HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-12
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TENTATIVE
JANUARY 12, 2005
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
4:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 235
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Session: Comprehensive Revision of Subdivision Ordinance (STA-2001-08).
3. Recess.
6:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 241
4. Call to Order.
5. Pledge of Allegiance.
6. Moment of Silence.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next page).
9. Public hearing: Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List for FY 2005-2011.
10. ZMA-2004-0013. Mountain Vallev Fann (Sians #21.33&83), Public hearing on a request to
rezone 14.176 acs of a 29.75 acre P from the RPD Zoning Distrid to RA. TM 89, P 73A. Loc
approx one-half mile N from intersec of Rt 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) & Rt 706 (Dudley Mountain
Rd). (The Comp Plan designates this property as Rural Area 4. Samuel Miller Dist.
11. ZMA-2004-0014. Brairwood (Sian #17). Public hearing on a request to rezone 123.612 acs
from PRO to PRO to amend proffers of ZMA-1991-13 & ZMA-1995-5 & to amend the
Application Plan. TM 32G, P 1; TM 32G, Sec 3, P A; & TM 32G, Sec 3, P 83. Loc on Seminole
Trail (Rt 29) at intersec of Seminole Trail & Austin Dr (Rt 1575). (The Comp Plan designates
this property as Neighborhood Density Residential in the Piney Mountain Community.) Rivanna
Dist.
12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. Adjoum to January 19, 2004, 3:30 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Boards and Commissions Policy, Adoption of (deferred from January 5, 2005).
8.2 Resolution to accept roads in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 3A, into the State Secondary System
of Highways.
8.3 Resolution to accept roads in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 4A, into the State Secondary System
of Highways.
8.4 Set public hearing for February 2, 2005 to receive information on the Community Development
Block Grant Program for 2005.
FOR INFORMATION:
8.5 Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes for November 30, 2004.
8.6 Copy of letter dated December 30, 2004 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Susan S. Davey, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and
Parcels - Tax Map 112, Parcel 15 (Lions Watch Farm, property of Susan S. Davey) .
Section 10.3.1.
8.7 Copy of letter dated December 30, 2004 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to David H. Metcalf & P. Gail South, re: Official Determination of
Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map 97, Parce/24A (property of David H. Metcalf
or Gail South) . Section 10.3.1.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Subdivision Text Amendment Worksession
AGENDA DATE:
January 12, 2005
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQU EST:
Consideration of Blue Ridge Homebuilders
Association concerns and the location of street trees
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Echols
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this worksession is to provide the Board an opportunity to advise staff of any changes to the proposed
Subdivision Text Amendment (STA) considered appropriate. In that regard, there are two items presented for the Board's
consideration. First, the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association (BRHBA) provided a letter dated November 24,2004
which outlined 10 concerns and provided recommended changes for each concern. That letter is attached to this
executive summary (Attachment A). Second, staff notes the issue of a planting strip for street trees was not resolved at the
December 8th worksession.
With regard to the BRHBA letter, staff is providing a response to each concern and a comparison of the BRHBA
recommendation to the staff recommendation. With regard to the planting strip for street trees, staff noted at the
December 8th worksession there appeared to be general agreement that street trees should be provided. The outstanding
concern was whether street trees should be in the public right of way or on private property adjoining the right of way.
With direction on these concerns, staff believes the outstanding issues related to the STA have been addressed and the
STA can be finalized for Board consideration.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1: Protect and/or preserve the County's rural Character
Goal 3.3: Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to
enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County.
DISCUSSION:
BRHBA Concerns:
Staff greatly appreciates the BRHBA meeting with staff in an attempt to find solutions to their concerns. While some
concerns were resolved, a few remain outstanding. The letter of November 24th represents the remaining concerns.
Before offering specific concerns and recommendations, the BRHBA raised a general concern that the STA reflects the
Neighborhood Model as "the" allowed form of development rather than "a" form of development. Staff has previously
addressed this concern, the last time being with at the December 8th worksession. In the staff evaluation of the DISC II
recommendations at the December 8th worksession, the following was noted:
"In evaluating the ST A recommendations, it is important to make a distinction between proposed new requirements necessitated by
better utilization of the developable land and those driven by establishing the form of development promoted through the
Neighborhood Model.
Infrastructure considered necessary for higher density includes curb and gutter streets, street interconnections, and overlot
grading plans. Regardless of whether the form of development is consistent with the Neighborhood Model, this infrastructure
is appropriate to assure sustainable development where higher densities are promoted.
Other infrastructure is necessitated by the form of development promoted with the Neighborhood Model, but can only be
successfully implemented on an area-wide basis. Sidewalks are an example of this infrastructure. If sidewalks are not required
of all development, a pedestrian orientation, which is a key element of the Neighborhood Model, will not be achieved to the
level called for in the Neighborhood Model".
Staff would note the one outstanding issue that does seem strictly related to the form of development proposed with the
Neighborhood Model is street trees. No specific concern with street trees was raised by the BRHBA. With regard to the
specific recommendations of the BRHBA, staff has provided a discussion of each point with Attachment B. The following
table summarizes that discussion.
BRHBA Recommendation Staff Resoonse
1. Obtain a legal opinion from the Virginia Attorney Staff believes there is no need to solicit this opinion. The
General on the County's authority to require reservation County Attorney has advised the Board and staff on the
and construction of streets to property lines. legality of this requirement, which is clearly within the
authority granted to localities by state law to regulate the
extent to which and the manner in which subdivision streets
shall be graded, graveled or otherwise improved. This
requirement also is consistent with the subdivision
reauirements of other localities.
2. Create a bailout clause so that areas with average slopes A bailout clause already exists in the STAin the form of an
below 10% grade do not require a grading olan. administrative waiver.
3. The grade over yards should be expressed as a This can be accommodated through the Design Standards
maximum rise/fall of 3' over 10'. Manual. Staff recommends loosening this to a rise/fall of 4'
over 10'.
4. Eliminate the requirements that limit the amount of Staff does not support this recommendation and notes
drainage that may be carried across a yard in an open these are the most common drainage complaint.
ditch or swale.
5. a. Allow driveway slopes to exceed 25% when certified a. Staff supports allowing driveway grades steeper than
by a licensed design professional 20% where a licensed design professional has certified the
b. Reduce the landing area to 15' in length. driveway as safe and convenient for vehicles that will use
c. Average the driveway grade over 10'. the driveway, including emergency vehicles.
b. Staff supports reducing the landing area to 15' provided
the 8% grade is maintained.
c. Staff supports measuring the driveway grade as an
average over 10' and believes this can be accommodated in
the Design Standards Manual.
6. Eliminate any requirement for providing a graded area Staff supports specifically excluding stairs and shorter
from building entrances to the driveway or street. Failing distances to property lines.
this, specifically exclude stairs, shorter distances to property Staff does not support eliminating this requirement for
lines and accessible routes from backdoors on basements. basement accessible routes as those may be used as
accessorv aoartments.
7. Switch Sections A and B of 14-234 and eliminate the Staff does not agree with switching sections A and B.
requirement for earthmoving computations and natural Staff notes the earthwork computations are a requirement
survey. for private roads in the Rural Area and should be
considered under Rural Area policy.
8. County must affirm its intent to use construction Staff does not support eliminating the spite strip provisions.
condemnation powers to allow for the construction of Spite strips also are prohibited by VDOT subdivision street
roads on property lines or the prohibition of spite strips regulations.
should be removed. Staff notes the use of condemnation powers can be
considered on a case by case basis. Furthermore, this
Board cannot obliaate future Boards to condemn orooertv.
9. Eliminate the drainage provisions or revise the flood Staff supports revising the road drainage / flood standard to
standard to a 25 year standard similar to VDOT. a 25 year storm.
10. Recommends the Board of Supervisors formally instruct Staff recommends keeping the current ST A language to
the county engineer that a county mandated requirement for assure property owners are not adversely impacted by
piping is an option of last resort. runoff.
Street Trees:
Staff notes the previous discussion of street trees has not resolved where the trees should be located. There are two
alternatives that have been considered, both of which have advantages and disadvantages. Those alternatives are placing
the street trees in a planting strip within the street right of way or placing the street trees in the yard or common space
outside of the right of way. The County Attorney has advised staff it is questionable that a property owners association can
be required to maintain street trees in the public right of way; the law is clear that an owner seeking a rezoning cannot
proffer such an obligation. Thus, it is assumed that street trees in the public right of way will be maintained by the County.
Street trees along private streets would be the responsibility of the property owners, as the trees are not a public
improvement. Finally, as previously noted, the City of Charlottesville requires street trees to be located on the private
property rather than within the right of way. The following summarized the pros and cons of each alternative.
Pros Cons
Street Trees in Right of Way - Consistent with DISC II - Requires more right of way,
recommendations and increasing developer's costs
Neighborhood Model desired (additional 6' width for right
street section of way)
- County maintenance - County maintenance
assures more consistent requires additional funding
appearance (est. FY 2030 would require
- Trees do not conflict with $100K to $250K)
underground utilities - Increased risk of damage to
(underground wire utilites are public infrastructure due to
usually placed just outside proximity of sidewalk and
the right of way) curb
Street Trees on Private Property - Private maintenance - Private maintenance will
minimizes County expense likely result in less consistent
- Reduced risk of damage to appearance
public infrastructure with - Increased enforcement
greater separation from curb difficulty and expense
and sidewalk - Not consistent with DISC II
- Requires less right of way, recommendation or
reducing developer's costs Neighborhood Model desired
street section
- Tree location may conflict
with underground utilities,
requirinQ larQer front yards
From the above, staff notes the decision appears to balance between an ideal of the envisioned Neighborhood Model
street sections and a significant new expense to both the County and development community for street trees in the right of
way. To help the Board put this into perspective, an example is provided using a local urban street that has 28' between
curbs and sidewalks in the right of way. In this example, the distance between street trees on opposite sides of the street
is 35' with the trees in the right of way and 57' apart with the trees outside the right of way. Staff will provide an illustration
of this example at the worksession that might help the Board in this decision.
Next Steps:
With resolution of the above issues, staff believes all the controversial provisions of the STAhave been addressed. Atthis
point, staff proposes to incorporate any changes into the ST A and schedule a final worksession to review the STAin whole.
While the worksessions have focused on the controversial parts of the ST A, there are other changes which staff would like
to review with the Board before a public hearing. Assuming no other changes are required, a public hearing for the STA
can then be scheduled.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board concur with staffs response to the BRHBA recommendations or note where a different
response is considered appropriate.
Staff requests the Board inform staff whether they prefer street trees in the right of way or on the adjoining private property.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Letter from Blue Ridqe Home Builders Association
Attachment B - Discussion of Blue RidQe Home Builders Association recommendations
05.002
Attachment A
BLUE RIDGE
1I1I
~~!!I~!
24 November 2004
Mr. Lindsey Dorrier, Jr.
Chainnan
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Chainnan Dorrier,
. Thank you'for postponing the Board of Supervisors discussion until the interested parties
had enough time to complete a thorough review of the revised Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA). The Blue Ridge Home Builders Association (BRHBA) wishes to
reafiirm our. support for. a subdivision text amendment that removes sections of the
Albemarle County Code that are in conflict with the Neighborhood Model form of
development but does not mandate one form of development. To reiterate once again,
please know. that BRHBA continues to strongly oppose the Neighborhood Model as
'thee' only model of development. The BRHBA cannot support the draft amendment as
written.
As you are well aware, BRHBA has been actively engaged in this ST A review process
since the beginning. In addition to our many letters and our members countless hours in
meetings discussing this issue, BRHBA presented the Board of Supervisors a study that
illustrated many of the challenges of enacting this ordinance.
. BRHBA wishes to thank Mark Graham, the Albemarle County Director of Community
D~velopment, for his willingness to sit down and discuss our concerns with the ordinance
and work toward solutions. While BRHBA does not agree with Mr. Graham on all
issues, we appreciate the time he spent to understand our perspective and we respect his
professional opinion and candor.
BRl.IBA sincerely appreciates the significant time commitment of our members who
have served on the DISC II committee. Many of the concepts and concerns included in
this letter were raised in the DISC II committee. It is of great distress to BRHBA that
DISC II chose to ignore (or out vote) the concerns of minority membership of the
engineering and development community. With all due respect to each member ofDISe
II and their professional opinion, it has been suggested by some that the membership of
DISC II 'Was designed to ensure a predetermined outcome.
2330 Commonwealth Dr. #100, Chulottesville, Va. 22901 434f973-8652 Fax: 434/978-4927 brhba@brhba.org http://www.brhba.org
"'Gh~..._... ....t'" +'- """"..,,..1 Aw:x:tatiOn of Home BulldeJ'$ aad Uw. Home Bu.U.dc:n .Aa.ociatlOD of Virginia
Page Two
The Blue Ridge Home Builders Association firmly supports the creation of a new
Subdivision Text Amendment which removes roadblocks to the implementation of the
Neighborhood Model and does not mandate one form of development. The following
constructive criticism is designed to help formulate a workable amendment that BRHBA
can wholeheartedly support.
Mandated Reservation and Construction of Streets to Property Lines (14-409-B).
BRHBA references James Theobald's March 29tb.letter where he indicated there is no
enabling legislation that allows such a provision. In his words,
"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 ~ither acquire and compensate or let you go."
Larry Davis, Albemarle County Attorney, replied in his opinion such enabling
legislation does exist.
Beyond the enabling issue, we feel the section, as written, does not promote orderly
development. As written, this section rewards property owners that do not cooperate
with adj acent development. It will provide not only improved access at no cost, but
will require the adjacent development to give them remnant pieces of land. There is
no incentive for an adjacent property owner to share in the cost of construction,
donate right-of-way, or grant construction easements. BRHBA believes that this will
discourage, not encourage, responsible growth.
RECOMMENDATION 1: On the surface, both these opinions have legal merit,
BRHBA strongly encourages Albemarle County to either remove this section or at a
minimum obtain the opinion of the State Attorney General on this subject prior to
passing this subsection.
Mandated Overlot Grading Plan (14-313). As a practical matter, if Albemarle
County chooses to move forward with this section in its entirety, the county should
express should publicly recognize that most, if not all, of existing trees will be
removed at the start of a development proj ect. We would also note these regulations
may effectively outlaw basement garages. This recognition is important for the
public to understand the removal of these trees is mandated by Albemarle County's
implementation plan for a more urban form of development.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Create a bailout clause so that areas with average slopes
below 10% grade (a rare occurrence in Albemarle County) do not require a grading
plan.
Albemarle County should better educate the public as to the trade offs between
density and the concept of working with terrain typical of Albemarle County.
Page Three
Mandated Overlot Grading Plan (14-313.d). This includes a call for all lots
proposed with turf grasses not exceed a gradient of 3: 1 and that steeper slopes be
planted with low maintenance vegetation. We also recognize this provision already
exists in the Erosion and Sediment portion of the county ordinances. BRHBA
believes 2: I to be an acceptable ratio for turf grasses on smaller slopes.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The specified grade of the grade should be expressed as
a maximum rise/fall of 3' over 10'. This will allow for construction tolerances and
limited areas of steeper grade.
Mandated Onrlot Grading Plan (14-313.e - g). The provisions contained in e, f
and g, are in direct conflict the goals and objectives of Virginia's Department of
Environmental Quality and the goals of Low Impact Design Development. Virginia
Department of Transportation also prefers open drainage easement based on their
experience in routing surface water away from roads. BRHBA asks if Albemarle
County is willing to abandon the DEQ's preferred approach as a by-right form of
development..
We further understand that the issue staff is trying to address is not that a design
utilizes a grassy swale or open ditch, they simply do not want the swale on an
individual lot. While this may ensure that no individual owns a drainage problem, as
currently envisioned, neither VDOT nor the County will be responsible for the
infrastructure. Ignoring property lines, if a problem arises now or in the future - no
one is stepping forward to maintain the PUBLIC infrastructure being required. The
problem has not been fixed, the potential for a problem is not eliminated, it is simply
more expensive. A good example of how underground expensive can impact a
homeowner is described in a recent article in The Hook, "Flooded House: Dreams get
soaked" (8/28/04)
http://readthehook.comlstoriesI2003/08/29/coverFloodedHouseDreamsGet.html
RECOMMENDATION 4: BRHBA recognizes that implementing a unified drainage
approach to development will help eliminate many of the problems alluded to by
staff. We reconunend eliminating the additional performance standards in sections e
thru g.
Mandated Overlot Grading Plan (14-313.h). Provisions in h clearly establish a
conservative driveway grade and profile. BRRBA feels that specific circumstances
can exist where steeper driveway grades can be constructed in a safe manner.
Additionally, we note that the 18' landing requirement, which was based on the
length of a parking space is excessive if the goal is to prevent cars from bottoming
out. Since the wheelbase dictates height of the vehicle through a vertical curve, a
shorter length is more logical.
Page Four
Although provisions for waiver can be made, after discussing this issue with Mark
Graham, BRHBA anticipates both logistic and philosophical difficulties in obtaining
such waivers. In our November meeting, Mr. Graham agreed to consider language to
allow driveways to be certified by a licensed design professional.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Add language (discussed with Mark Graham) "where
driveway slope exceeds 25% design must be certified by a licensed design
professional. Reduce the required landing criteria to 15'. Clarify that the maximum
grade criteria is an average grade through a minimum of 10'
Mandated Overlot Grading Plan (14-313.i). BRHBA has significant concems
regarding subsection 14.313.i. A literal interpretation would outlaw front porches
that have steps down to the street, one of the images often featured in Neighborhood
Model Development.
RECOMMENDATION 6: Eliminate this provision. If included, provide for
construction tolerances by restating the criteria as a maximum drop of 12" in 10'.
Include provisions for stairs, shorter distances to property lines and eliminate a need
to build an accessible route from the street to the backdoor of every basement unit.
Sec. 14-234 Procedure for authorization to construct private roads.
BRHBA recognizes competing interests within Albemarle COWlty staff regarding the
use of private roads. Organizationally it seems that the preamble as stated in
14.313.B would be better suited to come prior to the requirements as listed in
14.313.A.
If the purpose of pursuing the private road option is to make utilize the COWlty
"preferred" neighborhood model design as dictated by the comprehensive plan, must
all earth moving computations be completed and natural survey be completed at
submittal? As stated above, the neighborhood model design does not generally agree
with low impact development and will require significant mass grading in our rolling
cOWltryside. BRRBA questions the need for such information at this stage if
Albemarle County recognizes the cost to nature will be great and the mass grading
will occur to further the County's goals of neighborhood model development.
RECOMMENDATION 7: Switch A and B. Eliminate requirement for eartlunoving
computations and natural survey.
Page Five
Sec 14.410 Standards for all streets and alleys.
14.410.E Reserved or spite strips
BRHBA continues to have significant issues regarding the prohibition of spite strips.
These concerns were discussed in depth at DISC II and the solution proposed was
simply to use waivers to solve the issue. One concern is regarding when a proposed
street is designed to fall on a property line. This creates an inequitable negotiating
position for adjacent landowners. If the construction of such a street is to be
completed, Albemarle County must plan to create construction condemnation
easements or this prohibition should be dropped.
BRHBA is also concerned with the definition and application of the term "adequate
access". While we applaud the intent of eliminating landlocked parcels, we believe
adequate is a subjective word and should be dropped from this section.
RECOMMENDATION 8: Albemarle County must affirm its intent to use
construction condemnation powers to allow for the construction of roads on property
lines or the prohibition of spite strips should be removed.
Remove the word adequate in the discussion of access. The new language reads
"provided nothing herein shall prohibit areas for scenic planting and landscaping
where access to the adjoining lands is otherwise provided.
14.410.F Principal means of access
Virginia Department of Transportation uses a 25 year flood standard for the
construction of public roads. BRHBA believes that holding private roads to a higher
standard is inappropriate and may create a dangerous situation for citizens.
RECOMMENDATION 9: Eliminate this provision, refer to current VDOT
standards, or revise flood standard to the 25 year standard to agree with the VDOT
standard.
14.410.G Drainage
With regard specifically to piping under lots, BRHBA asks the county to be clear in
its design manual and in its implementation plan that this is an option of last resort.
Extensive use of piping will increase the land moving requirements as well as
decreasing the applicability of Low Impact Development Design.
RECOMMENDATION 10: No Text Change. BRHBA recommends the Albemarle
Board of Supervisors formally instruct the county engineer that a county mandated
requirement for piping is an option of last resort. In addition the county must
recognize the potential infrastructure maintenance cost of such systems.
Page Six
14.410.H Curb, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and planting strips.
This subsection mandates the construction of curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting
strips on every road constructed in the development area.
While BRHBA is not in complete agreement with this provision, we significantly
appreciate the strength and detail of the waiver language. It is not difficult to imagine
many situations where a community would be better served with a sidewalk on only
one side of the road or where the density does not support sidewalk construction at
all. BRHBA believes many parts of this ordinance will require the development
community to trust that waivers will be granted in an appropriate manner. With this
understanding and a significant amount of trepidation, BRHBA supports the proposed
language.
14.412 Standards for private streets
BRHBA applauds the language "or such other designs as provided in the design
standards manual". This language allows County Engineering to adjust the
"standards" as the county gains experience with new urbanist development. In
addition, this flexibility should allow the COWlty Engineer to approve reductions in
turning radius and 'other specifics when on street parking or other mitigating factors
are' present.
RECOMMENDATION 11: BRHBA asks Wlder this provision the COWlty Engineer
provided the authority to apply the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) low volume and very low volume roadways
standards where appropriate. While we believe the amendment as written provides
this authority, we would like the county attorney to confirm no further clarification is
required.
14.422 Sidewalks and Planting Strips
BRHBA is concerned that a strict standard for planting strip size is detrimental to the
flexibility of the plan. In addition, we continue to have concerns regard the long term
maintenance costs of street trees and their impacts on the snow removal options for
sidewalks.
RECOMMENDATION 12: BRHBA recommends that the specifications for size of
planting strips be removed. The size and design of the planting strip should be
included in the COWlty'S design manual and allow for different sizes dependent on the
street design. BRHBA recommend the mandated street trees be removed from the .
subdivision text amendment.
Page Seven
Blue Ridge Home Builders Association is proud of our organization's active involvement
of the development of this Subdivision Text Amendment. As we, and others, have said
from the beginning, this will not work without Albemarle County's commitment to make
good on promises made regarding concurrency of infrastructure fmancing, flexible
application of standards and a level of trust with the development community. BRHBA
has reached out in good faith on a number of these issues trusting the county will hold up
their end of the bargain.
If the Board of Supervisors is willing to accept the twelve recommendations included in
this letter, the BRHBA will support the proposed Subdivision Text Amendment.
Sincerely,
~ ~
- ,/'-
,,I ~-f~ t:t'~t~
Buddy Carlisle
President, Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE:
STA-01-08, Comprehensive Revision of the Subdivision December 1 , 2004
Ordinance.
SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: ACTION: X INFORMATION:
Amend Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle
County Code, to comprehensively revise the subdivision CONSENT AGENDA:
regulations by amending most existing regulations, ACTION: INFORMATION:
repealing or adding other regulations, and reorganizing
Chapter 14 and renumbering many existing regulations.
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
Echols REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL REVIEW: YES
BACKGROUND:
At the direction of the Board of Supervisors, DISC II has developed a set of recommended text changes to the subdivision
ordinance to address issues identified by various groups related to implementation of the Neighborhood Model. As
requested by the Board, staff prepared the changes which DISC II reviewed and endorsed, with modifications, at their
meetings on October 19, 2004 and October 26,2004.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
2.1 Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character
3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the
factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County.
DISCUSSION:
DISC II thoroughly reviewed the issues requested by the Board of Supervisors. In total, DISC 1/ met eighteen times
between May and October 26 to discuss and develop recommendations for modifications to the text amendment. At the
last two meetings, DISC II reviewed the specific text changes and asked for a few minor wording changes which staff was
expected to make and pass on to the Board.
Attachment A is a table of changes reflecting the DISC II recommendations. This table shows changes made to the March
30, 2004 draft amendment, which was the last version seen by the Board. Attachment B is a summary of the
recommendations. DISC II's recommended subdivision language is included as Attachment C. It is important to note that
this language has not yet received legal review by the County Attorney.
Staff will return to the Board on December 8 to review DISC II's recommended changes in light of the County's recently
adopted urbanization goal and also to discuss an anticipated letter from the Blue Ridge Homebuilders in response to the
DISC 1/ recommendations. After the Board has reviewed those perspectives along with the DISC II recommendations, staff
believes any remaining issues can be addressed. A final worksession can be scheduled for January 5, 2005 to review the
ordinance that will be brought to public hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors review the proposed changes and note any questions or concerns with
the DISC II recommendations. At the December 8th worksession, staff will request the Board provide any changes
needed to the amendment after consideration of urbanization impacts and Blue Ridge Homebuilder's comments.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: November 10, 2004 Table of Subdivision Text Changes Recommended by DISC II
ATTACHMENT B: Recommendations from DISC II to BOS 6/1/04 - 9/21/04
ATTACHMENT C: November 10. 2004 DISC II Recommended Lanauaae for the Subdivision Text Amendment
04.196
ATTACHMENT A
November 10, 2004
Table of Subdivision Text Changes
Recommended by DISC II
14-234 PC considerations for
private streets
14-313 Overlot Grading Plan
14-409 Coordination and
extension of streets
14-410 H Curb, curb & gutter
14-411 Standards for public
streets
14-412 Standards for private
streets
14-422 Sidewalks and planting
stri s
Add statements to distinguish private streets in the
rural areas from private streets in the development
areas.
Limit the circumstances in which an overlot grading
Ian is needed, and c1arif its a lication.
Make distinctions between extensions of r.O.w. and
construction to the property line. Adds agent waiver
for construction to the property line and commission
waiver for extending the r.o.w. to the property line.
Provides criteria for both waivers.
Replace agent waiver with commission waiver and
re lace criteria for waiver.
Allow for agent waiver of ultimate pavement width
where street extensions are re uired under 14-409.
Makes distinctions between private street standards
in the rural areas and development areas.
Removes waiver of private street standards and
easement or r.o.w. width, for the development
areas, by adding a reference to alternative
standards found in the design standards manual.
(Leaves rural area private street standards and
easement width waivers as current! written
Remove agent waiver and replace with commission
waiver. Add criteria for waivers.
ATTACHMENT B
Recommendations from DISC II to the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors June 1, 2004 - September 21, 2004
Interconnections, Private Streets, Overlot Grading
And Urban Street Improvements
Comments from DISC II Regarding Interconnections
And the Proposed Subdivision Text Amendment
6/1/04
DISC II believes that interconnected road systems should be developed in the Development
Areas and that it is appropriate that the subdivision ordinance require interconnections between
adjacent parcels during the platting process. Where interconnections are physically
possible, economically feasible, and will result in a functionally interconnected street system
they should be built with the street system for the subdivision.
The proposed subdivision amendment acknowledges three areas for waivers of constructing the
street to the adjoining parcel. These waivers are where offsite easements would be required to
construct the street to the property line, where stream buffers would be disturbed or where a
present public purpose would not be served. DISC II supports these waivers but believes that
the there should be other areas in which waivers should be available.
A waiver should be made available that relates to the cost of constructing the improvement
to the scale of the development. For example, it would not be appropriate to require a
developer of a 20 - unit development to construct the oversize portion of the street to support
the 500 - unit development next door. It would not be appropriate for a single developer to build
Lickinghole Bridge to provide a physical connection to an adjoining parcel. In both of these
cases, however, provisions should be made to allow for the future connections into adjacent
undeveloped areas.
The second area relates to how the interconnection would relate to other goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and specifically the Neighborhood Model. Waivers should be available if a
built interconnection would preclude or diminish the ability of a developer to meet other goals of
the Neighborhood Model.
A third area relates to building interconnections in portions of the Development Area where
master plans have not yet been created or where insufficient information exists to adequately
know where an adjoining connection or connections should take place. As with the other two
items above, opportunities for future connections should not be precluded; however, a waiver to
build the street may be appropriate.
DISC II recognizes that the more subjective the waiver, the less comfortable staff would be in
granting an administrative waiver. DISC II acknowledges that these more subjective waiver
requests will need to be reviewed and acted on by the Planning Commission. DISC believes
that more emphasis should be placed in the ordinance on the fact that the Planning Commission
and ultimately the Board of Supervisors can hear appeals on decisions concerning waivers.
A IT ACHMENT B
Comments from DISC II Regarding Private Streets
And the Proposed Subdivision Text Amendment
6/16/04
DISC II believes that implementation of the Neighborhood Model is the priority and the proposed
standards in the subdivision ordinance relative to private streets are the best vehicle the County
has for now for that implementation. The County should continue to work on a parallel system
to promote changes in the subdivision street regulations with VDOT as well as provide
opportunities for private streets to be approved.
The County's Engineering Department has developed the attached set of street standards that
support the Neighborhood Model and reflect sound engineering practice. The County should
continue to advocate for these street standards to be adopted by VDOT. Until VDOT accepts
the proposal, the County should approve private streets in the Development Areas in
accordance with these standards.
Providing the opportunity in the subdivision ordinance for the development community to
request private streets which support Neighborhood Model type developments should not
construed to mean that private streets are required. When a developer does not wish to
propose private streets, the County will advocate with VDOT for public street standards which
most closely resemble Neighborhood Model type streets. It is likely that the County will see
development proposals which contain a combination of both public and private streets.
Because there is a risk to the County that homeowners associations will default on their
responsibility for maintenance of their private streets in the future, more rigorous assurances
should be required in the subdivision ordinance to ensure that maintenance of private streets
actually occurs.
Comments from DISC II Regarding Overlot Grading
And the Proposed Subdivision Text Amendment
6/16/04
DISC II believes that the problems related to drainage, poor lot-to-Iot relationships caused by
grading lot-by-Iot, steep slopes of driveways, and steep slopes around houses relate more to
density than the form of development recommended by the Neighborhood Model. DISC II
believes that these problems exist mostly in the Development Areas, though, and that a
requirement for an overlot grading plan is appropriate.
DISC /I recommends that minor wording changes be made to Sections 14-313 E relating to
storm drainage and 14-313 G related to steep driveways. We also believe that language should
be added to the ordinance to allow for agent approval of a waiver to overJot grading where it is
clear to the agent that there is no benefit for requiring such a plan. Examples of such instances
are situations where little grading is needed for development of a site, where large lots (lots in
excess of 20,000 square feet) are proposed or where lot widths are proposed to be greater than
1 00 feet.
Further, DISC II believes that, during a rezoning process, greater attention be paid to grading
and topography. Prior to approval of rezonings, efforts should be made to minimize possible
conflicts between the principles of the Neighborhood Model.
ATTACHMENT B
Comments from DISC II Regarding Curb and Curb and Gutter
And the Proposed Subdivision Text Amendment
8/31/04,
DISC II strongly supports requiring urban improvements such as curbing and closed drainage
systems on new streets in the Development Areas. We believe that there are certain
circumstances in which this requirement could be waived without impacting implementation of
the Neighborhood Model. Each circumstance will be unique and needs to be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis. For that reason, DISC II recommends that all waivers be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. Waivers should be available for lots for single family detached units only
or where lots will not front on the proposed street.
In granting a waiver to the requirement for urban street improvements, the Planning
Commission should consider the following items:
1. The project size or street length and the types of lots to be served.
2. Whether the proposed street(s) or street extension connects into an existing system of rural
streets,
3. Whether the street terminates in the development or at the edge of the Development Area or
is otherwise not expected to provide interconnections to abutting areas,
4. Whether the use of a rural cross-section at a particular location in the Development Areas
furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, with particular emphasis on the
Neighborhood Model and Master Plans,
5. Whether the use of a rural cross-section would enable a different principle of the
Neighborhood Model portion of the Comprehensive Plan to be implemented more fully,
6. Whether the proposed density of the subdivision into lots is consistent with the density
recommended in the Land Use Plan, and
7. Recommendations from the Planning Director and County Engineer related to County goals,
policies, good planning practice and good engineering practice including the need for on-
street parking, drainage, and consistency with existing or anticipated street sections.
These items should be considered before the Planning Commission grants a waiver. Items 2
and 3 are examples of when a waiver might be warranted. There are other examples which
have not been cited, but which should be covered under the other items in the list.
Comments from DISC II Regarding Sidewalks
And the Proposed Subdivision Text Amendment
917/04
DISC II believes that:
a. For urban streets, concrete sidewalks should be required on both sides of the street. An
exception to this rule would be allowed only where lots are proposed to be single-loaded;
however, more work needs to be done on what "single-loaded" means.
b. A PC waiver should be available for the requirement to provide sidewalks on both sides of
the street and for use of an asphalt path if there is an extraordinary situation. More work
needs to be done to qualify what an extraordinary situation would be.
c. A statement should be added to the ordinance which states that staff may require a 10'
multi-use path if the use warrants the need for the path. This multi-use path would replace a
ATTACHMENTB
sidewalk. An example of a use warranting the path would be near a school where having
bicycles off-road is preferable to on-road.
d. For rural cross-section streets, a PC waiver could be requested for building a sidewalk.
Because pedestrian access is a high priority as a County goal, sidewalks would not be
automatically waived.
f. In granting a waiver for sidewalks on both sides of the street or a waiver to the requirement
altogether, the Planning Commission should consider:
1. the number of lots to be created
2. width of lots,
3. density of the development,
4. the existing pedestrian system within the surrounding area,
5. ability of the sidewalk to connect into an existing or future pedestrian system
6. whether an alternate pedestrian system could provide more appropriate access
throughout the development
Comments from DISC II Regarding Planting Strips
And the Proposed Subdivision Text Amendment
9/21/04
DISC II believes that
a. For urban streets, in single family detached developments, a 6 foot planting strip for street
trees should be provided.
b. A PC waiver should be available for the requirement to provide a planting strip for street
trees.
c. For rural cross-section streets, a PC waiver could be requested for providing a planting strip
for street trees. Waivers for curb or curb and gutter, sidewalks, and street trees on a
particular street or portion of a street would likely be considered at the same time.
f. In granting a waiver for planting strips the Planning Commission should consider:
1. whether a waiver to allow a rural street standard has been granted
2. whether a sidewalk waiver has been granted
3. whether reducing the size of or eliminating the planting strip promotes the goals of the
comprehensive plan, the neighborhood model, or a neighborhood master plan
4. whether a waiver would better enable other principles of the neighborhood model to be
achieved.
g. The requirement in the subdivision ordinance should apply to subdivisions where no site
plan is expected. Where a site plan is expected, the requirements should be put in the
zoning ordinance.
ATTACHMENT C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
Department of Community Development
Division of Planning
(434) 296 - 5823
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax; (434) 972 - 4035
TO:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Elaine K. Echols, AICP, Principal Planner
DATE:
November 10, 2004
SUBJECT:
DISC II Recommended Language for the Subdivision Text Amendment
In response to the Board's request to recommend specific text changes, DISC II recommends the
following specific language be incorporated into the subdivision ordinance for interconnections,
private streets, overlot grading, and urban street improvements. These changes are in llllld
below. Please be advised that the ~ text in Section 14-412 was provided by the Planning staff
(and not the County Attorney's office) in response to DISC II recommendations.
INTERCONNECTIONS
See. 14-409 Coordination and extension of streets.
Public streets within the develoDment areas desil!J1ated in the comnrehensive Dlan shall be
coordinated and extended as follows'
A All Dublic streets within a subdivision shall be coordinated as to location width
l!:rades and drainal!e with other DubHe streets as follows' (i) bv coordinatim>: with existinl!: or
"lanned streets within the lleneral area of the subdivision includinll but not limited to existinl>: or
futuTe adiacent subdivisions or subdivisions contiouous to such adiacent subdivisions. and (11)
bv continuinl!' the Dublic streets to Dlanned existinl!: or nlatted streets into adioininll areas bv
dedication OT reservation of ri2ht of way adeauate to accommodate continuation of the streets.
R An DubUc street~ within a ~uhdivi~ion shall be extended and con~tructed to
the ahnttinlJ nrODertv lines to Drovide vehil'ular and Dededrian Interl'onnel'tions to future
develoDment on adioinln!!: lands. The arran!!:ement of all streets shall Drovlde adeQuate
access to adioinln" narcels where necessarY to Drovide for the orderlv develoDment of the
~
C. The reQuirements ofsubsel'tion (A) may be modified or waived bv the
commission as Drovided in section 14-225.1. In revlewinl! a waiver reQuest. the commission
ATIACHMENT C
shall consider the followln\!: (j) the en!!lneerln!! ImDlications for coordination and
connection: (m whether the need for coordination and connection outweighs the imDacts on
environmental resources such as streams. stream huffers. steen slones. and Iloodnlain: (jiil
whether the street should be extended Into the rural areas designated in the comDrehensive
Dlan: (iv) whether there is an alternative street connection from another location in the
subdivision that is Dreferable because of desi!!n. traffic flow. or the Dromotlon of the !!oals
of the comDrehensive Dlan. the nelphborhood model and the aDDlicable neil!hborhood
master Dlan: and (v) whether not reouirin\! coordination and connection would enable the
overall des!l!n of the subdivision to better achieve the nrincinles of the neilrhborhood model
D. The reQuirements of subsection (B) may be waived bv the al!ent as Drovided
In section 14-224.1. In revlewlm~ a waiver reQuest. the a\!ent shall consider: (j) whether
extendin\! the street to the abuttln!! nrODertv line would reouire offsite easements. disturb
stream buffers. or other alternative connections to the abuttin!! Darcel from a different
location would Drovlde a better connection: and (II) whether the street should be extended
into the rural area~ desipnated in the comnrehensive nlana If the waiver Is pranted: (i) the
DubHe street shall be construl:ted Qast the Dolnt at which the Drimarv structures on the
abutting lots would rei v on the finished prade (fir landscanlnp and other Imnrovements. but
in no case less than thirty (30) feet beyond the curb line or ditch line on the abutting lot: (m
the subdivider shall dedicate the reQuired rllrht ofwav to the abutting DrODertv line. alonl!
with all easements reQuired to allow the street connection to be constructed in the future:
the reQuired easements shall nrohlblt any Imnrovements being established therein: and (ili)
the a!!ent may reQuire that the subdivider install and maintain a si!!n at the end of the
constructed Dortlon of the street statin" that the street Is a future throuph street: the al!ent
may reQuire that the subdivider maintain the sipn until the county \!rants final aDDroval of
extendinp' tbe !ltreet to the abuttinp nronertv.
Sec. 14-411 Standards for Dublic streets onlv.
In addition to the minimum desi{!!l reouirements set forth set forth in section 14-410 all
DubHc streets within a subdivision shall be desil!l1ed and constructed accordin!!: to Virl!inia
Oenartment of Tnmsoortation standards.
For all oubHc streets to be coordinated and extended as orovlded In section 14-409.
the apent may allow a DubHc !ltreet to be constructed at less than the ultimate oavement
width. orovlded the street meets DubHe street standards for the lots to be served bv the
streets. In determininp whether to reQuire the ultimate Davement width. the apent shall be
l!:uided bv the size of the subdivision. the street lenp'th and the tvnes of lots to he served
relative to the cost ofnrovldlnl!' the ultimate width
OVERLOT GRADING
Sec. 14-313 Overlot gradinp olan.
If the subdivision will create lots m within a develoDment area desip'nated In the
comorehensive nlan: (Ii) any one of which Is twenty thousand (20.000) SQuare feet or less in
area or is one hundred (100) feet wide: and (iii) for establlshlnp sinple familv detached or
attached dwellinp units the subdivider shall suhmlt. nrior to or with the final nlat. an
2
ATTACHMENT C
oyerlot !!fadin!! ulan showin!! existin!! and urooosed tonol!l'anhic features to be considered in the
develonment of the orono sed subdivi~ion and satisfvinQ the followin2:
A. The nlan shall show an nronosed streets. buildin(! sites surface drainal!e
driveways. trails and other features the aQent detennines are needed to verify that the nlan
satisfies the reauirements of this section
J.;l The nlan shall be drawn to a scale not l!l'eater than one (J) inch eauals fifty (50)
m
C An nroDOsed l!T3dinl! shan be shown with contour intervals not l!l'eater than two
(2) feet. All concentrated surface drainal!e over lots shall he clearlv shown with the nrooosed
l!l'adinl!. A 11 monosed l!l'adim>: shall be shown to assure that surface drainal!e can orovide
~deauate relief from floodin!! of dwellinl!s in the eyent a~tol'1Jl.sewer fails,
D Graded slones on lots orooosed to be olanted with turf Qrasses (lawns) shall not
exceed a frradient of three (~) feet of hori7ontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or
fall (3' \) Steene! slooes shall be yel!etated with low maintenance yel!etation as detennined to be
aooronriate bv the nrOQTam authoritv in its aonroval of an erosion and sediment control nlan for
the land disturbine actiyity. These steener slooes shall not exceed a l!l'adient of two (2) feet of
horizontal distance for each one (n foot of vertical rise or fall (2: 1), unless the countv enl!ineer
finds that the l1Tadim>: recommendations for steeoer slooes have adeauatelv addressed the
~
E. Surface drainal!e mav now across UD to three (3) lots before belnp- collected
in a storm sewer or directed to a draina"e wav outside of the lots.
F. No surface dralnal!e across a residential lot shall have more than one-half
(1/2) ac:re of land drainin" to It.
G All drainal!e from streets shall be carried across lots in a stonn sewer to a ooint
bevond the rear of the build.in2 site.
H The nlan ~hall demonstrate that driveways to lots will not be sleener than twenty
(2m nercent and shall include !!fadin!! transitions at the street that the aeent detennines will
allow na~SenQeT vehicles to avoid scranin!! the vehicle body on the driyewav or the street.
Additionally the driveway !!fadinl! shall orovide an area in front of the nronosed !!ara!!e. or an
area oronosed for vehicle narkinl! where no eara!!e is orooosed that is not less than eiehteen (] 8)
feet in lemrth that will be l!l'aded no steener than eil!ht (8) oercent
I. The olan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in width mea~ured
outward from the face of the structure. has l!rades no steener than ten (] 0) DefCent adiacent to
nossible entrances to dwellinQ:s. This l!Taded area shall extend from entrances to driveways or
walkwavs connectin!! the dwel1inl! to the street
J Any reouirement of this section may be waived bv the alIent as oTOyided in
section 14-224.1. In reviewinQ' a waiver re(]u~t the ai?ent shall determine whether an alternative
DTQoosed bv the subdivider satisfies the numose of the reaulrement to be waived to at least an
eauiyalent del1Tee
3
ATTACHMENT C
Concerns in the development community have been raised over implementation of overlot
grading. Mark Graham has prepared language to be included in the Design Standards Manual
for how the overlot grading requirements are to be met in the field.
PRIVATE STREETS
Sec. 14-234 Procedure for authorization to construct privatH&IHI strttt and related
matters.
Reauests under sections 14-232(A) or 14-232(B) shall be submitted Drocessed and acted
uQon as follows:
A. A subdivider shall submit a request in writing to the agent at the time of the
submittal of the preliminary plat, or a later date specified by the agent at the preliminary
annl1cation conference. nrovided that an owner mav submit a reQuest in writinl! to the agent at
the time of submittal of an aDDlication to rezone land to a Dlanned develonment district or ~ i;ter
date SDecified bv the aeent. even thoueh a oreliminarv Dlat has not been submitted.
I. The request shall state the reasons and justifications for the request, and
shall particularly address one or more applicable bases for granting the request as identified in
sections 14-232 ar 11 233, and each ofthe five findings identified in paragraph (C) required to
be made hy the eemmissiOR. The request shall also include a map of the subdivision having
contour intervals of not greater than twenty (20) feet showing the horizontal alignment together
with field-run profiles and typical cross-sections of the fOOds~. The county engineer may
waive requirements of the field-run profile in the case of an existing read ~ or where deemed
appropriate due to topography, or if the topographic map is based on aerial or field collected data
with a contour interval accuracy oftive vertical feet or better. A request pursuant to section 14-
232(A)(I) shall include earthwork computations demonstrating significant degradation.
2. The agent shall forward the map to the county engineer for review and
comment. When the agent has received comments on the map from the county engineer, the
agent shall then consider the request. The agent shall then proceed as follows:
(a) If the request for a private read street is made pllrSll&flt to l.I1lder
section l4-232(A), ar i5 11ft)' reqlle5t mllee "lIIeer 5eetieft 11 232 vkieh iRehlae5 II request
purSUBflt to sootieR 11 233, he may recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A
recommendation of approval or conditional approval shall be accompanied by a statement by the
agent as to the public purpose served by the recommendation, particularly in regard to the
purpose and intent ofthis chapter, the zoning ordinance, and the comprehensive plan; or
(b) If the request for a private read ~ is made pllFSlllffit to under
section 14-232(8), he may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request.
3. The commission shall not consider a request until it has received and
considered the recommendation of the agent.
4
ATTACHMENT C
B. In considering a request for authorization to construct one or more private f6ads
~ or to graBt a wai'/er, the agent and commission shall consider that private f6tlds ~ are
intended to be the exception to the construction and dedication of public streets and, and In the
rural areas desilmated in comDrehensive Dlan. are intended to promote sensitivity toward the
natural characteristics of the land and to encourage the subdivision of land in a manner that is
consistent and harmonious with surrounding development. In the deyeloDment areas
deshmated in the comDrehensiye Dlan. they are intended to enable the DrinclDles of the
neil!hborhood model to be more fullY imQlemented.
Sec. 14-412 Standards for Driyate streets onlv.
In addition to the minimum desilm reouirements set forth in section 14-410 the followin!!
minimum desi\!ll reauirements shall annlv to nrivate streets authorized bv this chanter:
A Residential private streets. Each orivate street authorized bv sections 14-
232( A)()) 14-232(B)(1) or ]4-232(B)(2) shall satisfy the followin!!'
]. Street~ servin!! two lots Easement or ri!!ht-of-wav widths shall be thirty
(30) feet minimum The reouired materials and minimum deDth ofhase shall satisfy the
minimum reauirements described in the desilm standards manual. The surveyor shall include the
followin{! wordinQ on the final nlato "The existinil and/or DfoDosed rh~~ht-of-wav is of adeauate
width and horizontal and vertical alilmment to accommodate a travelwav Dassab]e bv ordinarY
Dassenl!er vehicles in all but temDorarv extreme weather conditions. tOl!ether with area adeouate
for maintenance ofthe trayelwav as reouired bv section ]4-4]2 of the Albemarle County Code."
2 Streets servin!! three to five lotv Vertical centerline curvature shall meet a
minimum desilm K value oftive (5) for crest curves and fifteen (15) for sal! curves Sil!ht
distances shall not be less than one hundred (lOOl feet Turnarounds shall he nrovided at the end
of streets ner American Association of State Hi!!hwav and TransDortation Officials l!uidelines.
Street casemeflts aT fi ~ht af ....a'/ v..ieths shall ee thim' (30) feet millimum
(a) Streets in areas desirmated as rural areas In TIlTal aTeas
desil!T1ated in the comnrehensive Dlan street easements or ril!"ht-of-wav widths shall be thirtv
130) feet minimum. travelwav widths shall be fourteen (]4) feet minimum with three (3) feet
minimum shoulders widths and a minimum of four (4) feet from the edl!e of the shoulder to the
ditch centerline Ifanv Dortion of the street exceeds seven (7) Dercent in l!rade the entire street
shall be surfaCed as reouired bv Vifl!inia DeDartment of Transoortation standards Streets of
lesser 2fade may use a 2favel surface.
(b) Streets in area~ desi!!nated as develoDment areas In develoDment
areas desilmated in the comDTehensive ulan street ellsements or right-of-WllY widths Shllll be
thirty (30) feet minimum llnd an urban section street desil!l1 shall be Drovided with a minimum
width oftwentv (20) feet measured from the curb faces or such alternative desiQ11 . includin{!
street easement or ril.ht-of-wav width as Drovided in the desil!T1 standards manual Additional
width~ ~hall he added for I!utters to control drainaQe at the discretion of the county enlrineer
Travelwavs shall be surfaced as reouired bv Vifl!inia Deoartment ofTransDortation standards
(c) Other reduction Other asnects of desilm not sDecified above are
to he according to the desiQ11 standards manual or an alternative desiQt1 ~nnToved bv the county
5
.--..............-........--....-.-------
j Formatted: Font: Times New
i Roman Bold, Bold, Double underline, !
i Font color: Black
, Formatted: Tabs: 1.5", Left + Not ,
, at -0.06" + 0" ,
.......___M.__._._.__.__.._.....____.._...._._......__._~
ATTACHMENT C
enl!ineer. Anv standard in this oaralrranh (2) mav be reduced to the standard for streets servin I!
two (2) lots. where a driveway deoarts from the road and two lots remain to be served and a
turnaround is orovided
Cd) Minimum allowable radius. The radius for horizontal curvature
shall be forty (40) feet or lrreater. unless otherwise authorized by this chaoter.
3. Streets servin!!: six lots or more.
(a) Streetf in areal! defirmated af rural areal!. In rural areas
desilmated on the comDrehensiye nlan. Vlrf!inla I)enartment of Transnortation standards
shall annly excent that the commission may anOTOve Virl!:inia Denartment ofTransoortation
standards for mountainQus terrain. where for a snecific. identifiable reason. the l!:eneral
welfare. as onnosed to the nronrietarv interest ofthe subdivider. would be better served by
the DnDllcatlon of those standards. The commission may imnose any condition nertainimz
to the road it deem~ rea!l;nnahle and necessarv in conillnction with anv anDroval Dursuant
to this section (Taken from 14-233 D & E)
(b) Streetf in areaf defipnated af develnnment area~ In
deyeloDment areas deshmated on the cornnrehensiye olan. the Vir9inia Deoartment of
TransDortation standards ~hall 90nlv excent that the commission may allow Virpinia
Deoartment of TransDortation standards for mountainolls terrain or such alternative
standards in the desilm standards manual or otherwise annroyed bv the county enl!:ineer . The
commission may Imoose any condition oertain!n!!' to the road It deems reasonable and
necessary in conlunction with any annmyal DUYSllant to this section. (Taken from 14-233 D
and E)
4. Streets servin v familv subdivir;ions Easement or riQht-of-wav widths shall
be ten (10) feet minimum. The survevor shall include the followinl!: wordinQ on the final Dlat:
"The existinlr and/or nronosed right-or-way is ofadeauate width and hori7.ontal and vertical
alilmment to accommodate a travelwav nassable bv ordinarv nassen!!:er vehicles in all but
temnorarv extreme weather conditions topether with area adeauate for maintenance of the
travelwav. as reauired bv section 14-412 of the Albemarle County Code"
B. Private streetr servinr! the r!eneral welfare' non-reridential attached residential
multi-unit resid2ntial and comhined re.~idential and non-revidential nrivate streetv. A nnvate
street authorized bv sections 14-232( A )(2), 14-232(8)(3) or 14-232(8)(4) shall conform to
Virl!inia Denal1ment of TransDOrtation standards. or such alternative standards in the desilm
manual or otherwise annToved bv the commission unoo the recommendation of the county
en lrin eer. The a(!ent mav reauire minimum travelwav widths to nrovide for on-street oarkinQ:
uno" a determination that the nrovlsions fOT off-~treet narkinl!' mav be inadeouate to reasonably
nreclude unauthorized on-street narkinl!:.
C. Gearin!!: land for imDrovements. A nriyate street constructed to ViTl!inia
Deoartment of Transoortation standards shall not be subiect to that deoartment's reauirements or
oractices fOT clearine: land to achieve reauired si2ht distance.
D. Landl!caDinv and other imTJrovementr TJermitted Subseauent to construction of a
nnvate street a subdivider mav in!;tall ornamental nlantinp'~ a.nd anv nther imnrovements
6
A IT ACHMENT C
orovided that they do not conflict with sight distance. draina\!:e facilities or other reauired
imorovements.
E. Waiver. The reouirements of subsection 14-412 (A )(2)(a). relatinp to street
easements or ri~ht-of-wav widths of thirtv (30) mav be waived bv the commission as orovided
in section 14-225 1 In Teviewin~ a waiver reaue~t for a lesser ri~ht-of-wav.. the commission
shall consider whether m the subdivision will be served bv an existinp easement of fixed
width. which cannot be widened bv the subdivider after documented ~ood faith effort bv
him to acouire additional ri~ht-of-wav width: and (Ii) the existiRlJ easement is of adeoua~e
width to accommodate the travelwav as reouired bv section 14-412 (1\)(2)(a) to\!:ether with
area adeouate for maintenance ofthe same. Where a waiver reouest for 14-412 (A)(2)(a)
oertains to minimum rhrht-of-wa.v width reouirements over anv existinl! bridpe or other
structure the commission shall consider whether m the 10nlO-term environmental imDacts
of result! n\!: from not widenin\!: the brid~e or structure. as determined bv the cou ntv
em.ineer. outweiph comnlvinp with the minimum ripht-of-wav width reouirements: or (Ii)
whether the hridpe or structure is a hi~torical ~tructllre. The commission mav imnose anv
condition nertainln9 to the road It deems t:easonable and neces~arv in conJunction with anv
aooroval oursuant to this section. (Taken from 14-233 B and C)
CURB/CURB AND GUTTER
Sec. 14-410 Standards for all streets and allevs.
The fol1owinQ minimum desim st~ndards shall ~nnlv to all street.c; and alJevs within a
subdivision'
A. Lavout. Each street shall be confi\!:ured to the extent nracticable. to conform to
the natural toool!:Taohv. to minimize the disturbance of critical slones and natural drai~~;~ ~~~as
and to nrovide vehicular and nedestrian interconnections within the subdivision and exi~~in~ ~~
future develonment on adioinin\!: lands
B Anrde of intersection. An angle of intersection of not less than eil!htv (80)
del!Tees is accentable' however. a nemendicular intersection where nractical i~ ~~~fe~;d. The
countv enlrineer may trr3nt an excention to this reouirement for a nrivate street in accord with
American Association of State Hi\!:hway and Transnortation Officials l!:uideIines.
C. TemDorarv turnarounds Streets more than three hundred (300) feet in lenlrth
from an intersection or nronosed to serve more than four (4) dwell]n (! units th~t ;~~i~;~~
temnorarily shall benroyided with a temnorarv turnaround meetinl!: American Ass~~i~ti~n of
State Hil!hwav and Transnortation Officials ~uldeltnes The temnorarv tumaro~-;;d
shall be extended to the abuttin\!: nronerty line unless a waiver Is l!:ranted ~~ ~~~;Ided In
section 14-409(1)). The temoorarv turnaround shall exist until the street extensions ll~~ ~ccented
into the secondarY system of state hil!hw&vs.
D. A/levs. Allevs with a ri\!:ht-of-wav or easement width of not less than twenty (20)
feet may be nrovided in the rear or side of all commercial industrial: ~~d~~~id~~ti~ll~~; Th;
desilm snecitications shall be detennined bv the countv enl!ineer subj~~; ;;~he f~J~:~~~:i~~~he
allev desilm shall allow emer\!:encv services vehicles such as oolice cars ~~d ~b~1 c s ~
7
ATTACHMENT C
the allev: and (2) an alley need not be desilmed to accommodate the lamest emefQency services
vehicles. excent that if firetrucks do not have adeauate access to one or more lots from a street
the county en!!:ineer shan reauire that the alleY be desil!:lled to accommodate firetrucks. The
a2ent mav authorize an allev to he established with a ril!ht-of-wav or easement width of less than
twentv (20) feet if the director determines that based UDon the recommendation of the countv
en!!:ineer. the DroDosed desilm incomorates features that assure DubHc safetv and welfare. The
county emrineer shall consider the nrovision of adeauate access to reauired onsite narkinl!: and/or
!!:ara!!:es unimDeded vehicular circulation alon!!: the allev. an adeauate clear zone alon!!: the alley.
and other safetv issues deemed aonrooriate for the conditions Allev ri!!:hts-of-wav may either be
established as orivatelv held fee simole interests or as nrivatelv held easements.
E. Reserved or soite strios. Reserved or soite strins restrictin!!: access to an existin!!:
or future street or alley shall not be nennitted' orovided that nothin~ herein shall nrohibit areas
for scenic olantin!!: and landscaninlZ where adequate access tg. the adioininlZ lands is otherwise
available
F Princinal mpans of acces~t; The nrincinal me&ns of access to a subdivision shalt
conform in the case of a DubHe street to Vinrinia Denartment of Transnortation standards or in
the case of a nri vate street to the standards of the county as set forth in section 14-412
throulZhout the street's lenlZth includinl!" any distance between the boundatv of the subdivision
and anY existin2 nublie street. If discharQe water of a one hundred (] 00) vear storm could
reasonablv be anticinated to inundate block destroy or otherwise obstruct a nrincinal means of
access to a residential suhdivision the followinlr shall also ann Iv'
1. The nrincinal means of aCCeSS shall be desil!:lled and constructed so as to
nrovide unobstructed access at the time of floodinQ sublect to the reouircments of section 30.3.
flood hazard overlav district. of the zoninlZ ordinance: and/or
2. An alternative means of access which is not subiect to inundation
blocka2"e. destruction or obstruction. and which is accessible from each lot within the subdivision
shall be constructed
G Drainar!l! Adeauate drainage control shall be orovided for streets bv installinlZ
culverts under streets- side lead or outlet ditches' catch basins' curb inlets' or anv other devicesL
inc1udinl!: oiDim! as determined to be necessary bv the county enlrineer. All of these
imoTovements shall meet the standards of the county or in the event no countv standards exist.
ViTlZinia Denartment ofTransnortation standards
H Curb. curb and Futter sidewalkv and nlantinf! ~trins In everv develonment aTf~a
desil!T1ated in the comnrehensive Dlan streets shall be constructed with curb or curb and vutter
sidewalks and nlantin2 shins Sidewalks and nlantinl!' strins shall desiQ1led and constructed in
comoliance with section 14-422 The reauirement for curb or curb and I!utter may be waived bv
the commission as nrovided in section 14-225.1. In reviewinl! a waiver reauest to allow a rural
standard road instead tbe commission shall consider: (j) number onots in the subdivision
and the tvnes of lots to be served: (in the lenl!:tb of the !ltreet: (iii) whether the nroDosed
street(s) or street extension connects into an exi!ltinl!: svstem of streets constructed to a rural
cross-section: (iv) whether the street terminates in the neif7hhorhood or at the edl!e of the
develonment area or is otherwi~e exnected to oro\lide interconnection~ to ahuttinp areas:
IX) whether a rural cros~-sectlon in the develonment areas fllrther~ the t70als of the
8
ATTACHMENT C
comDrehensive Dlan. with Dartieular emDhasis on the nei!!hborhood mo<tel and the
aDDlicable neivhborhood master Dlan: (vi) whether or not allowin!!' use of a rural cross-
section would enable tbe overall desilm of the subdivision to better achieve the DrinciDles of
the nei!!hborbood model: and (vii) whether the DroDosed densitv of the subdivision is
consistent with the densitv recommended in the land use Dlan section of the comDrehensive
WaD..
SIDEWALKS AND PLANTING STRIPS
Sec. 14-422 Sidewalks and Dlantin!! striDs.
Sidewalks and Dlanti",' strius shall be Drovided as follows:
A. ReQuirement. Sidewalks aud nlantl"" strius for street trees and other
vel!'etation shall he established on both sides of each new street within a suhdivision
creatiot>' lots for sio!!le familv detached and siople familv attached dwelliop's within anv
deve]ooment area desi~nated in the comnrehensive olan.
B. Sidewalk de~ir!n. F:ach sidewalk DrDDOSed to be accented for maintenance hv
the Virvinia DeDartment of TransDortatiQn shall be desil'ned and constructed accordin!! to
Virl!inia DeDartment of TransDortation standards or to the standards in the desivn
standards manual. whichever is preater. All other sidewalks shall be constructed usinp
concrete and desh'ned so that no concentrated water now runs over them and as otherwise
orovlded In the deshrn st9nd9rd~ manual. The a~ent may modify the reQuirement thaf
sueh ddewalks be con!ltructed u!ling concrete and allow a 10-foot multi-use asuhalt ~;ih in
uniaue circumstance~ sueh as a oath leadin~ to a school or maior emolovrnent center. The
asnhalt oath "enerallv shall run narallel to the street.
C. Sidl'walk owne~hin. F:aeh sidewalk shall he dedicated to nuhllc use or
conveved to a hnme-owner~ a~~n~iati()n fn,r owner~hin and maintenance. The 9pent may
reauire that the sidt:walk be dedicated to Duhlic use if the a!!ent determines there is a need
for the sidewalks to be Duhliclv owned and maintained.
D. Plantin!! strio desirm. Each Dlanting strio shall be a minimum of six (6) feet
In width exeent that the minimum width mav be less in areas oftransitlon bet~~~n ;~~~I
cr()~s-settion and urhan c,:oss-sectlon streett..
E. Waiver!i from ddewalk reQuirement,. The reouirements for sidewalks mav he
waiyed by the commission as nrovlded In section 14-225.1. In reviewi"" a re(lu~; ;~~~i~e
the reouirement for sidewalk'6 the enmmi~don shall con~ider: (I) whethe; ~ ~;i~~;;o ~~;~w
a rural street standard has heen "ranted: (in whether a surface other than conc~~;e k ~~~e
aDDrooriate for the !lubdivision because ofthe character ofthe Drouosed suhdlvid~n ~;d
the surroundin" neighhorhood: Wi) whether sidewalks on one-side of the st;;~; ;;~
aODronriate due to environmental con~traints ~uch as streams. stream huffp.r~ ~ritfcal
slone~. nnodnlain. or wetland~ or lot~ are nrovided on onlv one side of ;h-~ ~;~~~;~ ~i~)
whether the sidewalk reasonably can connect Into an existing or future ~~d~~~;i~~ ~;:t~:;.
(v) whether the lenP1:h ofthe street Is so short and the densitv of the dev~i~)O~~~~ i~
9
A'IT ACHMENT C
that it is unlikelv that the sidewalk would be used: (vi) whether an alternate Dedestrian
svstem includin!!' an alternative Davement could Drovlde more aDDroDriate access
throul!'hout the develoDment and to adioininl!' DroDerties: (vii) whether the waiver
Dromotes the 20als of the comorehensive Dlan. the neil!'hborhood model. and the aDDlicable
neil!'hborhood master Dlan: and (viii) whether waivinl!' the reauirement for sidewalks would
enable the overall desil!'D of the subdivision to better achieve the DrfndDles of the
nei..hborhood model.
F. Waivers from olantinf! strio reouirements The reauirernents for nlantin..
strins may be waived bv the commission as orovfded In section 14-225.1. In reviewini! a
reauest to waive the reauirement for olantini!' !!trlns the commission shall consider: (j)
whether a waiver to allow a rural street standard has been ..ranted: (ill whether a sidewalk
waiver bas heen !>ranted: (ill) whether reducinl!' tbe size of or eliminatini!' the Dlantin!!' striD
oromotes the l!'oals of the comDrehenslve Dlan. the neil!'bborhood model. and the aoolicable
neil!'hborhood master ohm' and (Iv) whether waivinl!' the olandnl!' strin reauirement would
enable the overall desivn o(the !lllhdivision to better achieve the nrinciole!l of the
nelphborhood model
10
Attachment B
Discussion of BRHBA Recommendations
Recommendation No I. Encourages Albemarle County to obtain a legal opinion from the Virginia Attorney
General on the County's authority to require reservation and construction of streets to property lines.
Staff response: First, to correct any misunderstanding, the STA requires dedication ofthe right of way and
construction easements, not a reservation for right of way as indicated in the BRHBA letter. The County
Attorney has provided a legal opinion that this requirement is within the County's authority. Additionally, staff
notes this same provision has been widely used in other urban counties in Virginia for decades. As such, taking a
year or more to obtain an opinion from the Attorney General would only further delay the adoption of the ST A
and accomplish little else. Staff also notes this is not a new requirement, but simply a modification of the existing
requirement. Additionally, staff considers this provision necessary regardless of whether the proj ect is considered
a Neighborhood Model form of development. Without planned street connections, traffic is funneled to choke
points which increases the need for expensive future transportation improvements. If this provision is eliminated,
staff would recommend reducing the urban residential density to minimize the need for expensive future
transportation improvements.
Recommendation No.2. Create a bailout clause so that areas with average slopes below 10% grade do not
require a grading plan.
Staff response: The STA already provides a bailout clause (waiver) for the overlot grading plan which is
administratively managed by the agent. As such, the decision to relieve development of the need to have an
overlot grading plan can be easily and quickly made by staff prior to the need to prepare that plan. That said, staff
notes there can still be a need for an overlot grading plan with areas that have slopes less than 10% to verify
adequate drainage. For example, the Wynridge Subdivision has areas with slopes less than 10% where the
County recently spent over $200,000 to correct drainage problems created as part of that development. Staff
anticipates circumstances for waiving the overlot grading plan can be noted at the time of preliminary plat review
and agreement could be reached on how adequate drainage control can be assured through a modified overlot
grading plan. Thus, while not the automatic bailout the BRHBA may desire, staff does believe the requirements
can be easily waived where it is obvious the overlot grading plan serves little or no purpose.
Recommendation No.3. The grade should be expressed as a maximum rise/fall of3' over 10' across lots.
Staff response: This addresses a method to be used in measuring the slope and staff finds this acceptable. Staff
does note the BRHBA has inadvertently recommended a more restrictive requirement than what is proposed with
the ordinance language and staff fears this may be too restrictive for builders. 3' over 10' is actually flatter than
3:1. To accomplish the recommendation of the BRHBA, staff recommends leaving the ordinance as written but
including a method for measuring the slope in the Design Standards Manual that calls for a maximum rise/fall of
4' over 10' with the overall slope 3:1 or flatter. That will provide builders relief for small and inconsequential
variations in grading while maintaining the intent of this section.
Recommendation No.4. Eliminate the requirements that limit the amount of drainage that may be carried across
a yard in an open ditch or swale.
Staff response: Staff notes this is by far the most common drainage complaint received from new property
owners and staff has found that the solutions become more complicated (expensive) as the size of the lot is
decreased. Referring again to the Wynridge Subdivision, the amount of drainage carried in an open ditch or
swale was the most significant part of the drainage problem. Additionally, staff has relied on the experience of
other urban counties in developing this requirement.
With regard to utilizing low impact development (LID) techniques, staffhas co-sponsored workshops on LID and
is anxious to see it implemented in this area. That said, staff does not support putting structural Best
Management Practices (BMPs) on lots. At one time, the County allowed BMPs to be built in yards, but the
number of complaints and impacts on property owners forced the County to revise that policy. Staff believes
allowing BMPs on small lots would only repeat a past mistake.
Recommendation No.5. Allow driveway slopes to exceed 25% when certified by a licensed design professional,
reduce the landing criteria to 15', and average the grade over 10'.
Staff response: First, staff notes the STA calls for a maximum driveway grade of20%, not 25%, and staff has
never suggested increasing this to 25%. Additionally, staff would note that in looking for maximum driveway
slopes in other localities, none exceeded 20% and most were considerably flatter. While staff remains concerned
about steeper driveway grades, an acceptable compromise would allow grades steeper than 20% if certified by a
design professional that the driveway is safe and convenient for vehicular traffic, including emergency service
vehicles that might use this driveway. With regard to the landing being 15' versus the 18' in the STA, the
BRHBA has not provided a justification for this position. The 18' represent the length of a parking space as
specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Staffhas examined this and found that allowing the grade to transition over
this additional 3' would still leave a reasonable vehicle landing area. As such, staff would support reducing the
landing to 15'. With regard to the measurement of the slope, staff believes this is best handled in the Design
Standards Manual using a methodology similar to the one recommended for slopes on yards. As such, the
recommended measurement over 10' would be considered acceptable by staff.
Recommendation No.6. Eliminate any requirement for providing a graded area from building entrances to the
driveway or street. Failing this, specifically exclude stairs, shorter distances to property lines and accessible
routes from backdoors on basements.
Staff response: Staff concurs with the BRHBA on the need to exclude stairs and shorter distances to property
lines. While staff interprets the existing ordinance to provide this flexibility, revising the ordinance language
could assure this exception. Staff does not agree with excluding basement doors. Basements can often be used
as an accessory apartment and this type of arrangement has been noted as a means of providing affordable
housing. As such, staff is reluctant to exclude a basement door from this requirement.
Recommendation No.7: Switch Sections A and B of 14-234 and eliminate the requirement for earthmoving
computations and natural survey.
Staff response: First, the BRHBA letter references sections A and B of 14-313, but staff has assumed they are
referring to 14-234 as that is the section noted in the heading. When examining sections A and B of 14-234, staff
believes the order is appropriate. Section A references the submittal requirement of the applicant. Section B
references the considerations of the agent and Planning Commission with regard to the waiver request. With
regard to the requirement for earthwork computations (14-234 A.l.), it is noted this applies only to requests made
pursuant to reducing environmental degradation on property zoned Rural Areas or Village Residential. As such,
this requirement is the continuation of an existing requirement for the Rural Areas and would not apply to
requests for private streets in the Development Areas. Staff believes any change to this provision should be
considered with changes to the Subdivision Ordinance made to implement the Rural Areas Plan.
Recommendation No.8: County must affirm its intent to use construction condemnation powers to allow for the
construction of roads on property lines or the prohibition of spite strips should be removed.
Staff response: First, spite strips are clearly prohibited under VDOT regulations for subdivision streets. Thus,
there is no way the County could allow spite strips with public streets. Beyond that, staff is convinced spite
strips are not in the public's interest and spite strips can be used to adversely affect the value of adjoining
property. Staff does agree with the BRHBA that a street proposed parallel and next to a property line can create a
burden to the developer. Ideally, under those circumstances the adjoining property owner would share in the
necessary right of way as it benefits its property as well as the first developer. Failing that, a compromise will
need to be reached and that could include condemnation of necessary right of way or construction easements.
Staff believes the County's use of condemnation powers would require a case by case analysis of the
circumstances and a commitment in the ordinance is not appropriate. That said, nothing in the subdivision
ordinance eliminates this option for future Board considerations. Finally, staff agrees the Board could consider a
policy for the use of condemnation powers for streets proposed on a master plan.
Recommendation No.9: Eliminate the drainage provisions or revise the flood standard to a 25 year standard
similar to VDOT.
Staff response: Given that many VDOT streets are flooded with the 25 year storm, staff would support revising
this requirement to a 25 year storm.
Recommendation No. 10: Recommends the Board of Supervisors formally instruct the county engineer that a
county mandated requirement for piping is an option of last resort.
Staff response: For lots less than 20,000 square feet in size, which are the lots affected by this requirement, staff
concurs that piping across lots should be avoided whenever possible, but disagrees that it should be the option of
last resort. In staff's opinion, the first choice should be routing the drainage around lots through common space
and public right of ways. When it is not possible to route the drainage from the streets around lots, staff believes
piping is preferable to open drainage ditches. Staff has previously shown the Board a presentation which
included examples of yards made unusable by open ditches lined with riprap. Staff's experience has shown those
ditches generate a large number of complaints for the County and a safety concern for the property owners. Staff
would also note the proposed approach is consistent with the requirements of other urban counties in Virginia.
~QtC.
~'fI'~_._..:,~
[.' ';. ~'Il~\!f~
"~'.~. . .......~ ,t ." .. ~~.
~~~. .:~
.\ ~
',,- '<f.:
I'\"..~:.
~~
RESOLUTION
Whereas, Charlotte Y. Humphris served as a member of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors from January 1, 1990 until December 31,2001; and
Whereas, Charlotte Humphris dedicated much of her life to serving on countless
boards, commissions and committees that focused on the betterment of this community;
and
Whereas, Charlotte Humphris was well known and widely respected as an
advocate for rural preservation and a fierce champion of protected open space and
natural areas and resources in Albemarle County; and
Whereas, in January 1990, Charlotte Humphris stated that the investment of
maintaining the Whitewood Road property as a park "would provide for the quality of life
for the people in this community over the years. A city or county is known for its parks,
not by its paved areas. It is the Board's responsibility to have vision, even if it means
spending money now to provide for the future. The Whitewood Road site should be kept
as greenspace," and
Whereas, Charlotte Humphris was instrumental in helping to shape the future of
the Whitewood Park, having served as a Board representative on the Whitewood Road
Park Committee that developed a master plan for the usage of the Whitewood Road
property, and in March, 1998 supporting the designation of the Whitewood Park property
as open-space land under the Open Space Land Act which serves to preserve land in an
urban area for park and recreational purposes, and
Whereas, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors desires to honor Charlotte
Humphris not only for her dedication to protecting and preserving the heritage and rural
character of Albemarle County, but for her foresight in the preservation and protection of
Whitewood Park as a valuable County resource,
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors does hereby rename Whitewood Park as the Charlotte Y. Humphris Park in
recognition and as a tribute to Charlotte Humphris in appreciation of her long and
inspirational career as a dedicated civic leader.
Dennis S. Rooker, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Whereas, Charlotte Y. Humphris served as a member of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors from January 1, 1990 until December 31, 2001;
and
Whereas, Charlotte Humphris dedicated much of her life to serving on
countless boards, commissions and committees that focused on the betterment
of this community; and
Whereas, Charlotte Humphris was well known and widely respected as an
advocate for rural preservation and a fierce champion of protected open space
and natural areas and resources in Albemarle County; and
Whereas, in January 1990, Charlotte Humphris stated that the investment
of maintaining the Whitewood Road property as a park "would provide for the
quality of life for the people in this community over the years. A city or county is
known for its parks, not by its paved areas. It is the Board's responsibility to
have vision, even if it means spending money now to provide for the future. The
Whitewood Road site should be kept as greenspace;" and
Whereas, Charlotte Humphris was instrumental in helping to shape the
future of the Whitewood Park, having served as a Board representative on the
Whitewood Road Park Committee that developed a master plan for the usage of
the Whitewood Road property, and in March, 1998 supporting the designation of
the Whitewood Park property as open-space land under the Open Space Land
Act which services to preserve land in an urban area for park and recreational
purposes; and
Whereas, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors desires to honor
Charlotte Humphris not only for her dedication to protecting and preserving the
heritage and rural character of Albemarle County, but for her foresight in the
preservation and protection of Whitewood Park as a valuable County resource;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors does hereby rename Whitewood Park as the Charlotte Y. Humphris
Park in recognition and as a tribute to Charlotte Humphris in appreciation of her
long and inspirational career as a dedicated civic leader.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
POLICY FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. CREATION OF NEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. On an annual basis the list of active boards and commissions will be purged
of all bodies not required by Federal, State, County or other regulations, which have not
met at least once during the prior twelve-month period.
2. Whenever possible and appropriate, the functions and activities of boards
and commissions will be combined, rather than encouraging the creation of new bodies.
3. Any newly created task force or ad hoc committee which is intended to serve for
a limited time period may be comprised of magisterial or at-large members at the discretion
of the Board of Supervisors. The appointment process shall follow that adopted in Section
B for other magisterial and/or at-large positions.
B. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. All appointments to boards and commissions based upon magisterial district
boundaries will be made by the members of the Board of Supervisors. All magisterial
positions will be advertised. At the discretion of the supervisor of that district, selected
applicants may be interviewed for the position.
2. Prior to each day Board meeting, the Clerk will provide the Board a list of
expired terms and vacancies that will occur within the next sixty days. The Board will then
advise the Clerk which vacancies to advertise.
3. In an effort to reach as many citizens as possible, notice of boards and
commissions with appointment positions available will be published through available
venues, such as, but not limited to, the County's website, A-mail, public service
announcements and local newspapers. Interested citizens will be provided a brief
description of the duties and functions of each board, length of term of the appointment,
frequency of meetings, and qualifications necessary to fill the position. An explanation of
the appointment process for both magisterial and at-large appointments will also be sent to
all applicants.
4. All interested applicants will have a minimum of thirty days from the date of
the first notice to complete and return to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a detailed
-1-
application, with the understanding that such application may be released to the public, if
requested. No applications will be accepted if they are postmarked after the advertised
deadline, however, the Board, at its discretion, may extend the deadline.
5. Once the deadline for accepting applications is reached, the Clerk will
distribute all applications received to the members of the Board of Supervisors prior to the
day meeting for their review. For magisterial appointments, the Clerk will forward
applications as they are received to the supervisor of that district who will then recommend
his/her appointment.
6. From the pool of qualified candidates, the Board of Supervisors, at their
discretion, may make an appointment without conducting an interview, or may select
applicants to interview for the vacant positions. The Clerk will then schedule interviews
with applicants to be held during the next day meeting. For magisterial appointments, the
decision to interview selected candidates will be determined by the supervisor of that
district.
7. All efforts will be made to interview selected applicants and make
appointments within ninety days after the application deadline. For designated agency
appointments to boards and commissions, the agency will be asked to recommend a
person for appointment by the Board of Supervisors.
8. All vacancies will be filled as they occur.
9. All incumbents will be allowed to serve on a board or commission without
his/her position being readvertised unless, based on attendance and performance, the
chairman of the body or a member of the Board of Supervisors requests the Board of
Supervisors to do otherwise.
10. If a member of a board or commission does not participate in at least fifty
percent of a board's or commission's meetings, the chairman of the body may request the
Board of Supervisors terminate the appointment and refill it during the next scheduled
advertising period.
C. ADOPTION
This policy shall be reviewed and readopted by the Board of Supervisors in
January .
(Amended and/or Readopted 01-07-98; 02-12-2005)
-2-
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
POLICY FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. CREATION OF NEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. On an annual basis the list of active boards and commissions will be purged
of all bodies not required by Federal, State, County or other regulations, which have not
met at least once during the prior twelve-month period.
2. Whenever possible and appropriate, the functions and activities of boards
and commissions will be combined, rather than encouraging the creation of new bodies.
3. /\11 newly created county .."..ide boards and commissions which will have the
power to impact the health, safety and welfare of all the residents of the County, will be
comprised of representatives from each of the magisterial districts. These representatives
will be appointed by the members of the Board of Supervisors following the same
appointment procedure adopted in Section B f{)r other magisterial appointments.
4,. 3. Any newly created task force or ad hoc committee which is intended to serve
for a limited time period may be comprised of magisterial or at-large members at the
discretion of the Board of Supervisors. The appointment process shall follow that adopted
in Section B for other magisterial and/or at-large positions.
B. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. All appointments to boards and commissions based upon magisterial district
boundaries will be made by the members of the Board of Supervisors. All magisterial
positions will be advertised. At the discretion of the supervisor of that district, selected
applicants may be interviewed for the position.
2. Prior to each day Board meeting, the Clerk will provide the Board a list of
vacancies that will occur within the next sixty days. The Board will then advise the Clerk
which vacancies to advertise.
3. In an effort to reach as many citizens as possible. notice of boards and
commissions with appointment positions available will be published throuah available
venues. such as. but not limited to. the County's website. A-mail. public service
announcements twi6e and local newspapers. listing boards and commissions with
appointment positions available. Interested citizens will be provided a brief description of
the duties and functions of each board, length of term of the appointment, frequency of
-1-
meetings, and qualifications necessary to fill the position. An explanation of the
appointment process for both magisterial and at-large appointments will also be sent to all
applicants.
4. All interested applicants will have a minimum of thirty days from the date of
the first notice to complete and return to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a detailed
application, with the understanding that such application may be released to the public, if
requested. No applications will be accepted if they are postmarked after the advertised
deadline. however. the Board. at its discretion. may extend the deadline.
5. Once the deadline for accepting applications is reached, the Clerk will
distribute all applications received to the members of the Board of Supervisors prior to the
day meeting for their review. For magisterial appointments, the Clerk will forward
applications as they are received to the supervisor of that district who will then recommend
his/her appointment.
6. From the pool of qualified candidates, the Board of Supervisors. at their
discretion. may make an appointment without conductina an interview. or may select
applicants to interview for the vacant positions. The Clerk will then schedule interviews with
applicants to be held during the next day meeting. For magisterial appointments, the
decision to interview selected candidates will be determined by the supervisor of that
district.
7. The members of the BO:::lrd of Supervisors '.vill conduct interviews beginning
'.\lith applic:::lnts f-or appointments with the earliest effective dates.
g..,. 7. All efforts will be made to interview selected applicants and make
appointments within ninety days after the application deadline. Selected :::lpplicants
will be interviewed within sixty days of the close of the application period, and :::lll
appointments ':Jill be m:::lde no later th:::ln ninety d:::lYs :::lfter the :::lpplic:::ltion deadline. For
designated agency appointments to boards and commissions, the agency will be asked to
recommend a person for appointment by the Board of Supervisors.
fh 8. All vacancies will be filled as they occur.
4Q.,. 9. All incumbents will be allowed to serve on a board or commission without
his/her position being readvertised unless, based on attendance and performance, the
chairman of the body or a member of the Board of Supervisors requests the Board of
Supervisors to do otherwise.
-1-4-.- 10. If a member of a board or commission does not participate in at least fifty
percent of a board's or commission's meetings, the chairman of the body may request the
Board of Supervisors terminate the appointment and refill it during the next scheduled
advertising period.
-2-
C. ADOPTION
This policy shall be reviewed and readopted by the Board of Supervisors in January.
(Amended and/or Readopted 01-07-98)
*****
-3-
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
12th day of January 2005, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 3A, described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Dunlora Subdivision,
Phase 3A, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Kenneth C. Boyd
Seconded by: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
Nays: None.
Absent: None.
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, C
Board of County Sup isors
In the County of Albemarle
By resolution of the goyeming body adopted January 12.2005
The following Font! SR-5A is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the gOl'eming body's resolution for changes in the
secondary system (?{ state highways.
A Copy Testee Signed (COllllty Official):
~
Report of Changes in the Secondary System of Sta e Highways
Form SR-5A
Secondary Roads Division 5/1/99
Project/Subdivision
Dunlora, Phase 3a
Type of Change: Addition
The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby
requested, the right of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed:
Reason for Change: Addition, New subdivision street
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: ~33.1-229
Route Number and/or Street Name
· Shepherds Ridge Circle, State Route Number 1710
--------------------- -----------------
. Description: From: Intersection Shepherds Ridge Road, Rt. 1709
To: Intersection Shepherds Ridge Road, Rt1709
A distance of: 0.17 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 1/5/2000, Deed Book 1885, Pgs 158, with a width of 50
· Shepherds Ridge Road, State Route Number 1709
. Description: From: Intersection Of Route 1177, Dunlora Drive
To: Intersection Shepherds Ridge Circle Rt. 1710
A distance of: 0.20 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 1/512000, Deed Book 1885, Pgs 158, with a width of 50
. Description: From: Intersection Shepherds Ridge Circle Rt. 1710
To: End State Maintenance, Shepherd Ridge Circle,rt1710
A distance of: 0.11 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 1/5/2000, Deed Book 1885, Pgs 158, with a width of 50
Page lofl
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
12th day of January 2005, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 3A, described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
ReQuirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Dunlora Subdivision,
Phase 3A, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street ReQuirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
Absent:
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of County Supervisors
The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1) Shepherds Ridae Circle (State Route 1710) from the intersection of Shepherds
Ridge Road (Route 1709) to the intersection of Shepherds Ridge Road (Route
1709), as shown on plat recorded 01/05/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1885, page 158, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.17 mile.
2) Shepherds Ridae Road (State Route 1709) from the intersection of Dunlora Drive
(Route 1177) to the intersection of Shepherds Ridge Circle (Route 1710), as shown
on plat recorded 01/05/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1885, page 158, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length
of 0.20 mile; and from the intersection of Shepherds Ridge Circle (Route 1710) to
the end of state maintenance at Shepherds Ridge Circle (Route 1710) as shown on
plat recorded 01/05/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 1885, page 158, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.11
mile.
Total Mileage - 0.48 mile.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
From:
Division:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Greg Cooley, Roads Engineer
Inspections
January 3,2005
Board Agenda - January 12, 2005
Road Resolution for Shepherds Ridge Circle, and Shepherds Ridge Road
Date:
Subject:
Attached is the original of Additions Form SR-5A for the following roads in Dunlora Section 3-A:
. Shepherds Ridge Circle (State Route 1710)
. Shepherds Ridge Road (State Route 1709)
We would like to have this included on the Board's January 12th agenda so that a resolution can be
adopted requesting VDoT add these roads into the secondary system of state highways.
If additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Attachments
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
12th day of January 2005, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 4A, described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Dunlora Subdivision,
Phase 4A, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 933.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Kenneth C. Boyd
Seconded by: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
Nays: None.
Absent: None.
A Copy Teste:
In the County of Albemarle
By resolution of the goyerning body adopted January 12, 2005
The following Fonn SR-5A is hereby attached llnd incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution fOT changes in the
secondary system of state highways.
A Copy Testee Signed (COUllty Official):
Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways
Form SR-5A
Secondary Roads Division 5/1/99
ProjectfSubdivision
Dunlora 4-a
Type of Change: Addition
The following additions to the Secondary System of state Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby
requested, the right of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed:
Reason for Change: Addition, New subdivision street
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: ~33.1-229
Route Number and/or Street Name
· Ambrose Way, State Route Number 1708
-----------------
· Description: From: Loring Circle, Route 1706
To: Cul-de-sac
A distance of: 0.05 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 1 Of1 Of2000, Deed Book 1906, Pg 207, with a width of 50
· Loring Circle, State Route Number 1706
---------------------------------------
· Description: From: Intesection Of Loring Run, Route 1705
To: Intersection Of Ambrose Way, Route 1708
A distance of: 0.08 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 10f10f2ooo. Deed Book 1906, Pg 207, with a width of 50
---------------------------------------
· Description: From: Intersection Of Ambrose Way, Route 1708
To: Intersection Of Loring Run, Route 1705
A distance of: 0.10 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 10f10f2000, Deed Book 1906, Pg 207, with a width of 50
· Loring Place, State Route Number 1707
· Description: From: Intersection Loring Run, Route 1705
To: Cul-de-sac
A distance of: 0.05 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 1 Of1 012000, Deed Book 1906, Pg 207, with a width of 50
Page 1 of2
Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways
Form SR-5A
Secondary Roads Division 511199
· Loring Run, State Route Number 1705
---------------------------------------
· Description: From: Intersection Route 1177 Dunlora Drive
To: Intersection Of Loring Place, Route 1707
A distance of: 0.10 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 10/10/2000, Deed Book1906, Pg207, with a width of 50
---------------------------------------
· Description: From: Intersection Of Loring Place, Route 1707
To: End Of State Maintenance Intersection Of Loring Circle
A distance of: 0.05 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 10/10/2000, Deed Book1906, Pg207, with a width of 50
County of Albemarle, Date of Resolution: January 12, 2005 Page 2 of2
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
12th day of January 2005, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 4A, described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Reauirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Dunlora Subdivision,
Phase 4A, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 12, 2005, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Reauirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
Absent:
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of County Supervisors
The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1) Ambrose Way (State Route 1708) from Loring Circle (Route 1706) to the cul-de-
sac, as shown on plat recorded 10/10/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1906, page 207, with a 50-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.05 mile.
2) Lorina Circle (State Route 1706) from the intersection of Loring Run (Route 1705)
to the intersection of Ambrose Way (Route 1708), as shown on plat recorded
10/10/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 1906, page 207, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 mile;
and from the intersection of Ambrose Way (Route 1708) to the intersection of
Loring Run (Route 1705), as shown on plat recorded 10/10/2000 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1906, page 207, with a 50-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 mile.
3) Lorina Place (State Route 1707) from the intersection of Loring Run (Route 1705)
to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 10/10/2000 in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1906, page 207, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile.
4) Lorina Run (State Route 1705) from the intersection of Dunlora Drive (Route
1177) to the intersection of Loring Place (Route 1707), as shown on plat recorded
10/10/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 1906, page 207, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 mile;
and from the intersection of Loring Place (Route 1707) to the end of state
maintenance intersection of Loring Circle (Route 1706), as shown on plat recorded
10/10/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 1906, page 207, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.43 mile.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
From:
Division:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Greg Cooley, Roads Engineer
Inspections
January 3, 2005
Board Agenda - January 12, 2005
Road Resolution for Ambrose Way, Loring Circle, Loring Place, and Loring Run
Date:
Subject:
Attached is the original of Additions Form SR-5A for the following roads in Dun10ra Section 4-A:
. Ambrose Way (State Route 1708)
· Loring Circle (State Route 1706)
· Loring Place (State Route 1707)
. Loring Run (State Route 1705)
We would like to have this included on the Board's January 12th agenda so that a resolution can be
adopted requesting VDoT add these roads into the secondary system of state highways.
If additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Attachments
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Block Grant Program
2005
AGENDA DATE:
January 12, 2005
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
Request to set public hearing
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Tucker, Roxanne White, Davis, Ron White
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) administers the federal Community
Development Block Grant for non-entitlement jurisdictions in which Albemarle County is included. Such jurisdictions can
apply through a competitive application for eligible community development activities. Prior to making an application, two
public hearings must be conducted. The first hearing is to provide information on the availability of funding, types of
activities that are eligible and past uses of CDBG funds in the locality. The second hearing would review and
approve/disapprove potential applications proposed for submission.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3.2: Promote a variety of safe, sanitary and affordable housing types.
DISCUSSION:
DHCD recently announced the availability of $1 0,021,328 in competitive grants for 2005. Albemarle County could apply for
one or more projects totaling approximately $2.5 million. Projects must meet one of three national objectives which are
benefiting low- and moderate-income persons, aiding in prevention or elimination of slum and blight, and responding to a
community need having particular urgency. Grants may be for community improvement activities and/or planning grants
for future community improvement activities.
The most recent grant received by the County was used to construct a community center at Parks Edge Apartments,
formerly Whitewood Village, in conjunction with the renovation of 96 apartment units. The center was completed in
September 2004 and currently houses after school activities and the apartment's management office.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors set a public hearing for February 2, 2005 to provide information on
available funding, eligible activities, and past use of CDBG funds.
05.003
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 30, 2004
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, November
30, 2004 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Rodney Thomas, Chairman; Bill Edgerton; Cal Morris;
Marcia Joseph and Pete Craddock, Vice-Chairman. Absent were William Rieley; Jo Higgins and David J.
Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia (non-voting). Mary Hughes was present for Mr.
Neuman.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Stephen
Waller, Senior Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner; Yadira Amarante, Senior Planner; Susan Thomas,
Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Thomas called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Thomas invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being
none, the Commission moved to the next item on the agenda.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2004-015 Boars Head Inn and Sports Club (SiQns #70. 71 & 72): Request to rezone
approximately 13.4 acres from R-1, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial, to allow new indoor and
outdoor tennis courts with associated parking at the existing Boar's Head Inn & Sports Club. The
property, described as Tax Map 59D2, Section 1, Parcel 15 and Tax Map 75, Parcel 63 (portion), is
zoned R-1, Residential and HC, Highway Commercial. It is located on the south side of Ivy Road (Route
250 West), just west of the entrance to Ednam and south of the Boar's Head Inn, in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Office Service and Institutional
in Neighborhood 6. (Susan Thomas)
Ms. Thomas summarized the staff report. The most complex part of this project has been the process.
There was some confusion at the staff level about how to handle this request relative to the provisions of
our ordinance. The process started down the path of a special use permit, but then staff realized because
of the split zoning on the parcel that it was not going to be possible. Therefore, the Planning Commission
has a rezoning petition before them that on the face of it sounds as though the applicant is asking for a
fairly intensive district. But the reality is that Highway Commercial happens to be the only zoning district
that would allow such a use when associated with the health club, which puts it into the category of health
spa or health facility. Briefly, that is one reason why staff's path twisted and turned. This project has been
under review for several months. There is an existing facility at the Boars Head Inn and Sports Club.
The Sports Club ownership is the University Foundation. The applicant seeks to expand the tennis courts
because the tennis team has been practicing there in inclement weather. This has created some
inconvenience for club members because the courts are in short supply with the University's sports team
using them. There is a lot of demand for tennis in this area and Boars Head is one place where it occurs.
Therefore, the applicant would like to expand the indoor courts to accommodate the existing demand as
well as the anticipated future demand. If the rezoning is approved, the indoor tennis facility will be
enlarged. It will be a large building. The building incentive from staff's standpoint has been since both
adjacent parcels are under the same ownership there is a strong desire on the part of the Foundation to
make the building as compatible as possible with the adjacent golf course. The golf course is very
beautifully landscaped. It is nice that there is an incentive in that direction as opposed to one where there
is separate ownership and the impacts fall on different parties. The applicant is present. If there are
specific questions, staff would be happy to answer them. It is a very straight forward proposal. If there
are any questions on the proffers, staff would be happy to answer them.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
Mr. Thomas asked if any Commissioner had any questions for staff. There being none, he opened the
public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to speak.
Ms. Valerie Long, Attorney, stated that she was present to represent the applicants for this proposal,
which are the University Foundation and the University of Virginia Post Properties. The latter entity owns
and manages the Boars Head Inn and Sports Club. She pointed out that there are a number of
representatives of both entities present this evening in case there are any other questions. Those
individuals present include Mr. Tim Rose, President of the University of Virginia Foundation; Mr. Bruce
Stouffer, Director of Real Estate Development; and Mr. Fred Missel, who is in charge of their design
issues. There are several persons present from the Boars Head Inn, which include Mr. Jorg Lappuner,
General Manager of the Inn and Pat Simpson, Director of the Sports Club. She stated that if there are
any questions that she was not able to answer sufficiently that one or all of those folks could help. She
thanked Susan Thomas for all of her help throughout this process. The process has been very tricky for
the applicant in trying to find a zoning category that was appropriate for this property and that would
accommodate all of the uses that are going on now and that are expected to continue. The bulk of the
Boars Head property is already zoned Highway Commercial and has been for some time. A small portion
of one of the parcels comprising the property has split zoning. The northern portion is zoned Highway
Commercial and the southern portion is zoned R-1, Residential. In addition, the adjacent Birdwood Golf
Course is zoned R-1, Residential. What the applicant is proposing is to rezone the southern half of the
one parcel that is currently R-1 to Highway Commercial so that parcel is consistent with the balance of the
Boars Head property. Also, the request is to rezone almost two acres that is part of the golf course,
which would essentially be cut off and added to the Boars Head Sports Club parcel. That property would
be rezoned from R-1 to Highway Commercial as well. It is a total of about six acres. The staff report said
approximately ten acres. The project has evolved over the past few months. Originally it was going to be
a larger area, but now was around six acres. The proposed expansion would accommodate additional
indoor tennis courts for the Boars Head Club, which would be used for both the Inn's guests and club
members. In addition, the facility would support the men's and women's tennis teams at the University.
Therefore, they were very excited about the proposal. The teams have been practicing there during the
winter and occasionally holding tournaments and matches. It is not really a facility that is as well suited for
these activities as they would like. In addition, by the teams using the courts it obviously takes time away
from the existing members and guests for indoor court time. There has been a very high demand for
additional indoor court facilities, particularly during the winter months and periods of inclement weather.
The proposal is really a net increase of six courts. There are six courts there now with three courts that
are inside of the indoor facility and three that are under what is commonly referred to as the bubble. It is
essentially a temporary seasonal structure that can be taken on and off, but it is not an ideal structure in
which to play tennis indoors. It is noisy and apparently one cannot play at quite the same level that one
can in an established facility. The three bubble courts would be replaced by three new indoor courts. In
addition, between three and six additional new courts would be built. There would be a net gain at most
of six indoor courts. It sounded like the Commissioners were familiar with the proffers, but she wanted to
quickly run through them just to summarize. The applicant has proffered to build the project in general
accord with the conceptual development plan, which was on display. They would be bound to build the
project in general accord as it is shown on that plan. The applicants have proffered to essentially break up
the massing of the building so that it either is made up of a series of smaller buildings or at least appears
to be a series of smaller buildings. That could be done through the use of a terraced roof structure, which
is called the step down finished floor elevations. The building could be built by taking advantage of the
sloping terrain by building it into the side of the slope. By doing that it would make it appear as a series of
smaller buildings rather than one large building. The applicant has proffered not to permit any uses on the
property that are otherwise permitted by right in the Highway Commercial District. Therefore, they have
proffered out the vast majority of by-right uses in the HC District. That really only leaves health spa,
indoor athletic facilities, and some other things like that in support of structures like storm water
management, roads and things like that. Therefore, the applicant is hopeful that will be agreeable.
Finally, in working with the staff and a lot of the neighbors in the area they determined that one of the big
issues that they could perhaps address better was the traffic and parking at the property during periodic
on-site events. There are events held on the site periodically for such things as swim meets, tennis
tournaments and the Boyd Tinsley Invitational Tournament. The applicant has proffered to submit an
event management plan for the Zoning Department's review and approval that would spell out with more
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
2
detail exactly how the parking and traffic would be managed during those events. That would include
things like assuring the use of off-site overflow lots, which are things that they are already doing. The
applicant uses the lots at the golf course and then has folks walk over along the cart paths from the golf
course or they use shuttle buses in some instances. They have an overflow grassy area near the pond
that they use for large events. They have agreed to put something more formal in writing that the Zoning
Department can be agreeable to and have some input on. Therefore, the applicant thinks that will
accommodate a lot of those issues. There are a few other issues that they have worked on that she
wanted to bring the Commission up to date on. The most common thing that comes up is traffic. The
applicant wanted to make sure that there was not going to be an increase in traffic that would cause the
intersections to function at poor levels of service. They wanted to make sure that the road network was
adequate. Therefore, the Foundation engaged an engineering company to prepare a traffic impact
assessment. They were pleased to note that study reported that all of the intersections both internal to the
site as well as several intersections external to the site, such as at the Route 250 intersection and a few
others farther down Route 250, will not be negatively impacted by the project. In fact, all but one of the
intersections even during peak periods of use will perform at a level of service of B or better. There is
only one exception. One intersection will be at a C level during peak periods, which was one of the
internal intersections. But, other than that, all of the other intersections work well. VDOT was comfortable
with that analysis and indicated that the intersection at Route 250 was adequate to support the additional
traffic. In addition, we are hopeful and optimistic that any additional traffic that is generated by the project
will in fact kind of balance out seasonally. Any increase in traffic will likely be due to additional indoor
tennis courts. Those courts are used most heavily during the winter months at which time the outdoor
tennis courts are not used as much. So they are hopeful that because indoor and outdoor courts are not
always used at the same time that the traffic will balance out well. One other issue that they have
addressed in the form of traffic, which is in response to speaking to some of the neighbors near the club,
is that there is an access road that she would like to point out. The traffic comes off of Route 250 down
Berwick Road and would come around and park in this parking lot and access the facility in this location.
This road is owned by Boars Head and is a private road. Deliveries currently use this area as well. One
thing that they have agreed to do is to use that road, which was essentially planned only for an
emergency access road for fire vehicles. The Foundation has essentially agreed to upgrade their plans
for that road so that it can accommodate passenger and delivery vehicles. That way it can be used as an
alternate egress after large events so that not all of the traffic is on Berwick and that some of it can come
around. In addition, the delivery trucks can come in here, make their deliveries, turn around and then go
back out. Whereas, currently all deliveries are using this road.
Mr. Thomas asked if the access road would be open and usable all of the time.
Ms. Long stated that she believed that is the case. It would be subject to County regulations and other
things. They believe that there is space and that it is possible to upgrade that road. Originally, it was only
going to be an emergency egress road. They found that after talking with the neighbors and staff that it
would be nice to have an alternative egress route, particularly during large events. It would be nice to
have the deliveries come in this new route rather than the current route because of the existing
residences that would prefer to have as little traffic along there as possible. The Foundation was happy
to be able to accommodate that request.
Mr. Edgerton asked if that road doesn't ultimately go into Berwick Road anyhow.
Ms. Long stated that it does.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was trying to figure out how it was going to give any relief from traffic.
Ms. Long stated that it may not help further down Berwick Road, but it was an issue that was very
important to the neighbors who live right in this area. Therefore, the applicant felt like if it was possible to
at least reduce the amount of traffic that was going right behind those houses for delivery trucks that they
were willing to do so. They recognize that it may be that during large events that if they have traffic
coming in here that they may bottle neck on the road. But, at least it will not be a constant stream of
egress traffic on that road.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
3
Ms. Joseph asked if that was included in their proffer.
Ms. Long stated that it was not included in the proffers. But, the road was wide enough as shown on their
conceptual development plan and they have committed to the neighbors to do that. She noted that she
had prepared some comments as to why this facility would be helpful and important to the UVA tennis
teams and why it was an appropriate use. If anyone has questions, she would be happy to provide some
follow up regarding her comments.
The consensus of the Commission was to have the applicant address those comments. Therefore, Mr.
Thomas asked Ms. Long to elaborate on her comments.
Ms. Long asked why the tennis team wanted to have their facility at this location. She noted that they
think that it is an excellent fit. Obviously, the team has been practicing and playing some matches there
already. It is an efficient use of resources for the club and the tennis club to essentially share facilities and
resources. It is better to build a combined facility that they can share since they don't always need the
facilities at the same time. If the UV A tennis facility built their own facility off site it would create a greater
expense and impact on the terrain. It seemed like a good use of the area. It seems to be working very
well already concerning the relationship. The Foundation and the University are very excited about the
proposal.
Mr. Craddock asked how many additional parking spaces they are anticipating.
Ms. Long stated that they estimate approximately 30, but it is not set in stone. Obviously, they will have
to go through the site planning process and confirm all of that. The parking spaces were shown on the
conceptual plan.
Mr. Craddock asked when people come in on that lower level if they were going to be funneled up to the
front or will they just go to the tennis court that they are looking for.
Ms. Long stated that she believed that was the case, but she was not exactly sure. She pointed out the
location of the entrance to the facility.
Mr. Morris asked what the probability was of getting court time for the current members.
Ms. Long stated that it was extremely difficult. As mentioned, Pat Simpson, the Director of the Sports
Club, is here and could provide more specific information if that would be helpful. It is very difficult and
frustrating for the members to get indoor court time. Of the existing six courts, three of them are set aside
for the UVA team when they need them. Therefore, when the tennis team is using the courts there are
only three other courts, which are in the bubble that are not as good. There is quite a demand. Their
existing membership has been asking for more indoor courts for some time.
Ms. Joseph stated that it sounds like this is not just about tennis courts. Other uses that the applicant is
contemplating could go into this footprint, which includes a multi-sports court, fitness facilities, a
restaurant, a snack bar, a pro shop, administrative office space and a child care facility.
Ms. Long stated that most of those uses were already there now within the existing club. The reason that
they wanted to list those was to make sure that if they ever wanted to rearrange anything they could.
There are existing office spaces there now. There are existing child care facilities. There will be as part
of this what is being termed as a multi-sport court that would be used for things like racket ball and that
sort of thing in addition to the tennis courts. The only other recreational uses that they are talking about
are possibly having a small climbing wall as part of the health club. That is why they wanted to reserve
the right to have other recreational and fitness uses in the existing health club. All of that is currently
contained in this area, which is across the line already zoned. She pointed out the line of the division
between this area, which is zoned Highway Commercial, and this other area, which is zoned R-1. They
tried to stick to those uses that are already in existence and just recognize that those are recognized
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
4
accessory uses to a health spa. That is the zoning category that the Zoning Administrator determined
was applicable for this use.
Ms. Joseph stated that some golf cart trails and the location of a future sand trap were shown on the plan.
She asked if those were existing uses. She pointed out that the word future indicated that they were going
to put that use in.
Ms. Long stated that the cart path itself existed and would remain. They have coordinated and confirmed
with zoning that it is permissible for that cart path to remain and continue to be used as a cart path. The
two new conceptual locations for sand traps are actually intended to benefit the tennis club in an effort to
prevent people from hitting their golf balls towards the new tennis facilities. Their research shows that if
you locate sand traps near where you don't want people to hit that they will hit away from them.
Therefore, they will hit closer to the green. That is part of the plans for the future buffer. There will be
some landscaping. The parking lot for the new facility will be located very close to the fairway. Therefore,
they want to do everything that they can to minimize interference between the two uses. They will be
installing some landscaping and other sort of natural buffers in this location. But, they wanted to make
sure that they had the ability to locate additional sand traps in this area as well because they knew that
was going to be necessary. The applicant has worked through that with the zoning and planning
departments as well. They were comfortable with it as long as it was shown on the plan.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any more questions. There being none, he invited public comment noting
that there were five signatures on the sign up sheet. He asked that the first person signed up, Dillon
Walker, come forward and speak.
Dillon Walker, fourth year UVA student, stated that he was on the Men's Varsity Tennis Team and was
from Houston, Texas. He stated that the first year he was on the team that they were unranked. In the
last three years he has watched as the team has grown. Last year the team won the ACC Championship,
and finished eighth in the nation. As the program has emerged, their goals have emerged. They want to
compete for the ACC Championship and the National Championship every year, which was the team's
goal. One of the things that are hindering their goal was just the lack of court time in an indoor facility.
They have been competing for time with the members right now. The last thing they want to do is upset
these members because these are the people who come and support the team at their home matches.
They want to work it out so that during the winter months the team will be able to develop their skills as
players. All of their competition has indoor facilities available.
Sally DuBose, resident of Ednam Forest, stated that the proposed project was visible from her house.
Tonight she not only supported the request, but wanted to commend the University for many reasons.
She was not so worried about the court time, but felt that they should be able to continue to be a tradition
of excellence for the youth in the community and to set an example. She could not think of a finer place to
access that, but right there at the Boars Head Sport Club. She supported the request.
Marion Spano stated that she had been a member of the Sports Club for over 20 years, a resident of
Ednam Forest for 15 years and served on the Association Board for several years. She felt that it was a
wonderful idea that the Sports Club enhances the court situation. As a member she uses the courts a lot
in the summer and quite often in the winter time. Between the University students wanting it and the
Sports Club members needing it, this would provide good accessibility for both the club members and the
UVA team. As a member of the Association, they always felt that it was good to be good neighbors with
the Sports Club. Therefore, she was in support of having the UVA Foundation go ahead with the new
facilities and hoped that the Commission will consider it favorably also.
Holmes Brown stated that he was 90 years old and has only been playing tennis 80 of those years. The
program at the Sports Club is improving his backhand. Therefore, nobody should ever give up. He stated
that he had been President of the Ednam Village Owner's Association for three terms. Therefore, he
knew most of the members of the club. He pointed out that his house was the closest possible one to the
tennis courts. He noted that he bought the house on purpose, and he had agreed to sell it when he was
100 years old to another member of the Sports Club. This wonderful community has doubled in size since
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30,2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
5
the Sports Club was started, but yet the Sports Club has practically the same facility it had at that time.
The membership has also increased. There just has to be more room so that the members can get the
tennis that they want. Right now it is very difficult, particularly in the winter, to play tennis. Therefore, they
need those courts.
Dirk Katstra, Associate Athletic Director and a member of their senior staff, stated that as they look to
expand their program they set some very aggressive goals in the athletic department. They speak to
goals of graduating all of their student athletes to winning championships and to operating with physical
integrity and to building great facilities for both their student athletes and our fans to attend that are in
keeping with the architecture and beautiful nature of our community. Finally, they want to attract top
quality student athletes to our community and University. If you look at this proposed project at the Boars
Head, it really hits on everyone of our goals. If you look at the facilities that they have built over the past
several years, such as Scotts Stadium and Davenport Field, those facilities are great facilities. Those
facilities are some of the best in the country. They have a good facility in the Boars Head for their UV A
Tennis Program. This expansion will make it a great facility. It would allow our coaches to compete each
and every year not only for ACC Championships, but National Championships. It would allow them to
recruit not only the best tennis players in the country, but the best students and student athlete tennis
players in the country to our University. It hits on every goal that they aspire to have at this University for
excellence. They shoot every year to have the number one academic institution in the country. As an
athletics program, they want to have that very same goal and shoot to be the "Stanford" of the east since
Stanford wins in almost every single sport. This would help our tennis programs immensely. It would
definitely help the club membership and the Boars Head Inn as a resort. It seems that this would be a
win/win/win for all of the people involved. The Athletic Department wants to look for ways to be
collaborative when they look to build excellent facilities. This is most definitely a joint effort on the Athletic
Department, The Boars Head Inn and the UV A Foundation to provide what he believed to be a
win/win/win for everybody involved.
Deerwood Chase, member of the Boars Head Sports Club for over 40 years and a resident of Ednam
Forest, stated that they have had an extreme imbalance between availability in the summer months and
winter. They have all been complaining for years and this seems to be an outstanding opportunity to
bring that back in balance. The traffic problem won't be as great in the winter time even if all of the courts
are built because they would not have the swimmers and there is practically no use of the outdoor tennis
courts in the winter time. From that respect, he did not think that it really changes the overall dynamics of
the area any more than it would in the middle of the summer time when they are able to get courts and
play there. The bubble that is now in his view is a much bigger eyesore than the facilities that they are
proposing to build on a permanent basis. Those of us who play doubles can't play doubles as well in the
bubble. He supported the proposal.
Mr. Morris stated that he had indicated that it was difficult to obtain court time. He asked what the
process was now as a member that he has to go through to get court time.
Deerwood Chase stated that right now they had a computer lottery. He noted that one would have to
identify in advance the people that they were going to play with, which in itself was very restrictive
because they usually gather about six people that want to play. Nobody can apply for any other group
and are therefore blocked out of everything else. In other words, you could not be on his list and on
somebody else's list to play on any of those same times. For those persons who are working and can
only play late in the day or in the evening, it was extremely difficult. They use to have an open lottery
where everybody got together, but that was also impossible. The computer just completely takes it over
now. Many persons just don't get a court at all.
Steward Chase supported the project since he saw it as a win/win/win situation. He stated that they
needed to support the tennis teams, but also need to provide court time for the members of the club
Mr. Thomas asked if there was anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this application.
There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
6
discussion and possible action. He asked if there was going to be a cart path going into where the tennis
courts were going to be.
Ms. Thomas stated that her understanding was that the cart path was going to stay in the same place. It
will continue to be used as a cart path. It does actually cross a portion of what is being rezoned. In that
sense there is a nonconforming use, which was a question that she had asked Jan Sprinkle because they
were creating one. Normally, they don't like to do that, but it is not the first time that it has been done. It
is well understood what it is all about. That little sliver of property to the east of the existing boundary is
more to provide the required buffer between the Highway Commercial and the R-1, Residential than for
any active purpose. She asked Ms. Long if that was correct that the path was there now and would stay.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was any interconnectivity between the golf course, the parking lot and the
tennis facility of a path or anything else.
Ms. Thomas stated that people use a cart path to get from one to the other and it was pretty common
during these events. As mentioned in the staff report, staff put the applicant on notice that they can't do
much more expansion without a separate dedicated more formulized vehicular entrance to this. She felt
that part of that was dealing with the Ivy Road situation and where a good intersection would be. There
seemed to be some things that are moving towards a consolidated entrance at the golf course entrance
with potentially a signal. There is no guarantee of that until they review the Kappa Sigma property
proposal, but part of it was just figuring out exactly where the best alternatives would be. She felt that
area was maturing in the sense of how the transportation is going to work.
Ms. Joseph stated that on page 4 of the staff report under roads in the last paragraph, staff had said that
service, and/or emergency access currently exists. She asked if there was some mechanism that they
have in some other approval that says that road will continue to be maintained.
Ms. Thomas stated that the reason that they did not write it into the proffers was because they were
dealing with the whole stream buffer issue. Therefore, staff did not want to be too rigid about it in case
there were some storm water issues that they had to deal with in terms of it being a more formal road for
more than service vehicles or emergency access. That was the original thought. During the times of a
whole lot of activity it would be opened up in one way direction and vehicles would exit that way. The
Commission is going to be hearing a request for a critical slope waiver and a buffer modification, which
the Commission has to grant, but she was unsure of that date. That might be an issue that the
Commission can take up with the site plan at that time.
Ms. Joseph asked staff as a planner if she saw the need for this. Since it is in the staff report, is this
something that the Commission should be considering at this point because it was something that they
could not ask for on a site plan.
Ms. Thomas stated that it could probably be requested on a site plan under the safe and convenient
access provision. She felt that it was a very positive thing and that was why she had said it should be
maintained with the club expansion in terms of an emergency use or a special event use. She pointed out
that she did not call for it as being more of a road because of its location near the buffer and she wanted
to try to accommodate Tamara's concerns, too. She would be satisfied if it were used for more of an
occasional use and a service use and not for a formal internal road. She stated that would be an
emergency or special event alternative access or a service use. As a mechanism, it is shown on the
conceptual plan.
Ms. Joseph asked if it was their expectation that it would be maintained.
Ms. Thomas stated that it would be maintained in the sense that it would still be on the conceptual plan.
Ms. Joseph asked if it would have to be maintained in a safe manner so that the road could be used.
Ms. Thomas stated that it was her expectation that it could be used during special events.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
7
Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Kamptner if they saw this on the conceptual plan if their expectation was that it
would be maintained as a service road.
Mr. Kamptner stated that there was no mechanism in the concept plan itself that requires it to be
maintained, but if it was on the site plan it would.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he felt that it would be safe to say that if it was on the conceptual plan, then it
would be on the site plan. The site plan requires that these be maintained.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it could not be eliminated without amending the site plan and will be subject to
site plan review.
Mr. Thomas stated that he thought that the answer was that the road would be maintained.
Ms. Joseph agreed with Mr. Thomas, but had one more question for Mr. Kamptner. One of Jan Sprinkle's
comments was about taking the piece from the R-1 zoning and attaching it to the other parcel so that part
of the golf course then becomes nonconforming. She asked if that was anything that the Commission
needs to consider at this point.
Mr. Kamptner stated that they could consider it, but zoning has looked at it and are comfortable with it.
The concern is if the golf course becomes nonconforming and is a nonconforming use on the HC
property. In this case that means that what the applicant could modify on the golf course on that part of
the HC will be restricted somehow. Given the amount of land involved, it should not be a big problem.
Mr. Morris moved to recommend approval of ZMA-2004-15, Boars Head Inn and Sports Club, with the
proffers set forth in the staff report.
Ms. Joseph seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (5:0). (Rieley, Higgins - Absent)
Mr. Thomas stated that the motion carried and would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on December
8.
ZMA 2004-00013 Mountain Vallev Farm (SiQn #21. 33 & 83) - Request to rezone 14.176 acres of a
29.75 acre parcel from the PRD (Planned Residential Development) Zoning District to RA (Rural Areas).
The property is described as Tax Map 89, Parcel 73A, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District,
approximately half a mile north from the intersection of Rt. 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) and Rt. 706
(Dudley Mountain Road). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 4. (Rebecca
Ragsdale)
Ms. Ragsdale summarized the staff report. This rezoning request is to rezone 14 acres, of a 29-acre
property from Planned Residential Development (PRD) to Rural Areas (RA) to allow that 14-acre portion
of the property to be included in a residential subdivision. The rezoning is to bring the whole property into
the RA zoning category. Approval of this rezoning would allow the 14-acres to be incorporated into the
Mountain Valley Farm development as 2 lots (4 and 7 acres in size), a segment of Ambrose Commons
Drive, and small portions of two other lots. The remainder of the parcel is zoned RA. The property is
located off of Old Lynchburg Road and is landlocked. Old Lynchburg Road is in the Neighborhood V
Development lying within the Rural Areas of the County. This property is located in behind a large chunk
of PRO, which would be referred to as the Liberia PRO, which is 200 acres. With the proposed Mountain
Valley Subdivision, the property would be accessed from Old Lynchburg Road along Ambrose Commons
Drive, which is now just being constructed and starts out as part of the Mosby Mountain Subdivision. The
general area across Old Lynchburg Road is the development area. This property of 14 acres is
surrounded by Rural Areas to the north and south and then the remainder of the Planned Residential
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
8
Development in front of it is along Old Lynchburg Road. The proposal is to correct a mistake regarding
ownership. The property was rezoned back in 1977 when the PRD was created. It was not a PRD at that
time. It was a rezoned to Residential Planned Neighborhood in 1977. There were several parcels that
were rezoned and this 14 acre portion was thought to be owned by the owners that created the PRD in
1977. Going back to 2004, she pointed out that since that time there was a significant change in the 1980
comprehensive rezoning which took away the application plan that went along with that PRD, which was
approved in 1977. Therefore, they are left with 214 acres of PRD where the conditions of approval apply,
but there is no application plan that applies since the standing of the plan has changed. Therefore, since
that time the ownership issue was resolved and the applicants before the Commission now are proposing
to rezone the 14 acres to RA for a RA subdivision. A preliminary plat was actually approved before it was
discovered that this portion was PRD. In evaluating this project it is being rezoned and the plan is to
incorporate it into a residential subdivision. The Mountain Valley Farm Subdivision would include about 37
lots averaging 14 acres in size ranging from about 2 to 32 acres in size whereas the Planned Residential
Development was approved with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet in size. The 14 acre portion
that is PRD could potentially, if it was developed as a PRD, require a rezoning process to provide an
application plan that meets the current standards of the ordinance. It could create about 7 to 8 lots,
whereas with the proposal with this rezoning it would be about 2 lots. So that is the request in summary.
If there are any questions, staff would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Thomas complimented staff on their summary of the request.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that she tried to keep it as simple as possible without confusing them.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any questions for staff.
Ms. Joseph asked if they were only looking at the rezoning request for this and could not talk about the
subdivision.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that was correct because she had only provided the plat so that the Commission
could see what the plan is for those two lots and the proposed access.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any more questions. There being none, he opened the public hearing
and invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
Justin Bates, with Evergreen Land Company, stated that he would like to compliment Ms. Ragsdale as
well because it was a confusing story on how they had gotten here. He pointed out that if the
Commission had any questions, that he would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any questions for Mr. Bates. There being none, he invited public
comment from anyone else in the audience. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the
request back before the Commission for discussion and a possible action.
Mr. Edgerton asked Mr. Kamptner how this it could have been rezoned back in the dark ages of 1977.
Mr. Kamptner stated that back in 1977 the State law said that any person can apply to rezone property.
The Attorney General had interpreted that literally to mean that someone else could apply to have your
property rezoned. The General Assembly took note and changed the law as to who is eligible to apply to
submit a rezoning plan.
Ms. Joseph asked what it does to the existing Liberia PRO to take this piece out of it. She asked if it
would do nothing and they could still come in with an application plan.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it does not affect that. Whatever is remaining in that PRD continues because
that is the zoning.
Ms. Joseph stated that all of their approvals, including the central water, was still allowed and is intact.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11,2004
9
Mr. Kamptner stated that whatever approvals they have still apply.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that was one of the conditions of the 1977 approval, which was that the lots would
be served by central water and sewer. That condition would be addressed if the Liberia PRD comes
forward with the application plan.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was any more discussion or a motion.
Mr. Craddock moved to recommend approval of ZMA-2004-00013, Mountain Valley Farm, with no
conditions.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (5:0). (Rieley, Higgins - Absent)
Mr. Thomas stated that the motion carried and would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on January
12.
Regular Items:
SDP 2004-099 Violet Mawver- Ntelos Cook Mnt. (Sian #88) - Request for approval of a Tier II personal
wireless service facility replacing an existing treetop facility that was approved originally as SP 1998-
00007. The applicant proposes to construct a monopole that would be approximately 120.35 feet tall (10
feet ASL above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet), with ground equipment in cabinets placed on
a 160 square foot concrete pad. This application is being made in accordance with Section 10.1.22 of the
Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the Rural Areas. The property,
described as Tax Map 98, Parcel 22, contains 48.83 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District on Thackers Lane (State Route 804) approximately 400 feet east of the intersection with Monacan
Trail Road (Route 29 South). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and the Comprehensive Plan
designates this property Rural Areas 4. (Stephen Waller)
Mr. Waller summarized that staff report. (See the Staff Report) Staff has identified no unfavorable factors
in this request. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the applicant's request to allow the monopole at 10 feet
above the tallest tree within 25 feet is also justified in this proposal and recommends approval of the
request.
Mr. Thomas asked if any Commissioner had any questions for staff.
Mr. Craddock asked how long it would take for the old tower to come down once the new tower was
installed.
Mr. Waller stated that after 90 days the applicant would be required to remove the old tower or would be
found in violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Craddock asked if the lease for that site would end and the property goes back to the property owner
or does it remain leased to Ntelos.
Mr. Thomas suggested that Mr. Craddock wait and ask the applicant's representative, Ms. Long, that
question. There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Thomas opened the public hearing and invited
the applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
Valerie Long, Attorney for Ntelos, stated that according to Debbie Balser that they will be terminating the
lease and obtaining a new lease for the new area.
Mr. Craddock asked if the leased area would convert back to regular land.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11,2004
10
Ms. Long stated that was correct. According to Larry Hirschman, Ntelos radio frequency engineer, the
site currently is not operating according to Ntelos standards. This is one of their earlier acquired sites and
the tower provides poor service. They have found a better location higher up on the property with
minimal levels of visibility. The new site is located in a small clearing. The access road will have to be
extended for the new lease area, but they will not have to take down any trees. That is a very positive
aspect of the request. There is an excellent backdrop behind the facility. During the balloon test there
was only one spot on Route 29 just past the driveway where the balloon was visible. But, they had to
drive very slowly, stop the car and get out to be able to see the balloon. The balloon will be visible from
Mr. Thacker's adjacent property, but he is in favor of the request. Mr. Thacker requested that Ntelos
install a small directional sign on the property in order that Ntelos workers would know how to get to the
tower. Ntelos is very willing and happy to do that. There is a very minimal amount of visibility. There is a
backdrop of trees from Route 29. The tower will only be visible right at the driveway at Sprint Mountain
Farm. The facility itself is 775 feet fro Route 29 and is in the range of 700 feet from Mr. Thacker's house.
The Commission has photo simulations in their packet showing 7 feet above the top of the pole to the
tallest tree versus 10 feet above the tallest tree. The applicant hopes that that the Commission will be
supportive of that. The ordinance provision states that the facilities are to be 7 feet above the tops of the
tallest trees unless the Commission concludes that the applicant has demonstrated that at 10 feet above
there will not be a material difference in visibility. Therefore, they tried to use those photo simulations to
demonstrate that the with two difference heights there will not be a material difference in visibility. She
hoped that the Commission would agree with that. With the amount of backdrop that was provided from
those very few instances where you could actually find the balloon when traveling on Route 29 or from
any adjacent properties they think that the wooded backdrop very well provides excellent camouflage and
would not result in any material impact on visibility. As she has spoken to the Commission on several
occasions, those 3 extra feet are tremendously significant when it comes to the quality of the signal. With
a tree top tower design like this every foot of clearance between the bottom of the antenna panels and the
tops of the trees is very significant. So the difference at a facility that is 7 feet above the tops of the trees
versus 10 feet above the tops of the trees is really quite significant when it comes to coverage from Route
29 and many of the roads in this area. The roads are relatively narrow, curvy, winding with mountain in
the way and with foliage close to the road. It is a very difficult area to provide wireless coverage. Again,
every foot in height is very significant. She hoped that given the visual evidence that they have provided
as to the difference in height and visibility that the Commission will agree that it merits approval at 10 feet
above. In addition, the applicant had a tree arborist study the soils on the property and to try to give them
some idea of how fast the trees were going to grow on this property. This letter concludes that most likely
the trees will grow about 3 inches every year. That is a significant amount of growth. Ntelos would like for
this facility to work well as long as possible and not have to replace the pole any time soon. The
engineers conducted a periodic drive test of the site to test the level of the signal at various points along
the coverage objective. The applicant has some data that can plot out how much the service signal has
deteriorated over the last four years as the trees have grown. It is really quite significant. In 2001, the
coverage was at least marginal and it worked. Then over the next few years the coverage just really
deteriorated as the trees grew. They have always assumed that tree growth was going to be an issue,
but it really took a few years of having sites actually built and operational and having time for the trees to
grow to see how much of a difference that would really make.
Mr. Thomas asked Ms. Long if she had been involved with any towers that had to be elevated due to the
growth of trees.
Ms. Long stated that she had not personally, but she had been told that Ntelos has started that process.
She pointed out that that the applicant looked at that process for this facility. But, they determined that
even if they could resurvey the trees and confirm that if the trees had grown 6 or 7 inches, in theory the
way the special use permit conditions were written they could have then increased the height of the pole
by an equivalent amount. They determined that because this site was really located in too low of an
elevation. Even if they raised it as high as they expected that they would be permitted to be able to raise
it by right, it still would not provide the level of service that they needed. They really needed to move the
entire facility to a higher elevation point where it could be more functional. The new facility will be far less
visible than the existing one. In one of the pictures the Commission can see the existing facility fairly well.
The new site will be located farther back into the trees and would even be less visible from on the site.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
11
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any questions for Ms. Long.
Ms. Joseph asked if they knew if this would work at 7 feet above the trees.
Ms. Long referred the question to Ntelos' engineer who has been looking at this issue. She felt that it will,
but it does not work at nearly the same level and quality of service. She introduced Larry Hirschman who
is a RF engineer for Ntelos. She pointed out that Mr. Hirschman corrects her that when she stated that
the arborist has stated that the trees would grow 3 inches per year that it was actually 3 feet. She
distributed copies of the letter from the arborist, Bartlett Tree Experts. (See Attached letter from the
arborist, Bartlett Tree Experts.)
Larry Hirschman, engineer for Ntelos, stated that as Ms. Long stated they have system drive tests that
they started back in 2001 in the third quarter. They did a drive in 2002 in the third quarter, 2003 in the
third quarter and 2004. The receipt level that they obtained on Route 29, which was the drive route, was
significantly deteriorated year after year.
Ms. Long stated that she thought the question was would the proposed facility work at 7 feet above the
tallest tree as opposed to 10 feet above the tallest tree.
Mr. Thomas stated that the Commission was looking for a justification for the 10 feet.
Mr. Hirschman stated that if the tree growth is 3 feet per year that even after the first year it was already
deteriorated and it would not work. In 2001 they had a good signal, but in 2002 the coverage was
deteriorated enough that the quality of it was not up to their design standards. It deteriorated even more
with each additional year, and that was due to the tree growth.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he did not think he had answered Ms. Joseph's question. He stated that the
Commission has not had enough history to know whether the existing tower could be extended. The
question was whether the tower would work at 7 feet right now.
Ms. Long stated that it was her understanding that it would work marginally well, but it would not meet
their standards. She pointed out that Mr. Edgerton was correct that the way the ordinance is written it
says that the facility should never be more than X feet above the top of the tallest tree. So if in five years
Ntelos has evidence demonstrating that the trees have grown say 5 feet they can administratively
increase the height of the facility by an additional 5 feet. She noted that while that seems to be something
that is not a big deal that it is actually a significant endeavor. It is very expensive to do and involves
construction on site again with all new cables for the facilities. That is not something that would be an
option once the trees have grown significantly because, in essence, the facility's carriers don't want to do
that every year. It is not feasible to make them do that every year. They prefer to not start out with a site
that works marginally. They want a site that is going to work well from the beginning. Given the standard,
it talks about no material increase in visibility. She felt that particularly with this site there is so little
visibility at all and where there is any visibility there is wooded backdrop from all locations. She felt that
this is one of the best sites that they have ever brought to the Commission in terms of visibility.
Therefore, she felt that it really warrants 10 feet above. It would seem to be a shame for Ntelos to go
through the process of replacing this facility and the expense associated with it to end up with a facility
that is only going to work marginally maybe for a year or two before they have to extend it again.
Mr. Morris stated that in reading over the staffs information it seems that during the balloon test the
balloon at 117 feet was not visible at all. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Long stated that the balloon test was conducted at the proposed height of 120 feet.
Mr. Waller stated that at the time the balloon test was done this request was being reviewed as a special
use permit. There was no requirement to show the difference between the 7 and the 10 feet.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
12
Ms. Long stated that the applicant provided the photo simulation. They had a graphics expert take the
digital photograph and take the red balloon out and replace it with the proposed pole. He adjusted the
proportions so that he could show it 3 feet shorter.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any further questions for the applicant. There being none, he invited
comments from other members of the public. He stated that Cheryl Thacker was the only person signed
up to speak.
Cheryl Thacker stated that she was the daughter of Harold Thacker who was the owner of the most
adjacent property and the one that is actually affected the most by the request. The owner of the property
that the site is actually going on does not live on the property. Therefore, she is not affected by the
request at all. The tower will be visible from their property. She stated that her father had indicated that
there was no problem in seeing that because they have seen the two towers that are up there now for the
last two years. Their concern is the construction of the actual antenna itself and the actual getting to the
proposed site. The access way to that site is steep. There are concerns about the equipment being able
to get into that area. What they have seen with the past two tower installations has been that any
equipment has to be unloaded in their driveway, which is actually a state maintained road, in order to get
the equipment up to the site. Even then there are issues when it is winter time if there is snow on the
ground, if it is muddy or whatever the case may be. They end up pulling the equipment up to the site with
other equipment. There are access issues there concerning this request. As the owner of the property
that is going to be affected by that, they want to make sure that Ntelos knows that regarding the state
maintained highway or driveway that comes up into their property that they don't want to see that used as
the unloading or the storage of their equipment on it. Certainly there is 48 acres on the adjacent property
that they can pull the equipment up on. Therefore, that is their concern about it. She felt that since the
site was higher up on the mountain that there were going to be greater access issues. The other
concerns the Commission has already seen in the proposal and in the staffs findings.
Mr. Thomas asked if in the previous construction of the other towers if there was any trespassing on their
property at that time or did they get permission to be on there.
Ms. Thacker stated that sometimes they came and asked and sometimes they did not. There were
several times that the people did not know where they were going so they just ended up on their property.
Because they have rather large equipment if they come all the way up to the end of their road then the
only choice they have is to back down the road. Backing a tractor trailer down a road that has a heavy
piece of equipment on it that is only a size of a car is not good. They have ended up storing stuff on their
property such as poles. They have kept equipment on the side of the road and things like that. They have
some concerns about those issues.
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that he did not have any direct objections to a tower
on this land, but the fact that it is adjacent to land that is under a conservation easement made him want
to bring some issues up that need to be looked at and discussed. The discussion is that this tower is
necessary relative to service on the Route 29 corridor. But the tree that is dictating the height of this
tower is uphill from this tree away from Route 29. Therefore, he was not sure how the tree that is uphill no
matter how fast it is growing in how it is disrupting where it is trying to reach down on Route 29 unless it is
trying to shoot up and across the mountains, but it does not appear tall enough to do that. The reason
that he is concerned about this is if you look at the topography and the property to the south, which is
under easement, it starts to push this thing up above that tree line and his photographs in his sample are
not good enough to look at it. He stated that he did not want this uphill tree to artificially allow the raising
the height of this tower to allow the argument that this tower should be taller and then suddenly it
becomes far more visible from the parcels under easement to the south. Again, the staff report does not
identify that this is visible, but it is suggested that it is probably invisible. He asked that the Commission
was cautious that maybe in the future that they line up these maps and look at where the topography is
that he realized that this is an adjacent tree and a tall hill, but it is uphill. He pointed out that one of the
trees downhill was actually 20 feet lower than the tower. He suspected that as the grade falls away that
some of these trees are much shorter than this proposed tower height. Therefore, that is just a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
13
perspective there. If this 10 feet is so critical because of this one single tree, he just wanted to make sure
that does not get used over and over again.
Ms. Long asked to respond briefly to the 2 comments that were made, particularly Ms. Thacker's
comments. She spoke briefly with Debbie Balser who was on site during the balloon test and met with
Mr. Thacker during the balloon test and she has assured him that she will have their construction
engineer on site at all times during the construction to ensure that none of the problems that existed with
either of the prior facility installation by Ntelos or with the Nextel facility installation, which Ntelos has no
control over. Ntelos is obviously very respectful of Mr. Thacker's property rights and their concerns and
frustrations of the things that have gone on in the past. Also, Ntelos has agreed to install the directional
sign on the site to direct the maintenance and construction traffic. They are hopeful that the sign on sign
will go a long way in addressing that problem as well as good communication with all of Ntelos
contractors, subcontractors, maintenance crew, etc. To respond to Mr. Werner's comment, she herself
had been curious about what some of the heights of some of the trees are. Unfortunately, the plans did
not show the height of all of the trees that were within a 50 foot radius. She asked the engineer to provide
her with the measurements of some of those trees. Since she did not receive that information until
yesterday she did not get a chance to revise their plans to show it. She pointed out the reference trees,
which was the tallest tree within 25 feet that Mr. Werner alluded to that is uphill. She has shown that it is
102.8 feet tall. The proposed facility would be 10 feet higher than the top of that tree. In addition, there
are these two trees that are down the hill from the facility, in essence between the facility and Route 29.
This tree is 123 feet tall and has a top elevation of 967.6. Therefore, the difference in height will be less
than ten feet with this tree. Similarly this one is 123 feet with the top elevation at 965.7. Therefore, this is
not the only tall tree in the area. This is the reference tree that will dictate the height of the facility during
its operation, but these trees are equally tall and will be a problem. That is another reason why it is so
important to Ntelos that the facility be approved at 10 feet above the top of the tallest tree rather than 7
feet above. Even at 10 feet above the margin between these two facilities it would really only be like 7
and 9 feet. If you reduce the approval to 7 feet above the tallest tree, the distance above the tops of
these trees is reduced to about 4 and 6 feet. So it really becomes very significant, particularly the one
that is 4 feet above. The panel antennas are 5 feet long. If the facility is approved at 7 feet above, about
1 foot of the antenna will be lower than the top of this tree.
Mr. Edgerton asked if she was figuring anything in for the contours.
Ms. Long stated yes that she was. This is the top elevation that was based on the difference in base
elevation.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the proposed tower looks like about another 10 feet above those two trees that
she was referring to.
Ms. Long agreed.
Mr. Edgerton asked if she was not counting that.
Ms. Long stated that she has factored that in. She agreed that the tower was at a higher elevation than
these 2 trees and that he was absolutely correct. But, again the regulations speak to distance above the
top of the tallest trees. Therefore, despite the fact that these are on the lower elevation, they are actually
taller than the pole. The pole height is 120.35 feet and the trees are 122 and 123. Obviously, even at 10
feet above the pole elevation top of it will be 974.9. By comparison the top elevations for these trees,
which are at a lower elevation, are actually taller. The trees are still shorter than the pole, but they are not
10 feet shorter than the pole, which is her point. She asked if that addressed Mr. Edgerton's concern.
Mr. Thomas closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and
a possible action. He stated that the 10 foot antenna seems to be the question. He asked if it
demonstrates satisfaction to the Commission that it is warranted.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
14
Mr. Edgerton asked if staff would discuss the fact that the 7 feet was picked as something that they would
be comfortable with as being by right. It is obvious that the tower would be better if it was higher. He
asked if they should just go back and rethink the ordinance and allow it to be 10 feet. He stated that he
was missing the reason.
Mr. Thomas stated that the applicant has demonstrated that the backdrop is very good on this proposal.
Mr. Edgerton agreed with him on this particular request, but was wondering why the 7 feet was locked in
on.
Mr. Thomas stated that was what the Commission had recommended for the policy and the Board had
approved it, but the decision making power came back to the Commission. If there is justification for it
and they demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that there is not a material difference in the
visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, then it is at their discretion. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Waller stated that was correct.
Mr. Craddock stated that there was a grounding rod of 18 inches on the top of the pole.
Mr. Waller stated that the grounding rod is exempt. During the Board's discussion, it dealt with the effects
on the signal and whether the strength of the signal would be diminished. The Board threw that proposed
language out. Then the Board created this language, with staffs help, that talks about the material
difference in the visibility. One of the things they would look at is whether at 10 feet the tower would be
sky lighted above or visible above the tops of the trees as opposed to the 7 feet, and things of that nature.
That would probably be the most telling factor in whether there is a material difference.
Mr. Thomas stated that was the way that it reads in Section 5.1 of the ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner stated that a body of principles will develop, which staff will use to develop guidelines to
help them do the analysis in the review. It might take a few more applications before a common theme
develops.
Mr. Edgerton stated that there were two other points that were brought up. He felt that Mr. Werner's
comments were pretty logical. He wondered why a tree 7 to 8 feet higher by elevation is used. It is out of
the area that they are trying to send a signal. He felt that they need to focus on that one in future reviews.
The final point that he was concerned about was the prior problems with the trespassing occurring on the
Thacker's property. He felt that it was good that they had been reassured that the Thackers were not
going to be trespassed upon. He suggested that if the Commission approves the request that a condition
be added that requires the supervisor to be on site
Mr. Waller stated that the last two facilities that were installed had wood monopoles. This kind of gets
back to the previous discussion that they had with the Board of Supervisors in that only wood monopoles
would be allowed by right. But they had a lot of voices from the industry who were saying that with a
wood monopole that there comes a lot more disturbance. When a metal monopole comes to a site it
comes in sections. There have been instances, such as Verulum Farm, when a wood monopole has had
to be placed along the side of the road due to the difficulty to getting it to the site. The monopole had to
stay along the side of the road until they could get a road that was adequate enough to get it up to the
site. They had to remove some trees. From the standpoint of moving ability, even though a metal
monopole may have that potential of being reflective and having a reflective coating that would be seen
from certain angles, the industry has indicated that it is easier to bring in two 50 foot sections than it is to
bring in a 115 foot wood monopole. Staff discussed this issue with Mr. Thacker in the field.
Mr. Thomas stated that it makes sense if the terrain is too rugged that sections are better than one entire
expanse of a pole.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
15
Ms. Joseph supported this request because there was no sky lighting on this and apparently it is not
going to be visible. Staff has been all over looking at the balloon and making sure that it is not visible.
Also, the properties that they are looking at are those with easements and in the staff report it states that
it is staff's opinion that the views of the proposed facility would be obscured from these easement
properties. Because of all of that, she supported the 10 feet versus the 7 feet.
Mr. Morris concurred with Ms. Joseph.
Ms. Joseph moved for approval of SDP-2004-099, Violet Mawyer - Ntelos Cook Mountain, as submitted
to allow the monopole to be 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (5:0). (Rieley, Higgins - Absent)
Mr. Thomas stated that the motion carried.
SUB 2004-00302 Chestnut Ridae - Request for preliminary plat approval to create a 20 lot (19
development lots and 1 preservation tract) Rural Preservation Development. The total acreage of the
subdivision is 204.47 acres. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax
Map 19, Parcels 20, 20B & 24, is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Buck Mountain Road
(State Route 663) just south of its intersection with Simmons Gap Road (State Route 663). The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Rural Area uses in Rural Area 1. (Yadira Amarante)
Ms. Amarante passed out two items to the Commission. She summarized the staff report. This is a
request to create a Rural Preservation Development consisting of 20 lots with 19 development lots and
one preservation tract on 204 acres, zoned Rural Areas. The property consists of 3 existing parcels as
stated in the staff report. All 3 parcels were parcels of record in 1980. Therefore, all 3 parcels have all of
their available development rights. Staff has looked at this request for compliance with the Rural
Preservation Development parts of the ordinance and also for the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff
recognized that it meets all of the requirements of the Rural Preservation Development and the
Subdivision Ordinance. There are a few small issues. One is that the 3 parcels by right could do 21 lots,
and they are only proposing 20 parcels. There is an outstanding issue about the additional development
right that needs to be allotted. Therefore, one of the conditions staff is recommending basically states
that development right has to be put somewhere on one of those lots so that it is just not floating. Staff
ran across this in The Rocks and several other circumstances. Staff just needs to deal with it. The other
issue that is specific to this parcel is that back in 1993 there was a special use permit that was issued for
a barbershop on parcel 24, which is still being as such. Usually staff does not approve preliminary plats
with a special use permit, especially since this one had a condition that the property could not be further
divided. The Zoning Administrator is totally comfortable with staff recommending approval of the
preliminary given the special circumstances of this particular owner knowing that they have to come back
and amend their special use permit to either get rid of that condition or get rid of the special use permit
altogether. The owner is here if the Commission has any questions related to his intents. Also, the
surveyor and applicant are here. Staff finds that this Rural Preservation Development meets all of the
intents of the ordinance and recommends approval with several conditions.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any questions for Ms. Amarante.
Mr. Edgerton stated that there is a statement under the reason for Planning Commission review which
says that the reason for Planning Commission review is that the Rural Preservation Development aspect
of this proposal is discretionary. He asked what that meant.
Ms. Amarante referred the question to Mr. Kamptner.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the review is ministerial in nature. What the Commission is doing in this process
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
16
is determining whether of not the provisions of the ordinance have been satisfied. This would be the
same thing staff does for a site plan or a subdivision plat. The Commission would be making a factual
determination that this particular application meets the requirements of the ordinance.
Ms. Amarante stated that language is probably left over from before July from those other staff reports
when it was discretionary.
Mr. Thomas asked for some explanation about the one development right that is left over. He asked if it
was the Commission's responsibility to assign it or does the applicant have to assign it.
Ms. Amarante stated that the applicant has to pick some place to put it on. It is just an outstanding issue
that they have not figured out how to deal with it. The ordinance does say that they have to account for
these development rights. Therefore, it is just a condition of approval.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any other questions for Ms. Amarante. There being none, he opened the
public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Roger Ray, land surveyor and planner, stated that he did the plan for the applicant, Ted Costnex who was
the contract purchaser on the property. He stated that he was sorry that Mr. Rieley and Ms. Higgins were
not here tonight because he was here to try to support a portion of the ordinance that he felt was very
important, which was Rural Preservation Subdivisions. There are basically three ways that they can get
land into conservation or preservation easements. One is with the County's method of purchasing
developing rights. Over the past few years the County has not been able to do too many because it is
very expensive. The cost of that comes out of the taxpayer's pockets. But, you can get easements on
land that way. The other way is through the purchase of conservation easements through the federal and
state government. In that they are paying immense amounts of money to get these development rights
through conversation easements on land. He pointed out that he was not arguing whether it is good or
bad, but was just saying that was the way that they were doing it. The third way is with a Rural
Preservation Subdivision. Just recently they were discussing that it was by right or by special use
approval through the Commission. It should be the by right way in Albemarle County to divide land. It
should be the preferred desired way to develop land. It works extremely well on parcels of land that
range from probably 100 to 300 acres. If you get parcels much less than 100 acres, this minimum of 40
acres seems like it does not work as good. It allows between 12 and 20 lots within the subdivision, which
allows you to cluster and most of the time use less than one-half of your land. Then you end up with a
large parcel in the preservation tract. In this case, they were ending up with 56 percent of 200+ acres in
the preservation tract. Over one-half of this will be in the preservation tract, which will be greater than
100 acres. Therefore, it works really well. Not all properties within Albemarle County will lend to Rural
Preservation. Sometimes it is difficult to find a place on the property to actually cluster your lots and be
able to shorten the roads and have them all in a cluster to leave some open space. This particular parcel
of land fits almost perfect for a rural preservation. Today it consists of two farms. Mr. Wood owns the
front farm. Mr. Roberts, his brother-in-law, owns the other parcel. Both of those properties are working
farms. One parcel still has cattle and livestock on it. But, Mr. Roberts sold his livestock about two
months ago in anticipation of this sale. The Rural Preservation Subdivision will cluster all of the lots up
close to the public road, which minimizes the length of the roads. It also allows the lots to be located in a
compact area. More than 100 acres will be preserved in the back preservation area for farm land. A lot
of that area has stream buffers located on it. The most critical areas and the best farm land that is being
used today are in the rural preservation area. Again, this particular project works very well for a Rural
Preservation Subdivision. The by-right development of this property would require a lot more area for the
roads, which would actually have to go in some areas of stream buffer. Therefore, this should be a Rural
Preservation Subdivision. Regarding the one left over development right, they were under the
understanding that they were limited to 20 and that they could not regroup this development right unless
they did a standard development. But, they have been told that according to a previous decision that had
been made by the Zoning Administrator that they have to assign it. Therefore, they would chose one of
these development lots to add that division lot to just because they are told that they are required to do it.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any questions for Mr. Ray.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
17
Ms. Joseph stated that on the plat that he talks about the easements that exist on the property. She
pointed out that she only saw an easement for Virginia Electric and Power and Virginia Telephone. She
assumed that they were not conflicting with anything.
Mr. Ray stated that there were two dwellings on this property for Mr. Roberts and Mr. Wood. Those are
the easements that were created for those two dwellings to stay.
Ms. Joseph stated that there was also a road that comes up through the back. She asked if that road
would be abandoned as a result of this or does it serve that back parcel.
Mr. Ray stated that it would probably not be abandoned, but it was the access that Mr. Robert's used to
get to his dwelling now. But, once this internal public road is built that by your ordinance all of these lots
have to enter that internal public road. With the new division, all of the lots will get access from the public
road.
Ms. Joseph stated that if they just give something a development right it does not mean that you can
subdivide it, but it means that you could have two dwellings on it.
Mr. Ray stated that he felt that was possible because if they assign a development right that under the
ordinance they could probably have two dwellings.
Ms. Joseph stated that as long as they have the available acreage.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it would have to meet the zoning setbacks and other regulations.
Mr. Ray stated that they would assign the extra development right and figure out if it could be used.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was anyone else present in the audience that would like to speak regarding
this application. There being no one, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the
Commission for discussion and a possible motion.
Mr. Edgerton moved for approval of SUB-2004-00302, Chestnut Ridge Rural Preservation Development,
with the conditions recommended in the staff report.
The Division of Zoning and Current Development shall not sign the final subdivision plat until the following
conditions have been met:
1. A completed application and fee for erosion control and storm water management. [17- 203, 17-303]
2. A storm water management/BMP plan, computations, and maintenance agreement. [17-203, 17-303,
17-304,18-32.7.4]
3. An erosion and sediment control plan, narrative and computations. [14-311, 17-203, 18-32.7.4.3]
4. Road plans, pavement design sheets, and drainage computations. VDOT approval will be required
for the public roads. [14-512,14-304,Policy]
5. [14.302.0] All existing development rights are not being utilized by this proposal. Allocate the
additional development right to one of the development lots by placing a note on the plat to that
effect.
6. [14.303.m] Note #5 must be revised to state "Roberts Lane and Cleopatra Court..."
7. [14.309 & 310] Written approval from the Health Department for all drain field locations.
8. [1 0.3.3.3.f] Approval and recordation of a preservation easement by the Public Recreational Facilities
Authority for the Preservation Tract.
9. SP 93-26, a Home Occupation Special Permit for a barber shop granted by the Board of Supervisors
on 12/8/93 must be vacated or amended by the Board of Supervisors, through the normal SP
application process, prior to final plat approval.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11, 2004
18
The motion carried by a vote of (5:0). (Rieley, Higgins - Absent)
Mr. Thomas stated that the motion carried.
Old Business
Mr. Thomas asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Mr. Thomas asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to the December 7 meeting.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
MINUTES - DRAFT - SUBMITTED JANUARY 11,2004
19
Phone (434) 296-5832
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
December 30, 2004
Susan S. Davey
P.O. Box 129
Keene, VA 22946
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 112, Parcel 15 (Lions Watch Farm, Property of Susan S. Davey) Section
10.3.1
Dear Mrs. Davey:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 112, Parcel 15 consists of two separate parcels of record that are shown on a
plat by O. R. Randolph dated May 20, 1964. Parcel "A" contains 271.74 acres and has
five (5) development rights. Parcel "B" contains 22.49 acres and has five (5)
development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows:
Our records indicate Tax Map 112, Parcel 15 contains 293.790 acres and four
dwellings. The property is in the Carters Bridge Agricultural Forestal District. The most
recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 711, page 292.
The most recent deed for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the zoning
ordinance, December 1 0, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book 598, page 245 and dated April
30, 1976. This deed conveyed 294.23 acres from Joy Y. Hornor to Florence S.
McCormick. The property is described as Parcel "A" containing 271.74 acres and Parcel
"B" containing 22.49 acres on a plat made by O. R. Randolph dated May 20, 1964 and
recorded in Deed Book 397, page 599. The plat notes that Parcel "B" includes 0.44
acres north of Route 708. A copy of this plat is attached to this determination. On the
basis of this deed, Parcel A and Parcel B are each determined to be separate lots
of record with five development rights. The 0.44-acre portion of Parcel B is not a
separate lot of record.
f
Susan S. Davey
December 30,2004
Page 2
Deed Book 711, page 292, dated February 20, 1981, conveyed 294.23 acres from
William Davey and Susan S. Davey to themselves as tenants by the entirety. The
property is described as Parcel "A" containing 271.74 acres and Parcel "B" containing
22.49 acres and as being the same property that was conveyed to Florence S.
McCormick by the deed recorded in Deed Book 598, page 245. This property was
devised to her son, William Davey by the will recorded in Will Book 56, page 217. This
transaction had no effect on the legal status of these parcels or on their
development rights.
Deed Book 507, page 632 contains a plat by Morris Foster that shows the 0.44-acre
portion of Parcel "B," located between the Hardware River and Route 20, just north of
Route 708, is a part of Tax Map 1 01, parcel 56A. That would explain the discrepancy in
acreage between our records (293.79) and the acreage shown on the Randolph plat
(271.74 + 22.49 = 294.23)- a difference of 0.44 acres.
These parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable
regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do
represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to
be created by right. In addition to these development right lots, these parcels may
create as many parcels containing a minimum of 21 acres as they have the land to
make.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination 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 the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Enclosed: O. R. Randolph plat
Susan S. Davey
December 30,2004
Page 3
Copies: McChesney Goodall, Coordinator of the ACE Program
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
TM-P Acreage Division rights for 21 Development rights
acre minimum
parcels
112-15 PARCEL A 271.74 12 5
112-15 PARCEL B 22.49 0 5
lB. "3' 7,
P. S'1'
. 1
O.p>. 174. ~80 "L~~.y.Jr..Pr,L~ T=Le-P~CI"-JP.t. C.o
o ~ '2.~7'~80 VA. PU~LIC ';)E.Fl,V\Ct:.. CO.
0.&. 7.c..7.2..eD VA.~U~CT~IC~ POWe:p., CO.
~''-o.'.''.
" ,~...., -'......
... J.' ~~~""'."""'ffl
..~~..,!i:.~~.'.....
~C. Jj( "'';:__''''
"... ~.; C,;~?!..,.
$tllI'nv JllC4I~ ~~"('l", .~.,
..v.....~,4At! ~'''''.e '\ , J ~
"">" '-'~r ./'.
... ..,~:'".. t}. ~
I\'
....II.I).oJ "4..
PA2.C f: L" e,-
22 .49 b..ClZ.c~
(Hote.LUO'HC 0 44....Ccz...";J
N or-s.r R-T ro~)
.). 188-'<:\""1
oN.'" '!l.e"""
os. :5<"'8.{.1
12..0~ E'g,,. C.OLt=-~
oe. ~C.8-77
,0-
.w
..
.,.'
-- :~~;::.~
"
~
\
)~."
~.
..
.' "'/pc
'0
.. ~
r
.. ~
~ ,.,
.. '"
;
-:
" ~,.,..
II
IJ '"
() .
U 0
..... "
\,
II
..0
i -.
Q
. 0
:.. 2
z
~~~::5'~'~:-:;;~ _ '.
J'.. ~... ~~~:~ ;::...~ .......;.t
.~'L '-, ". .'.. ....
'o~;-:."~ c.....,..~-:.~o(<-- =:
..~....;~;c.--....-t-..~'.=:;:~:...... .
!....~, /~\\
.<~ ,/~.:/ \~~(:~
/ ~ .(;f:~~'.,;:i.""i0".~",
/ ~~i:',<~c.&~.;t' !
7.. D.I!>. 238. s"I'l ::
I' DO. ~(..8' &1 '.
\', .'~
I:; ~\
/~: ':,.
.....~...c::>./(
~N*\.. .
....~T.'"'~U..C-
,.1-'
~
..;-::
.....,...
\\"
":~'\
':~:~1r~.
--....,.]......
\ ....
I
,
I
I
\
l'
'(
~
,11" '
'"
I
I
/
/
/ r;-',
/~ ... ;~.
~ '-....!':" ';;::i...
I <tl' ~~ "I
I ~'''' '~,.
,.,-::
,,I.;
~<..
p;rO
...
"c..
')>&..-
....
".~.. t
-:=--- -=1~:.:~~~---~ ~_ ..
., II ."'.....1' ..... .....~>
.~ ~;. :,~~.~ ~... ........
i ~...;; :":'!IO 10 '.):-.:............
",.... .,........
.,.' "';.~ ",&~~
..:, ",,'/V
~.
g]
:i 1 }
.4 .. ',.
...~
.
...
l
..
------
P.C~E'Ac. F-
PAl'Z.CE: L"A""
PA IZCE' L" P-i
TOTAL
" ..
; ~
.f .:
I. ~
~ ~
. .
. hV"~4 res ~,~ .'" ,I#,V
. .. ,.,_ T
'2...174-
'2..24""
'Z.~4.Z~
.. M r. t2~y MO 12.E-"
P LA T OF P-....IlCE-L'7A "t>"
'2."'14. :Z~A.CI<.~or, AT
CAI~,"TEsr.... BR.IDGE--
A C&rOo\AI<.U; COU>JT'(. VA.
FO~
Me",. M.OWSL~Y
."
$<:ole 1.\5~O: O. R. R ANOOLPH o..i< 5.'1.0:.....
E.NG.."'EEQ.
Rev.
c..., A..RLOTTEs"VI L.LI::, VA..
OWe;.. No,.:ZB.~<f..__.
..~I
1
\
J
t
?
)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
December 30,2004
Fax (434) 972-4126
David H. Metcalf & P. Gail South
6400 Heards Mountain Road
Covesville, VA 22931-1501
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 97, Parcel24A (Property of David H. Metcalf or Gail South) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. Metcalf and Ms. South:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 97, Parcel 24A is one separate parcel with fourteen (14) development rights.
The basis for this determination is summarized as follows:
Our records indicate Tax Map 97, Parcel24A contains 145.710 acres and no dwellings.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 2158, page 551.
On February 8, 2002 I determined that Tax Map 97, Parcel 24, containing 247.250
acres at that time, consisted of five (5) separate parcels with a total of 23 theoretical
development rights. That determination analyzed the deeds that established the tracts
as separate lots of record and the subsequent deeds up to and including the deed
recorded in Deed Book 1537, page 447. That deed, dated November 4, 1994, conveyed
247.250 acres from Harry Courtney Powell, SR. and Reva A. Powell to themselves as
tenants in common. The 247.25-acre property was situated on both sides of State
Route 633. A copy of that determination and a sketch showing the location of the five
original parcels is attached.
Since that time, the property was subdivided along Route 633. Tax Map 97, Parcel 24A
is the portion of the property located on the north side of State Route 633. Deed Book
2158, page 551, dated February 19, 2002, conveyed 145.71 acres from Harry Courtney
Powell, SR. and Reva A. Powell to David H. Metcalf and P. Gail South. The property is
described as being a portion of the land conveyed to Harry Courtney Powell, SR. and
1:\DEPT\BCZS\Detennin of Parcel\2004 ACE\97-24A MetcalfSouth.doc
David H. Metcalf & P. Gail South
December 30, 2004
Page 2
Reva A. Powell by the deed recorded in Deed Book 1537, page 447. The property is
shown on a plat by Roger W. Ray and Assoc., Inc. revised on February 14, 2002. The
plat assigned development rights to this tract as follows:
"The portion of T. M. 97-24 (145.71 acres) lying on the north side of St. Rt. 633 is
assigned 14 development rights: That is 4 rights from that portion of the 100 acre
parcel lying north of St. Rt. 633, not to utilize more than 24.8 acres, 4 rights from
that portion of the 50 acre parcel lying north of St. Rt. 633, not to utilize more
than 24.8 acres, 5 rights from the 29 acre parcel, 1 right from that portion of the
63-acre parcel lying north of State Route 633, not to utilize more than 6.2 acres."
The plat also combined the portions of these parcels with this note: ''The portions of the
100 acre, the 50 acre & the 63 acre parcels lying on the north side of St. Rt. 633 are
hereby added to the 29 acre parcel."
On the basis of the prior determination and this deed & plat, it is determined that
Parcel24A is a single parcel with fourteen (14) theoretical development rights.
These development rights must be utilized within the boundaries of the original
lots of record from which they are derived.
This parcel is entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations
can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the
maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created
by right. In addition the parcel may create as many parcels containing a minimum of 21
acres as it has land to make. In this particular case, the 14 development lots would use
a minimum of 28 acres. The remaining 117.71 acres may potentially create an
additional 5 parcels.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination 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 $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
1:\DEPT\BCZS\Determin of Parcel\2004 ACE\97-24A MetcalfSouth.doc
David H. Metcalf & P. Gail South
December 30,2004
Page 3
Sincerely,
~
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Attached: February 8, 2002 determination with sketch showing original lots of record
Plat by Roger W. Ray recorded in Deed Book 2158, page 554.
Copies: McChesney Goodall, Coordinator of the ACE Program
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
TM-P 97 -24A
DB/p for original lots
of record
First: D.B. 66,
First: D.B. 68,
First: D.B. 68,
Fifth D.B. 154,
Acreage
Division rights for 21 Development rights
acre minimum
arcels
5 4
4
5
1
ortion of 100 ac.
ortion of 50 ac.
29 ac.
ortion of 63 ac.
1:\DEPT\BCZS\Determin of Parcel\2004 ACE\97-24A MetcalfSouth.doc
G::>
N~'.14'20-W 42.99'
N~"4'20'"W 8$J4'
568,O'Z4"W 233.88'
$68"IO'Z4'W 16.44'
<:D
N49'O"rw 19.04'
N5Z"26'25''W '2.96'
H5r'32"Z''W ~.84'
N62'Z810"W :'7.3"
H61'OZ'4S''W 'S.05'
HTI'04'31"'W 5'.02'
H7$"04'39"w 52.31'
N11"5'-W $Z.84'
N73,r'41"W 52.64'
N64'03'34""W ~.O"
N'J'}I'OJ"W $1.34'
N46,7'OB"W ~.8Z"
N]8'OZ'4,'W 48.66'
N31'39'4'"W ,OU
H27'3(4Z''W :53.00'
H24"]'40"W 101 Jr
N29'3$'4'""W 49.00'
H]4'4Z'4r-W 48..3~"
H37'23'J 7'OW '0,89'
<:El
N40'Z4'$"'W 4',6"
H4J'40'40"W 4G.94'
N~'2J'=" ""W 49.19'
":'8'38']1"W 43.02'
NrN"}['4rw 41.19'
N$."17'JO'W "7.10'
N~"B'~'W 49.06'
N44'4419-W 48.20'
H40'ZJ'Z1''W 38.4"
HJZ'3I'OO-W 44.3]'
N24,31O''W 43.32'
"']"J017"'W 43.08'
tl2'lr09'"W 1Ol6t
","$"4'"W 4,.OS'
NZ2'9'S2'w 46.02'
NJ30I:i'Z4''W 41.83'
N44'40'46-W 4Z.37'
N54"0~W Jt3Z'
CD
NTI"Z6'56'"W 34.62"
HS7"55'06''W 3LT5'
S79"IT,T''W 41.00'
S74"4n6'"W 50.15'
S8Z"I0"28MW 5T.or
S8S"1210-W 52.82'
N85"OS'J5'"W ~8.09'
N83'4~"O''W 167.22'
N8J"30'46MW 38.0J'
H77"0917""W 4LOJ'
N71"ZZ'Z4""W 52.70'
H66"46'J4'''W 46.15'
N6I"13'06""W 48.13'
H""OS'04''W 4S.50'
~:~::~;~~: :~:~~'
N39"44'ZO"W 51.6T"
N56"47'06''''W 37.Z9'
CD
H82"09'3"-W 23.68'
S75"2916"W 24.33'
S""0417"W Z84Z'
S3S"36'04"W 31.0sr
SJS"19'Z3"W 36.17'
S46"Z412''W Z9.ar
S6Z"'9'53Uw 31.58'
SlS"4J'OO''''W 3UO'
N87"1210UW 35.7r
N79"40'J9"W 40.23'
Nl1"'6'44MW 33.zr
N79"2Z'33''''W 41.13'
N8J'5913MW 43.08'
N8S"04'32''W 4J.49'
N81"44'06''W 220.17'
S810J'J'54"W 41.02'
SS6"OJ17''''W 5700'
S85"21'J5-W 165.0Z'
CD
S81"0519"W 44.00'
N8Z"JJ'54"W 40.72'
N64"l7"Jrw 35.93'
N45"14'JZ"W 36.08'
NU"46'JS''W 31.0S'
N44'53'4J'''W ZO.9S'
H64"48'Z8\ti 28.7r
S87'43'JO"W 33.04'
S75"ZT"ZO'''W 93.:\.3'
SS6"SO'34'''W 62.00'
N87"19'OO"W 99.69'
S86"SZ'37'"W IZ6.28'
S80"08G3' 73.39'
t4. TCH (HE
MATCH LNE
PlA T NORTH
~ ~
'l..'lo. :>\;'9.226
T,M. 97 . 23
R.A. YANCEY LUMBER CO,
0.8. "'-226, 227 PLAT
D.8. 539-Z14
/'
..~.;:LT".6':..
..0+ ~..
.~if ~...
:u c;:
: ROGER W..RAY :
\ 1331 ;
. .
...~~o\'o SU1lVtSi~~...
HR.... ....
."./
~.8. \~1, p. ~'(
C; N..R E" nA<..T
R""/
FOlJHO ~
AT .n
STONE ~
.....
D.~. ~a,
2." At RE"
;
D. R..s
/'
TJ.l97.U
HAROLD H., .JR. I .,/(AH B. KOLII
0.1. 1892 . 299
D... 153& - 539, 540 PLAT
NY MA r'ol MIl. I
D.B. 2158 I R 551
THE LAND USE NOTES SHOWN ON THIS PLAT ARE IMPOSEO AT THE REQUEST OF THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. 8Y PLACING HIS/HER SIGNA JURE ON HIS PLA THE/SHE HA.s
DEEMED THAT THEY ARE CORRECT ANO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE IN EFFECT THIS DATE. THESE NOTES ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
R\mNINQ WITH THE LAND AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON THS PLAT lS NOT INTENOED TO
IMPOSE THE~ AS SUCH. ANY REFERENCE TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS SHOWN HEREON
ARE THEORETICAL.
A. PROPERTY ZONED RA.
I. THE PORTION OF 'r.M. 97-24 U4~.71 ACRESI L Y1N~ ON THE NORTH SlOE OF ST. RT. 633
IS ASSIGNED 14 DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: THAT IS 4 RIGHTS FROM THAT PORTION OF THE
100 ACRE PARCEL LYING NORTH OF ST. RT, 633, NOT TO UTI.IZE MORE THAN 24.8 AC'I
4 RIGHTS FROM THAT PORTION OF THE ~o ACRE PARCEL LYNG NORTH OF ST. RT. 633,
NOT TO UTILIZE MORE THAN 24.8 ACRESI 5 RIGHTS FROM THE 29 ACRE PARCEL.
I RIGHT FROM THAT PORTION OF THE 63 ACRE PARCEL LYING NORTH OF ST. RT. 633,
NOT TO UTILIZE MORE THAN 6.2 ACRES
C. THE RESIOUE OF T.M. ')7.24 110254. ACRESI LYING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ST. RT, 633
1$ ASSIGNED '9 DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: THAT IS I RlGHT FROM THAT PORTION OF THE
100 ACRE PARCEL LYING SOUTH Of ST. RT, 633, NOT TO UTILIZE lo40RE THAN 62 AC
I RIGHT fROM THAT PORTION OF THE so ACRE PARCEl. LYING SOUTH OF ST. RT. 63:5.'
NOT TO UTILIZE MORE THAN 6.2 ACRES I 3 RIGHTS FROM THE 6 1/4 ACRE PARCEL.
4 RIGHTS FROM THA T PORTION OF THE 63 ACRE PARCEL LYING SOUTH OF ST. RT. 633,
NOT TO UTILIZE MORE THAN 248 ACRES
o ACCORDING TO THE U SG S. TOPOGRAPHC MAP, THE 145.71 ACRE PARCEL ANO THE
RESJOUE OF T M_ 97,24 e:AC~1 HAVE A MINIMUM OF 30,000 S.F. OF AREA WITH SLOPES
LESS THAN 251;,.
E. THE STREAM BUFFER SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE MANAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
WA TEA PROTECTION ORDINANCE OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY.
THE 0NlSI0N 01 tHE LAND OE.SIC:RIIEO HEAtON IS 'MIM tHE FAa
CON5EHT N<J H 1lC~ 'MIH IHE 0E:5IRE C# rHE t.NC:O-
SIGNED 0'NNlR. PAOPRIETOA! AKJ TRUmU. Ntt WUllNCE to
FUnJRE POTENnAl OEVElOPMfM 11 10 BE Q(fMEO AS
IHEORfTICAI. Ofb: AU. S'tA1tMEHTS AR1Xm 10 ntS P\.N
~~.l1l<E "" 01 '" """"'=
. rt...--.... 'r<'~J..r
~~~'!:::t.~~~To-"",
THE fOREGQt.IG WoI.S ~OGED IU<lRf: t.E
:'~~. . ~.
NO""" P\JOUC
APPROVED FOR RECORDA liON:
v.uJ~~~
DIRECTOR PLANNING fY\
2..\,\'')'
DAlE
T.Io4. 10S - 14
ANN PHILIPP MOSER
REVOCABLE TRUST
O.B. Ino . 444
O.B. 987 . ZOO PLAT
1
i
I
i
I
O. ,;). 10
~ f4~ ~ ~
, "'''
30'
PRESCRIPTrve:
EASEMENT
N44"J9'J9"[ 12564'
AON FOUND
542"2015'"E 138.!'j' -r--: '- ~~~ ~~~WEST
'''JV"'~ ~ IRON OF CORNER
IRON ~'l1 FOUNO
SET hB. GG I p. 3'-5
100 AcRe
7'1lkr
T.M. 97 - 2S
CHRISTOPHER J. I ANNE W. HOY
O_B. 1176 . 494. 491 PLAT
+
t).Rs
T_M. 97 - 27
WLLIAIo4 G. I LlNDA L. APPlEGATE
0.8. 756 . 498
O.B. 4B3 . 466 PLAT
.........
D. B "'- .........
!;. . ~8 .........
.d " ~- I /:'}
7" D. }) :"KRli' r. 14
I\.. ~ 1'R..tc r ~
T.M. 97 - 24 (PORTION)
145.71 ACRES
0_8.1537 - 447
NOTES:
I
,
\ KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
l OWNERS AOORESS :
P.O. BOX 5
FABER, VA 22'338
2. TOTAL ACREAGE BEfORE
DIVISION. 248.25a ACRES
'-..
"-
p. 7.2"\
'NAlr
"'"'-...
3. NO PREVIOUS SURVEY COUlD
BE FOUND OF THIS PROPERTY,
BOUNDARY lINES WERE
EST A8LlSHED 8Y USING
SURVEYS OF THE ADJACENT
PROPERTIES AND
MONUMEHTATION FOUND.
NOTE;
THE PORTIONS
OF THE 100 ACRE.
THE 50 ACRE I THE
63 ACRE PARCELS L YWG ON
NORTH SlOE OF ST, RT, 633
ARE HEREBY ADDED TO THE
Z9 ACRE PARCEL THE PORTlOH$
OF THE SAI) PARCElS L YWG ON
THE SOUTH S!DE OF ST, RT. '33
ARE HEREBY ADDEO TO THE' v4
ACRE PARCEL
"./
/
T.M. 97 - 24 (PORTION)
RESIDUE . 102.54. AC.
01. J:tJ1 - 447
1 D.R.
PLA T SHOWING
SURVEY OF 145.71 ACRES
A PORTION OF TAX MAP 97 PARCEL 24
THE PROPERTY OF HARRY COURTNEY POWELL SR.
AND REV A A. POWELL
LOCA TED ON STATE ROUTES 633 & 698 AND HEARDS MOUNTAIN
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA
SCALE : r' . 300' DA TE : JAN. 9, 2002
REVISED: FEB. 14, 2002
~
\<
~
FO~
GAl. SOUTH & DAVID METCALF
R",,)I;/
T.M. 91. IIA 'OUND
HAROLD H., ~, I JEAN 8, KOLI
0,8. 1892 - n~
0,8. 1~3' . 53', $40 P\..AT
--~
ROGER W. RAY ( ASSOt.. NC.
1717 -II ".lLIED STREET
CHAR\.OTTESVI.LE. VA 22903
.....
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mcintire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
FAX (434) 972-4126
TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832
TID (434) 972-4012
February 8, 2002
Roger W. Ray
Roger W. Ray and Assoc., Inc.
1717-1 B Allied Street
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 97, Parcel 24 (Property of Harry Courtney Powell Sr. and Reva A. Powell)
Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. Ray:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 97, Parcel 24 contains five (5) parcels and twenty-three (23) theoretical
development rights. The parcels are shown on a map key that is attached to this
determination. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows:
Our records indicate Tax Map 97, Parcel 24 contains 247.250 acres and one (1)
dwelling. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent
deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1537, page 447. The most recent deed
for the parcels described below prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is recorded in Deed Book 265, page 75.
Deed Book 265, page 75, dated October 8, 1945, conveyed a two/thirds interest in
property of the late Janie H. Powell from Maude Powell McGuire, L. C. McGuire &W.
Forrest Powell to Harry H. Powell & Amanda J. Powell. The lands are described as
follows:
FIRST: 185 % acres about two miles west of Covesville on the road to
Hungrytown, consisting of three adjoining tracts,
(1) one of 100 acres conveyed to Joseph S. Hudson by R. L. Moran and wife by
a deed dated June 9th, 1871 and recorded in D. B. 66, p. 365; It is
determined that this tract was a lot of record on December 10, 1980.
1:\DEP1\8uilding & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\97-24 Powell.doc
Powell Determination
February 8, 2002
Page 2
(2) 50 acres conve~ed to Joseph S. Hudson by R. L. Moran and wife by a deed
dated August 8 ,1873 and recorded in D. B. 68, p. 149; It is determined
that this tract was a lot of record on December 10, 1980.
Deed Book 68, page 724, dated June 10, 1874 conveyed two lots or
parcels of land lying on the head waters of the South Hardware containing
together 35 % acres from R. L. Moran and wife to Joseph S. Hudson by a
deed dated June 10th, 1874 and recorded in D. B. 68, p. 724. The first is
described as containing 6 % acres. The second is described as containing
29 acres. Each is further described by metes and bounds. The source of
title is not provided. Roger Ray has sketched the location of these parcels
on a tax map included with this request. They are shown as two separate,
non-contiguous parcels on opposite sides of the road.
j
I
I
,
I
f
(3) 35 % acres conveyed to Joseph S. Hudson by R. L. Moran and wife by a
deed dated June 10th, 1874 and recorded in D. B. 68, p. 724.
Note that 0.8. 265, p. 75 describes the property as two lots containing 35 %
acres. It is determined that this deed did not combine the two parcels
described in 0.8. 68, p. 724. Therefore, each of these were lots of record on
December 10, 1980.
These three pieces together aggregate 185 % acres and are generally known as
the Moran Place.
SECOND: 210 acres conveyed to Joseph S. Hudson by Joseph Hamner,
Administrator by'a deed dated June 9th, 1854 and recorded in D. B. 52, p. 19.
This property is generally known as the Eades property. This property is not part
of this determination.
THIRD: 100 acres conveyed to Joseph S. Hudson by George Perkins, Trustee
and S. A. Burch and wife by a deed dated March 24th, 1891 and recorded in D.
B. 95, p. 283. This property is generally known as the Wingfield property. This
property is not part of this determination.
. FOURTH: About 166 acres devised to Joseph S. Hudson by Joseph Wingfield,
by will spread in W. B. 28, p. 97 under the third clause described as the two
upper mountain fields with woodland attached. This property is not part of this
determination.
1:\DEPT\Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\97 -24 Powell.doc
Powell Determination
February 8, 2002
Page 3
FIFTH: 63 acres conveyed to M. B. Hudson, W. N Hudson and E. W. Hudson by
W. G. Moran and wife by a deed dated January 14th, 1914 and recorded in D. B.
154, p. 491. It is determined that this tract was a lot of record on December
10,1980.
SIXTH: 1893/4 acres allotted to Lily F. Wade in the partition of H.W. Norvell's
estate, and conveyed to E.W. Hudson by Lyttleto'l Waddell, Commissioner by a
deed dated June 13th, 1932 and recorded in D. B. ;216, p. 421 with plat on 422.
This property is not part of this determination.
The first deed for this property recorded after December 10, 1980 is in Deed Book 719,
page 112, dated April 13, 1981 conveyed 247.250 acres from Amanda J. Powell to
Harry Courtney Powell, Sr. and Reva A. Powell as tenants by the entirety with full rights
of survivorship as at common law, and not as tenants in common. The property is
described, in part, as all that certain tract or parcel of land, on either side of State Route
633, containing 247.250 acres, more or less, being described as Parcels First and Fifth,
containing 185.25 acres and 63 acres, respectively, in a deed of Maude Powell McGuire
dated October 8, 1945 and recorded in Deed Book 265, page 75.
While this deed uses the singular term tract or parcel, it is determined that it did
not combine the parcels. The deed also references the descriptions of the
property contained in Deed Book 265, page 75. There was no approved plat nor
was there language in the deed demonstrating the intent to combine these
parcels into one.
Deed Book 1537, page 447, dated November 4,1994 conveyed 247.250 acres from
Harry Courtney Powell, Sr. and Reva A. Powell to. Harry Courtney Powell, Sr. and Reva
A. Powell as tenants in common in equal one-half shares. The property is described as
the same that was conveyed in Deed Book 719, page 112. Likewise, it is determined
that this deed did not combine the parcels.
There have been no off-conveyances since the recordation of this deed. Based on this
history, Tax Map 97, Parcel 24 is determined to be five (5) parcels with a total of twenty-
three (23) development rights.
The parcel is entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations
can be met. These development rights may only be utilized within the bounds of the
original parcels with which they are associated. These development rights are
theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than
twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right
1:\DEP1\Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\97-24 Powell.doc
Powell Determination
February 8, 2002
Page 4
lots, the parcel may create as many smaller parcels containing a minimum of twenty-
one acres as it has land to make.
It is further determined that Route 633 does not operate to divide these tracts into
separate parcels.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination 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 $95.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
;
I
.
(
,
:.John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies: Harry Courtney Powell Sr. and Reva A. Powell
353 Altamont Lane
Fauber, VA 22938
Gail South and David Metcalf
2325 Rocky Top Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
~eading Files
1:\oEPT\8uilding & Zoning\Determin of Parce1\97-24 Powell.doc
7
/
-......
or.
........
<-.
0'
~
irl
~%
/
1/
/'
/
.....
......
-<--
..-
.-.::-
;..>0..
<:::> ~ --:s--
<>-...., -:?
S:.. ~
".,. .
..QO':.~
-'''-
'"
'v
.bI
.0:1
.ct A.J \.
)l ):,..-0 ~~l
.t/ (l ~
/
3~~
. XI >
~~."
:-,r-",
C1"'
:v'"-<
N~
~...~~
~ :!10
~ ~
::I
!
)
'1.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Hearing on Six Year Secondary Road Priority
List
AGENDA DATE:
January 12, 2005
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
Public hearing to receive public comments on the
Draft Six Year Secondary Road Priority List
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
LEGAL REVIEW: YES
REVIEWED BY:
r
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Messrs: Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors held a work session on the draft Six Year Secondary Road Priority List at their December 1,
2004 meeting. The Board reviewed the project priorities and recommended moving forward to a public hearing on the
proposed Priority List. The Board also directed staff to make revisions to the format of the Priority List, which is
summarized below.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment D is the Executive Summary from the December 1 work session which outlines all the specific project changes
in the proposed Priority List. In addition, staff has made the following changes to the format of the Priority List based on
direction provided by the Board:
Attachment A-Draft Priority List for Secondary Road: Staff has identified the top twenty-one projects that should be the
focus of the Board's annual review. This section of the Priority List is referred to as the Strategic Priorities. The intent is for
the Strategic Priorities part of the Priority List to identify the high priority projects that VDOT and County staff will focus on
completing over the next 10 to 20 years. The Board had requested staff identify the top twenty projects, but staff included
the Greenbrier Drive project (#21) because it is in the Development Area and is an important improvement recommended
in the 29H250 Study which would benefit both the secondary road system and Route 29. The remainder of the proposed
Priority List will remain the same in terms of project priorities, but will be listed as a Technical Addendum A, and titled Other
Project Priorities (pages 2-5).
Staff has also added a column with the most recent traffic count for each road project and year the count was taken. In
addition, please note that the cost estimates have increased for the Gilbert Station Road and Allen Road rural rustic road
projects (Attachment A, page 4). This increase will not impact the scheduled construction date.
Attachment B- Technical Addendum B: This attachment contains more specific information on the projects listed as the
Strategic Priorities. This information is intended to provide more detail on the condition of the road segment and serve as
the basis for the project's priority. The information in this Technical Addendum will be completed/updated annually for the
Strategic Priorities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt The Proposed Priority List of for Secondary Road improvements
(Attachment A).
05.001
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A (paqes 1, 2. and 3) Draft Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements
Attachment A (paoes 4 and 5) Draft Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements -Unpaved Roads
Attachment B - Technical Addendum
Attachment C- Criteria for Prioritizino Secondary Road improvements with Subsettinq Data
page
Attachment A
LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
2005-06 Through 2010-11
[SOME PROJECTS MAY NOT BE COMPLETED AS PRIORITIZED DUE TO PROJECT COMPLEXITY AND/OR AVAILABLE FUNDING]
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Location
From - To
Route Number and Name
County's
Proposed
Ranking
VDors
Secondary
Plan
Most Current
Traffic Count
Year Project was
placed on Priority List
Justification for project
Description/Comments
Estimated
Cost
Estimated
Advertisement
and year of Count
Source of Request
Date
=====================================================================================================================================================================================
Signs,pipe,plant mix projects
$750,000
Jun-10
Jun-10
Jun-10
County wide
County wide
o
o
o
publiC req.
safety, maintain function/staff,
Safety/Public Request,
Historic operation/staff
County wide
625 Hatton Ferry
Meadow Creek Parkway
Meadow Creek Parkway
20,000-2004
studies-plans
20,000-2004
7,600-2002
Capacityl CHART
Capacity/CHART
Capacity/CHART, Land Use Plan
SafetyNDOT
Capacity/CHART
for traffic calming projects through out the County that meet requirements.
lane design approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd.. includes bridge over CSX RR
(Associated with project above)
Widen to four lanes.
of ferry
Designated
Operation
Two
$300,000
$17,161,852
$120,000
Jun-08
Traffic mgmt. Program
Melbourne Rd to Rio Road
Bridge over Meadow Creek
Hatton Ferry
2
2
2
$2.204,500
Jun-08
Dec-03
Route 29 to Route 606
649 Airport Road
Free State Road
bike lanes,.idewalks.RS98I99
$12,271,456
Free State Road
651
4
4
5
6
420-1997
Proposal to conslruct road from Rio Rd to Free St Rd to replace substandard bridge or replace bridge
$3,350,000
Route 631 to Route 29
Northern Free State Road
5
26,000-2004
eastern connector road
to be studied in conj w/ the proposed
pedJbike access,RS 1999/00
rd concept/al
North/south connect.
$4,200.000
$10,500,000
Dec-08
684
Route 240 to Route
691 Jannan. Gap Road
6
2,500-2002
Capacity,sarety/Land Use Plan, CMP
Serve increased Iraf wi min widening,
656 Georgetown Road
7
7
6,000-2002
Capacity,sarety/G'lown Rd Plan, PubliC
Spot improvement, pedestrain access,urban cross--section,may be 31ane x-section at certain locations RS 97/98
$7.096.300
Dec-
to Route 743
Rt 29 to 1.6 miles east
654
Route
649 Proffit Road
8
8
6,600-2002
4,500-2002
Capacity,safety/Land Use Plan
Capacity/Land Use Plan
Improve alignment, urban x-section with bike/sidewalk.RS 200412005
$9,500.000
Ivy Road to 250/29 Byp
601 Old Ivy Road
9
9
Widen, improve alignment bike/sidewalk access,RS 2000/01
$7,200,000
Southern Parkway
10
5,000-2004
,100-1996
Capacity/Southem City Study
Capacity/Land Use Plan
Capacity/Land Use Plan
Safety/Scottsville
pedestrianlbike facility. and Neighborhood street design/speed
with
Extend to 5th St
$6,200,000
Avon Str. to Fifth Str.
NCL to Fifth St
Sunset Avenue
781
11
pedlbike access
urban x-sect, upgrade 2 lane.RS 2005106,
improvements at various 10cations.RS 2001/02
Improve.
and inter.
Spot
Spot
Extended
to Rt.708
.35 MI. S. 1-64
631 Old Lynchburg Road
12
2,300-2002
Spot improvement to improve sight distance,RS 2002103
302
Route 795 to Route
726 James River Road
13
2,000-2000
Hillsdale Drive
14
3,000-2004
Capacity/Hillsdale Drive Extension Study
630-1996
4,100-2003*
23,000-2002
00-2000
,000-1997
20,000-2003*
2003
Capacity/Crozet
Safety/City
Safety/School
Safety/Public Request
Capacity ,safety/29H250 Study
Capacity .safety/29H250 Study
requesVsafety
New connector road between Hillsdale Rd and Hydraulic Rd. to be constructed with urban funds
Greenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq.
Intersection of Route 790
795 Blenheim Road
15
Safety/Public Request
Intersection improvement
Route 240 to Route 250
Eastern Avenue
16
Plan
Master
sir, proj. to Include RR underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk
Interconnect future neighborhoods
631 Rio Road
17
Improve sustandard intersection (may be funded in part with City/private developer funds)
Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane
Railroad overpass
708 Dry Bridge Road
643 Polo Grounds Road
18
19
29 (29H25O)
29 (29H250)
Various sites. see pages 4&5
.. Currenlly not eligible for full VDOT funding.
* Traffic Counts are based on Crozet
Low weightlimi
649
Route 29 to Route
spot improvements. RS 2004/05
Improvement alignment
Intersection with Rt.
743 Hydraulic Road
866 Greenbrier
20
21
from 29H25O Phase 2 Study
Improvements recommended
Intersection with Rt
Drive
8,800-2003*
2003
Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study
(RRR)
N/A
N/A
Public
and regular construction projects
Rustic Road
funding toward Rural
full funding.
Staff is working with VDOT to qualify road fOI
Plan and 29 H250 Study forecast
Minimum required
Master
Road paving projects
list
Area.
Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priority
Projects in boid are in the Developmen
page 2
A
Attachment
TECHNICAL ADDENDUM A--OTHER PROJECT PRIORITIES
Location
Route Number and Name
County's
VDDrs
Most Current
Year Project was
Justification for project
Description/Comments
Estimated
Cost
Estimated
Advertisement
To
From
Proposed
Secondary
Traffic Count
placed on Priority List
Ranking
Plan
and year of Count
Source of Request
Date
====================;;;===:::::::::::::;:;;:=================:::::;======::::================;;;;:::::::::====:::::;=============================::::==::::::::==================::::=====================::::::;:;::::::==================================:;::;:==========:;:::::::::========
Intersection of Route 250
676 Tilman Road Road
22
740-2002
Safety/PubliC Request
Safety/Public Request
[4,800]
intersection improvement,RS 2003104
614 Garth Road
23
3,400-2002
7,000-2002
,200-1996
Safety/CHART
Safety/Public Request
Safety/Public Request
intersection improvement
add turning lane at Barracks Farm Road
Intersection of Rt. 676
Intersection of Route 658
at Route 250
801 Garth Road
738 Morgantown Road
676 Woodlands Road
24
25
26
6,000-2002
5,000-2002
6,700-2002
6,700-2002
11,000-2003*
2003
2003
2003
2003
3,800.2003
,000-2003*
2003
3,700-2002
00-2002
,800-2002
3,000-2002
Safety/Public Request
Capacity/CHART
Safety/Public Request
Capacity/29H250 Study
Capacity/Crozet Master Plan
Capacity/Land Use Plan
Capacity/Land Use Plan
Capacity/Crozet Master Plan
Safety/Public Request
Safety/Public Request
Safety/Public Request
Safety/CHART
Capacity,safety/CHART
SafetyNDOT
close west ramp and construct tapered tum lane
intersection improvement
Intersection of Route 801
FCL to Route 759
improve alignment
606 Dickerson Road
improve to handle projected traffic, RS 2002103
Route 649 to Route 743
Intersection of Route
intersection improvement
001
1403 Berkmar
27
28
29
30
31
616 Union Mill Road
Barracks Road
654
new road to serve as parallel road to Rt. 29
Hilton Heights Rd to Town Center Rd
Crozet Avenue to Eastern Avenue
Extension
Main Street
road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan
new
end of Town Center Rd to Airport Road
Town Center Rd Extended
32
new road to serve Hollymead development area
1520 Hollymead Dr Ext
Meadows Road
33
road to serve Hollymead development area
new
Route 29 to Rt. 743
34
35
36
road as recommended in the Croze! Master Plan
new
to Rt. 250
Rt. 691
678 Owensville Road
intersection improvement
Intersection of Route 250
732 Milton Road
spot improvement
of 762
Intersection
810 White Hall Road
37
Intersection improvement
of Route 789
Intersection of Route 53
Intersection
795 James Monroe Pky
38
intersection improvement
Fifth Street to Avon Street
Fifth St Connector Rd
39
26,000-2004
2003
urban cross section
connector road NORTH of 1-64,
Frays Mill Road
641
install box culvert, not a County Priority
641@
Polo Grounds Rd to Hollymead Dr.
Jacob Run
Rt.
Rt. 29 parallel road
40
2003
2003
Capacity .safety/CHART
Safety/Public Request
Safety/Public Request
Safety/Public Request
road
new
Fontaine Ave. Ext to Dead end
702 Reservoir Road
41
,900-1996
most dangerous locations
paving and spot improvements a
Rivanna River to Rt 643
743 Eariysville Road
42
9,300-2002
Improve alignment, spot improvement
729 Milton Road
43
4,900-2002
improve road geometries, two lane rural section
Buffalo River Rd
120
of Rt. 604
Rt. 53 to Rt.
at int.
663 Simmons Gap Rd
44
.000-1997
680-1997
340-1997
Safety/Public Request
Safety/Public Request
Safety/Public Request
site distance improvement
spot/safety improvement to serve increased traffic w/ minimum widening
bridge project with low sufficiency rating
Rt. 691 to Rt. 797
Norfolk Southem RR
684 Half Mile Branch Road
641 Bumley Station Road
45
46
list
in bold and in italics are new on this year's priOlity
Projects
Projects in bold are in the Development Area.
page 3
A
Attachment
Description/Comments
Estimated
Estimated
Location
Route Number and Name
County's
VDors
Most Current
Year Project was
Justification for project
Cost
Advertisement
To
From
Proposed
Secondary
Traffic Count
placed on Priority List
Source of Request
Date
Ranking
Plan
and year of Count
-==================================================================================================================================================================================-
Month-Year
602 Howardsville Tnpk
47
410-2000
SafetyNDOT
Safetyl Schoo/
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate
miles south Route 626
At Rt. 250
.0
729 Milton Road
Rt.
48
6,200-2002
2004
300-2000
80-2000
370-1997
,400-2000
,700-2002
2,600-2002
640-2002
40-2000
,000-2002
SafetyNDOT
Safety/Public Request
Safety/Public Request
Safety/Public Request
Safety/CHART
Capacity/Crozet Master Plan
Safety/CHART
SafetyNDOT
Safety/Scottsville
Safety/Public Request
add turning lane to allow buses to leave schoo/
Norfolk Southern RR
640 Gilbert Station Road
49
SafetyNDOT
bridge project with low sufficiency rating
642 Red Hill Depot Road
50
10
Railroad crossing with no gate. upgrade flashing light
$215,000
Jun-{)5
.28 miles northeast Rl.708
Millington Road
67
51
intersection improvement
of Route 665
Intersection
692 Plank Road
52
spot improvements
Route 29 to Route 712
Route 20 to Route 29
708 Red Hill Road
53
improve alignment
Route 614 to Route 1050
676 Woodlands Road
54
spot improvements at several points
691
55
extend to eastern 240/250 street system
Park Road to Route 250
Park Road
678 Decca Lane
56
intersection, located near school
improve
of Route 676
Intersection
743 Advance Mills Road
57
improve approach to bridge
At Jacobs Run
Near inter. with Rt. 20
795 Hardware Street
58
710-2002
spot improvement
732 Millon Road
59
,000-2000
intersection improvement
at Rt. 53
Intersection of Route 795
622 Albevanna Springs Rd
60
61
,000-2000
Safety/Public Request
Safety/Public Request
intersection improvement
Intersection of Route 773
622 Albevanna Springs Rd
680 Browns Gap T npk
,000-2000
intersection improvement
Rt. 240 to Rt
62
700-1997
Safety/Public Request
spot improvements
810
Off Route 691
Jannans Gap Road
61
63
210-2000
SafetyNDOT
SafetyNDOT
Safety/Public Request
Safety/Public Request
Railroad crossing with no gate
.05 miles south of Rt. 6
1310 Feny Street
64
80-2000
Railroad crossing with no gate
at Tasmania Drive
601 Free Union
65
,100-2002
2003
to prevent requent flooding
install culvert
Woods Road
Off Dick
682 Broadaxe Road
66
140-2000
22,000-2002
24,000-2003
2003
2003
Create trail/CHART, Bike Plan
Safety/Land Use Plan
Safety/Land Use Plan
spot improvements
and/or off road trai
upgrade to urban x-section, sidewalk and bikelanes
pave shoulders
Georgetown Rd. to Rt. 601
to Stonehenge
Pwy
Creek South
Meadow Creek
654 Barracks! Garth Road
Rio Road
631
67
68
,200-2003
2003
improve to urban cross section
projects below Priority #70 are unpaved requests. The County has established two separate list for unpaved roads: Regular Paving and Rural Rustic Roads paving.
City limits to Mi
742 Avon Street Ext
69
AI
page 4
A
Attachment
DRAFT_ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR UNPAVED ROADS
2005-06 Through 20010-11
[SOME PROJECTS MAY NOT BE COMPLETED AS PRIORITIZED DUE TO PROJECT COMPLEXITY AND/OR AVAILABLE FUNDING]
Year Project was
placed on Priority List
Description/Comments
Most Curren
Traffic Caun
Estimated
Cost
Regular/RRR
Estimated
Advertisement
Date
Location
From - To
Route Number and Name
to current ranking over time.
moved
Has
At
At
and year of Coun
2003
this project had been prioritized higher.
2003
2003
At
At
At
At
At
At
At
At
At
At
At
At
At
At
At
Public
Public
Public
req uest
request
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Shool
Public
Shool
260-2000
270-2000
90-2000
420-1997
180-1997
330-2000
21 0-2000
260-2000
260-2000
230-1996
170-2000
160-2000
150-2000
140-2000
140-2000
120-2000
120-2000
120-2000
110-2000
100-2000
80-2000
50-2000
IN PRIORITY RANKING
$316.816
:R - $136.459
, - $75,000
50.000
$100.000
$150.000
$130.000
$125,000
$75,000
$40,000
$150,000
$150,000
$220.000
RR
RRR
PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY FOR RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING
Route 784 to Route 20
Route 664 to Dead end
Nelson CL to Rt. 634 (Heard)
Route 616 to dead end
Rt. 250 to Rt. 731
RRR
RRR
RRR
RRR
RRR
RRR
RRR
RRR
RRR
rural rustic roads). Staff wi
Rt. 20 to Dead end (about 1.4 miles)
Route 616 to Dead end
end of Hard surface to RR Bridge
Rt. 1094 to Rt. 784
Rt. 795 to dead end
Route 795 to Rt. 1807
Route 29 to Rt. 712
VDOT paving improvements (regular or
Dec-D4
Dec-D4
Dec-D5
Dec-D5
Dec-06
Dec-D7
Dec-D7
Dec-08
Dec-D8
Dec-D9
Dec-09
Dec-10
Dec-12
640 Gilbert Station Road
666 Allen Road
633 Heards Mtn Rd
623 Woods Edge Rd
744 Hacktown Road
769 Rocky Hollow Road
685 Bunker Hill Road
640 Gilbert Station Road
640 Gilbert Station Road
790 Holly Road
734 Bishop Hill Road
760 Red Hill School Road
722 Old Green Mtn Road RL 6" 6021~y" "" pnoj.. RL6-723. RL m...2
806 Estes Ridge Road 663-Dead End
668 Walnut Level Road Rt. 810 to dead end
762 Rose Hill Church Ln Rt. 732 to Dead End
704 Fortune Lane Rt. 715 to Dead End
672 Blufton Road Rt. 810 to Dead end
608 Happy Creek Road Route 645 to Route 646
774 Bear Creek Road NCL to dead end
747 Preddy Creek Road Rt. 600 to Rt. 640
600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles east to Rt. 231
Unpaved roads with dailly traffic volumes below 20 are not eligible fOI
769 Beam Road Rt. 1484 to dead end
637 Dick Woods Road 691 to Rt. 692
735 Mt. Alto Road 602 to Rt. 626
Rt.
Rt.
VDOT is re-evaluating this project RRR eligibility.
When staff and VDOT further. the cost may decrease and increase or the road may be detennined not eligible for the Rural Rustic Road Program.
fo
cost of $100,000 per mile.
three years before estimated advertisement date.
Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priority list.
RRR- Eligible for Rural Rustic Road program. The cost estimates are based on uni
The Right-of-Way for all unpaved road requests is undetennined until
two or
page 5
A
Attachment
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR UNPAVED ROADS
2005-06 Through 2010-11
[SOME PROJECTS MAY NOT BE COMPLETED AS PRIORITIZED DUE TO PROJECT COMPLEXITY AND/OR AVAILABLE FUNDING]
Description/Comments
Most Curren
Estimated
Cost
Regular/RRR
Estimated
Advertisement
Date
Location
From - To
Route Number and Name
Year Project was
placed on Priority List
Traffic Coun
and year of Count
========================================================================
transferred from Rt. 702.
2003
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
702.
Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. No RW $698.800
Staff request. At current ranking due to traffic count. $100.<
Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. $200,000 from Rt.
request. At current ranking due to traffic count.
request. At current ranking due to traffic count.
request. At current ranking due to traffic count.
795
.
At
At
At
At
At
At
At
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
380-2002
240-2000
360-2000
280-2000
360-2000
360-2000
340-2000
200-2000
200-2000
200-2000
160-2000
160-2000
150-1997
140-1997
140-2000
140-2000
130-2000
120-2000
100-2000
100-2000
80-2000
70-2000
60-2000
50-2000
40-2000
PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY FOR REGULAR PAVING IN PRIORITY RANKING
$1,400,000
$800.000
$500,000
$1,250.000
$200,000
$350,000
$350,000
$450,000
require.at this time)
project is a shott distance btwn the P.O and KCC. co
,250.000
$1
meet VDOT
Apr -06
Apr-07
Apr-08
635 and 636 does not
Rt
Rt.
Rt
I'~.
Rt
~t.
Rt.
B
Attachment
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Projects Information
Technical Addendum B Strategic Priorities
2005-06 Through 2010-11
Project
Type
First
Justification
for
Location
From. To
Route Number and Name
Ranking (2)
Comments
V/C
Ratio
Public Safetyl
School
In adopted
Plan'
Located in
Development
Most Curren
Request
Area
Traffic Count
and year of Coun
on
List
Year
Project
-----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
New Road
Relieve traffic on Rio Rd/Rl. 29
.9
No
CHART
Yes
20,000-2004
Relieve traffic, improve entrance corridor
0,9
No
CHART
Yes
7,600-2002
Reconstruction
Major
New/Bridge Replacement
New bridge and/or new road
No
CHART
Yes
Yes
Relieve traffic on Rio Rd/Rl. 29
,1
No
No
No
No
CHART
26,000-2004
Additional development along road
0,66
Master Plan
Georgetown Rd Plan
Task Force recommendations
2.16
6,000-2002
Major Reconstruction
Major Reconstruction
New school and developmen
.1
CHART
Yes
6,600-2002
VDOT outlined cost and scope in 2001
No
Land Use Plan
Yes
4,500.2002
provide connector below 1-64
No
Southern City Study
Land Use Plan
Yes
5,000-2004
New Road
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
New Road
Additional development in Southern area
No
Yes
00.1996
Additional development in Southern area
No
Land Use Plan
Yes
2,300-2002
Spot
Spot
Capacity
Capacity
Safety
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Connectivity
Capacity
Capacity
Safety
Connectivity
==================================================
Melbourne Rd to Rio Road
Meadow Creek Parkway
Route 29 to Route 606
649 Airport Road
Free State Road
Free State Road
65
420-1997
New Road
Major Reconstruction
Major Reconstruction
Route 631 to Route 29
Northern Free State Road
Route 240 to Route 684
Jarmans Gap Road
69
Crozet
Yes
Yes
2,500-2002
Route 654 to Route 743
656 Georgetown Road
649 Proffit Road
.6 miles east
Rt29to
Ivy Road to 250/29 Byp
Old Ivy Road
601
Avon Str. to Fifth Str.
Southern Parkway
Spot
NCL to Fifth St Extended
Sunset Avenue
78
.35 MI. S. 1-64
Old Lynchburg Road
631
to Rl.708
Route 795 to Route 1302
726 James River Road
request from Scollsville
.08
No
No
Scottsville
No
2,000-2000
Greenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq.
Hillsdale Drive
connect to Hydraulic Road
.5
CHART
Yes
3,000-2004
Safety
Connectivity
Intersection of Roule 790
795 Blenheim Road
site distance
Poor
0.51
No
No
No
Yes
630-1996
mprovement
New Road
Spot
2003
CMP recommendation
0.3
No
Master Plan
Crozet
4,100-2003
City dev. may take place to impact intersection
.9
No
CHART
Yes
23,000-2002
Improvement
Low weight
Spot
low weight bridge
Yes
No
No
00-2000
bridge
Improvements
Reconstruction
Spot
Major
Major
Borders DA
29H250 Recommendations
29H250 Recommendations
.6
2.
No
No
No
No
29H250 Study
29H250 Study
No
Yes
Yes
,000-1997
20,000-2003
8,800-2003
Reconstruction
2003
2003
Safety
Safety
Safety
Capacity
Capacity
Route 240 to Route 250
Eastern Avenue
Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane
Rio Road
631
Railroad overpass
708 Dry Bridge Road
Route 29 to Route 649
643 Polo Grounds Road
Intersection with Rl. 29 (29H250)
Intersection with Rl. 29 (29H250)
743 Hydraulic Road
866 Greenbrier Drive
Project has been identified in an adopted Plan or
information was compiled starting in 2003
reserved for comments that are unique to this project
Study
is
Attachment C - page 1
Albemarle County Criteria for Prioritizing Secondary Road
Improvements with Sub setting Data - January 2005
Maior Reconstruction
Growth Management Policy! In Adopted Plan
1. Growth
2. RA, non watershed
3. RA, watershed
AADT (Average Annual Daily Trip)
1. 10,001 or greater
2. 5,001-10,000
3. 3,501-5,000
4. 1,501-3,500
5. 100-1,500
6. Less than 100
School! Public Safety
Functional Classification
1. Freeway
2. Arterial
3. Collector
4. Local
Right of W ay Availability
1. Proposed Improvement can be done w/in VDOT or County ROW
2. Proposed Improvement cannot be done w!in VDOT or County ROW
Unpaved Roads (Traditional)
AADT
1. 10,001 or greater
2. 5,001-10,000
3. 3,501-5,000
4. 1,501-3,500
5. 100-1,500
6. Less than 100
Attachment C - page 2
Growth Management Policy/In Adopted Plan
1. Growth
2. RA, non watershed
3. RA, watershed
School/Public Safety
Functional Class
1. Freeway
2. Arterial
3. Collector
4. Local
Number of homes on road segment
1. 51 or greater
2. 36-50
3. 21-35
4. 10-21
5. Less than 10
Road width
1. Less than 16 feet
2. 17-22 feet
3. 22 feet or more
Right of Way Availability
1. Proposed Improvement can be done w/in VDOT or County ROW
2. Proposed Improvement cannot be done w/in VDOT or County ROW
Shoulder Width
1. 0-2 feet
2. 2-6 feet
3. 6 or more feet
4. Curb and gutter
Unpaved Road (Rural Rustic Roads)
AADT
1. 10,001 or greater
2. 5,001-10,000
3. 3,501-5,000
4. 1,501-3,500
5. 100-1,500
Attachment C - page 3
6. Less than 100
Growth Management Policy!In Adopted Plan
1. Growth
2. RA, non watershed
3. RA, watershed
School! Public Safety
Number of homes on road segment
1. 51 or greater
2. 36-50
3. 21-35
4. 10-21
5. Less than 10
Road Width - staff will confer with VDOT for vertical and horizontal alignment information
Shoulder Width
1. 0-2 feet
2. 2-6 feet
3. 6 or more feet
4. Curb and gutter
Brid!!e Replacement / Improvement
VDOT Bridge Sufficiency Rating
1. 0-10
2. 10-20
3. 20.1 or greater
AADT
1. 10,001 or greater
2. 5,001-10,000
3. 3,501-5,000
4. 1,501-3,500
5. 100-1,500
6. Less than 100
School! Public Safety
Attachment C - page 4
Functional Class
I. Freeway
2. Arterial
3. Collector
4. Local
Growth Management Policy/In Adopted Plan
1. Growth
2. RA, non watershed
3. RA, watershed
Spot Improvements
AADT
1. 10,001 or greater
2. 5,001-10,000
3. 3,501-5,000
4. 1,501-3,500
5. 100-1,500
6. Less than 100
Growth Management Policy/In Adopted Plan
I. Growth
2. RA, non watershed
3. RA, watershed
School/Public Safety
Functional Class
I. Freeway
2. Arterial
3. Collector
4. Local
Pavement Width
I. Less than 16 feet
2. 17-22 feet
3. 22 feet or more
Surface Tvpe
I. Unpaved (gravel, all weather)
2. Prime and double seal
3. Plant Mix
Attachment C - page 5
At-Grade Railroad Crossin!!
Existing Protection Services
1. No Lights
2. Light
AADT
1. Less than 100
2. 100-200
3. 201-500
4. 500-1,000
5. 1,000 or greater
Sight Distance at Crossing
School/Public Safety
Growth Management Policy/In Adopted Plan
1. Growth
2. RA, non watershed
3. RA, watershed
Number of Trains per day
1. 10 or more
2. 6-10
3. 3-5
4. 0-2
Mydoc:criteria for secondary Rd with subsetting data. doc
Attachment D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Review of Six Year Secondary AGENDA DATE: December 1,2004
Road Plan.
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Work session
to review the proposed County Priority List of Road CONSENT AGENDA:
Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary ACTION: INFORMATION:
Road Plan summary.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs: Tucker, Foley, Graham, Cilimberg, Benish, ATTACHMENTS: Yes
Wade
LEGAL REVIEW: No REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held work sessions on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan on October 19th and 26th, 2004. The
Planning Commission unanimously recommended the Draft Six Year Secondary Road Plan with two wording/informational
modifications on the Priority List (which have been made) and one recommendation to establish a public notification
process for major "construction permit" projects authorized by VDOT. This recommendation is addressed in the
"Discussion" section below.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission recommended that staff develop a public notification process for circumstances where property
owners work with VDOT directly to complete major improvements to roads, such as road realignments/relocations and
paving of unpaved roads. These "construction permit" projects typically occur when a property owner owns land on both
sides of the road (and, therefore, can donate the right of way necessary for the project) and the owner proposes to
undertake the cost and responsibility for constructing the project. Since it is not a public construction project requiring the
acquisition of right of way, a public hearing process is not required. The most recent example of this type of project was
the paving of a long segment of Blenheim Road (Route 795). The Commission believes that adjacent residents/property
owners should be made aware of this type of project and should have an opportunity to comment on the project. Staff
would like direction from the Board as to whether staff should undertake this effort. To date, this type of project has been
treated as a VDOT matter, since the County has no direct role in this process, including any required review and approval
of the projects.
Staff wants to bring to the Board of Supervisors' attention several recent changes to the Priority List. As directed by the
Board, staff has requested that VDOT re-allocate funding from the Old Ivy Road project to the Georgetown Road project in
order to expedite the construction of this project. Both the Priority List and the ultimate VDOT Six Year Plan will reflect this
initiative. However, VDOT has recently reviewed and updated the cost estimate for this project, which had not been done
since 1995. The cost was increased from $3,200,000 to $7,096,300 with an estimated advertisement date of December
2011. The new cost estimate assumes a three lane urban cross section with bikelanes and sidewalks. In addition, VDOT
has informed staff of a railroad crossing that will require improvements in 2005 located on Red Hill Depot Road (Rt. 642).
The improvements include the installation of a new gate and an upgrade of the existing flashing lights. This project is on
the County's Priority List (Priority #50) and is the second highest priority railroad crossing improvement project and will be
funded with available safety funds.
Finally, staff requests Board direction on the distribution of unpaved road funds between Rural Rustic Road projects and
regular road paving projects. With last year's approval of the County's Priority List for Improvements, two separate lists of
paving projects were created, one for roads that are eligible for rural rustic paving and the other are for roads that will be
paved using VDOT's traditional standards. Therefore, there is no longer a single list that prioritizes all of the projects.
VDOT has requested direction from the County on how to divide the paving allocation between rural rustic roads and
traditional paving. There are three (3) unpaved road projects in the current VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Plan which
have prior allocations of funding and have been moving towards construction (Routes 606, 643, and 647). The funding
proposed by VDOT in Attachment D has a majority of the unpaved roads funds being allocated to complete the funding of
these three projects, with the funding allocated to rural rustic road projects increasing from $100,000 (in FY05-06
(approximately 18% of the total allocation of unpaved road funds) to $190,000 in FY1 0-11 (approx. 56% of total projected
unpaved road funds). Staff supports VDOT's proposal because it will complete the funding of projects already programmed
for construction in the Plan while transitioning to a greater proportion (approx. 55-60%) of the total unpaved road funds on
rural rustic road projects over the full six years of the Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This is for Board review and comment; no action is required at this work session. A public hearing on this item is
scheduled for January 12, 2004.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT
TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
For Officers and Employees of
Local Government [Section 2.2-3115(E)]
1. Name: David P. Bowerman
2. Title: Rio District Supervisor
3. Agency: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
4. Transaction: January 12,2005 Agenda: ZMA-2004-0013 Mountain Valley Farm
5. Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction:
I receive compensation of more than $10,000 annually from Parkside I, LLC., 690
Berkmar Circle, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901. The applicant for this rezoning is
Evergreen Land Company, 800 East Jefferson Street, Charlottesville, Virginia
22902. Suzanne Brooks is a principal/owner of both Parkside I, LLC. and the
Evergreen Land Company.
6. I declare that:
I am disqualifying myself from participating in this transaction and request that this
fact be recorded in the appropriate public records for a period of five years.
Dated: January 12,2005
1J~6~~
Signature
~
4
,
RECEIVED
JAN 12 2005
0ti&iDal ProtfCr -.ZMA .91-13
~ ProIfu"""Z"RK 95- 0 5
(AJDendmcm' ~) (ZMA 208i4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PRoma JlORM
RECEIVED AT BOSYEETfNG
Date: 0.:?AI-':;
Agenda Item II: / / /
Clerk's InIt18"~.. 7~
to P RD .
-
DIao: 1/12/05
ZMAtl ZMA 2004-014
Tax tap IDd Plrcel N1IJDber(5) ':l.? ~-, r 1? ~- 3:- ~, 3 2 G- 3 - B 3
12 3 .61 ~ -Atres to be l'C%oncd (rom P RD
PwIuIDt10 ScGtioa 333 of the Albemarle Cowily ZoniDg Ord~, 1be owner, or ~duIy audlorl2ed agent, hereby
voluatlrily proffo16 dle CODClitioDs Jiatr;d below whidl5ball bG applied to she property, ifrezooed.. Tbe5e C'nllldlri/\ftll ere
prc6rcd lIS . part ofdle r~ moaIDe aDd it is agreed tUi; (1) 1Iae m:oaiDa itself Jives rise to !be Deed for the
CONIiIiaaI; IDd (2) such ec.dIriNl.!Il1ave a ~Ic rellllioD to lbc rc.zoojq rcqocst.
PROFFER# 1
SimultaDcous development of phases with signed site plans or subdivision plats may occur for the remaining phases of
developnent, identified as Phases 1A (subphase 3 & 4) IB, 4, 5, 6, & 8 as shown on the Application Plan dated December 10,
2004 (the "Application Plan" Briarwood Drive shall be constructed to Route 29, as shown on the Application Plan dated
December 10,2004, prior to commencing Phase 4,5 or 6. This proffer supersedes Agreement 12 ofZMA-95-05.
PROFFER # 2
Lots along Camelot Drive may be developed with townhouse units as shown on the Application Plan. This proffer supersedes
Agreement 13 ofZMA-91-13.
PROFFER # 3
The mix of units permitted in each phase is as follows:
Existin2 Lot Mix
Phase TV! Ie ofDwellinl! Unit Totals
SFD Dun lex Townhouse
1A - 98 - 98
1B - - 53 53
2 - 96 - 96
3 (ABC) - 72 37 109*
4 - 66 - 66
5 - 70 - 70
6 - 30 - 30
7 - 78 - 78
8 32 20 - 52
TOTALS 32 530 90 652
Lots to be added by
Ray Beard Property TM-32-E-2
4
656
-----------------------..------------------------------------------
Lots to be added in final engineering
5
661
..---------------..---------------------....---------------------------
Totals
661
* Lots 97 & 98 are included in the Phase 3 total but will be platted at a later date.
~
J
ProDosed Lot Mix
Phase Tvne ofDwellin2 Unit Totals
SFD SFA Townhouse
Lots Lots Lots
lA 28 - 22 50
lA (Existing Sub Phase 1 & - 48 - 48
2)
18 15 - 31 46
2 . . 96 - 96
-
3, 3A, 38, 3C - 70 37 107
~. .
4 52 - - 52
5 18 - - 18
6 31 - - 31
7 . . 78 - 78
-
8 - - 135 135
TOTALS 144 292 225 661
This proffer supersedes Agreement 15 of ZMA 91-13
PROFFER #4
The owner shall provide 25 units of affordable housing (for sale townhouses) with the construction of Phases lA (subphase 3
& 4) 1 B, as identified on the Application Plan. The owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to
any subsequent purchaser of the subject property. The current owner or subsequent owner shall create units affordable to
households with incomes less than 80% of the area median income such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real
estate taxes and homeowners insurance (pm) do not exceed 30% of the gross household income. All purchasers of these units
shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee. The ownerlbuilder shall provide the County or its
designee a period of 90 days to identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the affordable units. The 90 day period shall
commence upon written notice from the owner that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall not be given more than
60 days prior to anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified
purchaser during this period, the owner shall have the right to sell the unites) without any restriction on sales price or income of
purchaser.
PROFFER #5
Agreement I ofZMA 91-13 is amended as follows:
Approval is for a maximum of661 dwellings, exclusive of the Ray Beard lots identified on the Application Plan,
subject to conditions contained herein. The locations and acreages of various land uses shall be as shown on the
approved Application Plan. As part of the flnal site plan and/or subdivision plat processes, the aggregate area of
established open space shall at all times be at least proportional to the aggregate number of dwelling units (site
plans) or lots (subdivision plats) approved. After each primary recreation area identified on the Application Plan is
established, it shall be conveyed to a homeowners association reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. Off
street parking and access for the recreation area shall be limited as shown on the original PRN plan for ZMA 79-32,
as referenced on the Briarwood Application Plan most recently revised 12/10/04. The means to limit such access
shall be addressed as part of the site plan or subdivision plat review.
The original proffers ofZMA 91-13 and ZMA 95-05 remain in force except as amended.
Woodbriar ASS~S Limited Partnership
~~~ __ Wendell W. Wood
Igtlatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners
General Partner
)-I!j~tJC'
Date ,~ :7
OR
Signature of Anomev-in-Far.r
(Attach Proper Pow;r of Attorney)
Prin.ted Nam~ of .A&ttorney-in-Fact
Page 2 of 2
J --
Jan 12 05 11:15a
Ori&iDalPro~~ Bl-13
~d~~~ 95-05
(Amendtnent '# ~) (ZMA 2 0 8 i 4
PROFFEll FORM
nate: 1/12/05
z;MA/ll ZMA 2004-015
TnMaplllld Pan:cINumber(s) ~ ?~- 1 r ":{ .)(~-3~~, 32G-3-83
123 . 612..ACres to be l"C2:onoo from P RD
10 PRD
PunuantUl Scctian333 of the AlbeDW'leCountY Zoning Ordinance,1beowneT. or it&duly authGClzed agent, hCleby
voluntlrily proffcrr. the conditions Iistal below wbicl1 sball be applied to Ibc property. if'lezooed. These C01)l1klnflJl are
prafbc:d lIS . part of the requested ~ aDd it .is agreed UW; (1) tile rconing itself gives rise to me need for the
c:cmdiDoDs; mil (2) such (;ODdiJioDsbavc .. ~le re131ioo ro me rczoniDg request.
PROFFER# 1
Simultaneous development of phases with signed site plans or subdivision plais may occur for the remaining phases of
development, identified. as Phases IA (subphase 3 & 4) lB, 4,5,6, & 8 as shown on the Application Plan dated December 10,
2004 (the "Application Plan" BriaIwood Drive shall be construCted to Route 29, as shown on the Application Plan dnted
December 10, 2004, prior to commencing Phase 4,3 or 6. This proffer supersedes Agreement 12 ofZMA-95-05.
PROFFER # 2
Lots along Camelot Drive may be developed with townhouse units as shown on the Application Plan. This proffer supersedes
Agreement 13 ofZMA-91-13.
PROFFER -#- 3
The mix of units permitted in each phase is as follows:
Existine Lot Mix
Phase Tvt e of Dwelling Unit Totals
SFD Duulex Townhouse
lA - 98 - 98
IE - - 53 53
2 - 96 - 96
3(ABC) - 72 37 109*
4 - 66 - 66
5 - 70 - 70
6 - 30 - 30
7 - 78 - 78
8 32 20 - 52
TOTALS 32 530 90 652
Lots to be added by
Ray Beard Property TM-32-E-2
4
656
---------------..--..--------..--------------
Lots to be added in final engineering
5
661
---------------------------..-----..----------------
661
Totals
" Lots 97 & 98 are included in the Phase 3 total but will be platted at a later date.
,- - -
Jan 12 05 11:15a
;.
Phase Tvoe of DweUinJt Unit Totals
SFD SFA Townhouse
Lots Lots Lots
lA 28 - 22 50
lA (Existing SubPhase 1 & - 48 - 48
2)
IB 15 . 31 4(j
2 . . 96 - 96
-
3, 3A, 3B, 3C - 70 37 107
-~. .
4 52 - - 52
5 18 - - 18
6 31 - - 31
7 . . 78 - 78
-
8 - - 135 135
TOTALS 144 292 225 661
Proposed Lot Mix
This proffer supersedes Agreement 15 ofZMA 91-13
PROFFER #4
The owner shall provide 25 units of affordable housing (for sale townhouses) y,'ith the construction of Phases lA (subphase 3
& 4) IB, as identified on the Application Plan. The owner shan convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to
any subsequent purchaser of the subject property. The ourrent owner. or subsequent owner shall create units affordable to
households with incomes less than 80% of the area median income such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real
estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PIT!) do not exceed 30% of the gross household inoome. All purchasers of these units
shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee. The owner/builder shall provide the Coooty or its
designee a period of 90 days to identify and prcqualify an eligible purchaser for the affordable units. The 90 day period shall
COlDIDence upon written notice from the owner that 1he units will be available for sale. This notice shall Dot be given more than
60 days prior to anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy. If the County or its designee does 110t provide 8 qualified
purchaser during this period, the owner shall have the right to sell the unites) without any restriction on sales price or income of
purchaser.
PROFFER is
Agreement 1 ofZMA 91-13 is amended as follows:
Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings, exclusive of the Ray Beard lots, subject to conditions contained
here~.. ~oca.tions and acreages of various lax:d US~ shall co~ply with the approved plan. In the final site plan and
subdtVLStOn process, open space shall be dedicated 10 proportion to the number oflots approved. Primary recreation
areas to be owned and maintained through a homeowner.; association approved by the County Attorney. Off-street
parking and access shall be limited to the recreation area and shown on the Briarwood P.RD. Amended application
and Phasing Plan revised February 7. 1992 and the means to limit such a access shall be part of the site plan review.
WThe otig.inalproffers of ZMA 9)-13 and ZMA 95-;05 felU.ain in farce except as amended.
OOaDr~ar AS50c~ates L~m~tea partnership
cr~~
Stgo~ of All OWDCrS
General Partner
1/12/05
Date
Wendell W. Wood ~
~~
OR
Siguaturc: of Anomey-in-Fact
(Attacb Proper power of Attorney)
Printed 'Name of Attorney-in-Fact
PllgC 20[2
01/03/2005 15:55 FAX 434 245 0300
BEIGHTS DEV CORP
I4J 002
BEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT
co R P 0 R. A TI 0 N
800 EAST J EFFERSON STREET
CHARlOlTESVIL.lE. VIRGINIA 22902
434-245-0100
434~245~0300 FAX
Mr. Lindsay Dorner, Supervisor
Chairman. Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville) VA 22902
FAX (434) 296--5800
Dear Mr. Doni,er,
On January 12th we will be coming before you on behalf of Evergreen Land Company
(an entity owned by Jay Jessup, Suzanne Staton, Percy Montague and I) to request the
down-zoning ofa 14-acre piece of the Jessup family property, Mountain Valley Farm, As
you can see in the attached staff report. the parcel was rezoned without the Jessup's
consent in 1977 by an adjacent property owner. We have worked with county staff to
bring this request to you. which will correct the error that was made in 1911 and ~Iow us
to proceed with the recordation ofthe by-right subdivision plat on the property. The
proposed rezoning is consistent with the countyts comprehensive plan and has the support
of the county staff. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this request .
I would greatly appreciate your support on this request as well.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me via telephone or emaiL
I hope you all have a pleasant holiday.
o~
(4 4) 2@ioo
~
REAL ESTATE AovrSORS . CONSUI.TANTS . INVSSTMENH . DEVELOPMENT
.
.
.
Phone (434) 296-5823
December 7,2004
Valerie W. Long
McGuire Woods
Post Office Box 1288
Charlottesville, VA 22902
p
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
RE: ZMA 2004-00013 Mountain Valley Farm (Sign #21, 33 & 83); Tax Map 89, Parcel73A
Dear Ms. Long:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 30, 2004 unanimously
recommended approval 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 January 12, 2005. 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,
(~~~
Rebecca Ragsdale
Planner
Planning Division
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
Jessup, James L Jr & Suzanne Jessup Staton Trustees
POBox 9035
Charlottesville, VA 22906
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Rebecca Ragsdale
November 30, 2004
January 12, 2004
ZMA2004-13 MOUNTAIN VALLEY FARM
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is seeking to downzone 14 acres of a 29-acre property from Planned
Residential Development (PRO) to Rural Areas (RA) to allow that 14-acre portion of the
property to be included in a residential subdivision. Approval of this rezoning would allow the
14-acres to be incorporated into the Mountain Valley Farm development as 2 lots (4 and 7
acres in size), a segment of Ambrose Commons Drive, and small portions of two other lots.
The remainder of the parcel is zoned RA. (Attachment C)
Petition for Amendment:
Request to rezone 14. 176 acres of a 29.75 acre parcel from the PRO (Planned Residential
Development) Zoning District to RA (Rural Areas). The property is described as Tax Map 89,
Parcel 73A, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District, approximately half a mile
north from the intersection of Rt. 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) and Rt. 706 (Dudley Mountain
Road). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 4.
Character of the Area:
.
The property proposed for rezoning, TMP 89-73A, is wooded and hilly. Immediately
surrounding the property is the remainder of Mountain Valley Farm which is undeveloped.
To the south of the property is the undeveloped Liberia PRO, also wooded. The general
area surrounding Mountain Valley Farm includes the Mosby Mountain PRO to the south,
Neighborhood S in the Development Area to the north and across Old Lynchburg Road,
including Forest Lodge, and Redfields subdivision to the east.
Applicant's Justification for the Reauest:
The applicant has indicated in the ZMA application (Attachment A) that the parcel was
rezoned without the owner's consent and this application seeks to correct that. The
applicant has also indicated that this application is in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Zonina and Subdivision History:
ZMA 77-18 In November 1977, the Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning of 214.S
acres from Agriculture-1 to Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN)/RS-1, which included
Tax Map 89, parcels 9S, 9SA, Tax Map 90, parcelS (part) and parcel 3. ZMA 77-18 was
approved with a maximum of 104 lots each with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.
The ZMA proposal included 28.S% open space and the average lot size was 1.22 acres with
a net density of .83 dwelling units per acre.
.
ZMA 77-18 included TMP 89-9SA, which is now TMP 89-73A, the subject parcel in this ZMA
request. At the time, Liberia, the applicant of ZMA 77-18, thought they owned the property.
(~t~a,c~~:nt B) According to the County Attorney, in 1977 the Code of Virginia allowed any
l.:\:),'\ .JJU.:J.-1J 1
rvln1.lnl'<lin \.'JtJcy F:ann
Novcmbc( ; lJ,
property owner to seek rezoning of property regardless of having ownership of the property.
Therefore, ZMA 77-18 is still valid on TMP 89-73A.
ZMA 80-07 A condition of ZMA 77-18 was amended with regard to fire protection.
1980 Comprehensive Rezoning Properties that were zoned RPN were rezoned to PRO.
This changed the standing of the application plan of ZMA 77-18 but the conditions and
density remain the same.
SUB 01-293 Mountain Valley Farm Preliminary Plat was approved on February 11, 2002
and included TMP 89-73A. SUB 01-293 included 37 lots with a minimum lot size of 2.3
acres and a maximum lot size of 36.1 acres and a gross residential density of .065 dwelling
units per acre.
SUB 03-140 Mountain Valley Farm Final plat was submitted for approval and during the
review it was discovered that a portion of TMP 89-73A was zoned PRO and the subdivision
plat could not be approved until that property was rezoned to RA.
Comprehensive Plan:
Rural Area
The primary goal of the current Rural Area Plan is to discourage rural residential
development other than that related to agricultural and forestal activities. All decisions
concerning the RA should be made in relation to protection of agricultural and forestall
resources, water supply protection, limited service delivery, and conservation of natural,
scenic and historic resources. While this ZMA is proposed to facilitate a residential
subdivision that is not in keeping with the goals of the Rural Area Plan, the proposed
development would result in fewer lots than if developed as an RPO. There are no
agricultural or forestal districts located near the parcel proposed for rezoning and it is not
located within a water supply protection area.
Historic Preservation Plan
The Historic Preservation planner has indicated that no surveyed historic architectural or
archaeological sites have been identified within the project area (Tax Map 89, Parcel 73A).
Analvsis of the Rezonina Reauest:
By-riqht Use of the Property
For the 14-acre portion of TMP 89-73A to be developed under its current PRO zoning, an
application plan that meets the requirements of Section 8.5 (Procedures for Planned
Development Applications) would have to be submitted and approved through the ZMA
process. The density and zoning would remain the same as that approved with ZMA 77-18,
which would allow a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet with 28% open space
If developed under the current PRO zoning, the 14-acre portion of TMP 89-73A could
potentially be developed at the density allowed under the PRO, which is .83 dwelling units
per acre. The application plan for ZMA 77-18 (this plan is no longer valid but provides an
indication of the development potential) proposed 7-8 lots and open space for the 14-acres.
In addition to the potential lots from the 14-acres of PRO, the remaining RA portion of the
/.i\:L\ 2004- l j
rvlnunt;;-li!1 \/a1Iey r'arn'
November 10, 20C4
2
.
property could utilize all five of its development rights. ZMA 04-13 would reduce the potential
number of residential lots. The Mountain Valley Farm subdivision proposes to divide all of
TMP 89-73A into five lots, including 2 on the 14-acre portion which is the subject of this
rezoning request. The proposed subdivision maximizes the development potential of the
entire acreage of TMP 89-73A, once the 14.176 acres are rezoned to RA. (Attachment C)
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoninq
district
The applicant is proposing to downzone the property to allow a residential subdivision
allowed by-right in the RA Zoning District.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Roads
VDOT provided the following comments on this proposed rezoning:
o This is a down zoning of the property, which lessens the impact to the roadway
infrastructure, therefore no requirements are needed;
o The plans for the development of the entire site have already been reviewed and approved.
Water and Sewer
This property is not located in the Albemarle County Service Authority's Jurisdictional Area.
All lots would be served with individual water and sewer systems.
Stormwater management
No comments were provided from Engineering and approval was recommended on 8/31/04.
.
Schools
Since the proposal is a downzoning, comments were not requested from the school system.
Fiscal Impact
A fiscal impact analysis was not requested.
Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources
There is concern regarding the impacts of the residential subdivisions developing in this
portion of the Rural Area and how the character has changed and will be further altered.
Although no historic sites were identified on TMP 89-73A there are resources within a one
mile radius of the project area: 002-0076 - Bally-Les-Braden (Tudor Grove), c. 1830
dwelling; 002-0794 -Forest Lodge, c. 1900 dwelling, outbuildings, and structures; 002-0811
- Matthews Chapel, c. 1900 archaeological site and three Terrestrial, open air
archaeological sites. The following comments were offered by the Historic Preservation
planner:
Based upon the information above, Mountain Valley Farm and future subdivisions in the
vicinity could create a negative visual impact on the resources considered historic by DHR by
changing the rural character of the area.
.
The following recommendations are offered in order to mitigate the potential adverse impact this
subdivision may have on the historic, rural nature of the area:
Soften the visual impact of development within the rural area by designing new buildings that
are compatible with the character of the historic area while maintaining a focus on landscape:
/fvl A }(jv4-1 3
Nloun 1'<1;1'1 \:;J 1 iev Fann
November 1 U, ,:'004
a. For building siding and trim, use colors and materials that blend with the natural
environment, do not use highly reflective colors or surfaces, or light colored roofs.
b. Concrete driveways visible from off-site should be darkened to blend with the natural
environment.
c. Minimize clearing and grading by utilizing existing vegetation and natural contours of the
land.
d. Replant cleared and graded areas with informal plantings that at maturity will blend with
natural vegetation.
These comments are directed toward development of the entire Mountain Valley Farm
subdivision. This ZMA request only addresses TMP 89-73A or 14 acres of that subdivision.
The applicant has indicated that once the lots have been created and are sold for
construction of residences, a set of architectural and design guidelines will be implemented
that will govern the construction of the residences. This set of guidelines has not yet been
created.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surroundinq properties
Properties surrounding TMP 89-73A are either included in the Mountain Valley Farm
subdivision or Mosby Mountain, or are zoned PRO. The exception is the nearby RA zoned
Warthen property, located northwest of TMP 89-73A. Mr. Warthen did provide a written
comment to staff: "This looks fine with me. Whatever the Jessups want is OK."
Public need and iustification for the chanqe
RA Zoning is consistent with the RA designation in Comprehensive Plan.
Summary:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this rezoning request:
o Rural Area zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
o The proposed development of parcel TMP 89-73A will result in less residential
subdivision lots than if the property is developed under its current PRO zoning.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 04-13 of 14.176 acres of TMP 89-73A from PRO to RA,
labeled Parcel B on the plat prepared by R.O. Snow Land Surveyor (OB 498 Pg. 213)
included with the application for ZMA 04-13. (Attachment1A).
Attachments:
A. ZMA 04-13 Application
1A. Plat of property requested for rezoning
B. ZMA 77-18 Map
C. Zoning Exhibit of proposed Mountain Valley Subdivision
D. Zoning Map of 89-73A
E. Aerial of Mountain Valley Farm (PRO portion of TMP 89-73A in Pink)
/VI i\ 20(Jc+-1 .i
!vlnunt<-\in \.';JlIC\' [--'ann
'\io\.'c-rnbcr j (j, ~:()04
4
.
.
.
Sip'
1^ ATTACHMENT A
-. .... () 2~ 0 _-12Q&O_--L-:;
~ MacbferIaI DiIUtet: Svl. Staft: Date:
Application for Zoning Map Amendment e
~
u.... so acres -SID
tJ SlIlCI"eI or aaon - $1578
Cl MiHr lIDMIld_t.. previHI request.. SUO
PnjectNUDe(lMnr......wenfer......p...u~,): rtountain Valley Farm
*bilthlgZaDla&: Planned Residential Deye~~ RA
(.ltaII'wII....,...... .........)
Nmaber or aens to he ....... (If a pertloa It ..... he deHaeated o. a plat): 14. 176
Is this aD __eaUieDt to aD exIIb& PIaDIled DIItrlct?
Is tbII aD .IMNI-aat.. aIItbII proIfen1
Are 1M ......... a p~ lite pia wItIa ....IIpJIIICIdIoD?
Are 1M .......... a pnIImbIary ........... plat wlCIa dill appllc:doD'
Are 1MI rufti . wtaa tills 7
GgNO
mlNO
Ii) NO
iii NO
NO
Coatllct p.- (WIIo...... MllIIhriIc_ina"" pnJject?): Valerie W. Ia1g, ~ ILP
Address 'P .0. Box 1288 City Charlottesville State VA Zip 22902
DaytimcPbooc(jJ!) 977-2545 Fu# 980-2265 B-mailv~.ccm
Owaeroflt.ec8rd Janes L. Jes~, Jr. & Suzanne Jessup Staten, Trustees of the Marital
TrUSt under truSt agrement aat:ed. J."<<.JV'::ILh:a. 15, 1983
AddJ:ess P.O. Box 9035 City Charlottesville State VA Zip 22906
Daytimc PhOllC (434) 978-2140 ext 20~u#973-9074 E-mail 25()qtoirJepsiva.ccm
AppllcaDt (WIlD ia tho CGaIU .....+.-liD&'1 Who ia Nq1IllIIiq tho 1IlZIIIIiDI1):Eve.cy:reen. Land Cam?an.Y
Address 800 Fast Jeffersoo stt:eet City Cl1arlottesvil1e S1Idc VA Zip 22902
DaytimePhonc(434) 245-0100 Fax #245-0300 E-mailj~beightsdeve1~t.oc:m
Tax.... .... parcel: 08900-00-07300
PIIyIlcaI Street Addna (if.-iped): Not Assianed
Locatloa .fpnpel1y (JEd.....cl, iDtenectioDs, or otber):lDcat-M off of Old LvnchD.trq Road (state Route
631) at Ambrose Cama1s Road
Cl SpeciaJ the l"amitI:
l:J Vm-:
2'MAa Al'JOlfcn:
Lcaicr of A.6oI:izItioo
cAflsdv
CaDeulrelltaeviewofSile~PIIIl? YI!S NO
County of A1belllD'le Department of BulIcIiIIa Code & ZoaiJlg Senlees
481 MeIatlre Road Cbarlottel'\'llle, VA 22902 Volee: (434) 296-5132 Fax: (434) 972-4126
12/1102 Page 1 of 3
7
Section 15.2-2284 oftbe Code of Virginia states that, ''Zoning o.rdina",..e8 and districts shall be drawn and
applied with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of property, the comprehensive
plan. the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future
rcquimncnts of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic
studies and other studies, the transportation requimncnts of the community, the requirements for airports,
housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services, the conservation of natural
resources, the preservation offlood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the
conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most ~propriate use of land
throughout the locality."
The items that follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this
form and provide additioDBl information which will assist the County in its review of you request. If you
need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? 'R11ri'l1 Area 4:
What public need or benefit does this rezoning serve? See Attached
Arc public water, sewer, md roeda available to serve this site? Will there be any impect on theac facilities?
See Attached
What impIct will th= be on the County'. DaturaI, sccaic, and JUatoric reaources?
see At+l'lt"'!h9d
OmONAL: Do you bave plaos to dovolop tho property if tho rc:zoaiDg is 1IppIOVOd? If 80 pleac describe:
~ Af+"ri1ed
If you would like to proffer any mdrictiona on the development of tho property, please list these proffem 011. the
fol1owiDg optioaaIlIttIICIPnent catit1ed, ""PllOFFBR. FORM". Proffen are voluntary offen to use property in a more
n:s1rictive way 1ban the overall ZODiDg district CIassificaUOIl would allow.
By State Code, protTen must have a reasonable relationship to the IeZODing and arc not JDIIIdatory. The rezoning
must give rise to the need for the protTers; the proffen must be reIated to the physical development or physical
opem.tioo of the property; and the proffem must be in conformity with the Compn::heDaive Plan.
1211102 Page 2 of3
to
Describe your JeqUeSt in detail including why you are requesting this particular zoning district.
See At......rohPrl
.
ATrACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two (2) copies of each
II 1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no
recorded plat or bounda1y survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book.
and page number or Plat Book and page mnnber.
Note: If you are mquesting a JeZOning for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or
delineation on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing.
IXJ 2. Ownership iDformation - If ownership of the property is in the name of my type of legal entity
or orgJUIi7.8tion including, but not limited to, the JUUDe of a corporation, partne.rBbip or association, or in
the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the Coomy 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 CODSeIlt to the application.
Iftbe applicant is the agent of tile owner, a document acceptable to the COUDty must be submitted that
is evidence of the existence and scope of tile agency.
0P110NAL ATrACBMENTS:
CJ 3. Drawings or conccptua1 plaDs, if any.
tJ 4. Proffer Form signed by owner(s).
[J S. AdditionallDfonnation, ifany.
Ow1Ier/Applieant MUlt Read and SIp
I hereby certify that [ own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on bcbaJf of the owuer in filing this application.
I also certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying infomJation is 8CCIU'ate, true, and correct to
the best ofmy knowledge.
~
( ifvv.s~
~. - .tfl-.,,-
--:J{t.~t L. :r.e-s.sp -
Print Name
t)'ilo'-(
Date
97r~ L./y 0 e-,y{ 2.0 I
Daytime phone number ofSigoatoJy
1211102 Page 3 of 3
.
7
.
.
.
Mountain Valley Farm:
Zoning Map Amendment Application Questions and Answers
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this Property?
Rural Area 4
What public need or benefit does this rezoning serve?
The proposed rezoning of the 14-acre parcel from Planned Residential
Development (PRD) to Rural Areas (RA) will make the zoning of the 14-acre portion of
tax map parcel 89-73 to be consistent with the remainder of the tax map parcel, which is
zoned RA. RA zoning of this property will make it consistent with the property's
designation of Rural Area 4 in the Comprehensive Plan. The current PRD zoning of the
14-acre parcel is inconsistent with the property's designation under the Comprehensive
Plan.
Are public water, sewer and roads available to serve this site? Will there be any
impact on these facilities?
Public water and sewer are not available to serve this site, thus there will not be
any adverse impacts on the facilities. Public roads do serve the site. Access is from State
Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) and Ambrose Commons Road, a new public road being
constructed as part of the Mosby Mountain subdivision, which is adjacent to the proposed
Mountain Valley subdivision.
What impact will there be on the County's natural, scenic and historic resources?
The proposed rezoning will not have an adverse impact on the County's natural,
scenic or historic resources. It will merely designate the subject property with the same
zoning as the remainder of the property that comprises the proposed Mountain Valley
Subdivision. Because the proposal is to rezone the property from PRD to RA the
proposed zoning is less intensive than the existing zoning and is consistent with the
property's Comprehensive Plan designation of Rural Areas 4. The applicant is not aware
of any historic resources near or comprising the subject property that would be impacted
by the proposed rezoning.
Do you have plans to develop the property if the rezoning is approved?
If the rezoning is approved Albemarle County will have the authority to approve a
proposed subdivision plat of the Mountain Valley Farm.
q
Describe your request in detail including why you are requesting this particular
zoning district.
The applicant Evergreen Land Company requests that a 14-acre portion of tax
map parcel 89-73 be rezoned from PRD to RA.
On November 16, 1977, Liberia Development Corporation ("Liberia") obtained
approval for a rezoning (ZMA 77-18) of several parcels it owned from A-I to RPN/RS-l
subject to a plan of development and 12 conditions. ZMA 77-18 affected 214.5 acres
comprised oftax map parcels 89-95, 89-95A, a portion of90-5, and 90-3. ZMA 77-18
was amended by the approval of ZMA 80-07, which the Board of Supervisors approved
on May 21, 1980. Copies of the approval letters for both actions, including the
conditions of the rezoning, are attached.
When Liberia submitted its rezoning applications, it assumed that it owned a 14-
acre tract ofland shown as "Parcel B" on a plat ofR.O. Snow dated November 23, 1971.
A copy of the 1971 R.O. Snow plat is attached to this application. Because Liberia
thought it owned the 14-acre parcel, it included this property in its rezoning requests, and
the parcel was rezoned to RPN/RS-1. Although Virginia Code Section 15.2-2286
essentially prohibits an applicant from rezoning property that it does not own, unless the
applicant has the land owner's written authority to do so. However, Assistant County
Attorney Greg Kamptner has informed representatives of Evergreen Land Company that
in 1977 Virginia Code Section 15.1-491 (the predecessor to Section 15.2-228) permitted
any property owner to petition the governing body to rezone land within the locality. In
addition, a 1975 Attorney General Opinion (1974-75 Va. Ops. Atty. Gen. 602)
interpreted "any property owner" literally, and concluded that a lawful petitioner could be
any property owner within the locality, regardless of whether the petitioner was an
owner, or an owner in proximity to, the land sought to be rezoned. Therefore, even
though Liberia did not own the 14-acre parcel, it was able to lawfully have it rezoned
from A-I to RPN/RS-l.
Furthermore, in 1980 the County Board of Supervisors enacted a comprehensive
rezoning of all property within the County which created new zoning district categories.
All of the land that was subject to the Liberia rezonings (including the 14-acre parcel it
did not own) was rezoned from RPN/RS-l to Planned Residential Development (PRD).
The 1980 comprehensive rezoning also rezoned properties that were designated A-I to
RA zoning. Assistant County Attorney Kamptner has determined that neither the plan of
development nor the conditions of approval of ZMA 77-18 survived the 1980 rezoning to
PRD. Therefore, the Liberia property and the 14-acre parcel are zoned PRD, but there is
not an approved plan of development in place.
The Jessup Marital Trust under agreement dated November 15, 1983 (the "Jessup
Trust") is the owner of Mountain Valley Farm, which is comprised oftax map parcels 89-
73, 89-73A, 89-73B, 89-73C, 89-73Cl and 89-73D. The Jessup Trust engaged Kirk
2
[0
.
Hughes & Associates Land Surveyors and Planners to prepare a boundary plat of
Mountain Valley Farm in 1997. In the course of preparing the plat, the surveyor
confirmed that the 14-acre parcel was in fact owned by the Jessup Trust, and not by
Liberia. As such, the boundary plat clearly showed this parcel as part of Mountain
Valley Farm, and this plat is now of record in the Clerk's Office ofthe Albemarle County
Circuit Court in Deed Book 1662, at page 700. A copy of this plat is included with this
application.
Evergreen Land Company ("Evergreen") submitted a final subdivision plat for the
subdivision of Mountain Valley Farm in January, 2004. On February 20,2003, the
County Planning Staff advised a representative of Evergreen that the 14-acre parcel was
zoned RPD rather than RA, and that it could not approve the final subdivision plat unless
Evergreen complied with the application plan or rezoned the property to RA.1
Section 8.5.5.5 of the current zoning ordinance provides that "if a planned
development zoning district was established without an approved application plan as
required by Section 8, then neither a site plan nor a subdivision plat shall be approved for
any lands within the district unless and until an application plan and other documents
required by Section 8.5 are submitted by the owner and approved as provided therein."
Because no application plan was in effect for the 14-acre parcel, Evergreen would either
have to submit a proposed plan for approval subject to Section 8, or rezone the property
toRA.
. Because the balance of Mountain Valley Farm is zoned RA, because the 14-acre
parcel is designated Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and further because the 14-
acre parcel should never have been rezoned in the first place, Evergreen proposes to
rezone the 14-acre parcel to RA so it will be consistent with the balance of the farm. If
the rezoning is approved, the County will then have the authority to approve the final
subdivision plat for Mountain Valley Farm, which is otherwise ready for approval.
\\REA\212232.2
.
1 At the time, the Planning staff believed that the plan of development approved with ZMA 77-18 and ZMA
80-07 was valid. Assistant County Attorney Kamptner subsequently concluded that the County's 1980
comprehensive rezoning eliminated the application plan and the conditions of approval of ZMA 77-18 and
80-07.
~
II
03/~9/2004 18: 45 FAX 434 972 401:-.:,">,
.~ 'I
~~1"
,,0
.,.lbe. ~~nn1ng
!4l 003
...':!
'. .''''
OF ALa ' " \..../
~A1~ '
'~ii- , .J?(b.
"'::'~'~~'J"" .' ~
E::&~' 7'
_ <<:: ..:a- .
...;:~...
ROB~AT W. TUCtcEA. .JR.
P'""Totl Of' ~"'NINO
Department of Plannin,
e0t4/2g$.~e23
"',. li:ABT MARK~T 6,."'EET
ct1ARLOTTE8VIL.LE. VIRGINIA S!.2DOt .
RONALO S. KEELER
"'''..eT''''''Y gIA~C:TOR 0.. PLANN,...a
OOUGl..A8 W. ECKEL
.EN'O" "L.ANNCA
May 2~, 1980
NANCY MASON CAPERTON,
..L.A...NIi:JI
IDET'rE CI-lAI'U.,iE KIMe~
........,......1:'1
....
Mr. John L. Breeden, Vice :President
LIBERtA DEVELOPMENT COtu'ORATI.ON
8S17 Portne~ Avenue i2
Manassas, Virginia 22110
~; .Request for ZMA-80-07
:BOABD OF 'StJPEltVJ:SORS AC'l'ION
Dear ~..r. Breeden;:
The Albemarle County Board of Supe:rviosrs at 'its meeting Nay 21, ,1980" 'approved
your request for ~-aO-07, .to amend ZMA-77-la ~ith respect to fire protection,
for County Tax Nap B9, Parcel. 95, and County Tax Milp 90, i'arcels 3, 45, 46, 47,
and 48, .in the fOllowing fashion ( the following- is amended con~tion 8 ): '
8. Fire Official 'approval of: access to and ~ocat.ions 'of inlpoundments and
dry hydrants; ot:her emergenc;ly acce,ss provisions:. loca.tions ,of' dwellings;
looations of appurtenances for future possible hydrants on eentral well
system. Central. well system inclUding all line sizes and appurtenances
shall be designed in accordance with Albemarle County S~rv:toe Authority
design standards and approved 'by, the Service Authority for fut'Qre possible
acceptance~ Connection'to be" made to .the Albemarle County service AUt..'10:rity
when public lines ~come available.
:If you ha'\Te any quest.ions reg-arding ,this notification, please contact Mr. Robert
W. Tucker, 'Jr.,
jg/
cc: File
Sincerely,
n .~ ,
r1::;q:::::~_/
..
\'2,
,>.<
,.. "-w- :
,-
.
..
.
03/09/2094 18:44 FAX 434 972 4012
141001
d~
..: .I!
Albe.. Planning
'\r_:~,.. ~~.~E~'
, .-'-,
..:""'w,,:,o,. .
, '"',--;-
~ -l-"
\ .
,""""
...:..-_-:"
O'
ALae",~. . ' ,
D~" '. . .,Ii(~.
. .
t ..'
,.'
1 ,:.
Fa.; #
Fa.; #
Planuia.. Department
-/
.IIQ11UY W, WCltb, .111I.
. "'11--' 4.. .........,...M.
a04/Z8'Cs.:'02.3
.104 1I!:4ST,MARKJ:T ~ECT
CHA~LOT1"ICSVILLE;. VIRGINIA ZliUtOI
Nov~r .21, 1977 "
. It_LD'.. ....L."
....IIT.HT Plltll:CTGII opt '''A~ .
MAltV JOy .CA,,"
KNloa ..loA".....
C4"L_ M. MOHTII:HI:."O
'LAllI"'''
LiberiEi Development Corp.
8817 Portner Avenu&
Manassas, Virginia. 22110
..
ReI' . BOAt<<) ~F' SOPE1W~SORS ACTION
ZMA-77-J.8
Dear Sir:,
, ' ~h.is .is to . advise you that the 'Albemarle County Board.. of Supervisors' at its .~etinq
'November 16, 1977, .approved your' request, to re%.One from' A-l to 'RPNjRs-l,' 214.5. acres
' described as' Tax l4a.p 89, Parcels 95, 95Ar and Tax Map 90, Parcel' S (part. thereof) and
" 'Parcel :3, 'located on west side of Route 631 about one mile south of its iIltersection
.wi.th, Route 78J., subject to the fol1o~nq ~o~tions: , "
'1.. ,Approval. is :eor a m~imum potent.i~l' of 104 single-family x::esidentia..l.1ots, .
.'however, the number of lots fina~ly approv~ shall be g'overned by COnditionS 'of.
....a~;provai est8.blished in this petition; Open space .is, to'l?'e dedicated in propertion
to the' nUI:'lber of ,J,ots pla.tted, :In the e\lent;. a proposea ,101:' shall not be ~pprovecl
'fo~ butid.tng'development, such 'lot 2l.1ay be combined with' another l.ot ,or tJiay be'. .
.' added to COIllIllOl1 open Space upon a. finding by't:qe' Planning 'Commi.$sion t:ha~ . such
act1o~' b,.compatible with the. .overall deve;.lopment plan. ..' '. '
. . . .
2', '. County AttoX'ney approv-a.l of. homeowners. ,agreement;s for maintena.:nc:e: of open spa,ce'
'and pr~vate roads.. '
J. LOts are' to be 40,000 squ,are 'fe~t or g':I;'eate:t in' area.
. . ... .
. .4. A1J. lots shal.l u$e'internal road's as the sole mean~ of'ingJ::ess!egres$. chect
' aCCess from' lots to B/:;)ute ,631 ~ill not be. permit=:ted.." .."
. '",:,'
5.
Heal ~ Dep~tment certification'. that . each .l~t 1$ adequate f~ t\110 se,Pt:.:ic:' systems
(one ma..tn system and one baCk-up fie~d)pr,ior to final. p,lat approvals r .
(Il) No'dwei,l:tng is to be located o~'.slopes of 25' or greater without County,
,Engineering' Department approval pf site work. Septic tank drainfields may,
be located on s1;eep slopes oJ;1l.y 'upon written approvaJ.' of th~ Health Department
'. which specifically acknowledges'the previous statemen~ of Edwin s. Roseberr~
to David Breeden concerning' wp,ittington SUJ:ldi.v;Lson. , . .
(~} . J:n the e~e.pt that either,a main septip sys.tem or back-up drainfi.eld shaJ,.l
'regui.re.pumpin9' to a~eqUatelY se~~ce a dwelling, such requirement shall
be stated on the plat and in 'the. contract of sale for. SU9h lo~.
, ". j
. i
....:. I
l'3
03/09/2004 18:45 FAX 434 972 40~2
,"'" ,^,~be. Pl~1n~ ' "
l4J 002
.=..~
,).' ".'. .
I .
.-'"
, , .. \ ,
~..
, ,~..,.
. ' '
~iberia' De,velopment
_,.1' .. .
Paqe 2
November 21, 1977 '
'6. 'Xmpacts. froni this de"'elopmeni: (' Le., ~chool 'enroilinen'l; ~C:t, tl:'l;lffic ) will
be considered 'in 'future approval for, other proper.ties and requil:'ements for
impro~emen~ 'Will ~e made aceordingly.,' " '
" ,
' ,
7. ,Subject to Highway"Dep.art;zftent approVal Of' public "roads:'and' Engineering 'Depar't::ment
, approval o.~' ,private roads. " , ,
, " s.
, ,
Fi:,;e'Marshal approval to indlude approval: of water line sizes and 1ocat.ions~' ,', ,
emergeney'access provisions, ,loca.tions of dwe1.1inqs'and provision of fire protection
'facil:ities and fire hydrants. including s1:orag-e tank With a minimum capaci.tY,Of
82;200 -gallons.' ,
, . .:. ",- :'-'~..
,'. U. '1'l:J.e 'minimum. 'setbalc::k 'from a.1.1" inte.:c-ior roads ~:l:l be 'ti-.w:ty',feet.
12.
'P~d.ic~t:i..on of '5~ 'f~et fio~ the centerl~e of Bo'l1te 63'1' in accordance wi.:t:h
recCliIUl\endati.on, of the Vil:'qinia. Departlne1it of HiqhwayF.O' ~d '1'r<lnsportation. i\.11
' dwellings, shall be ,setback ~75 feet ,~rom 'the: resul.ting, ri.9'ht~f-wa.y line. ,,',
" '
, ~incerel.y,
d=:loeoknez
P~ami~g'Dep~ent
." . '.
jg/
, F.ile
i,L
. ~i
'.
...,
!
.'
.., I
'if I
.
]
].
.
/.~
I:,
"
) ':,:,~::::~~;~ ~'<l
. '53&."
F\..AT o.-D 'AO'DS
I
>0-
\
"-
\
"
,,"cJ
1157'.11
'" ?
I
N~.;t"3:5'~"W
Z737.11
'<
LOT 3 I
W.B.IO-S(PLAT)
.1(, tRON
I
I
I
r 1040.~
I
x
\
"-
\
ATTACHMENT IA
4-"le 2.13
b(j~" .t~() ,A:,( ~lJ
S.A.JESSUP(OEC'O)
o.B. 260-415
/ S;A .iESSUPlDEC'OI
0.8.2110"415
/~
PLAT 16I,90AC.
TRACT
0.8.163"31
N
FAACEL 8
14./16 ACRES
closure.. ~ S 12.-21tf,...Z3 G
o,oz.'
$".5.'20.....
~~l:- ~
- -.-
1184..7' -
ZZ..4.2
91,325 AC~S
o.a.215"1I7
O.B. 189 -259
0.8.21- 4al
c.losure.
N 01-\~-34<J, 0.0"
1'AlP <6q - q5
\RONlFOJNln
I
Is........
427.)0
- .
. ~~ ~~
._.-. - '-.. .to. ......'" ~..<>...__~....
..... ...... .,>. 99:0" loa". -...
9 ...:..,., "0". .... .>
....t~O.". ... I.. "o.~ 'lt~ ....
0.'It
""'.0..
l:t...
~..>.
FOREST
LODGE
PLAT OF _
PARCEL Il. a 91,325 ACRE TRACT OF LAHO 0... ST. RT. 631
(OlD LYNCIlaURG ROIoOI, I..OCATEO ABOUT 4.0 hll. SOJTH
OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, A1.IlEhtARL.E CWNTY. VIRGINIA
l'OR
lEU..IUAO DEVELQflNENT aJIIIIOMnaN
SCALE: J"..oo". DUI.Jt.z~n
100
,
<,'/
..l'
I~ 0 ~
,'..0. INOW . USOC....TU
;' CHAJlDTTlSVILl.l:. VA
-
..f, . ,
".8.
PARCEL I 1$ A TRACT OF LAtIO LYING wn, Oft NQRTHwEar OF THE H.'''O ~ ACM 'I1W:T DCSCRIKD I D.. 21....1 . EASr Oft IiClU'IICAST .1.
OF AN OLD PENCE. NO ~A"EA SURVay.\JiaS FOUHD DCrI...... THIS 'M1lQJI,... TMC:T Of" LAND 0tIItp' THE s........(DE'C"'g,.....,-y \
LlVfG WEST' OR ~WEST TtERl:OfI'". PARCEL. . *5 SUWCYIO ACCrAaNQ TO ClEl'CML ALJICMEIfT ~ PINel: . MMKatI NIMD'" nc
~EL.D .. IHDtCATED "'(lfill, ,.' .' . ". I.
/'
-A '"
15"
~ ---..
o
075
076
75-17
/
/ 89-10
/
,,,,.'l.~
/ "-
/
89.1~,~/ .I
/ Ii
( ,
\\
\
/
:::?
'"
';-
:ll
75-41 /
)
!
'fo
'1l-
,,/
\.
\// \
/
/
~
'"
'"
'"
'"
~
/
r---
/
~
,i
/
/
,f
r
I
I
~
of
'"
, ''\l
" ",
0> "".~.
6
'"
55
o
o
N
J:,
'"
.r-
!
\
\
I
/
;'
\
/ ,--" I
)\ %
: \ '" I
../ \
\/~
(
<
"'j
/
.;r !
'P /
.g> ~ .--'-',
,-
r
! /
j>
j/ :Ji
6
'"
88-19
/,//\ '<
/~
\~
...
N
~
~"4~~ ~
'- ~~" ~
".;::''''~ ...
A~~ ')Y
'\ ^~(<"'- "-
'\ <%!:" ""
~'\'y
--------<---------
88-19
./
101'2
':
\.
100
Scale
Albemarle County
Tax Map:
089
Feet
o 600 1,200 1,800
. Jay purposes only.
N te. This map is for dls,? Fi additional details.
s~e Map Book Introduction or
.
\lo
---//~ ..--7
'./(
,/
~
I \
I .
)
ALb >>''I1ARLE
'mo.,... 2. M{~ 7D C'lI/l..{..e 7"
~ I )~ Z===:~~~~~:~~'/
(\ 1(-~~
IF .I? "~~~~~~.';;~1~'1 ">-....V/\
__ . _~_ _'\. ~",-~ 'I
-. ~ ':-:;_ ~:::-.~ /::-.....- 'r"
\) ( x~~~.:.il~1 )/ '\,.:,:
'\ ;X -- ," -\\.:-/"" / :~~:~:~:::~.. -:i;' . . i
--:..... / I '\,-.;, (/ 36 U
.~ :,\-",./ ~' '\/ )
-'- ~:\'I-" · ~)( J '.~. /,----
/' /x / '-...........
. '/'0 ........
// -'i ( ,/fi; ~ ("/'/ (/ ............... -~
/ ". 74' _ I ~.., . ."----.... /'
/~ ) ,>~ /:'~~~4'~" "", -'---\ ~)
/ " " V\ "(. , .' , '. 1 ' ·
/ ~ .. -~; :--. >, ..... 'yf7 ;'. -r-" --0.'::7 .J
, ".~_v""'~{ I \ tf/\~ '...., _ I, r"
~/ ~ / X(~q, .( 71 t;\\ ;:~)t\~\ ::':'\""':""-':""'."\ \ /
0....... , . ..., ).... I " I ..;.- " \ "
:. llV"'y , ~/' . ;' 'r :,.....' \',.- ~ '. '*...- /
-. /Ool/{)/ I,f' ~"~\ \..,,' "
:;;i:Ji.~"" ,I\//A~/",V ',// \ '\' 'iI~. ...... __,.''''{,
<,.\1';( \ ' '1'::,",,-.. "/ ~\ 0(' 'i ..., ~ ---~- / ,', /
i!:,;~,._..._~.f[SI-;-J;.I\l>.), '~~'~ \i?k v k- / ~ :..= .--=:!:s.J.':. .
'"'7,--'.-,;--r ~J" V /~rt' :~: '\~" / \ " , ~ -\ ~
'. : -"-"'(~:;:E /.: (\j V \ / '---, / '...."",''- ~'::-<" 'c:
./. ~:"82 i (9 ~. Y --.--:-.7' ",' '. 1 ,_.fC\q~
,rJ ,,^', \L -- --r-" 1 t ~o.~/ 170 I
!1=~ I, -~'!; --/:' ~\,~,)> .--- \ . ./' . " 16B -L ".t~7\",,,/,
~ ~-L,-i" 83 !7~'i",. 'y'/ t ;---,-.,--~r ~' '\ '\
_i\ ;/K< -( II~ -'~. 1---",- r-L (/ \.,~/- \. \
:: / <:.. '-- / 'v f' ~ \"
-\ ~'j4 :! /J ''"'\ >< ^'___,./.I 16A ) ", '
'r- l 'l ,/5<, 9A '\. e"'~/ 15 ! f '
".I ....... . y . /
.57' I')" ...... V' ~
"'~ l it......., ~.\ '~
"l L..:-...\ ! I -....., d \ X . "-
.)\ 56 ~\ /) f / '\ ^ '-.. '................. '''',.--
"'-r"- .-/' ' '-.. 1411>1 '--
. p3'O\' 5~ ,..,.,...,.' , I / , }^" '-...I'll~
/ \ ~"'~A-"'~ 85A / / ( / ' ~ "-... 14:;;': .
"" ; ..,...'\\0&\ I: ;-. ~ : , liS1 14 ""-...
;'\ ~: \ ,I;~-l---.J/ II \ \ /' \ \~y ~;~~
~"I--~, ~ I 1/ ' \'-'\ /' IqA '--.. '\1"....... I -..........y. .\
. '\ 1"1\.,) A\ " \ \.'-?!~- /~~:" :y'
'\, \ ~ .",J:( ( \\ . <' II /".......~.'.,17~ ~
.~~\\ '-'. /~ \---.-( ''\" 12., ~,5(.......~~~~ lMA 77-18
I 92' \ 93 / -............ \ .'/\' "'\ \ IOf> \ . // F__~':.)<~ . ___
\ ' '(" "\. \,.... . I II '\ X ,# " ':';.., ...-.." ""'-- 14 -.....; - ~ ,I"
"/; \ 90 '\ / 94 11 K'" '..... \"- \ \ /-'\. '" /,--_FC:~CN.' ....::-. -,~'~'l?;-~3l ':--...--""'y' '",
.,. 'I A' ~ '-.. '\.... \ I /' ~., <,'::"'" .,.. <II '"..."n, ..........{, , "-- .......:- ""J '...
'" :j Ii ~ \ " "-.... \ - ~ #'. "" I '" "" ,-.. .......
. , , , . I' " .---.--..,.', ,"-- ".._-j.::::;"';---~--_._, ~_1_,_":c:,.. -~~ "
" --,-. ...~.a__~~"...~~f~ ~......~ ....i\... 1....J...c. _____-.~ . -
--------"- - SC/\I,E iN FEET '7A/v'UE:L" Ij(/\ILLER i\ND II
SECTION 89 1600 0 lCiOO SCOTTSVILLE DISTrUGTS
C=.:==.::T.": tr:i~':-'~.~:=::=,~:':=:::::::.'=:::::::J
ATTACHMENT B
I
....
.J.....
<.....
16
ATTACHMENT C
ZONING EXHIBIT
OF PROPOSED
'"
\
\
\
".
..\
"-
'''.
VALLEY
MOUNTAIN
SUBDIVIS
J
J
)
,
\
ON
I
4
\
'H
;t.;
'-"-"-.
.._'
II IVI R/'N
'Trr---T--r.i!'-rT--'!.i!"-Y"T'.r'j-!'-r"TT-Y-.'.
II i i i II!!!!! i!!!!!! i!!! T~, -
\l.. ,i~..J...- L',--1.._L,LLL-1..-L,.LLI.-1..L,L.Ll.-1..1..~'~
"O$"Y '.'OUN,A N ) 'l 7\
\ O~'~:;'i-~'~rr--- 1:!/,-~LJ.~f-.-\,
. ,,/ \. I ,.,...... ,I . ---..-c\ '
\ /.---\, L: i / I '7 / (-j'f' , \ '\ /
..1-. 1.-.1...../ ,/
\ ,~\..- ,-- '--y -ri--- ..J. / i-. -- _,.-1.. .-1..-. _
\ .z. 'Y:(<0 ' i i I";:::''--___!j ~ i .. / --
, /, .......,..' , \y\..l ! ! / / r-'.,...."l.0:--\ '\ -- /
\ / '-, l.A... " - \..l--f--\' "--. ! . ....) (
'\ !' -- J f ~ :>-. \ \ --1-. -j . _ \--. ,
t:it~ r- \~//f -\\~/--n1
\ ,- '1 }./).): T \ y y ~"~ .~-+:~
~~~.f.::;
I:;$"~.,l~,\,:;,,~
, &+<t>.f.'"i'
..':./\~~,~;~'~J'
,~f~~~Jf
\
\
\
\
\
.I
.--..-..-
",
"
\
\'---------
.I
/
/
/
/
/'
/
T
T
LOT 7
LOT 35
\
LOT 9
LOT 37
\
LOT 10
Jf
C
\
\.
!
i
!
i
i
./
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
!
i
!
;
i
/.".
TMf> 25-95
N F 1I8ERlA DE\/ElOPM8\l'f cOr1PORATI0N
DB 625, Pg 119
DB. 610. Pc :ih 1
09 4%. PG 2'13 tPLL.l)
DB. 21. PG. 4~1 (DESC)
14.1718
ACRES
CURRENT ZONING: PRD
/
(.--..
./ --,..........
I,
/ ."
!
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
'\
..v'
"
.'....
,
\
'"
\.
.\.
I'
'p;.
I
i
i
SAMUEL MILLER MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY1 VIRGINIA
Scale: 1"= 300'
(f.",y. ~
~O ~~":,~
4~,\
(;'?-V
S
. i
-L.__.__ -.......... /
-' .....,.-..
PREPARED BY:
KIRK HUGHES AND ASSOCIA TES
LAND SURVEYORS & PLANNERS
220 East High Street
Charloffesvffle, Va, 22902
(434) 296-6942
C:\UDD\SUM1ys\2001.1321Exhlbll'RE.ZI
LOT 23
!
I
!
/
..-'-"
./
/
,/
'"
"-
'-.../'
.,.....
/
)>
~
(')
::c
~
m
z
-l
I:)
a
.
ATTACH~T 0
N
0'
ATTACHMENT E
I
~
~
""
~~
~
l)
~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
.
(, '! - C 5 - ;J 5 P :~; [~ : -,1 I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 2004-014
SU BJECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
ZMA - Request
Request to rezone 123.612 acres from PRD
(Planned Residential District) to PRD (Planned
Residential District) to amend the proffers of ZMA
91-13 and ZMA 95-5 and to amend the Application
Plan. The property, described as Tax Map 32G
Parcel 1, Tax Map 32G Section3 Parcel A and Tax
Map 32G Section 3 Parcel 83 is located in the
Rivanna Magisterial District on Seminole Trail
(Route 29) at the intersection of Seminole Trail and
Austin Drive (Route 1575). The Comprehensive
Plan designates this property as Neighborhood
Density Residential in the Piney Mountain
Community. (Attachment A is the location map.)
TAFF CONTACT S : Ms. Gillespie, Mr.Cilimber
, .....~. (~,
AGENDA DATE:
NUMBERS:
Planning Commission,
Board of Supervisors,
ITEM
December 7, 2004
January 12, 2005
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
Yes -
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
A pre-application conference was held on this item in early 2004. The rezoning application was
submitted on August 16, 2004. The proposed Application Plan depicting proposed changes to the
internal configuration of Briarwood was received by staff on November 18, 2004. The Planning
Commission heard ZMA 2004-14 on December 7,2004. The unusually short timeframe between the
receipt of the Application Plan and the Planning Commission hearing did not allow staff to conduct
the full plan review prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
At the December 7,2004 public hearing, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant
agree to defer action on this project until outstanding issues could be addressed and the Commission
could review the project in final form. The applicant declined to defer the item. The Planning
Commission then voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the ZMA request, citing the following reasons for
their recommendation of denial:
1. The proposed Application Plan, dated November 18, 2004, was not submitted until after the
normal review period had ended, Comments from reviewers had just been received and the
applicant had not had a chance yet to respond to those comments and revise his submittal
appropriately.
2, An interconnection between Briarwood and Camelot was lost with the proposed changes to
Phase 4 on the Application Plan.
3. It was unclear what the proposed orientation of buildings along Camelot Drive in Phase 8
would be.
4. The proposed application plan did not show the existing resource protection area,
5. The proposed application plan did not provide access to the open spaces on the plan.
6. At that time, no commitment had been made to the streets cape of the remaining phases,
.
including a commitment to curb and gutter and sidewalks.
APPLICATION PLAN:
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised Application Plan
(dated December 18, 2004) to staff which is Attachment A. This plan is the applicant's attempt to
address staff comments received after the Planning Commission staff report was written.
Specifically, the plan attempts to reconcile the discrepancies between the proposed plan and the
previously approved Application Plan.
Attachment B is the Zoning Review Comments for this plan, dated December 29, 2004. As these
comments indicate, there are several outstanding issues which have not been resolved by this
resubmittal. The comments are written to include all previous zoning comments with the newest
comments in bold. These bold comments relate to the December 18 Application Plan. The Zoning
Comments indicate a need for the applicant to obtain a modification of Section 19.8 to allow a
building separation of less than 30 feet be approved as part of the Application Plan. Due to the
recent receipt of this request from the applicant, the request has not been reviewed by Zoning staff
for form. However, Planning staff supports the substance of this request. Planning staff finds the
reduced setbacks to be in keeping with the goals of the Neighborhood Model.
At this time, Planning staff has not yet received comments from Engineering staff or VDOT. If any
new comments from Engineering staff or VDOT are available at the time of the Board hearing, they
will be shared with the Board.
Staff remains concerned about the discrepancies between the two plans and recommends that the
two plans be reconciled into one plan with the notes recommended in the Zoning comments prior to
adoption by the Board of Supervisors.
PROFFERS:
Since the Planning Commission hearing, the proffers have been edited for form and a fifth proffer
has been added to address some confusion over the four (4) adjacent lots owned by Ray Beard.
Due to the recent receipt of these proffers, at this time they have not received a final review by the
County Attorney. Planning staff notes that Proffer #5 should be revised to include all the language of
the previous proffer as follows:
Proffer #5 amending Agreement 1 of ZMA 91-13
Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings, exclusive of the Rav Beard lots, subject to conditions
contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses shall comply with the approved plan.
In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the
number of lots approved. Primary recreation areas to be owned and maintained through a
homeowners association approved by the County Attorney. Off-street parking and access shall be
limited to the recreation area and shown on the Briarwood P.R.O. Amended Application and Phasing
Plan revised February 7, 1992 and the means to limit such access shall be part of the site plan
review;
The addition of the phase "exclusive of the Ray Beard lots" addresses Zoning's concern about
retaining the developability of the four (4) Ray Beard lots as a part of the proposed plan changes.
2-
SUMMARY:
. Planning Commission requested that the applicant agree to defer action on this project so that
standing issues could be addressed and they could review the project in final form. When the
applicant declined to defer, the PC recommended denial of this project by a vote of 7-0 for the
reasons stated above, While the applicant has revised the Application Plan since the Planning
Commission hearing, staff has identified remaining outstanding issues related to the consistency
between the existing approved Application Plan and the newly proposed Application Plan. At this
time, comments from Engineering staff and VDOT have not been received. Additionally, the revised
proffers have not received a final review by the County Attorney's office, Therefore, staff cannot
recommend approval and recommends deferral until these outstanding issues identified above have
been addressed.
Attachment:
A. Application Plan Received December 18, 2004
B. Zoning Review Comments Dated December 29,2004
C. Modification Request Received January 3, 2005
D. Amended Proffers Received January 3, 2005
.
.
3
ATTACHMENT A
ExiSlinl! Lot Mi.\
fT~~~~I~","nh""'. I lat~h
I A i !l~ 9~
lU r 5] 5J
~ 'h' yt,
J(A1ICI 7;' 37 10""
-I, f>[. ~
i5 I 70 7U .
[tj ~; f ;~-i -;--~
SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
OVERALL AREA 141,23 AC. :I: (PER PHASING PlAN;
ZONING DISTRICTS P.R.D. (ZMA 2004-14)
PLANNED RESIDENTiAl DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED USE SINGLE fAMILY DETACHED &
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED
TOTAL LOTS APPROVED IN P,R,D. 661
TOTAL LOTS PREVIOUSLY BUILT -.RI
TOTAL lOTS AVAILABLE 332
4:.~. 1.-
\ ./
'r
iLL
/',
~
.
-1' A/
--~"
0
""
M'r
Jse
, "",'
,
, /
1 1
f
------------ ---------.....
----------- - -
I.
-------- .
----
-----
-~-
f"""!. -~--"l!"" -------
-.:~I
_:~---==: , ,
-- -
1 I ;~-:_------------------------- --------------~
-~ ~ --- - --- '!i. ~
PRELIMINARY SCHEMATIC "D"
B RIARWOO 0 P . R. 0
UNITED LAND CORPORATION / RYAN HOMES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
"
-.
'-
<.P
, '
'~_I
4
6SG
Mol
"Jilin" Dalol~ - Sin~l.: Family Dtl;lCliN
"SilA~ n"""ll:li - Sin~lc j.I>lIlilf All;ICbtll
koyl:l"'WllhopcnyTM.31.E.
_._-_.~
LalS 1<> be ~dUo:J ill limal ~"~lIl"m
arcI"'Iw.lc.
\-
APPROX. LOC OF
100 ~J;J~f~PLAII
I -- J //
i// 1/
Ii
4'tJ{~
-'
I
-rI7J-
L,
/, '.,
q
II,
J;II
~
-------------------~
-------------------~'
.
.
11/16/100~
~
I.IJ..CjKO
I.IAC/KO
DATE
SC".!..i:
~:':f:
(iR1JTSI.!~JI
lL::tl
Hfff
GRAPHIC SCALE
.. -
CJIII1Zf)
__JlIIII\.
=-
/--~~-I
/
1
DATE
(ZMA 2004-14)
P.R.D.
R
~1f'i
NGl!:f
NC
THE
ENGINEERING
GnOUPE
48Ol'J&MlltlpoinIP.r1Iw8r
F~I1I.Vlnlinia.22407
S.a-710---5987 Fu5040---710.5988
n
II
III .
....
........
.~~~ j~,:." ~'c '~J_'$ ~ ~ .u ~)~~J_::::i~~Lno"--,,_~~
-='---~~,,~'\fm)\\ j;'~~;;/;?7!?;~~:;;~~~~",~~~,~~~~~~~-:)/'~,,-'C,~~,,_~~-,---::"~~---. -..--...;- .'-:-n
. --"''':;''11) Jfi'll (I ~II'~#!!')J\<<J(,/~","' :'>~~~ - ?96~e-'~?~~~~\\")~'~"-?,~ . . --..,." '-'1 :.. ,.."mA.""
. - -- - J; (; ) )jj~ ((/;yr,'{,);;/~,Ij-~~',~~~~~~:r~.::.~~-~,~:\~:\\\\r-*,"~~~.., " ". \\' : : '1 "
i ~ /rr'i,("~')':'~~I;;Kl)t(r;'~~~~~~-'~~~I' '~\\\1z,:!1ft,c,~-- ,,'~<" !I!~~~ ~'K"\~ l\11J8~/,N~:OJ :/=::TCJ3NOZ" ---~~, \ \. ;, /
j i ~., in " ,"1, I ,{ ,'((I,:' .:r/0~.~':"~~q" ~,~~:~' ,~~.,. ",\\ ) ~~;,,0'/;~'-',~ ,'/.' .1;;;:. "':-'", ,',/.-. /' ",' I:, ,./
1 i~0 '/ \,.?" '.} '" '\ ":'f!;'/!fW~Il"'J;i)i~'fi.1.;c1';'jj;~, -Z,_,,---,,,,",,- ~""-'\\, I ,'1'/ ;1'/~1 __,' -, ,_'/, " ,,' ~,~" 11 ON'NOZ' -"'-'-\ -- .l~'\y -:.( '.
J " : ~'\ I 1\\\,\1, (\,I-;(.(\/l,f:.r.-~t.:X3:;:f;N.':I,T'><'Jr-:--r.---. . -~'. '.I' .~i '. "'-.,-f1--1'1.I',.!", - :-r' . > \, . ;'\/~",5/\ /_-
. , ,,' '''- ) f /;/~~~.J~ ~ :--;; ,,~\, "". :U/-L ,,':.' ''''-.:.t!~-~n;'.", J '. '.,' '. -'. : 'e" I ~. ' .' , ' ,/. S I ---~-
. . I (I"'., IJ-." ~ . \, . T-'~,,,,,,,, \\ ~ ~.:.:~, ..... L'~ ~. . -. ". \)/c;. , _ __ _....-
"'..... '/',',' '/iJ .{.h~'; ,~:"" ,\' ,;~ ~\ \ tll'. ~~L- ,~~-'n .~~;.~~'.ic:; ftrj~, ., '. ~...:~(~' \, ".' ',~.., ::u'Zs- 1.-.(. ~"1'~:~~'~, -: '\ m-'~ /=~~-~ .' :.,',i,.
., 'A 'f/ ,/~{I ---c.:: \\ l<.. ,\ .'-,~5~~, 0.+'-' ,t'bt,., .. r<:,l((j d/ '-','\ ." .' 1 "k..--ic--I"s:;.;.',L.',)..' I\{ -, __ _.__. ".,:.
'Jvrrlto"-",!v,UU~' 1/' _,:-. ~~. . ~'I.\' 1,.,..;\ 'y-;1?";:;r<-,,")~'. _,' ,':-. ..~fl,; :/ .'~" ;" "_, ,',,' 5 <.~""':LJ' 5 \1' X/\ - 1 /','/;
"".- '6d 'SLL '0'01 .,,, """ . C"'m'~lC"J;,' '~ ..I; r( Y y~,. j" - \\ \~; /' ,,~~1. ' .+:+~t ,~i~t. ,W '. ,,' ~ - fl.' 'Lliflf.llL. lee, 9 .. \ 'I ..,. - ~3r / ,_~:.\ _---- ___, :)-- , :_~
c'.."p.,,.,dArm.,mdpu...,,.,' ,: Ii j" .,-' ." _ .W'.''''' <'Y" 'iI' .. ,~i .. :.' f!. '. '_. " /X ,- ~ ~ - -', ',:1:"
r"1~wwg;)6u~pnPX3)'JV9fltl:I'9ltJ,q.1 _, ',I' -\- ........, ..\ ,.,.:..-, .-\:\'<' - '.,i', ".. .I~' ~I ' -' ~. ~;.. \~.. ~ J.b'3tt~ \ ..._~ '.". '1"/
'AlI"....ns ]Sn,UNlf.'l,.. ~.;!.~;?\vi~i' ~~\"P'1.' ( :.Wt---, ~20:' ''-', \\, ' ~:~" ~f,:~~4?:' . "::, ,lh'/; ~.~1Ii. i'"H' . "-.~ ''\ "... " -\ //'" \ I ~ . -- ---..... -". _~. ~~if"
, \. '\ ,w... "''''\ \ """-" _,.I ...,~", \',,:v:;}o. '. I ' . , " ~.---J\ ~ , (~ /. i - ~-- "-,nO"/ .
, ,\)J;;, .''t,.'. "'''\ .,..." ",," , , .' "'. ""r..... .' ',...L' / '"T"'-' '.. ~ , i~" _ . '''/ ,,__.__-' 0"../ , '~;... . __'_-- __.......--~_-... '.
.~. ~.~''It.\.... - RFo.,'- " '~"~ ,.' / _\.J -,.. ~ , ,'. ./ /,." I '1 . ~ . ____).._~---
i~:~~ /')r ,(llf~~~ .~.~ :'\"'>""~'i' '::I'~{X~1~\:~J:,:' %~~' ~:\ ,\::~' 1:?Ft . . ~_ ,,:..:..,: IJ ; \ . \.~. " /.)/// \. ~i \ - I -' :: ,'~-~.?~-'*:-'~~"--.
\II. ';~~ I'.' ;'\'/1 ",I ~ " .' oJ'.: - ~ Jf;. ---"-- ~"'-.p. F.:h"<:.t-2 ,. - ." ~'K ",,+ --., 'w...... .."""- ... J"i", /, '// ,/ . '" / ___._ ,-.,./' ,-c'
~ -',-- .... I' ~/..... J;;/" _ .lIr \ ..:""-=' -'::.../> ~ .(~- ..11' ,',\ a,-I-, ..;;: :........... ~ I. .J - /' ( dl !'.. _ ~._- _ .,..,.
I if,'.. :t .. '- .; = u' . 1'1.1-.1"'" ,., ... ~ " , .:.& ~___. .- \. tf ',',' ,___,'" . ."_
I '1-' 1E:?Je"'.:ac-- ~fl ~_. II.. ~d.. :::S-~,,*,\. ",:~;-:" I ~~/' ~?~, /\~0I0NI'.'H"03Zl1l1n3.""M\SQ~O.",^Il'" -/ I ~.., ~.'.. .;".'
' . 1~1 , r-, 0 " . f';'i -,\..c , , I,:i i ,~ , .' ~ ,.>7~~~:~' _ - \ \\ , It, .' .>,.,
>' .."@ 1'. ~ . ", . . p"~ ~ ; > . ..... ':- \:::- i-.j l~/ .I _,~.-r ~. ,... f 5~.lt"'1JO S~ 03.1J.Y1d SJ.\"'! ~3J.'t)'JlaHI .x. .1 (- / .0 ('_ :"~
S.10'"lL2. .:J~ '.fI...~' ..~.'.... ~.!.'. "",,. --'~ - .,t\\~ '" -- :'.:~<. "-i...-I~. ". --- 7'~ 7-- -"-_l,L_______""\::\~'_ ---------------------~-----=r--"- '------7-. ....',.#
,.. .. ,:', R %', '15"' .~~";- .~';,;,/,. ..i.": 'X~'~;.!~"',:..L.,.!.!.T.T),\,>r~";,.~--j'~/ ,,~~~"r, ,.-' -':'-, \ ' , '. i"" ",'~"
. .. '''' , '" ,. .' '.-T1I' :x. ,)c :Y:.j:' --.. - i~ ". -RI~/; ifJ.~ .-:f-~~.~lI~"'-l..- 7'~,"' l!,- .. . b ' I L .'1" -.-..
-- ~,:/.~'-;.~.:1: ~ ,< --,~ : .'." ".' 1';\=;:" '.. .'il' ~ ~:, '~!'~',S~.' , 'i.~-:r'7-".<~ '--~. ,.-., / i;[~ ':-::.-, \ \ 3LoN ":-'~OJC-d ,'~c V'I';' '" - I ') ,',
--,,,>,,a~~~~~~ ~ r,.~ ~.. -.:\\.' ". \" :d!ri..' '~:j~i'.:iLi~. '~~'" --f:~l~'Si!!;V:~~: \,'J. ..::'l!ii~((;, '.~,'. \', ' In-;I, r'I0"'('I"'I',,,, , ", ~\ ~_;JJ~ll
l..~,,>:,:: rti ~-'~~8 '.. ~~. -,::,;~:"~::~.~,:):[c'iif~1'f~~>. .-:,:S~ g"'-.:D~::~": , . ..:~,:.:;'fZ\;' '\~~.' ",--' . .~;;.~ \ ' --i -','
~ ~h"",'~ . ''.' ,>.i:;:X:>-~ ,.,. ~'~-\-":/ ,-A-:,. ",lj /-" .'. ". --~.--~:..__. -- '.'i(('H-- ~. '~. .."------ '............ ~.. ________ ...----" ___ ' ,
~< ~: ::s(.~ u;J -' "', --1.::;~0f:.;;~~';~~:::4iS:~;~':.~.. -~;:;'-:~~ ,Y)~:J.: ,..t;i~"" ~~'>;',"'~ ". ,>;4.. ,-:... .~ /~ \' ~-
""", '- , " \ , ".'... "".-.'" '0<"''''. \- ~-, \ 'I.:t ~'..\9t:--V" . l/i)I\ll.' ~ ',......,.........~..,'.... '. . ' \ ' .
'- . ':.,...~. ~ ' -, ~.\ r~_,,~..'.,.,\)t.,',.t?f.~.!~:;~...-.:,~~:;:::~:....1'.-:.:-< Y"".. /...:"~::~ /.<>'_ _j"<'\:~i, .-~i"~)~"~"':"':'';~~;_~-::::~I('_-_->_.....:.:... \ . -",:.~~'".
I'~-' !!!.. ' ,.\!jii.~\\.,,:...,::. ';:::.1,X2~~'.:-:-- .' '. -- ~.'" .C,"".<C", ",);",,_,~~"'i:-"'FJI':---:>~'''S,~, '- \, ..;~:(~~;:\;~:.
~)t:0~ ',. '\ \\....:~~..; :\'1' :,..,n.~.. '.~.. :. '~~,">'H<1I.""''''''''' ,0. ~'~.'/.';' -.. "'<c..x->.<::---..... . 0.. " ..... :;.:;:,~
:. ~ fXfR: .> ..:~ .~~' .. __ )~\\\:~'~~;~;:'~~lt7~~ 'j~ ~ti>:':.:::<!~:~,\)( ~&pi:;::.,;::~:~~ n ~<q l:.~:~::~~~:1.-:~-;'.~!.__=-- :'~"L:~~ .: ~<'~:h' .: / ' \. \ "K '
)9ji~~)~),~.~. ":.(/ rs~~l\~....://t-';~ ..~,~f tt0,:.)j ..' '~''iil '-~~/''l.i: ,,}~~~j :,,-,~, i ;~-":,:,.::.] -,:\',
. !z: ,- __--....... ././". "\, ..,.,'\~.../;(:~i ,"'/'f'. ',., "'."'.:',." .'.' fl." '~....\~~"/L,.~ ..,,;'~., "'-1 . ...~' ,\ ,\ 1lo.i:~"""'~'_'~I~~" _." .\
::.....~:..=~_:,_.....~~:_/ .-/ ~ \ \ <.':~,.:.'~:-,~l::c:?:;~- ,';Z/!/. ~~ :.\..;.~.::~~:;:,..~~:: ',,", .~> l\., ~-.~-...\ >::;/ y.:-,.,. . ~ 's-"o - ~~~"'~I ~- -, \ \' " " ~ . I (_.~: ... \ r, ..,,.-4
!>~~. ---, \ ~'-:~',,,, L'(,I"':".:...,.,~<.>/.:; \:;:' '.Ci..'i;:'~:' ,:--:;:;. .:: " \ I '. \^,~ : ,./"'--J, /:11 '':..'dlff!S,;,;/lt/. '-, ,..j ~';z../.-- -IS...-,' ~\ \ , , . ....~.',.
-~ I \ ,.~'~~ -< "~:: ~~.,:: o\I'~ .~.. ':!-:.:: ." -......-~- "-.' \ '--~:-~. '......r,~ _/~5 A.lI.f:t.ll/:"S-- ". : I I -....._ / I ,-,/ - \ ' ' ...
I ". 1'+; 'i-P.j,';.:,' "'-:;,0'"" ,',>\..\' ". ,,--',,- .'/. ", ""-L,\/ ",'" ~ . r'" ,: ,I , .Ll~},~;j,/. r;;rtI' .""- \
\ . '. ;,""-- ';'''''';",C' ,,/jl-!'!il ',.,J'\--- -.' ~~:=~"-"/A."" --... ,..... ---' ~ . , . : ,\/ -, q ... lJ
' \w:'~"" ." i'_<~I""~ -- -. ,.> ~.Ol ::-:'~-->-.'-//;;'" ,.' S .,,~' j' ,,/.1)5~"< ,,'1-:_~__ - ~,
.x, ." _~"H'" ~'::i -.. . ----- - '.,____N<T~ ,",.',':'j1~J{',1i:. . "-',", 1_ 'I ,~/~ - , \' ,
"< .J!.' '. ~"i - ::1" {i--\-> -", ,/ ~ \ -,.'-:':'~'<~,,~, ---- , 0 "-<~", '-~' /Jrl ~____ 'f\ .-/' _'~
'< . ' ;',: --. /. I ~== :"/,.:/ ..j'--",~ \, .".,'~:-:- ,':.i.;.- -~ /! ... , :::::";:,,, ~', ~ i (, '-~~ '/ ~ _.:>,-'~ ',';
\. . .' .' "1'__' I -;/ J ,,~ ,_,/ -=--- '-,y---" ___ 'I V ......'~~....~""-.;.,_~ ".... I -"___....-.\...""'~_-._ .
, "\ 'I' ~.--, .~""........... __ --r-'-- ___- "_'
',r-:+"'-'-:' , ~ "''''.',' / -' /' '=--'-_.~__.. naS3. )~,~, ~ '.:-t--.;;.~ ,~">'lJ~
" "",', "- :. '. 'J); ^ ./ ~ "', ~o.d 1-- _d' . ". ,\~,':<:::=-_, ',--:--r- ~------------:--- !,,,,~,
.. -. -' -~. ''') 1.. , ___-'~ -----__ ~.. HOIl.:f3;~, ...::-_.....__......_ _.... _------~--- ~.~~
, I~., .: )?~-;..,j : " --;;;"- ~ -'. ..--.--~ _C.> ~ ,. '~-.!'ZI'-..:-----:>/ ~--- r-;-::-:
..~'" ---,5\/. ,..) : __ ~_________""'_'''.N . _~ --.< ___/ . .'. . ~ /_
" ,,:,. r--//'/'"i" / " '~' rt .~.'" ,.I~I!1,,/,A..I..""...tI!J;A,"a;Jllwl~~ $.1..""1 ~~:---. ...~.':, .---
~ ".;, .' ,'- \ ;".~, " iMY;JS3";"1I""g.s<;0iIr;"'I-II!I!;"ln...~'F-..I" ~ ~ __~ .-~
.~~.....~.. / .,<' II / . r7 ~,-..~ ~'J?:';:!.~.^oa...",""'".,.'.''''''''' ....._.=--=-.
" ~..-, .:/ ,/ / ; .:' _(~ (,.l"'IW~" lI.n.moONV 5JS(fQI-INMOL t:!Nlonl!:JX;J)~ ,,', Sits....,.,... t:- '.:: __ __---~ ~
... ,~) '\ " "'~'J 'IIIUD SplDJ IIUJ"U, .0,.11 IHl lilli' ....,.1. "0'111..101..1 01 ...."'''1l., ~ :""'lIlIIIIIII -___ _ _ __--
'," \ .. "'PO." . ............. ....- -
, If.. ( ,~ ':.:.: ,', ". ua.,~.^,pqn'..".PU'1."".' '. UI1S~. pus JOptlD."......,,6UDl..1I1.".PI5 9........ ~. '. /.~
.;. ' -(:,-~,~:J... ,.'" :,; .Ll:.>&d,....Eff'.S.II!LEc.6d'!i90f.S.0:OS!i.Sd..!iU.01JU1p.pJOll...1.>n<l:),uIJI1' _ ~1It.....;;.: ":.:._'. "/'.' ,
_ : _ _' !n:-~~' , ~',-, .'!I~-'Bd"!i!lll1 '11'0 : L8!i::6d'.!i~;'~9-.;~i~::;;lI:t.~.:~i~;:;~~' ~. :... ": ....-. - . ;;~?:r-- --'-
. ~ if .f"_~". .' '~nDJurq<JypU"'UIp.lIJ.'P'P"<I""''''."1..n<lJ..D1t1'.HPU.fhhl'l!1I11 --... .,.' _1-'
... . . .. 'SI!i '6d"!il.l. 'U'1I <II p'pJa:>'J UOnW3D"" 90.9 .'''''11 _ ~.__ - ,
,;.! ..... "9""'''' 'DII'''Il.-. '8""a 1.11 plpJD:nI" Gi!....1! 01. 'JO UI'l.n" ..<loll D^IJO "'<1".11''>8 ;
'; _ .. ..." -::-sd '9l.l._"'II'ci"Ul'~lIp.J<I:ra.IIiJ'''Unaq-U~ICI''lpqn. D; ~9!~:ol.':~ ~~,~~_~~;;:'!i"~,
~ ._ .. ..'_ '_.. .,.... : _ ., _ ' .pJlp
I ,\ .U~l' ,_:"J~ pa"H"C'"n'1I1 pln_lInJ1Iu.",,,, 11"1" "_":-J.~" tt":D~:;=uie~-:::~~:t
~.\.;,. : ' 26' lUlDd_ Ol W1" \.f 01..::u:8~~.~lO~~:~~~~:1~-:::'~OD:u::.:~;::~:-:.r:~~.I~::d'::~:a~~u;'2
~. NO'si;'dOBf6" S.iN 1~':!,Hf~,._ .:;~t':'-" f lU'~dD'~"';. ~~::'::J'~J~H ,~~~,~.. ":~i'~~:':'!:JJ;d:~:d:;~~d~~::.fI;t':~EoJ
;;"..cY-~
.pa #fI/,.;Z/ .!Oi -Lc.-.-Il
lio.,S2ioQI ,"Z~..~1_:~
~...,-" ig..: ~~..q 1;::SNOISIA3U.
16-81-01: 3.1\10
It - k:- ~Gk: ~.l ' k:8 - k: - ~Gk: l"J.l 'I": 9G~ l"J.L
N\11d 9NIS\1Hd '8 NOI.l\1:Jllddlt030N3W'1
.a.~fdaOO~~ntl~8
61 I;aJJDd 02 ,/,Nl
JOSS'i1 1::I\111::18000M
_J~':;Y'"
~::. -'
~
~",
'''~.,
~
/
",f"
~
;rir~r
WIOZ-ol-tt oaSlAIDIONVtoOl-9f-,.1 [
<IBLVa '.,0.. JUV1'ffiH:JS Al{YND'mffifd 'NV'1d M.aN
1H~ HJ.l!t\ a:JNvcrno:mV NI aB 1,Ih\.S3d}.J.llNll, aNY
)IlJOi\U'ilN. avml mll_ OJ. SNOUv:JI..uaOYi 'lSIX3: .L':3:^
.LON 5'300 .l.N.3J'tdO"EAaO"iJffiIHM. SV'il1lV-3S0JU Nt
(0-16
-IfJ"IZ) mI.l aOOtt\1IVnla ONI.LSIXtl t1H.l 0.1. DNr.LV1infSV
L:JEI.::Id3 :s'.3:JlIOil. TIn.1N1-NIYi"I.::rU111.N\ NV1d sun
-------
9
~
~.
--;---.
~Q1.70.1
-=lllna
---
'~b
.)
~1-I6- ItVIIZ)
V .LN3:WH:JV.L.L V
ATTACHMENT 8
.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
Division:
Tarpley Gillispie, Senior Planner
John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration 111'1
Zoning
To:
From:
Date:
September 14, 2004
Revised November 16, 2004
Revised December, 3, 2004
Revised December 29, 2004
Subject:
ZMA-2004-14 Briarwood
.
The purpose of these comments is to address the (1) proposed proffers dated October 26, 2004 and
revised on November 16, 2004, (2) the original revised Application Plan, dated October 18, 1991, and
most recently revised on December 10, 2004 and (3) a new Application Plan by the Engineering Groupe
that is dated November 17,2004 and revised on December 10,2004. These three documents are in
conflict and must be made consistent prior to approval of this request. Current comments are in regular
font. Prior comments are dated, indented and are in Italics.
1. On September 14,2004 my comments included the following:
"Agreement #12 required that no more than two phases shall be under simultaneous
development. That agreement provided criteria to assure that the public roads, the
private roads and the water and sewer lines were completed for the remaining phases. It
is suggested that a positive recommendation to amend this agreement be based on
verification that all required infrastructure, open space, recreational amenities and the
like for the existing phases is complete. The departments and agencies with experience in
Briarwood administering this agreement are requested to comment on the purpose and
public benefit of the existing agreement and the implications of this amendment. "
.
On November 16, 2004 I commented: "It is my understanding that no bonds are in
default and no departments or agencies have identified the need for maintaining this
requirement. "
On December 3, 2004 I commented: We have no record of any outstanding zoning
violations in Brim-wood at this time.
2. On September 14, 2004 my comments included the following
- 1 -
&
ATTACHMENT B
Agreement #13 limited the lots along Camelot Drive and St. Ives Road to single family
detached dwellings with minimum lot widths of 65 feet. This amendment would allow
these lots to be developed as single family attached units or townhouses. If the Camelot
development was involved in the creation of this agreement it seems reasonable that they
be invited to comment on this proposal,
On November 16, 2004 I commented: Be aware that the requirement for a minimum 65-
foot lot width arose from the prior rezoning. It is not an ordinance requirement.
Based on the memorandum from the Applicant, dated September 28. 2004, I understand
that only abutting residents of Camelot have been notified of this request.
Section 19.8 requires a 30-foot building separation in the PRD district except as
otherwise provided in Section 4.11.3. However, Section 8.2 provides a process whereby
the applicant may request a waiver in writing of this regulation. Such a request shall
demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health
safety or general welfare and, in the case of a requested modification, that the public
purposes of the original regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by
the modification.
On December 3, 2004 I commented: The issue of building separation has not been
addressed. The Applicant must either note on the plan that the buildings shall be
separated by. a minimum of 3 0 feet or obtain a modification of this regulation from the
Board of Supervisors.
December 29. 2004: The applicant responded that the developer will comply with the
requirement per building separation, or obtain the appropriate modifications related to
4.11.3. Please be aware that this requirement is based on Section 19.8. Section 4.11.3 only
limits the circumstances in which building separations can be reduced generally. In this
case, a reduction of building separation will constitute an amendment to the application
plan. It is recommended that the applicant request this reduction now as part of this action
in accord with the procedures set forth in Section 8.2. Otherwise, a reduction in building
separation in the future will require another rezoning to amend the application plan.
The Applicant must either note on the plan that the buildings shall be separated by a
minimum of 30 feet or obtain a modification of this regulation from the Board of
Supervisors.
3. On September 14, 2004 my comments included the following:
Ray Beard, owner of Tax Map 32E, Parcel 2, which is located on St. Ives Road, is not a
party to this request. References to that parcel must be deleted from this request. The 4
Ray Beard Lots that are included in the land use summary should be eliminated from the
lot totals.
- 2-
-;
A. TT ACHMENT B
.
On November 16, 2004 I commented: The Applicant, in a memo dated September 28,
2004 stated that the Ray Beard lots are not part of this request but were included in this
tabulation to maintain consistency with the original lot tabulation. This results in an
increase offour in the number of lots approved in the development because TM-32-E-2
maintains its potential to support four dwellings.
On December 3, 2004 I commented: The issue regarding the Ray Beard lots has not
been addressed. Agreement #1 ofZMA-91-03 must be revised to accountfor the
additional 4 Ray Beard lots,
December 29. 2004: The applicant responded that this matter has been addressed because
the Ray Beard lots are not part of this rezoning. Again, it is the position of this department
that this issue has not been addressed and that this application can not be approved until
the discrepancy between Agreement #1 of ZMA-91-13 and this request is resolved.
The original rezoning limited the development on Parcels 32G-1, 32G-3-A and 32G-3-83 to
657 lots and Parcel 32- E-2 (Ray Beard parcel) to 4 lots for a total of 661 lots. The proposed
application plan shows 661 lots on the Briarwood and no lots on the parcel owned by Ray
Beard. This increases the density that was approved under ZMA-91-13. Agreement #1
must revised to allow 661 units exclusive of the Rav Beard lots or the proposed application
plan must eliminate 4 lots,
.
4. On September 14,2004 my comments included the following:
Agreement #15 states that the mix of un its shall be as shown on the Application and Phasing
Plan. This amendment proposes to increase the number of single family dwellings from 32 to
152, to decrease the number of duplexes from 530 to 248 and to increase the number of
townhouses from 90 to 261. The existing lot mix contains 652 dwellings plus the 4 additional
Ray Beard lots and also 5 lots to be added in final engineering. The proposed lot mix
contains 661 lots (652 + 4 + 5 = 661).
On November 16, 2004 I commented: The Application Plan has been revised to show the
proposed mix of unit types.
On December 3, 2004 I commented: I have no additional comments.
5. On September 14, 2004 my comments included the following:
The existing application plan notes that Lots 97 and 98 will be platted later, These lots
are in an area that is zoned RA that is now part of Briarwood after the relocation of
Route 606. It is recommended that the applicant consider adding a request to rezone that
property to this application.
.
On November 16, 2004 I commented: The Applicant has not requested a rezoning of this
property. This creates a situation that is similar to that created by the Ray Beard lots.
These two lots were included in the 661 total. However, these lots are not included in this
request. This results in an increase of two in the total number of lots approved in the
- 3 -
8
A. TT ACHMENT B
development because once this property is rezoned to PRD, it will be able to support two
additional dwellings.
On December 3, 2004 I commented: I have no additional comments.
6. On September 14, 2004 my comments included the following:
The applicant states the purpose of this request is to continue to promote the introduction
of moderate income housing in the County. It is recommended that the Applicant work
with the County's Housing Department to design a specific program that addresses this
goal. It may be appropriate for the applicant to offer such a program in the form of a
proffer.
On November 16, 2004 I commented: The applicant has proposed such a proffer.
On December 3, 2004 I commented: I have no additional comments.
7. On September 14, 2004 my comments included the following:
The Application Plan, last revised on November 28, 1995 must be revised to reflect the
proposed amendments.
On November 16, 2004 I commented: The plan received on October 27, 2004 must agree
with the proffers as amended. The plan must also accurately depict the site as it has
developed. To that end, the following revisions are required.
. Delete the note, " 's' indicates single family D U along Camelot Drive and St.
Ives Drive. "
. Label this as the Application Planfor ZMA-2004-14
. Remove the chart showing the existing lot mix and replace it with the chart
showing the proposed lot mix.
. Put an "X" on the lots in Phase 3C that are developed.
. Note on the plan that Single Family Attached units are also proposed in Phase 4
and Phase 8 or delete the reference to this unit type in the proposed proffers.
. Note on the plan that the lot lines that are shown shall be amended by subdivision
plats or site plans in order to develop the project in accord with the amended
proffers ofZMA-2004-14.
. Note on the plan that 25% of the property must be preserved as open space. The
Ray Beard lots must be included in the basis for this calculation. It is strongly
recommended that the property zoned RA also be included in the basis.
. Show the street connections as they exist.
- 4-
1
A. TT ACHMENT B
.
On December 3, 2004 I commented: On November 18, 2004 the applicant submitted
an entirely new application plan showing the Phases lA, lB, 4, 5, 6 & 8. That plan
addressed the above comments, However, it is inconsistent with the existing
application plan, If this plan is intended to replace the existing plan it must be revised
to add all of the information required of an application plan specified in Section
8.5,1. In addition, all amenities that are shown on the existing plan must be shown on
the amended plan. A copy of Section 8.5,1 is attached to these comments for your use.
If this new plan is intended to be added to the existing plan, it must be made clear
what is being replaced and what remains on the existing plan,
Also, delete the note stating, "All future construction plan and plats will maintain a
minimum of 25% open space" because the entire PRD, including the Ray Beard
property is subject to this requirement,
December 29. 2004: The above statement that the Ray Beard lots must be included
in the basis for the open space calculation was in error and is to be ignored.
.
The original application plan, dated October 18, 1991 and last revised on December
10, 2004 has been attached to the new application plan, dated November 17, 2004
and revised on December 10, 2004. The plan can not be approved in this form
because there are discrepancies between the two plans.
Again, we recommend, but do not require that the application plan be revised to
show the amended development on one single plan or that a new plan be created
that meets the requirements of Section 8.5.
In order to approve the amended application plan as submitted, the following
revisions are required:
The two new notes on the original plan must be deleted and replaced with the
following note: "This plan will remain in full force & effect as relating to the entire
Briarwood PRD (ZMA-91-13 and ZMA-95-05) except that the road network, unit
types and density in Phases lA, 1B, 4, 5, 6 & 8 shall be modified in accordance with
the attached plan, Preliminary Schematic "D", dated 11-16-2004 and revised 12-10-
2004."
Lots 97 and 98 are eliminated by this proposed plan. Therefore, The note that states
"Future Lots 97 & 98 approved by Planning Commission with SUB-90-23 (Subject
to VDOT approval of sight distance for Austin Dr/ Rte. 606 intersection" must be
deleted from the original plan.
.
Add a note that states, "In instances where there is a conflict between these two
parts of the plan, the original plan, dated October 18, 1991 and revised, shall be the
controlling document."
Add a note that states, "Buildings shall be separated by a minimum of 30 feet."
- 5 -
to
A. TT ACHMENT B
8. The following comments address the proposed proffers dated October 26,2004 and revised
on November 16, 2004. The County Attorney and others may offer comment as well.
On November 16, 2004 I commented: We recommend that the proffers of ZMA 91-13,
ZMA 95-05 and ZMA-04-14 be consolidated into one document. Otherwise it must be
clear what remains of the original proffers and what is amended by the proffers of ZMA
04-14. To that end, the following revisions are recommended.
. The language regarding the intent of the rezoning may be deleted.
That was done. (12-3-2004)
. Clarify that the original proffers remain in force except as amended.
That was not done. (12-3-2004)
. Agreement #1 ofZMA-91-03 must be revised to accountfor the additional 4 Ray
Beard lots.
That was not done. (12-3-2004)
. Agreement #12 may be amended as proposed.
. Agreement #13 refers to single family attached but such a designation does not
appear on the amended Application Plan. This discrepancy must be reconciled.
That was done. (12-3-2004)
. Regarding the affordable proffer, insert a comma between principal and interest in
line 5 and correct the name of the Albemarle County Housing Office in line 8. It may
be appropriate to phase the provision of affordable housing throughout the remainder
of the project.
That was done. (12-3-2004)
. The new proffer regarding Briarwood Drive must clarify the specifications of the road
and the meaning of the words "constructed" and "commencing."
December 29. 2004: I have not reviewed proffers since my December 3, 2004 comments.
Please contact me if you have questions.
- 6 -
II
Jan 03 05 01:30p
Attachment C
UNITED LAND CORPORATION OF AMERICA
P.O. BOX 5548 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22905
TELEPHONE (434) 975.3334 FAX (434) 975-0267
January 3, 2005
Tarpley Gillespie
County of Albemarle
411 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Subject: Modification request for 4.11.3, which is based on section 19.8 in
accordance with procedures in 8.2.
In response to John Shepherd's letter revised on December 29,2004
paragraph two (2).
.
Dear Tarpley,
We request that the set backs conform to the existing set backs that are currently
in effect in the Briarwood sub-division- Which are 6' on the side yard, 25'in the
front yard, and 10' in the back yard, with modification that if the County would like
the front yard could be reduced. (So the house could be closer to the street)
Thank you,
~~
Wendell W. Wood
.
12..
Jan 03 05 01:30p
ATTACHMENT 0
_ _ _ _ _ ., .... .. _ _ M' _ . - ...-
)
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer-
(Amendment # ~
PROFFER FORM
Date: 01 b 0 3 / 05
ZMA" 2 04-14
Tax Map and Parcel Numbcr{~) 32G
PursUllIlt to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle Count}' ZOo.ing OrdinBoce J the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the coDditions li:sled below which :Wall b~ applicd to we property, ihezoned.. These <:onditions IU'C
proffered fI! II pan of1he requested rezoning and ir is agreed that; (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
condirions~ and (2) such conditions have a rC2I$oollble relation to the rezoning request '
Acres (0 be re~oocd from
10
Wood'Driar Associates Limited PartnerShip requests the following proffer condition amendments be considered for approval:
PROFFER # 1 amending Agreement 12 ofZMA-95-05
Simulmneous development of phases wi1h signed site plans or subdivision plats mBY occur foc the remaining phases of
development, identified. as Phases lA (subphase 3 & 4) iB, 4,5,6, & 8 as stmv.:n o? the Application Plan dated November 17,
2004. 8riarwood Drive shall be construCted to Route 29, as shown on the Application plan dated November 17,2004, prior to
commencing Phase 4, 5 or 6.
PROFFER # 2 amending Agreement 13 ofZMA 91-13
Lots along Camelot Drive may be developed with townhouse units. Consistent with Application Plan.
PROFFER# 3 aroendingAgrecment 15 of ZMA 91-13
The mix of units perroitted in each phase is hereby modified from the Briarwood P. R. D. Amended Application Plan to reflect
the revised unit types permitted in each phase.
EIistin1!: Lot Mix
phase TV! e of Dwelling Unit Totals
SFD Duolex Townhouse
lA - 98 - 98
IB - - 53 53
2 - 96 - 96
.. - ..
3 (ABC) - 72 37 109*
4 - 66 - 66
5 - _____7.!2--.,, --. - 70
.------- ..-----. .-----. ---- -" ..~- .-....
6 - 30 - 30
7 - 78 - 78
8 ," ,.,-_.._._~.. ---- 20 - 52
---'---'-' _.~--- . ..---..'-
TOTALS 32 530 90 652
Page l of 2
I~
Lots to be added by
Ray Beard Property TM-32-E-2
ATTACHMENT 0
4
656
Lots to be added in final engineering
5
661
.
Totals
661
* Lots 97 & 98 are included in the Phase 3 total but will be platted at a later date,
PrODosed Lot Mix
Phase Tvne ofDwellin~ Unit T ota1s
SFD SFA Townhouse
Lois Lots Lots
lA 28 - 22 50
lA (Existing SubPhasc I & - 48 - 48
2) 46
IB l5 - 31
2 (ExistinRl - 96 - 96
3, 3A, 3B, 3C - 70 37 107
(Existiru!. ) 52
4 52 - -
5 18 - - 18
6 31 - - 31
7 (Existinll) - 78 - 78
8 - - l35 l35
TOTALS 144 292 225 661
PROFFER #4
.
The owner shall provide 25 units of affordable housing (for sale townhouses) with the construction of Phases IA (subphase 3
& 4) IB, as identified on the Application Plan, dated November 17,2004. The owner shall convey the responsibility of
conslructing the affordable units to any subsequent purchaser of the subject property. The current owner oc subsequent owner
shall create units affordable to households with incomes less than 80% of the area median income such that housing costs
consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeownCIS insurance (pm) do not exceed 30% of the gross household
income. All purchasers of these units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee, The
ownerlbuilder shall provide the County or its designee a period of90 days to identify and prequaWY an eligible purchaser for the
affordable units. The 90 day period shall commence upon written notice from the owner that the units will be available for sale,
This notice shall not be given more than 60 days prior to anticipated reeeipt of the certificate of occupancy. Jfthe County of its
designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during this period, the owner shall have the right to sell the unit(s) without any
restriction on sales price or income of purchaser,
The original proffers ofZMA 91-13 and ZMA 95-05 remain in force except as amended.
PROFFER #5 amending Agreement I ofZMA 91-13
Exclusive of the Ray Beard lots.
Woodbriar Associates Limited Partnership
~~~.
guatures 'of WIler{;ener al
P~rtner
/t/-r'MI/~/ ~- tr./C/c:~ ~ 01/03/05
P"nm:d Names of All Owners General Date
P""rtner
OR
.
SienanJre of AnoTnt:y-iu.F"r.f
(Atucli Proper POWer of At1omcy)
PrLrtfed N~m~ of.A. nn!T!cY-!n-Pacr
--..--__h...
page L of' 2
14
r
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5823
Fax (434) 972-4126
December 10, 2004
Woodbriar Associates
POBox 5548
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE: ZMA 2004-00014 Briarwood (Sign #17); Tax Map 32G, Parcels 1, 3-A and 3-83
To Whom it May Concern:
At the Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting on December 7, 2004, a motion to recommend
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors failed by a unanimous (0:7) vote, This
ruling was based on the items outlined by staff as follows:
. 1.
2,
3,
4,
5,
6.
The proposed application plan was not submitted until after the normal review period ended,
Therefore, staff and VDOT have not had adequate time to review changes to the plan, including
the proposed access changes to Phase 8 and new internal road configuration on Phases 1A, 5,
and 6,
An interconnection between Briarwood and Camelot seems to be lost with the proposed changes
to Phase 4 on the Application Plan,
It is unclear what the proposed orientation of buildings along Camelot Drive in Phase 8 will be,
The proposed application plan does not show the existing resource protection area.
The proposed application plan does not provide access to the open spaces on the plan,
At this time, no commitment has been made to the streetscape of the remaining phases, including
a commitment to curb and gutter and sidewalks,
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on January 12, 2005, 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, You may also choose to bring this item back before the Planning Commission,
If you have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me,
Sincerely,
~ OM ~\llO/)pl(,
Tar~y \Gille~ie
Senior Planner
.
Cc:
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley
Bob Ball
.
.
.
STAFF PERSON:
Tarpley Vest Gillespie
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
December 7, 2004
January 12, 2005
ZMA 2004-014: Briarwood
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing proffers for the Briarwood
development approved as part of ZMA 1991-13 and ZMA 1995-05 in order to allow a
change in their phasing requirements and a change in the unit mix for the development. They
are also proposing several changes to the approved Application Plan related to the unit types
as well as the road layout for the development. Attachment B shows the existing approved
Application Plan for Briarwood with notations showing the proposed new maximum number
of units and unit types for each phase. Attachment C shows the actual Application Plan for
which they are seeking approval. This proposed new application plan was received by
Planning Staff after the normal review period had ended (11/18/2004) and has not received a
complete review by County staff or VDOT.
Petition:
Request to rezone 123.612 acres from PRD (Planned Residential District) to PRD (Planned
Residential District) to amend the proffers of ZMA 91-13 and ZMA 95-5 and to amend the
Application Plan. The property, described as Tax Map 32G Parcell, Tax Map 32G Section3
Parcel A and Tax Map 32G Section 3 Parcel 83 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District
on Seminole Trail (Route 29) at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Austin Drive (Route
1575). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density
Residential in the Piney Mountain Community. (Attachment A is the location map.)
Character of the Area:
The existing Briarwood development contains 272 single family attached (duplex) units. Just
to the north of Briarwood is the GE Fanuc industrial facility. To the west ofthe site is
Dickerson Road and lower density residential development including the North Pines
subdivision. Dickerson Road (Route 606) forms the Development Area boundary. The
Camelot subdivision is just south of the site. Camelot consists of single family houses on
smaller lots. The undeveloped phases of Briarwood are currently wooded and gently rolling
with some steep topography.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral of the request until a complete staff review has been conducted
and comments have been received by County Engineering staff and VDOT.
Plannin!! and Zonin!! Historv:
ZMA 79-32: Briarwood was originally zoned PRD- Planned Residential Development in
1980 with approval of ZMA 79-32. At that time, a condition of the approval was "No more
than two phases shall be under simultaneous development".
1
ZMA 91-13: In March of 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 91-13, which
amended the existing PRD to allow the use of private roads and to revise the Application
Plan to show future phases of townhouse development. This ZMA also includes a series of
proffers, Attachment D.
ZMA 95-05: In June of 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 95-05. With this
approval, a new set of proffers were approved, Attachment E. Both sets of proffers from
ZMA 91-13 and ZMA 95-5 apply to this property and the applicant must comply with all
conditions of both documents.
Specifics of the Proposal/Proffers:
The applicant is seeking to amend one proffer of ZMA 95-05 and two proffers of ZMA 91-13
and is also seeking to add one new proffer related to affordable housing. (See Attachment F-
Proposed Proffers) The applicant is also seeking to amend and replace the Application Plan
with a new plan that amends and reconfigures some of the internal roads (Attachment C).
Due to the recent submittal of these proffers, the County Attorney has not conducted a full
review. Should the Planning Commission make a recommendation for approval to the Board
of Supervisors, the specific language of these proffers may need to be refined before they are
considered by the Board. The proposed proffers are as follows:
Proffer #1 seeks to amend proffer 12 of ZMA 95-5 to allow simultaneous development of
the remaining phases. The previous proffer required that no more than two phases be
developed simultaneously. There was some concern in the past about the timeliness of
completion of infrastructure. The previous proffer was offered to provide some assurance
that all necessary infrastructure would be completed for each phase before the
commencement of the next phase. At this point in time, all infrastructure is up to date in the
existing phases of Briarwood. Staff is confident that the County's site plan and subdivision
processes, along with bonding procedures, will ensure that each remaining phase of
development will stand on its own and that all infrastructure obligations will be met with
each remaining phase. Therefore, staff does not object to the removal of the previous
condition. However, staff does feel that it is important that Briarwood Drive be constructed
to provide a second means of access from the development to Route 29 before phases 4, 5 or
6 are constructed. In response to the staffs concern, the applicant has committed to
constructing this segment of Briarwood Drive prior to commencing Phases 4,5, or 6.
Proffer #2 seeks to amend proffer 13 of ZMA 91-13 to allow lots along Camelot Drive to be
developed with townhouse units. This section of Briarwood along Camelot Drive is referred
to as Phase 8 on the Application Plan. The current plan calls for 32 single family detached
units and 20 duplex units. Given the other proposed changes to unit type and overall density
throughout Briarwood, staff does not object to the proposed change in unit type in Phase 8
and can support this request. Staff does have concerns about the proposed changes to street
layout in Phase 8 as shown on the Application Plan. This concern is discussed in greater
detail later in the report.
Proffer 3# seeks to amend the unit types and maximum unit numbers in each of the
remaining phases. The proposed changes would result in a total increase in units from 657 to
2
. 661. The changes would result in an increase in the number of single family detached units
and townhouses and a decrease in the number of single family attached (duplex) units. Staff
supports both of these changes. Given the size and scale of the development, staff does not
believe that the increase of 4 lots will have any measurable impacts. Staff believes that this
change will enhance the character of the neighborhood by providing a greater mixture of
housing types.
Proffer #4 commits the applicant to providing 25 units of affordable housing with the
construction of the remaining phases. The applicant has provided this proffer in response to
advice from the Chief of Housing. The proffer has been reviewed by the Chief of Housing
and found to meet the County's goals for affordable housing. Staff supports this proffer and
commends the applicant for consistently providing housing priced below the County median
with past phases of Briarwood.
.
Application Plan
The proposed Application Plan is Attachment C. This plan was received by staff on
November 18, 2004 after the normal review period for proposed changes had ended.
Therefore, at the time of the writing of this report, staff, including engineering, zoning and
VDOT, has not had the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed changes.
Review of the Application Plan is ongoing. If any new information comes to light before the
Planning Commission public hearing, that new information will be shared with the
Commission at the hearing.
Attachment B is the previously submitted Application Plan. This plan shows the underlying
Application Plan that was approved with ZMA 95-05, with a notation showing the requested
changes to unit types and densities for each phase.
.
There are several notable changes to the proposed Application Plan summarized as follows:
1. Phase lA shows an interconnection where two cuI de sacs were located on the
previous plan. While staff has not had the opportunity to review the technical
feasibility of this change, staff supports this change in concept.
2. Phases 5 and 6 show a realignment of the two cuI de sacs. Of concern to staff is that
this realignment seems to include a greater area of disturbance towards the resource
protection area.
3. Phase 4 shows a cuI de sac where an interconnection to St. Ives Road in Camelot had
been located. Staff is concerned about the loss of this interconnection. Currently,
there are no connections between the Camelot and Briarwood neighborhoods. Staff
believes that connection at St. Ives Road would enhance the two neighborhoods by
providing an additional route between the two neighborhoods for local traffic that
does not rely on Route 29.
4. Phase 8 shows a new access road from Briarwood Drive. The existing plan shows
access to Phase 8 from Camelot Drive. Although the plan does not show parcel
boundaries or building orientations, the applicant verbally described to staff a desire
to orient the Phase 8 townhouses towards the new access road and away from
Camelot Drive. Staff is concerned about the possible traffic impacts to the
BriarwoodlRoute 29 intersection. Impacts need to be evaluated by County staff and
3
VDOT. Staff is also concerned about the negative aesthetic impacts to Camelot Drive
of orienting the units such that the rear portions of the lots face Camelot Drive.
Applicant's Justification for the Reauest:
The applicant has committed through a proffer to provide affordable housing within the
designated development area with this project. The previous phases of Briarwood have
historically provided affordable housing. The applicant is seeking changes to the application
plan which he feels will enhance the quality of the development and bring it closer to
meeting some of the goals of the neighborhood model. These changes include providing a
greater variety of housing types within the development and providing two internal
interconnections that are not on the currently approved plan.
Bv-rieht Use of the Property:
Briarwood is currently zoned PRD and allows up to 657 units by right. This number includes
the maximum units allowed by proffer #15 of ZMA 95-05 and excludes 4 units that are
permitted on adjacent properties owned by Ray Beard. (The Ray Beard lots were included in
ZMA 95-05 but are not a part of the current request, nor are they included on the proposed
Application Plan. The by right use of the Ray Beard lots will not change as a part of this
request. )
Comprehensive Plan and The Neiehborhood Model:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Neighborhood Density Residential in
the Piney Mountain Community. Neighborhood Density Residential is intended for
residential areas with a gross density of 3 to 6 units per acre and is intended to accommodate
all residential unit types. New development within an existing subdivision "shall be in
keeping with the character and density ofthe existing development". New subdivisions are
to be developed at "higher densities and in keeping with the Neighborhood Model". The
proposal meets the criteria of the Neighborhood Density designation.
Staff has reviewed the proposal within the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan's guidance that
expansion of an existing subdivision is to be in keeping with the character of the existing
subdivision. Therefore staff has not requested on a wholesale redesign of this section of
Briarwood to reflect the Neighborhood Model. The proposal has left much of the original
Application Plan for the remaining phases intact. The level of change proposed does not
warrant a total site redesign. This proposal does present opportunities to move the remaining
phases closer to meeting the goals ofthe Neighborhood Model.
Staffhas analyzed the proposal against the 12 Neighborhood Model principles and offers the
following comments:
PEDESTRIAN ORIENTATION The existing phases of Briarwood have curb and
gutter and sidewalks on one side of the street. At
this time, the applicant has not made a formal
commitment to streetscape design for the remaining
phases. Staff recommends that the applicant
commit to curb and gutter and sidewalks on both
sides of all streets in the remaining phases of
development.
4
.
.
.
NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY The existing Briarwood development meets this
STREETS AND PATHS principle with narrow streets, curb and gutter, and
sidewalks on one side of the streets. Staff
commends the applicant for the precedent that has
been set with the existing phases and recommends
that a commitment be made to incorporate these
features into the remaining phases.
INTERCONNECTED STREETS The proposed changes stand to strengthen this
AND TRANSPORTATION principle. The proposed Application Plan shows a
NETWORK new internal interconnection in Phase IA where
two cuI de sacs were previously approved. While
engineering staff has not yet had the opportunity to
review this change to the plan for impacts, the
concept offers a potential improvement to the
neighborhood. As previously mentioned, the
reorientation of Phase 8 to Briarwood Drive raised
some concerns that need to be evaluated by staff
and VDOT. However, it also shows potential to
interconnect this previously isolated phase with the
rest of the development. Finally, the applicant has
proffered to construct the final segment of
Briarwood Drive prior to Phases 4,5, and 6,
helping to ensure adequate access to these sections
of the development. It is premature for staff to
offer a recommendation of approval for these
changes until they have been evaluated for
technical feasibility. However, staff recognizes that
they offer some potential to enhance the overall
plan for Briarwood.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The previously approved Application Plan shows a
"Resource Protection Area" on the western edge of
the development and a "passive recreation area to
consist of walking and jogging trails." These
features are not shown on the proposed Application
Plan. Staff recommends that these features be
included on the newly proposed plan prior to
adoption. Further, staff recommends that the
Application Plan clearly show how these areas will
be accessed by pedestrians from within the
development. Open space and recreational
amenities should be integrated within each phase of
development to serve the residents of each phase.
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS The Briarwood development was originally
designed as a conventional residential subdivision.
As such, it does not meet this Neighborhood Model
principle. Staff does not believe that the proposed
5
BUILDINGS AND SPACES OF
HUMAN SCALE
RELEGATED PARKING
MIXTURE OF USES
MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES
AND AFFORD ABILITY
REDEVELOPMENT
SITE PLANNING THAT RESPECTS
TERRAIN
CLEAR BOUNDARIES WITH THE
RURAL AREAS
changes are significant enough to necessitate a
wholesale redesi n to address this rinci Ie.
The existing Briarwood development meets this
principle with units oriented towards the street,
relatively shallow setbacks and front porches. Staff
commends the applicant for the precedent that has
been set with the existing phases and recommends
that a commitment be made to incorporate these
features into the remainin hases.
The Briarwood development was originally
designed as a conventional residential subdivision.
As such, it does not meet this Neighborhood Model
principle. Staff does not believe that the proposed
changes are significant enough to necessitate a
wholesale redesi n to address this rinci Ie.
The Briarwood development was originally
conceived as a residential development and the
proposed changes are consistent with that concept.
Staff does not believe that the proposed changes are
significant enough to necessitate a wholesale
redesi to address this princi Ie.
The proposed changes will enhance the housing
mixture in Briarwood and create a greater range of
homeownership opportunities for moderate and
middle income families in Albemarle. The existing
phases of Briarwood have consistently met the
County's criteria for affordable housing, even
without a proffered obligation to do so. Staff
recognizes that the future development phases will
provide important affordable housing in this portion
of the County.
The area under review is all undeveloped land and
this rinci Ie does not a ply.
At this time, staff has not completed its review of
the proposed changes to street configuration in
Phases 4,5, and 6. At this time, it is unclear what,
if any, new impacts will be incurred by the
ro osed chan es.
Route 606, Dickerson Road just west of this site
forms the rural area boundary. The plan meets this
rinci Ie.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zonine: district
The applicant is seeking to amend an existing Planning Residential Development (PRD) to
allow changes in unit types, densities and proffers. An amendment to the existing
6
.
.
.
Application Plan and proffers is necessary to allow for the changes proposed. The revised
application plan is consistent with the intent of a PRD.
Public need and iustification for the chaDli?:e
The proposed changes will provide affordable housing within the designated development
area while also allowing a greater variety of housing unit types throughout the development.
The applicant has proffered that 25 of the new units be made available to individuals or
families seeking affordable housing for owner occupancy. This will help to fill a need within
the Albemarle community.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Transportation - At this time, due to the late submittal of the Application Plan to staff, a
review of the proposed changes to the access of Phase 8 has not been conducted by
County Engineering or VDOT. Therefore it is premature to anticipate what impact to the
Briarwood Drive/Route 29 intersection may be incurred by the proposed reorientation of
Phase 8 to Briarwood Drive.
Water and Sewer - The proposed changes will not have any significant impact on water
and sewer to the development. The site is served by water and sewer and the slight
increase in density can be accommodated.
Schools - The changes proposed will have a very minimal impact on schools in this area
as compared to the currently approved zoning.
Stormwater Management - At this time, it is unclear what, if any, new impacts will be
incurred by the proposed changes to the Application Plan. Staff is awaiting completion
of an engineering review.
Fiscal impact to public facilities - The slight increase in density of this proposal will
have virtually no fiscal impact for the County.
It is possible that new information regarding public facilities may come to light that will
aid in this evaluation between the writing of this report and the Planning Commission
public hearing. If that is the case, staff will share any new information with the Planning
Commission at the public hearing.
Anticipated impact on natural. cultural. and historic resources -
At this time, staff has not had the opportunity to evaluate potential new impacts to natural,
cultural or historic resources what may result from the proposed changes to the plan.
Specifically, Phases 5 and 6 show a different road layout than is shown on the approved plan.
The new layout shows a greater encroachment towards what appear to be steeper slopes and
a resource protection area. Therefore, it is premature to anticipate what impact the proposed
change to plan may have on natural resources.
7
It is possible that new information regarding natural resources may come to light that will aid
in this evaluation between the writing of this report and the Planning Commission public
hearing. If that is the case, staff will share any new information with the Planning
Commission at the public hearing.
SUMMARY
Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The proposal will provide affordable housing within the designated Development
Areas.
2. The proposed change in unit types will create a better mixture of unit types within
Briarwood, one of the principles of the neighborhood model.
3. The proposed changes to Phase 1A of the Application Plan will create one additional
internal interconnection.
4. The applicant has committed, in the form of a proffer, to construct Briarwood Drive
to Route 29 prior to commencing with phases 4,5,6, thus ensuring the appropriately
sequenced construction of a second access to Route 29.
Staffhas identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The proposed application plan was not submitted until after the normal review period
ended. Therefore, staff and VDOT have not had adequate time to review changes to
the plan, including the proposed access changes to Phase 8 and new internal road
configuration on Phases lA, 5, and 6.
2. An interconnection between Briarwood and Camelot seems to be lost with the
proposed changes to Phase 4 on the Application Plan.
3. It is unclear what the proposed orientation of buildings along Camelot Drive in Phase
8 will be.
4. The proposed application plan does not show the existing resource protection area.
5. The proposed application plan does not provide access to the open spaces on the plan.
6. At this time, no commitment has been made to the streetscape of the remaining
phases, including a commitment to curb and gutter and sidewalks.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff cannot recommend approval at this time and recommends deferral until a full review of
proposed changes to the application plan have been reviewed by County staff including
engineering staff and by VDOT. However, the Planning Commission can use this
opportunity to provide feedback to the staff and applicant regarding the proposal's features
and staffs findings to this point.
At this time, Staff could support approval of only those changes proposed for Phase lB. The
applicant has not indicated a willingness to pursue only the Phase 1B changes at this time.
However, staff could recommend approval of the Phase lB changes if the applicant agreed to
that approval and ifthe Application Plan and proffers were amended between the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors hearing to reflect only changes to Phase 1B.
8
.
.
.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Application Plan received October 27, 2004
C. Application Plan dated 11/17/2004, received 11/1812004
D. Proffers of ZMA 91-13
E. Proffers of ZMA 95-05
F. Proposed proffers of ZMA 2004-14
9
o
"
()~'-'= ()
~~
"
"
Z-'")~\~
;.,\~,..........
G-&
!~
w.
~~
~.~!
....ffi
~a
uS!
-::>~
~~i
~~'l:
~S~il!
~~~
o~ ..
!i!!~
~a~
~~~
o . l- CJ
c
ATTACHMENT 8
-~~-'-~-""~-'---
.
.-'~"
I
/ ~~RT~~;N~:r(
i'He. ~- "'I.IOI'I~/'ff NT fa~5 P<l ~~~J
r'...... .,,, ":cis;;:. ~';~;M:'n"...,
----+----.r~ '''111/1 L(>-r:"~~"''''''''''('''~_~j'
- - I - .-1~ -- '" '~. "". "'; m"w~, "',
- --'-f--' '~~-__ , '< (~'""_o~:."i' CO" ,.'.' "
------ -- I --,.'-. _"., ""'<<no. I
~~--- ~ ~[::;,,::,~.,",,:,
;>~ --- ..,.~,- ,.,.,.~ ~'" --
rccCC~ .., ",.. . " _",- ''0'''':::~
""-'" -
.~
q
"~"',4
~""=,,,,._~-;:::'
, LAND USE- SlI-MMARV .
"Areas ,
TM. :n.G-OJ~A . AC. me. 775. pg. S~,";:i'"
_ ~ J2G-r. 13M (Excluding com.I_.~:!
area and previ platted areas)
- ::FM---.JZG-03:-83 --At" -tn,B,-- 77&.. -pg.:--~....,..
TOTAl. l 141.23 .
euilt.
iotl.clb
.....~........
F/
3"
.
I~
""::;'
,..
-,."1.,.,'
!OO'.
WB.:i:T~'f.:{
~,~
-13
j..
,
oYLOTS
/7\ I,
',-.J81)8raf
l/I\~ ~I
, , ,. A
I v,
-~..<'
ZMA-9
.:>~!~i1
-~~-~.
,
:
,
.!:....
fJ-~i'ARWOOD -,: P:R.D.
AMENDED APPLICATION 8 PHASING PLAN
TM 32G-) , TM 32G - 3 - 83 ,TM32G -3-A
DATE :.10-18-91
REV.ISIONS} f!1-:~1'1-'-.M .
~::",~,:,ist. I'-~l~;'.of
1J'~l-'S
1J""-1'!l.
WObOBRIAR A;:;SOC
TM 20 Parcel 19
'.
.;....-..-
I\;--~RTH~N~S 9JBDI-Y~ION
\ TM 20 Parcel '92"'
\
I
i
I
r
,i' j
::.7!rttJ
-
'-
-i-:~-
~_...:,-_.,.:'--c'
.:......'...'.' ........ ....'.......
'.--;'."'--':. ".
:_~ .. /----....
/ ~.
(7.. .'.
If. ,
! "
, .
:' J _
~....._." ..,:'-j/BC"i;;) 'j':;
. . , . . .
'" - . .
. '~~lt1:/ -. "",..- ---''-F~~". . ~~~~
T'I' MAP '". ______ ' /-"_, " " . , '''. ; ,
'I" , "', ".c, """, ".."
"2000' ~ ;' ~.O".. , 7---'-<... ." _ ....
". '" -- !, """ ",', "'-C '\-"------c .'
'. " / / " ~ -., ,'- \ ", ," ~- ~ ~ '-----, ---'< ,'>>>, ,
tv!:.v -I -- /~CESS :~~7-7"'3U', \\ 0 ~' _____________ "~,____:~{_._"_':'-..
I. r ; ~" '. , .~, , ~~. ,,"" ,.___"
2I~ 'r" ,',' - "~I',/ ';,\ ~ '--:...~.__,~:::. c .
.--,.~ ''e, I ' " ~ "11-"""""". ". '.
". . .'. ".' / i ,!. "" , . '.. ''''', ">';"
fA:. ,,,,,,.,; I, /, ~ j . '. . .' i. . . """,,__" .. \. ""'_"
' li ", " ~" " " .
f..I,,,,PI,,> Il' ,.' '.:.'~ :.~ /'......:'.'..'"/:..'..:..;..,./ ;},:< '\I,. . ~" ' '-'\. '~.,.
. J..,,,,,,J 'I /. ;!, ''';''''." , \I ' . " \ ',.
:..-rr'i~p,. fl' . ....," '\i"-#,7""'f , __ ________"'.".,,"::--.. '\ \ :'
~ "'" .' , , · ./ . / ~",. "I ''C'I,'' , "'"
. - ~~' "--r p,""" \, >, .'--,w, '", tt \, "
" '., ""'m" M ,~. '..
I '!. !"C,EA"O. I __,,~' C,,',,------ "-;;-wmm. " '\ __~
. " , , . " 4 . ~,ND,CAT~ S T >VES ROAD _ _-\_ .
\.. , "'EA "".""" " . J;i ~"'."-' u_. ,.Is
\ " ,,' ,,~.,~ '.-"" ,-'''''''M '\ '00'''' , \ ,
I. · · ~." -""'" '- , , u __ ','on,,"'" ......,
..... \__.oc-,_\ .'1-,z~~.", \ ,. ',' '''1''',\' \ "'''''''''"''. E '. \ ./.
' :. :-...,."'" ~ '" .. ''"'' "..,~" ~ ./ /'
~ " '. -~'---. -. -') ,;:, \ 0,., ~~ .
~ .....~lf\<f,ol,;~~Jt..!!:.~ --, _ _ I _, \ /. ~.
' , ----'....'" ''';.. : , '\ /
"I ~--, .' ~ . ~ ,I . \ \, ./.~
.~~.u....:.:- \.." ..' ....;;;~ .c;~:/. " R I ,,_, " /' ~ ~~/ ,
.. ~. ''';;'-~'''. -.-"..--~-.//.-"",-..._~_c---t--I \~) , ..L-- ~
. ,';"-. . ~-'~~- ...._-. r \' \ _ \ . ,
. ,7--:-,. --''C..... , 1 i ':..-- ,.." ~
\. ". '-;:i?~7'/'t'1' ~' ...,-c.,c,.
r 'L?;o' ~ ,--- , __ , ,/'~,
-'''''(-'' /~ '.--------- \ ~. ">:'\ ~,
. h \." "', \
'JI ' , .' , ~'
il",.' --- - ~:~_~ ',,:3F _.._
' .
. i.. "'0 I ~
." I,
- , . /5 .
-- . Z~A.__
--, "'5) \ I
\A \~~
~-'f,
-,,..--..~~.......-.,,...
_.
Attachment C
u
.
1
!
!,::X@Q&..!-&!Mix
141.23 AC. < (PER PHASING PIAN)
P.R.D. (2MA 2CJ04.14)
PlANNED RESlllEKl1Al DEVELOPMENT
SlNGU FAMilY DETACHED 6.
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED
SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
OVERALl AR&\
20NlNG DlS11UCTS
PROPOSED USE
~
"
661
In
332
TOTAL LOTS APPROVED IN P.R.D.
TOTAL LOTS PREVIOUSLY BUILT
TOTAL lOTS AVAIlABLE
1--
NOTE: ALl FUTURE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND PlATS wtll
MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 25% OPEN SPACE.
.'
\ _i
\
"
"
GRAPfDC &:IJ.E
-
{a'_'
_-_II..
COUNTY REVlSIONS
-
~EceIVED
,~t.!'J1( IN.,-r,' DEVfJ.QPMSNT
w;l1heplalhxl..\
ProDOsed Lot Mix
~
.~-
.
----
D
PRELIMINARY SCHEMATIC "D"
ARWOOD P.R
UNITED lAND CORPORATION / RYAN HOMES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
BR
l'L_
INC
THE
ENGINEERING
GROUI"E
4800 Soulhpoint PII!twlry
F~,~.220407
540-71G-5987 FlIX54(l..71l)..5ll88
n
l""
" "
rr
/
--e
'/
ATTACHMENT D
2 of 4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DepL of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire ROild
C ha;lottcsville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5323
'_'H" .~._...._~_.
fE}~f~~~lJ~~
, trH is \\r: B::- ~ ~y tL F\ _',
Mf.P. 1. 4 1995
.A-t13E.i~tm'I_'_ vv.)l"!""'
7,~N1i\rG '~! :f':\ -:-~:-;-c ,~, '\
March 23, 1992
"
Wendell Wood
Woodbriar Associates
P.o. Box 5548
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE: ZMA-91-13 Woodbriar Associates
Tax Map 32G, Parcel 1 and
Tax Map 32G, Section 3, Parcels A and 83
bear Mr. Wood:
. The Albemarle Count-y Board of Supervisors, at its meeting cn
March 18, '1992, unanimously approved the above noted request
to update and amend conditions of existing PRD to allow us~
of private',roads and to revise the application plan to show
areas for future tow~house development in Briarwood. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
.
1~ Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings subject to
conditions containej herein. Locations and acreages of
various land uses ~~all comply with the approved plan-
In the final si~e ~lan and sUbdivision process, open
space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of
"lots approved. Primary recreation areas to be owned
and maintained through a homeowners association
approved by the County Attorney. Off-street parking
and access shall be limited to the recreational area
shown on the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and
Phasing Plan revised February 7, 1992 and the means to
limit such access shall be part of the site plan
review;
2.
No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in
any area until final site plan and subdivision approval
for that area has been obtained;
....",-1.
3. Albemarle County Service Authority verification of
" '
~ ... "-:,. --.. - .... - .., - .. --
ATTACHMENT D
3 of 4
Woodbriar Associates
Page 2
March 23, 1992
4. All road plan and entrance 'plan approval shall be
obtained prior to any final site plan or subdivision
approval. All roads shall be designed and constructed
to Virginia Department of Transportation specifications
and dedicated for acceptance into the state Secondary
Road system except the private roads shown on the
Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan
with a (PR) label;
,5. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater
except as_~s necessary for road construction as
approved by the County Engineer. Any lot which is
unbuildable due, to slope shall be combined with a
buildable lot and/or added to common open space subject
to planning Commission approval;
6. Fire Official approval of fire protection system
including but not limited to: fire flow rates, hydrant
locations, and emergency access provisions. Such
system shall be provided prior to issuance of any
certificate of occupancy in the ar8a to be served;
7. Albemarle County Service Authority' approval of plans
for ~ater lines, sewer lines, pumping station, and
manho1es and appurtanances which are to be constructed
at the expense of the developer;
8. Staff approval of recreational faciJ,ities to include:
one tot lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase
1B; the dedication of open space wi,th the approval of
Phases 4 and 5 for the passive recreation area which
shall include construction ~f walking/jogging trails;
~nd, the primary recreation area south of Camelot shall
De b~ilt or bonded for its constr~c~ion prior to final
plat ap~roval for Phase 6. This recreation area shall
be built prior to completion of Phase 6 and shall
'consist of a baseball/multi-purpose field, two
basketball courts, playground equipment, and picnic
facilities. All recreation facilities shall be
installed by the developer;
9. Sidewalks shall be provided along the southerly side of
Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and
along the westerly side of the entire length of
Briarwood Drive;
10. count~ Attorney approval of amended Homeowners'
Association agreements prior to final approval of Phase
1B or 3C to include provision for maintenance of the
__ _ .: ..f' ~ J-" n -- ~ ":"'l. -- ":"
~.~ -"'-
. , '
______..._._.~_ ___0
PI. I I PI.\"'nIVII::I'~ I U
Woodbriar Associates
Page 3
March 23, 1992
.
12.
13.
14.
11. Only those areas where a structure, utilities,
pedestrian ways, recreation areas, roads, and other
improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all
other land shall remain in its natural state;
No more than two phases shall be under simultaneous
.development the development shall proceed in the
following order: Phase 3A, 3B, 3C, the completion of
Phase 7, loA, IB, .,4, 5, 6 and 8.
Lots along Camelot Drive and st. Ives Road are to be
developed with single-family detached dwellings and
shall have a fuinimum lot width of 65 feet. A:l other
lots shall~be developed with single-family attached
units including townhouses in Phases 1B and 3C;
Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for its entire
length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final
plat approval for Phase 1A. Briarwood Drive shall be
completed to its intersection with Route 29 prior to
approval of Phase lB. The eastern portion of Briarwood
Drive through the commercial area shall be designed to :
Category VI standards with a four-lane cross-section; ~
.
15.The mix of dwelling unit types shall be as shown OP the
Briarwood P.R.D. ~mended Application and Phasing Plan;
,
16. site~plan approv~ls for phases four and beyond shall be
contingent npon evidence that dwelling units in the
earlier phases have substantially met the County's
goals and the devRlopers' assurances that moderate
incom8 housing ha5 been provided:
17. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with ,
Section 32.7.9.8 al~ng the front of townhouse units
which constitute double frontage lots;
18. Adminis~rative approval of future site plans and plats
,to be in accordance with the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended
Application and Phasing Plan provided no waivers or
modifications of ordinance regulations are required.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
.
u.
,-"" .
RECE~VED
C,ilimber
of Pl~n!ng
~ -... -..., .:..... -.. - - ". .'. - .... "
Community Development
M,AR 14 lY95
Z QN \?\Ir:~ r.:.:: ~ ,', :,'-\,ic~"7
A. I I A.\.,nlvlcl" I C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296,5823
June 23, 1995
W end ell Wood
W oodbriar Associates,
P. O. Box 5548
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE: ZMA-95-05 Woodbriar Associates
Tax Map 32G, Parcell, and Tax Map 32G Section 3 Parcels A and 83
Dear Mr. Wood:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on June 14, 1995, approved as
recommended by the Planning Commission (amended agreements are outlined below) , the
above-noted requ~st for relief ofPro.ffer 12 of ZMA-91-13, Woodbriar Associates, in order to
allow relief of phasing requirement and clarification of phase completion, zoned PRD.
Agreement #12:
No more than two phases with signed site plans or subdivision plats
shall be under simultaneous development. This phasing limitation shall
not be interpreted as limiting the construction of infrastructure (roads
utilities, drainage, etc.). The development shall proceed in the .
following order: Phase 3A, 3B, 3C, the completion of Phase 7, lA, 6, 5
and 4. Phase IB may be developed following completion of Phase lA. Phase
8 shall not be subject to the phasing order. A phase shall be considered
complete for purposes of satisfying phasing requirements when the following is
complete:
1. All public roads shown in the phase have been given final inspection by the Virginia
Departm~nt of Transportation (VDOT) Charlottesville Residency. A complete
assembly package has been submitted to the residency. The maintenance fee has been
paid and the one-year VDOT performance bond has been posted;
1"'\ I I l"'\\JnIVII::,I'f I 1....
/
.
Page 2
June 23, 1995
2. All private roads shown in the phase have been completed to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer and all road bonds have been released;
3. All necessary water and sewer lines shall have been installed and dedicated with the
exception of individual connections.
t
Agreement #8:
Staff approval ofrecreational facilities to include: one tot lot with Phase 3C and one tot
lot with Phase 1 B; the dedication of open space with the approval of Phases 4 and 5 for
the passive recreational area which shall include construction ofwalking/jogging trails;
and, the primary recreation area south of Camelot shall be built or bonded for its
construction prior to final plat approval of Phase 4. This recreational area shall be built
prior to completion of Phase 4 and shall consist of a baseball/multi-purpose field, two
basketball courts, playgroup equipment and picnic facilities. All recreation facilities shall
. be installed by the developer.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
, .
VWC/jcw
cc: Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Lee Catlin
.
PI. I I Pl.L;HMI::N I )-
Nov 16. 04 05: 27p
Original Proffer
Arnended Proffer-
(Amendment # ~
PROFFER FORM
Date: 11/16/04
ZMA# 2004-14
Tax Map 3Ild Parcel Number(s) 32G
pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested 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.
Acres to be rezoned from
to
Woodbriar Associates Limited Partnership requests the following proffer condition wnendments be considered for approval:
PROFFER# 1 amending AgJeelllCnt 12 ofZMA-95-05
SimultaneOus Ikwolopment of phllSCS with signed site plans or subdivision plats msy occur for the remaining phases of
development, identified as Phases lA (subphase 3 & 4) lB, 4,.5, 6, & 8 as shown on the Application Plan dated November 17.
2004. Briarwood Drive shall be constIUCted to Route 29, as shown on the Application plBn dated November 17,2004, prior to
commencing Phase 4. 5 or 6.
PROFFER# 2 amending AgrecmCDt 13 ofZMA 91-13
Lots along Camelot Drive DllIY be developed with townhouse units.
Woodbriar Associates Limited partnership
, ~ /-,~~. --,//..."j,,//y///4/. ttJt/'~c/
ir~~~1i(~e;s .r'E1~~~Egt ::~.:Printed Names of All Owners Geiler al Date J.l/16 / 04
Partner
OR
Signature of Attomey-in-Fact
(Attach Proper power of Attorney)
Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
one of two
I"'\. I I 1"\ V n.vlt:. I" I t'"
Nov 16 04 05:27p
.
PROFFER # 3 amending Agreement L5 of ZMA 91-13
The mix. of units permitted in eHch phase is hereby modified from the Briarwood p, R. D. Amended Application P11III to reflect
tlle revised unit types permitted in each phase.
E-n!lon2 Lot Mix
Phase TV! e ofDwellinlZ Unit Totals
SFD Duplex Townhouse
lA - 98 - 98
lB - - 53 53
2 - 96 - 96
3 (ABC) - 72 37 109*
4 - 66 - 66
5 - 70 - 70
6 - 30 - 30
7 - 78 - 78
8 32 20 - 52
TOTALS 32 530 90 652
Lots to be added by
Ray Beard Property TM-32-E-2
4
656
------------
Lots to be added in final engineering
5
661
II< Lots 97 & 98 are included in the phase 3 total but will be platted at a later date,
-------
Pro Doted Lot Mix
Phase Tvoe ofDwelliM Unit Totals
SFD SPA T oWJlhouse
Lots Lots Lots
1A 28 - 22 50
1A (Existing SubPhase 1 & - 48 - 48
2)
IB 15 - 31 46
2 CExlstinJI:) - 96 - 96
3, 3A, 3B,3C - 70 37 107
, .
4 52 - - 52
5 18 - - 18
6 31 . - 31
7 CExiStiJU~.) - 78 - 78
g - - 135 135
TOTALS 144 292 225 661
PROFFER #4
.
It is finther proffered that the owner shall provide 25 units of affordable housing (for sale townhouses) with the construction
of Phases lA (subphase 3 & 4) IB, 4, 5, 6, & 8, as identified on the application Plan, dated November 17,2004. The owner shall
convey the responsibility of construction the affordable units to ll1lY subsequent purchaser of the subject property, The current
owner or subsequent owner shall create units affordable to households with incomes less than 80% of the area median income
such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed 30% of
the gross household income, All purchasers of these units shall be approved by the Albemarle 0:lunty Housing Office or its
designee. The ownerlbuilder shall provide the County or its designee B period of90 days to identify and prequalifY an eligible
purchaser for the affordable lUlits. The 90 day period shall commence upon written notice from the owner that the units will be
available for sale. nus notice shall not be given more than 60 days prior to anticipated receipt of the certificate {Jf occupancy, If
the County of its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during this period, the owner shall have the right to sell the
unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of purchaser,
page 20f2
.
ZMA 2004-00014 Briarwood (Sign #17) - Request to rezone 123.612 acres from PRO (Planned
Residential District) to PRO (Planned Residential District) to amend the proffers of ZMA 1991-
00013 and ZMA 1995-0005. The property, described as Tax Map 32G, Parcels 1, 3-A and 3-83
is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Seminole Trail (Route 29) at the intersection of
Seminole Trail and Austin Drive (Route 1575), The Comprehensive Plan designates this property
as Neighborhood Density Residential in the Piney Mountain Community, (Tarpley Gillespie)
.
Ms. Gillespie summarized the staff report, The applicant is requesting an amendment to the
existing proffers for the Briarwood development which were approved as part of ZMA-1991-13
and ZMA-1995-05 in order to allow a change in their phasing requirements and a change in the
unit mix for the development. They are also proposing several changes to the Application Plan
that was approved previously related to the unit type as well as the road layout for the
development. Attachment B shows the existing approved Application Plan for Briarwood with
notations showing the proposed new maximum number of units and unit types for each phase.
That is the first plan on the wall in the back. Attachment C shows the actual Application Plan for
which they are seeking approval. That is the second plan on the wall. The proposed new
application plan was received by Planning Staff after the normal review period had ended for this
Commission hearing date (11/18/2004) and has not received a complete review by the time the
County staff published this staff report, Staff has not received an internal staff review or a review
from VDOT at the time of the Commission's staff report, Staff has since received comments from
the internal staff as well as VDOT. Those comments were distributed to the Commission this
evening. (Attachment - Letter dated December 7, 2004 addressed to Wendell W, Wood from
Tarpley Vest Gillespie) These comments were first available today, Those comments were also
shared with the applicant at this point. As noted in the staff report, staff cannot recommend
approval until the outstanding issues have been addressed and until that review had been
complete, There were a large number of outstanding issues identified in this latest round of
comments. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval at this time either. Staff's desire would
be for the applicant to respond to these comments, revise and supplement the application
materials to address each one of their comments and then go forward. The Commission is under
an obligation to act on this project within 90 days of the submittal. There was one request for
deferral from the applicant previously, However, the Commission will need to act on this
application either tonight or at next Tuesday's meeting. Considering the short time period
between tonight and next Tuesday it is not practical for the applicant to address these comments
between now and then. Therefore, staff is recommending denial or they are encouraging the
applicant to seek a deferral of the application until all of the outstanding comments can be
addressed,
.
As mentioned, the application plan is seeking to amend proffers from ZMA-1995-05 and ZMA-
1991-13. They are specifically offering four proffers with this application plan, which accomplish
the amendments to the previous proffers and also offer an additional new proffer related to
affordable housing, The first proffer in this set of proffers seeks to amend proffer 12 of ZMA-
1995-05, which would allow simultaneous development of the remaining phases of Briarwood,
The applicant previously proffered that no more than two phases of development would occur at
one time. It appears that there was some concern in the past about timeliness of conclusion of
infrastructure relative to development advancing and the CO's being issued for houses, etc, At
this point in time County staff is confident in our own ordinances and our bonding practices and
our ability to ensure that the infrastructure is in place for each phase of development to stand on
its own. Therefore, staff is not longer concerned about how many simultaneous phases of
development are under construction at one time, However, staff still feels that it is important that
phase 1-B be built prior to some of the later phases. That is because phase 1-B provides the
Briarwood Drive connection out to the stop light at the National Ground Intelligence Center, Staff
feels that phase of Briarwood Drive to the stop light is an important before all of these other new
units are put into place, Staff asked the applicant to commit to building that phase and he did so
in the form of a proffer, Staff is comfortable with the first proffer in the packet.
1
Mr. Edgerton stated that staff indicated in the staff report that the new application plan was
received after the review period had ended. Therefore, he asked why the clock was ticking if the
information that was required for the application was not submitted in a timely manner, If you are
suggesting that they need to address many, many issues as identified in the information that the
Commission has just received why are they going ahead with this discussion at this point. He
asked why they don't they wait until they have a complete project in front of them.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the clock was running because it was a complete application even
though staff had not received all of the information. He pointed out that Zoning had determined
that the application was complete.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was not a statutory requirement that the applicant have these
comments in by a certain point in time to a degree satisfactory to staff because there is always
the alternative for the Commission to deny based on not having had issues addressed. That is
an action which is within the 90 days, He stated that he did not think that the Commission would
be asked to address all of those things that were commented on by the review staff. Staff
suggests that those things be addressed by the applicant and then come back to the
Commission, which would require the applicant to request a deferral. But in the absence of the
applicant requesting the deferral to address those things that were identified, then the
Commission has the option of denial.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he would prefer deferring the request until they have all of the
information. He pointed out that the way the information was distributed had made it very difficult
for him to figure out what he was looking at, specifically on the graphics. He suggested that
instead of spending a lot of time discussing this that they ought to invite the applicant up and see
if he wants to request a deferral.
Mr. Thomas agreed with everything that he was saying, but that they have to go through the
procedure for the public hearing.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it has been advertised for a public hearing. Therefore, they would have
to receive public comment. But, the Commission could invite the applicant to come up now,
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission did not have to receive the rest of the staff report.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he would prefer to postpone the rest of the staff report particularly
because of the new information.
Mr. Thomas questioned what the Commission could accomplish. At this time he opened the
public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Wendell Wood stated that he would like to make a statement about the deferral. Briarwood has
been a development since 1986 in this community, It has been called one of the most successful
developments in the community providing affordable housing. If the Commission would read the
comments from Ms. Gillespie and Mr. Shepherd they would find that they both like what they are
doing. They started this one year ago, Ms, Gillespie was not the staff person at that time. There
was another staff member who worked on this project for six months, who has since left the
County. That certainly has put this project behind. In fourteen years this is the first year that they
have not had production in Briarwood Subdivision. There have been 350 houses built They did
this trying to get closer to what the County wants in mixed use development. Briarwood was
approved as 660 single-family attached lots in 1982. Today that is probably not the best
development for that area. It has been a very successful affordable housing project. They have
had two supervisors live there, They have had three planning commission members live there.
They have had a number of police officers and teachers who live there to this day. It has been a
success, If the Commission would read Ms, Gillespie's and Mr. Shepherd's comments it would
be very clear that they have agreed with everything that they are doing, They are simply here
2
.
now after one year of not being able to continue this development. They are not asking for any
new houses, They are only changing the mix of these houses. If the Commission will just give
them a chance tonight he felt that they would be able to see the issues that are being resolved,
They just received new information this afternoon at 4:30 p,m., but they don't view that those
issues contain anything that anybody will have any problem with, But, time is money. They have
one year's production lost in the best housing market in this County for affordable housing, It was
not their fault. He pointed out that they started one year ago and here they are tonight being
asked to defer again. If they miss this building season it will go into two years, There is one issue
in here if they chose to make them do then this case will not be heard for another six months. He
stated that he was prepared to explain why that request was not well thought out because it was
something that they have already done, He asked that the Commission allow them to respond to
a few of these things on why they don't want a deferral. Then, he felt that they would agree with
them that this was not a detriment to this County. He stated that this afternoon that Ms. Gillespie
said that they want to do this. It is a matter of red tape when you talk about the alignment of the
road as shown on the plan. If you read staffs report she likes the new design, He pointed out
that the design takes that traffic to an existing traffic light. They are not adding any new units.
There is nothing new that will happen, There were 661 lots approved and there were only 5
additional lots, which would not change a traffic pattern. Not only is it an improvement, but it
takes all of that traffic to an existing traffic light as opposed to a road that has not light. Therefore,
it is a better situation, He felt that the people looking at this have not thought of that and have
said that a study needs to be done, He pointed out that if they had to do a traffic study that they
would not be before the Commission for at least six more months. Unfortunately, they have to
continue on. If they cannot continue on, then they will just do what they can do by right. They can
continue to go in there and build these 660 units, They have already built 330 of these units,
But, staff unanimously says that this is a better program and it meets your DISC study much
better than what is there, He stated that there was absolutely no disagreement on this. He
commended Ms, Gillespie for her assistance on this, The traffic would now go to a traffic light.
.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the applicant has not answered his question about requesting a deferral.
He stated that the Commission was going to have to make a decision tonight for denial or
deferral. He pointed out that Mr. Wood was in the driver's seat regarding the request for the
deferral. He stated that he had reviewed all of the materials except for the new information
distributed tonight.
Mr. Wood apologized for getting off track, He requested that the Commission go forward with the
review of the application,
Mr, Thomas stated that Mr, Wood's answer was no that he did not want a deferral. He stated that
they would proceed with the review, He opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to
address the Commission,
.
Wendell Wood stated that if the Commission went through the report that staff agreed with them
on everything, He stated that he would like to address the new requirements that staff would like
for them to do, which was listed in the new information from Ms, Gillespie received this afternoon.
Number 1 says that the 11/17/04 plan shows the removal of connection between Briarwood Drive
Phase 4 and St. Ives Road. Staff is concerned about the loss of this interconnection, Please
either revise your plan to show this interconnection, or provide a justification for its removal. He
stated that they would like to have it removed. The approved connection was done 17 years ago,
At this time there is a traffic light on Route 29. When that plan was approved there was no traffic
light there, This is the plan that you heard Ms, Gillespie speak to tonight stating that she
requested that road to be built before they do the back section. They agreed to that. There is a
traffic light today at that intersection that was not there when this plan was approved 15 years
ago, The traffic light was installed within the last 2 years, They have agreed to build that section
of the road first. Therefore, all of that traffic, which would go out on St. Ives Road through an
existing neighborhood that opposed the request 15 years ago, would not go out at a traffic light
on Route 29. There are 5 new lots in this subdivision, Therefore, there would not be a difference
3
in traffic. Number 2, staff recommends that the application plan be revised to show Camelot
Drive extended to connect to Phase 1A of Briarwood. That was part of the proffer that when this
plan got approved Camelot residents did not want a connection there. Therefore, they honored
that with one of their proffers, They are honoring what their neighbors requested of them. Number
3, staff notes that the road layout of Phases 5 & 6 has been modified from the previous plan. If
the Commission will look at the old plan and the new plan for phases 5 & 6 you will see that there
is not much difference. Staff requests that they show the Resource Protection Area, It is shown
on the old plan, but is not outlined in the new plan. They are well aware that they cannot develop
in the Resource Protection Area. They don't intend to ask to develop in that area. Therefore, they
do not see that as an issue. They know that they will not develop in the Resource Protection
Area and they will comply with that ordinance. Number 4, with the existing Briarwood
development there is a sidewalk on one side of the public streets. The plan does not indicate
where sidewalks curb and gutter, or street trees are proposed on the new plan. That is part of
their site plan. They will add that to their proffer that they will continue to put in sidewalks. They
have done that throughout the development and don't intend to stop. Those are the new issues
that came up tonight. If you go down through it the Commission will see that these comments are
unchanged, When this started there were several people at the County that did not think that
they needed to come back before the Commission. But, the reason that they had to change it to
a rezoning was because of the proffer. The real issue here and the only thing that they are talking
about is the proffer that they are changing regarding the townhouses on Section 8 as opposed to
single-family houses and bringing the road and taking all of that traffic to the traffic light as
opposed to taking it up on Camelot Drive, That is something that the Camelot residents have
asked them not to do, They have now made a connection and all of that traffic comes to a
controlled traffic light on Route 29, which is something on other projects that they make everyone
do, If you look at Phase 1-A on their existing plan you will see two cul-de-sacs. On the new plan
that road is connected, If you read Ms. Gillespie's response to that issue, she thinks that is
positive, If you read her response to everything, she states that everything is a benefit to this
land by staffs own recognition. Therefore, they don't think that there is an issue regarding the
roads, This is affordable housing, They can't wait another six months. He stated that Mr. Brooks
indicates that they might need a traffic study because of not having the road connect to St. lves
Road. There is no new housing. There will be not be any traffic going from Camelot to Briarwood
because that traffic is leaving this development and getting on to Route 29 at a controlled traffic
light. People will be leaving those two subdivisions going to Route 29 and 80 percent of the time
coming to Charlottesville. Therefore, they would not ride a mile north to do that because they
would be going to the traffic light. This is affordable housing and he would like to be viewed in
light of that. He asked that they look at their record. This has been a very successful
neighborhood. He pointed out that they do not charge a homeowner's association fee, They have
built and maintained the play areas with no fees, He stated that their request was to go forward
because they have been working on this for over a year,
Mr. Morris asked what percentage of their current housing is affordable housing.
Mr. Wood stated that they built 320 units and there were only 5 that went above the affordable
housing. There were 312 units that meet the guidelines of affordable housing.
Mr. Craddock asked if phase 8 townhouses would come out through Camelot.
Mr. Wood stated that they would go back to the traffic light on Route 29. On the old plan the
traffic from phase 8 townhouses went through Camelot.
Ms. Higgins stated that as she understood that he did not want to comply with items 1 and 2 if
they were added as conditions.
Mr. Wood stated that they would like to take that off.
4
.
.
.
Ms. Higgins stated that they would like to do away with those two connections. She asked if there
would be a provision to allow pedestrian connections at those locations in lieu of a vehicular
connection,
Mr. Wood stated yes that she was correct. He pointed out that they were showing a 25 acre
recreation area and at the time of the site plan they will show a walking trail as to how to get
there. That was already provided for in their existing plan, but they have just not gotten down to
those phases.
Ms. Higgins stated that if all of these items were clear conditions of a recommendation and would
become part of a site plan that he would have no problem with that and would comply with them.
Mr. Wood stated that was correct. He felt that they could look at this and impose the conditions
that they were looking at as a condition of approval. He stated that they were willing to accept
that. They also believe that they can have all of those items on a plan for the County within a
week. They are all very simple things to put on a plan, He stated they could provide all of this on
a plan before it goes to the Board of Supervisors,
Mr, Thomas invited public comment regarding this request. There being no one, he closed the
public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and a possible
action.
Mr. Edgerton apologized to the Commissioners for taking this off track. He stated that he would
now like to ask Ms. Gillespie to give the staff report that she was trying to give. He stated that he
was still having a great deal of difficulty when a plan is not received until November 18 on how
they could have a 90-day deadline hanging over them. He stated that he would have to defer to
the legal opinion on that.
Ms, Gillespie stated that the second proffer in their submittal package relates to an amendment to
proffer 13 of ZMA-1991-13, which allowed the lots along Camelot Drive to be developed as
townhouse units. This section of Briarwood along Camelot Drive is referred to as phase 8 in the
application plan. The current plan calls for 32 single-family detached units and 20 duplex units.
Staff has no problem with the change in the unit type at this particular location, but they do note
that on the application plan there is the proposed change in the connection which has already
been partially addressed here. Staff feels that proposed change in the access in phase 8 coming
off of Briarwood Drive rather than Camelot Drive could provide a benefit to this development.
However, staff really has not had a complete analysis even today of the impacts of that. In the
comments received today from the engineer, they requested a traffic analysis. They did not
request a full blown traffic study, but a traffic analysis to look at the redistribution of traffic as a
result of this change in access. The other concern that they have in the planning about this phase
and the changes to this phase is that the applicant indicated verbally, even though it is not
indicated on the plan, that the townhouses would be oriented towards this new access road off of
Briarwood Drive, Therefore, the rear of the townhouses would face Camelot Drive, Currently, the
character of Camelot Drive has single-family houses along the south side of Camelot Drive and
staff is concerned about the aesthetic impacts of the town houses being oriented towards this
new road with the rear being oriented to Camelot Drive. They really don't have any information
on how that is going to work out at this point. The applicant has mentioned that he will provide
screening and a buffer, but has not really provided any details on that.
The third proffer seeks to amend the unit types and the maximum unit numbers in each of the
remaining phases, The proposed changes would result in a total increase in units from 657 to
661, That is for Briarwood in total. Staff does not think that an increase of 4 units is really going
to have any significant impact on the development. Staff feels that the change in unit mix will
probably have a positive impact on the development rather being so dominated by duplex units,
Therefore, staff supports that change. The fourth
5
The fourth proffer commits the applicant to providing 25 units of affordable housing with the
construction of the remaining phases, This proffer came out of the conversation with the Chief of
Housing and the applicant. The applicant did exactly what was asked of him by the County.
Therefore, staff does support this proffer as well and thank him for his commitment to affordable
housing in Briarwood, There are several notable changes to the application plan, which are
summarized in the staff report. They have already been touched on briefly, but they pretty much
relate to the reconfiguration of the roads in Briarwood. There is that change to Phase 8 that they
have talked about. In phase 1-A on the existing plan there are two cul-de-sacs which have been
interconnected into an existing road. Staff feels that is a positive development in terms of it
achieving interconnections within Briarwood, More significantly in phases 5 and 6 the road
configuration has changed and the cul-de-sacs seem to be jetting out further towards the
Resource Protection Area and the river. Staff has very little information at this time about the
location of the floodplain, whether or not there are any critical slopes and whether or not there is
any encroachment on the stream buffer, Therefore, staff is concerned about that change, In
today's comments from engineering you will note that engineering recommends that the roads in
those phases extend no further out towards the Resource Protection Area than they do on the
approved plan. That is an outstanding concern that may be addressed with additional information
from the applicant or there may be a need for waivers that have not been identified tonight. That
is a pretty serious concern of staff's at this point in time. Engineering's recommendation to the
applicant is that they revise the plan so as not to extend any farther.
Ms. Higgins stated that the applicant would have to come in with a site plan regarding all of these
sections. Their site plan approval would be predicated on those conditions of waiver being met at
that time.
Ms. Gillespie stated that they could seek the waivers at a later date, The applicant does not have
to seek the waiver at this time.
Ms. Higgins stated that they would not seek a waiver now because they have not identified
whether they need a waiver. But, the Commission would still have the request back before us to
address that issue along with the curb and gutters, sidewalks, etc. that would be shown on the
site plan if it was a condition, She stated that those items are not always shown on a rezoning
plan,
Ms, Gillespie stated that it was an outstanding concern in assessing this particular change right
now,
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this was a rezoning request and the Commission could impose
conditions. It would have to either be shown on the application plan or proffered, He stated that
was worth understanding as they made their decision, That is one of the reasons why staff has
covered this ground. If it is not established in the application plan or by proffer in the zoning
action, then it cannot be conditioned.
Ms. Higgins stated that it could be a denial with conditions that if they are met.
Mr. Kamptner stated that they could recommend changes to the plan that would bring it into
compliance.
Ms. Gillespie pointed out that there were features on the existing approved plan which do not
appear on the proposed plan, such as the Resource Protection Area. For future enforceability of
this plan, the application plan becomes the zoning for this property and it is really important to the
staff that all of the features that are intended to remain on the plan be shown on the plan prior to it
being acted on by the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors. Staff analyzed this plan
against the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this for Neighborhood
Density Residential in the Piney Mountain Community. The proposal generally meets the
designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff did note that the Comprehensive Plan provides
guidance on the issue of expanding existing subdivisions. It clearly states that new development
6
.
.
.
within an existing subdivision shall be in keeping with the character and the density of the existing
development. New subdivisions are to be developed at higher density and in keeping with the
Neighborhood Model. Staff reviewed the proposal in the spirit of this recommendation from the
Comprehensive Plan, Therefore, staff did recommend a wholesale redesign of Briarwood to
meet the Neighborhood Model. Staff was comfortable with the applicant continuing with the
general form of development that you see out there today, But, staff did recognize opportunities
to improve the development and move it closer towards some of the goals in the Neighborhood
Model. Therefore, staff did go ahead and analyze the proposal against the Neighborhood Model.
Staff noted that the existing phases of Briarwood have curb and gutter and sidewalks on one side
of the street. This was done voluntarily by the applicant without proffer, The new plan does not
indicate one way or the other of the intention of curb and gutter or sidewalks. Staff recommends
that he commit to curb and gutter and sidewalks on both sides of the street in the form of a
proffer. The applicant has indicated to staff verbally a willingness to proffer sidewalks on one side
of the street, which would be consistent with what is already out there today in the existing
phases, They have talked a lot about the interconnections. There are examples where
interconnections have been strengthened by the proposal, which include the two cul-de-sacs
being alleviated and the connection of phase 8 into Briarwood. They have lost the interconnection
between phase 4 and St. Ives Drive, which is of concern to staff. Staff also feels that there is a
missed opportunity for an interconnection between Camelot Drive and phase 1A. Regarding the
parks and open space, staff has mentioned several times that the Resource Protection Area is
not shown on the proposed application plan, It is noted on the approved plan as our passive
recreational area to consist of walking and jogging trails. Staff would like to see those clearly
delineated on the plan prior to its adoption. They also raised the question of pedestrian access to
those areas and they would like to see the applicant provide some more detail on how those
areas will be accessed and make a commitment to their access. Briarwood has been developed
to date as an affordable housing development. Nearly all of the units in Briarwood have met their
criteria for affordable housing, The applicant has willingly proffered that at least 25 units of the
new phases will be affordable and will be available to a preferred list of buyers from Albemarle
County to make sure that the units go into the hands of those in need of affordable housing and
not investors. Staff is very pleased with that aspect of the proposal. Regarding site planning that
respects terrain, staff has mentioned some outstanding questions about those upper phases and
the need for more information in order to clarify any potential impacts to Natural Resources in that
area, In regard to impacts on public facilities and services, staff talked a little about the impacts
on transportation. The addition of four units will probably be nominal over all in terms of impacts
on schools or a physical impact on the County, However, there is this reconfiguration within the
development that might have transportation impacts and engineering has requested additional
information in order to ensure that all of those impacts are fully addressed. Regarding storm
water management, staff would also like to get that clarification on those upper phases of
development in order to ensure that there are no new impacts on the storm water development
prior to moving forward.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1, The proposal will provide affordable housing within the designated Development Areas.
2. The proposed change in unit types will create a better mixture of unit types within
Briarwood, one of the principles of the neighborhood model.
3. The proposed changes to Phase 1 A of the Application Plan will create one additional
internal interconnection,
4, The applicant has committed, in the form of a proffer, to construct Briarwood Drive to
Route 29 prior to commencing with phases 4, 5, 6, thus ensuring the appropriately
sequenced construction of a second access to Route 29,
Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1, The proposed application plan was not submitted until after the normal review period had
ended. Comments from reviewers have just been received and the applicant has not had
7
a chance yet to respond to those comments and revise his submittal appropriately.
2. An interconnection between Briarwood and Camelot seems to be lost with the proposed
changes to Phase 4 on the Application Plan.
3. It is unclear what the proposed orientation of buildings along Camelot Drive in Phase 8
will be.
4. The proposed application plan does not show the existing resource protection area.
5, The proposed application plan does not provide access to the open spaces on the plan.
6, At this time, no commitment has been made to the streetscape of the remaining phases,
including a commitment to curb and gutter and sidewalks,
Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval at this time, Unless the applicant requests deferral,
the Planning Commission must act on this item tonight or next week. Staff does not see any real
purpose to deferring to next week. That would not really give the applicant a chance to respond
to these concerns in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the
application plan at this time. However, if the Planning Commission is so inclined staff could
support approval of phase 1 B, That would necessitate the applicant requesting the approval of
just phase 1 B. There are really no outstanding issues related to phase 1 B, That is an important
phase of the interconnectivity of the development. Therefore, staff could support approval of that
given that the applicant requested it and the application plan and the proffers were revised prior
to the Board hearing.
Ms. Joseph moved to recommend denial of ZMA-2004-0014, Briarwood, based on the items
outlined by staff as follows:
1 . The proposed application plan was not submitted until after the normal review period
ended. Therefore, staff and VDOT have not had adequate time to review changes to the
plan, including the proposed access changes to Phase 8 and new internal road
configuration on Phases 1 A,S, and 6,
2, An interconnection between Briarwood and Camelot seems to be lost with the proposed
changes to Phase 4 on the Application Plan.
3. It is unclear what the proposed orientation of buildings along Camelot Drive in Phase 8
will be.
4, The proposed application plan does not show the existing resource protection area.
5, The proposed application plan does not provide access to the open spaces on the plan.
6, At this time, no commitment has been made to the streetscape of the remaining phases,
including a commitment to curb and gutter and sidewalks,
Mr, Edgerton seconded the motion.
Ms. Higgins asked if those were on a list under denial then before the Board meeting those could
be addressed.
Mr. Rieley stated that he did not think that they could make a list because they simply don't have
staff analysis of the information that relates to things like the interconnectivity.
Ms. Higgins asked if they could separate phase 1 B.
Mr. Rieley stated that phase 1 B might be able to be separated with the caveat that staffs
recommendation for sidewalks on both sides, which was something that they could express their
opinion about. He opposed sending the Board a signal that if the applicant does a, b, and c that
they think this proposal is okay, They don't have any idea whether it is okay because they don't
have the information to go on.
8
.
Ms. Joseph stated that the major concern was that this has not been properly reviewed by staff.
They have set up a paid professional staff to give them recommendations for these. She felt very
uncomfortable when they don't get these professional recommendations and then get information
on the night of the meeting that they were suppose to process. Going though these items one by
one like in a site review meeting made her feel very uncomfortable because she expected to have
staff's opinion,
Mr. Rieley stated that there was a lot to commend this proposal. He felt that the addition of
townhouses is a positive thing if the configuration is a positive one. But, they don't know whether
it is or not at this point. The role that this development has played in the past and will play in the
future in meeting the affordable housing needs is really significant. He felt that the fact that the
people who live there don't have to pay a homeowner's association fee is terrific and really
significant. Therefore, he was very supportive of this in a general way, but wished that they had
the information before them so that they could act on it positively, But, the request is full of holes
and they rely heavily on the information that they get from the staff. It is very apparent when they
don't have it.
Mr. Thomas asked if it would be fair way to treat this application if they deny the request and use
staff's checklist to note the deficiencies, but not call them conditions,
.
Mr. Edgerton asked why they were working so hard to abandon their process. He asked if it was
because of the affordable housing or the mix of uses, Mr. Wood has made a very positive pitch
about that. He stated that he would welcome a true mixture of units and true affordable housing,
but it was a big stretch to say that he was moving towards the Neighborhood Model in other areas
as far as transportation. They have a very limited application plan in front of them. Staff has
brought up a lot of real issues, He pointed out that there were very significant items missing from
this proposal. He stated that he could not see how they could just ignore the process that they
require everybody else in the County to follow.
Mr. Rieley stated that the difficulty that he had in sending the proposal along with
recommendations is that the checklist would simply be the analysis. What is missing here is
being able to make a determination about the pluses and minuses of the connection to St. Ives
Drive, Certainly a simple traffic study is not an unreasonable thing to request for this kind of
recommendation. He felt that this should just be a denial.
Ms, Joseph stated that she based her motion for denial on the major issues that have not been
properly reviewed by staff.
Mr. Rieley agreed with Ms. Joseph.
Ms. Joseph stated that she was not implying that this goes to the Board and if everything that was
listed was corrected that it would be okay, The major concern is that this has not been reviewed
properly by staff,
Mr, Rieley stated that they don't have the information to make the decision because they have no
staff review.
The motion carried by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Thomas stated that the motion carried to recommend denial of ZMA-2004-00014, Briarwood,
which would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on January 12, 2004. The applicant has the
option of going forward to the Board of Supervisors or bringing it back to the Planning
Commission,
.
9
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 2004-014
ITEM
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
ZMA - Request
Request to rezone 123.612 acres from PRD
(Planned Residential District) to PRD (Planned
Residential District) to amend the proffers of ZMA
91-13 and ZMA 95-5 and to amend the Application
Plan. The property, described as Tax Map 32G
Parcel 1 , Tax Map 32G Section3 Parcel A and Tax
Map 32G Section 3 Parcel 83 is located in the
Rivanna Magisterial District on Seminole Trail
(Route 29) at the intersection of Seminole Trail and
Austin Drive (Route 1575). The Comprehensive
Plan designates this property as Neighborhood
Density Residential in the Piney Mountain
Community. (Attachment A is the location map.)
STAFF CONTACnSl: Ms. Gillespie, Mr.Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE:
NUMBERS:
Planning Commission,
Board of Supervisors,
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
Yes -
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
REVIEWED BY:
December 7, 2004
January 12,2005
Attached to this memorandum is a revised Application Plan with a cover letter from the applicant.
This information was received by Planning staff on the afternoon of January 6, 2005. At the request
of the applicant, this information is being forwarded on to the Board of Supervisors. However, the
staff has not had the opportunity to provide the Board with any review or analysis of this information.
ATTACHMENT
-, '"I"'-f"'-'! - ~
,....-~ -' - -. --- -. - - ---------
---- .........
Tile Engilleeril1g GrC)Llpe
I 11l'.
TO:
Tarpley Vest Gillespie, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of
Community Development
FROM:
Bruce Reese, P.E., L.S. ~
Kevin D. Shreiner, LSIT \~
DATE:
January 5, 2005
RE:
ZMA-2004-014 Briarwood
Responses to Comments
Dear Tarpley,
Regarding your most recent memo, revision date December 29,2004, below is a short list
of responses to the comments that The Engineering Groupe (EGG) has responded to as
they relate to the plans. I have spoken with the developer, Mr. Wood, and he has assured
me that all other comments have been addressed by him in the form of Proffer
resolutions.
Responses for Comment #7:
The two notes on the original plan have been removed and replaced with the
wording as requested in your comment.
The note on the original plan regarding lots 97 & 98 has been "X" out as requested
in your comment.
The note stating, "In instances where there is conflict between these two parts of the
plan, the original plan, dated October 18, 1991 and revised, shall be the controlling
document," has been added to the NEW plan as requested in your comment.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional copies of the plans.
Thank you.
Cc: Wendell Wood
Bill Adair
Skip Groupe
..;.": (II \ '-.,
:'1
" \ ' ; I ~ : I \ -, II .:.. t) :; =-, t I I i I .:. l! ,-..: ," t
:1",
, .: !, \ \, \, ,l' : ~ ~'_ ,~: I' ( ) , 1 I' l' , \.- I ) 111