HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-13
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TENTATIVE
JULY 13, 2005
6:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 241
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1 . Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. Consent Agenda (on next page).
6. ZT A-1999-006. Special Events. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Sec 3.1, Definitions;
amend Sec 4.12.6, Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses; amend Sec
10.2.2, By special use permit; add Sec 5.1.43, Special events; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec 3.1, Definitions, to add a definition of
"special events," which would be one- to three-day events such as meetings, conferences,
banquets, weddings, dinners and private parties; amend Sec 4.12.6, Minimum number of required
parking spaces for scheduled uses, to provide the minimum number of parking spaces required
for special events; amend Sec 10.2.2, By special use permit, to allow special events in the Rural
Areas zoning district by special use permit; and add Sec 5.1.43, Special events, to establish
supplementary regulations pertaining to the prerequisites for and the operation of special events,
including a regulation that attendance at special events would be by invitation or reservation only
and not 150 persons.
7. ZMA-2005-009. Briarwood (SiQns #89.92&94) Public hearing on a request to rezone approx
124 acs from PRD to Residential (PRD) w/proffers to modify the application plan for the Briarwood
PRD to change bldg separation requirements & to establish yards & setbacks. The lands
proposed for rezoning are at the intersec of Seminole Trail & Austin Dr (Rt 1575). TM 32G, P1,
TM 32G Sec 3 P A & TM 32G Sec 3 P 83. (The Comp Plan designates these lands as
Neighborhood Density providing for general usage as residential & recommended for 3-6 du/ac.
The Zoning Ord provides that the general usage w/in the PDR zoning district permits a variety of
residential uses, together with certain uses ancillary thereto that are compatible with & to not
detract from one another or from surrounding districts.) Rivanna Dist.
8. Update: Subdivision Ordinance - Overlot Grading.
9. Discussion: FY 2006 Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Funding.
10. Appointment: Commission on Children and Families.
11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
12. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Approval of Minutes: August 4, and August 11, 2004; and February 2, March 9, and
March 23A, 2005.
5.2 Record RetentionlDestruction of Records: Authorization to dispose of Tax Records.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.3 2005 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Community Development.
5.4 Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FINAL
JULY 13, 2005
6:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 241
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. Consent Agenda (on next page).
6. ZT A-1999-006. Special Events. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Sec 3.1, Definitions;
amend Sec 4.12.6, Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses; amend Sec
10.2.2, By special use permit; add Sec 5.1.43, Special events; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec 3.1, Definitions, to add a definition of
"special events," which would be one- to three-day events such as meetings, conferences,
banquets, weddings, dinners and private parties; amend Sec 4.12.6, Minimum number of required
parking spaces for scheduled uses, to provide the minimum number of parking spaces required
for special events; amend Sec 10.2.2, By special use permit, to allow special events in the Rural
Areas zoning district by special use permit; and add Sec 5.1.43, Special events, to establish
supplementary regulations pertaining to the prerequisites for and the operation of special events,
including a regulation that attendance at special events would be by invitation or reservation only
and not 150 persons.
7. ZMA-2005-009. Briarwood (SiQns #89.92&94) Public hearing on a request to rezone approx
124 acs from PRD to Residential (PRD) w/proffers to modify the application plan for the Briarwood
PRD to change bldg separation requirements & to establish yards & setbacks. The lands
proposed for rezoning are at the intersec of Seminole Trail & Austin Dr (Rt 1575). TM 32G, P1,
TM 32G Sec 3 P A & TM 32G Sec 3 P 83. (The Comp Plan designates these lands as
Neighborhood Density providing for general usage as residential & recommended for 3-6 du/ac.
The Zoning Ord provides that the general usage wlin the PDR zoning district permits a variety of
residential uses, together with certain uses ancillary thereto that are compatible with & to not
detract from one another or from surrounding districts.) Rivanna Dist.
8. Update: Subdivision Ordinance - Overlot Grading.
9. Discussion: FY 2006 Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Funding.
10. Appointment: Commission on Children and Families.
11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
12. Adjourn.
.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Approval of Minutes: August 4, and August 11, 2004; and February 2, March 9, and
March 23A, 2005.
5.2 Record RetentionlDestruction of Records: Authorization to dispose of Tax Records.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.3 2005 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Community Development.
5.4 Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget.
5.5 Copy of August 6,2003 Board minutes and Executive Summary, re: Cable Television
Franchise.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of July 13, 2005
July 14, 2005
AGENDA ITEMIACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order.
· Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by the
Vice-Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All BOS members
were present except Mr. Rooker. Also present
were Tom Foley, Larry Davis, and Debi Moyers.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
· There were none.
5.2 Record Retention/Destruction of Records: Finance: Proceed as directed.
Authorization to dispose of Tax Records.
· AUTHORIZED staff to dispose of tax records
for the period of July 1, 1992 through June 30,
2000.
5.3 2005 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by Community Development: Proceed as
the Department of Community Development. requested.
· Mr. Boyd said it would be beneficial to see the
first section, "Comparison of Residential
Dwelling Units by Month" broken down into
inside and outside the development area.
5.4 Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority's Tom Foley: Provide information.
Fiscal Year 2006 Budget.
· Mr. Boyd asked for information on the fund
balance and the reserves.
5.5 Copy of August 6, 2003 Board minutes and
Executive Summary, re: Cable Television
Franchise.
· Ms. Thomas said she heard from a senior County Attorney: Provide information.
citizen that if your local government makes a
request, the cable company can offer senior
citizens a discount. Mr. Davis said he would
look into it.
· Mr. Boyd asked if Board meetings could be Tom Foley: Provide information.
televised on cable without a franchise. Mr.
Foley said staff can come back with
alternatives.
6. ZTA-1999-006. Special Events. Clerk: Forward signed copy of Ordinance to
· ADOPTED ZTA-1999-006, by a vote of 5:0, as County Attorney's Office, David Benish and
recommended by the Planning Commission. Amelia McCulley.
(Attachment 1 )
7. ZMA-2005-009. Briarwood (Signs #89,92#94)
· APPROVED ZMA-2005-009, by a vote of 5:0,
to amend the application plan to show setbacks
and building separation as follows: Front
setback: 20 feet, Side setback: 6 feet, Rear
setback: 5 feet, and Building Separation: 12
feet.
8. Update: Subdivision Ordinance - Overlot Grading.
· Mark Graham provided update. Said staff will
come back in September with the working
group's final recommendation to the Board.
9. Discussion: FY 2006 Charlottesville Transit Service OMB: Proceed as directed.
(CTS) Funding.
· DISCUSSED. RECOMMENDED that the
following appropriations be brought back to the
Board on the next agenda:
· $16,430.00 for improvements to Route 5 and
Route 10.
· $16,942.00 for continuation of night service on
Route 23.
· $20,000.00, in one time funds, to support the
update of the Transit Development Plan.
· Supported staff's recommendation that the
County not provide funding to replace lost grant
funds on Route 20 due to low ridership.
10. Appointment: Commission on Children and Clerk: Prepare appointment letter, update
Families. Boards and Commissions book and notify
· APPOINTED Sara Dansey to Commission on appropriate persons.
Children and Families with said term to expire
June 30,2007.
11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Lindsay Dorrier:
· Said the reflector lights on the center line on
Route 20 to Scottsville are making a big
difference. VDOT has installed "Slow" sign age
at the Walton School entrance which will help.
Carter's Bridge is still being repaired.
Sally Thomas:
· Informed the Board about an informational
meeting being held on July 20, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
in the Main Conference Room at COB-5th
Street with DEQ representatives concerning the
Moores Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. It is
not a public hearing but open to all citizens.
Ken Boyd:
· Asked about two budget items that were set
aside while staffing was working on a proposal.
One was the continuation of health insurance
for retirees. Mr. Foley said OMB is still working
on that issue. They hope to have that
information in September.
· The requests for improvements to the Stony
Point Fire Department building. Staff is
supposed to be working on a formula on how
the County might deal with that. Mr. Foley said
staff has been through a first draft and decided
to get more input from the chiefs and captains
before coming forward to the Board. Plan to
bring it forward to the Board in September.
· Inquired about work session on Belvedere
Subdivision. Mr. Foley said the Clerk is
workinq on scheduling that.
12. Adjourn.
· The meetinç¡ was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Idjm
Attachment 1 - Ordinance ZTA-1999-006
2
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(8)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1
Sec. 4.12.6
Sec. 10.2.2
Definitions
Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
By special use permit
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.43
Special events
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1
Definitions
Special event: An event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) that is typically conducted on a single day, but
which may be conducted for up to three (3) consecutive days, for which attendance is permitted only by
invitation or reservation; special events include, but are not limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets,
dinners, weddings and private parties.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Except when alternative parking is approved as provided in section 4.12.8, the following schedule shall
apply to determine the number of required off-street parking spaces to be provided in a particular
situation. If a particular use is not scheduled, then section 4.12.7 shall apply.
Special events: One (1) space per two and one-half (2.5) participants, plus one (1) space per employee
(includes staff, caterers, musicians and vendors).
Sec. 5.1.43 Special events.
Each special event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) shall be subject to the following:
a. Eligibility and applicability. Special events may be authorized on those parcels in the
Rural Areas (RA) zoning district on which there is an existing and ongoing by-right
(section 10.2.1) primary use. A special event special use permit issued under section
10.2.2(50) and this section shall not be required for special events associated with farm
wineries or historical centers, or for events determined by the zoning administrator to be
accessory to a primary use of the parcel.
3
b. Information to be submitted with application for special use permit. In addition to any
information otherwise required to be submitted for a special use permit, each application
for a special use permit shall include the following:
1. Concept plan. A preliminary schematic plan (the "concept plan") satisfying
section 32.4.1. The concept plan shall identify the structure(s) to be used for the
special event, include the area of the structure(s) in which the proposed special
events will be conducted, the parking area, and the entrance to the site from the
street. The concept plan shall address, in particular, provisions for safe and
convenient access to and from the street, the location of the parking area, the
location of portable toilets if they may be required, proposed screening as
required by this section for parking areas and portable toilets, and information
regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site. Based on the concept
plan and other information submitted, the board of supervisors may then waive
the requirement for a site plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the
requirement of a site plan would not forward the purposes of this chapter or
otherwise serve the public interest.
2. Information from the Virginia Department of Health. The applicant shall submit
written comments from the Virginia Department of Health regarding the private
water supply and the septic disposal system that will serve the proposed special
event site, the ability of the water supply and the septic disposal system to
handle the proposed events, and the need to improve the supply or the system in
order to handle the proposed events.
3. Building and fire safety. The building official and the county department of fire
and rescue shall review and comment on the application, identifying all Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code and Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code
issues and requirements.
c. Zoning compliance clearance. The applicant shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance
prior to conducting a special event. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one
(1) or more such special events in a calendar year as follows:
1. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning compliance clearance for
more than one (1) special event if: (i) the application submitted by the applicant
includes the required information in subsection 5.1.43(c)(3) for each special
event to be covered by the zoning compliance clearance: (ii) the zoning
administrator determines that each special event is substantially similar in nature
and size; and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of
conditions that would apply to each such special event may be imposed with the
zoning compliance clearance.
2. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty (30)
days prior to the date of the first special event to be authorized by the zoning
compliance clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoning
administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the county police
department, the county building official, the county department of fire and rescue,
and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. As part of his review,
the building official shall determine whether the structure(s) proposed to be used
for the special events satisfies the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code for that use.
3. The application shall describe the nature of each special event to be authorized
by the zoning compliance clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of
each such special event, the facilities, structures to be used, and the number of
participants and support staff expect to attend each special event.
4
4. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all
conditions of the special use permit are satisfied, and imposing all conditions of
such approval required by the offices identified in subsection 5.1.43(c)(2), the
zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for one or more
special events. The validity of the zoning compliance clearance shall be
conditional upon the applicant's compliance with all requirements of the zoning
ordinance, all conditions of the approved special use permit, the approved
concept plan or site plan, and all conditions imposed by the zoning compliance
clearance.
d. Special events sites and structures. In addition to all other applicable requirements
of this chapter, special events sites and structures shall be subject to the following:
1. Structures used for special events. Each structure used for a special event shall
satisfy the following: (i) the structure shall have been in existence on the date of
adoption of this section 5.1.43, provided that this requirement shall not apply to
accessory structures less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size; (ii) the
structure shall be a lawful conforming structure and shall support or have
supported a lawful use of the property; and (iii) modifications to farm buildings or
farm structures as those terms are defined in Virginia Code § 36-97 shall allow
the structure to revert to an agricultural use, as determined by the building
official.
2. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provIsion of this chapter, the
minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side yard shall
be twenty-five feet (25) feet. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty-five (35) feet.
All yards shall be measured from structures and off-street parking areas. These
minimum yard requirements shall apply to all accessory structures established
after the effective date of this section 5.1.43 and all tents, parking areas and
portable toilets used in whole or in part to serve special events.
3. Parking. The number of off-street parking spaces for a special event shall be as
required in section 4.12.6. Notwithstanding section 4.12.15(a) through (g), the
additional parking area(s) for special events shall consist of or be constructed of
pervious materials including, but not limited to stabilized turf, approved by the
county engineer. Asphalt and impervious materials are prohibited. If the parking
area is on grass or in a field, the applicant shall reseed and restore the parking
area site as required by the zoning administrator. In addition to the requirements
of section 4.12.5, the parking area shall be onsite and screened from abutting
parcels by topography, structures or new or existing landscaping.
Notwithstanding section 4.12.16(d) and (e), the delineation of parking spaces and
the provision of bumper blocks shall not be required.
4. Water and sewer. The private water supply and septic disposal system serving a
special event shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health.
5. Streets and access. Streets serving the site shall be adequate for anticipated
traffic volume for a special event. Access from the street onto the site shall be
adequate to provide safe and convenient access to the site, and applicant shall
install all required improvements and provide adequate sight distance in order to
provide safe and convenient access.
e. Special events operations. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this
chapter, special events operations shall be subject to the following:
1. Number of participants. The number of participants at a special event at anyone
time shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons
5
2. Number of special events per year. The special use permit shall identify the
number of approved special events per calendar year, which number shall not
exceed twenty-four (24).
3. Signs. Permanent and temporary signs advertising a special event shall be
permitted as provided in sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.8.
4. Food service. No kitchen facility permitted by the Virginia Department of Health
as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may be used by
licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for
cooking food, to be served at a special event.
5. Portable toilets. If required, portable toilets are permitted on the site, provided
that they comply with the yard requirements in section 5.1.43(d)(2) and shall be
screened from that parcel and any street by topography, structures or new or
existing landscaping.
f. Prohibition of development to a more intensive use. A parcel subject to a special events
special use permit shall not be subdivided so as to create one or more parcels, including
the parent parcel, of less than twenty-one acres in size without first amending the special
use permit to expressly authorize the subdivision. If a parcel is so subdivided without first
amending the special use permit, special events shall thereafter be prohibited on the
resulting parcels unless a new special use permit is obtained.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2
By special use permit
50.
Special events (reference 5.1.43).
6
To: Members, Board of Supervisors
From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Clerk
Subject: Reading List for July 13, 2005
Date: July 7, 2005
MEMORANDUM
August 4, 2004
Pages 1-19 (end Item #9) - Mr. Dorrier
Pages 19 (begin Item #9) - end - Mr. Rooker
August 11, 2004
Mr. Bowerman
February 2, 2005
Pages 1-20 (end Item #16) - Mr. Wyant
March 9,2005
Ms. Thomas
March 23A, 2005 -
Mr. Boyd
NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO PULL YOUR MINUTES IF YOU HAVE NOT
READ THEM.
/ewc
D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Record RetentionlDestruction of Records
AGENDA DATE:
July 13, 2005
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorization to dispose of Tax Records
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Wiggans, Mss. White,
Critzer
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
~
I
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
DISCUSSION:
The Library of Virginia's Record Retention and Disposition Schedule requires that paid tax tickets be retained by the locality
for a period of five years after audit. At that time, after approval by the department head and the designated records officer
for the locality, tax tickets can be destroyed, but only after authorization from the governing body. Staff approval has been
received to destroy approximately 261 boxes of distribution records, which includes paid tax receipts for the period of July
1, 1992 through June 30, 2000.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests authorization from the Board to dispose of the above referenced records.
05.085
·
2005
FIRST QUARTER
BüiLûiNG REPORT
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
Office of Geographic Data Services
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
INDEX
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C, D, & E)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart F)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
- 2 -
,
During the first quarter of 2005, 280 building permits were issued for 280 dwelling units. In addition, 4 permits were issued for mobile homes
in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $10,000.
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month
MONTH 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
JAN 54 38 49 52 52 55 96 50 109
FEB 44 39 84 43 39 348 34 4 82
MAR 57 65 65 54 54 74 106 23 89
APR 75 "''' 102 63 62 63 69 89
u"-
MAY 118 65 55 72 196 198 90 77
JUN 89 85 75 50 181 117 64 46
JUL 59 74 69 56 46 235 54 56
AUG 34 221 56 65 55 64 61 62
SEP 48 68 68 49 32 72 60 36
OCT 216 61 48 48 86 308 74 70
NOV 49 48 42 49 36 48 41 43
DEC 62 48 57 49 36 138 330 43
TOTAL 905 874 770 650 875 1720 1079 599 280
Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month
Chart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by Month
400
380
360
t/) 340
I- 320
Z 300
;:) 280
C) 260
z 240
::¡ 220
..J 200
~ 180
Q 160
3: 140
w 120
z 100
~ 80
. 60
o 40
z 20
o
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY JUN JUL AUG
MONTH
I 0 2003 l1li2004 .2005 I
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 3 -
Quarter 1, 2005
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SFfTH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 22 0 16 0 0 2 0 40 14%
JACK JOUETT 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 2%
RIVANNA 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 10%
.... A...., "-1 ..11 I r-n 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 12%
ùf"\IVIUt:~ IVIIL.L.~"
SCOTTSVILLE 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 20%
WHITE HALL 82 6 30 0 0 0 0 118 42%
TOTAL 222 6 46 0 0 2 4 280 100%
Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SFITH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 10 0 16 0 0 0 0 26 9%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
CROZET COMMUNITY 41 6 30 0 0 0 0 77 28%
HOLL YMEAD COMMUNITY 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 16 6%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 8%
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 101 6 46 0 0 2 2 157 56%
RURAL AREA 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 2 26 9%
RURAL AREA 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 8%
RURAL AREA 3 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 17%
RURAL AREA 4 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 10%
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 121 0 0 0 0 0 2 123 44%
TOTAL 222 6 46 0 0 2 4 280 100%
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
I·
,
- 4 -
Quarter 1, 2005
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Chart E. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SFrTH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2%
Baker Butler 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1%
Broadus Wood 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 6%
Brownsville 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 8%
Crozet 47 6 30 0 0 0 0 83 30%
Greer 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1%
Hollymead 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 16 6%
Meriwether Lewis 12 0 0 0 0 0 2 14 5%
Murray 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1%
Red Hill 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 4%
Cale 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 4%
Scottsville 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2%
Stone Robinson 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 15%
Stony Point 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3%
Wood brook 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 20 7%
Yancey 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 4%
TOTAL 222 6 46 0 0 2 4 280 100%
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Chart F. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW "NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$
RIO 40 $ 7,524.000 58 $ 1,422,344 4 $ 1,350.000 66 $ 3,266,164 168 $ 13,562,508
JOUETT 6 $ 2.670.000 42 $ 1.075,000 0 $ - 2 $ 40,000 50 $ 3,785,000
RIVANNA 28 $ 11,130,000 82 $ 2.014.724 10 $ 7,790,600 46 $ 2,051,303 166 $ 22,986,627
S. MILLER 33 $ 10,116,078 71 $ 4,784,874 6 $ 190,000 12 $ 240,600 122 $ 15,331,552
SCOTTSVILLE 55 $ 16,167,579 74 $ 2,016,850 7 $ 228,000 20 $ 201,816 156 $ 18.614,245
WHITE HALL 118 $ 31.630.132 58 $ 4.591,386 4 $ 100.000 16 $ 556,150 196 $ 36.877,668
TOTAL 280 $ 79.237,789 385 $ 15,905,178 31 $ 9,658,600 162 $ 6,356,033 858 $ 111,157,600
" Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential Alteration Category.
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
Albemarle (ounly
~ervice Auth'rifï
~"- ~-=::>
Serving' Conserving
June 30, 2005
Ella Carey
Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ella:
.
According to the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act the Authority is
required to provide each governing body served by public water and sewer in
Albemarle County with an adopted water and sewer rate schedule. Please find
attached the above-referenced schedule.
Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
i~a~
Susan Rohm-Briggs
Administrative Office Associate
.\~
t\
JWB/slrb
Attachment
.
168 Spotnap Road · P.O. Box 2738 · Charlottesville, VA 22902 . Tel (434) 977-4511 . Fax (434) 979-0698
www.acsanet.com
.
.
.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
WATER AND SEWER RATE SCHEDULE
Effective May 1, 2005
SERVICE CHARGE
$4.38 per meter, per month.
VOLUME CHARGES
In addition to the fixed service charge, a volume charge based upon monthly metered water
use will be assessed as follows:
Water
Metered Consumption
Residential Water Rates (per thousand gallons):
Level 1 (0-3,000 gallons per month): $3.06
Level 2 (3,001-6,000 gallons per month) $3.67
Level 3 (over 6,000 gallons per month $6.56
Non-Residential and Multi-Family Residential Water Rate (per thousand gallons):
$3.90
Wastewater
Metered Consumption
$3.74 per thousand gallons
CONNECTION CHARGES
Payment for the applicable connection charges will be accepted only after the issuance of a
building permit.
Connection Charges for metered services larger than 5/8" shall be equated to equivalent
residential connections (ERC) according to the following ratios:
5/8" meter =
1" meter =
1 1 12" meter =
2" meter =
1 ERC
2.5 ERCs
5 ERCs
8 ERCs
3" meter
4" meter
6" meter
=
15 ERCs
25 ERCs
50 ERCs
=
=
System Development and RWSA Capacity Fees for multi-family, hotel, or master-metered
mobile home parks shall be charged the higher of a fee based upon meter size or the calculation of the
number of units multiplied by the following factors:
Multi-family
Hotels
Mobile Home Park
1 unit =
1 room =
1 mobile home =
0.5 ERC
0.33 ERC
1 ERC
Service Connection (Tap) Charqe - To defray the cost of installation of a service connection from
the water andlor wastewater main in the public right-of-way to the curb or property line andlor the
installation of meters, all new services will be charged according to the following schedule:
(a)
Water
5/8" meter and connection
1" meter and connection
Over 1" meter and connection
5/8" meter only
1" meter only
Over 1" meter only
$645
$760
Actual Cost
$ 110
$177
Actual Cost
.
(b)
Wastewater
All Taps
Actual Cost
Local Facilities Charqe - To defray, in part, the cost of local facilities (mains, valves, hydrants,
etc.) provided by someone other than the customer, the Authority charges each new connection $1,800
for water and $3,000 for sewer. The local facility fees for undeveloped lots shall be $3,600 for water and
$6,000 for sewer. If a developer or customer applying for service installs and funds the local facilities,
this charge is not assessed. The Local Facilities Charge will apply only to water and sewer mains placed
in service after July 1, 1983. [See Sections 6-01 and 12-04]
System Development Charqe - In order to defray, in part, the cost to Albemarle County Service
Authority of providing major transmissionldistribution mains, collection lines, pumping stations and
storage facilities necessary to provide water and wastewater service to new customers, a system
development charge based on meter size will be assessed to all new customers as follows:
Water
Wastewater
$630 per ERC
$1,000 per ERC (except Glenmore)
.
RWSA Capacity Charqe - All new water and sewer connections to the Authority systems shall
be assessed a charge to defray, in part, the cost of providing capacity for a new customer in the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority system. This charge shall be assessed on the basis of equivalent residential
connections (ERC):
Water
Wastewater
$920 per ERC
$1 ,180 per ERC (except Glenmore)
Buck Mountain Surcharqe - In accordance with the joint resolution signed by the City of
Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Authority, all new
Authority water connections in the urban service area will be assessed a surcharge in accordance with
the following table to pay a portion of the Buck Mountain land acquisition costs:
Meter Size Surcharqe Meter Size Surcharqe
5/8" $ 200 4" $ 6,000
1" $ 500 6" $12,000
1 1/2" $ 1 ,000 8" $18,000
2" $ 1,600 10" $29,000
3" $ 2,500 12" $43,000
Farminqton Capital Recovery Fee - All connections to the water lines in Farmington subdivision
identified as ACSA Project 2002-1 shall be charged a fee of $7,384.00.
Miscellaneous Charges:
(1) Account Charge -
$8.00 per each new account
.
(2) Delinquent Cut OfflOn Fee - $20.00/trip during normal work hours
$30.00 after work hours & weekends
.
.
.
(3) Reconnection Fee
5/8" - 1 1/2" meter
2" - 4" meter
Larger than 4" meter
(4) Special Service Fee
(5) Meter Size Change Fee
All Meters
(6) Returned Check Charge
(7) Delinquent Payment
Penalty and Interest
(8) Meter Reread Fee
(9) Meter Testing Charge
5/8" - 1"
1 }I;" - 2"
3" - 4"
(10) Fire Hydrant Use Fee
a: By tanker
$20.00
$25.00
Actual Cost
$20.00/trip during normal work hours
$30.00 after work hours & weekends
Actual Cost
$35.00 (Cash)
10%Unpaid Balance
Plus 1 1/2% per month
$20.00
$50.00
$75.00
$100.00
$20.00 per seven day authorization;
$1.00 per day for up to five days
All water taken, either by tanker truck or through a hydrant
meter, shall be charged at twice the current Non-
Residential and Multi-Family Residential Rate volume
charge except when the water is to be used for human
consumption, in which case the current Non-Residential
and Multi-Family Residential Rate volume rate will be
charged. Meter readings of hydrant meters must be
reported to the Authority at the end of the authorization
period. Any meter failing to register consumption shall be
returned to the Authority immediately.
b: By approved hydrant meter assembly:
(1) Deposit 5/8" - 1" meter assembly - $400.00 ($50.00 non-refundable)
3" meter assembly - $1,700. ($50.00 non-refundable)
(2) Use fee
$20.00 per 30-day authorization plus
water used @ TWICE the effective rate.
(11) Temporary Water Service $25.00 + water used, Deposit required
(12) Failure to Report Hydrant
Meter Reading
(13) Misc. Delinquent Bills
Construction Plan Review Charge
As-built Plan Review
$50.00
10% Penalty plus
1 1/2% penalty & interest/mo.
$40.00/hour
$40.00/hour Engineer Review
$25.00/hour Inspector Review
.
.
.
Construction Inspection Fees:
Water andlor Sewer lines greater
than 400 linear feet
$.60/Iinear foot
Water andlor Sewer linesbb less than
400 linear feet
Actual Cost
Reinspection Fee of New
WaterlSewer Lines
$25.00/hour
Inspection of New Pumping Stations
Actual Cost
Line Tappina Fee - Where the Authority provides water main taps to accommodate line extensions, fire
sprinkler systems and similar uses, a tapping fee will be assessed to the customer in accordance with the
following schedule:
TAPPING
MACHINE TAP SIZE LINE SIZE PRICE
E-4 %"-1" 1 1,1.." - 3" $100.00
B-100 %"-1" 4"-24" $100.00
A-2 1 Y;" - 2" 6"-24" $150.00
CL-12 4"-12" 4"-24" $60.00/inch
INSTALLATION OF TAPPING SLEEVES AND TAPPING VALVES
Mechanical Joint Tapping Sleeve and Tapping Valve:
4"-8" $400.00
10"-12 $500.00
14"-24 $600.00
4" - 8" $600.00
10"-12" $700.00
14"-24" $800.00
Caulked Type Tapping Sleeve and Tapping Valve:
INSERTING VALVE
4"
6"
8"
$700.00
$800.00
$900.00
All water mains shall be uncovered and cleaned by the customer, who shall also supply all
materials. The excavation shall be prepared in accordance with all applicable safety regulations. Return
trip charges resulting from the customer failing to properly prepare the trench and pipe for the
tappinglinserting operation will be billed to the customer. These additional costs shall include labor,
equipment, and overhead costs.
·
Budget
Fiscal Year 2006
Adopted June 9, 2005
·
Revenue and Expense Summary
FY 2006
Approved
Budaet
OPERATING REVENUE
Total Volume Charges $ 10,808,265
Total Service Charges 839,384
Subtotal: $ 11,647,649
NON-OPERATING REVENUE
System Connection Charges $ 2,369,223
· Farmington Capital Recovery 35,540
Rental Income 60,500
Interest Income 200,000
Buck Mountain Surcharge 157,600
Misc. Utility Charges 270,000
Inspection Fees 65,000
Plan Review Fees 9,000
Transfer of Capital Funds 2,036,224
Subtotal: $ 5,203,087
Total Revenue $ 16,850,736
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
Purchase of Water/Wastewater $ 8,570,430
Administration Department 927,401
Finance Department 917,882
Engineering Department 982,815
Maintenance Department 1,564,850
Transfer to Equipment Replacement 354,063
Subtotal: $ 13,317,441
· CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND DEBT SERVICE
800 Code Equipment Expenses $ 120,750
Capital Improvement Expenses 2,208,375
Repair, Renewal, & Replacement Reserves 520,605
Buck Mountain Surcharge 157,600
Existing Debt Service Payments 525,965
Subtotal: $ 3,533,295
Total Expenses $ 16,850,736
BALANCE (DEFICIENCY) $ 01
.
Page 1
·
RWSA Expenses
FY 2006
Approved
Budaet
RWSA EXPENSES
Buck Mountain Surcharge
Purchase of Bulk Water
Sewer Treatment Expense
$
157,600
5,065,191
3,347,639
·
Total $ 8,570,430
RWSA EXPENSES BY SERVICE AREA
WATER
Urban
Crozet
Scottsville
Buck Mountain Surcharge
$
4,131,439
543,792
389,960
157,600
Total $ 5,222,791
WASTEWATER
Urban
Scottsville
Stone-Robinson School
Glenmore
$
2,853,088
262,930
22,182
209,439
Total $ 3,347,639
·
.
Page 2
·
Departmental Staffing
Approved
Number
of Positions
ADMINISTRATION
Executive Director 1
Assistant to the Executive Director 1
Human Resources Administrator 1
Administrative Office Associate 1
Manager of Information Systems 1
LAN Technician 1
FINANCE
Finance Director 1
· Accounting Supervisor 1
Meter Operations Supervisor 1
Senior Customer Service Representative 1
Accounting Technician 1
Customer Service Representative 3
Meter Technician 3
ENGINEERING
Engineering Director 1
Senior Civil Engineer 1
Civil Engineer 2
GIS Analyst/Programmer 1
GIS Technician 1
Regulatory Compliance Specialist 1
Construction Inspector 4
Senior Utility Location Technician 1
Utility Location Technician 1
Engineering Technician 0.6
Administrative Office Associate 1
MAINTENANCE
Operations Manager 1
Operations Supervisor 2
· Electrician/Pump Technician 1
Crew Leader 5
Equipment Operator 5
Maintenance Worker 9
.
Page 3
·
Administration Department
Code Description Approved Budget
PERSONAL SERVICES
503-510-205 Compensation of Board Members $ 13,000
503-510-210 Salaries & Wages 341,000
503-510-220 Overtime Pay 150
503-510-230 Social Security 26,000
503-510-240 Retirement 31,000
503-510-250 Hospitalization 38,916
· 503-510-260 Life Insurance 0
503-510-270 Workers' Compensation 430
503-510-290 Safety Incentive Program 950
503-510-295 Employee Incentives 5,000
Subtotal: $ 456,446
OPERATING SUPPUES
503-510-300 Office Supplies $ 6,350
503-510-305 Copier Supplies 300
503-510-310 Janitorial Supplies 2,634
503-510-370 Heating Fuel 8,000
Subtotal: $ 17,284
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPUES
503-510-425 Building/Grounds Supplies $ 10,750
Subtotal: $ 10,750
· PROFESSIONAL & CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
503-510-500 Legal $ 23,100
503-510-510 Audit 24,000
503-510-520 Fiscal Agent 3,500
503-510-550 Consultants' Fees 10,000
503-510-560 Service Contracts 9,110
503-510-561 Building/Grounds Service Contracts 56,812
503-510-575 Telephone 21,392
503-510-585 Printing and Duplicating 8,000
503-510-590 Other Contractual Services 2,520
Subtotal: $ 158,434
.
Page 4
·
Administration Department
Code Description Approved Budget
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
503-510-600 Equipment Repair and Maintenance $ 2,525
503-510-620 Building/Grounds Repair & Maintenance 18,000
Subtotal: $ 20,525
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
· 503-510-705 Software 5,000
503-510-710 Insurance 57,500
503-510-720 Dues and Memberships 3,875
503-510-730 Books and Periodicals 2,064
503-510-740 Education and Training 10,500
503-510-745 Travel 7,500
503-510-750 Advertising 25,000
503-510-755 Toilet Rebates 100,000
503-510-777 Electricity - Shop/Office 24,000
503-510-780 Permits 28,523
Subtotal: $ 263,962
CAPITAL OUTLA YS
503-510-800 Office Equipment $ 700
503-510-810 Furniture and Fixtures 3,150
503-510-830 Machinery and Equipment 0
Subtotal: $ 3,850
· TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $ 931,251
.
Page 5
.
Finance Department
Code Description Approved Budget
PERSONAL SERVICES
503-520-210 Salaries & Wages $ 440,500
503-520-220 Overtime Pay 5,000
503-520-230 Social Security 34,500
503-520-240 Retirement 39,000
503-520-250 Hospitalization 77,832
503-520-260 Life Insurance 0
. 503-520-270 Workers' Compensation 5,000
Subtotal: $ 601,832
OPERATING SUPPUES
503-520-300 Office Supplies $ 10,715
503-520-305 Copier Supplies 150
503-520-320 Shop Supplies 125
503-520-330 Personal Protective Equipment 400
503-520-360 Fuel, Oil & Grease 9,013
503-520-380 Small Tools & Equipment 300
Subtotal: $ 20,703
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPUES
503-520-400 Vehicle Supplies $ 4,500
503-520-410 Materials-Water 129,302
Subtotal: $ 133,802
. PROFESSIONAL & CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
503-520-535 Uniform Rental 2,267
503-520-550 Consultants' Fees 3,000
503-520-560 Service Contracts 28,244
503-520-575 Telephone 600
503-520-580 Postage 82,600
503-520-585 Printing and Duplicating 20,172
503-520-590 Other Contractual Services 3,389
Subtotal: $ 140,272
.
Page 6
·
Finance Department
Code Description Approved Budget
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
503-520-600 Equipment Repair and Maintenance $ 2/075
503-520-650 Vehicle Repair and Maintenance 3/500
Subtotal: $ 5,575
· OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
503-520-700 Rental of Equipment $ 2/008
503-520-705 Software 4/585
503-520-720 Dues and Memberships 525
503-520-730 Books and Periodicals 1/440
503-520-740 Education and Training 4/000
503-520-745 Travel 2/540
503-520-750 Advertising 600
Subtotal: $ 15,698
CAPITAL OUTLA YS
503-520-800 Office Equipment $ 700
503-520-810 Furniture and Fixtures 1/800
503-520-830 Machinery and Equipment 0
Subtotal: $ 2,500
TOTAL FINANCE $ 920,382
·
.
Page 7
.
Engineering Department
Code Description Approved Budget
PERSONAL SERVICES
503-540-210 Salaries & Wages $ 672,867
503-540-220 Overtime Pay 10,250
503-540-230 Social Security 52,594
503-540-240 Retirement 58,963
503-540-250 Hospitalization 90,804
503-540-260 Life Insurance 0
. 503-540-270 Workers' Compensation 14,400
Subtotal: $ 899,878
OPERATING SUPPUES
503-540-300 Office Supplies $ 1,592
503-540-305 Copier Supplies 180
503-540-330 Personal Protective Equipment 240
503-540-360 Fuel, Oil & Grease 11,445
503-540-380 Small Tools & Equipment 5,783
Subtotal: $ 19,240
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPUES
503-540-400 Vehicle Supplies $ 3,325
Subtotal: $ 3,325
PROFESSIONAL & CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
503-540-540 Engineering Services 3,000
. 503-540-560 Service Contracts 15,157
503-540-575 Telephone 5,464
503-540-585 Printing and Duplicating 2,149
503-540-590 Other Contractual Services 10,200
Subtotal: $ 35,970
Page 8
.
·
Engineering Department
Code Description Approved Budget
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
503-540-600 Equipment Repair and Maintenance $ 3,000
503-540-650 Vehicle Repair and Maintenance 5,000
Subtotal: $ 8,000
·
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
503-540-705 Software $ 2,100
503-540-720 Dues and Memberships 891
503-540-730 Books and Periodicals 2,431
503-540-740 Education and Training 6,270
503-540-745 Travel 3,950
503-540-750 Advertising 760
503-540-780 Permits 0
Subtotal: $ 16,402
CAPITAL OUTLA YS
503-540-800 Office Equipment $ 1,100
503-540-810 Furniture and Fixtures 1,300
503-540-830 Machinery and Equipment 30,550
Subtotal: $ 32,950
· TOTAL ENGINEERING $ 1,015,765
Page 9
.
·
Maintenance Department
Code Description Approved Budget
PERSONAL SERVICES
503-550-210 Salaries & Wages 761,000
503-550-220 Overtime Pay 37,000
503-550-225 Standby Pay 4,000
503-550-230 Social Security 61,500
503-550-240 Retirement 68,000
503-550-250 Hospitalization 162,200
· 503-550-260 Life Insurance 0
503-550-270 Workers' Compensation 26,000
Subtotal: $ 1,119,700
OPERATING SUPPUES
503-550-300 Office Supplies $ 500
503-550-305 Copier Supplies 120
503-550-320 Shop Supplies 1,500
503-550-330 Personal Protective Equipment 18,518
503-550-360 Fuel, Oil & Grease 29,348
503-550-380 Small Tools & Equipment 18,565
Subtotal: $ 68,551
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPUES
503-550-400 Vehicle Supplies $ 8,180
503-550-410 Materials - Water 72,500
503-550-420 Materials - Sewer 15,000
503-550-430 Equipment Supplies 8,430
· 503-550-460 Water Pump Station Supplies 17,500
503-550-480 Sewer Pump Station Supplies 28,000
Subtotal: $ 149,610
.
Page 10
.
Maintenance Department
Code Description Approved Budget
PROFESSIONAL & CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
503-550-530 Labor - Outside Contract 10,000
503-550-535 Uniform Rental 11,700
503-550-560 Service Contracts 5,386
503-550-575 Telephone 11,514
503-550-585 Printing and Duplicating 1,000
. 503-550-590 Other Contractual Services 55,400
Subtotal: $ 95,000
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
503-550-600 Equipment Repair and Maintenance $ 19,975
503-550-650 Vehicle Repair and Maintenance 26,000
Subtotal: $ 45,975
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
503-550-700 Rental of Equipment 1,200
503-550-705 Software 1,384
503-550-720 Dues and Memberships 425
503-550-730 Books and Periodicals 1,000
503-550-740 Education and Training 17,930
503-550-745 Travel 13 ,000
503-550-750 Advertising 1,000
503-550-760 Electricity - Water Pump Station 37,000
503-550-761 Electricity - Sewer Pump Station 10,875
. 503-550-780 Permits 2,200
Subtotal: $ 86,014
CAPITAL OUTLA YS
503-550-800 Office Equipment 18,300
503-550-810 Furniture and Fixtures 3,000
503-550-830 Machinery and Equipment 60,150
Subtotal: $ 81,450
TOTAL MAINTENANCE $ 1,646,300
.
Page 11
·
Capital Improvement Projects
·
WATER SYSTEM
Infrastructure Security
Ragged Mountain Part 1
Ragged Mountain Part 2
Ragged Mountain Part 3
Camp Holiday Trails Waterline
Scottsville Street Upgrades
Mobile Electric Generators
Opr. Budget Reimbursement
Construction Crew Materials
Developer Participation
Glenorchy Water System
Approved Budget
$ 8,000
56,000
46,063
128,812
196,000
72,000
68,000
289,500
60,000
50,000
50,000
Total Water Capital Projects $ 1,024,375
WASTEWATER SYSTEM Approved Budget
Sherwood Manor Sewer Rehab $ 650,000
Opr. Budget Reimbursement 100,000
Construction Crew Materials 16,000
Oak Hill Sewer Matching Funds ($500,000 project) 125,000
Mise. Sewer Rehab (I&I mitigation) 125,000
Developer Participation 100,000
Aux. Wastewater Pump and Station Piping 68,000
Total Wastewater Capital Projects $ 1,184,000
·
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS $ 2,208,375
The projects proposed in this capital improvement program reflect the
intent of the Albemarle County Service Authority at the date of adoption,
June 9, 2005. Any number of factors could change the viability of any
proposed project and, furthermore, projects not included in the program
may be undertaken.
·
Page 12
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Ella Washington-Carey, CMC, Clerk
DATE:
July 7,2005
RE:
Cable Television Franchise
.,.
During your discussion of the 2006 Legislative Priorities, you asked fora copy of the
previous executive summary that went to the Board on the subject of cable television
franchise. For your information, attached please find a copy of the minutes from the
Board's August 6, 2003 meeting and a copy of the executive summary that went to the
Board on this issue.
/ewc
Attachments
AUQust 6. 2003 Board Minutes
Agenda Item No. 12. Cable Franchise Agreement, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said things have changed since the staff's report was written (on file in the Clerk's
Office) due to recent discussions about the telecommunications tax. There was a meeting held in
Charlottesville last Friday and Mr. Davis and Mr. Melvin Breeden attended. Mr. Davis sent the Board
members an E-mail spelling out the issues. He suggested the Board discuss those issues instead of
discussing an actual franchise.
Mr. Davis said there is a joint study committee looking at telecommunications taxes in Virginia. On
July 23, 2003, the Committee came forward with a blueprint for the reform of this tax. Included in that
reform package was a proposal to eliminate the cable franchise fee that localities are now collecting. The
proposal is fairly well advanced with the industry. VACo and VML both feel it is likely this proposal will be
introduced to the Legislature and replace all existing telecommunication taxes with a flat 4.5 percent tax
that would be collected by the state and then distributed back to the localities based on a yet to be
determined formula. It is intended to achieve revenue neutrality for the locality based on Fiscal Year
2004 collections. Specifically, it would only allow for revenues to be counted if it had been enacted and in
place prior to July 1, 2003. The consequence of that for Albemarle County would be that the revenue that
would be generated by a cable franchise would not be included in the revenue that would be used to
determine the County's revenue neutrality. Under this scenario which would be effective July 1, 2005, the
County would be able to collect a cable franchise fee up to that date. If the County instituted a franchise
fee after that date, the fee could not be collected, and the County would not be compensated for that
revenue. There are a number of significant expenses that can be associated with a cable franchise.
Depending on the level of cable service provided, staff has estimated those costs to be between
$300,000 and $400,000 a year.
Mr. Davis said based on this development, he recommends that the Board delay pursuing a
franchise until later in the year. The bill is supposed to be drafted by November 1 and sent to the
committee studying the entire tax structure. The bill will probably be finished in this next session of the
General Assembly.
Mr. Martin said he did not see anything in the staff report which said the County could not just take
the money and not do any kind of PEG. If that is the case, why not just take the money until it can't take it
anymore even if only for a couple of years. Mr. Davis said there would be significant expense going
forward with a franchise in hiring consultants and outside attorneys to implement the tax. It would
probably take as much as nine months before it could be implemented. That is only if the cable
companies who respond to an RFP are cooperative in moving forward through the process. Given the
nature of this legislation, there may be no incentive for them to do that. Also, there are 18,000 existing
customers who do not pay a franchise fee now, and they would be asked to pay a fee and get nothing in
return.
Mr. Rooker said he wanted to move forward with the franchise fee, but at this time there does not
seem to be much incentive to do so.
Ms. Thomas said the VACo Finance Steering Committee will be discussing this issue and she will
mention Albemarle's concerns at their next meeting. She said the Committee does not seem to be taking
into account that Albemarle is a high growth community, or likewise, even if the County had been
collecting the tax at a lower rate than allowed, it would also be frozen. There are a few other communities
who would be impacted by the way this legislation is being proposed.
Mr. Tucker said what bothers him is that the State would be taking away from localities another
opportunity to raise revenue other than through property taxes.
Mr. Davis said that for Albemarle County this will also eliminate the E-911 tax. The County's tax is
currently $2.00 while the cap is $3.00. Some localities have maxed out the cap and would be fully
compensated for that, while Albemarle would have no ability to ever increase that amount.
Mr. Dorrier thanked the staff for the report.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Cable Television Franchise
AGENDA DATE:
August6,2003
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
x
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Follow up to discussion on proposal to seek cable
television franchise.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Herrick, Ms. Catlin, White
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Since being asked by the Board of Supervisors to further examine the possibilities of a cable franchise at the Board's
May 7, 2003, meeting, staff has researched the cable franchises of other Virginia localities in order to assess the
feasibility and financial realities of such a program. This Executive Summary aims to assist the Board of Supervisors in
determining how best to approach pursuing a cable television franchise.
DISCUSSION:
Revenue Potential of a Cable Franchise
Based on gross revenue figures provided to Albemarle County staff by Adelphia Cable, Albemarle County could
expect to receive an estimated $530,000 per year in franchise revenues if it required a five percent franchise fee. This
figure is a rough estimate, subject to change based on the gross revenues collected from cable subscribers and
advertisers. Currently there are approximately 18,000 Albemarle County cable television subscribers.
Survevina Other Localities' Franchises
To gain a better understanding of the needs and options related to creating programming for a cable franchise, staff
contacted 10 Virginia localities to investigate existing examples of local government efforts. Those localities included
Fairfax, Virginia Beach, Hanover, Henrico, James City, Loudoun, Spotsylvania, Roanoke, Blacksburg, and
Charlottesville
Every locality surveyed except Hanover County used a significant portion of their franchise fees to provide a service
through Public Educational Government (PEG) Access. Five of the localities surveyed have more than one channel,
and several jurisdictions have as many as three. In cases of multiple channels, each channel is designated for a
different specific programming type such as government, school system, libraries, or public access.
At a basic level, programming on these channels generally consists of a video message board and one or more local
newslissue programs. More advanced jurisdictions produce their own educational or government centered material
and give the public access to produce their own programming. All localities except Henrico County televise
BoardlCouncil meetings, and most televise additional meetings such as the School Board or Planning Commission.
Each locality has staff trained to specialize in the production of their programming, and the number of staff required
depends on the scope of the programming the locality offers. In addition to dedicated employees, each locality has a
Cable Oversight Committee as well, serving to assess the cable company's performance and cable-related issues,
such as franchise renewal.
AGENDA TITLE:
Cable Television Franchise
August6,2003
Page 2
While the level of programming and services that individual localities provide through their franchise varies, all
governments (except Hanover) reinvest a significant portion of the franchise fees into PEG programming.
BudQetina a Franchise
To attain an accurate estimate of a cable franchise's cost to the County, staff reviewed the budgets of Roanoke,
Blacksburg, and James City County. These localities were chosen because of their size and comparability to
Albemarle County. Furthermore, at least one interviewed source with extensive professional experience identified
these localities as having a quality PEG Access program.
The most recent budget for Blacksburg's cable operations was approximately $275,000. Blacksburg collected
$214,000 in franchise fees in 2003, meaning that they subsidized their cable operation from other revenue sources.
James City County collected approximately $525,000 in franchise fees last year and spent about $315,000 on their
cable operation. Roanoke City, Roanoke County and the town of Vinton share cable operations, and last year they
spent approximately $280,000 of the $1,925,000 generated by their respective franchise fees.
The largest line item in all three budgets consists of wages and benefits for professional staff, making up
approximately 60-70% of each budget. Operating a cable franchise at a similar level would require Albemarle County
to dedicate employees specifically to that task; calculating the exact amount of staff time required depends on the size
of the operation the County desires.
The cost of facilities and equipment are also substantial, and along with professional services (such as graphics
design) make up the majority of the remaining budget. All of the costs unrelated to wages and benefits sum to
approximately $100,000 for each locality annually.
The amount of the franchise fee that is dedicated to PEG programming is approached by these jurisdictions in several
ways. One approach is to allocate a certain percentage of the collected franchise fee for the programming budget. For
example, Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and the town of Vinton have informally agreed to commit 20% of their
revenue from the franchise to the programming budget. Any money from this total not spent during the fiscal year is
rolled over into an ongoing fund to support major capital costs. Another budgeting method is a more strictly need-
based approach. Using this method, the amount offunding the programming effort receives is, again, determined by
the level of service a locality seeks to provide.
Approximate Expected Costs for Albemarle Countv
The cost of a PEG program for Albemarle County could vary significantly based on the level of programming desired
by the county. To achieve a level of quality programming comparable to those jurisdictions cited in our survey results
above, Albemarle County could expect to spend approximately 40 - 45% of its gross franchise revenues, or
approximately $220,000, annually. This program would also require a significant capital investment in initial equipment
and facility costs as well as ongoing equipment replacements and upgrades. In many cases the initial capital outlay is
covered by the cable operator as part of the franchise agreement, and subsequent capital costs become the
responsibility of the jurisdiction.
Staff has considered the possibility that some savings and economies of scale could be realized by establishing a
regional partnership with the City of Charlottesville's PEG effort to share equipment and facilities. Should the Board
decide to proceed with pursuing a franchise agreement, this possibility would be explored more fully.
Local Survey Results
Citizen needs and desires are obviously fundamental to the programming choices to be made with regards to PEG
access. While Albemarle County has not yet had the opportunity to survey its residents on this issue, the City of
Charlottesville recently received results of a citizen survey conducted in conjunction with its cable franchise
renewal franchise renewal
AGENDA TITLE:
Cable Television Franchise
August6,2003
Page 3
process. While these results may not indicate exact preferences of Albemarle County citizens, we believe there is
enough commonality between Charlottesville and Albemarle residents to make valid general comparisons. It should
be noted that approximately 18,000 of the 34,000 households in the county currently receive cable service.
Importance of Types of Channels
· 68% of citizens rated having local broadcast channels as very important, and 13% citizens rated it not that
important
· 44% of citizens rated having an educational access channel as very important, and 27% rated it not that
important
· 34% of citizens rated having a public access channel as very important, and 30% rated it not that important
Interest in Types of Programming
· 44% were very interested in educational programming
· 44% were very interested in news
· 40% were very interested in movie channels
· 34% were very interested in music
· 30% were very interested in local programming
· 21 % were very interested in government programming
Summary
The majority of jurisdictions that operate a cable franchise offer at least a basic level of PEG programming,
consisting of one or more channels with a combination of bulletin board information, broadcasting of Board of
Supervisors meetings, and some type of local government-produced informational shows. A number of jurisdictions
go beyond that minimum level by offering channels dedicated to educational programming andlor public access
programming generated by the community in addition to broadcasting meetings of other official bodies such as the
Planning Commission or School Board. All of the jurisdictions surveyed with the exception of Hanover reinvest a
substantial amount of their franchise fee revenue back into PEG program operations, with the largest expenditures
being for professional staff. These jurisdictions also commit ongoing capital funds to help meet facility and
equipment replacement and upgrade needs.
RECOMMENDATION:
In continuing to examine a potential cable franchise agreement for Albemarle County, staff must determine an
approximate level of commitment to PEG programming to ensure that the appropriate conditions are incorporated
into the agreement to support that programming. Based on our review of the operations of other comparable
jurisdictions, considerable funding support from the fee revenues would be necessary to establish and maintain a
quality programming effort. For example, a recent study conducted by an independent consultant for the City of
Charlottesville recommends that the city's cable programming operation receive approximately $3 million in capital
funding over the next 15 years.
We are not able to accurately estimate the total fiscal impact of establishing a basic cable programming operation
until we are able to assess what support the operation would receive from the cable operator as part of the
franchise agreement. If the Board of Supervisors is interested in continuing to examine the possibility of providing
cable programming, realizing that such an operation would require a reinvestment of a very significant portion of our
anticipated revenues, then staff recommends that the County proceed with the franchise agreement negotiation
until such time as those costs become more clearly defined. At that time staff together with the Board of
Supervisors should reassess the viability of cable programming and determine how best to proceed with the
agreement and subsequent cable operations.
03.102
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE #
David B. Benish, Chief of Planning
June 6, 2005
ZT A 1999-006 Special Events
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 24, 2005, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted Zoning Text Amendment to the Board of Supervisors.
This recommendation is subject to completion of the following text changes:
.
·
·
·
·
·
·
.
· In the definition, delete the number of 150 and move that to make it a regulation in 5.1.43.
· Adjust handwritten page 11 (typed page 3) to clarify the temporary signage and increase the
number so that it corresponds with the number of events allowed.
· Adjust handwritten page 14 (typed page 6) in Section d(1) to delete (ii), clarify section (iii) so that
it refers to farm buildings or farm structures as those terms are defined so that there is not
ambiguity there.
· Section d(2) make the yard setbacks consistent with the RA yard requirements and they will
have those requirements comply to tents and the portable toilets.
· Parking in d(3) will read the number of off-street parking for a special event shall be as required
in Section 4.12.6 notwithstanding Section 4.12.15.a - g the additional parking areas for special
events shall consist of or be constructed of pervious materials and include a reference to
stabilize turf to be approved by the County Engineer. Asphalt and impervious materials are
prohibited and continue all the way up to the semi-colon and the deleting the requirement for
bonding. Then continuing with the next sentence, "In addition to the requirements of section
4.12.5, the parking area shall be onsite and be screened from abutting parcels by topography,
structures or new or existing landscaping. Notwithstanding section 4.12.16(d) and (e), the
delineation of parking spaces and the provision of bumper blocks shall not be required.
Change subsection e(1) to include a limit of 24.
Delete the noise limitation in subsection e(2).
Change portable toilets in subsection e(4) to simply cross reference the minimum yard
requirements.
Subsection f will be revised at the end of the first sentence to include a clause, "without
amendment of the special use permit."
The last sentence in subsection f will be changed to read, "If the parcel is so subdivided, special
events shall thereafter be prohibited on the resulting parcels, without modification."
Change subsection e(5) Portable toilets to read, "If required, portable toilets shall be located no
closer than whatever the minimum yard setbacks are."
Cv
The Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this item at its July 13th meeting. An updated staff
report will be provided in the near future.
DBBlaer
(p
·
·
·
Draft: 06/13/05
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III,
District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1
.Sec. 4.12.6
Sec. 10.2.2
Definitions
Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
By special use permit
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.43
Special events
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1
Defmitions
Svecial event: An event authorized bv section 10.2.2(50) that is tvvically conducted on a sim!le
day. but which may be conducted for uv to three (3) consecutive days. for which attendance is
vermitted only by invitation or reservation: svecial events include. but are not limited to.
meetin2s. conferences. banauets. dinners. weddin2s and mivate varties.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Except when alternative parking is approved as provided in section 4.12.8, the following schedule
shall apply to determine the number of required off-street parking spaces to be provided in a
particular situation. If a particular use is not scheduled, then section 4.12.7 shall apply.
Svecial events: One (1 ) svace ver two and one-half (2.5) varticivants. vlus one (1 ) svace ver
1
Draft: 06/13/05
emolovee (includes staff. caterers. musicians and vendors),
Sec. 5.1.43 Soecial events.
Each soecial event authorized bv section 10.2.2(50) shall be subiect to the followinl!:
a. Eli'i!ibilitv and avvlicabilitv. Soecial events may be authorized on those oarcels in
the Rural Areas (RA) zoninl! district on which there is an existinl! and onl!oinl! bv-
ril!ht (section 10.2.1) orimarv use. A soecial event soecial use oermit issued under
section 10.2.2(50) and this section shall not be required for soecial events
associated with farm wineries or historical centers. or for events determined bv the
zoninl! administrator to be accessorv to a orimarv use of the oarcel.
b. Information to be submitted with avvlication for svecial use vermit. In addition to
any information otherwise required to be submitted for a soecial use oermit. each
aoolication for a soecial use oermit shall include the followinl!:
1. Concevt vlan. A Dfeliminarv schematic olan (the "conceot olan") satisfvinl!
section 32.4.1. The conceot olan shall identify the structure(s) to be used
for the soecial event. include the area of the structure(s) in which the
orooosed soecial events will be conducted. the oarkinl! area. and
the entrance to the site from the street. The conceot olan shall address. in
oarticular. Dfovisions for safe and convenient access to and from the street.
the location of the oarkinl! area. the location of oortable toilets if they may
be required. Dfooosed screeninl! as required bv this section for oarkinl! areas
and oortable toilets. and information rel!ardinl! the exterior aooearance of
the Dfooosed site. Based on the conceot olan and other information
submitted. the board of suoervisors may then waive the requirement for a
site olan in a oarticular case. uoon a findinl! that the requirement of a site
olan would not forward the ourooses of this chaoter or otherwise serve the
oublic interest.
2. Information from the Vir'i!inia Devartment of Health. The aoolicant shall
submit written comments from the Vif!!inia Deoartment of Health rel!ardinl!
the orivate water suoolv and the seotic disoosal system that will serve the
Dfooosed soecial event site. the ability of the water suoolv and the seotic
disoosal system to handle the Dfooosed events. and the need to imorove
the suoolv or the system in order to handle the Dfooosed events.
3. Buildin'i! and fire safetv. The buildinl! official and the county deoartment of
fire and rescue shall review and comment on the aoolication. identifvinl! all
Vif!!inia Uniform Statewide Buildinl! Code and Vif!!inia Statewide Fire
Prevention Code issues and requirements.
c. Zonin'i! comvliance clearance. The aoolicant shall obtain a zoninl! como1iance
clearance orior to conductinl! a soecia1 event. A sinl!le zoninl! comoliance
clearance may be obtained for one (1 ) or more such soecial events in a calendar
2
Draft: 06/13/05
·
year as follows:
1. The zoninQ administrator may issue a sinQle zoninQ comDliance
clearance for more than one (1) sDecial event if: (i) the aDDlication
submitted bv the aDDlicant includes the reauired information in subsection
5.1.43(c)(3) for each sDecial event to be covered bv the zoninQ comDliance
clearance: (ii) the zoninQ administrator determines that each sDecial event is
substantially similar in nature and size: and (iii) the zoninQ administrator
determines that a sinQle set of conditions that would aDDlv to each such
sDecial event may be imDosed with the zoninQ comDliance clearance.
2. The aDD Ii cant shall aDDlv for a zoninQ comDliance clearance at least
thirty (30) days Dfior to the date of the first sDecial event to be authorized
bv the zoninQ comDliance clearance. The aDDlication shall be
submitted to the zoninQ administrator. who shall forward cODies of
the aDDlication to the county Dolice deDartment. the county buildinQ official.
the county deDartment of fire and rescue. and the local office of the VirQinia
DeDartment of Health. As Dart of his review. the buildinQ official shall
determine whether the structure( s) DroDosed to be used for the sDecial
events satisfies the reauirements of the Vinrinia Uniform Statewide
BuildinQ Code for that use.
3.
The aDDlication shall describe the nature of each sDecial event to be
authorized bv the zoninQ comDliance clearance. the date or dates and
hours of oDeration of each such sDecial event. the facilities. structures to be
used. and the number of DarticiDants and SUDDort staff eXDect to attend each
sDecial event.
·
4. UDon a determination that all reauirements of the zoninQ ordinance and all
conditions of the sDecial use Dermit are satisfied. and imDOsinQ all
conditions of such aDDroval reauired bv the offices identified in subsection
5.1.43(c)(2t the zoninQ administrator shall issue a zoninQ comDliance
clearance for one or more sDecial events. The validity of the zoninQ
comDliance clearance shall be conditional UDon the aDDlicant's comDliance
with all reauirements of the zoninQ ordinance. all conditions of the
aDDfoved sDecial use Dermit. the aDDroved conceDt Dlan or site Dlan. and all
conditions imDosed bv the zoninQ comDliance clearance.
d. Svecial events sites and structures. In addition to all other aDDlicable reauirements
ofthis chaDter. sDecial events sites and structures shall be subiect to the followinQ:
1.
Structures used for svecial events. Each structure used for a sDecial event
shall satisfy the followinQ: (i) the structure shall have been in existence on
the date of adoDtion of this section 5.1.43. Dfovided that this reauirement
shall not aDDlv to accessory structures less than one hundred fifty (150)
sauare feet in size: (ii) the structure shall be a lawful conforminQ structure
and shall SUDDort or have sUDDorted a lawful use of the DfoDertv: and (iii)
modifications to farm buildinQs or farm structures as those terms are
defined in ViŒinia Code ô 36-97 shall allow the structure to revert to an
·
3
Draft: 06/13/05
a1!ricultural use. as determined bv the buildin!! official.
2. Minimum vards. Notwithstandin!! any other Dfovision of this chaDter. the
minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side
yard shall be twenty-five feet (25) feet. The minimum rear yard shall be
thirty-five (35) feet. All yards shall be measured from structures and
off-street Darkin!! areas. These minimum yard reauirements shall aDDlv to
all accessorv structures established after the effective date of this section
5.1.43 and all tents. Darkin!! areas and Dortable toilets used in whole or in
Dart to serve sDecial events.
3. Parkinf!. The number of off-street Darkin!! sDaces for a sDecial event shall
be as reauired in section 4.12.6. Notwithstandin!! section 4.12.15(a)
throu!!h (!!). the additional Darkin!! area( s) for sDecial events shall consist of
or be constructed of Dervious materials includin!!. but not limited to
stabilized turf. aDDfOved bv the county en!!ineer. ASDhalt and imDervious
materials are Dfohibited. If the Darkin!! area is on 2Iass or in a field. the
aDDlicant shall reseed and restore the Darkin!! area site as reauired bv the
zonin!! administrator. In addition to the reauirements of section 4.12.5.
the Darkin!! area shall be onsite and screened from abuttin!! Darcels bv
tODo2IaDhv. structures or new or existin!! landscaDin!!. Notwithstandin!!
section 4.12.16(d) and (e). the delineation of Darkin!! sDaces and the
Dfovision ofbumDer blocks shall not be reauired.
4. Water and sewer. The Drivate water sUDDlv and seDtic disDosal system
servin!! a sDecial event shall be aDDfoved bv the Vifl!inia DeDartment of
Health.
5. Streets and access. Streets servin!! the site shall be adeauate for the
anticiDated traffic volume for a sDecial event. Access from the street onto
the site shall be adeauate to Dfovide safe and convenient access to the site.
and aDDlicant shall install all reauired imDfOvements and Dfovide adeauate
si!!ht distance in order to Dfovide safe and convenient access.
e. Special events operations. In addition to all other aDDlicable reauirements of this
chaDter. sDecial events oDerations shall be subiect to the followin!!:
1. Number of participants. The number ofDarticiDants at a sDecial event at
any one time shall not exceed one hundred fifty (50) Dersons
2. Number of special events per vear. The sDecial use Dermit shall identify the
number of aDDfoved sDecial events Der calendar Year. which number shall
not exceed twenty-four (24),
3. Sifms. Permanent and temDorarv sÜms advertisin!! a sDecial event shall be
Dermitted as Dfovided in sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.8.
4. Food service. No kitchen facility Dermitted bv the Vircinia Devartment of
4
·
·
·
Draft: 06/13/05
Health as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may
be used bv licensed caterers for the hand1in2:. warmin2: and distribution of
food. but not for cookin2: food. to be served at a sDecia1 event.
5.
Portable toilets. Ifreauired. Dortab1e toilets are Dermitted on the site.
Dfovided that they comD1v with the yard reauirements in section
5.1.43(d)(2) and shall be screened from that Darcel and any
street bv tODolITaDhv. structures or new or existin2: 1andscaDin2:.
f. Prohibition of develovment to a more intensive use. A Darcel subiect to a sDecia1
events sDecia1 use Dermit shall not be subdivided so as to create one or more
Darcels. inc1udin2: the Darent Darcel. of less than twenty-one acres in size without
first amendimr the sDecia1 use Dermit to eXDfess1v authorize the subdivision. If a
Darcel is so subdivided without first amendin2: the sDecia1 use DermiC sDecia1 events
shall thereafter be Dfohibited on the resultin2: oarce1s unless a new sDecia1 use
oermit is obtained.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2
By special use permit
50.
SDecia1 events (reference 5.1.43).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
_ to _, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Domer
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
5
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Rebecca Ragsdale
May 24, 2005
July 13, 2005
ZT A 99-06: SPECIAL EVENTS (Althea H. Randolph)
ORIGIN:
This ZTA proposal was initiated by a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) application which
was submitted in August 1999 (Attachment A) requesting that Tourist Lodging in the
Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow for weddings, special events, corporate
meetings, or other events. This request was tabled by the Planning Commission in April
2000, following staff's recommendation that this request be deferred until completion of
the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Areas Plan was adopted
by the Board of Supervisors in March 2005. Following the applicant and the Planning
Commission's request to reactivate this ZT A, a resolution of intent to amend the
ordinance was passed on January 18, 2005. (Attachment B)
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED:
..
This ZTA would provide opportunities for Rural Area landowners to have additional
income producing land uses that are intended to offset financial pressure to subdivide
their land. The County would benefit from the reduced fragmentation of land and the
resulting protection of potential agricultural and forestal production, as well as natural
and historic resources. This would implement the Guiding Principles of the Rural Areas
Plan by providing alternatives to land fragmentation.
PROPOSAL:
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance only provides provisions for special events as an
accessory use to a farm winery (Section 5.1.25) in the Rural Areas Zoning District. As
with the supplemental regulations for farm wineries, this ZTA would allow special events
of up to 150 guests as a secondary use on Rural Area properties with an existing rural
area use. However, this ZTA would add a separate definition of Special Events to the
Zoning Ordinance and allow it as a use by special permit in the Rural Areas Zoning
District. Supplemental regulations are proposed to ensure that the impacts to the Rural
Area are minimized and these uses are scaled and sited appropriately. Provisions for
parking, signs, concept plans, setbacks, structures that can be used for events,
reversibility and limiting events to 12 a year have been included. This ZTA would provide
an ancillary use for Rural Area structures, such as barns, that may be in need of
rehabilitation. During the special use permit process, the adequacy of roads serving the
sites for these events would need to be determined through VDOT and county staff
review.
STAFF COMMENT:
.
Comprehensive Plan: Protection of the Rural Areas' historic, archeological, and cultural
resources is identified as a Guiding Principal for policy development in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan offers specific recommendations to provide alternatives
land uses to rural landowners to relieve pressure to subdivide.
ZT A 99-06 Special Events
May 17, 2005
1
6J
Strategies of the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan addressed with
this ZTA:
o Review the Zoning Ordinance to re-evaluate by-right uses and uses by special
permit, such as home occupations and farm sales, to encourage uses that
promote the preservation of rural lands and activities, including but not limited to
farm sales and agricultural service businesses, low-impact forms of recreation,
temporary special events, arts and crafts sales, garden centers, and discourage
uses that are contrary to the County's growth management policies, including but
not limited to swim or tennis clubs, new schools, and off-site parking for industrial
districts.
The Zoning Ordinance has been reviewed based on the applicant's specific request for
special events but future zoning text amendments will follow that address other by-right
and special use permit uses in the Rural Areas.
o Limit the size and intensity of rural alternative uses so that they do not conflict
with the character of the Rural Areas.
The definition of special events limits the number of participants to 150 and states that
events will typically be on a single day but may include up to three consecutive days.
The supplemental regulations include provisions such as increased setbacks and limit
the number of events to twelve per year. Parking areas would be pervious and screened.
It is not intended that new structures be built to accommodate this use but existing rural
area buildings such as barns would be rehabilitated.
o Maintain the existing policy of not expanding public water and sewer service to
the Rural Areas, including rural alternative uses.
It is expected that the current County policy addressing the Albemarle County Service
Authority Jurisdictional Area and requests for central/alternative systems would be
applied in this case. Substantial upgrades to existing systems to accommodate these
uses or approval of central systems would not be consistent with policies in the Rural
Area. The Health Department would be included in review of special use permits for
these uses. Portable toilets would be an option to property owners to provide additional
restroom facilities that are easily removable.
o Ensure that subdivision is not possible for the duration of alternative uses that
are not related to agriculture, forestry, or conservation.
A provision has been added to the proposed ordinance, Section 5.1.43.f that prohibits
development of the property to a more intensive use if the approved special use permit
is to remain valid on the property.
o Require alternative uses located in the Rural Areas to use lighting (if any) that
conforms to the design specifications found in the Natural Resources and
Cultural Assets Plan.
Information regarding lighting, as with other aspects of the special event use, would be
provided and reviewed during the special use permit process.
ZT A 99-06 Special Events
May 17, 2005
2
@
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT A
ZTA- qcq - (J~
DATE: '0 -l3 -'10;
county of Albemarl~
Department of zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 , .n L .. .
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060(\J.UL1...fV' J.~jj
FEE: $665.00 .~
STAFF: ~í cu¡.'(1 /
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
OWNER (as currently listed in Real Estate)
Name ~LíH:fA, 1). .~-r-.(
Address r¿JJ1-- Gas+- Ü-¡IQ h )A-r.u+-,
(j
Phone ~) -Zq(¿ - '8"433
Cl1.tu- L Q+1- ¿ 'S v)' 11\.1., 11-1- ~'Zc;¡ 0 '2-
APPLICANT (if different from above)
Name
~
--
Phone (_)
Address
CONTACT PERSON/DES!GNATED AGENT (if different from above)
Name ~.
Phone ( ) -.
Day Phone (~) ==:--
Address
'1{ LOCATION: rl~I'RVlf~Á\ (a.,rY)'J"S, S(O-H-'5\í)"\ltz \ V(-~ '246'10
PLEASE PROVIDE ACTUAL ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AND JUSTIFICATION OF YOUR
REQUEST ON THE BACK OF THIS SHEET OR AN ATTACHMENT.
OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE OF PRELIM CONFjSTAFF: 499 /t:lo>
I
ORDINANCE SECTION : Sf 1/ /?
zoning -Administrator Review ( initials) . J7JS
Planner:
Recommendation
Planning Commission: __/__/__
Action:
Board of Supervisors: __/__/_ Action:
(j if
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF THIS APPLICATION, A PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
SHOULD BE HELD WITH THE PLANNING STAFF AND ZONING ADMINJ:'STRATOR..
The current application form must be completed by the applicant in
its entirety (the request should be clear) .
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATIûN
AND IS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT:
(~ completed application.
(~ Appropriate fee made payable
to the County of Albemarle.
THE ZONING DEPARTMENT WILL PROVIDE
THE APPLICANT:
( ~~py of review schedule.
d ~Mh ~lrt
Person accepting the app ication
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO
~
Da e
($)6
.
Administration I Review Process:
Adoption of these regulations would allow an additional use by special use permit in
Rural Areas zoning district. The review process will be that of any other special use
permit application. This would be an additional use that requires a zoning clearance.
Housing Affordability: The proposed amendment would not affect housing
affordability.
Implications to Staffing I Staffing Costs: New special use permits add incrementally
to the overall staff effort and eventually lead to increased staffing needs. Some staff
costs are associated with any special use permit that is approved for special events.
Current review fees may not actually cover the full staff time required to review special
use permits. Zoning clearances for each event will add additional staff timelcost. Given
the supplemental regulations there is potential for issues with any particular event or
site, which would require follow-up by zoning to identify violations. However, a
substantial volume of these requests are not expected.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the regulations as provided
in Attachment C.
.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
ZT A 99-06 application submitted by Althea H. Randolph
Resolution of Intent
Draft Ordinance dated 3/17/05
.
ZTA 99-06 Special Events
May 17, 2005
3
@
2T~ -c¡ 1-0&
.
Zoning Text Amendment
Owner: Althea B. Hurt
Fairview Farms
252 East High Street
Charlottesville, V A 22902
296-8433 (office)
977-4235 (FAX)
ACTUAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
5.1.17 - zoning administrator may issue a permit for such use for up to five years.
No real changes necessary. We want 5. 1.17 to be # 1 and then to add #2 - Add weddings,
special events, corporate meetings and other events during the yeaï.
ruSTIFICATION:
1. The concern of neighbors and the County would, we anticipate, be that with any
increase in use at a rural location, such increase would bring an increase in problems in
three main areas: A) large numbers of cars, causing traffic congestion and increased
wear and tear on the roadways; B) an increase in light, noise and trash pollution to the
neighborhood; and C) possible health concerns if water and sewer facilities are
inadequate.
2. Current ingress and egress: This use should require VDOT commercial entrance.
.
3. Parking: The land surrounding the main house and the outbuildings should be ell
suited for providing ample parking for weddings and other large and small scale events
without there being an accompanying eyesore to the neighbors and neighborhood.
5. Light Pollution: All lighting must conform at all times to the current Albemarle
County Light Pollution ordinance.
6. Current Water and Sewer facilities: Health Department approval.
REASONS WHY FAIR VIEW FARMS SHOULD BE APPROVED FOR THIS
ZONING CHANGE:
.
1. Albemarle County is blessed with a large number of beautiful farms many, like
Fairview Farms, have architecturally designed estate houses. Fairview Farms was
designed by Milton Grigg, one of Virginia's most prominent architects. Designed for
Mr. and Mrs. John L. Manahan (UVa's first dean of the school of education), Mr.
Grigg used many ofthe same building design ideas used in Colonial Williamsburg. At
the time he was designing this house he was also working on the restoration of
Colonial Williamsburg and was, I believe, on the board of Colonial Williamsburg at
that time. The living room of this house is allegedly an exact duplicate of one of the
rooms at Raleigh Tavern in Williamsburg.
2. Like many farms, Fairview Farms has wonderful views and great expanses of open
farmland. Mr. Manahan got out of the farming business as he grew older and now the
open land is leased to a farmer in Hanover. The revenue generated rrom leasing the
@ &
farmland does not even begin to cover the taxes on the land, much less the cost of the
upkeep ofthe farm roads and the main house.
3. The Main house is a large house with great public rooms. It has been rented and used
as a second home, but the size of the rooms makes it a difficult house to rent out full
time. Because of it's large public rooms (the dining room will seat twenty) it is well
suited to receptions and large gatherings. The farm has a large lawn and wonderful
views. It has ample places to. park lots of cars without them being an eyesore to the
neighbors. The types of events that would be held there would bring with them great
revenue potential for the County. Caterers would be from Charlottesville and
Albemarle rather than going to places at Wintergreene, Greene and Orange. Florists,
caterers, waitresses. All ofthese people would get work without a lot of impact on
county resources.
4. Because it was a working dairy operation in the 40's and 50's, the water supply and
sewer system capacity are both large. The water supply to the main house is supplied by a
restaurant quality well, installed in 1990 by CR Moore Well Drilling. The sewer facilities
will have to be opened up and inspected by the Health Department to make sure it will
meet code requirements but, again, since the farm had such a large capacity in the past, we
are confident that sewage capacity will not be a problem.
@ Î
.
.
.
A TT ACHMENT B
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Rural Areas (RA) district regulations do not presently allow special
events, whether temporary or permanent, as either a by-right use or as a use by special use
permit;
WHEREAS, the draft Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan currently pending before the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors contains the following strategy:
Review the Zoning Ordinance to re-evaluate by-right uses and uses by special permit,
such as home occupations and farm sales, to encourage uses that promote the preservation
of rural lands and activities (including but not limited to farm sales and agricultural
service businesses, low-impact fonus of recreation, temporary special events, and arts and
crafts sales), garden centers, and discourage uses that are contrary to the County's growth
management policies (including but not limited to swim or tennis clubs, new schools, and
off-site parking for industrial uses);
and
WHEREAS, the special events referred to above may include such events as weddings,
corporate meetings and other similar events, and it is recognized that such events, conducted in a
manner consistent with the overall policies and goals applicable to the Rural Areas could
promote the preservation of rural lands and activities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance § 3.1, Definitions,
§ 5, Supplementary Regulations, § 10, Rural Areas (RA), and any other sections ofthe Zoning
Ordinance deemed appropriate, to achieve the purposes described herein;
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT staff shall evaluate whether the range of special
events should be allowed by right subject to supplementary regulations, by special use permit
subject to conditions, or some combination thereof;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public
hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
@ g
A TT ACHMENT C
Draft: 05/09/05
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III,
District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1
Sec. 4.12.6
Sec. 4.15.4
Sec. 4.15.8
Sec. 10.2.2
Definitions
Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Signs authorized by sign pennit
Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-l and R-2 zoning districts
By special use pennit
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.43
Special events
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1
Definitions
Svecial event: An event authorized bv section 10.2.2(50) that is tvoicallv conducted on a sinl!le
dav. but which mav be conducted for UD to three (3) consecutive davs. for which attendance is
Dennitted onlv bv invitation or reservation. and whose DarticiDants do not exceed one hundred
fiftv (150) Dersons: svecial events include. but are not limited to. meetinl!s. conferences. banauets.
dinners. weddinl!. Drivate Darties.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Except when alternative parking is approved as provided in section 4.12.8, the following schedule
shall apply tú dettrmine the number of required off-street parking spaces to be provided in a
particular situation. If a particular use is not scheduled, then section 4.12.7 shall apply.
1
@4
.
.
.
Draft: 05/09/05
Svecial events: One (1) sDace Der two and one-half (2.5) DarticiDants. Dlus one (1) SDace Der
emDlovee (includes staff. caterers. musicians and vendors).
Sec. 4.15.4 Signs authorized by sign permit
Except as provided in sections 4.15.6 (exempt signs) and 4.15.24 (nonconfonning signs), a
sign pennit shall be required for each sign erected on the same lot with the principal use to
which it pertains, prior to its erection, alteration, replacement or relocation, as provided
herein:
a. Application. An application for a sign pennit shall be submitted to the department of
building code and zoning services, together with payment of the fee required for the
application pursuant to section 35.0 ofthis chapter. A complete application shall
consist of the following:
1. A fully completed application fonn, provided to the applicant by the zoning
administrator;
2. A schematic legibly drawn to scale and sufficiently detailed showing the location
and dimensions of the sign; and
3. Any plans, specifications and details pertaining to, among other things, the sign
materials, the methods of illumination, methods of support, components, and the
condition and age of the sign, as detennined by the zoning administrator to be
necessary for the review of the application.
b. Application review and permit issuance. A sign pennit application shall be reviewed
and acted upon by the zoning administrator only as provided herein:
1. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of a complete sign pennit application, or
within seven (7) days of the receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary
sign, the zoning administrator shall review the application and either: (i) approve
the apþíièãtíõh;(ii) deny the application; (iii) refer the application to the applicant
for more infonnation as may be required by subsection (A)(3); (iv) refer the
application to the board of zoning appeals because the applicant must obtain a
special use pennit pursuant to section 4.15.5; and/or (v) refer the application to the
architectural review board because the proposed sign will be located within the
entrance corridor overlay district and a certificate of appropriateness is required.
An application shall be denied only ifthe proposed sign is a prohibited sign or does
not comply with the regulations set forth in this section 4.15. Ifthe application is
denied, the reasons shall be specified in writing.
2. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described herein within
thirty (30) days of receipt of a complete sign pennit application, or within seven (7)
days of the receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary sign, the pennit
2
@ /ù
Draft: 05/09/05
shall be deemed approved as received.
c. Administration, generally. Except for permits issued for temporary signs, which are
subject to the regulations in subsection (D), the following regulations shall apply to the
administration of sign permits:
1. A sign pemit shall become null and void if the use to which the sign permit
pertains is not commenced within six (6) months after the date the sign permit or
certificate of appropriateness is issued, whichever is later or, if the sign contains
exclusively noncommercial copy, the sign is not erected within six (6) months after
the date the sign permit is issued. Upon written request by the permittee and upon
good cause shown, the zoning administrator may grant an extension of the six (6)-
month period.
2. The zoning administrator shall revoke a sign permit if the sign does not comply
with any applicable regulation of this section 4.15.
d. Administration, permits for temporary signs. The following regulations shall apply to
the administration of sign permits issued for temporary signs:
1. A temporary sign that is a portable sign shall be stabilized so as not to pose a
danger to public safety. Prior to the sign being erected, the zoning administrator
shall approve the method of stabilization.
2. No more than four (4) permits for temporary signs shall be issued by the zoning
administrator to the same establishment in any calendar year; Dfovided that UD to
rweÍVë C12lrie:rmits for non-illuminated temDorarv sÜms (one for each sDecial event
authorized bv sDecial use Dermin servin\! a sDecial event under sections 5.1.43 and
10.2.2(50) shall be issued bv the zonin\! administrator to the same site in anv
calendar vear.
3. Each permit for a temporary sign shall be valid for a period not to exceed fifteen
(15) consecutive days after the erection of the sign: Dfovided that each Dermit for a
temDorarv silm servin\! a sDecial event under sections 5.1.43 and 10.2.2(50) shall be
valid for a Deriod not to exceed three (3) consecutive davs after the erection of the
~.
4. Each temDorarv silm shall be removed bv the end of the last dav it is authorized to
be disDlaved bv the Dermit.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, §§ 4.15.09,4.15.09.1,4.15.09.2,4.15.09.3; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference - Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
The following regulations pértàining to the number of signs permitted per lot or
establishment, the sign area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for
3
®
H
Draft: 05/09/05
which a sign permit is required within the Rural Areas (RA), Village Residential (VR) and
. Residential (R-1 and R-2) zoning districts:
.
Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area Sign Height Sign Setback
Sign Type (Maximum) (Maximum) (Minimum)
1 or more per establishment, 24 square feet, 6 feet 10 feet
Directory as authorized by zoning administrator aggregated
1 per street frontage, or 2 per 24 square feet,
entrance, per lot with 100 or more aggregated; if more
Freestanding feet of continuous street frontage, than 1 sign, no single 10 feet 10 feet
plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than sign shall exceed 12
4 acres and has more than 1 approved square feet
entrance on its frontage
24 square feet,
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision aggregated, per 6 feet 5 feet
entrance
10 feet, if
24 square feet; ,§, freestanding sign;
1 per street sauare feet for a sie:n 20 feet, if wall
Te¡;;parû;}* servine: a suecial sign, but not to 10 feet
frontage per establishment event under sections exceed the top of
5.1.43 and 10.2.2(50) the fascia or
mansard
40 square feet,
aggregated in the RA Same as that
Wall As calculated pursuant to section zoning district; 20 20 feet applicable to
4.15.20 square feet,
aggregated, in other structure
zoning districts
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.1; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference - Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 5.1.43 Snecial events.
Each snecial event authorized bv section 10.2.2(50) shall be subiect to the followine::
a. EIŽfzibilitv and alJlJlicabilitv. Snecial events may be authorized on those narcels in
the Rural Areas (RA) zonine: district on which there is an existine: and one:oine: bv-
rjgl1t{~egJi_o!!Jº).l ) nrimarv use. A snecial event snecial use nermit issued under
section 10.2.2(50) and this section shall not be reauired for snecial events
associated with farm wineries or historical centers. or for events determined bv the
zonine: administrator to be accessory to a nrimarv use of the narcel.
b. Information to be submitted with alJlJlication for slJecial use lJermit. In addition to
any information otherwise reauired to be submitted for a snecial use nermit. each
ann Ii cation for a snecial use nermit for a snecial event shall include the
followine::
.
1.
ConcelJt lJlan. A Dreliminarv schematic nlan (the "concent nlan") satisfvine:
4
@
}'Z-
Draft: 05/09/05
section 32.4.1. The conceut ulan shall identify the structure( s) to be used
for the suecial event. include the area of the structure( s) in which the
Dfouosed suecial events will be conducted. the uarkim! area. and
the entrance to the site from the street. The conceut ulan shall address. in
uarticular. urovisions for safe and convenient access to and from the street.
identification of the uarkimr area and delineation of uarkine: suaces.
Dfouosed screenine: as reQuired bv this section for uarkine: areas and
uortable toilets. and information ree:ardine: the exterior auuearance of the
nronosed site. Based on the conceut ulan and other information submitted.
the board of suuervisors may then waive the reQuirement for a site ulan in a
uarticular case. uuon a findine: that the reQuirement of a site ulan would not
forward the uurooses of this chauter or otherwise serve the uublic interest.
2. Information from the Vin!inia Devartment of Health. The auulicant shall
submit written comments from the Vire:inia Deuartment of Health ree:ardine:
the urivate water suuulv and the seutic disuosal system that will serve the
Dfouosed suecial event site. the ability of the water suuulv and the seutic
disuosal system to handle the Dfouosed events. and the need to imurove
the suuulv or the system in order to handle the Dfouosed events.
3. Buildinf! and fire safetv. The buildine: official and the county deuartment of
fire and rescue shall review and comment on the auulication. identifvine: all
Vire:inia Uniform Statewide Buildine: Code and Vire:inia Statewide Fire
Prevention Code issues.
c. Zoninf! comvliance clearance. The auulicant shall obtain a zonine: comuliance
clearance urior to conductine: a suecial event. A sine:le zonine: comuliance
clearance may be obtained for one (1 ) or more such suecial events in a calendar
year as foliöws:-
I. The zonine: administrator may issue a sine:1e zonine: comuliance
clearance for more than one (1 ) suecial event if: (i) the auulication
submitted bv the auulicant includes the reQuired information in subsection
5.1.43( c )(3) for each suecial event to be covered bv the zonine: comuliance
clearance: (ii) the zonine: administrator determines that each suecial event is
substantially similar in nature and size: and (iii) the zonine: administrator
determines that a sine:le set of conditions that would auulv to each such
suecial event may be imuosed with the zonine: comuliance clearance.
2. The auulicant shall auulv for a zonine: comuliance clearance at least
thirty (30) days urior to the date of the first suecial event to be authorized
bv the zonine: comuliance clearance. The auulication shall be
submitted to the zonine: administrator. who shall forward couies of
the auulication to the county uolice deuartment. the county buildine: official.
the county deuartment of fire and rescue. and the local office of the Vire:inia
Deuartment of Health. As uart of his review. the buildine: official shall
determine whether the structure(s) Dfouosed to be used for the suecial
5
@
f3
.
Draft: 05/09/05
events satisfies the reauirements of the Vin!Ïnia Uniform Statewide
Buildin!Z Code for that use.
3.
The annlication shall describe the nature of each snecial event to be
authorized bv the zonin!Z comnliance clearance. the date or dates and
hours of oneration of each such snecial event. the facilities. structures to be
used. and the number of narticinants and sunnort staff exnect to attend each
snecial event.
4.
Unon a determination that all reauirements of the zonin!Z ordinance and all
conditions of the snecial use nermit are satisfied. and imnosin!Z all
conditions of such anDfoval reauired bv the offices identified in subsection
5.1.43(c)(2)' the zonin!Z administrator shall issue a zonin!Z comnliance
clearance for one or more snecial events. The validity of the zonin!Z
comnliance clearance shall be conditional unon the annlicant's comnliance
with all reauirements of the zonin!Z ordinance. all conditions of the
anDfoved snecial use nermit. the anDfoved concent n1an or site nlan. and all
conditions imnosed bv the zonin!Z comnliance clearance.
d. Svecia! events sites and structures. In addition to all other annlicable reauirements
of this chanter. snecia1 events sites and structures shall be subiect to the followin!Z:
.
.
1.
Structures used for svecial events. Each structure used for a snecial event
shall satisfy the followin!Z: (i) the structure shall have been in existence on
the date of adontion of this section 5.1.43. nrovided that this reauirement
shall not annlv to accessory structures less than one hundred fifty (150)
sauare feet in size: (ii) the structure shall be restored as faithfully as
nossible to the architectural character of the neriod in which it was built and
shall be maintained consistent therewith: (iii) the structure shall be a lawful
conformin!Z structure and shall sunnort or have sunnorted a lawful use of the
nronertv: and (iv) modifications to farm buildin!Zs or structures as that term
is defined in Vif!Zinia Code ô 36-97 shall allow the structure to revert to an
a!Zricultural use. as determined bv the buildin!Z official.
2. Minimum vards. Notwithstandin!Z any other Dfovision of this chanter. the
minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side
and rear yards shall be fifty (50) feet. All yards shall be measured from
structures and off-street narkin!Z areas.
3.
Parkini: The number of off-street narkin!Z snaces for a snecial event shall
be as reauired in section 4.12.6. Notwithstandin!Z section 4.12.15( a)
throu!Zh ( !Z). the narkin!Z area( s) shall consist of or be constructed of
nervious materials anDfoved bv the county en!Zineer: asnhalt and imnervious
materials are Dfohibited: i[the narkin!Z area is on !Zfass or in a field. the
annlicant shall reseed and restore the narkin!Z area site as reauired bv the
zonin!Z administrator: the snecial use nermit may reauire bv condition that
the annlicant nrovide a surety or other !Zuarantee in an amount deemed
necessary bv the zonim! administrator to be sufficient to assure the
6
ô
~
Draft: 05/09/05
reseedim! or restoration. In addition to the reauirements of section 4.12.5.
the Darking area shall be onsite and screened from abutting Darcels bv
tODograDhv. structures or hew or existing landscaDing. Notwithstanding
section 4.12.16(d) and (e). Darking SDaces shall be delineated and bumDer
blocks shall be reauired only as determined bv the zoning administrator to
be aDDfoDfiate and necessary.
4. Water and sewer. The Dfivate water sUDDlv and seDtic disDosal system
serving a sDecial event shall be aDDfoved bv the Virginia DeDartment of
Health.
5. Streets and access. Streets serving the site shall be adeauate for the
anticiDated traffic volume for a sDecial event. Access from the street onto
the site shall be adeauate to Dfovide safe and convenient access to the site.
and aDDlicant shall install all reauired imDfovements and Dfovide adeauate
sight distance in order to Dfovide safe and convenient access.
e. Svecial events overations. In addition to all other aDD lie able reauirements of this
chaDter. sDecial events oDerations shall be subiect to the following:
1. Number of svecial events ver vear. The sDecial use Dermit shall identify the
number of aDDfoved sDecial events Der calendar Year. which number shall
not exceed twelve (12),
2. Noise. Outdoor amDlified sound systems shall be Dfohibited at all times.
3. SÙ!ns. A temDorarv sign advertising a sDecial event shall be Dermitted as
Drovided in sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.8.
4. Food service. No kitchen facility Dermitted bv the Virginia DeDartment of
Health as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may
be used bv licensed caterers for the handling. warming and distribution of
food. but not for cooking food. to be served at a sDecial event.
5. Portable toilets. Portable toilets are Dermitted on the site. Dfovided that
they are located no closer than one thousand (1.000) feet from any abutting
Darcel not under the same ownershiD as the Darcel on which the sDecial
events will be conducted and shall be screened from that Darcel and any
street bv tODograDhv. structures or new or existing landscaDing.
f. Prohibition of develovment to a more intensive use. A sDecial event sDecial use
Dermit authorizes sDecial events to be conducted on the Darcel as Dfovided bv this
chaDter Dfovided that the Darcel is not subdivided so as to create one or more
Darcels less than twenty-one (21) acres in size as Dfovided under section 10.3. If
the Darcel is so subdivided. sDecial events shall thereafter be Dfohibited on the
resulting Darce1s.
7
@ 115
.
.
.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2
By special use permit
50. Soecial events (reference 5.1.43),
Draft: 05/09/05
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
_ to _, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
1\ If... T'""__...-"; ..........~
.lVH. L1VH.lc;l
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
8
ŒD
It£;
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 1999-06, Special Events (Althea
Hurt Randolph)
AGENDA DATE:
June 21, 2005
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAl/REQUEST:
Draft Ordinance for ZT A 1999-06, revised version
following Planning Commission recommendations of
5/24/05
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Benish, McDowell, Ragsdale
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This ZTA proposal was initiated by a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) application which was submitted in August 1999
requesting that Tourist Lodging in the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow for weddings, special events, corporate
meetings, or other events. This request was tabled by the Planning Commission in April 2000, following staffs
recommendation that this request be deferred until completion of the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Rural Areas Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March 2005. Following the applicant and the Planning
Commission's request to reactivate this ZTA, a resolution of intent to amend the ordinance was passed on January 18,
.005. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item May 24, 2005 and recommend approval ofZTA 99-06
ith' several changes to the draft ordinance, as provided in the attached Planning Commission action memo. (Attachment
A)
DISCUSSION:
Staffis providing you with the revised draft ordinance (Attachment B) reflecting all of the Planning Commission's
recommendations and one revision suggested by staff. Following further evaluation of temporary signs and over Zoning
Administration's concerns regarding administering this section of the ordinance, it is no longer recommended that
Section 4.15.4.d be modified to allow additional temporary signs for special events. Property owners would be permitted,
following application for a sign permit one freestanding sign of up to 24 square feet in size, one wall sign up to 40 square
feet in size and up to four temporary signs per year. These signs are currently permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. The
ordinance also allows farm/estate signs without a sign permit application up to 4 square feet in size. Staff feels this
provides adequate signage for the property owner to advertise and would not cause a proliferation of temporary signs that
could be incompatible with the character of the Rural Area and burdensome for Zoning to permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve ZT A 99-06 as drafted in Attachment B.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Planning Commission Action Memo for May 24, 2005 Meeting
B. ZTA 1999-06 Draft Ordinance, dated 6/13/05
.
ZT/\ 99-06 Althea Hurt Randolph
.Ianuar} I g. 2005
@
Attachment A
. The motion carried by a vote of (6:1). (Rieley - No)
SUB 2005-086 Fray's Mill Rural Preservation Development (RPD) - Request for preliminary plat
approval to create a 9 (nine) lot Rural Preservation Development (9 lots and a preservation tract of 79.1
acres). The total acreage of the subdivision is 122 acres. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The
property, described as Tax Map 20, Parcel 29 is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Frays Mill
Road (Route 641) approximately 1-mile east of the intersection with Buffalo River Road (Route 743).
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Rural Area uses in Rural Area 1. (Steve Tugwell)
Mr. Rieley moved for approval of SUB-2005-086, Fray's Mill Rural Preservation Development, subject to
the conditions as modified.
The Division of Zoning and Current Development shall not sign the final subdivision plat until the following
conditions have been met:
1. The plat shall be subject to the requirements of Section 14-303 (Contents of final plat), as identified
on the "Final Subdivision Checklist" which is available from the Department of Community
Development.
2. Approval of all new road names by the E-911 Addressing Coordinator.
ð,. The plat shall be subject to the Current Development Division's engineering review. for compliance
'."lith Section 903.8.6.3 of the County's Design Standards Manu31.
4. Virginia Department of Transportation approval for road plans in accordance with the requirements
or acceptance into the state system.
5. [14.309 & 310] Written approval from the Health Department for all drainfield locations.
6. [10.3.3.3.f] Approval and record3tion of a preservation easement by the County and Public
Recreational Facilities Authority for the Preservation Tract.
.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (7:0).
Public Hearing Item:
ZT A 1999-006 Special Events - Request to amend Section 3.1, Definitions; amend Section 4.12.6,
Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses; amend Section 4.15.4, Signs authorized
by sign permit; amend Section 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
(signs); amend Section 10.2.2, By special use permit; add Section 5.1.43, Special events; of Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Section 3.1, Definitions, to add a
definition of "special events," which would be one- to three-day events such as meetings, conferences,
banquets, weddings, dinners and private parties, where attendance would be by invitation or reservation,
for up to 150 persons; amend Section 4.12.6, Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled
uses, to provide the minimum number of parking spaces required for special events; amend Section
4.15.4, Signs authorized by sign permit, to establish the frequency and duration of temporary signs for
special events and to expressly provide when temporary signs must be removed and no longer displayed;
amend Section 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts (signs), to
establish 8 square feet as the maximum size of temporary signs for special events; amend Section
10.2.2, By special use permit, to allow special events in the Rural Areas zoning district by special use
permit; and add Section 5.1.43, Special events, to establish supplementary regulations pertaining to the
prerequisites for and the operation of special events. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the changes that he noted are as follows:
· In the definition, delete the number of 150 and move that to make it a regulation in 5.1.43.
· Adjust handwritten page 11 (typed page 3) to clarify the temporary signage and increase the
number so that it corresponds with the number of events allowed.
6
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 24,2005
FINAL ACTION MEMO
(fJJ
?,
· Adjust handwritten page 14 (typed page 6) in Section d(1) to delete (ii), clarify section (iii) so that
it refers to farm buildings or farm structures as those terms are defined so that there is not
ambiguity there.
· Section d(2) make the yard setbacks consistent with the RA yard requirements and they will
have those requirements comply to tents and the portable toilets.
· Parking in d(3) will read the number of off-street parking for a special event shall be as required
in Section 4.12.6 notwithstanding Section 4.12.15.a - g the additional parking areas for special
events shall consist of or be constructed of pervious materials and include a reference to
stabilize turf to be approved by the County Engineer. Asphalt and impervious materials are
prohibited and continue all the way up to the semi-colon and the deleting the requirement for
bonding. Then continuing with the next sentence, "In addition to the requirements of section
4.12.5, the parking area shall be onsite and be screened from abutting parcels by topography,
structures or new or existing landscaping. Notwithstanding section 4.12.16(d) and (e), the
delineation of parking spaces and the provision of bumper blocks shall not be required.
· Change subsection e( 1) to include a lim it of 24.
· Delete the noise limitation in subsection e(2).
· Change portable toilets in subsection e(4) to simply cross reference the minimum yard
requirements.
· Subsection f will be revised at the end of the first sentence to include a clause, "without
amendment of the special use permit."
· The last sentence in subsection f will be changed to read, "If the parc!31 is so subdivided, special
events shall thereafter be prohibited on the resulting parcels, without modification."
· Change subsection e(5) Portable toilets to read, "If required, portable toilets shall be located no
closer than whatever the minimum yard setbacks are."
Mr. Rieley moved for approval of ZTA-1999-006, Special Events, as modified according to what Mr.
Kamptner just read.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Kamptner stated that this matter would only come back to the Commission if the request has to be
readvertised.
Worksession:
CPA 2005-001 Albemarle County Land Use Plan Transportation Update - Work session to review a
draft update of the Transportation Section of Comprehensive Plan. (Juandiego Wade)
In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session to review the draft update of the
Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff discussed the proposed document. The
Planning Commission provided comments and suggestions as noted below. Staff will incorporate the
Commission's comments, make corrections to the document, update the status of all of the projects and
bring the corrected draft and the additional information back for further review.
. The primary purpose of this amendment was to do a housekeeping update to the Comprehensive
Plan primarily to reference the new UNJAM Plan and the Pedestrian Bicycle Greenways Plan that
was approved at the T JPDC level.
. The Commission does not have all of the information that they would need to adopt this
amendment yet. There would also be amendments to the Land Use Plan Map. There are
references to some of the roads that need to be changed on that map. There are also profiles for
each of the development areas that reference certain projects that need to be updated too. Staff
has not provided those to the Commission. Therefore, there will be more information coming to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 24,2005
FINAL ACTION MEMO
7
@
Lr
.
.
.
Attachment B
Draft: 06/13~/05
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III,
District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Sec.1.15. ~- - SIgns authorized-by<;ign pCl111ij
Sec. 1.] 5. g -- - RcguJations applicable in the RA.~-R-+--ami R 2 zoning di:;tricts
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use pennit
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.43
Special events
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1
DeÎmitions
Svecial event: An event authorized bv section 10.2.2(50) that is tvoicallv conducted on a sinQ:le
dav. but which mav be conducted for UD to three (3) consecutive davs. for which attendance is
Dennitted onlv bv invitation or reservation~and 'Nho~iciPants do not cxceed .one hundred
fifty (150) Dcrsons: svecial events include. but are not limited to. meetilll.!s. conferences. banauets.
dinners. weddinQ:s andLDrivate Darties.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Except when alternative parking is approved as provided in section 4.12.8, the following schedule
shall apply to detennine the number of required off-street parking spaces to be provided in a
particular situation. If a particular use is not scheduled, then section 4.12.7 shall apply.
1
ø'J- Xi
// I
¡' '-"......
s
Draft: 061 13~/05
SveciaZ,events: One (1) SDace Der two and one-half (2.5) DarticiDants. Dlus one (1) sDace Der
emDlovee (includes staff. caterers. musicians and vendors),
Sec. 4.15.4 Signs 8uthørizcd b)' sign permit
Except as proÙded in sections ~.15,6 (exempt signs) and 4.15.21 (noncOnfOTIlling signs), a
sign permit shall be required for each sign erected on the same lot with the principal use to
\vhich it pertains, prior to its erection. altemtìon, replacement or relocation, as provided
hcrein:
---------{b .1ppficatìon. An application for a Slb'11 permit shall be submItted to the department of
building code and zoning services, together with payment of the fee required for the
application pursuant to section 35.0 of this chapter. A complete application shall
consist of the fol io',ving:
-1-:-- ,A. fully completed application form. provided to the applicant by the zoning
administrator;
~Aschematic legibl)' drawn to-sæle---aflti-suftìciently detailed showing the location
and dimensions of the sign; and
:k- /\n)' plans, specifications and details pertmning to, among other thIngs, the sign
materials, the methods of íJ1umination, methods of support, components, and the
condition and age of the sIgn, as deteTIllinad by the zoning administrator to be
necessary for the revie"v oftha application.
-------1T.--- .1pplictJtion rCì'icw and pc:-nut issuancc.- ,\ sIgn permit application shall be fC'vie\ved
and acted upon by the zonIng adl111TI1strator only as provided herein:
1. Within thIrty (30) days of the receipt of a complete sign peTIllit application, or
within seven (7) days of the receIpt of a complete sign application for a temporary
sign, the zoning administrator shall fC'vie\,¡, the application and either: (i) approve
the application; (ií) den)' the application; (iíi) refer the application to the applicant
for more infomation as may be reqUlred by subsection (1'\)(3); (iv) refer the
application to the board of ~':onIng appeals because the applicant must obtain a
~;pecíal use pemit pursuant to section 1.15.5; and/or (v) refer the application to the
archItectural revie\-',' board because the proposed sign will be located within the
entrance comdor overlay district and a certificate of appropriateness is required.
;\n applícation shall be denied only if the proposed sign is a prohibited sign or does
not comply '.yith the regulations set forth In this ~;ection 1.15. If the application is
denied, the reasons shall be specified in '.vriting.
2. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described herein '.vithin
tffi.rt.y~ days of receipt ef-a-complete ~;ign pemit application, or ,,¡,ithin scven (7)
day~; of the receIpt of a complete sIgn applicatJOn for a temporary sign, the permit
2
r--\
(~?)~
{¡
Draft: 06/13(.)5J{}.9/05
sffiH.J.- be deemed upprO\üd u~; reccJ\ed.
.
€:- ·1dm:l1!strwio!1, ,generd!'.-_ Except-ffir pcn11lt~, I~;suüd for temporury ~;igIl:;,whlCh arc
';ubJcct to-ifle.rebulutIOIl:ìffl-~;ub:;ectlOn (01, the fol1O',\'ins regulution~; :;I1UIJapply to the
admlIlJ~;trution of :;Ign pen11lt:;
+-; A:;ibIl pen11lt :;hull become-tH:l+!-étA:4\old If the w;e to whIch the :;ign penna
pertains i~; not commenced within :;lX (6) month~; atter the date tfle.~permit Bf
€ertitÌcate of appropnatenc~;s i:, i~;~;ued, \\'hiche\'er is later or, if the :;ign contains
exclusivcl) noncommercwJ copy, the ~s not erected withm :;IX (6) months utter
the date the ~;Ign penmt i~; I~;~;ued, ' Upon written reque:;t by the permittee and upon
good cuu~;e ~;hOWIl. the zoning admini~;trator may grant -fffi-exten:;ion of the -S*"~
ttTBftttr period.
¿';H The z:onin6 admimstrator shall re\okc a sign penl1lt If the SIb'll doc:; not comply
with any applicabJc regulation of this ~;ecti()n 1.15.
th·1dmll1istratlOl2, pe,"mils lor tCl7/poran'~:f'he tollowmg regulatIOn:; ~;ha] upply to
the administratIon of :;ign permits J:;sued-ffir-temporary signs:
h·;\ temporary Sl;''TI that't5 a portable ~;¡gn shall be stabIlized so u~; not to pose a
danger-te- public :;afety,< Prior to the sign bemg erccted, the zoning admim~;trator
:;hall approye the method of :;tabIlvutlOn.
.
L No morc than four (1) penl1Jts tor temporary :;Ign:; :;hall be I:;sued by the ;~omng
admim:;trator to the ~;ame e~;tablishment m any calendar year; ~oVldccl that UD to
¡",'.'che 112) Denl1ltsjor npn II IUmII1ated tçn1.QorarL~s ~ne for e[lch~Q1::cial cyent
authorized Qy ~al u~~~~;er\'i~~ecialsYent under scçtions 5,1.13 and
10.2.2L50)shallþc iS~.lled þythe <~oni~inis~ratOfto the same ~ite in aI1)'
calendar 'year.
+,-... Each pemllt tor a temporary sign ~;hall be valid for a penoct not to exceed fifteen
( 15) consecutIve days after the erectIOn of the SIgn: Drovided that each Dennit for a
¡emDorarvslli!!sef\l!ll~j~JiQecHlI event undçrsections 5.L.13 and 10.2.')(50) shall be
';alid for a Derioct notto exceed three nl consecutive dgys after the erection of the
SIbD·
1. Each tem...Q0rID,~.shall be Tell10ved b4Jhc endofthe last d.l!J' It IS aut}¡.9nz~d tQ
be disDlaved bv the 1>ennit,
(12 10 gO; 7 g 92. ~~ 1.15.09, 1.15,tJ<).1. 1,15.09.~. "1.15.09.3: Ord. OJ 18(3),5 () (1)
~ ffiwreferellee~~** !-;;.;!- 2:'í;(!c +.<,-~C~
Sec. 4.15.8 ·Regulations applicablc.m the RA. VR. R I and R 2 zoning districts
.
The foilovnng regulatIons pertmnmg to the number of :;igns pennitted per 10t-er
establIshment, the SIgn area, Slb'11 height, and setback requirements shall apply to euch sígn for
3
"
/ /
/
¿.
-7
Draft: 06/ 13~/05
vl'l11ch a sign penn]t is required ',';ithin the Rural ,"-reas (R/.), Village Residential (VR) and
Residential (R l-aflfi- R 2) zoning ddricts:
'<umber of Signs , \Bowed SigR···Affft Sign Height Sign Setbaek
Sign Type ('\la~¡imum) (Ma~¡imum) (Minimum)
~ or more per e,;tablishmenL ;M-ó;quare feet. f¡.-feet ~
Direetor)' as- authorized by zoning admini:;trator aggregated
1 per ,;treet tTontage, or 2 per 24 :;quare feel.
entrance, -þff-J:et.-wAA'~-mefe
feet of contmuou.; street frontage, aggregated; if more
..r"ycestaildi:rg ffiæt.+ -stgR-;-fl&-5ffigl€ W--fuet -l-G-fue.t
plus--l- per lot if the lot is greaterfflaH
s-tgn--sflalJ- ~~
1 acre;; and has -mere- than I approved ~ feet
entrance on its frontage
.u-st¡-ttare~
SlIhtiÙ'isioll ~ entrance per :;ubdivl:;lOn aggregated, per {r.ket ~-feet
entrance
~-í-!
24 square feet, 8 tree:;tanding sign;
t--per -street s'lliª-r~j£çttº!9,sj.gn ;w.~walJ
Te",pøFtlFY frontage per establishment ,:>-çp:iQgJLSPec;j"'ll sign, but not to W-reet
"yent Jé!lQc.l ;;ections exceod the top of
5,J,.,13 ~IO.2,~{5D) tlte-.faseta-ftf
mansard
10 :,quare ..feet,
aggregated in the RA Same as that
As- calculated pursuant to~ zonin;; district;·2{)
Wtffl W-reet applicable to
~ ~fuet.,
aggregated, in other :;tructure
æHffig- di:;trict:;
(12 1080; 7 g 92, * 1.15.12.1: Ord. 01 18(3),5') (1)
Stofe low FefereRee'-'¥&*'~ 15.2 2280
Sec. 5.1.43 Snecial events.
Each sDecial event authorized bv section 10.2.2(50) shall be subiect to the followin!!:
a. Elif!ibilitv and avvlicabilitv. SDecial events mav be authorized on those Darcels in
the Rural Areas (RA) zonin!! district on which there is an existin!! and on!!oÏn!! bv-
ri2ht (section 10.2.1) Drimarv use. A sDecial event sDecial use Dermit issued under
section 10.2.2(50) and this section shall not be reauired for sDecial events
associated with farm wineries or historical centers. or for events determined bv the
zonin!! administrator to be accessorY to a Drimarv use of the Darcel.
b. Information to be submitted with avvlication for svecial use vermit. In addition to
anv information otherwise reauired to be submitted for a sDecial use Dermit. each
aDDlication for a sDecial use Dermit for~eìal event shall include the--·--
-----.-.- ··followin!!:
1. Concevt vlan. A meliminarv schematic Dlan (the "conceDt Dlan") satisfvin!!
-'.
4
'r, ,/f)
i . Þ
',---~~/
8
Draft: 06/13~/05
.
section 32.4.1. The conceDt Dlan shall identify the structure( s) to be used
for the sDecial event. include the area of the structure(s) in which the
DroDosed sDecial events will be conducted. the Darkin2: area. and
the entrance to the site from the street. The conceDt Dlan shall address. in
Darticular. Drovisions for safe and convenient access to and from the street.
the 10catJonidcDt1fÌcGtio]1 ofthe Darkin2: area. the locationj.lnd~iJ)~on of
portable toilets lfthev may be required. l?Grkim: SjLGCC§" ---
DroDosed screenin2: as reQuired bv this section for Darkin2: areas
and Dortable toilets. and information re2:ardin2: the exterior aDDearance of
. _ the DroDosed site. Based on the conceDt Dlan and other information ___
______ ____ submitted. the board of sUDervisors may then waive the reQuirement for a
_______ __site Dlan in a Darticular case. UDon a findin2: that the reQuirement of a site _
_ _ __.. Dlan would not forward the Dumoses of this chaDter or otherwise serve the
.__ ________Dublic interest.
2. Information from the Vire-inia DeDartment of Health. The aDDlicant shall
submit written comments from the Vinrinia DeDartment of Health re2:ardin2:
the Drivate water sUDDlv and the seDtic disDosal system that will serve the
mODosed sDecial event site. the ability of the water sUDDlv and the seDtic
disDosal system to handle the DroDosed events. and the need to imDrove
the sUDDlv or the system in order to handle the mODosed events.
3.
Buildine- and fire safetv. The buildin2: official and the county deoartment of
fire and rescue shall review and comment on the aDDlication. identifyin2: all
Vinrinia Uniform Statewide Buildin2: Code and Vinrinia Statewide Fire
Prevention Code issues.and requirements~
.
c. Zonine- comDliance clearance. The aDDlicant shall obtain a zonin2: comDliance
clearance Drior to conductin2: a sDecial event. A sin2:le zonin2: comDliance
clearance may be obtained for one (1 ) or more such sDecial events in a calendar
year as follows:
1. The zonin2: administrator may issue a sin2:le zonin2: comDliance
clearance for more than one (1 ) sDecia1 event if: (i) the aDDlication
submitted bv the aDDlicant includes the reQuired information in subsection
5.1.43( c )(3) for each sDecial event to be covered bv the zonin2: comDliance
clearance: (ii) the zonin2: administrator determines that each sDecial event is
substantially similar in nature and size: and (iii) the zonin2: administrator
determines that a sin2:le set of conditions that would aDDlv to each such
sDecial event may be imDosed with the zonin2: comDliance clearance.
2.
The aDDlicant shall aDDlv for a zonin2: comDliance clearance at least
thirty (30) days Drior to the date of the first sDecial event to be authorized
bv the zonin2: comDliance clearance. The aDDlication shall be
submitted to the zonin2: administrator. who shall forward cODies of
the aDDlication to the county Dolice deoartment. the county buildin2: officiaL
the county deoartment of fire and rescue. and the local office of the Vinnnia
DeDartment of Health. As Dart of his review. the buildin2: official shall
.
5
.~
'Îr~l\
'/-))
(1
Draft: 06/13~/05
determine whether the structure( s) DfoDosed to be used for the sDecial
events satisfies the reauirements ofthe Vinrinia Uniform Statewide
BuildinQ: Code for that use.
3. The aDDlication shall describe the nature of each sDecial event to be
authorized bv the zoninQ: comDliance clearance. the date or dates and
hours of oDeration of each such sDecial event. the facilities. structures to be
used. and the number of DarticiDants and SUDDOrt staff eXDect to attend each
sDecial event.
4. UDon a determination that all reauirements of the zoninQ: ordinance and all
conditions of the sDecial use Dermit are satisfied. and imDosinQ: all
conditions of such aDDroval reauired bv the offices identified in subsection
5.1.43(c)(2)' the zoninQ: administrator shall issue a zoninQ: comDliance
clearance for one or more sDecial events. The validitv of the zoninQ:
comDliance clearance shall be conditional UDon the aDDlicant's comDliance
with all reauirements of the zoninQ: ordinance. all conditions of the
aDDfoved sDecial use Dermit. the aDDroved conCeDt Dlan or site Dlan. and all
conditions imDosed bv the zoninQ: comDliance clearance.
d. Svecial events sites and structures. In addition to all other aDDlicable reauirements
ofthis chaDter. sDecial events sites and structures shall be subiect to the followinQ::
1. Structures used for svecial events. Each structure used for a sDecial event
shall satisfy the followinQ:: (i) the structure shall have been in existence on
the date of adoDtion ofthis section 5.1.43. Dfovided that this reauirement
shall not aDDlv to accessorY structures less than one hundred fiftv (150)
sauare feet in size: (m the structure shall be restored as faithfully as-
possible to the architectural character of the Deriod in \vhich it ':¡as built and
______ shall be maintained consistent therewith~ (iiil the structure shall bea lawful
conforminQ: structure and shall SUDDort or have sUDDorted a lawful use of the
--------------DfODertV: and Oiilcl-modifications to farm buildinQ:s or farm structures as
those terms are that term is defined in VirQ:inia Code & 36-97 shall allow the
structure to revert to an arncultural use. as determined bv the buildinQ:
official.
2. Minimum vards. NotwithstandinQ: anv other Dfovision of this chaDter. the
minimum front vard shall be seventv-five (75) feet. The minimum side
vardand rear ','ards shall be twenty-fivefiftv (50) feet (25) feet. The
minimum rear yard shall be thirty-five (35) feet. All vards shall be
measured from structures and off-street DarkinQ: areas. These mimmum
yard requirements shall apply to all accessory structures established after
the effective date of this section 5.1.43 and all tents, parking areas and
portable toilets used in_ whole or in part to serve special events.
3. Parkinf!. The number of off-street DarkinQ: SDaces for a sDecial event shall
be as reauired in section 4.12.6. NotwithstandinQ: section 4.12.15(a)
throu2h (Q:). the additìonatDarkinQ: area(s) for special events shall consist of
6
~ì
"
\0
.
.
.
Draft: 06/13w.w/05
- ".-. -..- ~-.-._'"--_..~
_ or be constructed of Dervious materials including. but not limIted t~~______
_stabilized turf. aDDroved bv the county enm.neer. Asphalt~~halt and
imDervious materials are Dfohibited. _I tÞi:f the Darkim! area is on ;!fass or in
a field. the aDDlicant shall reseed and restore the Darkin!! area site as
reauired bv the zonin!! administratord~~~j~PJ¡jlJ:pJl.l'_(£illlLL~d
cgndi bon _tht,lt ~ Wj?l icant 12ro)"ide[l_ sur~t\'QrQLilÇL~JID,t~jll~=
ümount deemcd ILç~~~~~-£ID'llblh~Q~admiflistrl!!º¡- tºº~~llt1ìfic:Dt l~L=
assure thc r~~l:estoratioI}. In addition to the reauirements of
section 4.12.5. the Darkin!! area shall be on site and screened from abuttin!!
Darcels bv tODo ;!faDhv. structures or new or existin!! landscaDin!!.
Notwithstandin!! section 4.12.16(d) and (e). the delineatIon, of Darkin!!
SDaces shall QC delineated and the provision ofbumDer blocks shall not be
reauired QlliL-l!~~~h.ï thezoningadminist¡-ator t9 Q.ç,oill2:l2-,IQJ2IÍJIlC.;
and neccssarv.
4. Water and sewer. The Drivate water sUDDlv and seDtic disDosal system
servin!! a sDecial event shall be aDDfOved bv the Virm.nia Deoartment of
Health.
5. Streets and access. Streets servin!! the site shall be adeauate for the
anticiDated traffic volume for a sDecial event. Access from the street onto
the site shall be adeauate to Dfovide safe and convenient access to the site.
and aDDlicant shall install all reauired imDfovements and Dfovide adeauate
si2:ht distance in order to Drovide safe and convenient access.
e.
Svecial events overations. In addition to all other aDDlicable reauirements of this
chaDter. sDecial events oDerations shall be subiect to the followin!!:
1. Number of vartlClpants. ['he number of participants at a special event at
_________1!!!L.Qne time shall not exceed one hundredfiftv 1150) persons
__.___L_____ Number 2lsvecial events ver vear. The sDecial use Derrnit shall identify the
number of aDDfOved sDecial events Der calendar year. which number shall
not exceed twenty-tour (24tweh~_~
::2. "Valse.. Ol!tdoor amp)ltÌc.Q s()und~stems shall lJe .Q!Q111bI ted at ull1!.I!l~~.
- 3. Sims. Pennanent andA temDorarv sÜ.ms advertisin!! a sDecial event
shall be Derrnitted as Dfovided in sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.8.
4. Food service. No kitchen facility Derrnitted bv the VifQinia DeDartment of
Health as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may
be used bv licensed caterers for the handlin!!. warrnin!! and distribution of
food. but not for cookin!! food. to be served at a sDecial event.
5. Portable toilets. If requIred" portablePortablc toilets are Derrnitted on the
site. Dfovided that they conm1y with the yard requirementslI1 section______
_ ___5.arelocl!ted no closçrthuI} one tho_w~1.43(d)(2).QQ0)tþetfrgm¡~n'y
7
., -"'.
}\
Draft:06/13~/05
abut~ parcel not under the sam!:. o\vnershiIL as the J2!lrccLon \vh]chJhe
~ial events 'Hill bcconducted and shall be screened from that Darcel and
anv street bv tODo!ITaDhv. structures or new or existinl! landscaDinl!.
f. Prohibition of develovment to a more intensive use. A parcel sublect to a specIal
_.__.___.. events special use pennit shall not be subdivided so as to create one or more
parcels, including. the parent parcel, of less than twenty-one acres in size without
first amending the special use pennit to expressly authorize A sDecial event sDccial
use Dennit authorizes sDecial e"'ents to beconducted em th~ccl as Dfovi~
tffl5 chaDter provided thatth~ccl isnot subdivided so as to cr~ate one or more
------l2!!Icels less than twenty- one (21 ) acrq in sizeas J2!:Qvided under section 1 OJ. If
--the subdivision. If a Darcel is so subdividedwithout tìrst amending the special use
pennit. sDecial events shall thereafter be Drohibited on the -resultinl! Darcels unless
a new_~cial use pem1Ìt ]S obtaIned.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2
By special use permit
50.
SDecial events (reference 5.1.43),
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
--
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
8
JJ.."7'"
. -.. ~
i I #
, ./
\"2.
·
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 24,2004 Minutes
ZTA-1999-006 Special Events
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, May 24,
2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Pete Craddock, Calvin
Morris, Jo Higgins, Bill Edgerton, Chairman; and Marcia Joseph, Vice-Chair. Mary V. Hughes
represented David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Stephen Waller, Senior Planner;
Steve Tugwell, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator & Director of Zoning & Current
Development; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner and Greg
Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Edgerton called the regular meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Item:
·
ZTA 1999-006 Special Events - Request to amend Section 3.1, Definitions; amend Section 4.12.6,
Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses; amend Section 4.15.4, Signs authorized
by sign permit; amend Section 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
(signs); amend Section 10.2.2, By special use permit; add Section 5.1.43, Special events; of Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Section 3.1, Definitions, to add a
definition of "special events," which would be one- to three-day events such as meetings, conferences,
banquets, weddings, dinners and private parties, where attendance would be by invitation or reservation,
for up to 150 persons; amend Section 4.12.6, Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled
uses, to provide the minimum number of parking spaces required for special events; amend Section
4.15.4, Signs authorized by sign permit, to establish the frequency and duration of temporary signs for
special events and to expressly provide when temporary signs must be removed and no longer displayed;
amend Section 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts (signs), to
establish 8 square feet as the maximum size of temporary signs for special events; amend Section
10.2.2, By special use permit, to allow special events in the Rural Areas zoning district by special use
permit; and add Section 5.1.43, Special events, to establish supplementary regulations pertaining to the
prerequisites for and the operation of special events. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
·
Ms. Ragsdale summarized the request. (Attachment: ZTA-1999-006 Staff Report)
· This ZTA proposal was initiated by a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) application which was
submitted in August 1999 by Mrs. Randolph requesting that Tourist Lodging in the Zoning
Ordinance be amended to allow for weddings, special events and corporate meetings. This
request was tabled by the Planning Commission in April 2000, following staffs recommendation
that this request be deferred until completion of the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive
Plan.
· The Rural Areas Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March 2005. Following the
applicant and the Planning Commission's request to reactivate this ZTA, a resolution of intent to
amend the ordinance was passed on January 18, 2005.
· The intent of this is to allow Rural Area landowners to have additional uses to offset any financial
pressures they may be under to subdivide and to encourage the protection of rural area
structures given its character and to possibly rehabilitate some of the historic structures. This
would implement the Guiding Principles of the Rural Areas Plan by providing alternatives to land
fragmentation.
· The proposal is based on the regulations for farm wineries as a starting point. There are some
consistencies with that. What this proposal does is add special events as a definition in the
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 24,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-99-06: SPECIAL EVENTS (ALTHEA H. RANDOLPH)
definition section. Right now it is defined in the winery section. It also adds some provisions for
temporary signs for these events and some supplementary regulations for them. This tries to
meet some of those Comprehensive Plan goals to help rural area landowners, but it is expected
to be special event uses and any structures or improvements related to them would be reversible
and would not be in conflict with the rural character. .
. The highlights of the proposed ordinance includes:
o Special events would typically be on a single day or may be up to 3 days. These would
be events that are where attendance is by invitation or reservation and not events that
would be advertised and open to the public and whose participants do not exceed 150.
These events would be things like corporate meetings, banquets, private parties,
weddings, and dinners. The limit for the number of people is in the definition in this
proposal.
o The next provision is for the number of parking spaces, which is consistent with wineries.
It is one parking space per 2 ~ participants plus one for an employee or staff who might
be coming to the site to support it, such as caters or vendors that would need to park
there and be part of the event.
o Currently the ordinance allows up to 4 temporary signs. This amendment would allow 12
with one for each event where the sign would be up letting the people coming to the
event know where it located. These temporary signs would be in addition to the places
that may already have farm signs. The temporary signs would be removable after the
event. The sign would be limited to 8 square feet.
Mr. Edgerton asked what the other four temporary signs could be used for.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the other four temporary signs would be used for the existing authorized
temporary signs, which can be issued for up to four for each establishment per year. Those temporary
signs are valid up to 15 days. The 12 temporary sign permits would only be valid for the duration of that
particular event.
Mr. Edgerton asked that the language be clarified to say these special event temporary signs would be in
addition to the four temporary signs that are already allowed.
Mr. Kamptner stated that staff would clarify that language.
. Ms. Ragsdale continued to highlight the proposed ordinance.
o These special events would take place on properties that have a primary rural area land
use that is supportive by the Comprehensive Plan. This special event proposal is not
intended to address places that are already able to do special events under the
ordinance. This would cover the other rural area uses. Examples of places that already
may be able to do this are farm wineries, clubs, lodges or churches, which could have
weddings or these meetings.
o The special use permit would include a concept plan that would show structures to be
used, the size of the structures, the entrance and the parking area from which during the
special use permit evaluation and review it would be recommended by staff. Then the
Planning Commission would provide a recommendation as to whether a site plan would
be necessary or not based on the review and the improvements. Staff has included
provisions to ensure that the Health Department, the Building Official and the fire safety
aspects are covered. During the special use permit process these reviewers would
identify any issues. Their comments mayor may not be addressed at the special use
permit, but the special use permit would be conditioned and then when these applicants
come in for a zoning clearance request those conditions would be followed up on to make
sure that any requirements would be met at that time that may not have been specified.
For example, if the applicant was using a different structure or something that the
Building Official needs to look at. With the zoning clearance it is expected that the
applicant will clarify anything that they have not specified during the special use permit
2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 24,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-99-06: SPECIAL EVENTS (ALTHEA H. RANDOLPH)
·
·
·
process, such as exactly what the events will be such as a corporate dinner, wedding,
etc.
Ms. Joseph stated that if the applicant did not specify what they are going to use this for that it would just
be like a blanket special use permit for a special event. Then at zoning compliance time is when the
applicant would determine what it will be used for.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that specifically the event, the date and the number of the expected attendees.
During the special use permit process they would be looking at whether it is appropriate for any type of
these events to occur there. If they want flexibility to have a wedding, corporate dinner, or uses that are
similar and they don't know who their clients or customers will be that will be coming there, then that will
be specified at the zoning clearance stage. The zoning clearance is also a way to track the number of
people, ensure the clients and track the number of events for the year with the date of the event.
o Regarding structures for special events, staff wanted to prevent people from building new
structures in the rural area that would not be in keeping the character or build structures
strictly for a commercial use. These would be existing structures such as barns that could
be rehabilitated for this use and would be in keeping with the rural character so there is a
provision that it would apply to structures that are already built. But, it is not intended to
apply to tents or garden structures with the square footage specified and any structures.
It is intended that the minimum yards would be 75 feet for the front and 50 feet for the
side. There are provisions for screening the parking and also allowing portable toilets.
o This ordinance specifies 1,000 feet as a setback for portable toilets, but they meant to
modify that to be that of a primary structure.
o The number of events is 12 in the supplemental regulations. There are also provisions
that are consistent with farm wineries regarding kitchens and food service. These places
will not have full scale commercial kitchens that could turn in to a restaurant. It was
meant just to be a warm up area for caters that come on site.
o That is the proposal that is before the Commission.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any comments or questions for staff.
Mr. Joseph stated that she had talked with Jan Sprinkle regarding some of the aspects of things that
would be considered accessory to agricultural use that would not be under this provision. Several
examples of that would be if someone wanted to do a corn maze, pick your own strawberries or
raspberries and hayrides. That type of use would not be regulated by this. Those uses would still be
allowed and considered part of the accessory to the agricultural use.
Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Althea Hurt Randolph, applicant, stated that she was very happy that the Commission was finally hearing
this request, but she was very sorry that it has taken such a long time. In the interim, she has gotten
married, moved to the site and now has a family. The following were points that she did not have any
problems with.
· The idea of the event being for a single day or conducted up to three days.
. The idea of the signage.
· The idea that it was something that one was invited to and it was not opened to the general
public.
· She had no problem with having to show where things were located, but being a developer's
daughter she never wanted to have to do a site plan.
· The idea that they or anybody would have to get clearance from the Virginia Department of
Health, Fire Department or Building Officials.
She pointed out that following were things that she did not like and had concerns with.
· She never wanted to have to submit a site plan.
3
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 24,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-99-06: SPECIAL EVENTS (ALTHEA H. RANDOLPH)
· She opposed having to file an application for every single special event. Since she did
not want to be a wedding coordinator, she disliked the idea that you would .have to have a
permit. Any sort of hurdle she would like to not have.
· Under d) 1, it says structures used for special events, it has to be a structure that has
been in existence, etc. Down at the bottom of the page it says modifications to farm
buildings or structures as defined in Virginia Code, Section 36-97 shall allow the structure
to revert to an agricultural use. One of the things that she wants to do is to take an
existing pool house that is near a pool that was filled in with dirt some 40 years ago. It
would be a wonderful place to convert into bathrooms. She questioned whether the pool
house was located 1,000 feet away from anything else. It would be a modification to a
structure and it would not revert back to an agricultural use. But, it was never an
agricultural use.
· Under parking, it says that the special use permit may require by condition that the
applicant provide a surety or other guarantee in an amount deemed necessary by the
zoning administrator to be sufficient to assure the reseeding or restoration. That appears
to be a bit overreaching. If she wanted to pave her backyard for her agricultural use they
could not do anything about it. It just does not seem right that if she puts in gravel that
she would then have to post a bond.
· She had some concerns regarding the number of special events a year. If the rehearsal
dinner was on Friday night and the wedding was on Saturday, then that would be one
event. But if family A wanted to have a rehearsal dinner on Friday night and family B
wanted to have a wedding on Saturday, then that would be two events. So 12 events per
year means that you have a New Year's Eve party, some company's Christmas party,
some company's Christmas luncheon, internal medicine department decides to have their
retreat and then four weddings. Due to the cost of complying with all of the requirements,
she did not feel that there would be very many applicants interested in doing this for only
12 events per year. Therefore, she suggested that the County should not make it too
hard to obtain this permit because no many people will stay in this business. Therefore,
she asked that the County not restrict this to 12 events per year. In addition, she
opposed the limitation of 150 people per event.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Ms. Higgins asked how many events she thought would be enough.
Mrs. Randolph felt that it ought to at least allow two events per weekend, but actually she did not think
that a number should be put on it. She suggested that the limitation be that there could only be 12 events
of a certain size because a rehearsal dinner of 40 people was not a big deal. If someone goes to the
expense to do this she felt that they should not be so limited. If someone goes to the expense of getting
their home ready for garden week, which she felt was similar to her proposal, that she felt that they
should be able to get the people through there and have a lot of events and then be able to leave town.
Ms. Joseph asked since this was in the supplementary regulations does that mean that they change that
per applicant.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any other member of the public present that wanted to speak on this
matter. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Kamptner stated that under Section 5.1 there is the ability to waive that requirement. The applicant
would need to ask to waive the limitation of 12, which was selected because that was what was in the
farm winery regulations.
Ms. Joseph stated that this would not limit someone to 12. If they could come in with a reasonable
request that makes sense because it was site specific in whatever they were doing, then that number
could increase.
4
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 24,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-99-06: SPECIAL EVENTS (ALTHEA H. RANDOLPH)
·
·
·
Mr. Kamptner stated yes, and that the Commission could impose additional conditions on the waiver.
Mr. Thomas asked if the event could last more than two or more days.
Ms. Higgins asked if they could define events.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it already allows up to 3 days.
Ms. Higgins questioned if Garden Week would fall under this category. She pointed out that it was
advertised and many people visit the homes. She questioned the wording, "lawful conforming structures"
and if they were trying to limit it to structures that comply with current setbacks. She voiced this concern
because staff has to go through these concerns. She suggested using the wording that "the exterior is
maintained." She felt that if an existing structure is not safe and not usable that they shouldn't encourage
the structure to be restored.
Mr. Thomas stated that it sounds like this is too restrictive for the purpose that this particular applicant
wants to use it. Overall, it is just too restrictive and too broad. If he was the planner and had to interpret
this that he would probably never have someone plan a wedding. He felt that it would not work. It is just
too restrictive for some reason.
Mr. Craddock asked if Clifton has a lot more events and a lot more people.
Mr. Benish stated that Clifton's situation is where those types of uses are considered accessory to a by
right primary use, which is an inn. Therefore, it does not require a special use permit. For a resident to
be able to do this on a regular basis it would require a special use permit.
Mr. Rieley suggested that the Commission go through some of these regulations and try to form a
consensus. He agreed with Ms. Higgins about d)1 and iii) on page 14 that the structure shall be restored
as faithfully as possible.
Mr. Edgerton agreed.
Ms. Joseph stated that the idea was to be able to reuse or for adaptive reuse of historic structures. She
felt that was where that came from.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the regulations as written are limited to historic structures.
Ms. Higgins felt that the intent was a good one here, but she could see it being hard to interpret and more
restrictive.
Mr. Rieley felt that it was reasonable to say that this should apply to uses that are now conforming within
the ordinance. He stated that if you read it with medications to farm buildings or structure, it clearly does
not apply to the pool house that Mrs. Randolph is talking about.
Mr. Kamptner stated that if it was not lawful and conforming, then it was illegal. That would include a
house that was built 3 years ago that is set back 5 feet from the right-of-way.
Ms. Higgins asked if the house was built 150 years ago and was 5 feet from the right-of-way if that could
not be allowed.
Mr. Kamptner stated that would be a nonconforming use. It would be allowed continue, but there are
limitations on expanding or increasing the intensity of the use. That is why that particular class of
structures is not included. If the Commission wanted to change this they would have to go back and
amend the nonconforming of these regulations in Section 6.
5
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 24,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-99-06: SPECIAL EVENTS (ALTHEA H. RANDOLPH)
Ms. Higgins asked if there was a structure that was built 10 foot off the road and someone wanted to do a
special use permit to do weddings if they could not allow it.
Mr. Kamptner stated that they could allow it only if the applicant could get a variance that made it lawful.
Mr. Rieley stated that if they were specifically addressing structures for special events that he would think
about agricultural buildings. There is nothing in here that talks about the structural capacity of a building
to support that. For public use you would use 100 pounds per square foot as opposed to 60 pounds per
square foot for the first floor of a residence or something like that. Is that something the Commission
needs to be concerned about?
Ms. Higgins pointed out that the Building Official would address those issues anytime they received a
request to reuse the building.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that they leave that provision in.
After discussion on the parking and setbacks, the Commission were in consensus that the setbacks
should be consistent with the existing rural setbacks.
Mr. Rieley agreed with Mrs. Randolph that it was sort of overkill on the parking. It seems that most of
these events were going to be in a field somewhere in areas in which they are encouraging agriculture.
That area could be plowed certainly without a special use permit. He felt that bonding, reseeding and
restoration does seem to be overkill. Also, the provision that delineated spaces and bumper blocks should
be required only as determined by the zoning administrator is something that they could leave out
entirely. There is not situation that he could imagine where they would require bumper blocks in a rural
area.
Mr. Kamptner stated that provision is actually an exception to the general rule.
Mr. Rieley suggested that it be left out and be made clear that provisions of Section 4.2.1.6.d & e) does
not apply because these are temporary events.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that on page 14.d.3 that they leave in "if the parking area is on grass or in a field,
the applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site as required by the zoning administrator." The
rest of that sentence should be deleted. He suggested that it be made clear that it does not apply to
existing paved areas.
Mr. Rieley suggested that they add something like, "suggesting stabilized turf' as sort of a model, but he
did not want to encourage parking lots in the rural areas. This language does not preclude parking in the
grass or on a field.
Mr. Kamptner stated that to address Mr. Rieley's concern it could be restated to say, "Not withstanding
Section 4.12.16.d and e) the delineation of parking spaces and provisions of bumper blocks shall not be
required." If it is a particular circumstance that they think it would be appropriate, then they could impose
a condition on the special use permit.
Ms. Higgins questioned if the garden week's events would fall under this category.
Mr. Benish stated that was by invitation.
Mr. Kamptner stated that they could ask the zoning administrator, but he did not think that she has ever
determined that is a use that requires some kind of zoning clearance.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that they do charge money.
6
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 24,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-99-06: SPECIAL EVENTS (ALTHEA H. RANDOLPH)
·
·
·
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that there were still many uses that would fall under the accessory uses to
agricultural.
Mr. Rieley suggested that the last sentence in subsection f will be changed to read, "If the parcel is so
subdivided, special events shall thereafter be prohibited on the resulting parcels, without modification."
This would allow some one if they have a large piece of property and want to subdivide off some property
that does not affect their special use permit, to come in and get a modification to the special use permit.
Ms. Joseph stated that the whole idea is that you are giving someone an opportunity to do something
other than agriculture in the Rural Areas; therefore, they don't have to subdivide.
The Commission supported changing e) 2 to increase the number from 12 to 24 events per year.
The Commission supported deleting the noise limitation in subsection e (2) and has it regulated by the
current ordinance requirements.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the Commission could deal with these issues through the special use
permit process for the individual site.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that if you were on a small parcel surrounding residences they could impose
conditions that prohibit outdoor amplified sound and put other restrictions on it. Therefore, they could deal
with it through the special use permit process.
Ms. Joseph stated that the scale was really going to govern this.
Mr. Thomas stated they had not discussed the number of participants. If the applicant can come back
and up the number of participants with a special use permit it would be fine.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the number was specified in the definition.
Mr. Kamptner stated that number was outside of that. He suggested that the number be deleted from the
definition and put a cap on the number of participants in the special events regulations.
In consensus, the Commission supported Mr. Kamptner's previous suggestion.
Regarding the event count, Ms. Higgins asked if there would be a potential in saying that events less than
40 people don't count against their event number. This would address and get around the frequency of
impact.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the one thing to keep in mind is that the winery is a use associated for the
purposes of the rural area. Some of this is to actually supplement the purpose of the rural areas. He felt
that it was a distinctive point between wineries and getting into more commercial activities that are not
related to agricultural purposes.
Mr. Rieley asked if staff has considered the tier approach.
Mr. Benish stated that enforcement of tiers regarding these numbers would be very difficult.
Mr. Rieley agreed that they need a benchmark in order to have something to measure the activity by if
there is a problem.
Mrs. Randolph stated that she would like to encourage Ms. Higgins' suggestion that events with less than
40 people not count against the 24 total events allowed. She acknowledged the enforcement problem
with the tier approach. She thanked the Commissioners for dropping the regulation on noise at weddings
because it would be difficult to tell people that they could not have any amplification at all.
7
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 24,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-99-06: SPECIAL EVENTS (ALTHEA H. RANDOLPH)
Mr. Kamptner stated that this request may come back to the Commission in mid- to late June if staff has
to readvertise the ZT A because of these changes. If not, it will come back in a couple of weeks for action
with a draft noting the changes the Commission requested. But, it will not delay the item getting to the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was any advantage to the Commission taking an action and giving Mr. Kamptner
direction to do the final language to avoid getting into a situation that they have to readvertise. He asked
Mr. Kamptner to go over the changes that he had noted.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the changes that he noted are as follows:
· In the definition, delete the number of 150 and move that to make it a regulation in 5.1.43.
· Adjust handwritten page 11 (typed page 3) to clarify the temporary signage and increase the
number so that it corresponds with the number of events allowed.
· Adjust handwritten page 14 (typed page 6) in Section d(1) to delete (ii), clarify section (iii) so that
it refers to farm buildings or farm structures as those terms are defined so that there is no
ambiguity there.
· Section d(2) make the yard setbacks consistent with the RA yard requirements and they will
have those requirements comply to tents and the portable toilets.
· Parking in d(3) will read the number of off-street parking for a special event shall be as required
in Section 4.12.6 notwithstanding Section 4.12.15.a - g the additional parking areas for special
events shall consist of or be constructed of pervious materials and include a reference to
stabilize turf to be approved by the County Engineer. Asphalt and impervious materials are
prohibited and continue all the way up to the semi-colon and the deleting the requirement for
bonding. Then continuing with the next sentence, "In addition to the requirements of section
4.12.5, the parking area shall be onsite and be screened from abutting parcels by topography,
structures or new or existing landscaping. Notwithstanding section 4.12.16(d) and (e), the
delineation of parking spaces and the provision of bumper blocks shall not be required.
· Change subsection e(1) to include a limit of 24.
· Delete the noise limitation in subsection e(2).
· Change portable toilets in subsection e(4) to simply cross reference the minimum yard
requirements.
· Subsection f will be revised at the end of the first sentence to include a clause, "without
amendment of the special use permit."
· The last sentence in subsection f will be changed to read, "If the parcel is so subdivided, special
events shall thereafter be prohibited on the resulting parcels, without modification."
· Change subsection e(5) Portable toilets to read, "If required, portable toilets shall be located no
closer than whatever the minimum yard setbacks are."
Mr. Rieley moved for approval of ZTA-1999-006, Special Events, as modified according to what Mr.
Kamptner just read.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Kamptner stated that this matter would only come back to the Commission if the request has to be
readvertised.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Taylor, Recording Secretary)
8
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 24,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-99-06: SPECIAL EVENTS (ALTHEA H. RANDOLPH)
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(8)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II,
BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of the
Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1
Sec. 4.12.6
Sec. 10.2.2
Definitions
Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
By special use permit
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.43
Special events
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1
Definitions
Special event: An event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) that is typically conducted on a single day, but
which may be conducted for up to three (3) consecutive days, for which attendance is permitted only by
invitation or reservation; special events include, but are not limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets,
dinners, weddings and private parties.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Except when alternative parking is approved as provided in section 4.12.8, the following schedule shall
apply to determine the number of required off-street parking spaces to be provided in a particular situation.
If a particular use is not scheduled, then section 4.12.7 shall apply.
Special events: One (1) space per two and one-half (2.5) participants, plus one (1) space per employee
(includes staff, caterers, musicians and vendors).
Sec. 5.1.43 Special events.
Each special event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) shall be subject to the following:
a. Eligibility and applicability. Special events may be authorized on those parcels in the Rural
Areas (RA) zoning district on which there is an existing and ongoing by-right (section
10.2.1) primary use. A special event special use permit issued under section 10.2.2(50)
and this section shall not be required for special events associated with farm wineries or
historical centers, or for events determined by the zoning administrator to be accessory to
a primary use of the parcel.
b. Information to be submitted with application for special use permit. In addition to any
information otherwise required to be submitted for a special use permit, each application
for a special use permit shall include the following:
1. Concept plan. A preliminary schematic plan (the "concept plan") satisfying section
32.4.1. The concept plan shall identify the structure(s) to be used for the special
event, include the area of the structure(s) in which the proposed special events will
be conducted, the parking area, and the entrance to the site from the street. The
concept plan shall address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access
to and from the street, the location of the parking area, the location of portable
toilets if they may be required, proposed screening as required by this section for
parking areas and portable toilets, and information regarding the exterior
appearance of the proposed site. Based on the concept plan and other
information submitted, the board of supervisors may then waive the requirement
for a site plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of a site plan
would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public
interest.
2. Information from the Virginia Department of Health. The applicant shall submit
written comments from the Virginia Department of Health regarding the private
water supply and the septic disposal system that will serve the proposed special
event site, the ability of the water supply and the septic disposal system to handle
the proposed events, and the need to improve the supply or the system in order to
handle the proposed events.
3. Building and fire safety. The building official and the county department of fire and
rescue shall review and comment on the application, identifying all Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code and Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code issues and
requirements.
c. Zoning compliance clearance. The applicant shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance
prior to conducting a special event. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one (1)
or more such special events in a calendar year as follows:
1. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning compliance clearance for more
than one (1) special event if: (i) the application submitted by the applicant includes
the required information in subsection 5.1.43(c)(3) for each special event to be
covered by the zoning compliance clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator
determines that each special event is substantially similar in nature and size; and
(iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would
apply to each such special event may be imposed with the zoning compliance
clearance.
2. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty (30)
days prior to the date of the first special event to be authorized by the zoning
compliance clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoning
administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the county police
department, the county building official, the county department of fire and rescue,
and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. As part of his review, the
building official shall determine whether the structure(s) proposed to be used for
the special events satisfies the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code for that use.
3. The application shall describe the nature of each special event to be authorized by
the zoning compliance clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each
such special event, the facilities, structures to be used, and the number of
participants and support staff expect to attend each special event.
4. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all
conditions of the special use permit are satisfied, and imposing all conditions of
such approval required by the offices identified in subsection 5.1.43(c)(2), the
zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for one or more
special events. The validity of the zoning compliance clearance shall be
conditional upon the applicant's compliance with all requirements of the zoning
2
ordinance, all conditions of the approved special use permit, the approved concept
plan or site plan, and all conditions imposed by the zoning compliance clearance.
d. Special events sites and structures. In addition to all other applicable requirements
of this chapter, special events sites and structures shall be subject to the following:
1. Structures used for special events. Each structure used for a special event shall
satisfy the following: (i) the structure shall have been in existence on the date of
adoption of this section 5.1.43, provided that this requirement shall not apply to
accessory structures less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size; (ii) the
structure shall be a lawful conforming structure and shall support or have
supported a lawful use of the property; and (iii) modifications to farm buildings or
farm structures as those terms are defined in Virginia Code § 36-97 shall allow the
structure to revert to an agricultural use, as determined by the building official.
2. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum
front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side yard shall be twenty-
five feet (25) feet. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty-five (35) feet. All yards
shall be measured from structures and off-street parking areas. These minimum
yard requirements shall apply to all accessory structures established after the
effective date of this section 5.1.43 and all tents, parking areas and portable
toilets used in whole or in part to serve special events.
3. Parking. The number of off-street parking spaces for a special event shall be as
required in section 4.12.6. Notwithstanding section 4.12.15(a) through (g), the
additional parking area(s) for special events shall consist of or be constructed of
pervious materials including, but not limited to stabilized turf, approved by the
county engineer. Asphalt and impervious materials are prohibited. If the parking
area is on grass or in a field, the applicant shall reseed and restore the
parking area site as required by the zoning administrator. In addition to the
requirements of section 4.12.5, the parking area shall be onsite and screened from
abutting parcels by topography, structures or new or existing landscaping.
Notwithstanding section 4.12.16(d) and (e), the delineation of parking spaces and
the provision of bumper blocks shall not be required.
4. Water and sewer. The private water supply and septic disposal system serving a
special event shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health.
5. Streets and access. Streets serving the site shall be adequate for anticipated
traffic volume for a special event. Access from the street onto the site shall be
adequate to provide safe and convenient access to the site, and applicant shall
install all required improvements and provide adequate sight distance in order to
provide safe and convenient access.
e. Special events operations. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this chapter,
special events operations shall be subject to the following:
1. Number of participants. The number of participants at a special event at anyone
time shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons
2. Number of special events per year. The special use permit shall identify the
number of approved special events per calendar year, which number shall not
exceed twenty-four (24).
3. Signs. Permanent and temporary signs advertising a special event shall be
permitted as provided in sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.8.
4. Food service. No kitchen facility permitted by the Virginia Department of Health
as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may be used by
licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for
3
cooking food, to be served at a special event.
5. Portable toilets. If required, portable toilets are permitted on the site, provided that
they comply with the yard requirements in section 5.1.43(d)(2) and shall be
screened from that parcel and any street by topography, structures or new or
existing landscaping.
f. Prohibition of development to a more intensive use. A parcel subject to a special events
special use permit shall not be subdivided so as to create one or more parcels, including
the parent parcel, of less than twenty-one acres in size without first amending the special
use permit to expressly authorize the subdivision. If a parcel is so subdivided without first
amending the special use permit, special events shall thereafter be prohibited on the
resulting parcels unless a new special use permit is obtained.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2
By special use permit
50.
Special events (reference 5.1.43).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of five to zero, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on July 13. 2005.
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Aye Nay
.Y
.Y
.Y
Absent
.Y
.Y
4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Briarwood PRO
Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Request to modify the Briarwood PRO to
change building separation requirements and
to establish yards and setbacks. The
properties are within the Rivanna Magisterial
District at the intersection of Seminole Trail
and Austin Drive (Route 1575), and are
identified more particularly as follows as Tax
Map 32G Parcel 1 , Tax Map 32G Section 3
Parcel A and Tax Map 32G Section 3 Parcel
83. The Comprehensive Plan designates
these lands as Neighborhood Density
residential (3-6 units/acre) and the PRO
zoning permits a variety of residential uses.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
chols
AGENDA DATE:
Planning Commission Public Hearing -
July 12, 2005
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing -
July 13, 2005
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA: NO
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND: On February 2, 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved changes to the
Briarwood PRO which allowed for changes to phasing and changes to unit types shown on the
application plan, removal of one interconnection, a commitment to provide screening for the backs
of units along Camelot Drive, an addition of 4 more units, and a commitment to provide affordable
housing and curb/gutter/sidewalks on at least one side of the street. The Board also approved
modifications of Section 19.8 and 4.11.3 of the zoning ordinance to allow building separation of
20 feet. The attachments listed at the end of this report provide background on activities that
occurred between the Planning Commission meeting of December 7,2004 and the Board action.
As the Commission may remember from the December 2004 meeting, the applicant did not
provide all the needed documents within the necessary time frame for review at several stages in
the process. When the applicant responded to the Board's request for information necessary for
final action, the time frame for review was again diminished. Although the applicant requested
specific setbacks of 25, 6, and 10 for front, side, and rear yards, respectively, no action was taken
by the Board. The current request is to establish setbacks and change the building separation
requirement established by the Board.
DISCUSSION: Setbacks were not established for the Briarwood PRO when it was initially
approved. Consistent administrative interpretation in recent years has resulted in the application
. R-4 setbacks being used. These setbacks are 25 feet in the front, 15 feet on the sides (with
"ility to reduce to 1 0 feet), and 20 feet in the rear.
1
As staff understands it*, in either late Mayor early June, the owner of the Briarwood property,
approached Ken Boyd about this situation and the need to establish different setbacks. Mr. Boyd
asked the Board at their meeting on June 8 to establish setbacks for Briarwood. After an hour-
long discussion at the Board meeting, the Board advised the owner that establishment of
setbacks required a zoning map amendment. The Board suggested that the owner apply for the
ZMA and then it committed to review the request at the earliest possible date. It is for that reason
that the Planning Commission's hearing is scheduled for July 12 and the Board's hearing for July
13.
The applicant desires setbacks of 20 feet in the front, 6 feet on the side~ and 5 feet in the rear as
indicated in Attachment F. With only an abbreviated review by staff, staff believes that the
setbacks should be established at 20 feet for the front, 6 feet for the side, and 10 feet for the rear.
A 20-foot front yard allows for cars to be parked in front of a garage without extending into the
sidewalk. Fire flow has been verified as adequate in Briarwood for 6-foot side yards. Regarding
rear yards, staff believes that rear yards of 5 feet are so shallow as to make them practically
unusable. The minimum rear setback staff can recommend at this time is 10 feet. Staff notes
that, if unusual circumstances were to occur and reduced setbacks were desired, Section
8.5.5.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Director to make a minor variation to
setback. These requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Staff notes that, if this rezoning is approved, the new setbacks would apply to only the parcels
being rezoned and not to the existing development. Staff will continue to use R-4 setbacks for the
existing developed part of Briarwood. Section 8.5.5.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance also applies to
this section of the development.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the applicant amend the approved application
plan to show setbacks and building separation as follows:
Front setback: 20 feet
Side setback: 6 feet
Rear setback - 10 feet
Building separation - 12 feet
Once these notes have been added to the application plan approved on February 2,2005 by the
Board of Supervisors, staff recommends approval.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment c:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Action Letters dated May 31,2005 and February 14, 2005, respectively
Minutes from February 2, 2005 Board of Supervisors' meeting
Executive Summary dated February 2, 2005
Minutes from January 12, 2005 Board of Supervisors' meeting
Executive Summary for Board of Supervisors dated January 12, 2005
Letter from Applicant dated June 13, 2005
* The Board of Supervisors' minutes have not been prepared as of the writing of this staff
report. The accuracy of this paragraph is still being verified.
2
·
·
·
Attachment A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
40] McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5823
Fax (434) 972-4]26
May· 31,2005
Woodbriar Associates
POBox 5548
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE: ZMA 2004-00014 Briarwood: Tax Map 32G, Parcel 1 ; Tax Map 328 Section3 Parcel A;
and Tax Map 328 Section 3 Parcel 83
LETTER OF CORRECTION (amending original action letter dated February 14, 2005)
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Board of Supervisors approved your rezoning application on February 2,2005. Your
rezoning 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 was
approved in accordance with the attached proffers dated February 1, 2005. An application plan
revised and dated January 19, 2005 was approved as part of the rezoning. As a condition of
approval, the Board required the following be added to Note #5 of page 1 of the Application
Plan: "The connection shall be approved and bonded prior to the issuance of any building
permits for homes in Phase 4." Please provide a revised application plan including this added
note language. Please refer to these documents for any future applications and requests on this
property. The Board also approved the setback modification to allow a reduction of the building
separation to 20 feet. .
Please be advised that although the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action
on the project noted above, no uses on the property as approved above may lawfully
begin until all applicable approvals have been received and conditions have been met.
This includes:
. compliance with applicable PROFFERS;
· compliance with the approved Application Plan, including notes as approved by
the Board of Supervisors;
· approval of and compliance with SUBDIVISION PLAT(S) and/or SITE PLAN(S); and
· approval of a ZONING COMPLIANCE CLEARANCE.
3
It
ZMA 2004-014 Briarwood
LETTER OF CORRECTION
May 31, 2005
If you have questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact Keith Lancaster at 296-5832.
Sincerely,
U.0J ~
_~.LWayn~erfL___ .
Director of Planninr---s
Planning Divison " /
~
- ----,' ---,-_._--~- ..
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Bill Fritz
Tex Weaver
Chuck Proctor
Steve Allshouse
Keith Lancaster
~
·
·
·
fr
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
Phone (434) 296-5823
F...ebr.uary_14,20Q5___ _
..... ... ,.-..-- ......--
Wood briar Associates
POBox 5548
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE: ZMA 2004-00014 Briarwood: Tax Map 32G, Parcel 1 ; Tax Map 32G Section3 Parcel A;
and Tax Map 32G Section 3 Parcel 83
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Board of Supervisors approved your rezoning application on February 2,2005. Your
rezoning 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 was
approved in accordance with the attached proffers dated February 1 ,2005. An application plan
revised and dated January 19, 2005 was approved as part of the rezoning. As a condition of
approval, the Board required the following be added to Note #5 of page 1 of the Application
Plan: "The connection shall be approved and bonded prior to the issuance of any building
permits for homes in Phase 4." Please provide a revised application plan including this added
note language. Please refer to these documents for any future applications and requests on this
property. The Board also approved the setback modification to allow a building separation of
less than 30 feet.
Please be advised that although the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action
on the project noted above, no uses on the property as approved above may lawfully
begin until all applicable approvals have been received and conditions have been met.
This includes:
· compliance with applicable PROFFERS;
· compliance with the approved Application Plan, including notes as approved by
the Board of Supervisors;
· approval of and compliance with SUBDIVISION PLA T(S) and/or SITE PLAN(S); and
· approval of a ZONING COMPLIANCE CLEARANCE.
5"
ZMA 2004-014 Briarwood
February 14,2005
If you have questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact Keith Lancaster at 296-5832.
Sincerely,
U &J Uh
-b¡:~b~~F-
Planning Oivison V
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Bill Fritz
Tex Weaver
Chuck Proctor
Steve Allshouse
Keith Lancaster
U_n_.. ._n __.__...
--A-
--- _.-- -+- -
(c
----
NOTS,
1. ACCESS TO THE RECREATION AREAS St#oU. IE PRO\otDED
þI ŒHERAL ACCORONC£ W1H ntr. OR\GNAL BAtARWOOD
APPtJ(;A"T1C14 PLAN. NO\II! DESlCNATiD AS saT I or 2.
2. CI.II8 41 GUT1ER. smttTSCAPE NÐ SŒWM,KS ¥IIU. IE
PAOWXD 'fMROUQtQUT 'ß4t IH)[\€I. t[Ð S£C1I(IHS OF
_ARIJODO. IN A iIIANNOt -..at IS COMSIStÐ4T WItH 1\£
[)IS'1IMG DE'ÆLOPMENT AND ßU,-7t-:n 011 zt,t"-'I-1.1.
1. ~A"''Æ. stREÐIING SH.\Ll. BE PROWlED ADoIAŒNT TO
CMIELOT SLIØCI'o't9ON AI..QNG CAlllBDt DRI'Æ IN M:COAD WItH
SŒ1IOHS 32.7.u(aì NfO 12,7.9.l(c)(4).
4. N4T PROP05ED 11tAFfJC SIQW. wcmFJCATICI'IS 1lE0JIRE0 Þ.T
H IHTtRSEC110N (Y IItAIIIIllOOO DRIVE AND ROUTE 2tI wu. BE
IN AC:CORD4HŒ 1mI \'001 StANOMOS ar 1lEQUlRÐlEHTS.
~_ THE OE\Ð.(P[R 5tt#oU. PIICMDE ONE 1N1[MÞARŒI. CU<fMECT1OH
to tHE CMlELOt SUIIIJMSICfN. tKE SAD CQNN£C'ÐON SHALL 8£
PROWJEO At fOœ<IT .,.," 011: "8" ~ SHOiIIH. ANI) WIlL BE
Dt1[MØÐ) 'MTtt f.AI". [NCIIØRIfrtC D(SIQI. tH[ OOffN[CTIOO
SH~ BE. '~ NtO BOtI)[tI PRKIt TO THE ISSIJANCE or """
lIIJILl Nç PERNITS fOR HOWES ... PHÞ.S[ 4.
\
--' .-
-----~>,.....
çJWÞBIC SC.AlJ:
...
,--)
--...
1
i
\
-A-
, , - -:~--J
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
DATE COUNTY RrVISlONS
".
237:
"
""""'....
........,
1l.1tIO.
.. a>H-
STNIIONm5.
ro "'....
BE COJtStRUCTED
fj~i.ut..
pnu:..Typt! D'
10M'
'"
IA ......-
ìA""(Üclst1nQ -
$uIIIIPhoI_l"
¡¡---- .- -
i! (b a~) :::: K
J. )#\. 31. x: 7G
~ --
. ..-
š---- -¡- -:-
š---- .- -:-
~ ([l'tdlrlQ) = l¥
~ *' !!!
'II'Ð"~""'I.....:'ŒTACHÐ
'fIN.·~""'NIILT.AtTA£MD
,-...--....\
-';----- ------
,
,
I
;¡,; AMENDED APPLICATION & PHASING PLAN - ZMA-2004-14
¥}aRIARWOOD P.R.D
i~ Æ':~UNITED lAND CORPORATION I RYAN HOMES
'._~, Cf~ ALBEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA
,",v ~
-~.
To..!!!!,
:!!::
..
..
E
'"
a
.-
.-
7õ
iõ
¡¡;;
Toon'Ihau'"
-.-
;¡,
¡;¡
"'"
,
.,
)}! 1/
l'..t\s. ·-'b~
:-! _'L ~ I~
1(··~' 'fF.>.""
I -.. J
,/ í ..../--
I, .,
.,' {' \
( ,
/1_ T(n ¡
I /J":" 1/, J
1......;1 i
..~.", - . ..
"
~
i
¡;
~
ª
b
~
RY
DYBIALLAIŒA 141.23 AL t(PEI PHASING PlAN)
ZONING DI>I1IICß ."'D. 12M' 2004-1.)
PIAHHED IIE5IDÐII1AL DMLOIMEIIT
PROI'OSED USE SINGlE FNMLV DETACHED.
SINGI.£ '-'V ATTACHED
TOTAl LOTS APPROVED IN P.R..D. ..,
TOTAl LOT5 PREVaOUSlY IlILT ..m
TOTAl LOIS AYAANJU ..,
~~-t
~~
---L_____
WCETATM SCAEDIIG SMAU. lIE P'IIOWJ[D AÐ.MŒHT TO
CN.Ð.OT SUKIMSION ALØfÇ CAMElOT 0Rt'tIE IN ACCQIID
.'J)t E1ICN$ J2.7.UI(a) AND J2.7.1.a.(c.)(.).
~ ,--W-L
~-}--=
~; -P-tl
~
~
~ \ -~
·~'·__u._------'35/
'", ,.."
.......------
'- \ c____,. (/--~:;';;:0-
\ . \ ',-_.1 Ii I // .
\ '>-----, /II: r
\ ' J I: \ \
.....~ y___....=oJ ) - \" \ ~
, ::..::.: ..=..-..: :~./_~
.~-{
-~ ...--.--. ~ ~ - ------ ------.
. ---....;~:----- --- '---
--~ -. - __ -.c-=~
, -- - --~-;::
=--, æ rr-:..----~-:;:.~7---·
- ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ 'ING nROlJPI!; PRO.IEC
n THIE -
-
ENGINEERING -
GnDUPE;~.N(:~
~ ... iJ
. . --- "
~ Vf9*I.:DI07 , .
5Ð-~ ,.....71~ - -
.." """'"
----
I ,_,-. "
r...· J I:' ·'-'~RTHPlN!"S SU8D1"~.SION
; \ . T~ 20 Pore.' 192
I \
.,,' : ~'
, .
.
.
/ .
/)' :
, .
-.-- - 'I, i \ t 1".-<" ".,
. '-. J..".. /
: ) :' /1: /" /.._// :: ' ,
' 1../. y/_-:.,.. ' /
)( /
L NORTHÞõNE
.... C . ___"_"_ ... .,.,,_
. ~. WQODBRIARAoSOC '. .__. ___.
X'/C':- H' 20 P"," 19' .' '. .r~........,
I ~"a"c.· _=.L _'.:.........~'~..~
. . r .'. I .. _. ...
t~-"·· . ., '--f-.~rc ",,~>r:x.q
" \ . ..,."",- .ii5.- C-, ""
", R',- ---'---- .. < ._c ~~
' ,--< '"",,--
. "'. . ,'.. . : L--' _.-- ""'"
2~' ./ ~l -'r' . , .,"-
- , ".
. '" ~/ ....~ . ' "
"', . /1 .. , ,,' ."""'--~
ECE"'f;¡C I ~ ...., ",,, ',~
", - - - ': ',f---,,', /,
¡"¡~21IØ5"" /, ACC......-..IONORI....L /": ;---..c,' ,'/ /:~""....
' / ".... I "RN "'''''''7'79--32'.. ,r;: _ ~,/ '
:::;j i.·~'/dP,'l ""~ c.: :'-CC-~,: '2;(,,=';:,. ." _
...,.. AI ¡ ¥.... . , . ~ ;;;-.'::. .... ;c;: , '..
~ i:l;t~/7i!;h'~s/ '- -~~~h, ".. :...
,.. -<{I * 0_,' r::"'" "d' 'I' '-:"," ---.. ,'''l,,' "
Jr:«·~~:r)¡,;·;:;:::tF.? -- ,-' . ~C'~ .;u,-~
", "REcf/EAT/ON '" ,
\' ::.' ~EA , ,
, L~,.\ 0Þ"">''''.iç,;;: £;I~~','"':'~1"'::;"11"ª,(~. cHI \ , ".o'
r \ ~, , :fii'W 'Z,~·_. ""''>'1'"'' . '7 ~OTS
' ,," ,=' m ,- 7't; '" '~-' '\ . 0 'L
'ì' ,,,,,-,,"' ~...... . I . "
., ~. " 'I ;, .
. --- I . ÓBr,¡;,a u."
,¡ . .-----.-'-- .._. .-.'...... ..... ........ .' .,. ',.
~ , ""-_L·C,",,"-ffl'.__'>. -----'-. - , ) "~,fe, ~,I ~~' l/j
. ----,.--.:\) I. ., .
--- , .- ~~ t 1-- -;, ,/ H'i
L./;;;;;'V',;Ç~;;::.:/. _,_~ (\ ..~._ ~~ . ..
..._~. ,.-- ,~,----,~,-:::::-"",., ····-_·~~~t· I 0, I . ,TMJZG-03-A'6.39AC.(D.B.77S'P9,5'~'~''
. _--·--7"""-1',-,-2":" -.t,' '\ J : " : ~ _ . _ ~ _.. _.
,- ~~..;¿-:~---. ~ \,. " , . - - --- - ..
/,o.:·~á/-- '--" .-..----~... ", L-~.. ~, 32G-03.8J.3.38AC (D.ß.775,pg,~~"
../ .I/:''riÇl.S,". --- _ ... n \ '-----.- ' ___ _. _ ~
f/~. ..11 .' ," --- ..'-- I .. __.,- ..., ~ " .
'" / ",. ./ ; ,<..nO ~.
(: /< (, -\--' ~ .. " ~'
\:',JI . '.__ ..... ", ,/ ...,¡~" . "
, " I!,' ,. ','" . \ ,'..' : .:
¡, , "". ./ '. : ..L
'..: . ,.~..
L.L-
L.L
H-
'''TAL
(. ~i
. ,. .-.
. ./ .. . .::'
' ,
~ \
.. ..
~ 29 ---', _--'- =-_
-- , --- -
A-
3
,ZMA -91-
B~IARWOO[) P.R.D.
AMENDED APPLICATION 8r PHASING PLAN
TM 32G - I , TM 32G-3~83 ,TM 32G-3-A
DATE: 10 -18-91
REVISIONs'!1 i.';'I~ - 92
z- .3 -'z
Z ~ 7 ~ 9Z
,: I:.· '9S
,6-''''-f'
....,·t¡';
,-"-'~~~
1
SHEET Z IF
/
31'1 auilt.
4 To/. <oéo
Z IF 'Z
A
THIS PLAN WiLL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND
EFFECT. AS RELATING TO THE ENTIRE BRlARWOOD
PRO (ZMAø~iI1-13.ad ZMA-ß.05) EXCEPT THAT THE
ROAD NETWORK., UNIT TYPES A DENSITY IN PIlASES
JA., 18. ....s.' &1 SHALL BE MODJI1ED IN .
ACCORDANCE WITH TØE A TT ACRED PLAN.
"AMENDEDAPPLCATION &. PHASING PLAl'f".DA'rEI:
12~10-zeu.a. OI.oS-2005 alld 01-19-2015.
11"'-8
'Io..ZS·",
IZ"/D-ðf
f)l:·"ð5-ð.5
11'11-~5
-
5H£6T
-
;t;>.
t-
---
A
·
Original Proffer ZMA 91-13
Amended Proffer ZMA 95-05
(Amendment # 2) (ZMA 2004-014)
PROFFER FORM
_u ____ __~___ ____._._.____ .... n_
- -. ----- .~_._---.._.._---_.._-,_.-
.----- -....--..-..--.
_'0 .____ _._..___......._.
Date: 1/27/2005
ZMÅ #Z:M.A 2ûû4-û 14
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 32G-1. 32G-3-A 32G-3-83
123.612 Acres to be rezoned from PRD to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its dilly
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.
·
1. Approval is for a maximum of 661 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
. _ /final site plan and/or subdivision plat processes, the aggregate area of established open space
f'J?J/ 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 ~ be conveyed to a homeowners association whose
fonnatÏon documents shall be 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 January 19,
2005 (hereinafter, the "'Application Plan"). The means to limit such access shall be addressed as
part of the site plan or subdivision plat review.
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued by the County in any phase
until the owner obtains final site plan and/or subdivision plat approval for that phase, with the
exception that necessary permits for the construction of Briarwood Drive may be issued by the
County once "the owner obtains VDOT approval of the road plans for Briarwood Drive.
3. Critical slopes may be disturbed for the construction of roads only with the . prior
approval of the County Engineer. Otherwise, the disturbance of critical slopes is permitted only
as authorized by the applicable Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance regulations as provided by
ZoIring OrdIDance § 8.5.5.2.
·
4. The owner shall obtain County approval of recreational facilities to include: one
tot lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase 1B~ the dedication of open space with the
approval of Phases 4 and 5 for the passive recreational area which shall include the construction
of walking/jogging 1rails; and, the primary recreation area south of Camelot shall be built or
O¡
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 basebaWmulti-purpose field, two half
basketball courts, playgroup equipment and picnic facilities. All recreation facilities shall be
installed by the owner. The wal1cing/jogging trails shall be constructed and maintained by the
owner as a primitive path in accordance with the applicable design and construction standards in
-___ --the -County~nesign_SJa!ld~4ª-M~t11:!~L_ -
-- -_.-~~ --------- ----- ---- - --- - ---- --- -------- ------
5. Sidewallr..s shall be constructed at the ìÍ-IIle of corresponding road constr..lct1011
along the southerly side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and along the
westerly side of the entire length ofBriarwood Drive. The sidewalks shall be constructed to
VDOT standards.
6. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, pedestrian ways, recreation areas,
roads, and other improvements are to'be located, as shown on an approved final site plan or
subdivision plat, shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. This proffer
does not apply to individual residentia110ts.
7. Lots along Camelot Drive may be developed with townhouse units as shown on
the Application Plan.
8. The unconstructed portion ofBriarwood Drive through the commercial areas
shown on the Application Plan shall be built as approved by VDOT and bonded to County.
9. The nrix of units permitted in each phase is as follows:
Existine Lot Mix
Phase Type of Dwelline Unit Totals
SID 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
Pr
- .. - ----- ---.
10
Æ
·
Totals
661
"'Lots 97 & 98 are included in the Phase 3 total but will be platted at a later date.
~~~-----
-- ~~ --~ --- -
-----------------".. --..---.-...
----------.-,_.._----
.__'.u_...,_..,___...._
---.-. .....-...-.. "---
Provosed Lot Mix
·
Phase Tvpe of Dwelline Unit Totals
SFD SF A Townhouse
Lots Lots Lots
1A 28 - 22 50
1 A (Existing - 48 - 48
Subphase 1 and
2)
IB 15 - 31 46
i(Existinp;) - 96 - 96
3, 3A, 3B, 3C - 70 37 107
(Existing)
4 52 - - 52
5 18 - - 18
6 31 - - 31
7 (Existing) - 78 - 78
8 - - 135 135
TOTALS 144 292 225 661
·
10. Landscaping to provide screenÎI1g shall be provided as required by Albemarle
County Code § 18-32.7.9.8 along the rear of all townhouse units located on double frontage lots.
11. The owner shall provide 25 units of affordable housing (for sale townhouses) with
the construction of Phases lA (subphases 3 and 4), IB, and 8 as identified on the Application
Plan. The owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to the
subsequent purchaser of the subject property. The current owner or the subsequent owner shall
create units affordable to households with incomes less than 80% of the area median income
sucb that bousing 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 County Housing Office or its designee. The
owner/builder 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 the anticipated r~ceipt 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 unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of purchaser.
\ I
For the lands subject to this rezoning, these proffers supersede the proffers accepted by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for ZMA 91-13 and ZMA 95-05.
_._.._.._n....._..._..
--- .-.-.....---..,---
.--.----.. --.. _.--
-----.--.,. -.-.-
._. '__.'..___m _._.__..~_.. .'____.____
----._.-.._-._--
- - - .- -- ---- -
W oodbriar Associates Limited Partnership
~~~Úkø/y'r/¿#./~ ;ì~ ¿-OS'
S~tures 0 All er.s,/ Pririted Name of All Owners Date
c¡. t' ¡,tJ <t-"j'/I'" I /1-1-'" t f!/r:>
Page 4 of4
A
".
,'2.-
¡,,{I/Juk> {;¡;rrJ ß, IJ. S.l1ed0Je-Þ, ~ 2tJtJ,Ç
Attachment B
.
Agenda Item No. 19. ZMA-2004-0014. Briarwood (SiQn #17). Request to rezone
123.612 acs from PRD to PRD 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.
(Advertised in Daily Progress on January 17 and January 24,2005) (Deferred from January 12,
2005)
The executiye summary states that the Planning Commission heard ZMA 2004-14 on
December 7,2004. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the ZMA
request, citing the following reasons for their recommendation of denial:
1. The proposed application plan was not submitted until after the normal reYiew
period had ended. Comments from reYiewers have just been received and the applicant has not
had 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.
.
The Board of Supervisors heard this item on January 12, 2005. At that meeting, the
Board voted to defer the item to allow resolution of outstanding issues on the plan and in the
proffers.
In order to address the outstanding issues identified by the Planning Commission and
staff, the applicants provided a reYised Application Plan, dated 1/19/2005 and received
1/20/2005. That plan is attached (on file in the Clerk's office) to this document. Planning, Zoning
and Engineering staff have reviewed the plan. The previous comments and concerns of Planning
Commission and the staff haye been addressed as follows:
Regarding the orientation of buildings in Phase 8 and the impact to Camelot
Drive, a note has been added to the plan that "Vegetative screening shall be provided
adjacent to Camelot subdivision along Camelot Drive in accord with section 32.7.9. 8(a)
and 32. 7. 9. 8(c)(4). " Staff believes that, from a design standpoint, orienting the buildings
to face towards Camelot Drive is the preferable alternative to screening from Camelot
Drive. However, given the applicant's desire to orient the rear of the buildings towards
Camelot Drive, staff belieyes that this note will ensure adequate screening of the
buildings from Camelot Drive.
The resource protection area has been appropriately labeled on both sheets of
the Application Plan. Further, inconsistencies between the "old" and the "new"
Application Plans have been reconciled by attaching the two plans together and clearly
labeling the "new" plan as sheet 1 of 2 and the "old" plan as sheet 2 of 2.
.
In previous comments, concern was expressed about access to the open spaces
on the plan. Particularly, there was concern about the ability of pedestrians to access the
area labeled "Passive recreation area- to consist of walking and jogging trails" on the
existing Application Plan. A note has been added to the plan stating: "Access to the
recreation areas shall be provided in general accordance with the original Briarwood
Application Plan, now designated as sheet 2 of 2". This comment has been adequately
16
(3
addressed.
With the previous submittals, no commitment was made to streetscape or install
sidewalks in the remaining phases of Briarwood. At the public hearing on January 12,
2005, the Board advised the applicant that it recommended providing streetscape
improvements, including curb and gutter and sidewalks, in a manner consistent with the
existing Briarwood development,. The existing phases of Briarwood include curb and
gutter and sidewalks along one side of the streets. The existing infrastructure was
provided voluntarily and was never required of the previous ZMA approvals. A note has
been added to the plan stating: "curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be
provided throughout the undeveloped sections of Briarwood, in a manner which is
consistent with the existing development and ZMA-79-32 and ZMA-91-13". Zoning staff
is concerned that this note, as written, will proye difficult to interpret in the future. Staff
recommends that this note be revised to state: "Curb and gutter, streetscape and
sidewalks will be provided throughout the remaining phases of Briarwood in a manner
which is consistent with the existing development and sidewalks will be provided on a
minimum of one side of all streets in the remaining phases of development. "
The applicant has requested a modification for section 4.11.3, which is based on
section 19.8. This modification would allow the buildings to be separated by less than 30
feet. The requested modification would allow the setbacks in the remaining phases of
development to be consistent with the setbacks in the existing phases of Briarwood.
Specifically, setbacks would be 6' in the side yard, 25' in the front yard and 10' in the rear
yard. Staff supports this modification request.
The applicant's engineer has satisfied concerns regarding the need for a traffic
analysis. Remaining questions on traffic capacity will be addressed with VDOT approval
of the entrance onto Route 29. With regard to the need for interparcel connections, the
applicant has provided a note on the plan indicating that a road connection will be made
at either Phase 1 A or Phase 4. Staff would prefer the connection be with Phase 1 A but
finds this alternative acceptable. If the connection is not shown with the Phase 1 A plans,
it will then be required with the Phase 4 plans.
Staff previously noted the applicant has not shown critical slopes or resource
protection areas. While that concern remains unaddressed, staff has examined the site
based on provided topography and delineated areas considered sensitive and
inappropriate for development. Staff has offered to reyiew that delineation with the
applicant so the applicant has an adyance understanding of the areas that staff believes
should remain undisturbed. As the applicant has not sought any critical slope waivers as
part of this plan, it is presumed any development in those sections would be required to
comply with the County's critical slope requirements and understands staffs position on
the protection of sensitive resources.
Since the January 12, 2005 Board meeting, the applicant has worked with the County
Attorney's office, Planning, Engineering and Zoning staff to put the proffers into an acceptable
format for adoption by the Board. No substantiye changes have been made to the proffers and
no new commitments have been made. Proffers that do not offer anything beyond what is
required by regulations have been eliminated. The previous proffers of ZMA-91-13 and ZMA 95-
05 have been combined with the currently proposed proffers of ZMA 2004-014 into one set of
proffers for all of Briarwood. The language has been refined to ensure clear interpretation in the
future.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2004--014, with proffers, with the recommendation
that note 2 on Page 1 of the Application Plan be revised to read:
"Curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the remaining
\4
B
.
phases of Briarwood in a manner which is consistent with the existing development and
sidewalks will be provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in the remaining
phases of development. "
Staff recommends approyal with the understanding that approval of this ZMA and
Application Plan does not obligate the board to approve critical slopes waivers in the future.
Staff further recommends approval of the requested setback modification to allow a
building separation of less than 30 feet.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the executiye summary as provided to the Board and set out
above. He further noted that in the report, areas of slope impact have not been analyzed, and
approval of this zoning map amendment and application plan does not obligate the Board to
approve critical slopes waivers in the future; those would need to be analyzed with the sections
brought into the county. Mr. DaYis confirmed that no special action is needed for that review.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that there has been work to consolidate the proffers into one
set, and Mr. Davis has a set of recently signed proffers. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the
applicant wants to change "two basketball courts" to "two half basketball courts" in the sentence
in Proffer #4 that starts "This recreational area shall be built prior to completion of Phase IV...."
Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant has concern about incidents that can occur when people
congregate at full-court games. He added that this corresponds with what the county has done at
elementary schools for the same reasons.
.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Proffer #8 refers to the Briarwood Drive connection through the
commercial area being built as approved by VDOT and bonded to the county. There is already
an approvedlbonded plan on record for a 38-foot curb to curb section.
Mr. Cilimberg concluded that staff is recommending the plan as presented with the
notes and proffers included, with the request that the note regarding streetscape be
specific to sidewalks being provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in the
remaining phases of the development. He added that staff also recommends approyal of
the setback modification to allow building separations of less than 30 feet.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said that the interconnection
would be done as part of the construction of either Phase I-A or Phase IV. Mr. Davis stated that
that connection was not proffered, but the note offered should suffice because it has to be built
according to the master
plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that it would have to happen in one of two subsequent phases, noting
that Phase IV is the more internal connection, with Phase I-A as the Camelot Driye connection.
Mr. Wyant commented that if the phases follow the sequence of their numbers, because
in Phase IV the road could be built first. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there is not a particular
phasing sequence noted here, but Briarwood Drive connection is happening as part of
improvements that occur in the phases. He said that they would be addressed as they come in,
but the order is not known yet.
Mr. Rooker said that his only concern would be that if the phase closest to Route 29 is
built first, there may not be a connection available for a while, until future phase are built. Mr.
Bowerman said that the applicant may rely on the builder to determine the order.
.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Wood about the timing of the road connections. Mr. Wendell
Wood, the applicant, responded that he would have to show that the connection will be there
when his site plan is approved. He noted that Phase IV may not be a good location because of
\7
ß
the grades, but they would like to haye the discretion to decide where either or both connections
would be built.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the most likely placement would be. Mr. Wood replied that
the one on Camelot Drive, from a cost standpoint, would be most likely.
Mr. Rooker said that he wants to be certain that when Phase I-A is done, the connection
be made, and not held back while there is a decision on Phase IV. Mr. Wood responded that the
traffic would not be there until the houses are built, and they will have to provide for that road to
come through.
Mr. Bowerman said that they would like to have the road done sooner than later, so that
citizens are not complaining to the Board about a lack of connection.
Mr. Rooker added that from a citizens' standpoint, it is easier to build the road before the
houses are built than after. He mentioned that Meadow Creek Parkway was shown on the Forest
Lakes plans long ago.
Mr. Bowerman commented that Mr. Wood is just hedg ing because he does not know
what housing type is going to sell. Mr. Wood responded that was correct.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like for a decision to be made about where the connection
will be and build it whenever that phase is built out. Technically, the way it is worded right now,
Mr. Wood could build out Phase I-A and not make a decision on the connection. Mr. Rooker said
that it's possible that years could pass before the connection would be made, and people would
already be living in the subdivision.
Mr. Wood said that he would like to haye the option to build either road, depending on
how the development goes.
Mr. Wyant suggested having the road built at a timeframe based on percentage of
occupancy. Mr. Wood said that he will retain control of the development.
Mr. Rooker stated that he does not understand why Mr. Wood cannot just commit to
make the connection off of Camelot when he develops Phase I-A. Regardless of how much help
connections provide, the people that live on the road where the connection is will oppose it. If it is
put in before they move in, there is no problem, because they've moyed into an area and the road
network is there.
Mr. Wood said he understood that the road would have to be approved before he can get
the go ahead for Phase I-A. He said that by the time the connection would need to be built, if he
were to decide not to put it at Camelot, he assumed he would have to show that it would have to
be reserved as a right of way.
Mr. Rooker asked where on the plan does it says Mr. Wood has to build a connection.
Mr. DaYis said that it is a note on the plan. Mr. Cilimberg read the note: "The developer shall
provide one inter-parcel connection to the Camelot subdivision. The said connection shall be
provided at Point A or B as shown, and will be determined with final engineering design."
Mr. Davis added that Mr. Wood would have to elect which connection. Mr. Cilimberg
clarified that he has to provide it at one of those two locations, and it will be determined with final
engineering design. He thinks that would be interpreted as part of reviewing that particular
phase.
Mr. Rooker said that if he does not elect the Camelot Drive option, he must make the
other connection.
\It?
B
·
Mr. Graham said that the way it was suggested by Mr. Wood, and acceptable to staff,
was that when he came in with Phase I-A, he would make the determination whether to connect
at Camelot or st. Iyes. Mr. Rooker responded that if he does not make the Camelot connection,
he has foreclosed that option and must make it at St. Iyes.
Mr. Graham said that when Mr. Wood comes in to build Phase IV, he must haye the
connection. There was a difference in how staff interpreted it at first and what the language
actually says. He does not think the language precludes him from having the opportunity to come
back to Camelot at a later date.
Mr. Wyant stated that there are a number of final engineering designs, and suggested
that the note say "final engineering design of I-A," so that it is not open to interpretation.
Mr. Rooker said that the issue is not where the connection is made, but when.
Mr. Graham clarified for Mr. Wood that that means he would not be able to get a
subdivision plat approved until the road plans are approved, and he would have to make that
decision as part of the road plans. Mr. Wood expressed concern with this option.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Woods needs to make it so he can make the decision up front
when he is selling the houses. Find out which one works, so he can do it in Phase IV or Phase 1-
A. He asked when Mr. Wood is planning to start the development. Mr. Wood replied that he is
going to start Phase I right away.
Mr. Rooker noted that the infrastructure for roads is built all the time ahead of the houses.
Mr. Tucker said that the road is going to be designed based on total number of units. Mr. Wood
· is not going to lose any units.
Mr. Wyant suggested once Mr. Wood build 50 units anywhere in there, he has to make a
connection. Mr. Wood said that market forces change will dictate what is built.
Mr. Rooker said that the only issue is this one point of connection, and he doesn't
understand why the decision is so difficult. He does not see the connection as dictating the type
of house Mr. Wood is selling in this community. He emphasized that the Board is not saying Mr.
Wood has to build it at any particular time. The Board is saying Mr. Wood has to make the
election, and build it whenever he builds that unit section out.
Mr. Graham stated that there is no intent that he has to build all the lots in Phase I-A, for
example, but he has to haye to make that decision when he plats Phase IV where that connection
is going to go.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff was confident from the language on that plat that when he
builds the road back to Phase IV, he has to haye made his decision.
Mr. Graham said that Mr. Wyant's suggestion to add the term "of Phase I-A" to "final
engineering design" would ensure that when he comes into plat Phase I-A, the decision would be
made.
Mr. Wood said that he did not like that suggestion.
·
Mr. Rooker commented that most people, when they tender a plan, they show the roads
and they show the connections. Mr. Wood is getting more leeway than anybody he has ever
seen come before a board with an application plan on where his road connections are going to
be.
/1
ß
Mr. Wyant suggested that when the lots are platted for Phase I-A, at that time Mr. Wood
can make the decision about the road.
Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Wood wants to build Phase IV first, he has to make the
decision where the connection is going to go as part of platting that phase. If he builds Phase I-A,
he would have the possibility of building the connection with I-A, or waiting and make the decision
when Phase IV comes in.
Mr. Wood said he has no trouble with making the decision when Phase IV is platted,
because they would not go to Phase IV first, unless the market says 'townhouses are dead and
single family is hot.·"
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Wood if he is saying that the connection will be made when the
roads are built back to Phase IV. Mr. Rooker said he is interested in when the connection is
going to be made. The way it's worded right now, Mr. Wood can build back to Phase IV and
never build that connection.
Mr. Tucker told Mr. Wood that the Board is concerned he will build 90 percent of it, and
won't have a connection for people to get out. Mr. Rooker said nothing in Phase IV will be built
until a connection is made. Mr. Wood agreed to add that to the note.
Ms. Thomas said that would make the language read ".... will be determined with final
engineering design of Phase IV. II Mr. Wood said that it probably will already have been made,
but that would be the latest.
Ms. Thomas asked about the term "will be provided" oyer "will be created." Mr. Davis
suggested, "built or bonded prior to any construction of housing in Phase IV."
Mr. Rooker said if it is a private road, he assumes Mr. Wood could build the road. It may
not get accepted into VDOT's system for a year or so.
Mr. Graham stated that it will be a public road. He asked if the Board is saying approved
and bonded - which means he can be under construction for it - or is the Board saying built. To
him, built means it is ready to be accepted by VDOT.
Mr. Rooker commented that eyery road in here is built before it's accepted by VDOT.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the "normal process" has roads approyed by VDOT for their
ultimate acceptance and are bonded or built before the actual final plat is signed, and many times
they're bonded. The key is getting them approved and bonded.
Mr. Graham mentioned that routinely as part of the bonds, a schedule for completion is
required, which is typically one year.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Wood if he agreed to the statement: "Election will be made and
the connection will be approyed and bonded before the construction of any homes in Phase IV."
Mr. Cilimberg suggested, "approved, built, or bonded."
Mr. Davis said, "The connection shall be approved and bonded prior to the construction
of any homes in Phase IV. II He added that would mean when the Phase IV plans are approved, it
will be part of his road plans which will be bonded prior to platting Phase IV.
Mr. Graham stated that the language should stipulate that the connection has to be
\8
·
·
·
e
approved and bonded, or built, prior to platting of Phase IV which would treat it like any other road
connection.
Mr. Wyant said he sees the first platted lot in Phase IV as the key deadline.
Mr. Davis repeated the suggested language again: "The connection shall be approved
and bonded prior to the construction of any homes in Phase IV. n He added that it could be
approved and bonded as part of Phase I-A, or as part of Phase IV. Before Mr. Wood builds any
homes in Phase IV, he will have had to make an election that would have to be approved and
bonded. He added that this allows for it to be in either section Phase I-A or Phase IV.
Mr. Graham suggested, "prior to the issuance of any building permits in Phase IV. n He
said that normally it would be "prior to approval of the Phase IV subdiyision plat and the applicant
obviously could not get a building permit for any houses in Phase IV until the subdivision plat is
approved.
Mr. Davis said that this does not change the normal requirements for platting a
subdivision, but just says that if the applicant has not platted Phase I-A and made the election, he
cannot build any homes until the election is made.
In relation to the previous comment during the meeting about Southwood mobile home
park, Mr. Wood invited Board members to visit Forest Springs, where he has built 100 units
without any public assistance. He said that the homes are as low as $29,000 and as much as
$72,000, with lots rented at $22,000, and homes owner-occupied.
Ms. Thomas asked if there was a community center there, and Mr. Wood indicated that
they do not have one at Forest Springs. Mr. Wood said that they do provide some financing for
tenants.
Mr. Boyd asked about the half-courts and the language about sidewalks related to the
Briarwood subdivision. Mr. Wood said that his plan was to run them from Route 29 all the way
back to Route 29.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff asked the note on the plan to be changed, but Mr. Wood
did not want to do that at the time he met with staff.
Mr. Wood commented that he wanted the sidewalks to run the same way that had in the
first half, with sidewalks on Austin Drive, Briarwood Drive, down the commercial roads on both
sides.
Mr. Cilimberg said the note says "curb and gutter streetscapes, and sidewalks will be
provided throughout the undeveloped sections of Briarwood in a manner which is consistent with
existing development in ZMA 79-32 and ZMA 91-13." He stated that staff wanted to say, "...in a
manner which is consistent with existing development and sidewalks be provided on a minimum
of one side of the street for the remaining phases of development."
Mr. Wood noted that the sidewalk now is on Austin Drive, Briarwood Drive, and all the
way down to Route 29.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was clear from the note which streets would get sidewalks or not.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it is not clear in the current language on the plan.
Mr. Davis stated that Proffer #5 which was carried over from a previous plan says "the
southerly side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood and along the westerly side of
the entire length of Briarwood."
,q
ß
Mr. Cilimberg said that between the note and the proffer would proYide: sidewalk along
Austin Drive from Route 29 back to Dixon Road, and a sidewalk from Austin Drive on Briarwood
Drive onto Route 29. He added that they do not haye sidewalks internal to any of the sections
that are being built residentially as required by the notes, and right now there are no sidewalks in
these internal sections. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that staff has recommended sidewalks on one side
of the street throughout the new sections, not just on Briarwood.
Mr. Davis emphasized that this would only provide for the new sections, not the existing
ones.
Mr. Graham confirmed that the speed limit internally throughout the subdivision is 25
mph.
Mr. Rooker said that if this were a new plan, sidewalks would be requested, but this plan
represents changes to a previously approved plan.
Mr. Wyant commented that Mr. Wood has shown a commitment to affordable housing,
and he likes this request.
Ms. Thomas said that it is a largely established plan, but she would like to see more
awareness that there would be pedestrians who will be walking throughout.
The Chairman asked if there were other persons from the public who wished to speak
regarding this request. There being no other public comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Boyd to approve ZMA 2004-14 subject to the proffers
presented dated 02/01/05, and with the additional note to the application plan: "The connection
shall be approved and bonded prior to the issuance of any building permits for homes in Phase
IV' and the approval of setback modification to 20 feet. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Original Proffer ZMA 91-13
Amended Proffer ZMA 95-05
(Amendment # 2) (ZMA 2004-014)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 1/27/2005
ZMA #ZMA 2004-014
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 32G-1. 32G-3-A. 32G-3-83
123.612 Acres to be rezoned from PRD to PRD
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.
1. Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings, exclusive of the Ray Beard lots
20
.
.
.
e
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 final 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 whose
formation documents shall be 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 January 19, 2005
(hereinafter, the "Application Plan"). The means to limit such access shall be addressed as part
of the site plan or subdiYision plat review.
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued by the County in any phase
until the owner obtains final site plan andlor subdivision plat approval for that phase, with the
exception that necessary permits for the construction of Briarwood Drive may be issued by the
County once the owner obtains VDOT approval of the road plans for Briarwood Drive.
3. Critical slopes may be disturbed for the construction of roads only with the prior
approyal of the County Engineer. Otherwise, the disturbance of critical slopes is permitted only
as authorized by the applicable Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance regulations as proyided by
Zoning Ordinance § 8.5.5.2.
4. The owner shall obtain County approyal of recreational facilities to include: one
tot lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase 1 B; the dedication of open space with the
approyal of Phases 4 and 5 for the passiye recreational area which shall include the construction
of walkingljogging 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 half
basketball courts, playgroup equipment and picnic facilities. All recreation facilities shall be
installed by the owner. The walkingljogging trails shall be constructed and maintained by the
owner as a primitive path in accordance with the applicable design and construction standards in
the County's Design Standards Manual.
5. Sidewalks shall be constructed at the time of corresponding road construction
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 Driye. The sidewalks shall be constructed to
VDOT standards.
6. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, pedestrian ways, recreation areas,
roads, and other improvements are to be located, as shown on an approved final site plan or
subdivision plat, shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. This proffer
does not apply to individual residential lots.
7. Lots along Camelot Drive may be deyeloped with townhouse units as shown on
the Application Plan.
8. The unconstructed portion of Briarwood Driye through the commercial areas
shown on the Application Plan shall be built as approved by VDOT and bonded to County.
9. The mix of units permitted in each phase is as follows:
2/
ß
ExistinQ Lot Mix
Phase Type of DwellinQ Unit Totals
SFD Duplex 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.
Proposed Lot Mix
Phase Type of DwellinQ Unit Totals
SFD SF A Townhouse
Lots Lots Lots
1A 28 - 22 50
1A (Existing - 48 - 48
Subphase 1 and
2)
1B 15 - 31 46
2 (ExistinQ) - 96 - 96
3, 3A, 3B, 3C - 70 37 107
(Existina)
4 52 - - 52
5 18 - - 18
6 31 - - 31
7 (Existinç¡) - 78 - 78
8 - - 135 135
TOTALS 144 292 225 661
10. Landscaping to proYide screening shall be provided as required by Albemarle
County Code § 18-32.7.9.8 along the rear of all townhouse units located on double frontage lots.
11. The owner shall proYide 25 units of affordable housing (for sale townhouses) with
the construction of Phases 1A (sub phases 3 and 4), 1 B, and 8 as identified on the Application
Plan. The owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to the
subsequent purchaser of the subject property. The current owner or the 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
'21-
.
.
.
insurance (PITI) do not exceed 30% of the gross household income. All purchasers of these
units shall be approyed 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 the 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 unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of purchaser.
For the lands subject to this rezoning, these proffers supersede the proffers accepted by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for ZMA 91-13 and ZMA 95-05.
ß
23
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Attachment C
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
--~:~~s~fõq~~~e-12i612 -acres-fromPRO-- - --"CliCKI_~~~~~il~rN~Pàcé:'döiiörpress ehler.Liiiéswìllrealign"
(Pianned Residentiai District) to PRD
(Planned Residential District) with proffers
superseding existing proffers, 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.)
.
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 2004-014 Briarwood
FF CONTACT S :
ham, Cilimberg, Gillespie
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2005
ACTION:
"Click then type X or space-do not press enter. Lines will realign"
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
"Click then type X or space-do not press enter. Lines will realign"
INFORMATION:
"Click then type X or space-do not press enter. Lines will realign"
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission heard ZMA 2004-14 on December 7,2004. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to
recommend denial of the ZMA request, citing the following reasons for their recommendation of denial:
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 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.
The Board of Supervisors heard this item on January 12, 2005. At that meeting, the Board voted to defer the item to
allow resolution of outstanding issues on the plan and in the proffers.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
.aI3.3: Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance
factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County.
DISCUSSION:
24
6
In order to address the outstanding issues identified by the Planning Commission and staff, the applicants provided a
revised Application Plan, dated 1/19/2005 and received 1/20/2005. That plan is attached to this document. Planning,
Zoning and Engineering staff have reviewed the plan. The previous comments and concerns of Planning Commission and
the staff haye been addressed as follows:
Regarding the orientation of buildings in Phase 8 and the impact to Camelot Drive, a note has been added to the plan that
"Vegetative screening shall be provided adjacent to Camelot subdivision along Camelot Drive in accord with section
32.7.9.8(a) and 32. 7.9. 8(c)(4)." Staff believes that, from a design standpoint, orienting the buildings to face towards
Camelot Drive is the preferable alternative to screening from Camelot Drive. However, given the applicant's desire to
orient the rear of the buildings towards Camelot Drive, staff believes that this note will ensure adequate screening of the
buildings from Camelot Driye.
The resource protection area has been appropriately labeled on both sheets of the Application Plan. Further,
.... joconsjste[Jciesbetween_the.."old'.'..and.jhe..llnew~'.ApplicationPlans.have .been .reconciled -by -attaching. the-two plans
together and clearly labeling the "new" plan as sheet 1 of 2 and the "old" plan as sheet 2 of 2.
In previous comments, concern was expressed about access to the open spaces on the plan. Particularly, there was
concern about the ability of pedestrians to access the area labeled "Passive recreation area- to consist of walking and
jogging trails" on the existing Application Plan. A note has been added to the plan stating: ')!\ccess to the recreation areas
shall be provided in general accordance with the original Briarwood Application Plan, now designated as sheet 2 of 2".
This comment has been adequately addressed.
With the previous submittals, no commitment was made to streetscape or install sidewalks in the remaining phases of
Briarwood. At the public hearing on January 12, 2005, the Board advised the applicant that it recommended providing
streetscape improvements, including curb and gutter and sidewalks, in a manner consistent with the existing Briarwood
development,. The existing phases of Briarwood include curb and gutter and sidewalks along one side of the streets. The
existing infrastructure was provided voluntarily and was never required of the previous ZMA approvals. A note has been
added to the plan stating: "curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the undeveloped
sections of Briarwood, in a manner which is consistent with the existing development and ZMA-79-32 and ZMA-91-13".
Zoning staff is concerned that this note, as written, will prove difficult to interpret in the future. Staff recommends that this
note be revised to state:
"Curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the remaining phases of Briarwood in a manner
which is consistent with the existing development and sidewalks will be provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in
the remaining phases of development. "
The applicant has requested a modification for section 4.11.3, which is based on section 19.8. This modification would
allow the buildings to be separated by less than 30 feet. The requested modification would allow the setbacks in the
remaining phases of development to be consistent with the setbacks in the existing phases of Briarwood. Specifically,
setbacks would be 6' in the side yard, 25' in the front yard and 10' in the rear yard. Staff supports this modification request
The applicant's engineer has satisfied concerns regarding the need for a traffic analysis. Remaining questions on
traffic capacity will be addressed with VDOT approval of the entrance onto Route 29. With regard to the need for
interparcel connections, the applicant has provided a note on the plan indicating that a road connection will be made at
either Phase 1A or Phase 4. Staff would prefer the connection be with Phase 1A but finds this alternative acceptable.
If the connection is not shown with the Phase 1A plans, it will then be required with the Phase 4 plans.
Staff previously noted the applicant has not shown critical slopes or resource protection areas. While that concern
remains unaddressed, staff has examined the site based on proyided topography and delineated areas considered
sensitive and inappropriate for development. Staff has offered to review that delineation with the applicant so the
applicant has an advance understanding of the areas that staff believes should remain undisturbed. As the applicant
has not sought any critical slope waivers as part of this plan, it is presumed any development in those sections would
be required to comply with the County's critical slope requirements and understands staffs position on the protection
of sensitiye resources.
Since the January 12, 2005 Board meeting, the applicant has worked with the County Attorney's office, Planning,
Engineering and Zoning staff to put the proffers into an acceptable format for adoption by the Board. No substantive
changes have been made to the proffers and no new commitments have been made. Proffers that do not offer
anything beyond what is required by regulations have been eliminated. The preYious proffers of ZMA-91-13 and ZMA
95-05 have been combined with the currently proposed proffers of ZMA 2004-014 into one set of proffers for all of
Briarwood. The language has been refined to ensure clear interpretation in the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2004-014, with proffers, with the recommendation that note 2 on Page 1 of the lS
c
Application Plan be revised to read:
"Curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the remaining phases of Briarwood in a manner
.ich is consistent with the existing development and sidewalks will be provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in
~ remaining phases of development. "
Staff recommends approval with the understanding that approval of this ZMA and Application Plan does not obligate the
board to approve critical slopes waivers in the future.
Staff further recommends approval of the requested setback modification to allow a building separation of less than 30 feet.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Application Plan, 1/19/05
. AttacbmeotR"-uProffer.s,.j 127/05.
.
.
2i.I
II/iwfes fmm 8/lS Heefl/:y
JãI7 LtdrV /Z ~ CÁ!JCL!:::J
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Attachment D
·
Agenda Item No.7. ZMA-2004-0013. Mountain Vallev Fann ISians #21.33&831. Public hearing
on a request to rezone 14.176 acs of a 29.75 acre P from the RPD Zoning District 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. (Advertised in Daily Progress
on December 28, 2004 and January 3, 2005).
Mr. Bowerman disclosed that he receives more than $10,000 in compensation from Parkside LLC
located on Berkmar Circle. The applicant for this rezoning is Evergreen Land Company, and the principal
owner of both companies is Suzanne Brooks. Mr. Bowennan then disqualified himself from participating in
the discussion and vote and left the meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request would allow for the downzoning of 14 acres from the
current planned residential development to rural areas, and would allow that portion to be included in a
residential subdMsion over the remaining property not currently zoned PRD. He said it would allow for two
lots in a segment of Ambrose Commons Drive and small portions of two other lots; the remaining parcel is
zoned RA. Mr. Cilimberg said that while the proposed development would facilitate subdivision - which is
not in keeping with the goals of the Rural Area plan - it would result in fewer lots than the current PRD
zoning would allow. He explained that under the current zoning, the property could be developed at .83
dwelling units per acre. Mr. Cilimberg said that there would be a total of five lots under the proposed plan.
He added that the Planning Commission supported staff's recommendation for approval of the rezoning.
Mr. Donier asked how this property was originally rezoned without the owner's consent.
Mr. Davis replied that his understanding is that the 1977 applicant mistakenly thought he owned the
property. Under today's laws, the owner has to make the application. In 1977, anyone could make
application to rezone. Mr. Davis said that it was a legally rezoned piece of property.
·
Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to come forward.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing Evergreen Land Company, addressed the Board. She stated that
this proposal would bring the property in line with the balance of the Mountain Valley Farm property, and
would permit the approval of the proposed subdMsion. Mr. Long noted that the Jessup family discovered in
1997 when they had their property rezoned that the 14-acre tract belonged to them, and was zoned
differently from the rest of their farm.
The pUblic hearing was opened. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Donier to approve ZMA-2004-0013.
Roll was called and the motion canied by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Donier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
Agenda Item No.8. ZMA-2004-0014. Briarwood ISian #171. Public hearing on a requestto
rezone 123.612 acs from PRD to PRD to amend proffers of ZMA-1991-13 & ZMA-1995-5 & to amend the
Application Plan. TM 32G, P 1; TM 32G, See 3, P A; & TM 32G. See 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. (Advertised in Daily
Progress on December 28, 2004 and January 3, 2005).
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request would rezone 124 acres from PRD to PRD, amend the
proffers of ZMA-1991-13 and ZMA-1995-5, and amend the Application Plan. Staff has provided a lot of
information regarding this request, and noted that there are a number of factors favorable to the request
that also reflect the history of the project: it would provide affordable housing within the designated
development areas; the proposed change in unit types would create a better mixture of unit types within
Briarwood; the proposed changes in Phase I-A of the Application Plan will create one additional internal
interconnection; and the applicant has committed a proffer to construct Briarwood Drive to Route 29 prior to
commencing certain phases, assuring a second access to Route 29.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant's earliest submitted Application Plan amendment had shown
where different unit types and existing development are located. He stated that in early 2004, the dialogue
with staff began, and the applicant submitted the rezoning request in August 2004. Mr. Cilimberg explained
that staff had this initial plan and subsequent staff comments. But then, the plan went to the Planning
Commission without staff having an opportunity to have a full review. He stated that the Commission
requested on December 7th that the applicant defer the matter, but the applicant refused to defer, and the
Commission unanimously recommended denial. Since that meeting, the applicant has submitted a new
plan for the rezoning. This plan was just submitted to staff one week ago.
·
Mr. Cilimberg said that Zoning staff raised several issues that needed to be addressed, as did
Engineering, who indicated that their comments remained the same. He emphasized that the essence of
the review and the issues are still the same, based on the Planning Commission's meeting in December.
Mr. Cilimberg said that interconnection was provided from Briarwood to St. Ives Road down to Camelot
Drive, and there was also provision for a section to connect to Camelot, gMng an opportunity for alternative
21
p
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
access. He added that as the plan is proposed now, the interconnection would not occur from a portion of
Briarwood to St. Ives, or from Phase 8 to Camelot, making only two access points for the development.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that VDOT and County Engineering both felt some traffic information
needed to be provided that would enable them to evaluate the impact of additional cars at the main
intersection, which is currently a lighted intersection. He added that staff was unclear based on the
information provided as to the orientation of buildings on Camelot Drive. Mr. Cilimberg said that the
applicant has indicated verbally that there is screening planned, but there is nothing noted on a plan or in a
proffer committing to this. He indicated that there is an area designated as a Resource Protection Area,
adding that the proposed Application Plan did not provide access to the open spaces on the plan, and there
is no indication of that. Mr. Cilimberg added that there is also no commitment to the streetscape.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that staff feels this plan is not ready for action and staff could not
recommend approval at this point. Mr. Cilimberg stated that today they have received the most recent
proffers, but they do not address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission in recommending denial;
they do address other matters that have been under discussion for some time. He concluded that staff
recommends deferral until this proposal is in more finalized form.
Mr. Bowerman asked what had changed in the most recent application. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
the applicant was trying to address what the Planning Commission identified, such as an RPA line.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many changes there had been in between the previous plan and the
most recent one presented. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the plan has only been superficially evaluated by
staff for just the primary points as the application was only very recently received.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Executive Summary included was based on the most recent staff
comments. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that it was based on having the plan in hand at the time.
Mr. Boyd said he recalled an application and response in April 2004. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the
pre-application conference was held in early 2004, but an actual application was not submitted until August
16th. He indicated that the applicant was trying to get information from staff during that time.
Mr. Boyd recollected that there would not be a connection between Camelot Drive and Route 29
based on the zoning approval years ago. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the connection is not directly to
Camelot Drive, but comes to St. Ives instead. He noted that there is not a traffic analysis of what a change
means to the existing two intersections, adding that the interconnection opportunity for splitting traffic is a
concern also.
Mr. Boyd said that this proposal holds a potential for a large tract of affordable housing, and it
concerns him that the item is being reviewed a year later "dickering over some very minor issues.· Mr.
Cilimberg emphasized that the information needs to be provided either in the Application Plan or through
proffers for the item to move forward. He presented an example that there is a concern about the
relationship of units to Camelot Drive, and there is nothing provided in writing on screening, streetscape,
curb and gutter, etc.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the difference in the configuration of townhouses is in the plans that
have been submitted. Mr. Cilimberg replied that in this case, there are units adjacent to Camelot and
access provided to them. He added that it is less certain exactly how that would be provided, and under the
current plan, the proposal indicates 52 lots as opposed to specific townhouses. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized
that the townhouses were not a concern of staff; their relationship to Camelot Drive was something staff
was trying to get specified.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any policy issues that could be considered at this meeting to
move the plan forward. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there are no proffers presented, and no traffic
information available.
Mr. Rooker asked when the traffic information was requested. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was
requested after the submission of the original plan. He noted that staff was writing the staff report for the
Commission, and the new plan came in.
Mr. Rooker asked about the access to open spaces, and commitment to streetscape. Mr.
Cilimberg confirmed that neither of those issues has been put in the Application Plan or the proffers. He
indicated that there have been five proffers submitted, and Mr. Davis will speak on that. Mr. Cilimberg
indicated that the Board would want to deal with whether they expect sidewalks on both sides of the street,
etc.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that a note on the Application Plan could cover the streetscape issue, as
long as the plan was proffered. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that this is PRD, and is not subject to the
Neighborhood Model District.
Mr. Rooker said that access to open space could also be designated on the plan. Mr. Bowerman
said that staff comment had changed the plan concept quite a bit. Mr. Cilimberg replied that once the
application was in, staff was dealing with what the report indicates - changes in unit type, etc. Staff was not
trying to push for a neighborhood center. He added that in early conversations with staff, the applicant was
aware of Neighborhood Model type approaches, but staff agreed there was already a pattern of
development established in this area.
zg
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
D
.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff felt it would be a worse traffic situation to have traffic come onto Camelot
Drive than routing it to the signal. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it depends on the impact that the traffic has
on signal delays there. It is really a traffic information analysis that the Engineering and VDOT folks do to
make sure the signal will adequately accommodate that intersection's traffic movements.
Mr. Bowerman asked how long it would take to gather that information. Mr. Rooker said that he
believes it would not take much more than a month. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that there has not been a
request for a traffic study, which can be a more involved and expensive process. Mr. Rooker explained that
all that is needed is a model done based on the number of units expected, the traffic count in the directions
of traffic now, etc. Mr. Cilimberg added that it would also include numbers going to the intersection as
compared to what would happen under the zoning as it is currently proposed. In response to Mr. Boyd's
question, he said that there would probably be at least 25 percent affordable housing.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to address the Board.
Mr. Wendell Wood addressed the Board, and said that he believes it would benefit the
development as well as the County as a whole to have a different mix of housing in Briarwood, which is
what made him move away from the all-townhouse model. He explained that when he first approached Bill
Fritz, of the County staff, they thought it was a simple straightforward request. However, Mr. Wood said, the
proffers made that not be the case. At that time, he could have developed under the original plan, and
genuinely believed the change in housing was positive. He added that everyone he has met with in the
County and the neighborhood has agreed that the changes were beneficial, noting that it is important to
have affordable housing. Mr. Wood stated that they have revised the plans and have submitted 16 sets of
plans on six occasions. He added that they have revised the proffers five times, and the only change has
been in the mix of housing. Mr. Wood said the applicants have done everything that has been asked of
them, with one exception.
Mr. Rooker asked about where the access to the open space was addressed. He said it seems like
these things are simple matters that could be cured relatively easily. He noted that the access issues also
needed to be addressed. Mr. Wood responded that there was a request to do a traffic study, and VDOT
would probably prefer that residents have to go to a traffic light. He said that they only received a request to
do a traffic study in December.
.
Mr. Rooker asked at what point did the applicant actually submit a plan that showed elimination of
the connection. Mr. Cilimberg said, "November 16th." Mr. Rooker noted that the idea is to move the plan
forward. Mr. Wood said that he was asked to do a traffic study, and he recalled the cost to be $30,000 over
six months, noting that VDOT is going to say take the traffic to a signalized light.
Mr. Rooker stated that PRDs are zoned for that particular design and layout of the development,
and virtually any change requires a rezoning.
Mr. Davis commented that there are minor changes that can be approved administratively, but
changes that are substantially different than what was shown on the plan require it to be amended.
Mr. Rooker commented that that is the nature of the zoning that the applicant got for this property.
He noted that if he had approached staff at any time with information about changing road connections and
lot layouts, staff would have told him it would require rezoning.
Mr. Wood stated that the proffer that was made is the only thing that triggered the rezoning.
Mr. Rooker recommended deferral because the proffers could not be changed tonight, and what
was handed out today has not been reviewed.
Mr. Davis stated that the proffers amended since the Planning Commission meeting need to be
turned into a form that the County could accept. At this point there is no analysis as to whether they are
sufficient to address the substantive issues. He added that it would be beneficial to everyone that all the
proffers would be put in one new document, because it is a challenge to make a determination about which
proffers are included.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to see the proposal come back in a month for a vote.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff has indicated what needs to be addressed: comments from Zoning
in the report, prior comments from Engineering that have not been addressed, and one Application Plan
that is cohesive.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the proposal being built in phases. Mr. Cilimberg said staff wants to try to
get this achieved.
.
Mr. Rooker commented that Mr. Wood has expressed his willingness to do these things, and the
only thing needed to be done that would require more significant work would be the traffic study, which
could be a model instead of a full study.
Ms. Thomas said that a month ago, what came from the Planning Commission was a
recommendation that staff and VDOT were to make the traffic assessment. She reiterated that the items
addressed in the proffers - commitment to curb, gutter, and sidewalks; access to the open space; the
29
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
D
Resource Protection Area; the buildings along Camelot Drive; and the issue of the interconnection loss
between Briarwood Drive and St. Ives.
Mr. Rooker said that the interconnection issue is the issue regarding the traffic information. Mr.
Wood said they would like to remove it because there is a grade differential of almost 40 feet at St. Ives that
would require a tremendous amount of excavating near the floodplain to achieve that connection. He
added that the plan was not digitized because of the time it was done, stating that there is a note that says
"if there is a conflict, the original plan survives." Ms. Thomas stated that that would mean the road
connection would survive. Mr. Wood said that he is requesting that not be made.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that the applicant needs some time to get this application in shape, so
that it is clear to the Board and to the applicant what is being proffered by way of the Application Plan. Mr.
Rooker said it is not clear to him.
Mr. Boyd suggested including language that says that one item would not be subject to the first
plan taking precedence.
Mr. Wood said that it would cost too much to combine the two plans digitally. Mr. Rooker stated
that if the applicant could combine the two plans with the notes involved, that would be a big step towards
completion. He added that the traffic information would also need to be reviewed, and asked if staff could
determine this over the next few weeks.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that he cannot speak for the others Involved, noting that Planning comments
can be done without a lot of effort, but he cannot speak to the traffic distribution study. He added that he
would need to confer with Mr. Graham.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the item come back to the Board in one month.
Mr. Dorrier said that Mr. Wood is ready to move forward now.
Mr. Rooker stated that there is a certain base level of information needed, and hopefully all of that
would be ready in 30 days. He added that the item could be brought back in three weeks for the aftemoon
meeting.
Ms. Thomas noted that she has been against neighborhoods without connectivity, and she
indicated that she could interpret how the traffic would flow. Mr. Rooker stated that there are no numbers
provided to back up the traffic information.
Mr. Wyant said that this is going to be a tremendous cut that will cause a lot of exposed slope,
creating a drainage concem. He said that VDOT is going to look at Camelot as an entrance onto Route 29,
and there is not a lot of site distance for a left turn. Mr. Wyant stated that he believes that on the
Engineering side, usually data is provided to staff and VDOT for their review.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is not as concerned with interconnectivity. Mr. Rooker agreed, saying that
unless the traffic report showed there were problems with forcing everyone to the signalized intersection.
Mr. Wyant asked when Mr. Wood needs to have his submittal in to get reviews in. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that it would need to be soon, as there is no way to know when VDOT would comment. Mr.
Wood said that he could get everything to staff soon.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that the needed information is the six things that the applicant was told on
December 10th:
Mr. Wood said he could provide everything except VDOT information.
Mr. Rooker suggested providing everything possible, and noted that the new VDOT Resident
Engineer might be able to come to the meeting.
Mr. Wood stated that there is no opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Cilimberg informed Mr. Wood that it would be best if he spoke to Mark Graham, and staff could
let Mr. Wood know by Tuesday of the following week County Engineering's position.
Mr. Rooker then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Eric Christiansen addressed the Board. He used to commute in that area, and mentioned that
the north entrance to this is adjacent to GE Fanuc. He emphasized that whatever traffic plan is considered
needs to take that the GE traffic into consideration. He commented that there are too many stoplights on
that stretch, and anything done to reduce the number would be appreciated.
At this time, it was the consensus of the Board to continue the public hearing until their February 2,
2005 meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the expectations for the points raised by the Planning Commission: (1) get
everything on one plan; (2) address any traffic impacts that would change, based on Engineering and
VDOT analysis; (3) clarification of orientation of buildings on Camelot Drive, especially those that would
rear-face that road; (4) the Resource Protection Area; (5) the open space area access; (6) streetscape-
30
p
January 12, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
sidewalks would need to meet VDOT standards.
. Mr. Boyd stated that sidewalks should be kept consistent with what is already there. Board
members agreed that they would be consistent with the existing streetscape, providing they meet VDOT
requirements.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that Attachment B covers items that need to be addressed by Zoning.
Ms. Thomas commented that those things have been addressed.
Mr. Wood noted that the sideyard setback of 30 feet was also an issue. Mr. Cilimberg stated that
staff is supportive of it being reduced, and language would need to be included to address that.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Wyant, to defer ZMA-2004-0013 to
February 2, 2005.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
Agenda Item No.9. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Development Departments should be making presentations,
representing Zoning, Planning, and Engineering. Mr. Tucker replied that the references Mr. Cilimberg
made indicate that there are subsets of the Planning Department that peñorm reviews. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that some of the information needed for reviews in this application was not available, and would
have to be handled by those subsets.
Ms. Thomas asked for comments from the students who attended.
One student expressed her surprise that so many details are covered when considering
development.
. Agenda Item No. 10. Adjoum. At 7:38 p.m. with no further business to come before the Board,
motion was made by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adjourn to January 19, 2005, 3:30 p.m. for
an afternoon work session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
Chairman
ADDroved bv Board
Date: 0412012005
Initials: DBM
.
~(
Attachment E
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 2004-014
AGENDA DATE:
NUMBERS:
Planning Commission,
Board of Supervisors,
ITEM
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
ZMA - Request
-- -Reqtlest-te-rez0F1e--1-23.6t2-acres-fmmRHD---------- ACTION: ______ ____ ___ ______
(Planned Residential District) to PRO (Planned INFORMATION:
Residential District) to amend the proffers of ZMA Yes -
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 ATTACHMENTS:
(Route 29) at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Yes
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.)
December 7, 2004
January 12, 2005
.>--.-.--.-.,-..---.-- -_.._-~._-----
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
REVIEWED BY:
TAFF CONTACT S : Ms. Gilles ie, Mr.Cilimber
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 streetscape of the remaining phases,
I 22
E
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.
_ AttaGAmeRt-8-is-the-Zonin.gJ~.eYie_w_C-ºmment~fofJhi~J~Jan-.!__datedJ?ecember 29,2004. As these
comments indicate, there are several outstanding issues which have n-orDeen res61vea-6y tt'is----------
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.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;
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
'?>3
[
1M MARY:
Planning Commission requested that the applicant agree to defer action on this project so that
outstanding 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-ãddresseG-¡--- --- ---- -----
... .__... n______,_____
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
-- - .-- - -- -
---.----- ---_._..--
?Æ
ŒJ
ATTACHMENT A
SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
!MMU. A/IÆA
ZONING 0IStRICT>
PROI'OSEI> USE
"1.23 AJ:. . (PEJlI'HASIHG PlAN)
PAD. (ZMA 2004-14)
PlANNED RESIOENT1Al DEVEIDPMENT
SINGLE f......Y DETACHED &
SINGlE fAMILY ATTACHED
TOTAL lOTS APPRCVf ) IN P.ILD. 661
TOTAL LOTS PREVlOUSI. Y IUlLT ..m
TOTAL lOTS AVAllAlLE 332
~
>(' '1-
'-0... .
. i.. ::.
~
cJ>
,-7
'-'
1~
~Jnil
;;;;.....
.....
ij"
,
i;
li$
¡¡
PNtIJORd Lot Mil
..... ¡ T .n....cu,
¡~J~
. .
~...21 !,U
1_ 5 ' .
'1=:.1 . lib
),t.""!::.~ . 'If,
. .
. ..
, 31·
1&. 'hi
, ..
TO AU ..... 211
."'.. n-Ms - SMtk'.-.,. 0rnId.d
"Ii"'A"u.--~""'JrA"""
'--
'"
r
I
,
,
D
PRELIMINARY SCHEMATIC "D"
IARWOOD P.R
UNITED lAND CORPORATION / RYAN HOMES
BR
_/~;;~~::;;::=~~~=::=~~~
""~,
,.y./'
?,' ,., I'
...---~~...-- ~-~-;.:.
OAT[
U\I:C _
THE
ENGINEERING
GHOUl"
---
~~.224Ø7
14O-71o.e117 ,. ~71o.811
n
I ..
.... ..
----
I
.. .
.. '.'
NDTES..-· r sè~.~_···"'arM""·..u·~t ,. J". 1.--:.-<;..:...' ":.
L ':=-..:A.;-::..~:",............ .. UL...... . &~......-u.. I~. """.. )..' '". .'. . . :(- . .~.\-: M)RTHPU~ts '!I.!8:1~~oN.
a.,::;-:-",::=-=,::::,.=·:-~"'':;:::~~~.D~~:u·. . .}. \.. T~ 20 ·~rc.1 I .:"
3~~~~M4~~;~.MiàB."'·-~·U.:~~·~A.c.s.&.~·~ :' '. ::.
, .. ...... ..... - ...... .. - ........ ..-... ....... m. ... .- ! rl .J'
, 5I7...,D.a.714.....'"-· J '"
I ' ............ Dr_ fr_ ....~. Dr. U Ita. n ~ '11 D.8;·7I4, III. 44-45. .... . . ,.
: " ,,----- --:.~ ~~aatI~=_::_'::~~:....a....~c-c.. ~ / . :~ .'
---..-.-.-..-i- .a':" . ~ . . , ~ .~ ~~,:",~7~"ß.~... U7: 1.1..". ".IX. -, _ . ~.... // ~
, 7~ ~. . . """"I ~ ,-. .....c...._........m.,......'...._...ZI',..............n, ""~".' ":·-.'f'.f> .I t ) t
_ ~/~..._.,"",oI :.:___:'" '.;~~5.~::':.......Ir..r....Dr......."'Dr.u_..ttI....,.u~......_ _ ,...~~~, : j I \ ~ ._ ....~
~._~~.,:', ___r ---____ .'-~u~...-.....II_rra........lr....._.. I ,....... .. \ ' I{ .... .. .....
5J. ~ --/-- ~-- ~ -:t ....... ,.,..(t'"'U'O.....T...WH.....~~~......--.:._J'_R .~' '.... ¡ / / /';~ '
" ~'--'" ·".....RT....."'......·...···...VOTY A.........-.o.._ --' . .:~~:':1"~
-.:... _-- - ---__ ____-'- . , iI.'I..rJ5l"fiMeS s.. '''u....elltw ~, . - .' : . : I ~ l.//: rj /' ~~r .... . '\ .. /.
- __,.~--- __...........~~ ".....,#~,.IoCØ....GAAVln'/.~ ___... ~~./ , . .,,'.... ,...._oJ...,.·· \
__~__ t----- ,._---_ .~___ __~ HG "'IIoIWo~IiIØ~<; r ..,. /' .,,: "'........~~r>!.
.'--- -...;-- --~ -"'~;iiii> .".. .,-'-----,-" ,¿-,' (.!., . /'æ.,,~....., ';~ '-'('
~;?Z"--~ ( ~- -----:.:::,.......------' '. --::'..:::........ _,. ~ .,..... -..~ o~£.C"ftþ.. ...,~~ ~ .--...-___~.~ :' /' : i. ~..~t.":.:.' " '. :< ~...\. //
I"'de '~-------------.~ .,;;..-, ", ~~ ,,-<::,-~ - - ......r--'Ò,¡ -~. '" ,., / L. ., ",:ittf;J;MJ p,."~~ \ ' .
'~í..I --:.''1 ",__ ..._r,::J"T.:...._:... ~_-~-~,'$,:..~ .1 itESO _~:-~-.~ " /: ,~ I I )..~::. . .. ,.... .~\..:+ I . ~. _ ...... . . ,NORTHPi
'I'. ,,1, ~-.....,-~ ,;-¡~.:" ,I ',' ",'>' 4 Ii .- -t-::.:~"" /__.J../ _ f ~:~._. \\~"" ~c,' "~I"~ WQODBRIAR A¡..SOC ¡"__"~'<"U"__~ . TM '20
, t· ~,~. '-;..:\J.'~~~~~.'-..""'~~.iL~- ¡:"';'-.:i-''::':::-:'0,:'" \~~~J!:!f -.,. <" ~I" .i':'", TM20 Porce.l 19 , ~..,,,.........M..T.,L...J
, ~\ \', -) ~,'..óI, '. -, >,~:~':.::,... " " ::iidé~¡;;.;;ø-..~;:~.:.~,·, ~,." _~_~-~~~ .·JV? -- ,,~~::: ~ . " ,~s.., '. '; ,.. ________- - ~~P""'df":"~.IJ".1I
''\: ~~:"...'rJ::... ~::'{(~"/~y ~"'D S ... " ~~/ _---:.<~~;::. 'O~êf~.;.::-: .' - - ",...f'-. ITi,¥,j,.. " .~ ,;,0. --;a, . I ...........--~!. ~ ~~... ...Y....H.~
~..", . I /\ / I :, (".-.. / J ,/' .... ....~~..v",~ .~~~ .'~ ,~"'.." :?"t:;:'~:"i.~·.· . ..;:.... .F: ......>?... '. \. ..... I ..~ ¡~:.:c':'~::o-:;~~~o~..
, ""- ',' ,!>.11'r'i "j" ~.~:/' . 'i:,. -."r· ;,. ,.' . ~ ·.Þ7..í "t--~, ',' '/. ;:... . ~'''' ~~~:..: .:, 'i:~ ",. ""-;;.;.q; ... " ___~ .;,...,;'1."_ /_'"-::'_/:'~ '0" ",,,..a ,., ~",
... . '. \ .\ ' .-_ _ / ~_.... -...~ ' !::' .... ~SA~ft.,.~·· M~n-\/ '...~__..;~..\. \ :'....,:' " ;=:::::::: ,:;. _'" .::::' :~t :-.:_¡ '$¡;' ~~::.:. . ~:;,.:::'-.. h ~~{..:.:.~;.~\ \ J . .' r:-:'.- -.'""'::'''_-=- _ __. :.,.~-' l·r:--:.'-h=-~_:_:_~...'·TtJl5tCnD.
..... ,\\' ,\~ . ·--:11· 1""", -- ,-''''''''''''-'''. 'IK:.. " , " .. -;I'!'-''''"'.!Jói!¡' '00-.' ..-.íii" _ .,.,~ 1 ~ ..........~ ~ - ", .- . ~-,. """ .'
\ ..\ \,,\' '~'cJ',~""" .:, /~I', ' "l'.....~~-."a.. ',.;':..' ..,:-: '\'... '·,,1 -,:~:' ..-·"",?'i-'7~::·.'\...~;~ ntf.;::;~:··;~·~'~,<:·:' \P\ \ / /r_... ~7-- '/~; d:,-':" ,'- --..;;-' ,.-<;.!j,!f,~7/I·~~'~
: \ "'",{. " :,' 1//-......';, /"';-., I I '.. ". '-"':" '",.,<>.\ H..:: ¡¡'2'~<:.· .'. ~!1"¡ ~I~" . .\-- . ',.,' ,'iI.' , . ':.,:-:.;;. -,~:,\: ,.... \, , I, J ~ ==--"~ .... .Z . ,/,' .;. ,:...,....,' >' .'., .'" ,- "', .' -..:-::".,.~. :","' ".,.<"
,'. ~'!O" ,. .' : r;. -:----." '.' .' ...... .. ....,-- '. +.I..:~ 'I "'~.:;." ~!,~~ I ~ .' ¡,'" . . ~"", ' " \, , \:V . .' - ,,' 'J. . . .> . ..' ~,- " 4;::.... ,""'
..:=- . ~ ":. '" / . ,'\¡":'- - . --. ." / -~...'" ._.. ~- ':_~, -.~::-;:.; ."~"'.. J"\ ~::' ..:. ..~,.'~ :.;;",~\~ø "~: \\ '.. '. ' ',.,\:j..,,~:¡.... .. . .',., 1 . "'. .~\ \ ~ . _~,;,:.' ~...:;w. ),. ::;." . ~ - w ~f '
. -. \ '\ .. .,'~ --- '>---. . ""~ ..-..-..',j...c-;::,....,., . ::'-;'> ,',' '·:~r'·'<:, '.' , ,', ." " .: "" . . ,/",,' ...--\.\ 'V /"."". . ,'. ~' . ~ .::..:~¿. ,
,,':4 ;.,.. ~ '. . ~:-'\\_ .I_/.;,-,:..'""¡....... y~. .' ....~;..:.:'.:..,~~~...:.j,.\:,,:,.._.......\.~1-.. ·.·t...;\~'I-··/:;:;. '\"If'" ~~' ,i,·,., ','1, ._' ,-~ct:;J r-
''';:;:... "';~- '" \ ~~ 0..~> ~ì~··¡¡¡¡iiii¡~>,,~!\!?:1.·'J<, ,'" -, '. '.. . ,(\; ;."Jifi ~~ \ ,·~·7' ,. - ,.'4-""" ,do'
C\f~~::.-) \ -, ~~':J'~" S;-~·..·,,~<1):·!i:¡1j .~ r-"*"" ~ ~ ,..:\.,~.~,#.;.~.". '.<'¥',.\':;-~", ' .' '... ",. .t,~,;... . ~1 ::--__..--"""
;,.-"'¡~,,~~}- \ ' - '~~.,,('::-~~~< ~' .;~.,"~(;1?kj:fl1¡::~·~·:·~;r:';-.::··· ":---""~i"::"*'\l :t:~·.v!~l~-:·, ·":"i¡¡~~"¡"'/".' .·~'~fj \\; ".' ..' ".~ - ....,,,!t IJ. ,'", . ~. '- . - .:' -' '..
.,~.:. , \. . - ------...-.-f::,.. .':>-_ ',.'.,4. ,.~ '~'~,;(' ..", '. ...' :.(\t ;.L" ,~~:'~.':":;-t.;". \ .."~' 'I, '. \. ,,' ,'?,::.;..... .,.....'... <!T., , ..."ç:-- ,'. ,/ --".. .. ,"
, '\ " --.. I . "..J;.!,,~ '\. ....... ~"'rSl~lf~:r' ; J ~'1;--'~\?~'" """", _ . t~~~·,: . .;:, \ ( "<~ '.' . ~"f . . .'.. . ,> ,'. _. )', ---..- .. ,-
, '. -~, ' --- ~-=--~-::~~ ' ','------ ----- :~.::.::;=-',.,. '~)}~.:J~..,.,,:.::. .../ -j ~~"; ·~~:~':V;:-~j1'·:,~~(;f.· ~':::~fL- '~:, ,~ :.,'i':'- '~~'..' I'; . ¡ ,: ~ ':;:::,--~'-' <',',------..-------
, . ",,'$0. '-:.. . "-....... ~ '.' ¡~";"::- ~''',".:~,-r'J' '-' (/'~..... '/---'"" ~:::V:~:· .' --~,ft . ,~..,. ", .
.... . t..._..- ~- \ :"'~.~.. .. "\ .;~~ ':i.'(í1:'.;'\ ... -..-. a '<"'"-i¡-'- -~ . -~'~¡\:_'.~é ~~ '.~ :~ "~'J'.~:.' ;.'1.:' "-~~". _/::r:/-".,......;..;:'~.:~ ~ ': _-_.
'- ' . \ ~, .' '~ .J!';" , , " -^ .J.."" '. .... "., "j' . . - ;>" . .. --. ' -,'- . --- -~
'.' 'a I ':'..1 ~"'£ "creeJ..s............: \, \ ,'-. '1).'¡ rI", , '/-' ':'1:"\"" '. ..' . . ~,. - .·:1."· c' . ; '. "'" ><, 'f..."" "n:"--czo :"~:-~-' -"
, J ....... , QT£ \ ," ,'- ;~' .... I r. , / ',"(' .~-- "u~"-tl' '~7~ ". . . ,.' "'." ,': ~"...... .--¡- ..-' ,
, .- ~A ~- ',,' -'.. "." , .., ,\"'~"( "'J' .' "",." " ,.;£), o'.' ,
-, :. ¡ -.. c-..., ... '\.,:' ~- '.--¡ , " _ ".I.i~~'''':--r- '" " : ."" ',.'. :x:" ~..~., '''',>;'7." .' ... .' ,_-
~ " . ' , . .. '-... _. ,- . .,,<.,-- /' /.:',I(,\" \ '", .'. _ '-','I"! ~Jl' ,,)C. ,'tll-. '"...:z.. " ." " .' .' ,'..
.... . , -, ,'. .. . /....~ ~ ....... \ _!. ' ~,~... ... .. ". ,. "fo . -: "'!'fI&'. . ... .' . -.
~~-- ,-- -->'-~-r---'~--' ~. --:---",,--4> --I' - ..(T-'/ ~ ".J..,.. . '-:'.. "'!¡.: .",,'- '.: ,'" .'" ;.., i~.3C.37/LOTS
:.) ~ . ).... . \r' .. I ~.J "............ .7'~,,! I . .,. :iõ'. . !fj J
,. , _. i -'. loX" INDtCAT :.; La ~"'TT[D AS OF""""',';, '. ~ ~. ."..// .. I . I ~_... ,......:...0:'. ..... '" .. \....~-... I:)-.J' '. . í(,: ....,' ,-_.
.' J ! \' \:. . . -:-, ; . I J . I : I .' ,...... '.' .v Y-'" ,'. . Jo R 0:... " t?' ....~ :
~.' . >~. I: t .:". .PRIV.T.~D.,;~WIL..EUTIL'ZEDWH..E!NI"C\~/·.. ~~~.::t~N1....·..J,~].-'j.,.". "., \·\"f'.t"'".·'= :.' p'_ . ... . '. . ;-'-;J.I ....:Je./~ral :.¡,·Ir
. -,,- ..","". .----..' / ., ,pO). \ ~ '. .'. . .,/ .,/ . L¡¡~· Ir'/ ~ ,~~ .-, 'tt~ti\;, .:;J. , ',.' . ~ , ,..,,'. "f.! T't.1:1 ;::>.~:. 11\
. ::....ç..-. . ./ ..... . . ~.." -........-:::: '. ,·I{.,Y: ~ _.- _'. ~~.....~ .... .......:,..-~~.._:~J'" "'..-" )C..... "...-;;~-' _~':..", I i/o',,', .'
C_.,":'.,-~ .. ~.-- ..... '. '.,:' . ,>'"'(... ...,.'. IJ, _ "I' ,. ¿" ;~~'\' !,."f"~.;¡.. r..:¡,¡"..I1-' ':J.;y I.~ ..."!: ~" , ,Ií: II, ,.' M"
~..~:-::-ýr:,,:p;'~::'1_~. I ._ . ..'. . \. ,./" 5-'-" . ' , .. ,t.. .......~ . '., ~. ~.,"., \(o'.\ ~.. ~'. ~~-~oI J:101i ~___~-< y; ...;., .....: ., J ','
-:ö,_.._~.,_.._-:-. .."." ". -1,J·· ~"\ I '. " \'\~ /./ ." '. .îiI ; '-,".~ IøTT0 '/.:t~~Þ\~"\~:I. """, ,·1-,,'#5 ~\\\):j..¡~ .Y:r¡¡;j(.".' '.' \ I '
=,~:~"""".., .t ';) : ,. ,J.""'" :.::--.... ..--:.... (/'If ,. J,..; ".. "~""" '''',~ ~r--~\,\\ I.e. .\' æo, I' '-. ,1 ',' ~}f'. \~'1-' :'¡;'ß.oI:;¡,.,r ,r, \". '" , "
"....~.-..,.-.. ·'·'---1-'·· . ~\' '.. / ''1''. ....-'...... '~"'...t-l . il "Y".,"",' '., (oy"-l..Æ-.... .~+'~.\.~.... ~.,..'~.: I ,'\;l:~,.~- .-;~''!l,,\"., ~"*"...~"'. "·'UUID'USESUMMARY,.
'. . __~--""~~..' __.-.:' n'\' ~--- I .....~',...-,ff. .....'.:. /. ~- .' :r·,<. .. -'.' r"a ...·?"i.... ::... \li.tJ.,~t:' ~'.~'. ."11 11'!~·j1:x-.·".}\\\ ~ "¡ANa;.
..' _-...-- . . . -' ---+-- ~'. ~ '. "'f \ ..!I . . ',: ~:] , :.." ..,,~.. -:. .. ..~c . :i::; ~f'''''' _ . '. ',. ." ' 1-4· J I '" T~ 32G-03-A . 6.39 AG. tDB,.775. pg. 5~
.., ,-- \i .. \ ~MELqT. D~. -= æ~,.··rlF.f7rnr1~ Ifr.-r rJ'.,M ~" r, ,.:ff.. ,ft)+:· ". ..t4~ ..'~ ~Ã.~_i:,.. & " '..' - .~~ i.j ~/, {/(~i\ '." . ,TM 32G'I' 131.6 AC. fExdud'"" comm...
/' . "'---.---'--- --\- .~. -":'. ;1\1" s .. .'" þ'r¡;¡;:jj,'+.IJ. ' ."Ct.:./;', ,jj~~,' .of· ~"£\:' . \.. ""~' /. ,,'1 !I: '': ''I':-~'.~ ~~B'~ .-
"-: . .~. -.'. \.::~><,--- \~ l\. ~""'.Ií'::r: j::.::~....~. , 8../, --/ /8i.~pi . >.: . ßr;?'f/../ \ ~~;:'~~N ,:1:\ :'~" ~ ,':~--, ..:- . . ,""'- ,.).of ./ . " './.~ WD\~' I4U3 A[. P9
·'---c ....".. J \' " \,.',. .~'.~~..'S...,.. '. 1'" ...:,' "'-". ·.J>:)·;Y" ; " ... . '''.' J!t,. ~'."'\~., ::::::-,....-¡t~ IX' . ," Lct&.
. " .:., _--~ ~ \'j.... t \ . t:.~,~ ..).;"~:':'" :fi~t , _/-C!. ,'" -; . ~W"'; .. ...~. '. '.' ~~ íf\\L~'~<)(. -+--".t!; ~tc ..', \: ,~~,. ~;,,~;ì/fl lilY: ,.-, :, ; _" _';......f Dwellin,
.... >...----- ,7" ~~,)i1U.~ . .. ··.·r:.~~ ,:,1. ,., ...... . ::j¡.:y/ ,,]., ,~-:-+--', ' '~Si;tri" e' \, ¡r--:""--.A; /J"('I '~::'. ", ,; ......-.
, _---:-- J. 5 : ¡~. 7';'- ~ . '. '. , ~" ...../ , f. i .'..... .... ....}! I " ,',"':~'F-í,..\'':.R!f. n~., '~i1l,'=i 1. Y.IL" ~"'~, (I r.. ...V '..{, ,'., ',',' ::: :
~//- /,.;~ \ ,'\~:.~:-i :~,:~~ 1.'·{Lt9'. ~ ""'1'.'\ t !'.11¡ 'L !L' !~/.'j. "~ /1/ ".';~ ~t~~~~- '7' .,~~. ," '~"~~"~~I¡;~(:~!! !~~. ~¡t/j/~;':": , \, ' ,"='CJ,:,'"
, A " ~I \l " X,-- ,:7 '"\.. ,j~ ' :.ÏV... ...t.,;'-J }'., ,-~·:\.X· ':/\'\.. "'S'J"', .' .' . l j ,.' .~1- ,-T":~ ~,.¿t!:'I':;:J'<=;'ì'· '..L.\-\'~' ~'~) I \\\'\\ '1\11 ,\,\ \ \~ ~C!~ . ',' f-7-U'-r-:-"
\. , - . .. ". . . '-',' ," ,'. ,. ~~''''4'~:'''--:~--,\''''''~ f§j)" '~.\" I 1- < ", " '" .'
/\,,-'- ."~-, . "..' '. - -~"_""i'~NING' LI ":-"<,' ,··,..?Z··.. '-~1f:' " ','. ~/~',q ' i/({I/'.. l' ' 0.:~' "- -'1E~?" Ct_"..... :/L" ,'~lj" .11 ,'.\ ~: 'r~': \·I,~r¡ fhì..-l ',"
".. '\.' ~.. ~ ...... '.' \.' . ''''/., ...," ....'./'-.. .t.'. ..............: .:. .../ ..'. .' ~~~: 1fllj:l~:U \ ...~.............~,:;~:- _..... ~ '~...' . ,\'~.~.a.' ..(''/.;',-/.! If,. ;1 )¡", ¡ r' ' fJ ,.f . '...~.. T.T"'L6 ~1
, I / " :.... ,....- .' .~' ,. . ~. " "~ ._...... .' /.. ~~; æ-Ò;& '1'/1111 \ \ t--.; ::- .:--=-.. :.- '.. ~ _ ~....:r:" .. ~,h'''/' /"1'1 l .... '. I: " L..'!!-~~~~~
.'! \<,<~~__~,-.. "ZDNED,..c~~·; ço~M.~8CIAL. ~¥..,~".-. .',./' .' . --~-=~:~%:i4\\.$ :~ ~~~~: ~~~.> ~':Y/ ;:~1.i¡; ¡' :r:J) J", (l,;' :~""AOOf"H
:\'--. ··,,>l,_. . _-I;'i,"1,V,,!(~1Þ)1\\l~~ ~~'~~~~iØ}jJ \ll¡l')fí,-5- ~:;;""
, . "-- ,. 1\ ~....... " , ..:...~.~I:::..·"fr1j~:a1\/ .,:'->< ~- ~. ""',~~ ~~~ ,y ~/yV (f¡)jJ/f[(¡"j/ .1 rr \':"~"~ .
::~ . '-;- -~: .;.:.'-..----~='~"--~':',-""':; :- - ',-- ". <~~~G - -~~,~-~r"~- r'~ ~-, "'~. \"'~:~~. "',~ji'~~ -, -';:';.~.:-'- ,,'
ATTACHMENT A
(~MA-9¡-13
y
'THlS PLAN WlLLtlEMAIIHN FULl. FORCE'" BFFBCT
A.-;'RELATING TO me EXlS11NG BlUAR.WOOÐ PRD (ZMA-
YI~I3).
IN THOSE'AIlI!AS WHERE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT
VET EXIST, MðDlF1CA11ONS 1'0 THe ROAD NETWORK
AND UNIT TYPES·wu.L BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
.HEW PLAN. PJEl.þ(INA]I.yBOlBhtATlC "'D'". DATBD
11..16-2Ð04 AND JEVJSBD 12..1-O-2OIM:
BR I'ARWOOD P.R.D.
AMENDED ÁPPLlCATION. a PHASING PLAN
TM32G~i. TM .32G-3-83, TM32G-3-A
DATE: 10 -18-,91
'REVISIONS'} !~~~~~l, ~,-,..fÎj':
"1;" '¡::S' ·,....z~~.Otf
.6'-.n." 12·-"·_4'
",,'fõ.
~~.~.""'"
.~.
j
,
I
""
euitt
r.n.1>
~
'6
"'"
,
.~
~:~-
-="
o
ATTACHMENT B
.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
Division:
ïarpiey Gillispie, Senior Planner
John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration Æ1
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 Briarwood at this time.
2. On September 14, 2004 my comments included the following
- 1 -
~l
&
f:-
A TT ACHMENT 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 singlefamily 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-
f(Jot/ot width arose from the p1"iorrezoning.lUs notanQrdinan.c? reqzârement.
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 30loot building separation in the P RD 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 bya minimum of 30 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 eliminatedfrom the
lot totals.
-2-
j8
I
E
ATTACHMENT 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 account for 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 units 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 oflots approved in the
-3-
3~
8
£
ATTACHMENT 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._lUsrecommencJed _thªtthe 4pplic(;i.nt work
with the County '8 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 Plan for 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-
40
c;¡
~
Ä 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, 1B, 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 amendedplan. A copy of Section 8.5.1 is attached to these comments for your use.
. ~
If this ne1'\.} 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 II 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 1A, IB, 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."
- 5 -
11
to
Add a note that states, "Buildings shall be separated by a minimum of 30 feet."
ATTACHMENT B E
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 ofZMA
04-14. To that end, the following revisions are recommended.
.-__-0 .___._._,__,_ .__....._..._._.__.____
- - -- - -
,u__..._u_._m' __
· 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 account for 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 HousingOffice 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 -
42-
II
Jan 03 05 01:30p
~
Attachment C
UNITED LAND CORPORATION OF AMERICA
EO. BOX 5548 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22905
TELEPHONE (434) 9'75-3334 FAX (434) 975-0267
... __~_anuary 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 cou1d be closer to the street)
Thank you,
~
Wendell W. Wood
.
43
!2..
.Jan 03 05 01:30p
[
A TT ACHMENT D
~ .-'-- ..-... ..... -'- .-..-
)
/
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer-
(Amendment # ~
PROFFER. FORM
..~.~~~~.g¡~~-~-~. _.~
Tax. Map and Parcel NumbeJ(s) 32G
Pursuanttc Sectian 33.3 of the Albemarle Count)' Zoning OrdinllOCC, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, bcreby
voluntarily proffers the coDditions li:Itcd below which shall be applied to Ibc property. ifTezaned.. 'Ibcse condiúol15 are
proffered IU II pan afthe requested rezoning and it is agreed mal: (1) the rezoning itsclf giVC5. rise to me nèCd for the
conditions; and (2) such c:ondidons have. rea$onllbIe rel»ion 10 the rezoning rcqucsL '
Acres [0 be rezoned from
to
Woodbriar Associates Limited parmcrship requests the following proffer condition amendments be considered for approval:
PROFFER# 1 amendingAgrec:ment 12 ofZMA-95-0S
Simultaneous development of phases with signed site plans or subdivision plats may occur for the remaining phases of
deve1opmcnt, ickntified as Phases lA (subphase 3 & 4) IB, 4,5, 6, & 8 as sJwv.:n o~ the Application Plan dated November 17.
2004. Bñarwood Drive shall be construeted to Route 29. as shown on the Applicanon plan dated November 17. 20M. prior to
commencing Phase 4. S or 6.
PROFFER # 2 amending Agreement 13 ofZMA 91-13
Lots along Camelot Drive may be developed with townhouse units. Consistent with Application Plan.
PROFFERf 3 amending Agrecment 15 of ZMA 91-13
The mix of units pc:nnittod in each phllSC is hereby modified iÏ'oID the Briarwood P. R. D. Amended Application Plan to reflect
the revised unit typeS permitted in each phase.
Existint! Lot Mix
Phase TV( e ofDwellin~ Unit Totals
SFD Duplex Townhouse
1A - 98 - 98
IB - - 53 53
2 - 96 - 96
3 (ABC) .. 72 37 109*
-
4 - 66 - 66
5 ..--'.' ....-=--. .--- 70 - ._....-12
---- ~_.--_.-. -' ..-
6 - 30 - 30
7 .. 78 - 78
8 _.._-~.-- 20 .. 52
TOTÃï,s' .. -'. ..___0'·
32 530 90 652
Page l of 2
+t
I~
.
.
.
Lots to be added by
Ray Beard Property TM-32-E-2
~
ATTACHMENT D
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 da.te.
ProDosed Lot Mix
Phase T~ofDwellin~ Unit Totals
SFD SF A Townhouse
Lots Lots Lots
lA 28 - 22 50
lA (Existing SubPhase 1 & - 48 - _4ª_ _
2) ___. __om. _"0- n --- .__..-. -- - .. - ----. ---- -----~.- --------- ---- -~--- ..----....- _.__n ._n --- "..-
IB -_!?_-- . - 31 46
2 (Existin;) . 96
- 96 -
3, 3A, 3B, 3C . 70 37 107
œxi~)
4 52 - - 52
5 18 - - 1&
6 31 - - 31
7 ) - 78 - 78
8 - - 135 135
TOTALS 144 292 225 661
PROFFER #4
The owner shall provide 25 units of affordable housing (for sale townhouses) with the construction ofPbases IA (subphase 3
& 4) lB, as identified on the Application Plan, dated November 17, 2004. The owner shall convey the msponsibility of
constructing the affordable writs to any subsequent purchaser of the subject property. The current owner or subscquenl owner
shall create Wlits 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 homeowner.¡ insunmce (pm) do not exceed 30"10 of the gross household
income. All purchasers oflhese units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee. The
owncrlbuilder shall provide the County or its designoe a period ar90 days to idc:ntilÿ and prequalliÿ an eligible purchaser for thc
affordable units. The 90 day period shall commence upon written notice &om the owner that the units will be availabJe for sale.
This notice shall not be given more than 60 days prior to anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy. JIthc County of its
designee does not provide II qualliicd purchllSCr during this period, the owner shllll have the right to sell the unites) without any
restriction on sales price or income of purchaser.
The origin III proffeIs ofZMA 91-13 and ZMA 95-05 remain in force except as amended.
PROFFER #5 amending Agreement I ofZMA 91-13
Ex.clusive of the Ray Beard lots.
Woodbriar Associates Limited Partnership
~~
gtlaturcs of WJlC~ener al
J?iirt::¡¿er
1t/T"MI/./Y/47. ?'./C/d ~ 01/03/05
F"nm::d Names of A.IJ Owners General Date
P"'rtner
.---
OR
Si!nanlrc of A.nornt:y-i.._Far.r
(Atach Propcr POwcr of Attorney)
Pru1!ed N'!mc of .A.n{)rn~y-in.Fa~r
-'-----
page 20f'2
45
14
Attachment F
UNITED LAND CORPORATION OF AMERICf\
p.o. BOX 5548 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22905
TELEPHONE (434) 975-3334 FAX (434) 975-0267
June 13, 2005
Mr. John Shepherd
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Community Development
401 Mcintire Road, Rm. 227
Charlottesville VA 22902-4596
Dear John:
Pursuant to our conversation and at the direction of the Board of Supervisors, I
hereby request that the building setbacks for Briarwood shall be as follows:
Front -- 20 feet
Side -- 6 feet
Rear -- 5 feet
These measurements are consistent with previous development at
Briarwood.
Also, I would like to request modification of building separation required by
Section 19.8 from 30 feet to 12 feet.
These setbacks and separations shall also be noted on the plan.
Sincerely, /
.~~.
Wendell W. Wood
President
United Land Corporation
of America
¡me
4&
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Subdivision Ordinance - Overlot Grading
AGENDA DATE:
July 13, 2005
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on discussions with Blue Ridge
Homebuilders regarding an overlot grading provision
being added to the Subdivision Ordinance
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONT ACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
(
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On April 20, 2005, the Board considered revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance. One of the proposed revisions was an
overlot grading requirement, which would regulate grading and drainage on smaller lots in the development area. This
provision proved to be controversial. Given the controversy, staff suggested tabling this provision and allowing a work
team comprised of County staff and Blue Ridge Homebuilder Association members to see if consensus could be reached.
The Board agreed with using this approach and David Wyant agreed to facilitate this effort. This executive summary is a
status report of that team's work.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
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:
Since the April 20th Board meeting, the work team has met as a group 4 times and also done considerable work outside of
those meetings. The work team has reached agreement on a number of key provisions, but has not finished its work. As
a result of that work, the team has agreed the lot grading concerns can be addressed without a mandatory overlot grading
plan, provided certain precautions can be built into the development review and building inspection process. Those
precautions include:
· Driveways and pedestrian access can be regulated through the "safe and convenient access" provision that
currently exists in the zoning ordinance. This would be verified at the time of certificate of occupancy ("C.O")
versus demonstrated through an overlot grading plan. To reduce problems with issuance of a C.O., staff is
preparing a set of guidelines that will be distributed with building permits. A copy of the current draft is attached.
· Slopes and vegetation requirements are existing requirements under the erosion and sediment control permits. As
such, staff can continue to regulate those provisions under the existing permits.
· Potential drainage issues can be identified as part of the subdivision plan review. At that time, staff can inform the
subdivision applicant where potential drainage issues have been identified. The applicant will then have a choice
of either preparing an overlot grading plan to demonstrate the adequacy of the drainage across lots or staff will
"flag" the lots of concern and require a lot grading plan as part of the building permit application. Currently,
building permit applicants are routinely allowed to use "Agreements in Lieu of a Plan" to satisfy erosion and
sediment control requirements associated with building permits. The County's Water Protection Ordinance gives
the Program Authority (Director of Community Development) the authority to either require lot grading plans or
allow these agreements with these building permits. With this recommendation, the Program Authority would
require the lot grading plan to address potential drainage concerns.
While the work team has made significant progress, there are remaining issues. The following are some examples:
· What is an acceptable flow of stormwater running from one yard to the next outside of a maintained drainage
structure? The previous staff recommendation would have limited this to stormwater running across three yards
before it is directed to either the street, open space, or a drainage structure. Many on the work team believe this
AGENDA TITLE: Subdivision Ordinance - Overlot Grading
AGENDA DATE: July 13, 2005
Page 2 of 2
requirement is excessive. Staff continues to believe that significant flows in homeowner's yards create the
perception that the drainage is not working and that perception will result in demands for future Boards to accept
responsibility and improve the drainage through expensive retrofits. The team has not reached consensus on what
is considered an acceptable flow.
· When should overland relief be required? Overland relief is grading such that the water will not flood houses even
if the drainage structures are clogged or prove inadequate. For example, drainage structures are commonly
designed to accommodate a 1 O-year storm event while the flood hazard mapping creates the perception for many
homeowners that the home is safe from a 100-year storm event. The flows in excess of that handled by the
drainage structures will flow into homes if there are not adequate areas for that water to flow around homes
(overland relief). Staff's perspective has been homeowners should have reasonable assurance their homes will not
flood even if a drainage structure becomes clogged. While the team has not resolved this issue, the work team
does recognize this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
· What type of drainage ways are appropriate through yards? The primary focus of this issue is when should rip rap
ditches be allowed through residential yards. If allowed, should there be any restriction on the size or location of rip
rap ditches in yards? Beyond the safety concern, staff believes this type of drainage way will be considered an
unacceptable nuisance by many homeowners and there will be considerable pressure placed on future Boards to
assume responsibility for these ditches and retrofit the drainage ways with storm sewer. The team has not
reached consensus on when rip rap ditches should be allowed.
· Finally, the team has not decided how best to codify the drainage requirements. There is not currently a
requirement for this in either the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance, nor with the Building Code.
It is anticipated it will take two or three more meetings to resolve the remaining issues and a team recommendation can be
presented to the Board by September.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Budget impacts will be considered with the final team recommendation.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This executive summary is intended as a status report. If the Board has any guidance to provide the team, David Wyant
and staff can carry it back to the team.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Draft Quidance on "Safe and Convenient Access"
05.086
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Presumed Safe & Convenient Access
Required for Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
Drivewav Access to Dwellin!!:s
Entrance:
For curbed (urban) streets, the maximum grade should be +/- 8% or flatter fì
behind sidewalks or 20' behind curbs (whichever is greater) except that dri
should match the VDOT standard. For ditch (rural) roads without sidewal
be +/- 8% or flatter for a minimum of 20' from the edge of shoulder. If t
sidewalks behind the ditch line, a minimum of 10' from the back of s'
or flatter grades. Steeper landings should be considered in consul
streets or by the County Engineer for private streets.
iriimun10f 10'
rqµ.> grades
des should
1 road with
ould be +/- 8%
OT for public
Parking Area:
An area at least 18' wide by 18' in length that is graded
adequate for two offstreet parking spaces.
sidewalk.
flatter will be considered
cannot overlap any street side
Driveway Width:
A minimum width of 10' will be ~orisidered acc table for driveways, but pullouts may be
considered necessary for longer '~ewáys where it is not possible to see if another car has
already entered the driveway <n;\\ 'ng up will be difficult (e.g. where a vehicle would need to
back onto the street or wouldn'e d ck around a curve in the driveway to allow a vehicle to
pass).
Driveway Grades:
Driveways should b
a Virginia licensed
convenient.
imum of 20% slope or flatter. Steeper driveways shall be allowed if
n , surveyor, or architect certifies the driveway to be safe and
actº~ tòDriveways:
ri~k of vehicle rollover if the vehicle slides off the driveway, downhill slopes
, 6" should be graded to 3: 1 (horizontal : vertical) or flatter. These grading
uld only be exceeded where,. guard rail, curbs or other measures (e.g. trees) should
eep vehicles from rolling down hills.
Driveway Surfaces:
Driveways steeper than 10% should have a nonerodable surfact;.suchasa~ut'facetreatment or
pavement. (Note: It is anticipated there will be circumstances in the rural area where steeper
driveways do not require pavement, but this guidance cannot assure this will be acceptable in all
circumstances. )
Drainage:
l Deleted: .
{ Deleted:
( Deleted:
Concentrated runoff (flows from a culvert or street side ditch above the driveway must cross
under driveways in a culvert and be discharged into a stable channel or stonn sewer. Sheet flow
across a driveway is considered acceptable. Driveway ditches should be used whenever flows
along the driveway would be erosive.
Clearance:
In order for a fire truck to provide emergency services, the driveway must provi mInImUm
vertical clearance of 13'6". This standard would apply to any driveway where<i truck
cannot provide service from the street. Additionally, a minimum ofa 14' wigecl!? el$hould
be provided to assure the fire truck can maneuver on those driveways. This fectî'\.'elYr§rbates a
"box" which is 14' wide by 13'6" high along the driveway. Typically, any ay where the
house is more than 100' ITom the street would be considered as needin de fire truck
access. For driveways an ambulance would need to use, a minimumpf rtical clearance
with no tree leaning into the driveway to assure ambulances can acce~~ e dwelling. This
effectively creates a "box" which is 10' wide by 10' high. T' any driveway where the
house is more than 50' ITom the street would be considere to provide ambulance
access.
Turnaround:
A suitable area for turning around a fire truck must be ded at the end of the driveway where
the driveway is to be used by a fire truck. Similarly,¡¡¡ suitable area for turning around an
ambulance must be provided on any driveways~here the ambulance could not back to the
dwelling or provide service ITom the s t. Typically, both of these apply to any situation where
the driveway is more than 100' meaS1.Jre the edge of street to garage or parking area. Longer
distances may be considered aCgep Ie wher ¡t,the driveway grade and curvature would allow for
the driver to easily back up tþi~dist
iY
Pedestrian Access to Ðw
Sidewalks and/or driveW¡'¡Ys sh d provide a continuous access between the street and entrance
to the dwelling. Thc¡sidewalk should typically be at least 4' wide and .,allow emergency
personnel Iy rb¡,¡ch the dwelling and remove people on a gurney. Sidewalks and
driveway rovjde no potentîal hazards to someone who walks off the edge or slips and
falls eater than I', slopes greater than 2: I without handrails, concrete form pins
sti fóf steps is required to have a handrail ifthere are more than two steps.
Road Surface:
A street shown on the approved subdivision road plans will be considered safe and adequate if
the road grades and shoulders have been established with a suitable riding surface provided.
Additionally, all improvements under the pavement must be properly installed (e.g. stonn
sewers, water mains). For streets receiving asphalt pavement, the base course of asphalt
pavement should be in place. Where surface treatment has been approved, that treatment should
be in place. Where a gravel drive has been approved, the full depth of gravel should be in place.
. l~~~~:
)
......._.J
{ Deleted: to
Obstacles in the Street:
If valves, manholes, or similar improvements are in the street being used to access the building,
they should protrude less than 2" above the street surface and should be marked such that they
can be easily seen at night ( "dayglo" paint is acceptable). Construction materials, dumpsters and
equipment should be stored outside of the roadway clear zone. Vehicles should only be parked
along the roadway as would be allowed on the finished roadway.
Signage:
Stop signs, street signs, and other signage required to assure traffic safety should be Wpla,çe.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY06 Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Funding
AGENDA DATE:
July 13, 2005
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQU EST:
Board direction to determine funding and service
levels for CTS in FY06
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Breeden, Bowman
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
~
I
LEGAL REVIEW:
No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In April of 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted the FY2005-2006 (FY06) budget, allocating $265,972 for the
Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) to provide bus service to parts of the County's urbanized area. This adopted figure
was based on the Board's direction to increase CTS funding by 10% for FY06 and was significantly less than the $470,201
originally requested by CTS. After adoption of the budget, CTS informed the County that service would need to be reduced
.no additional funding was approved for FY06. As a result, a meeting was held between the County and City to discuss
.w transit operating costs and revenues might be shared differently in the current and future fiscal years. This meeting
was attended by Chairman Rooker, Mayor Brown and County and City staff. At the conclusion of that meeting, it was
agreed that County and CTS staff would meet to discuss development of an objective method to share costs and revenues
in the future.
While the primary purpose of discussion among staff was to consider long term options for funding CTS, due to the City's
need to make final decisions on CTS service for FY06, the City proposed a revised cost sharing arrangement in June that
would also make service level adjustments. These changes in service levels were primarily the result of the recently
completed study conducted to identify improvements to current CTS service. In addition to implementing these
recommended improvements, the City's proposal also reduces the County's cost for the improved routes by providing a
credit for federal and state revenues received by CTS. Because staff believes this latest proposal addresses needed route
improvements and also recognizes federal and state revenues as an offset to County costs, staff felt consideration of a
change to the FY06 appropriation should be brought before the Board for consideration.
Below is staff's analysis and recommendations regarding the City's proposal to change daytime bus service and to address
two new issues related to funding CTS night service and long-term route planning. Staff asks the Board for direction as to
whether additional CTS funding for FY06 should be provided. Staff will continue to work with CTS over the next few
months regarding long term alternatives for CTS funding.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Citizens
Provide Effective and Efficient County services to the public in a courteous and equitable manner
DISCUSSION:
eff has been working with CTS to address concerns in FY06 regarding CTS day and night-time service as well as
nning for future bus routes. It should be noted the while the City has proposed a credit for federal and state revenues,
their proposal was based on a three year arrangement with the credit beginning at 40% in FY06 and decreasing to 35% in
FY07 and 30% in FY08. Rather than a three year arrangement as proposed, staff believes agreement should be limited to
FY06, while discussion continues on the long term funding of CTS. These issues are outlined below for the Board's
consideration.
AGENDA TITLE:
FY06 Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Funding
July 13, 2005
Page 2
Day-time Service Issues
CTS's original budget request of $470,201 was based on a formula that allocated direct costs on a per hour basis and gave
no consideration to sharing state and federal transit operating revenues with the County. CTS has now proposed a 40%
credit for state and federal transit operating revenues in FY06. This credit is approximately equal to the percent of state and
federal revenues compared to all revenues received by CTS. Again, staff believes this is a reasonable solution for FY06
and will continue to work with CTS in the coming months to develop an objective long-term method to allocate costs and
revenues.
In FY06, CTS will implement changes to their routes based on the Charlottesville Transit Improvement Study. These
changes are illustrated in Attachment A and Attachment B. As the maps show, Routes 5 and 7 are combined to create a
new Route 5 and service on Route 10 is extended to Martha Jefferson, Westminster and Canterbury. Each route will also
see changes to its headways, or the time intervals between stops on round trips. Route 5 will run on a 45 minute headway,
where in the past headways were one hour on Route 5 and 7, except for 7 daily peak service hours Monday - Friday,
where headways were 30 minutes on Route 5. Route 10 will continue to run on one hour headways, but buses will travel
downtown once every hour instead of half-hour. Funding for changes to Route 5, 7 and 10 with a 40% credit for state and
federal revenues will require an additional appropriation of $16,430, which represents a 16.8% increase over the FY05
budget.
Niqht-time Service Issues
In the past, CTS night service has been funded by two grants (each accounting for 50% of Night Service costs) which
required no local match. However, after the Board's FY06 Budget Worksessions in March of 2005, it became evident that
one of the two grants will be lost, resulting in only 50% of CTS night service being funded by a grant. To continue this
service at its current level, the remaining 50% of the cost must be paid for by localities. CTS has asked the County to fund
50% of the cost for Route 20 and 25% of the cost for Route 23 (the City will also contribute 25% of the cost to Route 23).
See Attachment C for the location of these Night Service routes.
Based on the FY04 route ridership and service hour data CTS provided, staff does not believe continuation of Route 20 is
justified and does not recommend the Board fund this route in FY06. Route 20 is the poorest performing route when
compared to other night service routes on a rider per service hour basis, serving only 2.72 riders per service hour in FY04.
Staff does not feel it is justified to fund a $54,284 route with such low ridership.
However, staff does recommend providing funding to continue service on Route 23. Although this route does not perform
particularly well relative to other night service routes, serving 4.38 riders per service hour, staff believes it is justifiable
based on its considerably lower cost of $14,152. Furthermore, because Route 23 would be jointly funded and clearly serve
both County and City citizens, staff believes that maintaining this route as a regional service is appropriate. It should be
noted that none of the grant funding for night service is certain at this time and the City may choose to make other changes
to this service depending on the amount of grant funding ultimately approved.
Lonq-term Planninq Issues
A additional issue to be addressed is the long-term planning of CTS services. CTS requests the County contribute $20,000
in FY06 towards an update of the Transit Development Plan (TDP) for FY07 -FY11. The funding for this study was not part
of CTS's original budget request. The City of Charlottesville has indicated they will contribute a minimum of $60,000
towards this update and has also requested and will receive $20,000 from the University of Virginia. The update of the
TDP will help CTS appropriately address public transportation needs in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Staff believes
that a County expenditure of $20,000 to update the TDP would be justified as the County strives to be a partner in working
to fund CTS and solve the area's transportation challenges.
Service to 5th Street ExtendedlSouthwood area
Finally, CTS requests the County again consider providing service to the 5th Steet Extended area of the County. The
original CTS estimate of $169,147 for this proposed route did not include any credit for state and federal revenues and
provided service every half-hour. Under a new proposal, the route would travel between Downtown and the County Office
Building on 5th Street Extended with buses running every hour Monday through Saturday, from approximately 6:30 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. CTS estimates the cost of this route would be $49,204. Staff did not include this route in the recommended
FY06 budget and still does not recommend implementing this route in FY06. However, staff does believe further
consideration should be given to this route in the coming budget process and as a part of the long-term approach to be
developed with CTS.
AGENDA TITLE:
FY06 Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Funding
.ulY 13, 2005 .
age 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact of staff's recommendations is $16,430 to support the improved day-time service on Routes 5 and 10;
$14,152 to continue night service on Route 23; and $20,000 in one-time funds to support the update of CTS's Transit
Development Plan for FY07-FY11, for a total of $50,582.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve additional funding for FY06 as outlined in the 'Budget Impact' section of this
executive summary. Staff will continue to work closely with CTS in the next few months to further consider alternatives for
long-term funding of CTS. An appropriation for the amount approved will be submitted next month.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Map of Current CTS Day Service routes funded by the County
Attachment B - Maps of Proposed CTS Day Service Routes funded by the County
Attachment C - Map of Current CTS Night Service routes requested to be funded by the County
.
.
05.087
Attachment A
B
ottesville TranSit ~ervlce
Proposed Route 10
March 17, 2005
N
w~
s
Attachment
':-
"
Chari
"'
.::~,
C'
CÎ
--.
~
-~'J
-
-
'1.':;
:\. ~ __(f;q:.;::~--, . -
-':~~'~'-.:"-'---
. ._v N ^_ .,'
,,~ :-
(,oV' #_, ~ .
'"'
~
c'
".
,..Ji
\\y\\'"
¿~l
-~ :'\
()
'~
\
)
,
0'
0'
/
/
~;/
~ /' c
$- (;':' /
è
if
,
I
/
'"
/
/,/
o
~.
'"
I>
;,
.J
~
-
QÖ" <: r>
,,;
o
.
',.
"',....<,
. o'
.::
<2
~
b
ottesville Transit Service
Proposed Route 5
18, 2005
N
-<?-'
s
March
'"
9
"."
~
<:>
Chari
[l
,9
D
D
.\1
....
kO~'
(~ ~
a
')
~
"
Attachment C
CTS Bus Routes - County
Night Service
CTS Routes
~ Route 20
,., Route 23
~ :~:,:'~'''M..m. ~
~ ::::::U~ -",.-
-......--....-......,-.......-,
==5z::~~2:::t'=~'"EE·
( ~
~~\
<>-----. ~rJ
Colonnades (
'---/ '.
"
1/
~
pantops)
Shopping Ctr
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Debi Moyers, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE:
July 7,2005
RE:
Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
The following appointment requires action by the Board:
Commission on Children and Families:
Appointment from July 6tn interviews to fill Tracey Hopper's unexpired term which
ends June 30,2007.
Page 1 of2
Ella Carey
From: WriteinSal@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 3:32 PM
To: ECarey@albemarle.org
Subject: copies for tonight for each bd member, please?
Informational Meeting
with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Representatives
concerning Moores Creek Sewage Treatment Plant
Sponsored by the Charlottesville-Albemarle League of Women Voters
July 20, 2005, 7:00 P.M.
Main conference room, New 5th Street County Office Building
This informational meeting is open to all citizens. It is important to emphasize that it is not a public hearing or debate.
DEQ representatives will provide information and answer questions relating to waste water treatment requirements and
procedural processes for waste water treatment standards. They will first explain the terms of the new Moores Creek
draft permit and any changes from the expired permit, particularly regarding effluent emission standards and monitoring
requirements. They will then explain the state regulatory process in which limits on nutrient emissions are being
considered in conjunction with the broader Chesapeake Bay Program.
Background:
Waste Water Treatment Plants in Virginia operate under permits issued by the DEQ. These permits establish effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements for each facility. As time proceeds, agreed-upon obligations of the
Commonwealth under the multi-State Chesapeake Bay Protection Program will be incorporated, where applicable, in
Virginia Waste Water treatment requirements.
The permit under which the Moores Creek Sewage Treatment Plant is presently operating expired in November, 2004.
The Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority submitted an 5lPplication for renewal of the permit last fall, and was allowed to
temporarily continue operations under the terms of the expired permit. Following negotiations, DEQ and the RWSA
came to agreement on the terms of a new permit, and on June 30, 2005, a notice was placed in the Daily Progress
announcing the new draft permit, and allowing 30 days for public comment. After the comment period closes, DEQ will
decide whether a Public Hearing is required. Then a draft permit will be finalized and a final permit will be issued to the
RWSA for a period of 5 years.
One negotiation point between DEQ and the RWSA was whether limitations upon nutrient emissions would be included
in the RWSA permit. DEQ policy at the time RWSA submitted its application for renewal of its permit was that limitations
upon nutrient emissions (nitrogen and phosphorous) would be required to "hold the line" on nutrient emissions pending
finalization of on-going Chesapeake Bay regulatory processes.
In May 2005, however, DEQ changed its policy to exempt the York River Basin and the James River Basin (including
the Rivanna River) from the interim nutrient limitation requirements of its former policy. The draft permit issued on July
30 for public comment, therefore, contains no limits upon the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous that the RWSA can
discharge from Moores Creek into the Rivanna River. The draft permit contains a "Chesapeake Bay Nutrients
Reopener" clause, however, which provides that the permit may be modified to include new or alternative nutrient
limitations andlor monitoring requirements should the State Water Control Board adopt new nutrient standards. The
new standards would apply to the James River Basin.
Although our community has extensive collective knowledge about drinking water supply issues and citizens have
made constructive input into many water supply discussions and decisions, citizens may not know much about waste
water matters. However, protection of the Chesapeake Bay is embedded in the County's Comprehensive Plan and
Albemarle County remains the only non-Tidewater locality in Virginia to voluntarily adopt a local Chesapeake Bay
protection ordinance for non-point source pollution. In light of this general community consensus regarding the
protection of water quality in the Rivanna River, the James River and, more broadly, the Chesapeake Bay, we need to
7/13/2005
Page 2 of2
better understand our waste water operations and permitting procedures.
Any citizen or citizens group who wishes to comment on the proposed draft permit, should submit comments to DEQ, in
writing, prior to expiration of the 30-day comment period announced in the Daily Progress on June 30. We apologize
that, because of the short notice regarding the public comment period, this informational meeting is being arranged with
very little advanced notice. However, we encourage you to come and learn about this important issue and we urge you
to contact DEQ with your questions and comments before the end of July.
7/13/2005