the design standards and special provisions set forth in Section 10.3.3 ofthe Zoning Ordinance. This includes the requirement that it be demonstrated that the additional lots combined with the other approved lots do not exceed the actual number of lots that could have been achieved by conventional development of the total property; 5. All dwellings and development lots within the boundaries of Lot 1 shall be located east of the floodplain of Ivy Creek; 5 6. All future development lots subdivided from Lot 1 shall be no larger than 3.26 acres in area, shall be located in a manner consistent with, and be integrated into the overall design of the other development lots in The Rocks; 7. A minimum often (10) trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots, including those permitted by condition three (3), in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two (2) planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots; 8. Clearing of land shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads, dwellings, and septic fields; 9. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or light colored roofs, as determined by the Director of Planning, are prohibited; 10. Concrete driveways visible from off-site shall be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning; 11. The bridge shall not be constructed until the approvals in conditions twelve (12) through fifteen (15) have been obtained; 12. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control permit; 13. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; 14. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3. of the Zoning Ordinance; 15. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private roads shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards. This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide frontage to all the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 as shown on "The Application Plan;" 16. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard of the private road extension at the time of review; 17. The existing road, shown entering from Rocks Farm Drive, parallel to Interstate 64 and meandering through the Preservation Tract shall not be improved or widened except for agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road plan and an erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer; 18. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the rural preservation easement shall be amended to allow the modification; amendment to the easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies or guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemar1e County Public Recreational Facilities Authority; 19. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement shall be recorded with the plat; and 20. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner's Association consents to the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3. Agenda Item NO.8. ZMA-2003-012. Stillfried Lane Townhouses (Sians #21&51). Public hearing on a request to rezone 6.652 acs from R-1 to PRD to allow 26 townhouse units. TM 60, Ps 31, 32, 33, & 34. Loc on Stillfried Lane off Rt 250W (Ivy Rd) behind Kluge Children's Rehabilitation Center. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Residential in Neighborhood 6.) Jack Jouett Dist. 6 PROFFER FORM Date of Proffer Signature: 6.9.04 ZMA # 2003-012 Tax Map 60 and Parcel Numbers 32, 33 and 34 6.652 Acres to be rezoned from R-1 (Residential) to PRD (Planned Residential Development) Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemar1e County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned with the offered plans approved for development. 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 request. (1) The development on Tax Map 60 Parcel Numbers 32,33 and 34 shall be in general accord with the plan produced by Terra Partners, LLC, dated December 19, 2003, revised April 23, 2004 entitled "The Stillfried Lane Townhomes at Poplar Glen", herein referred to as the Application Plan, (sheets 2 of3 and 3 of 3). (2) No building permit shall be issued unless and until the Director of Community Development, or his assigns, determines that the building facades are in general accord with the architecture plans produced by Bosserman Design/Development, dated 10/29/03, last revised 12/22/03, entitled "Poplar Glen, Stillfried Lane Townhomes", sheets p-1, p-2, and p-3. The façades shall be determined to be in general accord if the architecture implements features that break up the massing of the building, such as the porches, porticos, variations in building materials, and gables which break up the rooflines (3) The owner shall avoid cutting all trees (greater than six (6) inches diameter at breast height) in the area labeled Conservation Area on the Application Plan. (4) The owner shall bury all utilities on the project site during the construction of the townhouses, including those utilities (electric, telephone, sewer and water) serving the UVA Cochran House on Tax Map 60 Parcel 34A, prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any dwelling unit. (5) The owner shall contribute a sum of $3,000 cash per dwelling unit to the County for funding Capital Improvements or affordable housing programs. The cash contribution will be paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for that dwelling unit. If this cash contribution has not been exhausted by the County for the stated purpose within ten (10) years from the date of the contribution, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the owner. (Sianed) Mark Powell Signature of All Owners (Printed) Mark Powell. VP of Weather Hill Homes. LLC 6-9-04 Printed Names of All Owners Date 7 PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA FROM THE PUBLIC June 9, 2004 . C "'.j, \\e. "- 5 E-l \zabdh {fel 6 Net. Y1 ~ Vt-r¿11 7 0- e_ r I ~ L_ 6- /' /1 8 Jo,^-- Q . V\t'.e.J'"-\~ 9 '{ 0 b {,L.;¿'1 vve'::>\ ~- C' ..¡.\\ v A- '"'2... "2- .... \\ 4 12-10 $-Cht~vMcld C:t.,CV1vi/LQ Z~II ~ ILf Wt6tfi~d Rd. 32& ? ----¡-., /eld If {]L,ç ~~~ fL.(. ~-ve.c... ~ I ~ ~~~o 10 From Albemarle County Attorney Larry Davis Memo dated May 24, 2004 14. COMMENT: Section 14-429 Reservation of Land for Future Right-of-Way. The County cannot require you to reserve highways and streets on your subdivision plan even if shown on a thoroughfare plan. There is a "put" provision in the State Code that upon notice, they can either acquire and compensate or let you go. RESPONSE: Section 14-429 was deleted in the draft ordinance considered by the Planning Commission. Coordinating existing and proposed streets 1S addressed in section 14-409. Coordination 1S enabled by Virginia Code § 15.2-2241(2) and (4). It is our opinion that the reservation of right-of-way for future streets shown approved in an official map can be required. Compensation by the County may be required if the reservation constitutes a taking of the property. [Emphasis added] Date: RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING (p' qoc{ if Agenda Item .: Clerk's Initials: Ð)jC-----' RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Date: . Cc· Cj, Q0 Agenda Item ,;3---.-...."....-- rk' I ·it' Is· eLoc/ Cle s n 18 ,_--------.-d.-- NO NE\V REACTORS AT DOIVIINION'S NORTH ANNA SITE To \\Thorn It May Concern: We, the undersigned organizations and businesses, OPPOSE any plans by Dominion to build any new nuclear reactors at its North Anna nuclear power station in Virginia. The site is unsuitable, and many important factors are not being considered in the decision of whether to approve Dominion's application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the site. Cçmstructing new reactors would be bad for Virginia's environment, bad for taxpayers, and bad for residential.and commercial ratepayers. For example: ./ Lake Anna cannot physically support the addition of new reactors. Dominion's Early Site Permit application does not adequately address the increased water use associated with new reactors, which will cause the lake level to drop significantly. Lower water levels will adyersely impact water-based recreational uses of the lake, for example by preventing access to boat launch ramps. Lower lake levels lead to mudflats in the back yards of homes located around the lake, and could decrease property values. The application also fails to sufficiently examine the increase in the lake temperature, which will negatively affect the striped bass population, a popular gaming fish, and other marine organisms. Waters downstream will be affected similarly. ./ In a time of increased terrorist threat, new nuclear power plants increase physical and economic risks to central Virginia residents, Dominion customers and ~hareholders, and nuclear industry employees. AI Qaeda is known to have considered nuclear power plants as a target for an attack. Terrorist threats and heightened Threat Advisory Levels (Orange and Red level) may lead to severe restrictions on public access to Lake Anna, which could impact local businesses dependent on public use of the lake. This has already happened at over a dozen lakes with nuclear plants around the country. Adding additional reactors to the North Anna facility could also increase its attractiveness as a terrorist target, increasing the frequency and likelihood of lake closures. ./ Safer, cheaper alternatives to new nuclear generating capacity are not being explored as part of the Early Site Permit process. The ESP application also doesn't consider what the effect might be on the cost of power in Virginia or nationally, or the need for new generating capacity. Virginia currently has a surplus of electrical generating capacity, so excess power will likely be sold outside the state rather than being used in-state to lower prices. Local residents will be forced to live with the risks of the nuclear plant without getting the benefits. ./ The history of nuclear power demonstrates that constructing nuclear reactors is expensive, with final costs often running billions of dollars over budget - costs that are often passed on to ratepayers. The first 75 reactors constructed in the U.S. had a combined cost overrun of over $100 billion. The average reactor ran 400% over budget and was over 4 years late in start up. The last reactor in the U.S. to be completed, the Watts Bar plant in Tennessee, was finally opened in 1996, 23 years after it was first proposed. It cost $8 billion. People's Alliance for Clean Energy' Charlottesville, VA . (540) 967-5574 . www.northanna.org No New Reactors at Dominion's North Anna Site - Page 2 ../ Renewable energy sources such as wind power create more jobs per investment dollar than does nuclear power. Those jobs also require less specialized education, increasing the chances that local workers will be able to secure the jobs rather than requiring outside experts. ../ A major nuclear accident could leave an area the size of Pennsylvania uninhabitable for decades. The area around the Chernobyl nuclear plant, site of a major accident in 1986, is still closed to public access and radiation levels are still high. Cleanup costs for a major nuclear accident are estimated to be aroUnd $500 billion, not including broader economic shockwaves. The nuclear industry's liability for such an accident is capped at around $10 billion, leaving taxpayers with a $490 billion bill, ratepayers with a bankrupt utility, and surviving residents without a home. ../ Over 2~ years after September 11 th~ 2001, legislation to improve security at nuclear plants has not been enacted, and security improvements by the nuclear industry have been shown to have significant gaps and flaws. Security guards are often ill-trained and ill-equipped. Mock assaults designed to test guards and keep them on their toes are often done in an unrealistic manner, with months of advanced warning, and with added security forces that are not normally present to defend against a real attack. ../ There is at this time no solution to the problem of nuclear waste, and constructing new reactors will only worsen that problem. The proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada will not open until 2010 at the earliest, but even industry experts feel 2015 is a more realistic best-case scenario. That doesn't count the remaining scientific questions about the suitability of the site, and the half-dozen lawsuits currently pending - any of which could send the U.S. Department of Energy back to the drawing board. Even if the facility were to open as scheduled, it's not large enough to hold even the amount of waste expected to be generated by currently-operating plants. Waste from new plants , will require a new repository. Meanwhile, all the highly-radioactive irradiated fuel from the plants will continue to be stored on-site. ./ Emergency plans for dealing with an accident or terrorist attack are inadequate, and rely on uninformed teachers, bus drivers, doctors, and other civilians to facilitate an evacuation, without taking into account the possibility of role abandonment. Studies of the Three Mile Island accident, which took place in 1979 in Pennsylvania, found that doctors and other key workers abandoned their posts up to 25 miles from the site to tend to their families or save themselves. In the case of a more severe accident, heroic actions would be required to successfully carry out an evacuation. In light of these concerns, we urge the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to DENY Dominion's application for an Early Site Permit, and for Dominion to instead focus on fmding alternative methods of addressing expected increases in energy demands over the coming years. Sincerely, Please return letters to: People's Alliance for Clean Energy, c/o Public Citizen 215 Pennsylvania Ave SE· Washington, DC, 20003 NORT'H ANiNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT EARLY SJTE PERMIT INfORMATION Plant Information Location: Mineral, VA (40 miles northwest of Richmond, on the shore of Lake Anna; Louisa County) Owner: Dominion Generation (subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc.) Headquarters: Richmond, VA Specifications: Produces 1,786 megawatts from two North Anna nuclear plant in Mineral, Vir~inia Pressurized Water Reactor units. Unit 1 began commercial operation on June 6, 1978 (currently licensed to operate until April 1, 2018) and Unit 2 on December 14, 1980 (licensed to operate until August 21, 2020). Contentions 1. Uses too much water. Nuclear reactors must draw in significant amounts of water in order to operate and avoid a meltdown - up to 2.5 billion gallons every day. Adding up to two new reactors at the site could permanently reduce the water level in the lake by several feet. Severe drought last year drarnatically dropped the lake level near the point at which the plant must declare an "ALERT." If the new reactors employ cooling towers rather than a once-through cooling systern, it could help to some degree, but there may still be a need to bring water in from elsewhere, by truck or even by constructing a pipeline. Drawing water from the lake causes impingement and entrainrnent of fish, fish spawn, larvae and nutrients; they are routinely destroyed. 2. Disrupts marine ecosystems. In addition to drawing water from the lake, the plant would also discharge water back into the lake. The discharged water can be up to 25°F warmer than the rest of the lake and contains chernicals, heavy metals, cleaning solvents, biocides, and radioactive contamination. This is already a problern with the reactors currently on site - two rnare would sim ply double the adverse effects. 3. Increases risk of terrorism. Nuclear plants and plant sites contain and store large amounts of the rnost deadly substance known to man: nuclear fuel. The sites are essentially pre- deployed "dirty bombs" that could cause catastrophic damage to communities and make an area the size of Pennsylvania uninhabitable if an accident or attack caused the release of radiation. In an age of increased risk of terrorisrn, it makes no sense to construct new targets. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corn mission (NRC) is not considering security irnplications of new plants in license applications, calling the threat of terrorism "too speculative." Tests of security forces at nuclear plants have not included mock water-based assaults. Location of North Anna site ----- 4. Vulnerability from airplane crashes. There is a large airfield for cargo and general aviation very close to the North Anna site. The General Accounting Office (GAG) concluded in a recent report that cargo and general aviation airfields are more vulnerable to security breaches than comrnercial airports. While nuclear power stations are being evaluated for risk from accidental aircraft crashes, there remains a clear and present danger frorn a hijacked, stolen or rented aircraft that . Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program' (202) 546-4996 . www.eneravactivist.ora NORTH ANNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT: EARLY SiTE PERMIT INFORMATION could be used in a sabotage of a nuclear power station. This is not adequately evaluated in the Early Site Permit application. 5. Lake Anna subject to closure. There is additional socio-econÇ)mic impact associated with closing the entire lake to the public for security reasons, as evidenced during code orange alerts issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Numerous man-made lakes established for the cooling and receiving waters for nuclear power stations have already undergone lengthy closures to public access for security reasons. These include Wolf Creek in Kansas and Clinton, Braidwood and Byron in Illinois. Additionally, restricted water access zones have been perrnanently expanded at virtually all nuclear power stations in the U.S. The public restrictions and associated economic hardships are likely to continue and even increase with a widening war on terrorism and the expansion of nuclear power station sites. Adding two more reactors to the North Anna site only increases its attractiveness as a target, raising chances that Lake Anna would need to be closed. 7. Inadequate emergency plans. Courts have found that states do not have the statutory authority to conscript civilian participants into a plan for a nuclear power station emergency. School teachers, for example, can't be forced in the emergency plan to shepherd children in·sch~ols until the end of the emergency. Dominion has not adequately evaluated the adverse impact of people abandoning their posts, as Lake Anna, Virginia has happened in other similar situations. As such, the plan is inadequate. 6. New reactor designs incompatible with old reactor sites. New, "inherently safe" reactor designs have weakened control room radiation protection features as part of their new designs, meaning control roorn operators have less protection in case of an accident. "Control room habitability" has not been addressed as an issue in the application. The result: if an accident takes place at unit 1 or 2, control roorn operators in units 3 and 4 would be at great risk, possibly leaving those reactors unmanned during an emergency next door. 8. Failure to fully evaluate population impacts. Dominion has not adequately addressed population trends for the potential full term of the license. Population trends should be projected out to include not only the 4G-year license but a 20-year license extension, which all other applicants to date have received. Therefore, population growth trends should be projected out to 2070 in order to ensure adequate evacuation plans are feasible. 9. Public health impact not addressed. Dominion has not adequately addressed the potential public health irnpacts associated with an increase in "legal" or "permissible" radiological releases from the new reactors. 10. Crucial factors not examined. In the Early Site Permit process, the need for new power generating capacity, the impact on energy prices, and alternative sources of power besides nuclear are not even considered. For instance, the Southeastern U.S.--is awasl"l in excess generating capacity, so any electricity generated by new reactors at North Anna will be for the benefit of customers in other regions of the country. OPPOSE NEW REACTORS AT NORTH ANNA Call (434) 296-2494 or (202) 454-5130, or visit www.energyactivist.org to get involved. Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program· (202) 546-4996 . www.eneravactivist.ora Page 1 of2 Ella Carey From: Elizabeth Helmke [FitnessAndFun@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 200410:35 AM To: bos@albemarle.org Subject: Board Meeting 6/9/04- Jazzercise Special Use Permit Hello and thank you for taking the time to review this email. I have sent it to all members of the Board of Supervisors. I would like to give you some information ahead of tirne as I will be attending the meeting Wed. night June 9th. I went before the Board on May 12, 2004 for approval on Special Use Permit SP-03-88. The permit was approved with conditions. Condition number 2 reads, "Violation 2003-301 shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator prior to commencement of the exercise studio use." The violation is in reference to a site plan for the property which the owner needed to submit. At the meeting on May 12, I was under the impression that the information needed to abate the violation (site plan) had been submitted by the owner of the property. On May 21 I received written notification from the county stating that legal action may be taken against rne because I was in violation of my special use permit. The building violation had not been abated, which in turn rnade me in violation of the conditions of my permit. I was given a deadline of June 21, 2004 to have the violation abated in order to obtain zoning clearance. On May 21 the landlord submitted a site plan to the county. I contacted the county (Amelia McCulley) via email on May 28 asking if the site plan submitted rnet county requirements and to find out what I would need to do to get the situation in order. On June 4 I was notified via voice message (Bart Svoboda) that the site plan does not meet county requirements. The county plans to notify the landlord of this on June 9. My concern is this: I have been given a deadline of June 21 to meet the requirements the county set for me. The county is going to notify the owner that the information submitted is not sufficient 1 1/2 weeks prior to my deadline. It will take time for the owner to make adjustments and resubmit info. Then, the county will need time to review his information. (In this past case 20 days to review and give notice to the owner.) By this tirne we are way past my June 21 deadline and I am facing legal action and quite possibly fines. I will most likely not be able to continue my business if this does indeed occur. I am asking the board's help in this situation. Can condition #2 of my Special Use Permit be waived or changed in a way that I can continue to do business without having the concern that I will face legal action and lose my business? I will be at the Board meeting tomorrow evening and will speak to all of you then. Thank you for taking the time to read rny email. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. I hope that the situation can be resolved in a positive way to benefit all parties involved. Elizabeth Helmke Jazzercise 434-974-6221 (Jazzercise) 434-973-1317 (home) 6/14/2004 SP-2003-088, Jazzercise May 12, 2004, Board Meeting (Page 1) Agenda Item NO.9. SP-2003-088. Jazzercise (Sign #67). Public hearing on a request to allow establishment of an exercise studio in accord w/Sec 27.2.2(15) of the Zoning Ord. TM 61W, Sec 1, Block A ,P 8 contains 2 acs. Znd LI. Loc on N side of Rt 866 (Greenbrier Dr) approx 1/4 ml W of Rt 29N (Seminole Trail). Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 3, 2004.) DRAFT Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this request is for an indoor athletic facility in a portion of an existing building on property zoned LI. The subject building is located at 340 Greenbrier Drive across from the Williams Companies offices approximately one-quarter mile west of Seminole Trail on the north side of the street. If approved, the Jazzercise studio would occupy approximately 3000 square feet of a building that also houses office furnishing and windows businesses. The building was approved as an ice rink in 1972 (SDP-189), and later was used by Comdial as office space. This building lies in an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan for Community Service uses. He said there are no new buildings or parking areas proposed with this request. No changes to the site are necessary. Mr. Cilimberg said there is currently a zoning violation on the site. That violation is related to the failure of one of the existing businesses to obtain a zoning clearance, and there have been changes made to the building that are not reflected on the approved site plan. The site will have to be brought into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance before Jazzercise can commence business. He said staff found no factors which are unfavorable to the request and recommended approval subject to three conditions. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 23,2006, by a vote of 7:1, recommended approval subject to five conditions; they rewrote the three conditions recommended by staff and added two new conditions. With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak. Ms. Elizabeth Helmke with Jazzercise said she would be happy to answer any questions. She said one of the violations concerned a site plan for the building, and that plan was presented to County staff last Monday. The other violation concerns another tenant in the building. She has spoken to him and strongly encouraged him to fix the violation. To the extent possible, she will try to get him to comply. Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Helmke if she is satisfied with the recommended conditions. Ms. Helmke said "yes." The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. SP-2003-088, Jazzercise May 12, 2004, Board Meeting (Page 2) Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-2003- 088, Jazzercise, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas said the conditions require that the zoning violation be taken care of, not that there just be a gesture. Mr. Bowerman said that can be done to the extent the applicant has control over that problem. Mr. Cilimberg said this application runs with the land, so the applicant is only a tenant. The actual obligated party is the landowner. They have the responsibility to remedy the violation. Mr. Boyd asked what recourse the County has if the violation is not remedied. Mr. Davis said they will be cited with a zoning violation and taken to court. Mr. Rooker said the landlord will lose income for a period of time if the violation is not corrected so will have an incentive to take care of the problem. At this time, the motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. This permit is for an indoor athletic facility as described in the SP- 2003-088 justification submjtted December 22, 2003, and supplementary information received February 23,2004; 2. Violation 2003-301 shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator prior to commencement of the exercise studio use; 3. The indoor athletic facility use shall be limited to three thousand (3,000) square feet of an existing building located at 340 Greenbrier Drive; 4. Class size shall be limited to a maximum of sixty (60) students; and 5. There shall be a fifteen (15) minute interval scheduled between classes so that class times do not overlap and create parking shortages on the site. June 9, 2004 To the Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors: Whjtewood Park is a county-owned property, comprised of several acres of rolling woodland and winding paths. The park serves as a home to wildlife and offers local residents an opportunity to "return to nature." Families in Whitewood Village, Oak Forest, Townwood, Minor Hill, Four Seasons, and other surrounding neighborhoods enjoy the park on a daily basis. Casual strollers, dog owners, and joggers are the primary users. During the 1990s, proposals for converting the park property to accommodate an elementary school and, later, to build a road were introduced. Both proposals were defeated following a demonstration of community-wide support for preservation of the park in its natural state. In recognition of the widespread public appreciation of this "green space," an increasingly rare commodity in our urban environment, the County of Albemarle placed an easement on the property in 1998. Despite the easement, Whitewood Park is at risk once again. The Department of Public Works has launched a project that includes an earthen dam, basin, and spillway, as well as a ten-foot wide road with four-foot shoulders. The project, as we understand it, would seriously compromise the natural setting protected by the County's easement and lay the groundwork for renewal of the previously-defeated roadway proposal. We wish to restore the integrity of Whitewood Park in order to preserve a relaxed, aesthetically-pleasing natural environment for slow-paced pedestrian traffic. We also wish to maintain the safety of residents whose homes are adjacent to the park, both on Westfield Road and on Albert Court. The park should remain an enhancement rather than become a Ijability to adjacent properties. Accordingly, we request that the park be altered as little as possible, if the process of establishing an earthen dam must continue. Specifically, we make the following requests: Restoration and preservation of the park's natural beauty through minimal further removal of trees, if further removal is indeed absolutely necessary. New plantings should occur where possible, particularly behind those properties most impacted by the construction project. Respect for the aesthetic qualities of the area in designing, constructing, and maintaining the earthen dam and any necessary appurtenances, including a visually- pleasing protective barrier, or shelf, around the basin and spillway. The barrier should be designed to prevent chjldren from falling into the basin, in the event that a high level of water occurs. County workers accessing the project should adhere to an on-going plan of maintenance for the total area, including removal of trash. RECEIVED AT 80S MEF1 . & - c¡ - oLl Qat.. ~.... Agef\C;f8 Item #:_ t+...___ Clerk's Initjals:__~ 1 To the Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors June 9, 2004 Preservation of the present path system, i.e., paths approximately six-feet wide, or less than six-feet wide where access should be limited to prevent a "through-way." An alternative surface to asphalt should be considered. No "through-way" between the Webland Court area and Albert Court area. The park must not serve as a "short cut" for motorized vehicles, legally or illegally. Access at one end should be limited to pedestrians and, if the park serves as a link in a longer bicycle path, to bicyclists. If access for county maintenance vehicles is required, that access should be one-ended and protected by a secured barrier. Posted signs are an inadequate means of law enforcement in a secluded area. There should be no access for unauthorized motorized vehicles. Maximum environmentally-friendly mosquito control around the dam and basin. Placement of a bench or benches for pedestrian use. Respectfully submitted by, Concerned Residents from the Minor Hill Manorhomes Homeowners' Association 2 We Need Your Help To Stop Virginia Power (our local electric company) from building New Nuclear Power Plants here in Virginia 1) In a post 9-11 world, new nuclear plants would only increase the risk of terrorism 2) Electric rates would have to increase to pay for the reactors 3) The radioactive nuclear waste will be highly hazardous for generations to come 4) If the waste is transported to Nevada, it would have to travel on 1-64. 5) Routine radioactive gas releases will harm us and our environment. Please contact the People's Alliance for Clean Energy by phone: 409-6392 or bye-mail: ~Iesalliance(ã¿vahoo.com to find out what Dominion is planning and what you can do to stop it. COUNTYOFALBEMARlE04A 'S:1C;' !;CVJ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance to Amend Chapter 12, Sections 12-201 and 202 regarding Dance Hall permits AGENDA DATE: June 9, 2004 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST Schedule public hearing to consider proposed ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises, Division 1, Dance Halls, Section 12-201, Permits - Required; Applications and Section 12-202, Revocation of Perm it, to change the process of approving dance hall permits to an administrative process, CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACnS): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Ms. McCulley REVIEWED BY: ¡- LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: Currently, County Code Section 12-201 requires applications for dance hall permits to be filed with and considered by the Board of Supervisors, and Section 12-202 requires that any such permits be revoked by the Board in the event of any violation by the permittee or for any false statement made on the application. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.1 Provide effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers DISCUSSION: At the Board's request, the process of approving and revoking dance hall permits is proposed to be changed to an administrative process, After review, it is suggested that the Zoning Administrator is the appropriate person to exercise this responsibility. The Zoning Administrator has an existing process in place to issue permits and is familiar with the Building Code and Fire Code issues required to be reviewed prior to issuance of dance hall permits. Other than the permit approval and revocation process, there are no other changes proposed in the ordinance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that a public hearing for the proposed ordinance be set for July 7, 2004. 04.080 Attachment A Draft: May 12,2004 ORDINANCE NO. 04-12(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 12, REGULATED ENTERPRISES, ARTICLE II, AMUSEMENTS, DIVISION I, DANCE HALLS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises, Article II, Amusements, Division I, Dance Halls, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Section 12-201 Pennits-Required; applications Section 12-202 Revocation of penn it CHAPTER 2. REGULATED ENTERPRISES ARTICLE n. AMUSEMENTS DIVISION 1. DANCE HALLS State law reference--authority to adopt article, see Va. Code §§ 18.2-432, 18.2-433. Sec. 12-200 Dance hall defined. For the purposes of this division, the term "dance hall" means any place open to the general public where dancing is pennitted. (Code 1967, § 8-1; Code 1988, § 3-11; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference-Authority to codify ordinance, Va. Code § 18.2-433 Sec. 12-201 Permits--Required; applications. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a dance hall in the county unless such person shall have first obtained a pennit from the board of supervisors ~. B. Applications for such pennits shall be filed with the elerk of the board of supervisors at least t\'/o (2) weeks prior to the regular meeting of the bOai'd of supervisors at ,-,/hieh the application is to be considered zoninQ: administrator. Such applications shall contain the following infonnation: 1. 2. 3. 4. of such dance hall; and 5. certification from the building official and fire marshal that such dance hall is in confonnity with applicable provisions of the Virginia Unifonn Statewide Building Code and the Fire Prevention Code. name of the person owning the dance hall; name of the person managing the dance hall; the location of the dance hall; a statement as to whether or not alcoholic beverages are to be served on the premises (4-21-76; Code 1988, § 3-12; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-202 Revocation of permit. Pennits issued by the board of supervisors ~ pursuant to the provisions of this division may be revoked by the bOai'd of supervisors zoninQ: administrator for any violation by the pennittee of the 1 provisions of this division or for any false statement made on the application required by the preceding section. No such pennit shall be revoked unless the pennittee shall have received reasonable notice that he is entitled to a hearing before the board of supervisors zonin!! administrator prior to action on revocation. Such notice shall state the time and place such hearing is to be held. (Code 1988, § 3-13; Ord. 98-A(l), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-203 Attendance of persons under eighteen years of age. It shall be unlawful for any person operating a dance hall to allow any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to enter or remain in such dance hall while dancing is being conducted therein, unless such person is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian or by a spouse, brother or sister over the age of eighteen (18) years, unless such person has the written consent of such parent, legal guardian or spouse. (Code 1967, § 8-2; Code 1988, § 3-14; Ord. 98-A(l), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-204 Exemptions. A. The provisions of this division shall not apply to dances conducted for benevolent or charitable purposes, or when such dances are conducted under the auspices of religious, educational, civic or military organizations. B. The provisions of this division shall not apply to dance halls in any town in which an ordinance adopted pursuant to the provisions of Virginia Code § 18.2-433 is in effect. (Code 1988, § 3-15; Ord. 98-A(l), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-205 Violations; penalties. Any person violating the provisions of this division shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. (Code 1988, § 3-16; Ord. 98-A(l), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-206 Relation of article to zoning ordinance. In addition to the provisions of this article, dance halls shall be subject to all requirements of the county zoning ordinance. (4-21-76; Code 1988, § 3-17; Ord. 98-A(l), 8-5-98) 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 Ave Nay Mr. Bowennan Mr. Boyd Mr. Domer Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant 2 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to revise §33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hard surfacing of certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and WHEREAS, such roads must be located in a low-density development area and have a minimum of 50 vehicles per day (vpd), and have no more than 500 vpd; and WHEREAS, this Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the existing traffic on the road; and WHEREAS, the citizens that utilize this road have been aware of this road being paved with minimal improvements; and WHEREAS, this Board believes Route 640 - Gilbert Station Road should be designated a Rural Rustic Road, from Route 784 to Route 20 owing to its qualifying characteristics; and WHEREAS, the road aforesaid is in this Board's six-year plan for improvements to its secondary system of state highways: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board hereby designates and requests VDOT's Resident Engineer to concur in the aforesaid road as a Rural Rustic Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests that this road be hard surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be irnproved within the existing right of way and ditch-lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the road in their current state. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 9. 2004. A Mr. Bowerman Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant Aye y. y. y. y y. y. Nay COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVESUMMARYUG-03_04A 5:17 i~CVD AGENDA TITLE: Gilbert Station Road (Rt. 640) Rural Rustic Paving AGENDA DATE: June 9, 2004 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution to approve Gilbert Station Road between Rt. 20 and Rt. 784 as a Rural Rustic Road Project CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: STAFF CONTACTCS): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Wade ATTACHMENTS: Yes LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors recommended Gilbert Station Road (Rt. 640) from Rt. 784 to Rt. 20 as a pilot project for the rural rustic roads program at their March 17,2004 meeting. VDOT informed the Board that Gilbert Station Road could be paved utilizing rural rustic roads standards in 2004. The concept of rural rustic roads is to pave roads with no or minimal encroachment beyond existing ditches and without compromising the safety of the road. Roads paved utilizing rural rustic roads standards are considerably less expensive than traditional paving. STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. DISCUSSION: Although the Board of Supervisors endorsed Gilbert Station Road as a candidate for rural rustic road paving, VDOT requires a resolution from the localitrr' The Board of Supervisors did not take action on the resolution at their March 17, 2004 meeting. Since the March 17 h meeting, staff mailed a letter to every property owner along Gilbert Station Road between Rt. 20 and Rt. 784 to informed them of the project. In August 2003, the Board of Supervisors adopted notification guidelines for the rural rustic roads program. The notification guidelines are attached for your review (Attachment A). The purpose of the letter that was sent to the residents of Gilbert Station Road was to inform residents that VDOT would pave Gilbert Station Road in 2004 utilizing rural rustic roads standards instead of traditional paving standards. The letter (Attachment B) gave the difference between rural rustic and standard paving. They were given until May 14, 2004 to contact the County if they objected to rural rustic paving. Staff did not receive any contacts voicing objection to the project. Please find attached a resolution requesting VDOT to pave Gilbert Station Road between Rt. 784 and Rt. 20 utilizing rural rustic road standards. VDOT is currently finalizing the road plans for this project and anticipate an August or September start date. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution designating Gilbert Station Road as a rural rustic road. 04.081 Attachment A ALBEMARLE COUNTY NOTIFICATION GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL RUSTIC ROADS PROGRAM After the project has been identified as being eligible for the RRRP, the Department of Planning and Community Development will: A. Send notice to adjacent property owners within the project limits three months before estimated advertisement date. The following information will be provided in the notice: 1. Inform residents the road is eligible for the RRRP, and explain the difference between a traditional road paving project and a RRRP project. The notice will indicate the County and VDOT are proposing to use RRRP standards for construction. 2. A map of the length of the project and a graphic depiction comparing the typical cross-section for a traditional road paving improvement and for a RRRP project. 3. Request that property owner contact the Planning Department within two weeks if they have any concerns regarding the proposed project. B. If a majority of property owners support the RRRP, VDOT will proceed with the RRRP after the Board of Supervisors supports the RRRP; VDOT will proceed with the RRRP after the Board of Supervisors supports the RRRP project in the form of a resolution. Staff will work with those opposing the project to try to address concerns. C. If staff receives opposition to RRRP improvements from a majority of property owners, staff will schedule a public meeting in the area to discuss the project with the community. The Planning Commission and Board member from that district will be notified of the meeting. 1. Staff will assess comments in consultation with VDOT and make a recommendation on the type of paving standards for the road project to the Board of Supervisors. 2. The Board of Supervisors makes a decision (on traditional paving or RRRP) and forwards the recommendation to VDOT. If the Board of Supervisors supports the RRRP project, its support must be in the form of a resolution. RRRP = RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM Attachment B April 26, 2004 RE: Paving Gilbert Station Road (GSR) Dear Gilbert Station Road Resident: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors voted to pave GSR between Rt. 20 and Rt. 784 as a pilot project in 2004 utilizing rural rustic road standards. The Board of Supervisors endorsed notification guidelines for residents adjacent to the proposed road paving. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that VDOT will pave GSR in 2004 utilizing rural rustic road standards. Rural rustic road standards allow a road to be paved within a 30' easement. In a traditional paving project, improvements are done within a 50'right of way. Please find attached a sheet showing the difference in a 30' and 50' easement for a typical road. The main difference between a rural rustic paving and a traditional paving project is the width in which the improvements will be done and the cost of the project. Traditional paving projects usually cost substantially more to improve. If you would prefer a traditional paving project, please contact Juan Wade by May 14, 2004. If a majority of the property owners along GSR between Rt. 20 to Rt. 784 do not contact the County by May 14, 2004 requesting a traditional paving, then VDOT will proceed with rural rustic road paving in 2004. If the staff receives opposition to the rural rustic road paving improvements from a majority of the property owners, then a public meeting will be scheduled in the area to discuss the project with the community. The Planning Commission, Board members, and residents from that district will be notified of the meeting. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Juan Wade at 296-5823, ext. 3368, or email iwade@albemarle.orQ. Sincerely, Juandiego R. Wade Transportation Planner JRW/jcf Attachment C RESOLUTION WHEREAS, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to revise §33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hard surfacing of certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and WHEREAS, such roads must be located in a low-density development area and have a minimum of 50 vehicles per day (vpd), and have no more than 500 vpd; and and WHEREAS, this Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the existing traffic on the road; and WHEREAS, the citizens that utilize this road have been aware of this road being paved with minimal improvements; WHEREAS, this Board believes Route 640 - Gilbert Station Road should be designated a Rural Rustic Road, from Route 784 to Route 20 owing to its qualifying characteristics; and WHEREAS, the road aforesaid is in this Board's six-year plan for improvements to its secondary system of state highways: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board hereby designates and requests VDOT's Resident Engineer to concur in the aforesaid road as a Rural Rustic Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests that this road be hard surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right of way and ditch-lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the road in their current state. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of _ to _ on , 2004. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier Mr. Wyant Mr. Boyd Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Aye Nay COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Hollymead Town Center Area B; Future Construction Agreement AGENDA DATE: June 9, 2004 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Hollymead Town Center Area B; Future Construction Agreement; authorize County Executive to sign Future Construction Agreement CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: STAFF CONTACnS): Tucker, Foley, Kamptner, Graham LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: When Hollymead Town Center is more fully built out, a traffic signal may be required on Town Center Drive at its intersection with the entrance to Area B near the proposed Harris Teeter grocery store. If a traffic signal is required, VDOT has requested that an agreement be entered into that will assure that a second left turn lane from Town Center Drive (eastbound) and a second receiving lane on the Area B property be constructed. If these improvements are made, two islands within the Area B parking lot would have to be relocated to accommodate the second receiving lane. Staff has determined that these improvements are not required by the pending Area B site plan, SOP 03-081 (these improvements are identified on the site plan as "future improvements"). However, the owner of Area B is willing to construct these improvements if and when the traffic signal is required. STRATEGIC PLAN: Strategy: 3.1.1 .3: Plan for and provide infrastructure necessary to support desired level of service. DISCUSSION: The owner of Area B proposed the attached Future Construction Agreement. This draft incorporates revisions requested by staff. The Agreement would require that the owner of Area B or its successors or assigns construct and complete the improvements identified above if and when the traffic signal is warranted. The owner also would agree that when the Area B receiving lane is constructed and the parking lot islands are relocated, adequate onsite parking will be maintained. The final language of the Agreement has not yet been agreed upon. Among the issues not resolved are the language for the timing of the improvements and the amount of liquidated damages. RECOMMENDATIONS: Authorize the County Executive to sign the Future Construction Agreement on behalf of the County after final language acceptable to the Department of Community Development and the County Attorney is agreed upon, and the Agreement is approved as to form by the County Attorney. \) ~. - ~ 04.082 DRAFT Harris Teeter FUTURE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT THIS FUTURE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of this _ day of May, 2004, by and between THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ("County") and HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Hollymead,"). RECITALS: R-l. Hollymead owns a parcel of land near U.S. Route 29 in Albemarle County, containing approximately acres, (the "Hollymead Property"), and designated as TMP 32 Par 43 on that certain "Plat Showing Subdivision for Tax Map Parcels 42A, 42C, & 43, Hollymead Town Center, Regional Service Area B", dated January 27, 2004, by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the County on Albemarle, Virginia in Deed Book , at page . Hollymead intends to develop the Hollymead Property as part of a shopping center and commercial development (the "Project") pursuant to an approved site plan No. SDP- 03-081 (the "Site Plan"). R-2. In order to satisfy the future transportation requirements for the area known as Hollymead Town Center, including the initial portion contemplated by the Project's Site Plan, Hollymead hereby agrees to construct an additional receiving lane, and related improvements to accommodate entering traffic once a signal is installed at the entrance to the Hollymead Property at Town Center Drive, all as more particularly described on Exhibit A hereto (the "Improvements"). WITNESSETH: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofTEN DOLLARS ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and further in consideration of the covenants herein contained and for the mutual benefit of all present and prospective owners of the benefited parcels, the parties agree as follows: 1. Construction of the Improvements. In connection with development of the Hollymead Property pursuant to the Site Plan and subject to receipt of governmental approvals of any required site plan modifications, building permits and other governmental permits and approvals (collectively, the "Permits and Approvals"), Hollymead, at its sole cost and expense shall construct those Improvements designated on Exhibit A. at such time as a traffic signal is warranted, and installed at the intersection of Town Center Drive and the western-most entrance to the Hollymead Property, as shown on Exhibit A. Hollymead shall complete construction of the Improvements to the satisfaction of the County (for private Improvements) and for acceptance by the Virginia Department of Transportation (for public road Improvements) simultaneously with the installation of the traffic signal, provided such completion date may be reasonably deferred or delayed with the consent of the County in the event construction of such Improvements would otherwise occur during peak retail shopping periods, such as between November 15 and January 5, or during the winter months when asphalt plants are closed or in the event of inclement weather or other force majeure causes. Hollymead shall make necessary Harris Teeter arrangements to assure that the Project maintains adequate parking after construction of the Improvements, including, if necessary, installing replacement parking spaces within the Project. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as requiring Hollymead to install the traffic signal itself, nor to construct anything more than the lane improvements depicted on Exhibit A. Hollymead reserves the right, subject to receipt of the Permits and Approvals, to construct the Improvements at any time prior to the date it is obligated to do so hereunder, including without limitation before a traffic signal is installed at Town Center Drive and the western-most entrance to the Hollymead Property. 2. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts. 3. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed In accordance to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 4. Successors and Assigns. The terms and provisions of this Agreement are deemed to be covenants running with the land and fee ownership of the Hollymead Property that are binding upon and inure to the benefit of the transferees, successors, devisees and assigns of Hollymead and any person claiming by, through or under Hollymead during the period of their ownership. Upon any transfer or conveyance of the Hollymead Property, the grantor or other transferring party shall be automatically released from all further liability and obligations under this Agreement with respect or relating to the property so transferred or conveyed, and the grantee or other transferee shall be deemed to have automatically assumed all such liability and obligations during the period of its ownership of the Hollymead Property. Any obligations contained herein shall be construed as covenants and not as conditions, and a violation of any said covenants shall not result in a forfeiture or reversion of title. 5. Liquidated Damages. Because of the difficulty of ascertaining the amount of damages which would be sustained by the County by a breach of this Agreement by Hollymead, its successors or assigns, it is expressly agreed by the parties that in the event of a breach hereof by Hollymead, its successors or assigns, it will pay to the County the sum of thousand dollars ($ ), which amount shall be increased at the rate of two percent per annum, for such breach. 6. Time is of the essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 7. Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded among the land records in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. 8. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect upon completion of the Improvements. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. 2 HOLLYMEAD: COUNTY: Approved as to form: County Attorney Harris Teeter HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Regency Realty Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, Manager By: Its: THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive 3 Harris Teeter Exhibit A Plan of Improvements See PDF File 4 24" RCP ---. 24' RQII 0>. .... ..., ..... .... ~ .... N. ;:0 ,... -Þo. N. l-~::J , - (i-o~ 1. Á \<-\'-\ 1-1 J; '--' \:.. :" ." , I ~ ì '-I ; \ <.......d\ \ n. ì '\J c. <::.-. c- ~ ~<:.. , k. e."'::. l.,...) t c- \c... V ¡.. z.-z. q "-( Î :. ____~___._,.________. ___ .___..____n___ ------~-_.. - ---- ----.-..----------....-.,-.----..,-.--..- R f . S P - 0 '-{- 0 <; L L A- ~ ~ ì \-\ Pt u.) \c.. ~ f\ ~ , I-J 0 rY) d- CJ t. ~ v. \~ r;-\-: Q 1\.1 (~~9 (\.tT G 3/ b ç -d:) _ '¡Ai (het r 9 <:-[1 PA f'c.e. i 7 '3 ---- -- -- --_.----_._._--~--~~~---- -- -------.---'.-_._------- --,-,----,"-------,-- o c:...cx.( PIa.. Y\ n u'l C <:) (Y\ m ) <:....~ \' c> n . - _._---~------_....- 'T\-\~ ~ to rOo., c:- <S.h c.-á ì Ó ~ A t'pr-C?vI-cl'{o ~JY'\ ~__)_ I ~'^ \(. '10 Vl f"".- +\.-.."" -\-- . ~_ ~__~__ I ~ at V\ P ß r l r7î 'f c. i U q~ (Y) <:.."'\, \' Y\ 1-t~. ~ ~ f'ðt.c.. c:..- .I__._______~_ B'-^..\ ~ Y"\ ce..J A L,' t\ c- Ýh ~~ P A '- c- --\.-0________1 P f\, \L vYt '1 ~ '-\.VV\.I) \' (w.. c... \" PI ì'\ ~ \" rc...' \ eJ ¡' (\ I . whC\. \ I l.v c> u-l Å ì ~ k:. ~ ~ A So Ie +-<.") r~ '\' ~___ __ __~~_ -* R- ~ r r,<-c- +0 be.. 5' S·. f ~ Lon í A Nð lye> +=w ¡~~~__ -t-\-¡ 0.. \ '^--' 0> u. \ ¿ w '" (' \( ~"r "'" c.., (¿;¡ Q (X)_'2~¡E -r_~ ------_._- I l-U \ \ \ bu.,' hi. A V C f" ~ r\ \' c.. C CS '"' c-~ .__*º b"t... A- Y )':)\'Ç) V ed b ì \-~ L D \ o..(\. (\''''~ C. D (VI m ~S~ Ie.. 1"\ , ~.__.._-- .-.- ----- ..~-~~----._----~- -----,.,- ....-.--- A-~~ \v"\ l v.J,' \ t 1)1 ct V\ \ lJ ',-'- L W t\ I h_.. y~, \'-\j'::_ +' I' Q ('\ \- ~ \- s '" c-.b. I .fa í L Q VI á s. c Ù. p "0 î ~o..V\ L 10 \,,\ V e.. If 'I íY\ l-\ <... \~\ . _~ r c...~..s.. -~--------,._------_._-_.__.~_._-- ----- --- ._._.,.._---_._--~ · COUNTY OF AL~EMARLE l1 _ F " Department of Commumty Development . 6 ._..J - 0 4 A Planning 40 I McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 ~.- . 'I t'.. J. I U CVD June 2, 2004 Larry Hawkins 1474 Running Deer Dr Charlottesville, VA 22947 RE: SP-04-052 Larry Hawkins Home Occupation (Sign # 63,65); Tax Map 94, Parcel 7B Dear Mr. Hawkins: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 4, 2004, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1) A storage shed or garage, not to exceed 1500 square feet shall be constructed for the purpose of storing all equipment and materials related to the approved use. 2) All on site repair or maintenance of vehicles or equipment related to the approved use shall occur within the storage shed or garage. 3) No outside storage of equipment, parts, mulch, inoperable vehicles, scrap or other construction materials shall be permitted. Any outdoor storage existing on the date of the approval of this permit by the Board of Supervisors' approval shall comply with this condition within 30 days of the Board of Supervisors' approval of this special use permit. . 4) The new storage shed or garage shall meet the minimum yard requirements for commercial structures, found in Section 21.7.2 of the ordinance. (No portion of any structure shall be located closer than 50 feet to any residential or rural areas district.) 5) The storage shed or garage must meet the minimum landscaping and screening requirements for commercial and industrial uses, found in Section 32.7.9 of the ordinance. 6) Before this permit may be used, the zoning administrator shall confirm that no junk is being stored on the property. · Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 9, 2004. 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 (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, · ~~p~i\\ulrfe. Senior Planner TG/jcf Cc: Ella Carey 1",,..(, I(clc::p\I Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse · · · STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Tarpley V. Gillespie May 4, 2004 June 9, 2004 SP 2003-052 Larrv Hawkins Applicant's Proposal: The Applicant, Mr. Larry R. Hawkins, has requested approval of a special use pennit for a Home Occupation- Class B, to allow for an Excavation Contractor on his property. The proposed use would include the outdoor storage of the up to 7 pieces of large excavating equipment. The applicant does not have any employees report to this location, but has employees who meet him on various job sites. The applicant is requesting approval ofthe special use pennit for a Home Occupation Class-B with two modifications to Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Home Occupation standards. Attachment B is a concept plan. This plan is not drawn to scale, but shows the general orientation of the proposed storage area relative to the house and driveway. Petition: Request for special use pennit to allow a Home Occupation Class B for an Excavation Contractor in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for a Home Occupation Class B. The property, described as Tax Map 94 Parcel 7B, contains 2 acres, and is zoned RA, Rural Area. The proposal is located on 3117 Hearns Lane, approximately .25 miles from the intersection of Hearns Lane and Running Dear Road (Route 808), in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in the Village of Rivanna. Zonin!! Historv: This two acre parcel was subdivided from an adjacent parcel in 1986 and the house was constructed in 1989. In January of2003, the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services staff visited this site and detennined that there was an existing excavation contractor business on this site, as well as several inoperable vehicles and miscellaneous debris. Zoning staff began working with Mr. Hawkins to remedy the situation and to apply for a Home Occupation Class B for the Excavation Contractors business. On March 2,2004, a Notice of Violation was issued for two violations of Section 10.2 of the Ordinance: Pennitted uses in the RA District. (See Attachment C) The violations were for a junk yard on the site, and for the contractor's equipment storage yard. These two violations are currently outstanding. An approval of the Home Occupation Class B pennit for an excavation contractor would remedy the violation related to the contractor's equipment storage yard, but not the violation related to the junk yard. Character of the Area: The property contains 2 acres and is surrounded by low density residential uses and wooded areas. Hearns Lane is accessed from Running Deer, a relatively low density single family residential subdivision located within the Village ofRivanna. Just to the east of the property, 1 past a wooded area, is a recent phase of the Glenmore Development, with houses currently under construction. Although the property is currently in a "rural setting", it is in the Development Areas. Although not adjacent, its proximity is close to the boundary with the Rural Areas. Comprehensive Plan and Neiehborhood Model: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Neighborhood Density Residential Development in the Village ofRivanna. The Neighborhood Density Residential designation recommends 3-6 dwelling units per acre and anticipates some non residential neighborhood service uses to serve the residential uses. Staff believes the proposed home occupation would not serve or relate to the surrounding residential uses and would exceed the scale of a neighborhood service use. As a result, staff cannot find the use to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use designation. The Neighborhood Model provides additional support to the Land Use Plan by setting forth principles for how development should take place in the Development Areas. Because this is an existing single family residential site to be used for the storage of excavating equipment, staff finds that the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model do not apply. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and cannot recommend approval as requested. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in two sections: 1. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance 2. Modifications and Waivers of Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance 1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 ofthe 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 adiacent property. It is staffs determination that this home occupation may negatively impact adjacent and nearby properties. Of specific concern are the visual impacts, along with traffic and noise. that the character ofthe district will not be changed thereby, The proposed site is currently surrounded by woods on three sides. However, these woods are not owned or controlled by the applicant and are designated for more intense future development in the Land Use Plan. New construction is currently underway at the Glenmore site and visible from this site when the foliage is down. The applicant proposes outdoor storage of his equipment, with a total of nine white pine trees strategically planted in rows of three to shield the 2 · view of the equipment from his neighbors on Hearns Lane. (See Attachment B- Concept Plan). Staff believes that the nine pine trees will not adequately screen the use as proposed. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent ofthis ordinance. Section 5.2.2.lb of the Ordinance states: "There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the buildings or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation." This use will be visible from the neighbors on Hearns Lane as well as from the new construction underway at Glenmore. Due to the size of the proposed storage area and the minimal screening proposed, staff finds this proposal to be in conflict with the intent of ordinance regarding home occupations. with the uses permitted bv right in the district. As proposed, staff does not find this use to be in harmony with the residential uses permitted in the RA District. However, if the proposal were to meet all of the standards for Home Occupation Class B Permits as outlined in Section 5.2 and described later in this report, the use could be in harmony with the district. · and with the public health. safety and general welfare. The County Engineering staff has advised that Hearns Lane does not meet private road standards as stated in Section 14-514 of the Albemarle County Code. Site distance is limited on the road due to wooded areas on each side of Hearns Lane. However, there are three existing pullouts along Hearns Lane which average 8 feet in width and 40 feet in length. Engineering staff has determined that bypass traffic can adequately pass the applicants equipment (including the longest pieces of equipment-the dump truck and trailer) using the existing pullouts. The existing entrance onto Running Deer Drive (State Route 808) is adequate. 3. Modifications and Waivers of Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.2 of the ordinance provides supplemental regulations governing home occupations. Home occupations are intended to be accessory and subordinate to the established use on the parcel. In this case the primary use is single family residential and the excavation contracting business conducted as a home occupation is to be subordinate. The applicant is requesting two modifications to Section 5.2: In reviewing the requesting modifications, the Planning Commission should consider the intent of the regulations governing home occupations. The applicant requests the following modifications: 1. Section 5.2.2.1a: Such occupation shall be conducted either within the dwelling or an accessory structure, or both, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the floor area of the dwelling shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation and in no event shall the total floor area of the dwelling, accessory structure, or both, devoted to such occupation, exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet; provided that the use of accessory structures shall be permitted on in connection with home occupation, Class B. The applicant is seeking a modification to this section to allow an area greater than 25% of the dwelling and greater than 1500 square feet to be devoted to the home occupation. The total floor area of the dwelling, including the main floor and the basement, is 2304 square feet. Without the · 3 size modification, the applicant would be pennitted 576 square feet of storage. The applicant is seeking to store the following seven pieces of excavating equipment on site: 1. motor grader: 8 feet wide by 25 feet long 2. rubber tire backhoe: 7 feet wide by 24 feet long 3. D3 dozer: 7 feet wide by 13 feet long 4. 939 track loader: 8 feet wide by 17 feet long 5. tree chipper: 7 feet wide by 17 feet long 6. Ford L 9000 Dump Truck: 8 feet wide by 27 feet long 7. Trailer 8 feet wide by 30 feet long. In order to safely accommodate and maneuver this equipment on site, Mr. Hawkins will need 2100 square feet of storage space, allowing for 4 feet of void space between each piece of equipment. The applicant has an existing driveway that can accommodate the necessary turnaround area for the equipment. There is a potential storage area measuring 4200 square feet located southwest of his residence. The site can physically accommodate the necessary 2100 square foot storage area. However, Mr. Hawkins would need a modification of the size limit from 25% ofthe residential floor area to 91 % ofthe floor area. He would also need a modification to allow the storage to be outdoors. In staffs opinion, the size of storage area would cause it become the dominant use on the site. Home Occupations are intended to be subordinate to the primary residential use on the site. Staff finds this modification to be in conflict with the intent of home occupations. Staff does not support this modification with the current concept plan. 2. Section 5.2.2.1b: There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the buildings or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation provided that a home occupation, Class B, may erect one home occupation Class B sign as authorized by section 4.15 of this chapter. Accessory structures shall be similar in façade to a single family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a rural or residential area and shall be specifically compatible in design and scale with other development in the area in which located. Any structure which does not conform to the setback and yard regulations for main structures in the district in which it is located shall not be used for any home occupation. As a part of zoning policy for many years, this provision has been interpreted to mean that no outdoor storage is allowed with a home occupation for this use. Equipment associated with this home occupation must be stored within a building. The applicant requests a modification ofthis provision. The applicant justifies this request by the fact that the site is bordered by woods on three sides. He has offered three rows of three white pine trees (See Attachment B). These trees would be strategically placed to screen the view of the storage area from adjacent neighbors on Hearns Lane. However, staff is concerned that, do to the size of the area, the storage will remain visible from various points along Hearns lane and from the residential properties to the west of this site. SUMMARY: Staff has identified one factor favorable to this request: 1. Approval of the special use pennit would rectify an existing zoning violation. 4 · · · Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request. 1. The proposed use is incompatible with the Land Use Plan designation of Neighborhood Density Residential. 2. The proposed size of the use conflicts with the intent of Home Occupation Class B permits to be subordinate to the primary residential use. 3. The proposal will be create a negative visual impact from adjacent and nearby properties. 4. There is an outstanding violation for the non-permitted use of a junk yard on this property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff believes that the proposed use goes beyond the intention of the Home Occupation section of the Ordinance and does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that this use could be substantially detrimental to adjacent property and could have a negative impact on the character of the district. Based on the findings contained in this staff report and the existing conditions on the property, staff does not recommend approval of SP 2003-052. However, ifthe Planning Commission is inclined to approve this Home Occupation, staff would recommend against approval of the requested modifications. Staff offers the following conditions of approval to reduce the scale and intensity of the proposal. 1. A storage shed or garage, not to exceed 576 square feet shall be constructed for the purpose of storing excavating equipment. 2. Any repair or maintenance of vehicles shall occur within the structure. 3. No outside storage of equipment, parts, mulch, inoperable vehicles, scrap or other materials shall be permitted. Any outdoor storage existing on the date of the approval of this permit shall comply with this condition within 30 days of the Board of Supervisor's approval of this special use permit. 4. The new storage structure shall meet the minimum yard requirements for commercial structures, found in Section 21.7.2 ofthe ordinance. (No portion of any structure shall be located closer than 50 feet to any residential or rural areas distri ct. ) 5. The storage structure must meet the minimum landscaping and screening requirements for commercial and industrial uses, found in Section 32.7.9. of the ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: A. Application B. Concept Plan C. Notice of Violation March 2, 2004. D. Tax Map 5 ~ TM" .Q. :L ~ a Il. -.D º- . LL [2 . Z) . Cfo M"D;,,_~o\-\:s\lì\1e ,,,cr ~ 0," Application for Special Use Permit ~::¿ðhh~~lfig A TT ACHMENT A 3ign" I ~I Project Name'___..I..IO...........-1) Proposed Use Jlome o~~ 6 / . ·ExistinG Use P·...,: J.fl I '__ v , ,y .Zonin!: Districl.-R.A. ·ZoninG Ordinance Section number requc:sted.J 0 . 2 . 2.. ., I (·sucr will :wiSl you with these items) ( r-t.f Number or acres to be covered by Special Use Permit (It ~ ,..-,. _... _ _ piaU 2. 00 S'.2. ) Is this an amendment tu an c:xistinG Special Use Permit'! Are you submittinG a site devc:lopment plan wiú, tbis application'! o V~Q Nu o Vc£J Nu Contact Person (Whon! ,¡hould wCc:¡U~rileCOnCC~inIPhis proJcc'?): L A It l 'f 1<.. H'4Wt.;i\ ~ ! Address 1'-11"-1 ~(.A""~'i\1 Gc:.C:("OKCity A"~c..1\"\G\r'~ Stale 01\- ZiP'2~~7¡ Daytime Phone ( '13 c..¡) S'5 I - I ì y g Fax # -+- E-mail E-mail I Stale '-' ~ Zip "ZZ..CYY7\ I =J J-(~ t;~.3 \ ¡ Zip 'Z1.Cf I.{ 7 i I I Owner of land (As lisled in the Counly's ~ords): ---1- A e.- ~-l Addr~ss } '-11 'f ~v..~:f'\1· "J T:)1:c::.{' Ù~ Daytime Phone ( t-¡3¥ ) S") , - -/1 't g Fax # l( tl A'--"> 'e. I (\ S City 1.t1 b c..~(1 c. Address \'-fTi ~'-'\.tf\...I"\-"^ì 0 -c:.c.( 0 R. Da)'Üm~ Phone (~ 31) Ç'") l - J 1 ~g Fax # L~(~1 Iê. 1H bc'Ot.C\ rk State Ù"" Ap P licant (Who,s lhe conl:1CI person rcprc:scnIlIlG? Who is requestinG lhc speci;¡ use?): City ,----. E-mail Localion of properly (I~nwks.inlcrsectìons.orolhcr) 1)~ :2.. So Ë A ~ í e I'~ h T c> 1\ \i c:. A It. 1'\- Ë c:::. L A-I"'\ ç hysical Address (if»si;ned) S A-Y'V\ -c.. A- ~ Tax map and parcel 9 ¡q\~oV L R ,'~ h í Q) 11 ~ 8 08' Do~s lhe owner of this propcrty own (or have any OW:1r':"Ship inlercsl in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numb~rs f\ \!) OFFICE USE ONt Y J \ I \ 7''\ DfJ- Fcc amount S "'T""'t'L./ I Dale Paid History: 0 Special Use Pcrmils: 0jäJ,!o3 Check" /5'2LJ Receipt ./6/ ~~y: ~ o z.'wt^s and ProrTers: '" PI I... ~L!.- I ;_nt-J~ ~~ir!~ ') ~~. .... . . :.¿¿:§t.~- ~}~ Q V~anccs: o l.cucr oC AUlhoriution DYes Q No Concurrenl rcvie~ oC SilC Development Plan? 40 I Mcintire Road .:. CharloltC:sville. VA 22902 .:. Voic~: 296-5832 .:. Fax: 972-4126 .."",..-..r,.,; ~ ~ . 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 pemütted 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 propeny. that the character of the district will. not be changed thereby and that such ùse will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in t~e district, with additional regulations provided ~n section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health. safely an~ general welfare. " The items which follo~ will be ~eviewed by"the staff in their analysis of your ~uest. Please ~omplete this form and provide additional information which will assist lhe County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. r What is the Comprchensi ve Plan designation for this property? iuttk. ~5 How will the proposed special uscaffccudjacentpropcrty?:Z:-- ~~.cl' ¡rI/I:'¡ fl fþe..J a ~a~" /1./. P~;¡-I- hf(lI1U9-P./PJ;'éd/J t7 rI~/?d.p(}d ~ c,údt7M.Rdh¡ lJ!ðdd...5 lUÌt1 ¡""flit l S Â- Or/Va k dr/y¡¿ C/)kn..J- ~~tfCJ ke/ ß-tJdJ/OJiIi4 . I t ~ tí7'~ j How will the proposed special use affect the ch:1r:1ctcr of the district surrounding the property? #ir!I-e~ 1'/1 - ~¡;;~~~fZ z:;; ~;;~://í~/:~:~::Z;~ How is the use in harmony with thepurposc and intent of me Z::>ning OrdinanCe?:¡-..J:, qf Id . h.L fl?5 ~/::S . Th r J((Jr/ ì /J /f r¡ 11 rf?f/ (}I] a 11/ oIl!d 1.£ f) r/ and (b ()!/ iN c5t2p/)- s /0' -/~ ,. /u,J- ow4ffic tL ~ har{¿[~ ~th the uses permitted by right in the district? What additional regul;llions provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? 5.2.2,1 Jtw~þ-;;¡~;:~¡;:a:y.a;i;;;;;·¡¿~:;::;~à;} _ bI ~ a ntl wi;" ~J Trtk1d erI Þ, Ub't7d S ¡jLr~ ~ . /l.fjj,. ~.ea::07J . {(if (!jJf)&f/J ð.p fæq!:/.Å) 5cdll'l ØY9'-f/l£¥!/lIk~~íl¡ . }~~~.:~!~ i ~.' . -~"~~2 ..,....:.~.~~-~-_. .1"'~:"~~~:F·n" . }~~k·:t~R·>~;":~L~iiè- Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons~ involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: l?X~A V4TloN CóN n~/2-.. PQVt Ptfj;}rf' lNa.v/)~: ~r-I 2 Low lla'fSI L t#1,Þ;tHl .. , , ¿olt¡)§(¿. .t T~ 1106 )7lJ~éf bC/IC4J/NG- o,~ L L / Ai>~ ¡l.aY/ I?ff&'ÿ' 2 /)VH¡> . L 6u¿¿, õo'U7< . #VBk»2 77U ~~/}t)E"' a I k /ð I ATIACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: . l>\~~') . . . o ~ 1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or bo~ndary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. /20 Note: If you arc requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the propeny is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, panne.rship . or association. or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name. ~ document acceptable to the Coun~y .must be. submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser. a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the: applicant is the agent of the owner. a documenJ acc~ptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL A 11 ACHMENTS: W :: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information. if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. 'A. rR 4'0. I!. 114;..<.1(,11 <:.. Signature 1 ~k'l t {.(/JWtl.A<, Printed Ñame r;~9'-ó'"3 Date ( L/ s 'i) L) 3 I - / 7 L/ 51 Daytime phone number of Signatory . 3 ------ - - Iro f) Set l6 w - - (plat) l() .N m C' G o Q.-- (6 ~/ -j -~.,' --, l''-' " fiì j) -~ u -' -¡:..- J -. \ Á ...-r- ~\ \:' \" (' (' ..J' ...P '1) ~Î . -'\' ,~, ".:Þ A . . ,(f), :.: N . ,'" 0 ~~\ (0\ :.>- d- o Y2 - o c" ~) Z 1\1/30 <18' ,,--,,~~ < {] II..., '-- ·"r T~QQS '~ . D", ~ À'. \\ ~. ~ / L-) f'l ", / .'" ,¡. ~ IE""'" -'", ,--.1- . ¡ J) ¡ , '. -..t... 1. ----¡, \\, -~'~.' \\ "~r \ \ '" \",,- " ~ "- ..-.--..----- ..~ ~. , . .:]J /l'l F;¡ :¡j t " RONALD KIRBY T .M. 94 PARCEL II D. B. 788 P. 568 Unrecorded plot by 0 , SITE OAT OWNER I CLARENCI f 404 RUN KE SWIC LEGAL . ! REFERENCE' T. . c 0._ _ NOTES: I. LOTS ¿O'/Lj-O? DIVIS ~A)?J<'I ~. I ~t/o Lv L,. . (I f) \. '>,} (od. S HOW IN G 2. LOT R' GH 3, EAC I 30,( SLOI .. PLAT LOTS I a 2 . ON OF PARCELS IX I a Iyl SHOWN ON ~ PLAT IND. 8.893 P. 163 I AS PARCEL 7A ·TAX MAP 94 I)FF STATF ROtJTF AOR NJ:"f1R "1:"~\A/lrV ~ ~ C c, · · · ATTACHMENT C FAJ((434)972.4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARIE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 T11)(434)972~12 NOTICE OF OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION Date Notice of Determination is given: March 02, 2004 No: VIO-2003-012 CERI1FIEU MAIL # 700208600004 3666 0497 Larry R. Hawkins 3117 Hearns Lane Keswick, VA 22947 Property: 09400-00-00-007BO Tax Map and Parcel Number Same As Above Owner of Record Zoning: Rural Area [RA] District You are hereby notified that after an investigation of the above-described property, the Zoning Administrator has determined that the following constitute violations of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance: 1. The accumulaJion ofmultiple inoperative vehicles and miscellaneous building materials located on this parcel constitutes ajunk yard. Section 10.2 Permitted Uses (in Rural Area District); A junk yard is not a permitted use in the RA district. Therefore this use shall not exist on this site. Junk Yard: Any land or structure used for the abandonment, baling, collection, dismantling, maintenance, recycling, sale, salvaging, storage, or wreckage of junk. Junk: Any scrap, discarded, dismantled or inoperable: vehicles, including parts or machinery thereof; household furniture and appliances; construction equipment and materials; tanks, containers, drums, and the contents thereof; and tires, pipes, wire, wood, paper, metals, rags, glass, plastic, food and related types of waste material. 2. .á contractor's equipment storage yard is not a permitted use in the Rural Area (RA) zoning district. £J VIO-2003-012 Page 2 March 02, 2004 Section 10.2 Permitted Uses (in RA Rural Areas District); A contractor's equipment storage yard is not a use permitted in RA. Therefore this use shall not exist on this site. This use, activity or condition is not a nonconfonning use or structure. Section 36.1: "Any building erected contrary to any of the provisions of this ordinance or contrary to any condition imposed upon any conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use pennit or approval of a site plan, and any use of any building or land which is conducted, operated or maintained contrary to any of the provisions of this ordinance or any condition imposed upon any conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use pennit or approval of a site plan, shall be a violation of this ordinance and the same is hereby declared to be unlawful. The zoning administrator may initiate injunction, mandamus, abatement, criminal warrant or any other appropriate action to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove such erection or use in violation of any provision of this ordinance." You are hereby ordered to cease and desist from adding any inoperative vehicles and other miscellaneous building materials to the property immediately. Your failure to comply with this order may result in legal action being taken against you. You are also hereby ordered to accomplish the following by April 02, 2004: 1. Remove the inoperative vehicles and building materials and 2. Remove and cease the contractor's equipment storage yard use and have the property in compliance (cleaned up with the use ceased). Your timely compliance with this order does not excuse the violation cited herein and does not preclude the County from pursuing further legal action for these violations. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date notice of this detennination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is specified above. If you have any questions, please contact Lisa Green at 434-296-5832. Janice D. Sprinkle Deputy Zoning Administrator County of Albemarle, Virginia Cc: John Shepherd Reading File VIO-2003-012 10 I 079 060 ATTACHMENT D I 94·17 I J I I I J I I I ¡ I I 105 106 Scale Albemarle County Tax Map: 094 Æø2 l' W o 600 Feet 1,200 I,BOO I Note: This map is for display purposes only. See Map Book Introduction for additional details. PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THE SP-2003-079. The Rock Amendment (Signs #49,52&53) 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. NAME (Please print clearly) PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional) 1 a.øAJ ~~.o, , .. 2'/ Æ<'.A: /¿AO~-.\ ,-? 7 q 2~2L- ç,:): /Û /7 /1 , . 3 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 r SP 03-079 The Rocks Amendment Option 1 If the BOS moves to allocate the "floating" development rights to Lot 1, I recommend the following conditions: 1. Except as otherwise provided herein development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the "Special Use Permit Plan..." prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2, 2004. For purposes of these conditions the plan shall heretofore be referred to as "The Application Plan." 2. Except for minor boundary adjustments, (as determined by the Agent), the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified only as shown on "The Application Plan." 3. Within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1, there shall be allowed a total of 4 (four) dwelling units or 4 (four) lots. Before a building permit is issued for a second dwelling unit, or before a subdivision plat is approved creating a new lot(s) within the boundaries of Lot 1, this special use permit (SF 03 079) shall be amended and a new application plan shall be reviewed and approved administratively by the County authorizing the dwelling units or lots. For purposes of these conditions the term "subdivision" shall also mean family divisions. 4. All subdivisions within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 shall meet the design standards and special provisions set forth in Section 10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes the requirement that it be demonstrated that the additional lots combined with the other approved lots do not exceed the actual number of lots that could have been achieved bv conventional development of the total property. 5. All dwellings and development lots within the boundaries of Lot 1 shall be located east ofthe floodplain oflvy Creek. 6. All future development lots subdivided from Lot 1 shall be no larger than 3.26 acres in area, shall be located in a manner consistent with, and be integrated into the overall design of the other development lots in The Rocks. 7. A minimum often trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots, including those permitted by condition three (3), in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots. 8. Clearing of land shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads, dwellings, and septic fields. 9. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or light colored roofs, as determined by the Director of Planning, are prohibited. 10. Concrete driveways visible from off-site shall be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. RECEIVED AT 80$ MEETING G -i-~_ I'Kf Date: ::::".~'.._._-_.__.- 1 ...., ~ .V'q Initials: -¡ r!ì :-.----... t: U.' -.........- Agenda Item #: ,. 11. The bridge shall not be constructed until the approvals in conditions 12 through 15 have been obtained; 12. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control pennit; 13. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; 14. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3. of the Zoning Ordinance; 15. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private roads shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards. This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide frontage to all the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C I, 18C2 and 18C3 as shown on "The Application Plan." 16. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard ofthe private road extension at the time of review. 17. The existing road, shown entering from Rocks Fann Drive, parallel to Interstate 64 and meandering through the Preservation Tract shall not be improved or widened except for agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road plan and an erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. 18. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the rural preservation easement shall be amended to allow the modification; amendment to the easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use pennit in no way implies or guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. 19. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement shall be recorded with the plat. 20. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner's Association consents to the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3. 21. A 50-foot wide tree preservation buffer shall be maintained. within the Rural Preservation Tract (Tax Map 74. Parcel 18). along the common northern. southern. and eastern boundaries shared by revised Tax Map 74. Parcels 18C. 18Cl. 18C2 and 18C} and The Rural Preservation Tract. Tax Map 74. Parcel 18. A 50-foot wide tree preservation buffer shall also be maintained. within The Rural Preservation Tract. along the common western boundary of the easement of the private road extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane and Tax Map 74. Parcel 18 - The Preservation Tract. This buffer shall be defined. recognized and protected in perpetuity by language in the body of the easement held by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority.in order to reasonably shield from view any improvements located on Tax Map 74. Parcels 18C. 18Cl. 18C2 and 18C3. 2 ~ 22. If three additional lots or dwelling units are created pursuant to condition #3, above. one of those lots or dwelling units shall be occuµied by a dwelling primarily used by a person or persons responsible for the operation or maintenance of the agricultural use in an area designated as a Rural Preservation Tract. on the approved Application Plan. An alternative use of the dwelling unit can be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon finding that the restriction above has become unreasonable due to a material change of circumstances and the proposed use is consistent with the general purposes of providing affordable housing relative to other housing in The Rocks. Option 2 If the BOS moves to not allocate the "floating" development rights to Lot 1, I recommend the following conditions: 1. Except as otherwise provided herein development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the "Special Use Pennit Plan..." prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2, 2004. For purposes ofthese conditions the plan shall heretofore be referred to as "The Application Plan." 2. Except for minor boundary adjustments, (as detennined by the Agent), the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified only as shown on "The Application Plan." 3. \Vithin the bOlHldaries ofReyised Lot 1, there shall be allowed a total of 4 (four) dwelling units Of 4 (four) lots. Before a building permit is issued for a second dwelling unit, Of bef-ofe a subdivision plat is approved creating a nevI lot(s) within the boundaries of Lot 1, this special use permit (SP 03 079) shall be amended and a new application plan shall be re'¡iewed and approved administrati';dy by the County authorizing the d':¡elling units Of lots. For purposes of these conditions the tenn "subdivision" shall also mean family divisions. 4. ,^..ll subdiyisions within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 shall moot the design standards and special pro'lÍsions set f-orth in Section 10.3.3 ofthe Zoning Ordinance. This includes the requirement that it be demonstrated that the additional lots combined with the othef approved lots do not exceed the actual number of lots that could haye been achieved by conventional development of the total property. 5. All dwellings and development lots within the boundaries of Lot 1 shall be located cast of the floodplain ofIvy Creek. 6. All future development lots subdivided from Lot 1 shall be no largef than 3.26 acres in area, shall be located in a manner consistent with, and be integrated into the overall design of the other deyelopment lots in The Rocks. 7. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots, including those pennitted by condition tln-oo (3), in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 ofthe Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots. 3 8. Clearing ofland shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads, dwellings, and septic fields. 9. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or light colored roofs, as determined by the Director of Planning, are prohibited. 10. Concrete driveways visible from off-site shall be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. 11. The bridge shall not be constructed until the approvals in conditions 12 through 15 have been obtained; 12. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control permit; 13. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; 14. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3. ofthe Zoning Ordinance; 15. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private roads shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards. This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide frontage to all the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3 as shown on "The Application Plan." 16. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard of the private road extension at the time of review. 17. The existing road, shown entering from Rocks Farm Drive, parallel to futerstate 64 and meandering through the Preservation Tract shall not be improved or widened except for agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road plan and an erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. 18. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the rural preservation easement shall be amended to allow the modification; amendment to the easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies or guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. 19. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement shall be recorded with the plat. 20. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner's Association consents to the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3. 21. A 50-foot wide tree preservation buffer shall be maintained. within the Rural Preservation Tract (Tax Map 74. Parcel 18). along the common northern. southern. and eastern boundaries shared by revised Tax Map 74. Parcels 18C. 4 , \" l8Cl. l8C2 and l8C3 and The Rural Preservation Tract. Tax Map 74. Parcell8. A 50-foot wide tree preservation buffer shall also be maintained. within The Rural Preservation Tract. along the common western boundary of the easement of the private road extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane and Tax Map 74. Parcell8- The Preservation Tract. This buffer shall be defined. recognized. protected and maintained in perpetuity by language in the body of the easement held by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority in order to reasonably shield from view any improvements located on Tax Map 74. Parcels l8C. l8Cl. l8C2 and l8C3. 22. Ifthíee additional lots or dwelling units are created p1:l-rsuant to condition #3. aboye. one ofthose lots or d....'elling units shall be occupied by a dwelling primarily used by a person or persons responsible for the operation or maintenance of the agricultural use in an area designated as a Rural Preservation Tract. on the approyed "Application Plan. An alternative use of the dwelling unit can be approved by the Zoning }..dministrator 1:1pon finding that the restriction above has become unreasonable due to a material change of circumstances and the proposed use is consistent ...lÏth the general purposes of providing affordable housing relatiye to other housing in The Rocks. 5 . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development Planning 0 6 - C 3 - 0 4 A ( ,~) :1 7 ¡"\ C V J 40 I McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesvi]]e, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 May 27, 2004 Tara Boyd LeClair Ryan 123 E. Main Street, ath Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP 2003-079 The Rocks Amendment (Sign #49, 52, 53) Dear Ms. Boyd: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 25,2004, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval includes the two provisions the Commission approved last time in addition to the provision for rearrangement of the lots on the mountain, but excluding the allocation of the development rights, with the conditions as amended by staff. . 1. Except as otherwise provided herein development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the "Special Use Permit Plan..." prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2, 2004. For purposes of these conditions the plan shall heretofore be referred to as "The Application Plan." 2. Except for minor boundary adjustments, (as determined by the Agent), the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels 1aC, 1aC1, 1aC2 and 1aC3 may be modified only as shown on "The Application Plan." 3. Within the bound~ries of Revised Lot 1, there sh~1I be ~lIowed a tot:ll of 4 (four) d'Nelling units or 4 (four) lots. Before :I building permit is iesued for ~ second dwelling unit, or before :I subdivision pl:lt is approved cre~ting :I nev,' lot(e) '....ithin the boundaries of Lot 1, thie epeci:!1 use permit (SP 03 079) sh~1I be amended :3nd :3 new :3pplic:3tion pl:3n shall be reviewed ~nd appro'Jed by the County :3uthorizing the dwelling units or lots. For purposes of these conditions the term "subdivision" sh:311 ~Iso me:!n f3mily divisions. 4. />,11 subdivieione within the bound:!ries of Revieed Lot 1 sh~1I meet the design st~ndards :md speci~1 provisions set forth in Section 10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. All dwellings :!nd development lots 'J.'ithin the boundariee of Lot 1 shall be located east of the floodpl~in of Ivy Creek. 6. All future development lots subdivided from Lot 1 shall be no larger than 3.26 acres in area, sh:lll be located in :I manner consistent with, and be integrated into the overall design of the other dC'Jelopment lots in The Rocks. 7. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots, including those permitted by condition three (3), in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots. a. Clearing of land shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads, dwellings, and septic fields. 9. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or light colored roofs, as determined by the Director of Planning, are prohibited. 10. Concrete driveways visible from off-site shall be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. 11. The bridge shall flOt be constructed until the approvals in conditions 12 through 15 have been obtained; . Page 2 May 27, 2004 12. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control permit; 13. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; 14. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3. of the Zoning Ordinance; 15. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private roads shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards. This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide frontage to all the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 as shown on "The Application Plan." 16. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard of the private road extension at the time of review. 17. The existing road, shown entering from Rocks Farm Drive, parallel to Interstate 64 and meandering through the Preservation Tract shall not be improved or widened except for agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road plan and an erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. 18. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the rural preservation easement shall be amended to allow the modification; amendment to the easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies or guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. 19. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement shall be recorded with the plat. 20. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner's Association consents to the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 9, 2004. 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 (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, ~~':~4-/~ Senior Planner cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse The Rocks, LLC COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . AGE.NDA TITLE: SP 03-079 THE ROCKS AMENDMENT SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREOUEST: Request to amend an existing special use permit for a rural preservation development of more than 20 lots to: (1) amend the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract (Tax Map 74, Parcel 18); (2) amend the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3; (3) amend access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18, 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3; and (4) allot development rights not used in the original proposal. This request is made in accordance with Section 10.2.2.28 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for 20 or more Development Lots in a Rural Preservation Development. The property, described as Tax Map 74, Parcels 18, 18C, 1 8C 1, l8C2, 18C3, l8D, 1 8D 1, l8D4, 1 8D7, l8D8, 18D9, l8E, l8El, l8E2, l8E3, l8E4, l8E5, l8E8, 18E9, 18F, l8Fl, l8F2, l8F3, l8F9, l8G, 1 8G 1, l8G3, l8G4, l8G5, l8G6, 1 8G7, 1 8G8, contains approximately 645 acres, and is zoned RA - Rural Area. The proposal is located off ofRt. 637 (Dick Woods Road), at its intersection with Interstate Route 64 in the Samuel Mi1ler Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3. . STAFF CONTACT(S): Yadira Amarante, Planner AGENDA DATE: Planning Commission: May 25,2004 Board of Supervisors: June 9, 2004 ITEM NUMBER: SP 03-079 INFORMATION: A TT ACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: VWC BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a public hearing and acted on this item on April 27, 2004. Due to the pubJishing of an incorrect advertisement for the project, the item must be brought back to the Planning Commission and a new public hearing must be held. To summarize, the applicant is seeking to amend an existing Special Use Permit (SP 91-36) to: (1) amend the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract (Tax Map 74, Parcel 18); (2) amend the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels l8C, l8Cl, l8C2 and l8C3; (3) amend access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18, l8C, l8Cl, l8C2 and l8C3; and (4) allot development rights not used in the original proposal. As noted in the attached minutes of the April 27 hearing, (Attachment 1), the Commission moved to recommend approval of items (I) and (3), which would amend the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract (Tax Map 74, Parcel 18) and amend access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18, 18C, I 8C 1, 18C2 and 18C3 respectively. The Commission also moved to recommend denial of items (2) and (4), which would amend the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 1 8CI, 18C2 and 18C3 and allot development rights not used in the original proposal respectively. . The following are the conditions exactly as recommended by staff and amended by the Commission on April 27: I. Development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the "Special Use Permit Plan..." prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2, 2004. For purposes of these conditions it shall heretofore be referred to as "The 1 Application Plan." 2. The boundaries of Parcels identified as Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C 1, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified to allow minor variations to accommodate the new road alignment for the extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane that will serve these lots. only as sho\\'R en "The l\pplication Plan." 3. Within the boundaries of Revised Let 1 there shall be allowed a total of -1 (f-our) d\'/elliBg units or foar (few") lots. Befere the 3Æ dwelling unit can be constructed a site plan meeting the requirements ef Section 32 of the Zoning Ordinance or a Site Plan '.Vaiver, per Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinaace shall be s1:ibmitted, reviewed and appro'/ed by the COW'lt)'. .\11 subdi'lisions w1thm tAe bOW'ldaries of Revised Lot 1 shall conform to the rules aad regulatioas set forth in Chapter 11, the Subdi'/ision Ordinance. 4. .\11 dwellingsllots within Lot 1 shall be located east of the floodplain onvy Creek. 5. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots and the lots permitted by condition one, in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots. 6. Clearing of land shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads, aHè dwellings~ and appropriate septic field areas. 7. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural environment. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or light colored roofs are prohibited. 8. Concrete driveways visible from off-site shall be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural environment. 9. The bridge shall not be constructed until the approvals in conditions 9 through 19 10 through 13 have been obtained; 10. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control permit; 11. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; 12. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3. ofthe Zoning Ordinance; 13. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private roads shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards. This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide frontage to all the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3. as shovm on "The .\pplication ~ 14. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard of the private road extension at the time of review. 15. The Preservatioß Tract shall not havc access to or from Newcomb M01:intain Lanc. 16. The existing road, shown entering from Rocks Farm Drive, parallel to Interstate 64 and meandering through the Preservation Tract shall not be improved or widened except for agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. It If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road plan and an erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. 17. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the rural preservation easement shall be amended to allow the modification; amendment to the easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies or guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. 18. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement shall be recorded with the plat. 19. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner's Association consents to the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to the four mountain lots. Since the April 27th hearing it has been brought to staffs attention, (by the applicant and ITom constructive comments ITom Zoning and County Attorney staff), that the presentation of the project to the Commission may have caused confusion about the details of the request. The following discussion is offered to clarify some of the details of the request. Staff is in no way implying that the Commission did not act correctly on the 27th nor is staff advocating for the applicant, staff is merely trying to represent the request more clearly, provide a clearer analysis of why staff is recommending approval, and provide better conditions if the project is approved. Discussion: To summarize, the applicant is seeking to amend an existing Special Use Pennit (SP 91-36) to: (1) amend the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract (Tax Map 74, ParcellS); 2 (2) amend the boundaries of Tax Map 74, ParceJs 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3; (3) amend access to Tax Map 74, ParceJs 18, 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3; and (4) a))ot deveJopment rights not used in the original proposal. . As evidenced on the attached staff report, (Attachment II), which was presented to the Commission on April 27, staff has recommended approval of all four of the requested amendments with conditions. Staff recommends that the Commission consider the following clarifications and reconsider its previous action on items (2) and (4) of the request. Item (2) seeks to amend the existing Special Use Pennit (SP 91-36) by moving the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels] 8C, l8Cl, l8C2 and l8C3, (four lots on top of the mountain which were approved as family division lots). These parcels are existing/platted lots on top of Bear Den Mountain, completely surrounded by the preservation tract and referred to as the "Mountain Lots" throughout the staff report. The general locations for these lots were set in 1990 when the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approved the original Rocks Rura] Preservation Deve]opment Special Use Pennit of over 20 lots. At that time there was no Mountain Protection element of the Comprehensive Plan and so the parcels were a]]owed to be platted well above the 800' contour limit that today the Comprehensive Plan seeks to protect. Because of the 1990 Special Use Pennit conditions, those lots cannot be located anywhere else and to relocate them requires an amendment to the Special Use Pennit. The current applicant seeks to adjust the boundary lines of these existing parcels in a way that will relocate some of the existing building sites within those lots approximately 30 feet higher in elevation. The building site for existing parcel l8C3 already exists on a ridge. The boundary line adjustments will place two (2) building sites (Revised Lot 1 and Revised Lot 2) within the existing area ofParcel18C3. Therefore, the only change that will occur in this area is that there will be two building sites at this elevation instead of the one that already exists. Revised Lots 3 and 4 will have building sites higher in elevation - :tTom about elevation 1,160 to elevation 1,190; approximately 30 feet higher. . Staffs analysis of this request was focused solely on the issue ofvisibi]ity and it is staffs opinion that if the house sites are relocated onto the ridge, they wi]] be no more visible, and in some cases less visible, :tTom Interstate 64, due to existing terrain and tree cover, than if they remain where they currently are. It is staffs opinion that on the relatively steeper slopes, where the home sites would be located under the currently approved parcel boundaries, more grading and tree removal is necessary in order to create a "shelf' for the house sites. Item (4) seeks to amend the existing Special Use Pennit (SP 91-36) by a]]ocating three (3) unused "deve]opment ]ot" rights to existing Lot 1 which is ] 06 acres. During the Apri] 27 hearing, and within the staff report, staff may have referred to these rights in a manner which implied that the applicant was requesting additional development rights, above and beyond those rights given to the site as it existed on December 10, 1980. At the time of the initial 1990 application to divide this land as a Rura] Preservation Development (RPD), this particular site had a development potentia] of 46 "by-right" lots. When The Rocks RPD was submitted in 1990, that applicant chose to create only 43 development lots (not 46), therefore, there are still three (3) unused rights within the boundaries of that original site. The allotment of those three (3) additional rights does not increase the density originally allowed by right. This current petition requests that the right to utilize those unused rights be given solely to the owner of Lot 1, thereby giving Lot 1 the potentia] of having four (4) dwelling units (there is one existing house on Lot 1), or four (4) separate parcels within the existing boundaries of Lot 1. As a matter of course, because the applicant is choosing not to show the boundaries of those lots on the current application plan, the three (3) unused rights <:annot be realized without amending the Special Use Pennit again. . As it stands, anyone of the existing Jots within The Rocks, with enough acreage, could apply to the County, through a similar special use pennit request, for the use of those unused rights. It is staffs opinion that if those rights are ever utilized, it is more appropriate to allow them on Lot 1 than on any other lot in The Rocks. By 3 allocating these rights now, it gives the County certainty of where they will be utilized and the recommended conditions gives us control of how they will be utilized. Staff s analysis of this request was also focused on the issue of density and it is staff s opinion that allowing for those three (3) additional 10ts/dwe11ings within Lot 1 is in keeping with the density requirements of this particular RPD. The 1990 apphcant could have as easily submitted a 46-10t RPD. There is nothing in the history of this project or physical characteristics of the land that would lead staff to beheve a 46-10t RPD could not have been approved in 1990 had it been presented to the County. Given the fact that the owner of Lot 1 wi11 have to amend this SpeÒal Use Permit before those rights are utihzed, staff has added conditions to those staff presented at the April 27 meeting in order to further restrict how they can be utihzed.In order to address the Commission's concern about the "disappearing" Open Space shown on the apphcation plan for SP 91-36, one of the new conditions wi11 require that further division of Lot 1 be treated as a "mini" RPD which includes the creation of a preservation tract, (see Conditions 3 - 6 below). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has reviewed the applicant's request and recommends approval ofSP 03-079 with conditions. Staff presents the following recommended conditions thusly: I. Should the Commission move to approve all four (4) requested items, staff recommends this first set of conditions which includes the cIericaJ changes made to the originaJ conditions at the beginning of the April 27 meeting; includes the additional conditions which restrict building/subdivision within Lot 1; and includes those changes requested by various Commissioners throughout the April 27 meeting. Recommended conditions of approval if the Commission moves to approve requested items 1 through 4: 1. Except as otherwise provided herein development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the "Special Use Penn it Plan..." prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2, 2004. For purposes of these conditions the plan shall heretofore be referred to as "The Application Plan." 2. Except for minor boundary adjustments, (as determined by the Agent), the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C I, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified only as shown on "The Application Plan." 3. Within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1, there shall be allowed a total of 4 (four) dwelling units or 4 (four) lots. Before a building permit is issued for a second dwelling unit, or before a subdivision plat is approved creating a new lot(s) within the boundaries of Lot 1, this special use permit (SP 03-079) shall be amended and a new apphcation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the County authorizing the dwelling units or lots. For purposes of these conditions the tenn "subdivision" shall also mean family divisions. 4. All subdivisions within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 shall meet the design standards and special provisions set forth in Section 10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. All dwellings and development lots within the boundaries of Lot 1 shall be located east of the floodplain of Ivy Creek. 6. All future development lots subdivided from Lot 1 shall be no larger than 3.26 acres in area, shall be located in a manner consistent with, and be integrated into the overall design of the other development lots in The Rocks. 7. A minimum often trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots, including those permitted by condition three (3), in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots. 8. Clearing ofland shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads, dwellings, and septic fields. 9. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or hght colored roofs, as determined by the Director of Planning, are prohibited. 4 . . . 10. Concrete driveways visible rrom off-site shal1 be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural environment as detennined by the Director of Planning. 11. The bridge shan not be constructed until the approvals in conditions 12 through 15 have been obtained; 12. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control pennit; 13. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; 14. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3. of the Zoning Ordinance; 15. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private roads shaH be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards. This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide rrontage to an the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, I 8C 1, 18C2 and 18C3 as shown on "The Application Plan." 16. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission approva1. The Planning Commission shal1 establish the standard of the private road extension at the time of review. 17. The existing road, shown entering rrom Rocks Fann Drive, paranel to Interstate 64 and meandering through the Preservation Tract shal1 not be improved or widened except for agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shal1 be reviewed by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that the improvements are warranted, construction shal1 not commence until a road plan and an erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. 18. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the rural preservation easement shaH be amended to anow the modification; amendment to the easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use pennit in no way implies or guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. 19. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road maintenance agreement shal1 be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement shal1 be recorded with the plat. 20. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner's Association consents to the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3. ß. Should the Commission move to act as it did on April 27, 2004, (see Attachment I for the minutes of that meeting), in essence, to approve items (1) and (3) of the request and deny items (2) and (4) of the request, staff recommends the following conditions. Recommended conditions of approval if the Commission moves to approve requested items (1) and (3) and deny items (2) and (4): 1. Except as otherwise provided herein development of The Rocks shal1 be in accord with the "Special Use Permit Plan..." prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2, 2004. For purposes of these conditions the plan shal1 heretofore be referred to as "The Application Plan." 2. Except for minor boundary adjustments, (as determined by thc ,^.gent), the boundaries ofPareels idcntified as Tax Map 74, Pan,e!s 18C, 18C 1, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified only as sAmvn 08 "The l\pplieation ~ The boundaries of Parcels identified as Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3 maybe modified to al10w minor variations to accommodate the new road alignment for the extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane that wil1 serve these lots. 3. Within the baundaries ofReyised Lot 1, thcrc shal1 be al1mved a total af 4 (four) dwelling UHits or -1 (fo\:1r) lots. Bef-ore a building permit is issued f-or a secand d¥yclling unit, or before a s\:1bdiyision plat is appfa'.<ed crcating a ne'N lot(s) "...ithin the boundaries ofLat 1, this special llse permit (8P 03 079) shal1 bc amended and a ne',v applieation plan shal1 bc reviewed and approved by the County aut.flarizing the dv¡el1ing units or lots. For pl:1'I'0ses of these conditions the term "subdivision" shall also mean family divisions. 4. .^.l1 subdi'¡isions within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 shan meet the design standards and speeial provisions set forth in 8eetioß 10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinanee. 5 5. AH àwellings amI àevelopment lots within the bounàaries of Lot I shaH be leGated east €If the floodplain of Iyy Creek 6. fJl future deyeløpment lots subdivided iTem Lot 1 shaH be no larger than 3.26 aeres Ìß area, shaH be loeated in a manner eonsistent with, and be integrateà into the overaH design ofthe other development lets in The Roeles. 7. A minimum of ten trees per acre shaH be provided on the development lots, ineluding these permitted by conàition th1ee (3), in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening iTom Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be instaHed within two planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dweHing on the lots. 8. Clearing ofland shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads, dwellings, and appropriate septic fields. 9. Building siding and trim shaH be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or light colored roofs, as determined by the Director of Planning, are prohibited. 10. Concrete driveways visible iTom off-site shaH be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. 11. The bridge shall not be constructed until the approvals in conditions 12 through 15 have been obtained; 12. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control permit; 13. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; 14. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3. of the Zoning Ordinance; 15. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private roads shaH be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards. This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide iTontage to aH the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3. as shown 08 "The "\pplieati08 Plan." 16. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard of the private road extension at the time of review. 17. The existing road, shown entering iTom Rocks Farm Drive, parallel to Interstate 64 and meandering through the Preservation Tract shaH not be improved or widened except for agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road plan and an erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. 18. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the rural preservation easement shall be amended to aHow the modification; amendment to the easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies or guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. 19. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement shall be recorded with the plat. 20. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner's Association consents to the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3. A TT ACHMENTS: 1. April 27, 2004 public hearing minutes n. Staff Report presented at the April 27, 2004 public hearing corrected for errors as agreed to at the beginning of the meeting 6 . .. .~. ! i'-~-o . . ATTACHMENT I Albemarle County Planning Commission SP-2003-079 The Rocks Rural Preservation Development April 27, 2004 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Chairman; Calvin Morris, Jo Higgins, Marcia Joseph; Bill Edgerton and Pete Craddock, Vice- Chairman. Mr. Craddock arrived at 6:15 p.m. Other officials present were Yadira Amarante, Planner; Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. SP 2003-079 The Rocks Amendment (Sian #49. 52. 53) Request for special use permit amendment to: (1) Allow reconfiguration of the Preservation Tract; (2) Allow for an alternate private road location than was approved with the original Rocks Rural Preservation Development. This request is made in accordance with Section 10.2.2.28 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for 20 or more Development Lots in a Rural Preservation Development. The property, described as Tax Map 74, Parcels 18,18C, 18C1, 18C2, 18C3, 18D, 18D1, 18D4, 18D7, 18D8, 1809, 18E, 18E1, 18E2, 18E3, 18E4, 18E5, 18E8, 18E9, 18F, 18F1, 18F2, 18F3, 18F9, 18G, 18G1, 18G3, 18G4, 18G5, 18G6, 18G7, 18G8, 72, 73, and 74, contains 645.237 acres, and is zoned RA - Rural Area. The proposal is located off of Rt. 637 (Dick Woods Road), at its intersection with Interstate Route 64 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3. (Yadira Amarante) Ms. Amarante stated that there were a few clarifications that need to be made to the staff report. She asked that each Commissioner note the following corrections on their individual staff report as she went through it. One of the applicant's requests is to allot three additional development rights that were left over from the original special use permit for The Rocks Rural Preservation Development. Staff received comments from several persons that throughout the staff report that the request was not clear. After the applicant pointed it out, staff realized that it probably was not as clear as it should be. On page 2, in the middle of the page, she asked that a change should be made from ". .. 3 additional dwelling divisions within Lot 1 which is a 106 acres. . ." to read ". . . in essence since lot 1 will have the ability to create four development lots/dwellings within its boundaries." She noted that is the actual request. Mr. Edgerton stated that the applicant has not told us where those lots will be, and Ms. Amarante stated that was correct. Mr. Edgerton asked if they already had the right to divide that property. Ms. Amarante stated no, because the special use permit that was approved in 1991 showed those 43 lots on the plan of development for the Rocks, but now they want to take it up to the 46 lots that were previously allowed. She pointed out that the owner did not want to show the location of those lots at this time. Mr. Edgerton asked if there was a reason why. Ms. Amarante stated that the property was sold and she thought that the new owner does not know where he would like to put those lots. That owner is fully aware that he will need to come back and amend the special use permit to be able to create those parcels because it will be a departure from the application plan that the Commission is being asked to approve tonight. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 27, 2004 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-079 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT ì ATTACHMENT I Ms. Joseph stated that on the plan that they say it looks like lot 1 contains all of that space that is now called open space on the original approved special use permit, and Ms. Amarante stated that was correct. Ms. Amarante asked to continue with the corrections, and then she would present the staff report. On page 6 at the top of the page, basically the same change should be made to read, "Three addition dwellings/divisions within lot 1 (the lot has a total of 4 development rights)." Then on page 8, under the recommended conditions of approval on item number 3, the wording should be changed to read, "Within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 there shall be allowed a total of 4 (four) dwelling units or 4 (four) lots." Staff noted that was all of the corrections. Staff summarized the staff report as follows. The petition is requesting four different amendments to SP-91-36, which is the current special use permit on this parcel that is an existing Rural Preservation Development of 43 development lots and one Rural Preservation Tract. The first request is to amend the boundaries of the preservation tract as shown on the application plan. The second request is to amend the boundaries of four parcels, which were created in 1991 at the top of Bear Den Mountain. Those lots were created as family division lots. The family division provision is for only two years, and therefore the four parcels are now normal lots and the applicant would like to amend and change the boundaries of those four lots. The applicant would like to amend the access shown on the original plan from the side of Bear Den Mountain coming through The Rocks Preservation Development. The applicant would now like to move the road to come through Rosemont Subdivision and allot those three additional development rights to give lot 1 a total of four. Mr. Thomas asked if the road would not be coming through Rosemont. Ms. Amarante pointed out that it would be coming through Rosemont Subdivision and not through The Rocks. She stated that in reviewing this request that she did not go back and try to look at the original Rural Preservation Development and how that was approved since she assumed that at the time it was approved in 1991 that they did the right thing in approving it. She stated that these were what she would consider with the exception of one thing being the minor modifications to the Rural Preservation Development, and therefore recommends approval with the conditions listed. Staff would be happy to answer any questions that the Commission might have. Mr. Thomas asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Ms. Amarante. Ms. Joseph asked if all of those lots as shown from the original special use permit have been recorded and platted. Ms. Amarante stated yes, that the preliminary plat was approved by the Commission in 2002. Ms. Joseph asked if the plat was recorded, and Ms. Amarante stated that she believed that it has. Ms. Joseph asked if those lots were shown on the tax maps, and Ms. Amarante stated no that the lots have not shown up on the tax maps yet, but that it has been recorded. Ms. Joseph stated that if it has not been recorded that she wondered how it has vested. Ms. Amarante stated that even if the subdivision plat has not been recorded, that the special use permit has been vested. Ms. Joseph asked how the special use permit was vested. Ms. Amarante stated that the special use permit was vested by a determination by the Zoning Administrator in 1993. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 27, 2004 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-079 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT ~ ATTACHMENTl . Ms. Joseph asked what the Zoning Administrator had based that on, and Ms. Amarante stated that she did not remember what the specifics were on that since they had gone through this conversation in 2002 when the subdivision plat came through. Ms. Joseph asked if staff had received anything in writing from Rosemont Homeowners Association saying that this community has agreed to an extension of this. Ms. Amarante stated that the Secretary of the Rosemont Homeowners Association is present tonight with a letter from some of the Rosemont Homeowners Association members. Staff has not heard anything against the proposal. Mr. Edgerton stated that visually he could see some benefit, as backed up in the staff report, for the change of access to the four family subdivision lots. He stated that he had a great deal of difficulty in seeing any benefit in giving three more development rights. He asked if there was something that he was missing from a staff perspective. Ms. Amarante stated that from staff's perspective, noting that she had talked with the Rural Area Planners before coming to a conclusion, was that they were allowed 46 development lots at the time that they made the application for the special use permit in 1990. They chose to only use 43 of those development rights for whatever reasons. After going back and reviewing the previous staff report and minutes that it was not clear, and she assumed that they did not want to maximize their development potential. This applicant does want to maximize their development potential and are asking for those three development rights that were kind of left out there just floating and not used, but would now like to use those. Mr. Rieley stated that his understanding was that when a special use permit is given for a specific project that then supersedes the theoretical number of development rights. . Ms. Amarante stated that he was absolutely right and that she should not be calling them development rights since the zoning on that property is for those 43 lots. The by right potential of that property used to be 46 lots, and at that time if they had shown 46 lots. That is why the applicant is amending that special use permit. Mr. Thomas stated that the question is whether the applicant should have lost the other three lots. Ms. Amarante stated that had they shown in 1991 the 46 development lots as opposed to the 43 development lots that she has no reason to believe that those 46 lots would not have been approved, but that she did not know. She pointed out that she had looked at the previous materials and gone back and read the minutes Mr. Thomas stated that in other words it does not set in stone that they had to stay with the 43 lots. Mr. Kamptner stated no because one way to look at it is that the development rights in this case is 46 and would always be there theoretically. The special use permit that allows the Rural Preservation Development in this case limited them to 43 lots because that was sought. The applicant always has the opportunity to come in and amend their special use permit to revive those three unused theoretical development rights. . Ms. Higgins stated that in the notes, which was very tiny, it talks about no development rights are being affected by the transfer of land from tax map something to something. She pointed out that her impression was that they did not intend to forever limit the development rights or there would have been a condition with the special user permit at that time to limit them. The real question relates to the issue of those three development rights and if the benefits here were significant in some ways and why they should not allow the development rights by right when they were getting ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRil 27, 2004 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-079 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT Cf A TT ACHMENT I a preservation tract development in this case. She pointed out that she had not seen anything that precluded that, but that some of the notes were too small and unreadable. Ms. Amarante agreed that the notes were very small, but pointed out that those notes should probably not have been on that. Staff was considering the plan that was part of the Commission's packet, which was the application plan for the special use permit. Those notes were usually seen on a subdivision plat. Therefore, those notes were really irrelevant. She suggested placing a condition on it or just note for the record that these notes can be removed since they don't need to be on this document. There are some boundary line adjustments happening between the preservation tract and some lots in Rosemont Subdivision. She noted that was meant to say nothing is happening with the development rights for those lots in Rosemont since the preservation tract obviously does not have any development rights being transferred. Mr. Craddock asked if at the number 9 if the note about lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the preservation tract may not be subdivided was a moot point. Ms. Amarante stated that the special use permit was going to signify that, and it was not necessary for it to be on this plan because it should be on the subdivision plat. Ms. Higgins assumed that note 10 that says The Rocks lot 1 has three (3) development rights was what was recorded on the plat that was approved before, Ms. Amarante stated that what was before the Commission was not what was approved before. Ms. Higgins asked if that plat had been approved by the County and recorded and if it designated where the development rights were retained. Ms. Amarante stated no that it did not. She pointed out that actually that was not the plat that was recorded. She stated that was the approved special use permit plan that was the plan of development for The Rocks. The plat that was recorded is different from what the Commission sees there, and that the open space was eliminated. Ms. Joseph asked if the final plat that was recorded did not carry forth the open space reference. Ms. Amarante stated that was correct and that she could elaborate on that. In 2002 when the subdivision plat came before us, staff looked at this and was kind of confused as to what to do with that open space. There is really no open space provision in the Rural Areas District, except for Rural Preservation Developments which they call Preservation Tracts. Therefore, staff did not know how to deal with that open space. As far as staff was concerned it was just another parcel. If it was not a preservation tract, which it clearly is not, then there is no easement or restrictions to it in the covenants. When the applicant came in 2002 with their subdivision plats the original subdivision had expired. Therefore, the applicant had to come back in 2002 to redo their subdivision and staff did not know what to do with that open space. Therefore, staff just included it as part of lot 1. Zoning approved the subdivision and signed off on it as being in compliance with that plan. Mr. Benish asked that they keep in mind that the special use permit plan governs what happens on this parcel. Ms. Joseph asked how one would know if they did not see the plat. Mr. Benish stated that the plat signifies that it is governed by the special use permit. Mr. Edgerton stated that it might be argued that there was an implied promise that would remain open and it sounds like the new owners have decided not to. In the review of that, it was given as ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 27,2004 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-079 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT -.4- 1'0 A TT ACHMENT I . an argument for why they thought this was such a great idea. Now they were being told that they were just kidding and they are really going to divide that land up. Ms. Amarante stated that the open space tract right now and the way that the subdivision was approved in 2002 that it does not exist. However, they could tonight limit those development rights and limit the size of the lots. Staff tried to limit the area to at least keep the development east of the flood plain. Mr. Morris stated that on number 9 of the recommended conditions on page 8 that staff states that conditions 9 through 19 have been obtained. He pointed out that he did not see a number 19. Ms. Amarante stated that actually it should really say 10 - 13. There were two special use permits in 1990 with one for flood plain crossing and the other for rural preservation development. She stated that only conditions 10 - 13 would deal with that ridge crossing and the private road that was approved in SP-91-36. Therefore, she asked to amend that to say conditions 10 - 13. She pointed out that there was one more change that needs to be made to the conditions. The applicant has asked if condition 15 could be deleted. Staff's reason for that condition originally was that after talking with the Homeowner's Association of Rosemont that their covenants specifically restrict certain types of traffic and she did not want the preservation tract to be restricted in terms of its usage for agricultural and forestry purposes. If they wanted to use the land in that way, she wanted the trucks to be able to get onto the land. After talking with the applicant's council, she did not think they needed that note because they still retain their access through lot 1 on that original jeep type of trail road. Mr. Edgerton stated that one of the arguments given for changing the access was that they would not have to clear that entire road, but he would assume that they would have to clear that road if they were retaining that access. . Ms. Amarante stated that there were two conditions included so that the Public Recreational Facility Authority will have to review any expansion or widening of that road for forestal and agricultural purposes and the Engineering Department would have to approve an erosion and sediment control plan. She pointed out that at least the County will be able to regulate how that road gets developed in the future. She stated that the argument was that moving the access for those four development lots from that jeep trail road to Rosemont on a physical level makes sense, but they did not want to limit the access. Part of the preservation tract and the easement of the Public Recreational Facility Authority was that it will be used in an agricultural or forestal way and they did not want to limit the use of the preservation tract in any way. The jeep trail exists now and it will continue to exist. Mr. Thomas asked if that would give them access to Rosemont Subdivision. Ms. Amarante stated that it gives the four residential lots access to Rosemont, which will become part of their Homeowners Association and in their covenants be responsible for the roads in Rosemont. Ms. Higgins asked that "it" be changed to "if' in condition 16 regarding the roads, and Ms. Amarante agreed. Mr. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. . Terra Boyd, representative for The Rocks LLC, stated that the request was to amend the special use permit. There are representatives present tonight for the applicant, The Rocks LLC, which includes their engineer, Thomas Lincoln who was also from the Neighborhood Association for Rosemont; and a member of the Board from the Rosemont Homeowners Association who was signed up to speak. Therefore, she would describe their position later in the meeting. She stated ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 27, 2004 ... j I PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-079 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT A TT ACHMENT I that she wanted to make sure that the Commission was clear on exactly what they were asking for here because it is a fairly complex set of changes that they were making to an originally fairly complex project. The project was a RPD done under a special use permit because it was over 20 lots, which was approved a few years ago and then platted and put to record. The way it was set up is kind of interesting in that the rural preservation lots were down in the bottom land close to Dick Woods Road in order to create a preservation parcel up on the side of Bear Den Mountain and preserve that wooded area. That is what you can see in the application plan as that large area that has a lot of slopes on it, which was depicted on their plan. Up in that area before the RPD was finally platted and, of course, before the conservation easement on the preservation parcel was put in place, the four family lots were platted up there by a former owner. Those would remain up in that area. The thrust of their application is to move the access to those family lots from an existing approved very long route to a very short and less environmental stressful access from the Rosemont Subdivision. In order to access those four lots from that road in a way that makes engineering sense they needed to move those four lots by a boundary adjustment over slightly. She pointed out that her understanding from their engineers was that this movement does not cause them to be more visible. But, in fact there were drawings submitted showing site lines from 1-64 to back that up that these are not going to make these lots more visible. The lots are currently not built on. There are no houses up there and the lots have not been cleared. This boundary line adjustment is not going to change anything regarding the preservation values and the preservation track. Of course, they will have to take that up directly with the Public Recreational Facility Authority next month to talk about amending the easement to allow those lots to be reconfigured. Therefore, nothing that the Commission does this evening will force their hand in making any approvals since they will have to consider separately the impacts on the preservation values that they would be concerned about with the preservation parcel. They are proposing to move the road over and reconfiguring the family lots. Regarding the existing approved access road, she pointed out that the environmental impacts of their proposal versus the existing approved access road from The Rocks Subdivision up over the mountain to the family lots that they were looking at difference in impact for the existing road, which is 434,100 square feet of disturbance to vegetation, to their proposal that would reduce that to 76,800 square feet. Therefore, that is less than a quarter of the amount of disturbance that would otherwise happen if they were to improve the existing approved jeep trail up the side of the mountain if they were to approve it to the point that it could be used for access to residential lots. Staff kept a condition in the special use permit that would allow access over that jeep trail for agricultural and forestry purposes in keeping with the purposes of the conservation easement. There are no immediate plans to clear a lot or anything else on that preservation parcel. Currently, that lot is being used recreationally. If there were plans to do that the improvements that would be made to that road to make it usable for agricultural or forestal purposes would be far, far less than would be required to bring that road up to the County's standards for accessing residences on the top of the mountain. Therefore, they feel that in presenting this to the County that they are offering an appealing option for getting rid of a road that is already approved and that has a lot of negative consequences in the watershed and they are replacing it with a much more environmentally sensitive road that has the support of the neighbors as well. They see this as a win/win situation and have worked hard with the neighbors to make sure that they do as well. The change in the road also lessens the visual impact. The existing approved access if it were built would be basically a gash up the side of Bear Den Mountain and visible from both 1-64 and Dick Woods Road. The proposal where they would like to shorten this access through Rosemont would not be visible from either 1-64 or Dick Woods Road. The road is their major persuasive point. There were also concerns about the changes to lot 1 and she would like to clarify the changes. When The Rock RPD was originally platted there was an omission made on that plat. Typically when they record a subdivision plat and there are development rights that remain there is a note that goes on the plat that says X number of development rights remain with lot Y. There is no such note on this plat, even though as Ms. Amarante presented, who checked with Bill Fritz who was the staff person who worked on The Rocks RPD. that those did exist. They simply want to assign them to lot 1. There are conditions in this special use permit application that would fit any development that would eventually possibly happen on lot 1 would have to comply with. Condition 3 states that anybody who wished to develop all 3 of the additional residences on lot 1 that fill out ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 27, 2004 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-079 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT ~ jd-.- ATTACHMENT I . that development potential on that single lot that they would have to submit a site plan. In addition, to subdivide lot 1 they would have to submit a subdivision plat for County approval. There is also a condition 4 for the special use permit amendment which would forbid any building on lot 1 within the floodplain, which is a substantial area. Originally they had talked about trying to plot those lots, but it was problematic with the floodplain. The current owner of the lot wanted to get those development rights assigned to lot 1 to increase the value of lot 1. If the owner had immediate plans on the table to change that or to resubdivide it, then they would be platting those lots right now. The owner will have to come back to the County if he ever wants to use those development rights and plot the lots or comply with the Site Plan Ordinance. If lot 1 was going to have further residences located on it that the County would get another shot at how those would be configured. The protections that Ms. Amarante has built into the proposed conditions are fair and would protect the things that the Commission would be concerned about, which would be the impacts in the floodplain. She asked that the Commission approve the amendment with the conditions as presented by staff. Mr. Rieley stated that Mike Boggs copied him on a recent correspondence that he sent to Ms. Amarante relative to the road standards for the new section of road and argued for a relaxation of the minimum road standards. He pointed out that these conditions require the use of the VDOT Mountain Terrain Standards. He asked if the applicant was comfortable with these conditions including that one. Ms. Boyd stated that they have submitted a request for waivers and those will be considered with the subdivision plat. They plan to come back before the Commission for that request. Ms. Higgins asked if condition 6 was a condition of the original approval of the special use permit or if that was new. She suggested that the condition should be amended to say access road, dwellings and septic field areas. . Ms. Amarante stated that it was not a new condition and was an original condition from SP-1991- 36. Mr. Thomas stated that there were two persons signed up to speak. He stated that the first on the sheet was Anabel Bowen and he asked her to come forward to address the Commission. Anabel Bowen, a member of the Board of Directors of the Rosemont Homeowner Association and SecretarylTreasurer, stated that in that capacity that she wanted to bring to the Commission a letter from their Board of Directors. She summarized the letter as follows. She noted that they have combined their support for this special use permit as well as for the SUB for the subdivision plat in one letter because they did not realize that the two issues would be separated. The Board of Directors of the Rosemont Homeowners' Association unanimously supports the petitions to the Planning Commission by The Rocks, LLC and Haley, Chisholm & Morris, Inc., who are their developers and partners, for this special use permit and the SUB-2003-262. We believe that the requested waivers will minimize negative environmental, as well as visual impact and will allow Newcomb Mountain Lane to fit the mountainous terrain more naturally. Upon approval by the County of the cited petitions, The Rocks, LLC has requested in writing that their four lots be fully included into Rosemont, thus subjecting those lots to all Rosemont Homeowner fees (including private road maintenance fees) and to the full Rosemont Homeowners Association Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Our Board unanimously supports this and will urge all Rosemont owners to vote for this amendment for their inclusion. The letter is signed by our five board members. (See the attached copy of the letter submitted by Anabel Bowen dated 4/26/04.) . Harry Bowen, Jr. stated that he wanted to read a letter that they were going to submit to the Commission in support of this approval process. He pointed out that he was the owner of the corner lot in Rosemont Subdivision on lot 46, which probably will have as much impact as anybody in there from this approval of Newcomb Mountain Lane. He summarized the letter as follows. From the view on our part of 11.3 acres, we will look at Newcomb Mountain Lane either ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 27, 2004 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-079 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT -7. /3 ATTACHMENT I way that the road is constructed. We have carefully evaluated the impact of these applications and conclude that approval will greatly benefit all owners in Rosemont. Therefore, they wholeheartedly support the applications to the Albemarle County Planning Commission by Haley, Chisholm & Morris, Inc. and The Rock, LLC. We urge the County approval of all elements of the petitions, especially the waivers of the County's road standards for Newcomb Mountain Lane and allowing access to the four lots owned by The Rocks, LLC. We believe that the waivers are necessary in this instance to minimize the negative environmental and visual impact and to preserve the rural nature of the Ivy entrance corridor. Approval of these applications will prevent unsightly scar on Newcomb Mountain that would be highly visible from 1-64, The Rocks at Ivy subdivision, Rock Mills Farm, Rosemont Farm and about 20 lots in Rosemont subdivision. Thank you very much for the opportunity to express our support for the efforts of these two developers to preserve the beauty of our mountains. (See the attached copy of the letter submitted by Harry Bowen, Jr. and Anabel S. Bowen dated 4/26/04.) Mr. Thomas asked if there was anyone else present who would like to speak regarding this application. Jeff Werner, representative for Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that he did not have any comments that support this proposal, but he had been listening and had some observations and questions. Since they were talking about the rural area that he had been planning to come and tell the Commission that Babette Thorpe's replacement is in. As of last year the County they had worked with people of 42,300 acres under easement in the County, which was good news for the rural area. The objectives for the County's Rural Areas Policy are to limit residential development in the Rural Area only to that which is related to a bona-fide agricultural/forestal use. He stated that he was a little alarmed to hear that in discussing condition 15 that there are subdivisions in our Rural Area that prohibit agricultural and forestal vehicles. This is a preservation tract that is supposedly for agricultural use and they were trying to figure out how to agricultural people to it. He felt that something there needs to be discussed further. He noted that he paid a lot of attention when trees are discussed in County issues, particularly when they talk about tree protection in our tower ordinances. He stated that this was a question more for clarification and for future reference. In condition 5 it says 10 trees per acre and he questioned the rationale for that in if that would do anything substantial. He stated that the report states that it is more or less an addition of 4 family lots which will interestingly generate approximately 40 vehicle trips per day. There is a comment that says that this is incremental and it is no big deal. He pointed out that at the Board of Supervisors meetings many people on Doctor's Road and Gilberts Station Road have absolutely demanded that millions of dollars be paid to improve those roads. It is just an observation, but as they incrementally add four houses here and four houses there adding the number of vehicle trips that they are ultimately going to pay the price to pave those roads. Mr. Thomas asked if there was anybody else present who would like to speak regarding this request. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and possible action. Ms. Higgins stated that in reviewing the condition about the agricultural/forestal processes and if condition 15 is deleted for example and condition 16 becomes 15, she did not interpret that it limits access for those purposes, but as a matter of fact it limits improvements for only those purposes. She stated that she thought that was clearly the intent and it was only due to potential restrictions of taking equipment through Rosemont, which would only fail if the Rosemont Subdivision requirements excluded some sorts of equipment. She noted that it was probably unlikely that if a tractor went through there that someone would complain. There are probably tractors that go through there to cut the grass. Therefore, she was unsure about that. The Rosemont Homeowners Association's letter talks about that the Board unanimously supports this and would urge Rosemont homeowners to vote for this inclusion. Therefore, she suggested that there be a condition that those lots, which are clearly giving up their access by the longer route to go through the shorter route through Rosemont, be conditioned upon the vote or confirmation or verification of documentation that they are allowed to be accessed by that road or the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 27, 2004 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-079 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT ~ tV ATTACHMENT I . Commission will have approved something and that it be precluded if the homeowner's association does not vote the way that the Board has shown them to vote. She noted that it was probably unlikely, but that she felt that should be a condition. Mr. Rieley stated that there seems to be a couple of parallel issues. The issue of replacing this very long road parallel to 1-64 that is highly visible and highly disruptive up to the top of the mountain with a small connection from an already existing road seems to be a no brainer. He felt that there were a number of details about the road standards that the Commission would get into at the next level of this, but he felt that part of this was very clear. He noted that he had more difficulties on the issues of moving previously platted lots to a higher elevation when their Comprehensive Plan clearly says that preservation of mountain tops is an important criteria. He noted that he had even more trouble essentially adding four development rights in the Rural Area. His reading of the situation that they were in is that there were a certain amount of development rights on this. The applicant chose to develop this by a special use permit and a part of that package was leaving all of that lot 1 area open, which was the plan. The plan did not have four lots in that area. This seems to be a gratuitous bonus of giving additional development rights. Those development rights might have some theoretical standing somewhere, but once the special use permit was instigated the only way that they could get additional development rights was through another special use permit and he did not think they should be giving special use permits to add to development rights in the Rural Area. He stated that he was concerned about those four lots on top moving higher and adding four lots below, but he thought that the road changes were very sensible. . Ms. Joseph stated that adding on that issue that if they don't know where the lots were going that was another issue. She felt that the Board of Commission approved the plan thinking that the open space was going to remain open, but then under this proposal it all becomes one lot. She pointed out that they would be saying it was alright to put four lots on lot 1 any place that they want to. She acknowledged that the request would come back before the Commission, but it was still a great concern. Mr. Edgerton concurred that he would like to change the access, leave the four family subdivision lots as originally platted, and was completely against coming back now and adding three lots. . Mr. Higgins suggested that condition 6 read that the clearing of land should be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of an access road, dwelling and appropriate septic field areas. That change would allow staff the ability for when someone comes in for a building permit to review the septic field location to avoid conflict with the trees. Personally, she felt that they have an example before the Commission where they keep wanting neighbors to work together and developers to work with neighborhoods and it seems to be an unanimous benefit that this is coming back before us and it is very frustrating that Ms. Bowen said that they want to correct that the note was not included on that previous plat and since it appears that there is not a lot of documentation that in the benefit of the doubt that typically the zoning department when they check a plat when there are development rights retained that they say they stay with the lot, but they don't show where they are platted. If this clearly restricts their location and they are going to be covered under a Site Plan or Subdivision Ordinance requirements and that they have gone through this effort of consolidating access and improving it environmentally and all of the other benefits that she was not willing to not let them use what they could have used. She felt that they have to go back to the original premise that you have a preservation tract and it is predicated on the fact of how many rights did they have to begin with. So now that it was a preservation tract in essence they were taking away those three potential lots. She stated that they could disagree about that approval, but obviously that documentation is not before the Commission. Therefore, she was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and did not think that those three houses or a barn with an apartment as a way to use it or the creation of the three lots was a reason to vote this down. She made a motion that the request be approved with the conditions recommended by staff with the changes she noted about the cleared area and adding ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 27, 2004 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-079 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT ~í~ A TT ACHMENT I a condition that it be included to provide documentation that the Homeowners Association has allowed the access and to be incorporated into their use. Mr. Thomas stated that due to a lack of a second that the motion dies. He asked if there was another motion. Mr. Rieley made a motion for approval of SP-2003-079, The Rocks Amendment, with the staff's recommendations, with the changes in the language that Ms. Higgins just made, and in addition the stipulation that the 4 (four) additional lots be deleted and leave the locations, with minor boundary adjustments to accommodate the road, aside to essentially where they are and that everything else or all of the road change remain as it is. 1. Development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the "Special Use Permit Plan..." prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2, 2004. For purposes of these conditions it shall heretofore be referred to as "The Application Plan." 2. The boundaries of Parcels identified as Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified to allow minor variations to accommodate the new road alignment for the extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane that will serve these lots. only as shown on "The .'\pplication Plan." 3. Within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 there sholl bc ollo·....ed 0 total of 4 (four) d'Nelling units or four (four) 10tE. Before the 3re dwelling unit con be constructed a site plan meeting the requirements of Section 32 of the Zoning Ordin~mce or 0 Site Plan 'Naiver, per Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted, reviewed and appro'.'ed by the County. All wbdi'lisions within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 Eholl conform to the ruleE and regulations set forth in Chapter 14, the Subdivision Ordinance. 4. All dy"ellings/lots within Lot 1 shall be located cOEt of the floodplain of Ivy Croek. 5. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots and the lots permitted by condition one, in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots. 6. Clearing of land shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads, aR€I dwellings~ and appropriate septic field areas. 7. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural environment. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or light colored roofs are prohibited. 8. Concrete driveways visible from off-site shall be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural environment. 9. The bridge shall not be constructed until the approvals in conditions 9 through 19 10 through 13 have been obtained; 10. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control permit; 11. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; 12. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3. of the Zoning Ordinance; 13. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations, Private roads shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards. This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide frontage to all the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3. os shoy,," on "The l\pplic3tion Plan," 14. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard of the private road extension at the time of review. 15. The Preservation Tract sholl not hove acceSE to or from Nev"comb Mountain Lone. 16. The existing road. shown entering from Rocks Farm Drive, parallel to Interstate 64 and meandering through the Preservation Tract shall not be improved or widened except for agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed by ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 27, 2004 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-079 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT '* 1<.0 A TT ACHMENT I . the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. It If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road plan and an erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. 17. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the rural preservation easement shall be amended to allow the modification; amendment to the easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies or guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. 18. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement shall be recorded with the plat. 19. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner's Association consents to the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to the four mountain lots. Mr. Thomas asked if he wanted to add the suggested language on condition #6 about the appropriate septic field areas, and Mr. Rieley stated yes that he did want that added and that staff would craft the language. Mr. Benish pointed out that his motion essentially deleted condition #3 with all of the other things that he mentioned that deletes the one about the additional dwellings. Mr. Edgerton asked if the motion was to leave the existing four family division lots as originally platted with minor boundary adjustments to accommodate access to the road, which was in addition to deleting condition #3, and Mr. Rieleyagreed. . Mr. Kamptner asked if condition #2 would be amended concerning the parcels, and Ms. Amarante stated that staff could amend that condition. Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion. Mr. Craddock asked if condition #15 was deleted and condition #6 was amended, and Ms. Amarante stated that was correct. Mr. Thomas asked for an explanation regarding condition #3. Ms. Amarante stated that they were deleting condition #3 in its entirety. Mr. Edgerton stated that Phase I would stay the way that it was originally promised in 2002. Mr. Thomas pointed out that personally he disagreed with that decision. He agreed with Ms. Higgins because he did not see much of a reason to change that because he liked the way the road was coming through Rosemont and creating those lots on the back. He noted that the other roads would have been eliminated. Mr. Rieley stated that would suggest that they would built four times as much road and that it was an awful lot less expensive to do what they have proposed. It does not require the incentive of the four additional development rights. Ms. Joseph stated that in the long run that a lot less would be spent on the maintenance of the road. . Ms. Higgins pointed out that she had got the impression from the adjacent home owners that by them allowing the access for the four lots that it was predicated upon the improvement of the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 27, 2004 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-G79 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT ~ 17 ATTACHMENT I visuals and that sort of thing. Therefore, that they might go hand in hand as far as the home owners are concerned if this developer ties them together, then it might fail and not go forward. Mr. Thomas stated that in other words the accessibility would still be here, but these would be spread out all over the parcel rather than being right here. Mr. Rieley stated that the lighter line would stay where they are and this other line was where it was proposed. He noted that he was suggesting that they leave the lines where they were and they just would not move them to that side of the road. The applicant asked to make one comment to clarify what they were discussing. Mr. Thomas stated that he could not make a comment at this time unless there was a request by a Commissioner because there was a motion on the table. The motion carried (6: 1). (Higgins - No) Mr. Thomas stated that SP-2003-079 would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on June 9th. (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Recording Secretary) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 27, 2004 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES -DRAFT SP-03-079 THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT ~ Ie¡; A TT ACHMENT II STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Y ADIRA AMARANTE APRIL 27, 2004 JUNE 9, 2004 . SP 03-079: THE ROCKS RURAL PRESERV A TION DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT Petition: The appJicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend the SP 91-36: Verulam Farm Limited Partnership, a 43 lot Rural Preservation Development and a bridge in the floodplain of Ivy Creek approved 8/7/91 to (1) amend the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract (Tax Map 74, Parcel 18); (2) amend the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and I 8C3; (3) amend access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18, 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3; and (4) a110t development rights not used in the original proposa1. Property description: The property, described as Tax Map 74, Parcels 18,18C, 18C1, 18C2, 18C3, 18D, 18D1, 18D4, 18D7, 18D8, 18D9, 18E, 18E1, 18E2, 18E3, 18E4, 18E5, 18E8, 18E9, 18F, 18F1, 18F2, 18F3, 18F9, 18G, 18G1, 18G3, 18G4, 18G5, 18G6, 18G7, and 18G8, contains 645.237 acres, and is zoned RA - Rural Area. The proposal is located off of Dick Woods Road (Route #637), at its intersection with Interstate Route 64 in the Samuel Mi11er Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3, (Attachment B). . Character of the Area: The property under review is a mixture of pasture and woodlands. There are currently several existing dwellings and various farm buildings on the site. The lower portion of the site adjacent to Route 637 [Dick Woods Road] is in the floodplain ofIvy Creek. The property then rises to the top of Bear Den Mountain and includes land on the eastern slope of the mountain. The land between the stream and top of the mountain is rolling with moderate to critical slopes. The steeper slopes and stream va11eys are wooded. The property para11els 1- 64 for approximately 1.5 miles. The development area para11els 1-64 for approximately 0.6 miles and is approximately 0.5 miles deep from 1-64. The property adjacent and to the south is Rosemont which is developed with single family houses. Other properties in the area are used for pasture, hay and/or residences with the steeper slopes remaining wooded. The entire development is located within the South Fork Rivanna Watershed and the existing Preservation Tract includes a significant portion of the Ragged Mountain Watershed. Planning and Zoning History: . 1. 3/19/91 SUB 90-244: PC approved a preJiminary plat for a Rural Preservation Development. This approval has since expired. 2. 4/8/91 SP 90- I 19: BOS approved a Rural Preservation Development of 43 development lots and one (1) preservation tract. 3. 4/8/91 SP 90-120: BOS approved a floodplain crossing (bridge) over Ivy Creek. 4. 8/7/91 SP 91-36: BOS approved an amendment to SP-90-119 and SP-90-120 to add the fo11owing condition: "Department of engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private roads shall be designed to VDOT mountainous standards." 5. 12/16/91 SUB 91-179: Submittal of Final Plat for Phase 1 ofRPD development. This plat was reviewed but never approved by the County. 6. 1/13/93: Zoning Administrator Determination that SP-9l-36 has not expired and is vested by the construction of the bridge across Ivy Creek. 7. 6/16/93 SP 93-16: BOS approved location for a communication's tower within the Preservation Tract. Has since expired - could not meet road standard conditions. 8. 12/5/97 SUB 91-179: Administrative approval of a l2.291-acre parcel within the Preservation Tract. 9. 2/18/98 SUB 91-179: Administrative approval of 4 lots totaling 12.291 acres as a Family Division within the Preservation Tract. 10. 5/28/02 SUB 01-274: PC approval of a preliminary plat for the Rural Preservation Development of 39 development lots and one (1) preservation tract. 11. 4/22/03 SUB 02-277: Administrative approval of a final plat for the Rural Preservation Development of 39 development lots and one (1) preservation tract. ~ ;9 A TT ACHMENT II 12. 5/7/03 Recordation of the easement on the preservation tract approved and signed by the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority on 4/16/03. STAFF COMMENT Staffs comments present an analysis of how the proposed amendments meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning, and the Subdivision Ordinances. It should be noted that staff did not attempt to revisit the previous approval of the current rural preservation development. It is assumed that those actions were true and correct at the time of approval and that the development met with purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning and the subdivision ordinances of the time. As a reminder, the applicant proposes to (1) amend the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract (Tax Map 74, Parcel 18); (2) amend the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3; (3) amend access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18, 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3; and (4) allot development rights not used in the original proposal. These proposals will be referred to in the following manner throughout the rest of the report - (Proposal #...) to signify which proposal is affected by a particular provision of the ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Review: The Comprehensive Plan encourages clustering of rural lots, and the Rural Preservation Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance have been provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. The original approvals for the Rocks Rural Preservation Development (SP 90-119/120 and SP 91-36) provided for a total of 43 dwellings in the development. This was accomplished by the creation of 39 development lots and 4 family division lots on Bear Den Mountain with no development potential for the preservation tract, (Attachment C). During the original review a conceptual plan demonstrating that a total of 46 lots could be created was presented, however, the applicant chose to create only 43 development lots. This current proposal means to account for the three (3) unused development lots by assigning that development potential to Lot 1. This is how the most current plan accounts for the potential development of 46 lots which is all that is allowed by-right on this property: 43 development lots (existing) 1 rural preservation tract (existing and with no development potential) 3 additional dwellings/divisions within Lot 1 which is 106+ acres (in essence Lot 1 will have the ability to create four development lots/dwellings within its boundaries) (Proposal #4): The proposed amendments are in keeping with these provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance in that no more lots are being proposed than could have been allowed at the time the original special use pennit was approved and any development potential of Lot 1 would be in keeping with these provisions. A substantial portion of the Preservation Tract is located within the Mountain Overlay District of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area above the 800 foot contour as a Mountain resource. (Proposal #2) The building sites of the four existing mountain top lots, identified as Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18Cl, 18C2 and 18C3, lie well above the 800 foot contour, at about 1,180 foot contour. The proposed relocation of these four lots will relocate their building sites about 30 feet higher up the mountain but it is staffs opinion that they will be even less visible at this location because of tree cover. 2 d.-ù . . . A TT ACHMENT II (Proposal #4) The highest point on Lot 1 is at approximately 710 feet - below the 800 foot contour. Zoning Ordinance Review: Staff's Zoning Ordinance review relies on criteria from three sections: Section 10.3.3, Rural Preservation Development; Section 10.5.2, Where Permitted by Special Use Permit and Section 31.2.4, Special Use Permits. See staff analysis below each subsection in normal print and indented. Section 10.3.3. Rural Preservation Development Section 10.3.3.2 Rural Preservation Development Intent and Design Standards The rural preservation development option is intended to encourage more effective land usage in terms of the goals and objectives for the rural areas as set forth in the comprehensive plan than can be achieved under conventional development. To this end, application for rural preservation development shall be reviewed for: a. Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; (Proposals #1 & #2): The proposed boundary adjustments will not effect the preservation of these lands, they will just shift ownership. As a condition of approval, the Public Recreation Facilities Authority will be required to review and approve an amended easement on the preservation tract before the boundary adjustments can be put to record. (Proposal #3): It is staff's opinion that the original road approved for the four mountain top lots, which currently exists as not much more than a jeep trail, had it been upgraded to a standard to make those lots marketable, would have required more disturbance to these lands than will be necessary if the access is moved to Newcomb Mountain Lane. It is estimated that the original road, if upgraded to County private road standards, would require approximately 434,100 sq. f1. of vegetative disturbance within Lot 1 and the preservation tract and would be visible from Interstate 64. The new configuration is estimated to disturb approximately 76,800 sq. f1. of vegetation within the preservation tract, and will not be visible from Interstate-64. Recommended conditions of approval will insure that the four mountain top lots will have safe, reasonable and convenient access and that the existing jeep trail will not be improved unless it is for agricultural and/or forestal purposes and if improved for those purposes that it will fall within County review as to clearing, alignment and erosion and sediment control and stormwater measures. b. Water supply protection; and/or (Proposal #3 & 4): As stated previously, conditions of approval will require that all construction açtivity adhere to current Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance regulations including those provisions intended to protect the water supply. c. Conservation of natural, scenic or historic resources. (Proposals #2, #3 & #4): The relocated boundaries, and subsequently, the building sites, for the mountain top lots should not be seen from 1-64 or the surrounding historic resources, (Attachment D & E). The building sites are relocating approximately 30' up in elevation to the ridge tops of Bear Den Mountain. Any negative visual impacts should be ameliorated by conditions of approval which control tree density, colors/materials used for dwelling/driveway construction, and grading activity. The relocated access road for the four mountaintop lots to Newcomb Mountain Lane will not be visible from 1-64. The additional dwellings/lots allowed within Lot 1 will have similar visual impacts as all the other development lots in The Rocks. 3 ~I A TT ACHMENT II * See f. below for more discussion on historic resources. More specifically, in accordance with design standards of the comprehensive plan and where deemed reasonably practical by the commission: d. Development lots shall not encroach into prime, important or unique agricultural or forestal soils as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service; (Proposal #2 and #3): Since the four mountain top lots already exist, staff did not analyze their impact on unique soils. It is staff's opinion that the relocation of these lot boundaries, their building sites and the proposed access from Newcomb Mountain Lane wi]] have a neghgible impact on soils compared to what is a110wed under the current Special Use Pennit. e. Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope or flood plain and shall be situated as far as possible from public drinking water supply tributaries and public drinking water supply impoundments; (Proposals #2, #3, & #4): The re10cated mountain top lot boundaries do inc1ude areas of critical slope, however, each lot is shown to contain a legal building site without the need to disturb any critical slopes. The relocated access to the mountain top lots wi11 disturb less critical slopes and wi]] ehminate one stream crossing than would be required if the existing jeep trail is upgraded. Conditions of approval wi]] require that a11 construction/subdivision activity within Lot I adheres to current Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance regulations inc1uding those provisions intended to protect the water supply, flood plain, and critical slopes. f. Development lots shall be so situated and arranged as to preserve historic and scenic settings deemed to be of importance to the general public and natural resource areas whether such features are on the parcel to be developed or adjacent to such parcel; (Proposals #2, #3, & #4): Five historic resources have been identified near this deve1opment. They inc1ude The Rocks - Abe11 House c. 1825 which is located on Lot I; Rosemont c. 1870; a dwe11ing c. 1879; The Smith House c. 1800; and the site of St. Andrews Church. As shown on Attachments D & E, visual impacts associated with these amendments wi]] be negligible and further amehorated with conditions controHing tree density, colors/materials used for dwe11ing/driveway construction, and grading activity. The additional dweHings within Lot I wi]] have these same restrictions. During previous reviews of this deve10pment other potential historic resources have been mentioned by members of the pubhc. They inc1ude a cemetery and ruins on Bear Den Mountain said to be the remains of a cabin where Edgar A11en Poe may have written "The Raven." The existence of a cemetery has not been documented and there exists no provenance of the Poe connection. g. Development lots shall be confined to one area of the parcel and shall be situated so that no portion of the rural preservation tract shall intrude between any development lots; (Proposal #2): Since the mountain lots, a110wed by the original Special Use Pennit, already exist, it is staffs opinion that the relocation of their boundaries will not make them more non-confonning in regard to this provision. However, the proposal to change their access might make them more marketable and are now being considered differently than when they were origina11y approved as family division lots. h. All development lots shall have access restricted to an internal street in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle; and 4 ~ A TT ACHMENT II · (Proposals #2 & #4): The existing mountain top lots technical1y do not meet this criterion, however, it is staffs opinion that the reduced negative environmental impacts, by allowing access through the Rosemont development, more than make up for the fact that a road, external to this subdivision, wiH be providing access to these four lots. This provision is intended to limit the number of individual entrances onto existing pubhc roads and to provide safe and convenient access to subdivision lots. The proposed extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane wil1 accomplish these goals. One condition of approval requires approval of this extension as a private road as defined by the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant has proposed an alternate road design which has been evaluated by Department of Engineering staff and found to be general1y acceptable although a number of waivers wil1 be required. Staff hopes to bring the private road and waiver requests to the Planning Commission within the coming months. Another important aspect of private road approval is to ensure maintenance of the road. Once approved, and as required by conditions of this special use permit, a road maintenance agreement wiH be required before a plat for these amendments wil1 be signed by the County. Staff has learned that Rosemont Homeowner's Association representatives have reviewed this proposal and agreed to include the four mountain lots as part of the Association with respect to road maintenance. The Preservation Tract wil1 retain its access through The Rocks development and wi11 not be al10wed access to or ITom Newcomb Mountain Lane. It is possible that the road maintenance agreement for the extension will be part of the Rosemont covenants which wil1 then be subject to County Attorney review and approval with respect to road maintenance. AIl dwellings/subdivisions allowed on Lot 1 wil1 have access to the existing roads within The Rocks and meet this criterion. · i. Nothing stated herein shall be deemed to obligate the commission to approve a rural preservation development upon finding in a particular case that such proposal does not forward the purposes of rural preservation development as set forth herein above and that the public purpose to be served would be equally or better served by conventional development Not applicable. This is a request to amend an existing rural preservation development. Section 10.3.3.3 Special Provisions: In addition to design standards as set forth in section 10.3.3.2 and other regulation, the following special provisions shall apply to any rural preservation development: special provisions shall apply to any rural preservation development: a. The maximum number of lots within a rural preservation development shall be the same as may be achievable pursuant to section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2 and other applicable law. Each rural preservation tract shall count as one (1) lot. In the case of any parcel of land which, prior to application for rural preservation development, has been made subject to a conservation, open space or other similar easement which restricts development on the parcel, the total number of lots available for rural preservation development shall not exceed the number available for conventional development as limited by any such previously imposed easement or easements; The original approvals for the Rocks Rural Preservation Development (SP 90-119/120 and SP 91-36) provided for a total of 43 dwellings in the development. This was accomplished by the creation of 39 development lots and 4 family division lots on Bear Den Mountain with no development potential for the preservation tract, (Attachment C). · During the original review the apphcant submitted a conceptual plan demonstrating that a total of 46 lots could be created. This most current plan shows a potential development of 46 lots accounted for as fol1ows: 43 development lots (existing) 5 ~2 A TT ACHMENT II 1 rural preservation tract (existing and with no development potential) 3 dweHings/divisions within Lot 1 (the lot has 3 development rights) b. Section 10.3.3.3.a notwithstanding, no rural preservation development shall contain more than twenty (20) development lots; except that the board of supervisors may authorize more than twenty (20) development lots by issuance of a special use permit pursuant to section 10.5.2; (Proposal #4): This proposal includes a request for two (2) additional dweHingsl10ts within the boundaries of Lot 1 bringing the total number of dweHingsl10ts a110wed in The Rocks to 46 - the number of lots achievable by right. c. Provisions of section 10.3.3, rural preservation development, shall be applied to the entire parcel. Combination of conventional and rural preservation development within the parcel shall not be permitted, provided that the total number of lots achievable under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2 shall be permitted by authorization of more than one (1) rural preservation tract. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude the commission from approving a rural preservation development for multiple tracts of adjoining land, or on land divided or otherwise altered prior to the effective date of th is provision; provided that, in either case, the provisions of section 10.3.3 shall be applicable; The proposal meets this criterion. d. The area devoted to development lots together with the area of roadway necessary to provide access to such lots shall not exceed the number of development lots multiplied by a factor of six (6) expressed in acres; The proposal meets this criterion. e. No rural preservation development shall contain less than one (1) rural preservation tract. The commission may authorize more than one (1) rural preservation tract in a particular case pursuant to the various purposes of rural preservation development as set forth in section 10.3.3.2 or in accord with section 10.3.3.3.c, as the case may be; The proposal meets this criterion. f. No rural preservation tract shall consist of less than forty (40) acres. Except as specifically permitted by the commission at time of establishment, not more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be located on any rural preservation tract or development lot. No rural preservation tract shall be diminished in area. These restrictions shall be guaranteed by perpetual easemen(accruable to the County of Albemarle and the public recreational facility authority of Albemarle County in a form acceptable to the board. In accordance with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle, the director ofplanning and community development shall serve as agent for the board of supervisors to accept such easement. Thereafter, such easement may be modified or abandoned only by mutual agreement of the grantees to the original agreement. The proposal meets this criterion except that no more than four (4) dweHings or lots shaH be aHowed within the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract and only within the area where the four (4) lots currently exist. Please note that staff will not be commenting on "Section 10.5.2 Where Permitted by Special Use Permit. ..." This section of the ordinance is used to determine that the division is compatible with the neighborhood with respect to the suitability of soils, suitability of land for agricultural or forestal production, traffic generation, proximity to developed areas, effects to capital improvements programs, and impacts to the watershed. These issues were considered with the approval of the original special use permits for the rural preservation development. 6 ;Z~ . . . A TT ACHMENT II Section 31.2.4.1 Reserved to Board of Supervisors: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? Proposals #3 and #4 wil1 have the most impact to adjacent properties. (Proposal #3) The proposed extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane wil1 directly impact all the lots in the Rosemont development in tenns of construction nuisance. And although the projected traffic which wil1 be generated by the addition of these four single family lots is minimal, (approximately 40 VTPD), it is stiII new and additional traffic. Recurring and long tenn maintenance of the road wiII be another impact. One of the proposed conditions wil1 require County approval of the extension as a private road. This wi11 al10w staff and the Planning Commission an opportunity to insure that road wiII be constructed to provide safe and reasonable access not only to the four mountain top lots, but also to three (3) undeveloped lots in Rosemont. Under current conditions and approvals neither the approved road through the preservation tract nor the "driveway" that would have been built to the undeveloped lots in Rosemont would have fal1en under this level of review. Construction activity wil1 be relatively short tenn and wiII be monitored by the County with periodic inspections of both construction and erosion and sediment control measures. Another proposed condition wil1 require County approval of a road maintenance agreement which wil1 provide a structure of perpetual responsibility for maintenance of not only the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension but the private portion of Rosemont Drive as well. It is staff s understanding that the Rosemont Homeowner's Association has requested that the four mountain lots be incorporated into the Association. As such the owner's of the lots will be required to pay dues which wil1 be used for road maintenance. (Proposal #4) Any future construction of dwel1ings/Iots and access thereto on Lot 1 wi11 have impacts related to construction. Although all activity must occur total1y within the boundaries of Lot I, any negative impacts should affect only those properties within The Rocks development. One of the proposed conditions requires that future construction of a third dwel1ing or any subdivision of the lot comply with applicable Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance regulations. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? No. The proposed amendments are in keeping with all RA zoning district and Zoning Ordinance regulations and should not pose noticeable, long-tenn negative impacts to the area. Will the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? Yes. On a whole the proposed amendments meet the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? Yes. Any future development of Lot I wi11 be of a character in keeping with not only the zoning district but the immediate surrounding area. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? Not applicable. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? Yes. All of the proposed conditions are written specifically to provide these types of protections. 7 ~S-I A TT ACHMENT II RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff has reviewed the applicant's request and recommends approval of SP 03-079 with conditions. It is staffs opinion that this approval is a double edged sword. On one hand, left to develop as approved and given current housing market trends, it is unknown whether a developer would actually undertake the expense of upgrading the existing/approved road to the mountain top lots - it is possible. There is no question that approval of the access proposed through the Rosemont Development will now make these lots much more marketable whereas today their marketability is questionable. On a purely physical, environmental level the proposed road through Rosemont makes sense and it is on this level that staff makes a recommendation of approval. The differences between the current approved development and the other proposals are neghgible. Recommended Conditions of Approval: (These recommended conditions include many of the original SP-91-36 conditions of approval, slightly reworded, and new conditions to reflect the current proposal) 1. Development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the "Special Use Permit Plan.. . " prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2, 2004. For purposes of these conditions it shall heretofore be referred to as "The Application Plan." 2. The boundaries of Parcels identified as Tax Map 74, Parcels l8C, 18C 1, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified only as shown on "The Application Plan." 3. Within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 there shall be allowed a total of 4 (four) dwelling units or 4 (four) lots. Before the 3rd dwelling unit can be constructed a site plan meeting the requirements of Section 32 of the Zoning Ordinance or a Site Plan Waiver, per Section 32.2.2 ofthe Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the County. All subdivisions within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 shall conform to the rules and regulations set forth in Chapter 14, the Subdivision Ordinance. 4. All dwellings/lots within Lot 1 shall be located east of the floodplain ofIvy Creek. 5. A minimum often trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots and the lots permitted by condition one, in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots. 6. Clearing of land shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads and dwellings; 7. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural environment. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or light colored roofs are prohibited. 8. Concrete driveways visible ITom off-site shall be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural environment. 9. The bridge shall not be constructed until the approvals in conditions 9 through 19 have been obtained; 10. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control permit; 11. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; 12. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3. of the Zoning Ordinance; 13. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private roads shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards. This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide ITontage to all the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map 74, Parcels l8C, l8C 1, l8C2 and 18C3 as shown on "The Application Plan." 14. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard of the private road extension at the time of review. 15. The existing road, shown entering from Rocks Farm Drive, parallel to Interstate 64 and meandering 8 2Jo · · · A TT ACHMENT II through the Preservation Tract shall not be improved or widened except for agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. It the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road plan and an erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. 16. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the rural preservation easement shall be amended to allow the modification; amendment to the easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies or guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. 17. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement shall be recorded with the plat. Attachments: Attachment II A - Application Plan Reduction (dated 4/2/04) Attachment II B - Location Map Attachment II C - Action Letters with Conditions of Approval for SP 90-119, SP 90-120, and SP 91-36 Attachment II D - Historic Resources Locator Map Attachment II E - Reduced Line of Sight Profile Showing Surrounding Historic Resources 9 t27 < ""'" ""'" E-i Z ~ ~ == u ~ E-i E-i ~ ~~ D . , " ~ >- z w :> ~C'I~ ~ t- ~~: ~~ g ~ æON~ ~~ 5 g WOW.... >- ~æ~~ ~g¡~!! ~~ ~ ~ Q.II:öt- ~pj<..,f£~ ~ ~ ....2...J~ ~ 10....('\11-:> Q:S ~<~... ~iÔ;¡Jå,,: ~ ~ " w « 4(~ :e:o<l(....... ~ e! Cl.T'"~~ ~ (I)Lua:::EZ ¿ z~~ ~...:>w ;r;;S:g::a:5 Œ 5¡¡~ :),g~fßU);ta::..JO:.~o« ~ö= ....IoaŒð~~~Nr--~~ 15 ~-. ~~H)j~:?(J)If¡::Ô~~~ . ..~¡: ~~>~ 0 ß¡:::>~2 ~ ,=§~ (J)a:::!ii!~~~~ß;;¡~:¡: ~ ~¡¡¡!:1æ (l)t-(I)~ ß ~56! . "".ii.·,/·i' , - : .,{<,/ ?,,' . :. ',«', .i,'/X{ ,.'<' t,;>;,~o "CT''2''~>&/< ,. '." 'if ';. <i. '.' ..~<;,~..../.'i':;'~{ij", .'% 00\,{''''< . "',/,,.' ·'>i? 'liW'" ...., '\';i'<.:is;¡ ,:.< . ..,""~';'t')~ ,i)'i 1 .. ' ". . <; _ :'~=~.. '·'iSif".,,~<k.~~ ~;11'~ '''J¡ ';;','[1; < 1:,' .' '--. '- .</ he 'J' .";,;' \\,' :.' ;' "~:::';:"I,¡i;".../.'(~~~" .il, 'c:;"':¡' g'ijl9; ""I':]!.! ii,,; , l) . ,~:Z:¡:! .....' ;L" ... ";(,, 1"....' ,'¡''', ,,~: .'(" ~t ..C:'. .. i'¡!¡;;;~.;;:; i' . '<i"i;~!'/Yi,i\,ti/X i'!i;'·,!ìI. .' : .' "'.: \..II:f' " . ".""."'" '~'")''' .." ,., r \\ .........i.ii:;';..' i',c. '-'ii., ..' I>' "i~ ../>.,.kf·'i '.' ¡..;....:..' . :\; .. .... . >/ .' ' '.cc....e> ,..!'!" .,~ j¡;¡d,ii. ._" J."i ). ' ,,' ,.,..... '" , .. i ì c, 't; I' Y ~/,'I": ' i RF' ,'. \ .... · ,,"F~! '......, L'2.<7·. ' .". xC"" .' F.;:y¿'''¡~f. / ; l H¿.,,,./,i: :"p2:-~:t.",;;. .../.:.: --<...,. · 'F <' :~~:'../i¡~;k'~i~""';' ;:,'1", /. ,..,.",,~;' i.' / / ,.,' . . " . ,.,,\~ ' . /~ ,,' i ',' '.A'''''''' > . .~~,¡ fF!li ,,'"" I ./ I" ¡ " :' \' .~í.' ,; ',,,, ','> ......, '.jf!"';, 7 ~f.j ¡ II:.: '1>/ i, ! \l ~./ '/~." < ........j//. ;,,'''' .'/.'};.,,, ,,"}f;'('''. f'''';'''''~' ¡,.\¡,!.; / / / ., /,,/1 ~.~""",:" .'1,' .(:"c",. ~.,'" :, . I ! / ,/,,// \ ~ ':11 . ,,' , . '",;",xJ.:." i: . I / 1"/ " j.. ' L -'--.LL_.'_,/'(~"~//;~'" "" .,' % ,< t, ,-,,,,,. . ,; \ " '" i',/ .~., ))J~I ()~__~'i' L ' ,,,,//-/ \, "" ,," " ¡:{ I i~ ., . I ,'-' "-'- j '~,' ~~. . /" ' .", li!,¡; // ", ---- ", .,.-="", . )~.t' t\"" ,.,' . ,,;I,! :: /'" "I I ":if(!i:i:' . .' ~. },,; , (. . 'i,;¡i'\:' \~i Y~<:"~ ",. :\"-<.\~" \ F' !I" ,., ~ :,. ) \ .,.., / '1' /iii i'¡ t!;-j .", -.-,b./ ¡¡,,', \ /" . ~\.\j,!;r/. .' !~.. ; ¡'~. · .leI r""'" "- if" \ ,,/ '" .'~' ,,\ 'i~ ~ :t\'l" -, '-- - ",-' ;/ _.'i,I[' · .~; .'~ .if,:' .r(k il!'--" ~~¿¡;,:., iJA·,F i '"~.;~,,I-~:;> \ "",,,~)/~>/" \\. \ " ' \ '" " ' 'i ,J ~, " \' \ / ,,' ,\ .)< '.' . ,"_' / ",,<.\.,! \ /' \\ . ') ,\;3 j,<!! ' "1. , .,;:::.1' ¡, -^(~ '. ·".L.L ,/ '\ , §.:~ J \ _ ~' r.' . )j C :-ij I;" , '" ' -''''1 .,' ,. .~' ..P· "" " ' , \ 't '. ,k, ..' ..",,,,-/1 "'-'::C"'!".:;cé~,",">_!' . ' /, ,,::r'\ /--1 I , I" ,,' ~,,';fit">//!" ~--' '\ / I ' (:/) 'ß7'/~"" /\', / ' . ,- ,.-- ! .' .// ." / .' 0' '. ," I . .. ,. \ \ \ ,. , .' ,/ ¡/ ( '~~. ! \ i '" y.-I J . . ',' F~\ ,:::!? h!,' ¡ , ,r·.c, I -., ". I' ~.¡ . \ Ii -., . \'''\ \: hi ii' j /t--l >!'.' \ f ,. '~.,¡;' \~'''-.~;~<: ..' ./~.,,~. ¡, / _____--/,/"'-------n-L---,j ~),,' . , """,' '/id"~ ií .... .""v v,,\\ / /ii f :1------ _" '.,....';f/ r-''''-¡! T-', "\ \ ,tJIII; l... ¡! I '\ -' \ Y· c," / -- . \ ' . r'" ," . "'" ì __.-1 -'l ~!ç; <;:,/: '~¡, jÎ ---....:..\-----.:.."::~l-,' ¡ i';',,¡j'¡,~: '~__,.-__ --n-'T-----_J¡--1 ___Jr--,----.-,! !f'!!,,' ¡¡;,¡ì¡; ,,_ ,7 <,,"_ - I . ,,' . ..' ,f "", L_, if / '''i " ' ,-"".1 -'-7/ (,;' \ ..z. ¡I"':::::-' / .//: " // _.:;::-1,'....../ '-"J ( /'-A.. ,! '- / ", .,...../ "....., ! "", ''j ~, : ~~..........~~--~,........',) ~-- .....- -....., ',- -·.....__f '-, '" / --', ", "- "" \ ê " ')~! .1:;, 8§ ~~ 0* _ 6 n ~ ~; ~r.' ~ " mmi _, "~i 5 " ~ ;:!m ¡ 057 058 059 .1'.....<. ~ 14-151" ATTACHMENT II B / f£f-Ifö ,/// ~"" :«(¡~. . /. ~-;;;- ~.J'.>. \ .: ~ ð',~ ': \- r-----~ (/ -.1--.............. ¡.I ~ .-./ '0 \,-,,~ 1... ". ''''''-'' ~------------ f' ! ! ..... i .... ..... 14"5ê \ 58-95 '------/'-~:....... , \ . ~".. _....r...\. \ ' '~ ~ UJ ..... :? ~ .,f ..... /\ f:::·7'··-·· /iØ~ ~: / ~ /.>'-\. ~ '( ~ '~/ )1/ M ..... o .... .,f ..... ¡/ /, .>'" '6'Q \ \ \ \ J \ ~ \ j ~ \ f' ,.> .\1 If J!l ø // #;;/', """"""", "-........,,~, "- , "75-1 '>"'<>", / /-, ? j'" ""<5 i --.......... I " / / '\ I ',' \ l/ / .>"'...... I··... /'- '.;r~ -.., / "'-, '" / \ <;/ ,.>,'-¡ ~ I \ "..... "''<8 / " / / . I ......./ / j--./ / / I I ø ,,-¡'Ii N ,¡, ..... '. \ \ 1\\ \ \ L I', I . ) , \ \ \ --;. \ ~ \\ \ .... \ '--"'\ / ~ l ____< ,\bi ///~. /' Ii 74-6F /' 74-6E / .>.,.<>6' "- ~" ......... .:~¿"'" ,.>, 'y. . "'.;> ..- ~ ,/ .... .../.. .~ ....., , '. '" >'11. '-', ~'-'" "'6'''9 ''-,,- '. "6',>-'.... . :.: 'I' ;:! .,/ r·~· ._..._..r./ í ------ / 74-60 087 088 089 ! Scale Albemarle County Tax Map: 074 w" 0<_._,... ...... . .~. --'- , Jf~'~ ?í ~ '''~' ~;~ ~ o 890 1,780 Feel 2.670 Note: This map is for display purposes only. See Map Book Introduction for additional details. ..::)4 ~ ATTACHMENT II ( . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 April 8, 1991 Verulam Farm Limited Partnership 1 Village Greene, suite 100 Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP-90-119 and SP-90-120 The Rocks Tax Map 74; Parcels 18, 18A, 18B and 23 Dear Sir: . The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on April 3, 1991, approved the above-noted requests subject to the following conditions: SP-90-119: 1. Not more than four dwellings/lots shall be allowed in the preservation tract and shall be located as shown on the preliminary plat. Lots shall be no less than 2.0 acres and no greater than 4.3 acres in size. All dwellings/lots must qualify as "Family Divisions". Approval of SP-90-119 does not guarantee approval of "Family Division"; 2. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from the public roads, i.e., 1-64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots; 3. Clearing shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads and dwellings; 4. New dwellings shall be of earth tones. . 30 ~ A TT ACHMENT II C Verulam Farm Limited Partnership Page 2 April 8, 1991 SP-90-120: 1. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: a. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; b. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; c. Department of Engineering approval of hydrogeologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of bridge and road plans. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. sincerely, Development vwc/jcw cc: Pete Bradshaw Amelia Patterson Richard Moring 2/ ~ , . , '\0';10.. f' ATTACHMENT II C . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road CharJottesvilJe, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 August 14, 1991 Verulam Farm Limited Partnership 1 Village Green, Suite 100 Charlottesvillé, VA 22901 RE: SP-91-36 Verulam Farm Limited ptrn Tax Map 74, Parcels 18, 18A, 18B, and 23 . Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on August 7, 1991, unanimously approved the above-noted request to amend SP-90-119 and SP-90-120 to allow private roads instead of public roads. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Not more than four dwellings/lots shall be allowed in the preservation tract and shall be located as shown on the preliminary plat. Lots shall be no less than 2.0 acres and no greater than 4.3 acres in size. All dwellings/lots must qualify as "Family Divisions". Approval of SP-90-119 does not guarantee approval of "Family Division"; 1.. 2. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from the public roads, i.e., I-64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots; . 32- ~ · . ATTACHMENT II C / 3 . Clearing shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads and dwellings; 4. New dwellings shall be of earth tones. 5. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: a. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; b. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; c. Department of Engineering approval of hydrogeologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; 6. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and "drainage calculations. Private road shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous standards. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning RSK/jcw cc: Amelia Patterson Jo Higgins 33' +5- 057 u~o 14_1s¡: ----- 14_15E ~ · ,/" ,<Jò 1~' --'/..-"'.,.... \....._...F..\. ~ ~ :!? ~ ,- ---- ---- ;--- -'-'-- '~r 74'14A ;~:.-.o.:o.- _" ~--¡- ,,¿.···_·-t.~~.,. \.. ----.. ,.r=---- 1.......···.....- if¡ .,.... ..._....r' \ ~ r- "'. I m .., ::; .~',;.._..._..._..."""'..." ...r..·../'···--··· ~. / ~~~::, ~ 1'\ ~ / -:) ß ~ .\ , ~! , a / (. ~/ I ,I /'. \ "'>9 "- A TT ACHMENT II 'D 74-178 ~':\v/" ..,~- '''.>.: ~ <:> ';' l:' ;:! ( .... ':. .... S. 58-95 '- UJ .... ... .... / \, \. "" -', '. - '-'''-'' f --- : 1 /' I '-" ."\.. ':.,-..--,..- Tt., R.oqL-J Ab...U l~¿ li'1£ .... .. .... f;\ '. ~iL~ Ið'Oð "' ... .... 74-18 'r o ... '" ),- ¡-, : "- /~......... ~ i , ~,59... ~ : ~ /., I \~'I." ¡ 'I.'" : ' ¡~/'> ¡ ./'. ! \\, «.,~( Iv<--.. ~.. .. ,~~/ /7' -----.:.:..~~,. ~//// · \ ~\ ; / ¡ /---. \\ I ~ .;~/' .... p '-' ,.> / \ \ .---, ""'6: o '. " ,...-/'/ "·v-:/ ...... ~ . ,~"6'v ""." I" ./ ../ ~ ;i ..., '" ;i I '" ;i ""'6: ~ .... p t . .. · 088 ~ "6',>- '" '" ~ j>' ,\bo / .... p '-' Ii' / --------' ~ ------..... ..-------- '75-1 ""'.2... ¡'............, ..... I 1'1_<,5 ............--.. -...... '" ""''.26' ~ ~ ""'.;r "', \? ...../ ./' .' "'-. '---. ""'.26' /~ ¡ .-'~ ~ '~ ~g,. -,' '. '" ...-......... 'I. .~ f) "./ v' " r./ ~\å, ~" ,~\ :!\'O iY ~" ~"'''} '-...-.- 14-21(; \ "0 \ "- '" ,;, .... ..------ . ;-----.-: 74-6F / 74-6E \...1 / ",yo. ( 1~_u .1~_f:l'>!,/ _____ ~.., _' __ ' /.. 74-6G ~ :/",... \ 17 ri·..... t.'· ..~ - 087 --- 74-60 --. ././ . o 1,780 Feet 2,670 Albemarle County Tax Map: 074 W· ;......-...... - -~~.'~ ." -, Scale 890 Note' ThIS map is lor display purposes only. See Map Book Introduction for additional details. ,~V- Ii? ATTACHMENT II I i ¡ í 3-) ~--=d -It 2004 E 9cIOC,gJ08~R~~ 2 \~'T ..~______ ,,"' 90 DAT ¡',g SERVER TM')DE SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT THE ROCKS MOUNTAIN LOTS LINE OF SIGHT PROFILE 30 HORIZONT AL SCALE: 1" II 200', VERnCAl SCALE, '" . 200' THOMAS B. LINCOLN LAND SURVEYOR, INC. 671 BERKMAR CIRCLE CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 434-974-1417 20, 200 -, E ATT ACHMENT II 1500; 1<2.0.2: 12.00 00 1.~_OO 1300 1~.OO '.'.ÙO 1,,00 __990. 800 ~g9 600 900 800 60;00 NE"~.COMB MNT D OtV SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT , , THE ROCKS MOUNT AIN LOTS LINE OF SIGHT PROF LE - n' _ _..~ ... ...... ... ...u. .__ ...u 0+00 BEAR DEN MNT. _ _ _ _ J ~ OF ;S C3RÖ\Jf"D LINE n '" I 8 , < 00 :1000 9~? eoo ?,º~ '00 500 4~O 300 ;00 ;q~ 100 '00 '9° 19.°, 00 '00 00 9~ 00 0.0. 00 00 0·:00 '?9_1?_. , 1500_ 1600 00 ~ # 00 QO-OO93-N'. TMC-DEL SERVER1: DATt>,9 \90 \ 90009.3088XHIBIT,PRO . }O ........- 60;00 "·r~' 3nl, THOMAS B. LINCOLN LAND SURVEYOR, 671BERKMARGI-RGLE- - CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 484"974,1417 ,. OCTOBER 22. 2003 i 0.:(.0 Ella Carey From: Sally Thomas Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 2:41 PM To: Board of Supervisors members Cc: Larry Davis Subject: FW: The Rocks and Affordable Housing Importance: High Board members, since we only got The Rocks from the Planning Commission on Friday, there has been some quick re-working. The decision on this proposal must be made tonight because state law changes our PRD on July 1, so it's tonight or else the developers don't get any of their changes. I don't want to keep them from making the desirable changes on the mtn top lots and the access road that goes to them. I do want to be as sure as possible that the visual impact will not be counter to our adopted Comprehensive Plan Mtn Plan, so that is the motivation for # I., below. I will not insist on this if the developer proves that the proposed wording ruins the proposed lots. My second motivation, expressed to you in an earlier e-mail, involves affordable housing. We can hold onto the additional 3 development rights that apparently were left on the table when this PRD was approved back in 1991. There is no legal requirement that we assign them. Our Planning staff would be somewhat happier if we assigned them, because assigning them will lead to Lot #1 becoming its own PRD with a conservation easement on the 100-or so acres, if the owner of Lot #1 utilizes the development rights. That's more of a guarantee than rural zoning, which could be changed someday. The owner of lot #1 will be much happier because the Rocks' lots (without house) are selling for $400,000 a piece, and he can imagine a similar windfall from being given 3 additional lots of his own to sell. I will move that we follow our planning commission's recommendation and not generously add these hypothetical development rights to Lot #1 unless there is a public purpose to be served, such as at least one affordable dwelling unit. Rosemont and others in the neighborhood do not want low-cost housing for fear it will change the value of their homes, but living in a rural area that has an ag-related dwelling is typical of Virginia estates and can be proven, I believe, not to diminish anyone's property value. It will be the first chance we have of insisting on some affordable element to a large rural development, and will set a precedent that we will be glad to have, I believe. Hope most of you have a chance to read this before tonight. salIy From: Sally Thomas Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 2:26 PM To: 'AToomy@cstone.net'; 'tboyd@leclairryan.com' Cc: Yadira Amarante; Wayne Cilimberg; Larry Davis Subject: FW: The Rocks and Affordable Housing Alex and Tara, Here are the proposed changes in the conditions. They have not been fully vetted in county office building, but I wanted to get them to you as quickly as I got them. SalIy rrh011WS I. Proposed condition to preserve the treeline. I don't know what the impact of this buffer will be on your proposed building sites in the mountains, so I'll want to know your reaction. This meets the goals of the comprehensive plan for designated mountain areas. But I am appreciative of all you have done to develop the lots in a less obtrusive fashion than alternatives, so I definitely need to know the impact of this, esp. now that you've gone up to the lots earlier today. A 50-foot wide tree preservation buffer shall be maintained, within the Rural Preservation Tract (Tax Map 74, Parcel 18), along the common northern, southern, and eastern boundaries shared by revised Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, l8Cl, l8C2 and 18C3 and The Preservation Tract, Tax Map 74, Parcel 18. A 50-foot wide tree preservation buffer shall also be maintained, within The Preservation Tract, along the common western boundary of the easement of the private road extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane and Tax Map 74, Parcel 18 - The Preservation Tract. This buffer shall be defined, recognized and protected in perpetuity by language in the body of the easement held by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority in order to reasonably shield from view any improvements located on Tax Map 74, Parcels l8C, l8Cl, l8C2 and l8C3. II. Below are suggested modifications to the conditions to address Sally's issues. The bolded language is what was struck by the planning commission and is proposed to be reinstated, the red language remains excluded, and the bold underlined language is new proposed conditions, including new #21. Please provide me your comments and thoughts. Thanks. Larry W. Davis Albemarle County Attorney 1. Except as otherwise provided herein development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the "Special Use Permit Plan..." prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2, 2004. For purposes of these conditions the plan shall heretofore be referred to as "The Application Plan." 2. Except for minor boundary adjustments, (as determined by the Agent), the boundaries of Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C 1, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified only as shown on "The Application Plan." 3. Within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1, there shall be allowed a total of 4 (four) dwelling units or 4 (four) lots. Before a building permit is issued for a second dwelling unit, or before a subdivision plat is approved creating a new lot(s) within the boundaries of Lot 1, this special use permit (SP 03079) shall be amended and a new application plan shall be reviewed and approved administrativelv by the County authorizing the dwelling units or lots. For purposes of these conditions the term "subdivision" shall also mean family divisions. 4. All subdivisions within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 shall meet the design standards and special provisions set forth in Section 10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes the requirement that it be demonstrated that the additional lots combined with the other approved lots do not exceed the actual number of lots that could have been achieved by conventional development of the total property. 5. All dwellings and development lots within the boundaries of Lot 1 shall be located east of the floodplain of Ivy Creek. 6. All future development lots subdivided from Lot 1 shall be no larger than 3.26 acres in area, shall be located in a manner consistent with, and be integrated into the overall design of the other development lots in The Rocks. 7 . A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots, including those permitted by condition three (3), in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots. 8. Clearing of land shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access roads, dwellings, and septic fields. 9. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or light colored roofs, as determined by the Director of Planning, are prohibited. 10. Concrete driveways visible from off-site shall be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. 11. The bridge shall not be constructed until the approvals in conditions 12 through 15 have been obtained; 12. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control permit; 13. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; 14. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3. of the Zoning Ordinance; 15. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private roads shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards. This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide frontage to all the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 as shown on "The Application Plan." 16. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard of the private road extension at the time of review. 17. The existing road, shown entering from Rocks Farm Drive, parallel to Interstate 64 and meandering through the Preservation Tract shall not be improved or widened except for agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road plan and an erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. 18. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the rural preservation easement shall be amended to allow the modification; amendment to the easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies or guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. 19. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement shall be recorded with the plat. 20. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner's Association consents to the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C 1, 18C2 and 18C3. 21. If three additional lots or dwelling units are created pursuant to condition #3, above, one of those lots or dwelling units shall be occupied by a dwelling primarily used by a person or persons responsible for the operation or maintenance of the agricultural use in an area designated as a Rural Preservation Tract on the approved Application Plan. An alternative use of the dwelling unit can be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon finding that the restriction above has become unreasonable due to a material change of circumstances and the proposed use is consistent with the general purposes of providing affordable housing relative to other housing in The Rocks. From: Sally Thomas Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 1:05 PM To: Yadira Amarante; Larry Davis Cc: Board of Supervisors members; 'Tara Boyd' Subject: The Rocks and Affordable Housing In order that we not be hypocritical and put "affordable" housing only into our discussions of urban projects, I feel that we should say something about affordability of a few units when 47 houses are going to be built in a rural area, as we certainly would in an urban project of that size (see PI Cmm discussion of Stillfried Lane's 26 units, e.g.). The Rocks request is for us to assign 3 development rights that are "floating" in The Rocks project. Staff agrees that the 3 rights exist somewhere. PI Cmm wasn't willing to agree that they still exist since they were not included in the original RPD request. So, I assume that it is at least arguable that we are adding value to Lot #1 if we assign those rights to that lot (as requested). If we over-rule our pi cmm and make that assignment, are we not duty-bound (i.e. in order to follow our own comprehensive plan) to try to have some affordable units in the 47-house development? I have spoken with the applicant, but only in hypothetical terms, about the possibility of at least one of the development rights being assigned to a farm-manager's dwelling, Even if rented rather than sold, this type of dwelling unit requires a development right. It creates a working family's affordable living situation. Many of us have thought that the rural area should have more dwellings of this type -- rural rentals related to agriculture. But we've never taken official action to encourage them, that I'm aware of. Such dwelling units, since they utilize a development right, are usually discouraged by our limited number of development rights. The Rocks has a 106 acre lot, Lot #1, that will be assigned 3 additional development rights, if we make that assignment. Utilizing at least one of those rights for a 2-acre farm manager's home would be a very small step toward affordable housing, but at least we would be moving in the right direction. I have not spoken with the applicant about reQuirinq anything in the affordable range, and I am unsure whether we are legally enabled to do so in this case. Any use of the additional 3 development rights will have to go through a special use permit process, through pi cmm and bd of supv. It is not totally certain that 3 additional building sites can be found because much of the property is in flood plain. So, we are not approving 3 sites; on Wednesday we would simply be agreeing that the development rights belong, if useable, to the large Lot #1. Given that the use of the rights would have to go back through the planning process, attorney Tara Boyd has wondered if we could wait until that process before saying anything about affordability. would prefer to have us give policy direction, at the least, or something stronger if possible, to direct the applicant towards affordability. I apologize for springing this thought so late in the process. Sally Thomas Ella Carey From: Sally Thomas Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 1 :05 PM To: Yadira Amarante; Larry Davis Cc: Board of Supervisors members; 'Tara Boyd' Subject: The Rocks and Affordable Housing In order that we not be hypocritical and put "affordable" housing only into our discussions of urban projects, I feel that we should say something about affordability of a few units when 47 houses are going to be built in a rural area, as we certainly would in an urban project of that size (see PI Cmm discussion of Stillfried Lane's 26 units, e.g.). The Rocks request is for us to assign 3 development rights that are "floating" in The Rocks project. Staff agrees that the 3 rights exist somewhere. PI Cmm wasn't willing to agree that they still exist since they were not included in the original RPD request. So, I assume that it is at least arguable that we are adding value to Lot #1 if we assign those rights to that lot (as requested). If we over-rule our pi cmm and make that assignment, are we not duty-bound (i.e. in order to follow our own comprehensive plan) to try to have some affordable units in the 47-house development? I have spoken with the applicant, but only in hypothetical terms, about the possibility of at least one of the development rights being assigned to a farm-manager's dwelling. Even if rented rather than sold, this type of dwelling unit requires a development right. It creates a working family's affordable living situation. Many of us have thought that the rural area should have more dwellings of this type -- rural rentals related to agriculture. But we've never taken official action to encourage them, that I'm aware of. Such dwelling units, since they utilize a development right, are usually discouraged by our limited number of development rights. The Rocks has a 106 acre lot, Lot #1, that will be assigned 3 additional development rights, if we make that assignment. Utilizing at least one of those rights for a 2-acre farm manager's home would be a very small step toward affordable housing, but at least we would be moving in the right direction, I have not spoken with the applicant about requirinq anything in the affordable range, and I am unsure whether we are legally enabled to do so in this case. Any use of the additional 3 development rights will have to go through a special use permit process, through pi cmm and bd of supv. It is not totally certain that 3 additional building sites can be found because much of the property is in flood plain. So, we are not approving 3 sites; on Wednesday we would simply be agreeing that the development rights belong, if useable, to the large Lot #1, Given that the use of the rights would have to go back through the planning process, attorney Tara Boyd has wondered if we could wait until that process before saying anything about affordability. I would prefer to have us give policy direction, at the least, or something stronger if possible, to direct the applicant towards affordability. I apologize for springing this thought so late in the process. Sally Thomas Commission Consideration of the Applications to modify the development plan for The Roo. Page 1 of 4 Ella Carey From: Briney, Roger [rogerbriney@dwt.com] Monday, June 07,200412:56 PM 'ecarey@albemarle.org' 'tboyd@leclairryan.com'; 'atoomy@mcleanfaulconer.com'; 'yamarant@albemarle.org' Commission Consideration of the Applications to modify the develo pment plan for The Rocks at Ivy Importance: High Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ella W. Carey Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Dear Ms. Carey: I had exchanged the attached correspondence with Yadira Amarante of the Planning Commission regarding the proposed changes to the development plan for The Rocks at Ivy. My wife and I are not opposed to any of the changes provided that the following condition be added to the attachment of rights to create 3 more lots by partitioning Lot 1 in the development: that the 3 additional lots be subject to all of the same covenants and conditions to which the remaining 42 lots (Lots 2 through 43) in the subdivision are subject. Can you ensure that this email is entered into the record upon which the Board of Supervisors relies in making its decision? It would be unfair to enable those 3 lots that more than likely will be near the entrance to the subdivision to not be subject to the same conditions as all other lots in the development and would also run counter to the representations upon which those of us who have purchased lots to date. I understand that Lot 1 is exempt from those covenants because of its unique nature (e.g., the fact that it is to some degree capable of being a working farm) and purchased my lot (Lot 19) with that understanding. However, I did not anticipate that 3 more lots could be created at the beginning of the neighborhood and that those lots not be subject to the covenants filed with the development plan and applying to existing lots 2 through 43. Therefore, if the Commission is to grant the proposed modified plans as described in the notice, I would urge it to include an additional condition on the granting of rights to form 3 more lots from Lot 1, namely that all such lots be subject to all then existing covenants and conditions to which the other 42 lots are subject. I appreciate the Board's consideration of these views as it decides what action to take on these petitions. Roger & Jenny Briney Owners of Lot 19, The Rocks at Ivy ********************************************************************************* Hi Roger, Your letter did not make it jnto the packet distributed to the BaS, however I did have a chance to speak to one of the Supervisors and she is aware of the issue. You should go ahead and email a copy of the letter to the BaS's secretary at e ca~~_Y~éll be mar I e_'_()~9' Yadira Q. Amarante, Planner County of Albemarle 6/17/2004 Commission Consideration of the Applications to modify the development plan for The R.oo Page 2 of 4 Department of Planning and Community Development +01 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 yamarant(U albemarle .org (434)296-5823, phone (434)972-4012, fax From: Briney, Roger [m~llto:rogerÞriney@d\fVJ,-cQm] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 20044:28 PM To: Yadira Amarante Cc: 'Roger Briney personal (rbriney@cox.net)' Subject: RE: Outcome of Planning Commission consideration of the changes for 5 ign 49 Yadira Thanks for the feedback. I am assuming that my letter will be passed to the Board of Supervisors in the event that they decide to reconsider the action of the Planning Commission? If this is not the case, let me know so that I can address a similar letter to them. Roger Roger A. Briney Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1500 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 450 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 508-6603 Cell: (202) 251-7002 Facsimile: (202) 508-6699 e-mail: rogerbriney({¡)dwt.com we bsite: l1ttp:/LW\YW.<lwt.com/lawdir/a ttom~ys/I3rin_e}'RQg~r.çLI11 -----Original Message----- From: Yadira Amarante [mailtQ:YAJ1áRANT@illb~rnªJle,-019] Sent: Wednesday, June 02,20043:32 PM To: 'Briney, Roger' Subject: RE: Outcome of Planning Commission consideration of the changes f or 5 ign 49 Hi Roger, The Planning Commission recommended approval of the following: 1. Boundary line adjustment between the Preservation Tract and lots in Rosemont. 2. Boundary line adjustment between the four "mountain top lots" and the preservation tract (basically moving those lots higher up the mountain. 3. Change of access for the four "mountain top lots" from The Rocks to Rosemont. Then Planning Commission recommended denial of the following: 1. Allotment of unused development rights to Lot 1. This goes to the Board of Supervisor's on June 9th. As to your other question. The County has several committees going at once but I have no idea how people get chosen to participate or if it's on a volunteer basis. I am forwarding this question to Janice Farrar (434-296-5823) who's the 6/17/2004 Çommission Consideration of the Applications to modify the development plan for The R.oo Page 3 of 4 Planning Secretary and hopefully she can help you. Yadira Q. Amarante, Planner County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 40 J Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 yamarant(u albemarle .org (4-34)296-5823, phone (4-34)972-4-012, fax From: Briney, Roger [mªiltº~[QQ~rÞrio~y@dwt,-~Qm] Sent: Thursday, May 27,2004 10:06 AM To: 'yamarant@albemarle.org' Subject: Outcome of Planning Commission consideration of the changes for 5 ign 49 Yadira I assume you received my email. Can you tell me what the outcome was for the Commission's consideration for the changes to the development plan at The Rocks? Also, I don't know whether there are any citizen committees for the Planning Commission, but if there are and you could use another participant, I would be willing to do so if I could do so from out of town. Thanks. Roger ******************************************************************** Yadira Amarante Planner Albemarle County Department of Planning & Community Development Re: Sign 49 - The Rocks at Ivy Dear Ms. Amarante: I appreciate the infonnation you provided to me in response to my request for more infonnation about the proposed changes to the special use pennit for a rural preservation development for The Rocks at Ivy. I and my wife are the owners of Lot 19 in that development and we have no objections to any of the proposed changes. However, we would like to request that the proposal to recognize the right to create 3 additional lots within the area encompassed by existing Lot 1 by seeking a future subdivision be conditioned by requiring that any such lots be bound by all of the covenants applicable to the remaining 39 lots in the development. Currently, Lot 1 is not subject to those covenants as it is the original fann house and associated outbuildings and the developers chose to carve it out because of its unique nature. However, it would be inconsistent with the intent of the development plan to pennit 3 additional lots to be created for the purposes of erecting single family homes of the nature of the others to be built in the neighborhood and not have those homes subject to the same covenants. I would appreciate your consideration and approval of this proposal. I understand that you will present this request at the Planning Commission meeting on May 25,2004. If you would like to discuss this further, I can be reached at any of the numbers listed below. Roger & Jenny Briney 10965 Woodland Falls Drive Great Falls, Virginia 22066 (703) 444-6290 (home) (202) 251-7002 (cell) (202) 508-6603 (work) Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1500 K Street, NW Suite 450 Washington, DC 20005 6/17/2004 PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THE ZMA-2003-012. Stillfried Lane Townhouses (Signs #21 &51) 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. NAME (Please Drint clearly) PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (ODtional) 1~::7t-1' k~~'5;~(jN Q <.(;;7 8fì-¿ Y:S0 P L777 I r T 2 { ( 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . . . . 22-05-04A02:57 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 May 20, 2004 Nicholas Michaels Weather Hill Homes, Ltd 315 Old Ivy Way Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: ZMA-03-12 Stillfried Lane Towhouses (Sign 21, 51) Tax Map 60, Parcels 32, 33 and 34 Dear Mr. Michaels: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 18, 2004, by a vote of 6:0, recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 9, 2004. 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 (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, ~ ~ Margaret Doherty Principal Planner MD/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Date: RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING {ß- cJ - ex-{ c¡ . Agenda Item #: Clerk's Initials: t:;L,) L- Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # ) PROFFER FORM Date of Proffer Signature: _6.9.04 ZMA # 2003-012 Tax Map 60 and Parcel Numbers 32, 33 and 34 6.514 Acres to be rezoned from R-l (Residential) to PRD (Planned Residential Development) Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned with the offered plans approved for development. 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 request. (1) The development on Tax Map 60 and Parcel Numbers 32, 33 and 34 shall be in general accord with the plan produced by Terra Partners, LLC, dated December 19,2003, revised April 23, 2004 entitled "The Stillfried Lane Townhomes at Poplar Glen", herein referred to as the Application Plan, (sheets 2 of 3 and 3 of 3). (2) No building pennit shall be issued unless and until the Director of Community Development, or his assigns, detennines that the building facades are in general accord with the architecture plans produced by Bossennan Design/Development, dated 10/29/03, last revised 12/22/03, entitled "Poplar Glen, Stillfried Lane Townhomes", sheets p-l, p-2, and p-3. The façades shall be determined to be in general accord if the architecture implements features that break up the massing of the building, such as the porches, porticos, variations in building materials, and gables which break up the rooflines (3) The owner shall avoid cutting all trees (greater than six (6) inches diameter at breast height) in the area labeled Conservation Area on the Application Plan. (4) The owner shall bury all utilities on the project site during the construction of the townhouses, including those utilities (electric, telephone, sewer and water) serving the UV A Cochran House on Tax Map 60 Parcel 34A, prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any dwelling unit. (5) The owner shall contribute a sum of $3,000 cash per dwelling unit to the County for funding Capital Improvements or affordable housing programs. The cash contribution will be paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Pennit for that dwelling unit. If this cash contribution has not been exhausted by the County for the stated purpose(s) within ten (10) years from the date of the contribution, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the owner. -/7 fJ ~ Signatures of All Owners MARC. f'oW~U., \I.P tb Wf}.1\1tif- ~¡u. / _ q _ Ò /L - f~1~ LL' (J) ì Printed Names of All Owners ï . (., Date OR Printed Name of Attorney-iñ-Fact Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) . STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARGARET DOHERTY MAY 18,2004 JUNE 9, 2004 ZMA 03-12 STILLFRIED TOWNHOUSES UPDATED: The staff report has been updated to correct errors reeardine references to previous plan. ApPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant and property owner, Weatherhill Homes, has proposed rezoning three, relatively small, adjacent properties from R-l (Residential) to PRD (Planned Residential Development) to accommodate a 26-unit townhouse project at the end of Stillfried Lane (See Vicinity Map - Attachment A). The applicant has provided a set of proffers (Attachment B) and conceptual architectural building elevations (Attachment D). The applicant also requests a critical slopes waiver from the Planning Commission and the establishment of the internal setbacks by the Board of Supervisors. PETITION FOR REZONING: The applicant requests to rezone 6.652 acres from R-l (Residential) to PRD (Planned Residential District) to allow up to 26 dwelling units. The properties, described as Tax Map 60 Parcels 31, 32,33, and 34, are located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District on Stillfried Lane offlvy Road (Route 250 West) behind the Kluge Children Rehabilitation Center. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Residential in Neighborhood 6. WAIVER AND MODIFICATION REQUESTS: Critical Slopes Under Section 4.2.5, the applicant has requested a critical slopes waiver. This critical slopes waiver will allow for the construction oftownhomes and accessways on those slopes. Establishment of the internal setbacks Under Section 19.9.1, the applicant requests a reduction of the internal setbacks. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is situated behind the Kluge Children Rehabilitation Center at the end of Stillfried Lane, which is a private road (Attachment C, Sheet 1). The site is on Lewis Mountain, which gradually slopes up from the Kluge Center and Route 250 West below. The front (northern) portion of the site is an open lawn with numerous large poplar and oak trees. The applicant's plan seeks to conserve as many of these trees as possible. The rear of the property is heavily wooded and rises steeply towards the top of Lewis Mountain. The applicant's proposal limits grading and construction in the rear of the site and the applicant has proffered to preserve the larger trees found in this area. There is an existing house on one of the three parcels that will be removed. The following uses surround the property. The Kluge Center and single-family home, which is currently owned and operated by UV A as an office, fonn the northern boundary. Two vacant lots and another single-family dwelling that is used as an office fonn the eastern boundary. The University Heights Apartments lie beyond these properties to the east. To the south and west, . the site is bounded by the wooded Lewis Mountain and the mansion that sits atop the mountain. . Stillfried Lane Townhouses - ZMA 03-12 - Staff Report #1 1 SUBDIVISION AND ZONING HISTORY: There is no subdivision or rezoning history on this parcel. BY-RIGHT USE OF THE PROPERTIES: The parcels total 6.514 acres ofR-l (Residential) zoned land. With R-l zoning, the applicant could build up to six dwelling units. Using the Ordinance's bonus provisions, an additional two dwelling units are possible. ApPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST: The applicant has proposed a townhouse project that they feel provides for a high quality, relatively high-density project that does not impact the site's natural resources. The applicant is also designing several of the townhouses to be smaller than the others. These smaller units will be offered at a reduced price and thus be available to a wider market. Finally, the applicant intends to retain as much of the vegetation on the site as possible and provided an attractive architectural product. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning (ZMA 03-12) with the attached proffers. Staffalso recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver and the internal setback modifications as proposed. ***** STAFF ANALYSIS CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This section assesses the ability ofZMA 03-12 to meet the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan, Neighborhood Model Principles, Community Facilities Plan, and Open Space Plan. Conformity with the Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan calls for Neighborhood Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) on these properties. With the proposed 26 units on 6.652 acres, the projects density is approximately 3.9 dwelling units per acre. Thus, it is consistent with the Land Use Plan's recommendation for density. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for Neighborhood 6 The following are the Comprehensive Plan's general recommendations for Neighborhood 6 which are applicable to this project (in italics). . "Development plans along Route 250 West and Fontaine Avenue are to be sensitive to their status as Entrance Corridor Roadways. " While this project is not within the Entrance Corridor, it is visible from the entrance corridor because of the elevation difference between the site and Route 250. The County's Design Planner has asked that the applicant retain as many of the large trees as possible to minimize impacts to Route 250. The applicant's design responds to this request because it seeks to preserves the large trees in the area of the proposed townhomes, especially those trees along the common parcel boundary with the Kluge Center, and because the applicant has proffered to preserve the trees on the critical slopes in the rear of the site. . "Consider the design and public faCŽlity recommendation of the City/ County/ university Planning and Coordination CounCŽI for the Lewis Mountain-University Heights 'Area B' Study. " Stillfried Lane Townhouses - ZMA 03-12 - Staff Report #1 2 . . . . The Lewis Mountain-University Heights Area B Study makes the following pertinent recommendation: . Land Use Changes in the County: (on) Lewis Mountain: Due to steep slopes and significant wood area, designate for low-density residential use. Clusters of higher net residential density may be allowable if natural environmental conditions are not adversely affected. Staff believes that the applicants proposal represents a higher net density product that clusters the development, thus keeping it away from the critical slopes, preserving the trees on the critical slopes, and retaining many of the larger trees within the area of the proposed townhomes. Therefore, this proposal satisfies this recommendation. . "Locate a new fire and rescue station in this area to service Neighborhood 6 and 7, the University and Ivy as response times require. The station should be funded and operated jointly by the City, County and University. The station should be staffed by volunteers to the greatest extent feasible. " The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) calls for three new fire/ rescue buildings in the Development Area. These stations are slated for Hollymead Community (in Fiscal Year 2005), for the Route 250 West/ Ivy Road Area (in Fiscal Year 2007), and in the Pantops Area (no implementation date). While the Stillfried Lane site is in one of these three areas, and while the additional townhouses will intensify the demand for the new station, this site is an inappropriate site for a fire/ rescue station. The applicant has proffered $10,000 towards any CIP project and conceivably, this proffer money could go towards the new fire/ rescue station. Conformity with the Neighborhood Model Below staff assesses the ability of ZMA 03-12 to meet the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model. Pedestrian Sidewalks are provided through out the project. The applicant is also Orientation providing a sidewalk down to the Kluge Center. Neighborhood The project proposes relatively narrow streets (24' wide) with curb and Friendly Streets and gutter and sidewalks. These streets are in keeping with Neighborhood Paths Model Standards being developed by the County. Interconnected The project is at the end of a private street. Interconnections to adjacent Streets and properties are difficult due to terrain. Staff does not believe that interparcel Transportation road connections are advisable with this application. The applicant has Networks indicated that they are investigating the possibility of a pedestrian connection to the University Heights Apartments that would follow the sewerline that they will need to install through an adjacent parcel (Tax Map 60 Parcel 35) in order to connect with the sewer which is located in U- Heights. Parks and Open The proposal retains woods in the rear portion of the site and provides a Space system of trails to allow the residents to access the woods. Neighborhood The project's location and relative isolation makes it ill-suited for a mixed- Centers use center. The project is close to several smaller shopping developments on Route 250 that could, through time, redevelop into neighborhood centers. Stillfried Lane Townhouses - ZMA 03-12 - Staff Report #1 3 Buildings and Spaces The applicant has proffered conceptual architectural plans (Attachment D of Human Scale and Attachment B, Proffer 3). Staff believes that this will provide the necessary regulatory control to ensure that the buildings' mass will be of an appropriate scale. Relegated Parking Almost all of the parking will be provide for in garages. Mixture of Uses The project does not provide for a mixture of residential and non-residential uses; however, staff believes that the project's terrain and relative isolation makes it ill-suited for a mixture of uses. Mixture of Housing The applicant has proposed several smaller townhouse units that will be Types and priced less that than the other condominiums. However, these smaller units Affordability will be priced higher than what the County's Housing Committee has deemed to the upper price limit of an affordable dwelling unit ($175,000). Redevelopment This is an infill project, which utilizes and expands existing infrastructure. Site Planning that Staff believes that the applicant has carefully situated the buildings in order Respects Terrain to minimize the impacts to critical slopes and stepped the buildings up the slope to minimize the amount of grading required. The applicant has also limited the use and height of retaining walls. The largest walls on the site are below Building A and are primarily intended to protect several large Poplar trees that would otherwise be removed ifthe walls were not provided. Clear Boundaries The proposal does not have a common boundary with the Rural Areas. with the Rural Areas Conformity with the Community Facilities Plan As stated above, the CIP calls for a fire/rescue station in the Neighborhood 6/7 area to reduce response times and increase fire and rescue capabilities in the City, University and County. Conformity with the Open Space and Natural Resources Plan The Open Space Plan identifies "Important Wooded Areas" and "Mountain (Areas)" on this property. As stated, staff believes that the applicant's plan will effectively to protect these resources. The Open Space Plan also identifies a large critical slope system on this site. As stated above, the applicant's application does not significantly affect the critical slopes. ANALYSIS OF THE REZONING REQUEST Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PRD (Planned Residential Development). The intent statement in Section 19 of the Zoning Ordinance for PRD district is as follows: "PRD districts may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map in accordance with the provisions set forth generally for PD districts in sections 8.0 and 33.0, and with densities and in locations in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The PRD is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on the surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is intended to promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best interest of the county and the area in which it is located. Stillfried Lane Townhouses - ZMA 03-12 - Staff Report #1 4 . . . To these ends, the PRD provides for flexibility and variety of development for residential purposes and uses ancillary thereto. Open space may serve such varied uses as recreation, protection of areas sensitive to development, buffering between dissimilar uses and preservation of agricultural activity. While a PRD approach is recommended for developments of any density, it is recommended but not required that the PRD be employed in areas where the comprehensive plan recommends densities in excess of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre, in recognition that development at such densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact. (Amended 8-14-85). " In general, this proposal is in keeping with the intent statement. It is sensitive toward the natural characteristics of the site and buffers the adjacent historic property. The use of the PRD district also allows for the efficient use of land and a better development by allowing the developer to use reduced setbacks internally. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services ROADS VDOT has requested a turn and taper lane on Rou.te 250. The applicant has proffered to provide this as part of the site plan and the turn and taper is shown on the Application Plan. Stillfried Lane is a private road and the applicant will have to work out any maintenance and right of way issues with the owners of this private road prior to site plan approval. . WA TER AND SEWER There is sufficient water and sewer mains capacity in the area to accommodate this development. Water and sewer service is provided on a first come, first served basis. In the urban area, water/sewer system capacities are shared with the City of Charlottesville and the City has equal access to the excess capacity in the systems. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Staff has reviewed the applicant's conceptual stonnwater management plan and has detennined it to be feasible from a conceptual standpoint; however, the issues of adequate capacity and downstream channel capacity may present problems at the final site plan stage. Additionally, there are concerns that will need to be addressed at the site plan stage related to conflicts between proposed landscaping and stonnwater maintenance easements with the location of the proposed underground detention facilities. SCHOOLS Impacts to the school from the proposed 22 additional townhouse dwelling units will be minimal. FISCAL IMPACT A fiscal impact analysis has been perfonned for the project (Attachment E). Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources The Lewis Mountain Mansion, which is directly behind this proposal, is identified by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources as a site with potential historical significance. No adverse impacts to this historic property are anticipated because of the elevation difference between the two sites and the applicant's proffer to preserve the woods on the rear portion of the Stillfried site. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties Staff does not anticipate significant impacts to adjacent properties. Stillfried Lane Townhouses - ZMA 03-12 - Staff Report #1 5 Public need and justification for the change This plan provides for a quality infill project that is in line with the County's growth management policies and addresses most of the Neighborhood Model principles. ANALYSIS OF THE WAIVER AND MODIFICATION REQUESTS Critical Slopes Waiver Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5.2 allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction upon finding that a strict application of these provisions would not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver, which addresses the five . health, safety and welfare concerns that are set forth in the Ordinance. Staff has addressed those concerns both directly through the analysis provided herein, and with the standard process for administrative review that is applied to all site development proposals. According to the Engineering Department's analysis, critical slopes are spread throughout the site. The proposed forms of critical slopes disturbance varies from the construction ofthe buildings, parking lot and amenities to site grading and the location of stormwater management facilities. The development of this site, as shown on the site plan, would result in the minimal disturbance of the critical slopes. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the five concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled Critical Slopes. Because this site will be served by public sanitary sewer services, there is no concern that the proposed disturbance would increase the potential on the travel of septic effluent. The Engineering Department's analysis addresses the concerns for excessive stormwater run-off, increased movement of soil and rock, and siltation. During construction, this site will be subject to regular inspections for adherence to an approved erosion control plan. In addition, the applicant has indicated that they will phase the construction of the development so that Building A is the last building to be constructed. During the construction of Buildings B and C, the area under Building A will be used for the erosion and sediment control structures. According to the Engineering analysis, certain techniques for slope construction, drainage control and vegetative stabilization on the finished slopes will be required to properly address the concerns large-scale movement of soil and rock and siltation. Additionally, Engineering staffhas recommended approval of the requested waiver with a condition requiring the stabilization all finished 2:1 slopes with a certain type oflow maintenance ground cover. The Department of Planning and Community Development's analysis ofthis request gives consideration for the concern with the possible loss of aesthetic resources. Staff recognizes that this site has critical slopes and mountains delineated on the Open Space Plan Map. Although this request would result in the removal several individual trees and small groups of trees that are spread through out the site, this tree removal is limited to the less steep section of the site. Therefore, Planning staff finds no significant concern for the loss of aesthetic resources that would result from this request. Modification of Internal Setbacks The applicant has proposed to meet the building setbacks from all adjacent properties as required under Section 19.9.1. Internally, the applicant requests that the Board of Supervisor establish the following minimum setbacks and yard requirements: 4-footfront setbacks, 6-foot side yard setbacks, where the units share a common wall, the side yard setbacks will be O-feet, and IS-foot rear yard setbacks. Stillfried Lane Townhouses - ZMA 03-12 - Staff Report #1 6 . . . The Engineering and Planning Departments have reviewed the proposed setbacks and have no objections. Private Roads Because Stillfried Lane is private and because the applicant wishes to sell the townhouses as individual units, they will have to request Planning Commission approval for private roads under Section 14-232, subsection A (1 & 4). A private road waiver request can only be processed with a subdivision plat, which has not been submitted. However, staff has reviewed the rezoning application with the knowledge that private roads will be necessary to support this rezoning. staffwill support an eventual private rezoning request ifit is accompanied with a plat that is in general accord with the rezoning. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. The proposal meets all applicable principles of the Neighborhood Model Principles. 2. The applicant has provided cash to assist the County's Capital Improvement Program implementation. 3. The proposal ensures building massing and architecture that will create a human-scale development. Staff has identified the no factors, which are unfavorable to this request: RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning (ZMA 03-12) with the attached proffers. Staff also recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver and the internal setbacks as proposed. ----------------- ATTACHMENTS: A. - Vicinity/ Tax Map B. - Proffers C. - ZMA 03-12 Application Plan D. - Proffered Building Elevations E. - Fiscal Impact Statement Stillfried Lane Townhouses - ZMA 03-12 - Staff Report #1 7 $ H.f í/f ~H~a' ¡¡if ~~~ i~-<Ir~r h¡J1 iU1¡î "$1 ê\ {i~ 'ª J1Î ~ ~ i <:> ~ ~ en e: ::;; ... 0, CD N "I Q, æ: OJ ¡;;» ::I~ IDO -10 °6 - :::e ... :. ::I I\) gj Š C III :: - ~ OJ ~~ .. ~~ 'f " þ.." \\~E~ þ.. 'f'f ^ C ,/ "'-. ~-. , I ~ . ~nfil~ -::I-~ 0 a-¡; Il- iaa- i~~rU ¡h¡¡¡~ iif if = i!.1 = a¡~ ê) {¡~ ~ t~i ~1 f & c . en e: ::;; ... !\) CD N I\j Q, š:: C r-» 1\1 I :IN C'D0 -to OW :e6 ... :J ... ... :T N C 0 C II) C'D II) iJ ~ ~ ~ ' .,+~ .. . ~ ATTACHMENT "A" c[ ATTACHMENT B Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # ) PROFFER FORM Date of Proffer Signature: _6.8.04 ZMA # 2003-012 Tax Map 60 and Parcel Numbers 32, 33 and 34 6.652 Acres to be rezoned from R-l (Residential) to PRD (Planned Residential Development) Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned with the offered plans approved for development. 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 request. (1) The development on Tax Map 60 Parcel Numbers 31, 32, 33 and 34 shall be in general accord with the plan produced by Terra Partners, LLC, dated December 19,2003, revised April 23, 2004 entitled "The Stillfried Lane Townhomes at Poplar Glen", herein referred to as the application plan, (sheets 2 of 3 and 3 of 3). (2) No building permit shall be issued unless and until the Director of Planning and Community Development, or his assigns, determines that the building facades are in general accord with the architecture plans produced by Bosserman Design/Development, dated 10/29/03, last revised 12/22/03, entitled "Poplar Glen, Stillfried Lane Towphomes", sheets p-l, p-2, and p-3. The façades shall be determined to be in general accord ifthe architecture implements features that break up the massing of the building, such as the porches, porticos, variations in building materials, and gables which break up the rooflines (3) The owner shall avoid cutting all trees (greater than six (6) inches diameter at breast height) in the area labeled Conservation Area on the Application Plan. (4) The owner shall bury all utilities on the project site during the construction of the townhouses, including those utilities (electric, telephone, sewer and water) serving the UV A Cochran House on Tax Map 60 Parcel 34A, prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any dwelling unit. (5) The owner shall contribute a total of $26,000 cash to the County for funding of park and/or pedestrian projects of the County's choosing, identified in the County's capital improvement program, prior to or at the time of the issuance of first Building Permit for any dwelling unit. If this cash contribution has not been exhausted by the County for the stated purpose within ten (10) years from the date of the contribution, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the owner. Signatures of All Owners Vito Cetta Printed Names of All Owners Date OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact /0 THE STILLFRIED LANE TOWNHOMES AT POPLAR GLEN . . . . ", ~ ','0 ~;:;~ ~^v,/ /::;/ \ > ()<:s,;:/ ~ J ,/ /~ ,/ ,::C~) ,7;' , , --- ", ,~:.5--/ ...//'1..' ,5 -----------.. ..:::.::.-) /1 II rj ,I , I , , " / IS ~ !Ii ~ ¡;¡ ~ ----------- ~----T--r \\--[~.-l 0 C~~.·~. __.-. ~\.' ¡:¥/ 3:----... f-·' ¡ c·.::=..==:.:.·.......___r-......-: tcJìO \--- 1--- --, '-----, ----. ---. J '" '~ ~- \ . \ \ J OÐe~ UII~:: ~ i!Hi~i~~~il!iªi~~i~iißi ~z ~~ i j~ª ~ Ii 'ï: ~ii~~~ ;~§~a~'«~B lí9S~~rP ~ I H I ~ i 8 'I; ø ~ ~h ¡ ~ ~ g§è ~.u u f~ ; !~ ~I~ E .f2 J s ~; æ ;J i ~ ~tt1 !iqa §~ B~U !!~H~~!n> I æ ð q~~I"' ¡ g~s~d ii!~~~~£i~~~r ¡ ~ ~ ~ I ~ê . ~ a b I"' 0 ~ f I~ ~ ~ ~~ . 'z - ,,> ~;~ L I Ê ~~ !~I!i H ãP H~n. b Q ð ~ ;;~!.....J ii ~ ~ ~ ;1! ~ rB ~ ~ ~ ,,~." ~ ~ fin ~ .~ § § ~ ~ ~!~! g B ~ 3~ ~~ ~ f~ 11 ; ~ ~~ ~ tt1 . 0 ~~~I~ I ~ ~~I.~H I~! h~i¡ ~ n Z ~!~ e~IIU~IiIB ~pq~L o· n I~ ~ liB ~ ~ ~ Iqi;! H ¡¡ Bin, ~. ~~l~ ~ Ii!n ! i ~I~~n n ~~ nln !§ ~ ~ I!! ~ f i~QI~~ ~~ à~ ~l¡ > il igiglii~d~~a~b~q\ ~ II !11~I¡!!II¡ili !" ~~~î~ j~LJì!5,.1 ~~i~ i~~~1 U~~~~~¡g¡ iiJG~t ~NE. ª~~! ~ 11 ~'i ~ ~ ~f" I ~ ~!~~~~ ~ ~ i~! ~ §:~~J~ 7 ~ )~1 ~ ~ ~g.. i ~ ~ ¡ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ð 1 > ." ." :e ~ ¡;; . s ~ . ~ ~ ~ i i i iI - ¡ ~ & O. ; \ .' ¡! l ~ " I' I 1> ïJ ;:0 ~ ~~- > ~~ ~~" '1~ '" 5~ ~i~ " x ~~ä ~trj ~ ß3 ~ I:t cQr- IE~ a ~~ ;~~ ~..,~ ~~ e}!l~ II' rnt!1 ~~~ ~~~ '" 't--:;.:! ~~E ,"f5~ ~?; ç~~ ~ ..,x $~~ ~= ~~~ c 0- r¡ ~; i~ ~ .~ g ~ ~ 0 8 ~ > ~ ~ > ¡¡; (5 o ~ ~ ~ c: W :e ~ ~ ~ '" .... ... ~ .... " ~ a- ~ ~ í 1/ ., ~¡~-_.: . -~- --r-M-.p-~_-~" -~ .... // .. ..J /' ~....;(~ ~ ~ ~'. ' .>- "*:..~:!, ~ .., I':, ttI,,~ '-! ,~ ..j ... ~ ;, (/ -" -,. '- " I. "'" -I "," ;¡; .~'V~ . i. ~, "'!Å /./. ! .~"\ ".,'-' './ -- / j~ $ N !.t:('.ß" . ,,'y , " , " , ' " ' "................ ......-.'3<1-.. I , I , " ~ ~i!\ ~¡:¡il'!\ £~" \ I\~:b.~ \ I \ ' , " I I I I I I I J , \ \, , , , I , , '. --..----- \. ~~~~~~~~ddl ~<i~~ii!i~ ~. I ~ ~~ ~ ! J . i . ~ P~jiJ~~q~~ 1'"0 <HLL~~'Qn j...-; ªriPn~~q Ê ill ~s· itTj ~ K1 ;:¡ '.'....¡ i,> ~ ~ ~~n~~ ~ !U b .. i d~rc qi ';p. ,~¡ ~ ¡~!¡ '"! Þ. ml r. ~U ! a ªi ~ g ~ ~~ ! . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.:;h t: t ~a i ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I' j ~ j ~ ~ i ~ s~~ i ~~ ~ . ~ "!or ~ ¡; ill ¡ o ." A1.RF.M.\RU: eorNTv, VmGtNU EXISTING CONDITIONS/CONTEXT PLAN """- ......... ,. » -t -t » (') :I: s: m z -t (') () .... z w :! J: () <C .... .... <C ,/ i NVïd NOLL V;)IïddV ~j. ê æ~ ~¡::ri ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~; ~~~ er ~~ "ge ~-! >, ~ it ~~ 0:<: ¡' :j ð£ ..J ~ ~!~ d¡::¡ Q ::t:¡.. oJ ~~ ' IX..J 5 ~: .. ;a: .2 ¡.¡ . ... ~~ ~ ~~I ~~~ ~g ;; t5 ~ ~Ši: ~ ;" ~ qq ,¡s ! ... ...... NN ~.¡. g II; ~ ~ :> 0 B g ~ " ;; z fij ;:; 8 < ~ '" Q Q '" o VLNL~MI.\ 'U,;;¡o:¡ ¡1111V1~¡¡U'IV N N3'lD (lVïdOd cL V S3WOHNMO.L 3NVï G3nIdïïI.LS 3H.L ffi ;; :!; ",;¡; t ~~ ~s; -;:-. ~:;: ~ ~ ~ - ,.- ~ '- ._\ - -. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ , " \, Q., 8 ~ C( ~ It" .~ ";}. '" l( 'I: (¡¡ (!) IJJ \ :' ."'¡ \ " <0 <s t\:: ¡¡: ~ C( ~ ""':k '~I:.', \ ~ ~~~~\B~ L' Htl\,''':'.", ~ IV ;¡: Cj..... I "It",,, . _ _ _ __ ~ ~ '- ~ \ ",1,',<',\,",',',:',';!~ ll.c¡" \ ¡.'. " ",,:<:'\ , ,'~; )" 1, ___~\ v ~¡ h ~. Q: Z' -<, ~. P-.; Z1 o .....1 H <i ;;\ p;;: ~\ wi z;: 01 u: 'ÌI; " , \ -..... \ I ~ ~ IV II:¡ ~ ~ lli ::;¡ ~ --H La ~ I I i. I .I !! II ~ .... t;:¡ w :x: !J) ~ Z w ::E w 6 a:: c.. ~ W f- iñ LL u. 0 w w II) w z ::::¡ :x: u !;( ::E \ '- / ! / \ " , , , I '-..' s' ~ / II. ~ r'" L~ 4 ~ --.... 12 'I' "~ ..,~". ..~.',.' ~\ 61 --- .-- Wil.. " ðz~U.' '- _ ", ..'··..r·~]·'..nl!i \, . - ..:. -~-'--:r ì \ \ I 1-'- ,j '-.-- ~ . ~~ "o' g~ , t~ ~ ~'-. ~ h~~~ ~~~"~~ß .3<ô<s~it~~ /. .~ ~¡;;; ~ c>:¡ I\ '!fJ1 '~~ ~ Cj f,,! "!<J~ if ¡.;: o ~ /' ~ --- --- --- / .-- - /' /' f _ _-'>oJ. ¡¡; '~ . / _ -æ .~,~"!,::,, - ~::¡ ~ ~ " /., ~~~'Ç.~ --- ....~)..~~ /' Q.. 1:>\lJQ......f4 '- . -~ \f¡.;::::¡e ~ "" ~I~ ~. ~ ~ " f.:~c¡~~ " " .- -,~¡g -. " ~ " ~ " " , , " " ' , , , "" , , " , , " ", \ " "'\\ ", ' "\ \ " .. \ '. " " , ,,",',', "\ \ \ II \ ~ , ' , ," , ' \ \ \ '\ ','" ",'..','.\ \\\\\\'\, , " ',. \ \ \ \ , \ \ \.' \ ", " , ,\ '" \ ," \ \ " \. \ ' , " " '.', " '\." \' ,\ \\ \ , , ,,' " ,-. \ ~ " '." ,,,', ,,',' ',', \ ,\' ,,",', . '......, " ',', " ,," '-" ",', '. ,,"-.. ......... ........."" ' ........ -..."""" '...."'"... ,,' ,,' ',"'\. "'-. ", ........."~'.. .,-... .... , '<' '.~ ,~'" ., ,,<.~. .~. .:., ~ <,".'::' ,', " "','.,.",' "", '" " ,," ,,' '...., .;, .,,' '.... ....,.~, "......'- ""- ...... " '-.. '- - '"" ' ", ,,' " .... " "......... '-......... "" " " '.. "'''' " ", .....,.... '.."'......... '.', ................... ,..........--- "',, "'- '"'. "... " "".... ",,"""',,""" , .....',........ ...,......... ", "" '. ", ". "" ", . .... '" "". ',,""". "......... ~" ......... "'" -', ',,' ,,"" ..... '-,........ "," '.......... -.......... ......... ......... ". ". "". '. ,,'" '. " " ,,' . '-." '-" - ................................., .......... , " "" ".," ," '-. " '. <" ,""- ,-'-.- '" ...... '... ....., ..... ' ,,'-, -'. . '," "" ',', "'-- -..... -....... ....................... .......... " ,'" "'" "'- '-, '- .... "" "-..... ..... " .... "\. ", '\. " ,'\,-." '-- -..... ......... '..... '- ~ ................ " "'" ,,"'\. ""'''' '-" '-, ....." '-',..... ....'.... '" '. ,,' .... '\. ',', '. ... ........... --'" ..... ,.,"......... ' "'" '. " ...., \.." .......... ......... .....",,," ........ ....... " " " ", " " "" '. "- ......", " ""," ..... " " ", .... '" "., " "~'" "', ',~" ....... '. ,-" "......... ......... " ...... " \ --- ..... ..... "-- .... '- -----~:.-- . i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡ g ! ~ ~~. ~I~ cni ~. rT'~~ ~~æ £:11 U~ o¡§ id Z i a ~;~ Zi.* ~ p¡¡ <~ i d¡; ~ ~ ~ n~ P-. ~ r:: .J Z ~ ~ šat o i ~ §h ..... " ¡ i~i ~ § § .~~ > ~ ~ h: p;; ~ i ï~1 ~ ~ ~ ni ~ ~ ~ ~i~ Z!~ ~ ~*~ 81: ~ :ï~ '-.ti:o-ø....... ...... , , - - - - -,¡.¿,¿-.. " .... , , , , , '. "" ". . ...... ' ..... , .------- " ...... ..... ..... ..... --- -- - -.- '- " ..... '-. , " " .... ..... ..... -- - ----.... " ...... " \ . . . . / ----- "">, '. .~ __.l"...."".... .... I . I l r¡. t)/ ì::~ t::¡¡¡¡;j~~ ~~~~~ .... !? ~):¡;¡;~):¡ '" I ~Ç)rt;<!;¡;: ~¡¡:~~:¡,; I :¡;:~ ~ .. ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ tfi ~ (;j :t. ):¡ (;j "_ I <...: ~\:5::. r-.,t!j~l~ \:5~ >:: ~f;:j"'~9> gJ):¡~~~ :OÇ);t~'" ':"~'îì~~ "'~'" . (¡j '," ì:s ~ Q ~~~ ~ ~ !:\i ~,~ ~=:í¡g¡~ ~):¡~ ):¡ ~Ç)~ ~ ~~~~ ~ rt; ~ " / r· / í oj. // / , ' .' f' .', " ", ". .~ ~ ',. ~ , J ..,..... «& . ·~()Úh I ~~...~ ~ ~ '-......~~... . ".;~.-:...~:,-- - ........ "r~_-* . '\_'i;:'~'~;~~!, ~ '" ,,~ \ ""t. )\ .... ";':~ì~'Y \- ~ ~ rA := C c 8 rA ~~~ ~ :¡:~ ~I ~ "=~ :t t'1 rn > ~ ~ <: ~ a .!: ¡¡¡ i ¡;; ~~~ § 0> ~ ! ~~~ ~tTj õ . ~ W ~ ~ i<~ s::~ ¡-~ "'..~ ~~ ...~~ rn~ ~§ ~.. ~ .. ~' ~~~ ~~: .. - " ~~ ~ ... q ~ ti:¡: il~ æ! 0 ~ ... "( ," e ,,- h ." A' lift .¡: ... "3 ~ . I I ,f ~~~/ I ~ I ;¡: :Þ --t () J: r Z m C¡ ." :-i~ ~rt; ¡¡¡~~~ tJ~~ã~~ ~'J:¡~:O~9> ~Ç)~:t.f~ :O"'=<~ ):¡ ')¡Q '" ~ii;''''~~~ ~s:~ :¡J" Ç)~ ~fJj ~ .'..... THE STILLFRIED LANE TOWNHOMES AT POPLAR GLEN ALBEMARLE conny, VIRGINIA APPLICATION PLAN - OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ---.-- \.,1 "'- GJ ,. » -I -I » o :J: s: m z -I o ~:MiJ"14::>JD '01'0 'olla::> O~!^ 969,""IL6 XO 9S'9¡:'¡:L6''''¡;''' O^ all!^SajOp04::> 'POOJ AJIOP 9 ¡:,.. l () 0 1--------- ~':.:W / \ ~-......--.--~ I L., I - I I 1 '1..1) ~ C I- Z W :æ :I: () e:( l- I- e:( N'v'V'H3SS013 D!U!ÔJ!^ 'ell!^SeHOJDLp seWOLUMO~ eUDI peµlll!~s U81Ô JDldOd '011 . S 3 W 0 H lllH ~3HN3M ~uaLUdola^ap/uB!sap ./ /------- ~--:::.':::::~ /f;" . )\~) _0 ~/ " . ~ ..'... "." .r ._ '-..- (êQJ§ aq \Of1 o \ tJl J ~ ......... ~ Q ( li: &: , = ;,.-.)- f'J : :_u~ ~ (:.1 ~ ". o u . ¡.1 ~ ç¿ ,".; ~R ~$ ~ ~- f'\~ llßlJJ /:>---"'\ () // ·r~ " ~ \~v/J o ';-' ~~) ~ o "~ /~ =-=c~~~·::;:.// J J ." // / L~.~~-- ") c n ~--.rv/' . . . (f'~ ~;f . " () .. ,. Õ\ r=----l~I~~ IT <.!" I -C !'Í-< I I I ûJo I ~ , ~ I .'-' =¡'j I ---___J IUI¡, I ¡;¡ g.1 I~~¡þ ~i~~~ing i3 "-1ij ~;;~ scale: I I I~I~~ as shown 1°0 ¡ ) 0 it, . I¡ BO. . (, r~o .' ¡ 0 " .I ¡ "~. ~_.œ~æ ~ Q~~... :....~ ". -- ¡ , I : 0 l~om. c (l~:~\\ ; Q J \..-' " ~ o (~~ .} ~,^"",I -.---------- ". co~O-:) ~\ ,,,J -·L~==~' i I Ov~ b ~J I "-'. ('\.o~~ I.~' \ ~~,s' ~ . " 'EP-~~ .~/ ~ '. '\.,\ ,\ ~1i o )) II // / / />/ // / / /// cc%(~) c; '3 ' , I~~ ~ c·;:·:~ / '\ (~,~~) /-<^ú~~ r "\ ) ~ ~ . f' \"7<1. .;' ~~~ ,,-S...·J-",,:^'J>·, ".J \ 8-~ v ( \\ ~ ¿ (, ('/ 1,-,0 ", L~. ~ <,/ ", _I '" ._,fc~r' .. I B 0 SSE R MAN design/development » -f -f » (') :I: s: m z -f C poplar glen stillfried lane townhomes WEATHER HILL H 0 M E S. lTD. charlottesville, virginia 1419 hilltop road. charlottesville. va i 434.962.2856 fa" 971,4696 vito caito, a.i.a. architect ,.. c ..... z w :E J: U ~ ..... ..... ~ '011 's 3 W ° lllH ~3Hl'v'3~ "DTD . DÙ~~lÒ~;' 969>-'IL6 XD DA ' all!ASajjOIJolj:> .9!iBl'l96 '>-£>-' pDOJ dOjllllj , 6 l y l ~uawdOla^ap/uB!sap NY~AHI3SS09 I ( ~ \ \ ) \ ,. . -~ '--~,,-:!,' '\,.. " \ <I <J , ..;.;;-...:.....o....i;i,1i.', D!U!ÔJ!^ 'ell!^SeHOJDlp SeW04UM O~ eUDI pe!Jlll!~S U8Ô JOdOd UM04S SO I §~I~I!~¡ I ' I ! I II II I : al°:)s ~¡;¡~I! II 11(1) Q~~ I I IlL ^pn~S Iii ... , BUJUUDld ~, , 1~læ-01 ~ e ~I~!~I ~ "t:JlnJ_u ---'1 (V') 6.j J ,/ ( / t ) ,~'J~v- \ ~~---~'J (\ ? ~"--{' ,--I ~ s ---- ~ "··,,,,,,,~,.,,,,_;,o:_":M~,,.£$.,," . . . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE A TT ACHMENT E MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Barnes, Senior Planner FROM: Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Analyst /V""~ DATE: February 24, 2004 RE: ZMA 03-12 (StiUfried Townhouses) I analyzed two separate scenarios for the property in question. The first scenario involved the maximum new development that could take place under existing zoning, while the second scenario involved the new development that would occur if the County approved the proposed zoning changes for the properties. The results of these two analyses appear in the attached "Budget Summary: Current Zoning" and "Budget Summary: Proposed Zoning" documents. In the case of the first scenario, I assumed that eight single family detached residences (SFD's) would be built during the course of the next year. CRIM estimates that, after build-out, the type and level of development that could take place under existing zoning would result in the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact - Current Zoning Property Taxes Other Revenues $11,000 20,000 Total Revenues $31,000 School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures ($41,000) (8,000) ($49,000) Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($18,000) /7 . . . ATTACHMENT E ZMA 03-12 February 24,2004 Page Three As for the impact of this proposed development on the County of Albemarle's capital costs, CRIM estimated the following outcome: CIP Impact -- Proposed Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service ($0) ($25,000) ($25,000) Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service ($0) ($0) ($0) Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact ($25,000) Again, these CIP numbers are included in the total annual expenditures of $86,000 shown on the previous page, and are presented sèparately to illustrate the relative magnitude of capital costs. The numbers generated by the two scenarios that I ran indicate that, if the County approves ZMA 03-12, the differential net annual fIScal impact would be $17,000 - $21,000 = -$4,000. This number means that, annually, the County would be $4,000 worse off approving ZMA 03-12 than deny,ng the proposal. Notes: (1) Although my analysis suggests that the approval of ZMA 03-12 would result in a net annual fiscal drain to the County, this fact alone does not necessarily mean that ZMA 03-12 should be denied, since the total mix of development taking place in Albemarle County in any given year might generate a revenue-neutral outcome; (2) If Albemarle does not approve ZMA 03-12, the growth that is assumed to be associated with this proposed development would likely take place somewhere else in the County; and (3) When deciding whether or not to approve a proposed development, Albemarle takes into consideration a number of issues other than just the project's fiscal impact. These issues include, but are not necessarily limited to, affordable housing, transportation impacts, and environmental well-being. SAA/saa /9 I ATTACHMENT E . ::E II.. 8 N Š OM MOOOO M O~OOO~OOO~OOONOO~WNOOOOO N 10 ~~~~æ ~ ~O N................ N ~~~~~~"ØØ~"~~MØØW~WWMMMØ ~ W C:! .... .... .... .... .... .... ........ ........ S N II 80)N MOOOO M O~OOO~OOO~OOONOO~WNOOOOO N :B ::;¡~~:Q18 u 0 N................ N M~M~W_WMWØWMMØWWM~M"WMWØ ~ .... .... .... .... .... .... ........ ........ CD N 01 I!! ~ CO~ MOOOO M O~OOO~OOO~OOONOO~WNOOOOO N :B ~~~~~ 0 N................ N M~WWMWWMWWWWW"_WØ~WWWØMM ~ .... .... .... .... .... .... ........ ........ N oo..O MOOOO M O~OOO~OOO~OOONOO~WNOOOOO N :B ~~~~æ 0 N................ N W~WWWMWMMWWWWWMWM~WWWWMW ~ .... .... .,. .... .... .,. .... .,. .,. .,. N wm MOOOO M O~OOO~OOO~OOONOO~WNOOOOO N :B ~~~~t8 8 N................ N M~WMMMWMWMWWMWWWM-WMW_WW ~ .... .... .,. .... .,. .... .... .,. ........ N 109 MOOOO M OIOOOO~OOO~OOONOO~WNOOOOO N ~ ~~~~t8 8 N................ N w~wwwwwwwwwWwwwww_wwwwww ~ W ~ .... .... .,. .... .... .... .... .,. ........ N § I!! . ~oo.. MOOOO M o~ooO~OOO~OOONOO~WNOOOOO N ~ ~~~~æ ~MOOCOoo.. i 8 N.,......... .... N w~wwwwwwwwwwwwøww_wwwwww ~ W ........""....co .,. .... .... .... .... .... ........ ........ .... ........ N (/) ~ :I M8 MOOOO M O~OOO~OOO~OOONoo~mNOOOOO N :B ~~~~Œ ~MOOCOoo.. I N................ N ..............ww................................... ~ ;"""-;.:i .... .... .... .... .... .... ........ ........ N ::E æ: u N8 MOOOO M O~OOO~OOO~OOONoo~mNOOOOO N :B ~~~~$ ~MOOCOoo.. N................ N .................................................... ~ ..............c:o .,. .... .... .... .,. .,. ........ ........ .... .... N ~~ MOOOO M o~ooO~OOO~OOONOO~WNOO~OO ~ æ oo..mm~~ ~~~~;~ 8 N................ N .................................................... N.....wN,..... .... .... .... .... .... .... ........ ........ .... .... ....~ N .... ~§ :iN CD a¡>- .= c: 0 N o XI ~~XI (/) (/) " 0. iJj .....I ~ 0 ~~ ~~ ~ 8 ~~1~ ~ 8 CD ëã o.D:::::- w 0 0 Z (II ãi~21i~ ~~~~~XI~ ..~ ~~ . Efu8 Z ::J II ~8Õ ~ ~~§.~ 0 0 Z CD-II..I:;t< ~ ..~ II::Z .....10 CD 'tJ .l: :I: CD Q. 8~~~~~~0~~Zi(/) <&II::~ ~ ~ XI ~ o o-(/) lI::~ãi~::J ::J 8lJ~~'¡ e ~~~8:~~CD8~~ð~ ãiŠëS II::~ ~E I: .cc..g ~ Q~~~~U ~ 'ê~~II..~ ~ II:: D. ~ ~~~~::J~~~~~~~..'tJ~oCD'tJ~~u~E~ 018 (/)~ ,." I CDtI)Q)CÐ- u~~~~::J ~8>~~CD<O~&<~::J~~ CD II:: ~ ,§ >.15 0 ,§ ¡;'15 0 ':;/, _01 :2!D..!ã¡ CD êi ilt:~~1ii il::lI..~lii::J !'3 0. ~ee~~~~~_šË:jiisæi~z ~~ ::J ~ :~XI~8 Ii! 8 Z S~~::JZ I: E o~~~~ I: ::J II::ZII::Z II.. æ~~~~88œ~~~~u(/)U~~(/)~~~~~~ ~ _O(/)UU(/)~ <u as ..... E ~NM~~moo..comO~NM~~moo..comO~NM~ .....I ~ .....I 0 . ......................_..................NNNNN ~ < ~ E "íii' (5 :J § º (/) CI ! ~ U) ~ .....I ~ ¡:: ....{311..(/) ~ II:: ~ ~{38 15 .... ~ - w Z a ð ai CD .!::)OW :I: C/):I: ::J < N a¡ :~Œ~ .Q b .Q 0 ~ ::J ::J ':;/,ifi~ .....I M " (/) (/) U ~ :J !~ ~~ ..... ~ m ~ ~ ::E N é)J f COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: Margaret Dougherty, Principal Planner FROM: Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Analyst (\M DATE: June 9, 2004 RE: ZMA 03-12 (Stillfried Townhouses) [Revised] I analyzed two separate scenarios for the property in question. The first scenario involved the maximum new development that could take place under existing zoning, while the second scenario involved the new development that would occur if the County approved the proposed zoning changes for the properties. In this revised second analysis, I used the developer's assumptions about the market value of the proposed residential dwelling units. The results of these two analyses appear in the attached "Budget Summary: Current Zoning" and "Budget Summary: Proposed Zoning" documents. In the case of the first scenario, I assumed that eight single family detached residences (SFD's) would be built during the course of the next year. CRIM estimates that, after build-out, the type and level of development that could take place under existing zoning would result in the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact -- Current Zoning Property Taxes Other Revenues $11,000 20,000 Total Revenues $31,000 School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures ($41,000) (8,000) ($49,000) Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($18,000) RECEI" c:u j; uV.;) IYH_,- . ...,.... ,q.04 Oate: AgenQé; 8 . I· . f::7;Jv Clerks OItlaas;____:-,___.. ' ,-- ZMA 03-12 [Revised] June 9, 2004 Page Two In terms of the annual impact that the development of eight SFD' s would have on the County's capital costs, CRIM estimates the following result: CIP Impact -- Current Zoning 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 Cty. Govt. CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact ($0) ($18,000) ($18,000) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($18,000) Note that these ClP figures are included in the fiscal impact numbers listed on the previous page. (The $18,000 in capital costs is part of the $49,000 in the estimated total annual expenditures resulting from the development of 8 SFD 's). These ClP numbers are presented separately to highlight the magnitude of the capital costs that would be associated with such development. The second scenario that I ran involved the proposed construction of 26 SF NTH units on the properties. Per the developer's instructions, I assumed that 22 of these dwelling units would have a market value of $425,000 while 4 of the dwelling units would have a market value of $180,000. I assumed, also, the development would be completed in one year. CRIM estimates that, a:fter build-out, this project would have the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact -- Proposed Zoning Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $63,000 49,000 $112,000 ($85,000) ($22,000) ($107,000) $5,000 ZMA 03-12 [Revised] June 9, 2004 Page Three As for the impact of this proposed development on the County of Albemarle's capital costs, CRIM estimated the following outcome: CIP Impact -- Proposed Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service ($0) ($32,000) ($32,000) Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service ($0) ($0) ($0) Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact ($32,000) Again, these CIP numbers are included in the total annual expenditures of$107,000 shown on the previous page, and are presented separately to illustrate the relative magnitude of capital costs. The numbers generated by the two scenarios that I ran indicate that, if the County approves ZMA 03-12, the differential net annual fiscal impact would be $5,000 - (-$18,000) = $23,000. This number means that, annually, the County would be $23,000 better off approving ZMA 03- 12 than denying the proposal. Notes: (1) Although my analysis suggests that the approval ofZMA 03-12 would result in a net annual fiscal benefit to the County, this fact alone does not necessarily mean that ZMA 03-12 should be approved, since the total mix of development taking place in Albemarle County in any given year might not generate a revenue-positive outcome; (2) If Albemarle does not approve ZMA 03-12, however, the growth that is assumed to be associated with this proposed development likely would take place somewhere else in the County; and (3) When deciding whether or not to approve a proposed development, Albemarle takes into consideration a number of issues other than just the project's fiscal impact. These issues include, but are not necessarily limited to, affordable housing, transportation impacts, and environmental well-being. SANsaa '" ~mN U (; Cb N en !!! ~ CD c 'ë o N - c ! ... :::I o ~ C'II E E :::I en - ell CD "C :::I m 0(') ~(; N --0000 -- 69- tß- tßo fßo ~ 't"""OOOO -- tit tit tßo fß- ~ CIO~ (; N --0000 ...... tß- fit fRo tit ~ .....0 (; N -0000 __ tß- fß- tit tit ~ (0 C1> o o N _0000 -- tit 6't fß- 69- ~ II)CIO o o N T""'OOOO ..- ;elttf.t-6'ttfÞ ;; ......... o o N ......0000 ...... ;tß-tlttß-tIt ; (')(0 o o N ""'0000 ,.... ;;fß-fß-6'ttß- ;; Nil) o o N -0000 ...... tit tß- tit 60ft ~ ~.... o o N --0000 ""'" tit 6't tß- tit ~ ^ (') II 8 C;¡N Cb >- c. - E m g.n.1j ëiD::lo.oms CD-O-c:_ ~:ê~~~ .!!!~ ~~ a 5i¡¡;Cb"'~ "'C CDD.. CD... ë;;Ecn~.! &~&~õ ~ II) 8 ~f!!Il.VJ t:"'OW .;;;~o::~ 11!!!1l.1- ~K! ~ omooa-ooo-ooo_oooo__oaooo tlttlt69-tlttlttfÞ6'ttlttlttlttß-tlttlttlt6'ttlttlt_f:ß-tlttltfß-tlttlt ~ ~ omooo-ooo--ooo__oooo......ooooo tlttlttlt69-tlttlttlttlttlttlttlttlttlttfÞtlttlttlt_fß-tltfß-tlttlttlt ~ ~ ~ omooo--ooo,....ooo,....oooo_ooooo tlt6'ttß-tß-6'ttlttlttlttlttlttlttlt6'ttß-tlttlttlt__tlttlttlttlttlt6't ~ ~ ~ omooo,....OOO,....ooo__aooo_aoooo tlttlttlttß-tlttlttlttlttlttfÞtlttlttlttlttlttlttlt......fß-tlttlt6'ttlt6't ~ ~ ~ omooo-OOO't"""OOO......OOOO_OOOOO tlttß-tlttlttltWtlttlt6'ttlttlttt'ttlttlttlttß-tlt't""" tit tit tit tit tit tit ~ omooo-ooo__ooo_oooo_ooooo tlttlt6'ttlttlttlttlttlttlttlt6'ttlttlttß-tlttlttlt__tlttlttlttlttlttlt ~ omooo-ooo--ooo't"""OOOO_OOOOO tlttß-tlttß-tlttlttlt6't6'ttlt6'ttlttß-tlttltfß-f:ß-T'"tittlt6'tfß-tlt6't ~ omooo-ooo-ooo__oooo_ooooo tlt6'ttltøtlttlttlttltfß-tltMØ69-tlttlttlttlt,....tß-tlttlttlt69-~ ~ - ~ owooo~ooo~ooo~oooo~ocooo KKK~Ø~~Ø~~Ø~~0Ø~~~Ø~ø~ø~ ~ ~ ~ OWOOO~OOO~OOO_OOOO~ONOOO ~~~~~~~~~ø~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ II) Cb )( CD I- ~ CD c. E n. ãi ø ø ~ æ~~ w :E! 'DQ) ~ fß -gt-Ecn w ~~g~ il ~ ~~ ~Em1 i I-~~I-~O::Z ~~II)3~ ~8~~ W I ~~~~I-~~",~~*~w ~o::~~ ~~c ~ ~~~8~~~m~~~o~ ~~~s ~!i~~ ..ool-~==~~Cb~~II)~~~Cb~~~Ofi~I ~à:a:oðað55~ o~~oð &< &~ 5-<';~'¡~ cu.5! ~ee~~~~O~SE~m~~~~~~zQ~È~ æ~~~~88~5~~~5~ð~~~~~~~~~ ~NM~~w~~mO~NMvw~~~mO~NMV ~~~"""~~""""""~~NNNNN ãi ~ 15 ::J VJ II:: W I I- o o N ~ o N ~ o N ~ o N ~ o N .... o N ~ o N ~ o N .... o N ~ (') N .... II) Cb ::J t: Cb > Cb II:: :;; ~ Õ i¡j W ~ Z ~ W 0:: ~ « ~ Z Z « ~ « Z Q w f- --' Õ 0 ClCjO «wI ;i~~ ~~ ãi ~ 15 ::J W N (') ~ ......WOCO...... ~~~~"'" ~ ~.... W-OOO)O) fA. ø. fit &9- fß- v ~ N (') ~ ......WOCO~ _fhfh__-.;t ~ ~.... co......o oco 0) 6.4 fh 6.4 ø fh "Q" ~ N (') ~ ......(Ooco__ ......fItoEß-~v ~ ~.... CD-oocom 6I9-fhfhfltofhV ~ N (') .... ......COOCO..- ~fhfh......"'" ~ ........ CD__OOCOO) Mfhf;l9-t&fhV ~ N (') .... ......cooco_ ~fhfh_v ~ ........ co......ooCX)O) 0fh0t&69-V ~ N (') ~ ......woco_ ~fhfh_"'" ~ ........ (O~oocoO) fhfh6l9-fhfh... ~ N (') ~ ......cooco_ ~~fh......"'" ~ ~.... cc......o 000 m fAfhtß-f&fA.... .... N (') ~ ......(0000_ ~fhfh't'""V ~ ~.... CD-OOCOO) fh 69- fh fh fh ... .... N (') ~ ,.... co 0 CO...... -fhtß-_v ~ ~.... CD~OOCO(J) fhfhfhfhfAv ~ .... (') ~ ,.... COin coa.n ;flttß-;¡~ co......œoooV fh fh tß- fh ...... co ~.... VJ ~ o o 0 CJ I ~ ~ .~~ o >- è: . OcncnQ)~ g'ûí~~t- ~ 8 ~~ ~ Cbll:;ll.Clm 8"~tt~ ç o Z J!J ~Cbði¡j ¡g ~'Ë ~ Ii; U II) . Cb~O g>ûí.:f~~u :æ8 ~~~;i Q;II:;Il.Clm~ c..!u..u..~Z OwuuVJ~ ~ ;i o Z CJ 0 >- ¡:: I- Õ Z CI ~ « o ~ u ~ o I- .~ _ãi ~"3 t: E t: ::J «u ... o : ~ -I ð w ¡¡: ... ~ Cb en CD Il. ::¡; Il. ..... o M o .... o o N ã; o iO o .... o o ~ o iO o Cb ~ It: o VJ ~ CD õi .~ o êf. ::¡; æ u ~ ~ oi N ;;; o ~ N '" 01 .. c.. ::E c.. CO ~ i-i 0 "'" 8 0(') (')0000 (') O~OOO~OOO~OOONoo~mNOOOOO 0) N N~ONlO OO","OON"- à5 ~o <0 tit- tit- tit- .,. co ~~tll-tß-tß-~tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-~tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß- "'" ~ (W')NtR-(V')CX> ~tß-f:ß-tß-C\lO ~ ... ... ... ... ... ;; ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ N ... 0 J!! ~(J)N (')0000 (') OOOOOO~OOO~OOONoo~mNOOOOO 0) N N--ONLO OO","OON"- Ü 0 CD fA- ER- tß- tß- co tß---tß-tß-tß-~tß-~tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-__tß-tß-tß-tß-tß-tß- "'" ~ (')N",(,) 00 -- tßo tß- fA. N 0 ... ... ... ... ... ~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ '" N ... ... '" E '" ~ co ~ (')0000 (') omOOOlOOOO--OOONoo__mNOOOOO 0) N N<r-ONlO OO","OON"- 0 CD fA. fA. tit- tß- co fA.--tß-tR-tR-tR-tß-Mtß-tR-tß-MtA-tß-tß-tR-tß-__tß-tß-tß-tR-tß-w "'" ~ (')N...(')oo -- tA- fit fRo N 0 ... ... ... ... ... ~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ N ... ... "-0 (')0000 (') ocoooO~OOO~OOONOO~O)NOOOOO 0) N N--ONlO OO","OON"- .... 0 U) f:A- tit tß- tA- co tß---tR-tß-tß-MtR-tß-fß.tß-Mtß-tR-tR-tR-tß-fß-__WMfß.tß-tß-tß- "'" ~ (')N...(') 00 -- tA- tß Iß. N 0 10 ... ... ... ... ... ;; ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ N N ... "'it ~ . @U)~ (')0000 (') ocoooO~OOO~OOONOO~o)NOOOOO 0) N N'I"""ONIO OO","OON"- CD tit fA- tit- fß- co fß---tA-tA-tA-tR-tA-tA-tA-tA-tR-tA-tA-tA-tA-tA-tA-__tA-tA-tA-tA-tA-tA- "'" ~ (')N...(') 00 ..... fit fR- fA. N 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ;; ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ en N ... ës: u. en "'" N()OO (')0000 (') oooooO~OOO~OOONOO~O)NOOOOO 0) N N..-ONIO OO","OON"- 0 0 N 8 U) fß- tit tA- tA- co tA---fß-tA-tA-tA-tA-tA-tA-tA-tA-tA-tA-tA-tlttA-fß-__tA-tA-tA-fß-fß-tA- "'" ~ (')N...(') 00 'I""" ... fß- tA- N 0 N ... ... ... ... ... ;; ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ ã; N ... (:) ~ co 0 .... f ~ ¡ ."'""- (')0000 (') oooooO~OOO~OOONOO~o)NOOOOO 0) N N......ONIO CO","OON"- 0 <0 tit- fit ... fß- co tA---tA-f:A-tA-tA-fß-tA-fß-fß-tR-tA-tA-tA-tA-Wfß-'I"""tA-tA-fß-tA-tA-tA- "'" ~ (')N"'(') 00 -- tß-MiA-N 0 @ 0 ... ... ... ... ... ;; ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ N ... I/) en ~ ës: J9 CD U. (') co (')0000 (') ocoooO~OOO~OOONOO~o)NOOOOO 0) N N__ONlO OO","OON"- ~ (/) 8 CDtA-tA-tA-4ß- co fß---tA-tß-fß-fß-tA-tA-tA-tA-tA-tR-fß-tA-tA-fß-tA-'I"""tA-tA-tA-tA-fß-fß- "'" ~ (')N...(')OO -- ... fit. fA. N 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ;; ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ êL "'it N ... ::E C ñ: 0 Ü ;:iNIO (')0000 (') oooooO~OOO~OOONOO~o)NOOOOO 0) N N'I"""ONlO OO","OON"- Q. 8 co ... ... ... ... co "'--fß-tß-tA-tA-fR-tA-tA-tA-~tA-tA-"'fß-"'''''I''''"tß-tA-tA-fß-'''''' "'" (')N...(')OO ,..... tit- tit- tß- N 0 ... ... ... ... ... ~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ E N ... ... :J en en ~ ~"'" (')0000 (') ocoooO~OOO~OOONOO~O)NOO()OO "'" "- N'I"""CONM (,)","()ON~ en 0 co ...... ... ... co ...--tR-...øtA-fß-tA-...fß-...tA-fß-tA-tA-tA-tA-__...tA-tA-......ø ~ ~ (')N...(')O) NtA-NfßolO....,. .... 0 ... ... ... ... ... ;; ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ N ... G) Q. 0 ã) (') ~f¡8 C j;¡N .... CD 01>- C C 0 N ~ I/) 'C Q. o ~ CD~~ I/) iJj ...J ~ ° :2! "C~ U) U) "'C :Eel) I.1J ° G) -= g.å: ~ ~0C -~ C 0'" CD~.._ ~ W 0 ° 0 z en "'O~ 0C CD "'~ ~E"'8 z ~ C) I C) ~.. 0 ãiO::~ãi~ 0 ~~~~~~~ ~~0~~ ~8~~ W I 0 z J!! ~.~ ~ J!! :. B0l/) CDëãQ..C~ '" W Co ~ B~~~~~~0~~$~1/) <O::~I/) ~~~ ~ ::J 0 ~ ~.~~t; 0 ~~~ ~.§ C > ° >-2: - ~~~80~~~I~~o¡ ãi~~S~O::~"'~~ ~ W U J!! . CD...J UJ!!.;,"'<tO ~ ... ~~~~æ ~ 0:: a. ~ CDOO~~~~ ~CD~~ø~UOCD~ ~U~EI CD ~U)<'?~~ gtlf)1=~.....U QJU)CDcn5. ~êLêL~~~~~o~~~~<&~&<~~~~~CD 0:: ...J +i 0 >.,.c 0 ·-°>o.QO...J _åí "'CCDQ..CD..... CD ã; « "U"8~ åíÜ""'~~ ~"3 (ñ[:U)i:~ Q. ~~~~]~~O~SE~~SSS~SmZO<E~ ~ ã;1I::Q. 00 ã;1I::c..Coo c E ~ ~~~~Õ 0 ::JCDCD....OOc..~O"'£~J9..0"'J9CDZ~~::JO ð z Q.J9~~::> Q.J9~~~~ c ::J êL c..c..c..::EI/)UUOO~::EQ.~UI/)UICI/)::E«I/)I/)::E::E z Ol/)UUI/) Ol/)UUI/)« «U CU « ... E ~NM~~ø~~mO~NM~~W~~mO~NM~ ...J g ...J 0 ~""''''''''I''"""'''''T''"'''''''''''''''T'''''NNNNN « « ~ E íi) z Z :J 8 ° I/) C) ° ~ "'" ~ ...J >- ~ ~ en ~13Q.1/) ]i D:: ]i - ° ~ 15 ..... ~ - c OW ~ W ~ 8130 z C ~ Ü G) .;;;~o::~ I «I/) I ::> « I/) N 01 ::J ~ ::J ...J~g ° ...J ì:i: M 'C CD!l.íc..~ I/) ° I/) U « ~~ ~ ... 0 ;:, g~ ~ « In ° ~ ::E ~ N AHIP Albemarle Housing Improvement Program 2127 Berkmar Drive / Charlottesville, VA 22901 Tel: (434) 817-2447 / Fax: (434) 973-3730 Website: www.ahipva.org June 4, 2004 Mr. Lindsey G. Domer, Jr., Chairman . . Albemarle County Board of SupervIsors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Dear Mr. Domer, I write this letter to commend Weather Hill Development on its efforts to incorporate affordable housing into its Stillfried, Fontaine and Avon Park Developments. Further, as a long-time advocate for affordable housing, I support approval of these planned developments. As you know, Mr. Cetta, the President of Weather Hill, has worked for years with the County's Housing Advisory Committee to develop an Affordable Housing Ordinance that would work for both the for-profit development community and the low and moderate income families in need of housing. Therefore, he and his staff are knowledgeable regarding its intent and have creatively integrated more affordable units into these proposals. Well over a year ago, Mr. Cetta requested a meeting with Ron White and I to discuss ways in which Weather Hill might work with the County and the non-profit community on the Stillfiied project. It was early in the development process and he was hopeful through our combined efforts we could find a way to produce affordable units on that site. As time passed and more was learned about the site it became clear it wouldn't be possible to reach down to the desired income level for this particular project. Site conditions and the small number of units to be developed have driven the site costs alone above $90,000 per home. Even so, Weather Hill will offer four ofthe twenty-six homes at 60% of the cost of the market units (mid $200s). While this technically doesn't meet the letter of the ordinance, I feel it shows a good faith effort on the part of Weather Hill Development to meet the spirit of providing 15% of the units at a more affordable pnce. Weather Hill's determination to comply with the new Affordable Housing Ordinance is vividly demonstrated in the Fontaine and Avon Park proposals to be reviewed by the Planning Commission later in June. The Fontaine development will provide a total of sixty-one units of which nine will be affordable according to the County's standard. Six of the units will be rental apartments and three town homes will be for sale. The Avon Park development will consist of four housing types. There will be a total of fifty-nine units of which nine will be affordable. The nine town homes at Avon Park will all be for sale. Both of these proposed developments clearly meet both the letter and the intent of the Affordable Housing Ordinance. I'd like to make one final point regarding Weather Hill Development's commitment to affordable housing. Mr. Cetta is currently serving a second, six-year term on the AHIP Board of Directors. As AHIP's By-laws required several years ago, Mr. Cetta rotated off the Board after his first six-year term. Unlike many who rotate off, Mr. Cetta was anxious to return to serve a second term after a year. Since returning, his professional expertise has been invaluable to AHIP as it has grown and expanded the scope of its services to include real estate development. Mr. Cetta is currently providing pre-development Architectural and Planning services to AHIP on its Rio Road- Treesdale project free of charge. Ms. Betty Groth, another member of the Weather Hill team, has also recently joined the AHIP Board of Directors. Ms. Groth maintains AHIP's web site as well as serving on several committees and providing pro- bono guidance regardin~ttn'0pos. de.pment projects. Non-profit agendes face the same regulatory issues and requirements as for-profit developers. The ~~~-- malrl. differènce being nòn-profit developers more often than not have fewer cash resources than their for-profit counterparts. By providing professional services to AHIP, Mr. Cetta and Ms. Groth have saved AHIP thousands of dollars. It seems to me the folks at Weather Hill Development are on to something. Within the very real financial constraints of the for-profit development business, they're thinking "outside the box", including local government and the non-profit community in up-front planning for projects, and contributing their time and expertise to those of us serving the housing needs of the very low-income. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please don't hesitate to call should you have questions regarding my comments or if I can be of assistance to the Board in this matter. Sincerely, Theresa L. Tapscott AHIP Executive Director CC: Sally H. Thomas, Samuel Miller District Dennis S. Rooker, Jack Jouett District David C. Wyant, White Hall District David P. Bowerman, Rio District Kenneth C. Boyd, Rivanna District Ronnie White, Chief of Housing Margaret Doherty, Planner Marc Powell, Weather Hill Development Nick Michaels, Weather Hill Development COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ') 6 - 03 - 0 4 A L 5 : 5 U Rev D EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~ AGENDA TITLE: Seminole Place Sign Refacing Appeal AGENDA DATE: June 9, 2004 ACTION: X INFORMATION: SU BJECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST: Appeal of ARB decision CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Maliszewski ATTACHMENTS: Yes LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ARB Review of Proposal: On May 3, 2004 the Architectural Review Board reviewed an application to reface the existing freestanding sign at the Comdial property on the west side of Route 29 North, a short distance south of Greenbrier Drive. (See Attachment A.) The proposal consisted of an opaque blue face with white letters and white border for the upper panel, and a lower panel consisting of black letters on a white background during the daytime, changing to illuminated white letters on an opaque background at night. In keeping with the ARB's practice of limiting internal illumination of cabinet signs, the ARB voted 4:0 (Train absent) to approve the proposal with the following conditions: 1. The letters of the upper cabinet may be illuminated. 2. The white border on the upper sign can be illuminated at night provided that the border is no larger than 1/8 inch in width. 3. Revise the lower sign to increase the compatibility of its daytime appearance with that of the upper sign. 4. The lower panel shall not be internally illuminated, but it may be externally illuminated. The applicant is appealing condition #4, stating that the proposal complies with the ARB Guidelines and that restrictions based on content are unconstitutional. (See Attachment B for the ARB minutes, which include the ARB staff report, and Attachment C for the ARB Action Letter.) ARB Guidelines: The original ARB design guidelines were adopted in 1990-91 and included some specific references to signs. Updated sign guidelines adopted by the ARB in 1998 called for signs with no lighting or with external illumination. The ARB has consistently worked to limit excessive illumination of signs in an attempt to implement the EC goal of ensuring that new development reflects the traditional architecture of the area and to promote orderly and attractive development within the corridors STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2.2: Protect and preserve the County's natural resources. DISCUSSION: The purpose of ARB review is to ensure that new development in the Entrance Corridors is compatible with the historic architecture of the County and to promote orderly and attractive development. There is no historical precedent for internally illuminated signs; however, the ARB recognizes the need to identify businesses to help the traveling public find their destination and exit the highway safely. The preferred solution is to externally illuminate the sign; in other words, to shine a light on the sign. This is preferred because it allows consistency between the daytime and nighttime images of the sign. Also, external lighting appears to the viewer as reflected light and allows the focus of the sign to be the original overall shape, color and complete design of the sign. Internal illumination produces a fragmented sign image at night (compared to external lighting) and emphasizes the illumination itself, rather than an element in a coordinated site design. Limits on illumination are also intended to reduce glare, to reduce visual clutter and distraction, to provide for coordinated appearances along the EC, to increase visual continuity, and to limit negative impacts along the County's Entrance Corridors. AGENDA TITLE: Seminole Place Sign Refacing Appeal June 9, 2004 Page 2 The applicant's proposal meets the ARB guideline for making the backgrounds of internally illuminated signs opaque. It does not meet the guideline for no lighting or external illumination. To achieve a balance of business identification with order and continuity throughout the EC, the ARB determined that the quantity of internal illumination proposed for the Seminole Place sign was inappropriate and that it should be limited to the illumination of the letters and border on the upper panel only, The ARB left open the option of external illumination for the bottom panel, in the event that the applicant preferred to have that portion of the sign visible at night. RECOMMENDATIONS: The ARB recommends that the application, as presented, be denied. The ARB recommends approval of the application with the following conditions: 1. The letters of the upper cabinet may be illuminated. 2. The white border on the upper sign can be illuminated at night provided that the border is no larger than 1/8 inch in width. 3. Revise the lower sign to increase the compatibility of its daytime appearance with that of the upper sign. 4. The lower panel shall not be internally illuminated, but it may be externally illuminated. ATTACHMENTS: A. Applicant's illustration showinQ proposed sign refacing B. Draft ARB minutes. including staff report C. ARB Action Letter 04.079 Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Re: Seminole Place (Old Comdial Building) On behalf of the owner of Seminole Place, I would like to appeal a decision by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board relating to the lower panel of the monument sign. The decision of the board at the meeting on May 3,2004 was that the upper panel could be internally illuminated but the bottom panel could not be internally illuminated. I wish to appeal this decision on the following grounds: 1. The application was simply to reface two panels of an existing illuminated sign. According to my understanding of the sign ordinance, the owner has the right to do this provided that the panels comply with any existing published ARB guidelines. The proposed panel complied with ARB guidelines, inasmuch as the background was blacked out and the letters only were illuminated. To refuse an application for a sign that meets zoning requirements and also complies with the board's own guidelines is totally arbitrary and capricious. In numerous precedent cases, such decisions have been held to be illegal. 2. After the board rendered its decision, I returned to the podium and politely asked the board to state the reason for the decision. Despite the fact that one of the board members tried to rule me out of order, the chairman of the board responded that the board was not in favor of illuminating a message that gave information relating to leasing (the actual message was "LEASING (434) 973-5571)". As the county attorney will be pleased to advise, restriction imposed on signs based on "content" have, in numerous precedent cases, been found to be unconstitutional. Based upon the foregoing arguments, the applicant would respectfully ask the Board of Supervisors to reverse the restriction imposed by the Architectural Review Board and pr::yer to illumioate the lower panel of this sign. ,tJûvv . Ben Foster Hightech Signs 12-05-04A12:32 RCVD 2165 SEMINOLE TRAIL CHARLOTIESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 PH 434·974·7900 / 800·482·6603 WWW.HT5VA.COM FAX 434·974·6898 I I I ! I I I I ~ I ~, I I = I , "-! ! .. ~ I I ~ - I I r . ~ I I 1.1 ~ I I ~ '''-i I I U I I II a::: I I a.:;¡ h. ~ I X 1-¡ x :::: Ç.r; ~ ~,1 ~ I c: iii c: !- .. 1:: Q. J¡ õ ~ ~ Q. iI! .x ~l ! Q. m - < .. .. - J1 ¡;;: ~ U Q. t!! "'§ en 0 l~ 1i5 ~:;¡ JI-¡ ... ji c::> c: N u ;:;: u ~ ~ .!õ ~ ! a: . ~ I I ~ t ~ ~ i ~ -H .. -:p ; J:! g . õ: ...- î ~ i In j ] ~~i " "f.~ i..: t;;; õ. s ¡ ~ ~h :, d: šh '-' ,,~ - .... ~ 0 ~ N "= ;;;. N '" ~ :E: ~ ~ ';> ~ en -š "" g 1:__ <1:1 co .J::o '-?.... co (~3 0) ... co y ~....... \C ""OM. ÕOO~ I::~\C~ 'EI';-~ ~ c:;-.:rNM . (/)~~"T . Ir.. .. ~"To~ æ N~co..... ig -. ~ ',.. .. ~ co ..... Q) CJ ca - G. Q) - o s:: . .... E Q) CI) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 3, 2004 The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on Monday, May 3, 2004, 1 :30 p.m., Meeting Room # 241, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Charles T. Lebo, Candace M.P. Smith, AlA, Chainnan and Katie Hobbs. Absent was M. Kirk Train, AIA, Vice-Chainnan. Staff present was Margaret Maliszewski. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Smith called the meeting to order at 1 :35 p.m. and established a quorum. REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS ARB-2004-31: Seminole Place Sie:n Refacine: - Certificate of Appropriateness for a Sign - (Tax Map 061 W, Section 3, Parcel 18) Proposal: To reface an internally illuminated freestanding sign. Ms. Maliszewski summarized the staff report as follows. The ARB has conducted no reviews for proposed development on this parcel. The existing development, including the freestanding sign, predates the establishment of EC regulations. The building is located on Route 29 North in the Greenbrier area, which is characterized by a variety of commercial uses and is heavily developed. The existing monument consists of a brick pedestal and two signs - the top one a panel with projecting letters and the bottom one a flat panel. Both signs are internally illuminated. Sign Type: Double-sided freestanding monument sign - refacing Location: Existing: near the midpoint of the property along the EC Overall Sign Height: 7' Upper Cabinet Size: 12' long x 2'4" tall (30sf) Material: Acrylic panel with vinyl Text: "Seminole Place" Graphics: border (width not provided) Colors: Blue background (PMS # 2747), white letters and border Illumination: Existing internal illumination, text and border Background: blue opaque background Lower Cabinet: Size: 7'5 Yz" long x 1 '6" tall (5sf) Material: Acrylic panel with vinyl Text: "Leasing (434) 973-5571" Graphics: none Colors: Daytime: black letters on white background; Nighttime: White letters with non- illuminated background Illumination: Existing internal illumination, text only ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE I DRAFT MINUTES FOR 05-03-04 ARB-2004-31 SEMINOLE PLACE SIGN REFACING Base: Existing brick-faced base, no change proposed Landscaping: Existing landscaping at the base of the sign, no change proposed Comments: . The sign meets Zoning Ordinance requirements for the area and height. · External illumination is preferred for freestanding signs, but the existing sign is already internally illuminated. · Regarding the upper cabinet, the proposed blue and white colors of the sign do not clash with the building or the site. · The upper cabinet is internally illuminated and would have an opaque background. Although the illustration submitted indicates that only the background would be illuminated, the applicant has indicated that illumination of the border is also proposed. The border is an integral part of the daytime appearance of the sign, but not the nighttime appearance. · The location, font style and daytime colors of the lower sign are not closely related to those of the upper sign. Changing the colors of the lower sign to blue letters on a white background, or white letters on a blue background, would increase the level of coordination in the overall sign. Staff recommends approval of the signs with the following changes: 1. Only the letters of the upper cabinet shall be illuminated. The background and border shall not be illuminated. 2. Revise the lower sign to increase the compatibility of its daytime appearance with that of the upper sign. Ben Foster, owner of Hightech Signs, stated that they were just ref acing an existing sign in a fairly unobtrusive way. He asked if staff made the recommendation to leave the border non- illuminated, and indicated that the border is on the sign because it looks better, but if the Board does not want it to look better that was fine because they would take the border off. He clarified that the background of the lower sign is blacked out so that the letters will be white at night and black in the daytime; the background will be white in daytime and black at night. The top sign is blue and white with a border, which makes the sign look better. At night it would be white with a border because the sign looks better with a border. But, if the ARB does not like the border, then they will take the border out at night. Ms. Smith pointed out that they could have the colors that change when they are lit from day to night, which obviously could be a variety of colors during the day and then become a variety of colors at night. Mr. Foster stated that was not correct because there is a limited choice of colors. He noted that you could have the colors so that they will change, but at night the color would always be white. The reason for that is that the vinyl has perforations and so what you would be seeing coming through at night is the white plexi-glass behind it. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 2 DRAFT MINUTES FOR 05-03-04 ARB-2004-31 SEMINOLE PLACE SIGN REFACING Ms. Smith noted that it was possible on the lower panel to have blue letters during the day to coordinate with the blue background of the upper panel and still be white at night if the sign was in fact illuminated. Mr. Foster stated that was theoretically correct if he could get that type of vinyl in that color since not all shades are available because it was a fairly new technology. Ms. Smith pointed out that the ARB would be going into a discussion about the signs and what parts of the sign should be illuminated. She stated that the border looks great and the entire sign would be fine if externally illuminated, but since the sign was internally illuminated the ARB has concerns. Mr. Foster stated that the border would not be completely obtrusive because it would be a thin border just as it was illustrated. The reason that they had put it as black and white at the bottom was the difficulty of getting these different colors that will change. He pointed out that he was not sure if he could get one that would change from blue to white, and for aesthetic reasons he did not want to have the bottom panel looking identical to the top panel because that does not look as good. He noted that a little variety is needed in order to make the sign interesting. He reiterated that he would try to get the blue to white lettering, but he was not sure if he could do that. Ms. Smith pointed out that might be a moot point after discussion. She thanked him for his comments. She asked if the ARB had any comments for discussion. Ms. Hobbs agreed with staffs recommendations. Ms. Smith asked if she had any specifics for the lower sign in tenns of increasing the amount of compatibility. She pointed out that they were not designing the sign, but asked if anyone had any suggestions on what the alternatives might be. Mr. Lebo suggested that the applicant keep the sign compatible with the upper sign if he could change the lower sign to blue lettering. He noted that would add some harmony to the two signs. Mr. Wright stated that would make the sign look like the previous sign because both panels were white with blue letters and matched. He noted that is actually what they were now looking for so that both sign panels match with the blue and white letters. Ms. Smith pointed out that was just a suggestion in tenns of compatibility. She asked if the ARB wanted to discuss the options concerning the illumination. Mr. Lebo supported illuminating the upper sign as staff has presented it. He pointed out that he was not sure that he has seen many leasing signs in the area that are illuminated. He asked Mr. Foster ifhe was aware of any other leasing signs in the area with a phone number. He stated that this was the first time that he has ever seen something like that. Mr. Foster noted that he could not think of any at this time. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 3 DRAFT MINUTES FOR 05-03-04 ARB-2004-3I SEMINOLE PLACE SIGN REFACING Mr. Lebo pointed out that if they start doing that with one project, then they would have to start doing that for other shopping centers and other properties for the leasing agents. Mr. Foster stated that, to answer that question, he has seen that type of sign all over the place in shopping center signs that do have a panel that is illuminated which says to lease call such and such a number. He pointed out that some of the other shopping centers in the area, such as Pantops Shopping Center, have such a sign when they have leasing available, in their illuminated pylon sign. Mr. Lebo stated that he was a little worried that it would start a precedent, but he was open to hear what the others have to say about it. Ms. Hobbs agreed with Mr. Lebo on that because it does start a precedent and she would prefer that it would not be there, but particularly that it would not be lit at night. With that said, she pointed out that she would agree with the staff s recommendations. Ms. Smith noted that the staffs recommendation was for no illumination of the bottom of the sign at all and eliminating the illumination of the border. There are two issues. One is the color coordination and the other is strictly illumination. She pointed out that if there was a motion that they needed to clarify the conditions. Ms. Hobbs stated that the condition states that only the letters of the upper cabinet shall be illuminated, but that the background border was not included. Ms. Maliszewski pointed out that it sounded like there was confusion about what staff was recommending. She clarified that condition 1 refers to the upper cabinet and condition 2 refers to the bottom cabinet. Ms. Smith pointed out that condition 2 could have a sentence added that says no illumination at all. Ms. Maliszewski stated that condition 2 could have a number of sentences, but that was not staff s intent. Mr. Wright asked if the border being referred to was the very thin white line. He asked if there would be a problem with just illuminating the letters and not the border. He asked if the sign had a border if it would be lit up. Ms. Smith stated that they could do it either way. They could make it white during the day and totally opaque at night. Mr. Wright stated that he liked the border on the sign and felt it would be fine if the border was illuminated. He pointed out that since the border was so thin that it would not create a large illumination. He concurred with all of the other staff recommendations. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 4 DRAFT MINUTES FOR 05-03-04 ARB-2004-31 SEMINOLE PLACE SIGN REFACING Ms. Smith asked if the consensus was that the bottom panel sign should not be lit at all, but that they should have some color revision to make it more compatible. Mr. Lebo agreed that the border could be illuminated since it might make the sign look a little better than just bold letters with a little bit of trim. Ms. Hobbs pointed out if they were going to say that then they need to remember the problems they have had with that sort of thing before and they would have to specify the width of the border. Mr. Lebo asked the applicant how wide the border would be. Mr. Foster stated that he was not sure but it would probably be 3/4 inch in width. Ms. Smith stated that the ARB had seen a 1/2 inch border and it was very bright, and therefore they preferred Y4 inch or 1/8 inch. Ms. Hobbs agreed that 12 inch border was a lot of light, which was why she was reluctant to do it all because then they have to start dealing with the enforcement. Mr. Wright stated that a 1/2 inch border would be fine. Ms. Maliszewski stated that staff recommends the border to be no larger than 1/8 inch in width. Mr. Lebo moved for approval of the proposal as presented, with the following conditions to be administratively approved by staff: 1. The letters of the upper cabinet may be illuminated. 2. The white border on the upper sign can be illuminated at night provided that the border is no larger than 1/8 inch in width. 3. Revise the lower sign to increase the compatibility of its daytime appearance with that of the upper sign. Ms. Hobbs seconded the motion. Ms. Maliszewski stated that it sounded like they were talking about not illuminating the lower panel. Mr. Lebo stated that was correct, but he thought that was included in her recommendations. Ms. Maliszewski suggested that they add that in because it was not included. Mr. Lebo amended his motion to clarify that the lower panel shall not be internally illuminated, but it may be externally illuminated. 1. The letters of the upper cabinet may be illuminated. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 5 DRAFT MINUTES FOR 05-03-04 ARB-2004-31 SEMINOLE PLACE SIGN REFACING 2. The white border on the upper sign can be illuminated at night provided that the border is no larger than 1/8 inch in width. 3. Revise the lower sign to increase the compatibility of its daytime appearance with that of the upper sign. 4. The lower panel shall not be internally illuminated, but it may be externally illuminated. Ms. Hobbs seconded the amended motion. The motion carried (4:0). (Train - Absent) Mr. Foster asked if he could make a comment. He stated that when the ARB makes a ruling that he thought that there should be a reason. He pointed out that he might have missed something, but he was not sure. He asked if they would tell him what the reasoning was behind not illuminating the lower panel because they don't wish to have the panel visible at night or they don't want the message readable at night. He stated that he was merely asking for an explanation of the ARB's ruling. Ms. Smith stated that she would make one comment and then have to leave it at that. She stated that they would be in favor of it being visible at night if it was externally illuminated. Internal illumination affects the community. She pointed out that they felt that the signs should have limited illumination as channel letters, which are better than cabinet signs, and that you can still identify the business and identify what the purpose is, but it is not acting as a billboard, which is an effect that they are definitely trying to avoid in the County. Mr. Foster asked if it had some other lettering on it if it would be allowable. Ms. Smith stated that was a very interesting question and they could certainly add that to their agenda because they have not allowed illumination of additional portions of signs that refer to things like "also serving coffee and biscuits". They feel that the identification of a business is critical, but the additional words, if they are important enough to the owner to be visible at night, should be done on an externally illuminated basis. Mr. Foster asked if those additional comments are alright during the day, but not admissible at night. Ms. Smith stated that it was the internal illumination that they were concerned about. Mr. Foster thanked her for the comments since he just wanted to be clear on it. (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 6 DRAFT MINUTES FOR 05-03-04 ARB-2004-31 SEMINOLE PLACE SIGN REFACING COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 May 17, 2004 Ben Foster High Tech Signs 2165 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ARB-2004-031 Seminole Place Sign; Tax Map 61W, Section 3, Parcel 18 Dear Mr. Foster: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, May 3, 2004. The Board, by a vote of 4:0, approved the request as presented, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions: 1. The letters of the upper cabinet may be illuminated. 2. The white border on the upper sign can be illuminated at night provided that the border is no larger than 1/8 inch in width. 3. Revise the lower sign to increase the compatibility of its daytime appearance with that of the upper sign. 4. The lower panel shall not be internally illuminated, but it may be externally illuminated. Please provide two (2) copies of the revised drawings or other information addressing each of these conditions at your earliest convenience. Include a memo indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Design Planner MM/jcf Cc: File John Grady