Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-11.......... '},'ear, Just : ..... ?,+1'¢~ the SPCA P ........ S.a!~ ~nstitutione do not have a permanent home. Whet. the count~, bought land for the ne~ P~onticello High ~ =~ ~ nt of' l~'nd ~e'ft =,chooi ~ I b,= i ieve there ,>>as a reasonable ar¢~ou o~,¢,',: It is my =~¢a¢estion that this extra ia'nd be to the Aibemar!e County Fair Association fsr a permanent home. and that one or more buildings be built on the The Fair c:ouid also share some fecilities Mont'~retie u~igh School su¢h a the pa'ckir, o areas. '=~. ] ~,k.i_!id also suqqe5: that at -:,~o 'nt a vehic,tlar' t~o~ ~..~ceito High :*,~d P%edmont Virgini.=~ Commdn~'ty College be ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of November 11, 1998 November 19, 1998 5.1 5.2 10. 11. AGENDA ITEM Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Paul Grady asked that the additional land at Monticello High School be donated to the Albemarle County Fair for a permanent home for the Fair and that two or more buildings be built on the property to accommodate the annual SPCA rummage sale. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of the Refinancing of IDA Bonds for the UVA Health Services Foundation. Appropriation: Education, $960 (Form #98039). SP 98-44. WQMZ Tower. APPROVED with conditions. SP-98-55. WQMZ Tower. APPROVED with conditions. SP-98-45. Boudreau's Inc. DENIED. SP-98-48. Thomas F. Starke Restaurant. APPROVED with conditions. ZMA-98-21. William M. Patterson. APPROVED as proffered. ZMA-98-22. Wilton Country Homes. APPROVED as proffered. 4. Clerk: 5.1 Clerk: 5.2 Clerk: 6. Clerk: 7. Clerk: 8. Clerk: 9. Clerk: 10. Clerk: 11. Clerk: ASSIGNMENT Send letter acknowledging his comments. Sign Resolution and forward to McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe. Forward signed form to Melvin Breeden and appropriate persons. Set conditions out in letter to Wayne Cilimberg. Set conditions out in letter to Wayne Cilimberg. Include in letter to Wayne Cilimberg. Set conditions out in letter to Wayne Cilimberg. Include in letter to Wayne Cilimberg. Include in letter to Wayne Cilimberg. 13. 14. 15, Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of November 18, 1998. DEFERRED ZMA-98-23, ZMA-98-13 and SP-98-46 until February 10, 1999. CANCELED the Board meeting of November 18, 1998. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. AUTHORIZED County Executive to execute service agreement to provide an additional $50,000 to the Scottsville Rescue Squad for construction of building. Mr. Perkins mentioned a telephone call he received from a citizen concerning some advertising by a store in Fashion Square mall. Ms. Thomas expressed appreciation to the Department of Social Services for the great job they are doing. Ms. Thomas mentioned that VdoT will be conducting a study of Route 29, south of Charlottesville. She is presently drafting a flyer for distribution. Adjourn. The meeting was adjoumed at 9:00 p.m. 13. Clerk: Include in letter to Wayne Cilimberg. 14. County Attorney: Get necessary signatures and forward to appropriate persons. /ewc Attachment Distribution list: County Executive and 4th Floor staff Board of Supervisors Kevin Castner Wayne Cilimberg Larry Davis Bill Mawyer Amelia McCulley Bruce Woodzell COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk November 19, 1998 Board Actions of November 1 I, 1998 At its meeting on November 11, 1998, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. 6. SP 98-44. WQMZ Tower (Signs #69&74). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to replace an existing 345' tower w/an approx 520' tower in accord w/provisions of Sec 22.2.2(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. TM61, P192, consists of 8.96 acs znd C-1. Located in NW comer of intersec of Rio Rd & Melbourne Rd. Rivanna Dist. (This area is recommended for Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 2.) APPROVED SP-98-44 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and modified: Tower height shall be limited to five hundred twenty (520) feet; The tower shall be designed so that, in the event of structural failure, the tower and all of its components will remain within the property; All antennas located on the existing tower may be relocated to the new tower. Additional antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the tower; b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height or two (2) feet in width, shall be of a color which matches the tower and shall be below three hundred forty five (345) feet in height; c. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited; d. Antennas may be installed in addition to those installed by the permittee when the tower is first constructed without amending this special use permit, provided that all necessary building permits are obtained from the Building Official and the antennas otherwise comply with these conditions; and e. All antenna shall be located such that no portion of the antenna is more than two (2) feet from the tower structure. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: (1) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Memo To: Date: Page 2. V. Wayne Cilimberg November 19, 1998 Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. All lighting shall be shielded from public roads. Outdoor lighting, other than the tower lighting, shall only be on during periods of maintenance; The permittee shall comply with section 5. i. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance; The permittee shall obtain Engineering Department approval of the tower design prior to receiving a building permit. The Engineering Department shall review the tower design to insure that the design is adequate due to its location within the flood plain; and The guy wires for the tower shall be located in such a manner as to not interfere with the proposed Meadow Creek segment of the Rivanna Greenway Trails. This shall be verified by Department of Planning and Community Development review of the Building Permit. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-55. WQMZ Tower (Signs #47&48). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to replace an existing 345' tower w/an approx 520' tower. The existing & proposed tower are located in the flood plain. Location of tower in flood plain requires SUP in accord w/provisions of Sec 30.3.5.2.2 (4) of the Zoning Ordinance. TM61, P192, consists of 8.96 acres zoned C-1. Located in NW comer of intersec of Rio Rd & Melbourne Rd. Rivanna Dist. (This area is recommended for Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 2.) APPROVED SP-98-44 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and modified: Tower height shall be limited to five hundred twenty (520) feet; The tower shall be designed so that, in the event of structural failure, the tower and all of its components will remain within the property; All antennas located on the existing tower may be relocated to the new tower. Additional antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the tower; b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height or two (2) feet in width, shall be of a color which matches the tower and shall be below three hundred forty five (345) feet in height; c. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited; d. Antennas may be installed in addition to those installed by the permittee when the tower is first constructed without amending this special use permit, provided that all necessary building permits are obtained from the Building Official and the antennas othenvise comply with these conditions; and e. All antenna shall be located such that no portion of the antenna is more than two (2) feet from the tower structure. The tower shall be used, or have the p6tential to be used, for the collocation of wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The perrnittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: (1) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Memo To: Date: Page 3. V. Wayne Cilimberg November 19, 1998 o Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. All lighting shall be shielded from public roads. Outdoor lighting, other than the tower lighting, shall only be on during periods of maintenance; The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; The permittee shall obtain Engineering Department approval of the tower design prior to receiving a building permit. The Engineering Department shall review the tower design to insure that the design is adequate due to its location within the flood plain; and The guy wires for the tower shall be located in such a manner as to not interfere with the proposed Meadow Creek segment of the Rivanna Greenway Trails. This shall be verified by Department of Planning and Community Development review of the Building Permit. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-45. Boudreau's Inc. (Signs #82&83). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to establish dance hall w/restaurant in accord w/provisions of Sec 24.2.2( 1 ) of the Zoning Ordinance. TM61, P124F consists of 1.1 acs znd HC. Located in NW comer of intersec of Rio Rd & Putt Putt Place. Rio Dist. (This site recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 2.) DENIED SP-98-45. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-98-48. Thomas F, Starke Restaurant (Sign #7I). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow for the conversion of video store to restaurant as commercial use in an industrial zone in accordance with Sec 27.2.2.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. TM56A3 P9B. Znd LI. Located near Rt 240 across the street from the main entrance to Con-Agra. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) APPROVED SP-98-48 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: ° A modified sketch plan drawn to scale and field verified shall be submitted to show: a. existing and proposed conditions of the site. Any improvements that have been removed should also be removed from the sketch plan; b. parking which meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking spaces located in the existing entrances must be removed or the entrances may be decreased and shifted to eliminate the conflict. If the entrances are decreased, a minimum VDOT width must be maintained; c. lighting, if used, which meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; and d. a date, existing zoning, the use, and setbacks of the district. Approval by the Building Inspector and Service Authority for compliance with state and local requirements. Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-98-21. William M. Patterson (Sign #49). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone 3.49 acs from RA to R-1. TM55, P104A. Located on N sd of Rt 250 W approx 1/2 mi W of the western-most Rt 240/250 intersec. The site is predominantly in the Crozet Development Area. White Hall Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) APPROVED ZMA-98-21, as proffered, to rezone 3.49 acres from Rural Areas to R-I for construction of an additional dwelling, which allows for only one additional homesite to be built on Memo To: Date: Page 4. V. Wayne Cilimberg November 19, 1998 the property, and set out on the attached Proffer Form, signed by William and Jean Patterson, dated October 27, 1998. Agenda Item No. I 1. ZMA-98-22. Wilton Country Homes (Signs #51&53). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the existing proffers of ZMA-94-07 to permit increase by one, the number of permitted lots between Wilton Farms Drive & Rt 20. TM78B, Psl 7A&I 7B, consists of approx 0.466 acs znd R-10. Located on the E sd of Rt 20 (Stony Point Road) at entrance to Wilton Farms. Rivanna Dist. (This site is recommended for Urban Density Residential [6-34 du/ac] in Neighborhood 3. APPROVED ZMA-98-22, as proffered, to amend the existing proffers of ZMA-94-07 to permit an increase by one of the number of permitted lots in the Wilton Country Homes Subdivision, and set out on the attached Proffer Form, signed by Philip A. Sansone, dated October 15, 1998. Agenda Item No. 13. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of November 18, 1998. DEFERRED ZMA-98-23, ZMA-98-13 and SP-98-46 until February 10, I999. CANCELED the Board meeting of November 18, 1998. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. /ewe Attachments CC: Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Sharon Taylor John Grady Dan Mahon File 10~28/98~ 07:43 10/26/98 10:46 972 972 5985 403S ERO PERSONNEL ALBERARLE COUNTY Original l~'offer .. Amended Proffer (Amendment # . PROFFER FORM ZMA # ~J ~ -o~g~ Tax Map Parcel(s) # ~'~c. p_.~l ~-'~. ~ Acres to be rezoned from '~(~( to ~,,~- OO2 Pursuant to Sectian 33.3 of the Albemarle'County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or it~ 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 dse to the need for the conditions; and (2)-such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. $igna'~Jm of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) R~v. D~ 1994 Pdnted Names of Ali Owners OR Printed Name c~f Attorney-in-Fact Date Date: O~+ /.~' /~'¢_~ ZMA # PROFFER FORM .cZ y- Z 2. Tax Map Parcel(s) # Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # ) Acres to be rezoned from /2'-.10 to- 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 rezon!ng and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation 'to the rezoning requested." . 1. Development shall be in genral accord with the plat dated July 20, 1998 showing five single family lots between State Route 20 and Wilton Farm Road. 2. A 2~ foot landscaping buffer easement consisting of plantings and berm as shown on the attached plan initialed "WDF 10/14/98" shall be installed by July 1, 1999 and shall be thereafter maintained. Pdnted Names of All Owners Date OR Big.nature of Attomey-in-Fact Pdnted Name of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM.WPO Rev. December 1994 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Carey, CMC, Clerk ~ Ella W. November 19, 1998 Board Actions of November 11, 1998 At its meeting on November 11, 1998, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of the Refinancing of Industrial Development AUthority Bonds for the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation. ADOPTED the attached Resolution. Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Education, $960 (Form #98039). APPROVED. Attached is the signed resolution. /ewc Attachments pc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne W. White Robert Walters Kevin C. Castner Jackson Zimmerman FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATI ON REQUEST NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEVV YES NO SCHOOL DONATION FOR STONE ROBINSON AND V L MURRAY PRESCHOOL GRANT. 98039 X X EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2210 61101 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES 1 3104 60216 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES $300.00 ' 660 00 TOTAL REVENUE $960.00 CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION 2 3104 18000 181222 MJHS CHILD HEALTH GRANT $300.00 660.00 TOTAL TRANSFERS $960.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE .//- David R Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphfis Jac~ Jouett Fon~ R. Marshall, Jr. COUN'I~ OF Al REMARt F Office of Board of Superdsors 401 Mclnflm Road Charlotte~wille, Vaginia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 December 19, 1998 Charles $. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins Wh~ H~I Sally H. Thomas Samuel Milk, r Ms. Cynthia I. Hendren Legal Assistant McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe One James Center Richmond, VA 23219-4030 Dear Cindy: At its meeting on November 11, 1998, the Board of Supervisors adopted the proposed resolution authorizing the issuance of the refinancing of Industrial Development Authority Bonds for the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation. Enclosed please find two original sets of the signed documents. The enclosed documents also include those signed by the Industrial Development Authority on November 2, 1998. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Si ,r~cerely .... / Ella W. Carey, Clerk~....~/ /ewc Enclosures CC: James Bowling Martin Bass Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority"), has considered the application of The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation ("Foundation") requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $18,000,000 ("Bonds")to assist in the refunding of all or a portion of the Authority's $20,440,000 Health Services Revenue Bonds (The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation), Series 1992 issued on November 18, 1992 to finance (i) the acquisition of an approximately 57,000 square foot building located at 2955 Ivy Road in Albemarle County, Virginia known as the Northridge Medical Center; (ii) renovations to the Northridge Medical Center; (iii) the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Foundation's headquarters building, an approximately 60,000 square foot facility located on approximately 5 acres of land in the University Research Park at 500 Ray C. Hunt Drive; (iv) the acquisition and installation of new computer and other equipment at both the Northridge Medical Center and at the headquarters building described in (iii) above; and (v) certain reserve funds and costs of issuance, and has held a public hearing on November 2, 1998; WHEREAS, Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("County"); the facilities being refinanced with the Bonds are located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Foundation, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Foundation. 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f. 103-2(0(1), this resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County 0f Albemarle, Virginia this/~{:lay of November, 1998. / Cle~rk, Board of Superx~f the County of Albemarle, Virginia [SEAL] -2- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ~ 1-06'c~ 8^09: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: University of Virginia Health Services Foundation I N0vernber 11, :1998 ~ INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution to approve issuance of refinancing bonds by the Industrial Development Authority in an amount not to exceed $18,000,000. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker/Huff/Davis BACKGROUND: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution; background information REVI EWE D BY: ,~'~/~ / The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation is requesting approval of up to eighteen million dollars of revenue bonds by the Industrial Development Authority to finance the refunding of prior bonds issued in 1992 used for projects at the Northridge Medical Center and the University Research Park. The IDA held a public hearing and adopted a Resolution on November 2. 1998 to approve the proposed issuance of bonds. Background information and the Fiscal Impact Statement are attached for your additional information. DISCUSSION: The Internal Revenue Code requires that the County approve the proposed financing in order for the revenue bonds to be treated as tax exempt private activity bonds. No public hearing is required except for the public hearing by the DA. County approval of the proposed issuance of the bonds does not constitute an endorsement of the bonds and does not create any liability for the County in regard to the issuance or payment of the bonds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Exhibit D) approving the issuance of up to $18,000,000 of revenue bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County to finance the refunding of the Series 1992 bonds previously issued in November of 1992 for projects related to the Northridge Medical Center and the University Research Park. 98.247 November 2, 1998 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Industrial Development Authority · of Albemarle County, Virginia Proposed Financing for The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation ("Foundation") has requested that the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority"), assist the Foundation in refunding all or a portion of the Authority's $20,440,000 Health Services Revenue Bonds (The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation), Series 1992 issued on November 18, 1992 ("Project") to finance (i) the acquisition of an approximately 57,000 square foot building located at 2955 Ivy Road in Albemarle County, Virginia known as the Northridge Medical Center; (ii) renovations to the Northridge Medical Center; (iii) the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Foundation's headquarters building, an approximately 60,000 square foot facility located on approximately 5 acres of land in the University Research Park at 500 Ray C. Hunt Drive; (iv) the acquisition and installation of new computer and other equipment at both the Northridge Medical Center and at the headquarters building described in (iii) above; and (v) certain reserve funds and costs of issuance, by the issuance of its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $18,000,000 ("Bonds"). As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto ("Resolution"), the Authority has agreed to issue its Bonds as requestedl The Authority has conducted a public hearing on the proposed refunding and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-4907, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by coun.~.(~ evidence your approval. Secr[ta)~ In~a]-~e"velop~ent Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia CERT~ICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies as follows: 1. A meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on November 2, 1998, at 4:00 o'clock p.m. in the Executive Conference Room on the fourth floor of the County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, in Charlottesville, Virginia, pursuant to proper notice given to each Director of the Authority before such meeting. The meeting was open to the public. The time of the meeting and the place at which the meeting was held provided a reasonable opportunity for persons of differing views to appear and be heard. 2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the application of The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia ("Notice"), with the second publication appearing not less than seven days nor more than twenty-one days prior to the heating date. A copy of the Notice has been filed with the minutes of the Authority and is attached as Exhibit A. 3. A summary of the statements made at the public heating ~s attached as Exhibit B. 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution ("Resolution") adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at such meeting. The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Authority at such meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended and is in full force and effect on this date. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority, this 2nd day of November, 1998. Secr/et~y, Indu s~"'I5 ~vel op lient Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (SEAL) Exhibits: A - Copy of Certified Notice B - Summary of Statements C - Inducement Resolution -2- MWBB, .LLP 10/110/98 X2:21 11/2/98 FAX ~049787~14 12:01 PAGE 005/12 EXHIBIT A DALLY PROGRESS HightFA× ~ 00~ ~ DA/LY PRO~PdESS 6~$ V~ST RIO ROAD CtS. OTI'HSVTT.r.p. V/I~G]~ 22906 CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION hereby certify that flae a:mehcd notice wa~ published iu "Thc Daily Progress", a ncwspal:~ M Charlo~.wille, V' .a-~iaia, ~d appeared in the issues(s) dazed ~iven Under My Haud This _ Z;iI~Day ot{23~ , l!~.. Publiskiag Fee $ i~,~,1-~_ Cr~lit Manager The Daily ?to!u-ess EXHIBIT B TO CERTIFICATE Summary of Statements Representatives of The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation and McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe LLP, bond counsel, appeared before the Authority to explain the proposed plan of financing. No one appeared in opposition to the proposed bond issue. EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $18,000,000 REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SERVICES FOUNDATION WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority"), is empowered by (a) the Albemarle County Code to finance medical facilities and, under certain circumstances, service facilities for the convenience of medical facilities, and (b) the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Act"), to issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing or refinancing facilities for use by organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), which are exempt from income taxation pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Code; WHEREAS, the Authority has received a request from The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation, a Virginia non-profit, non-stock corporation ("Foundation"), requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bonds to assist in refunding all or a portion of the Authority's $20,440,000 Health Services Revenue Bonds (The University of Virginia Health Services Fou ~ndation), Series 1992 issued on November 18, 1992 to finance (i) the acquisition of an approximately 57,000 square foot building located at 2955 Ivy Road in Albemarle County, Virginia known as the Northridge Medical Center; (ii) renovations to the Northridge Medical Center; (iii) the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Foundation"s headquarters building, an approximately 60,000 square foot facility located on approximately 5 acres of land in the University Research Park at 500 Ray C. Hunt Drive; (iv) the acquisition and installation of new computer and other equipment at both the Northridge Medical Center and at the headquarters building described in (iii) above; and (v) certain reserve funds and costs of issuance; WHEREAS, such assistance will benefit the inhabitants of the County of Albemarle, Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia, by promoting and protecting their health and welfare and assisting in the provision of modern and efficient medical services; WHEREAS, preliminary plans for the refunding have been described to the Authority and a public hearing has been held as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, ("Code") and Section 15.2-4906 of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Foundation has represented that the estimated cost of the refunding and all expenses of issue will require an issue of revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $18,000,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the refinancing will be in the public interest and will promote the health and welfare of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Albemarle, Virginia and their citizens. 2. The Authority hereby agrees to assist the Foundation by undertaking the issuance of its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $18,000,000 upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the Authority and the Foundation. The bonds will be issued pursuant to documents satisfactory to the Authority. The bonds may be issued in one or more series at one time or from time to time. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the refunding, the Authority agrees that the Foundation may take such steps as it may deem appropriate in connection with the refunding, provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be deemed to authorize the Foundation to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance of any acts in connection with the refunding. The Authority agrees that the Foundation may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all expenditures and costs so incurred by k, provided such expenditures and costs are properly reimbursable under the Act and applicable federal laws. 4. At the request of the Foundation, the Authority approves McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe LLP, Richmond, Virginia, as Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance of the bonds. 5. All costs and expenses in connection with the refunding, including the fees and expenses of Bond Counsel and Authority Counsel, shall be paid by the Foundation or, to the extent permitted by applicable law, from the proceeds of the bonds. If for any reason such bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Foundation and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 6. The Authority recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, approve the issuance of the bonds. 7. No bonds may be issued pursuant to this resolution until such time as the issuance of the bonds has been approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. 8. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -2- CERT~ICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors of the Authority present and voting at a meeting duly called and held on November 2, 1998, in accordance with law, and that such resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on this date. WITNESS the following signature and seal of the Authority, this 2nd day of November, 1998. Sec of the Industrial I Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia [SEAL] FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED BOND FINANCING Date: November 2, 1998 To the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia Applicant: The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation 1. Maximum amount of financing sought. $ 18,000,000 Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality. $ N/A Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates. $ 64,000 Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates. $ 1,700 Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates. $ 0 6. (a) Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality. $ 4,9O0, OOO (b) Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality. $ 3,270,000 (c) Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality. $ 39,300,000 (d) Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality. $ 26,230,000 Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis. 1,100 Average annual salary per employee. $ 43,600 ,,ghairman, lndt~strial Developn~t~uthority f of Albemarle County, Virgini~._...,J McGumEWooDs BATTLE &BoOTHE One James Center 901 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030 Telephone/TDD (804) 775-1000 * Fax (804) 775-1061 Direct Dial: (804) 775-7773 BOARD OF SUPERVI$ October 19, 1998 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia Health Services Refunding Revenue Bonds (The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation) Series 1998 Dear Ella: Enclosed for distribution to the Directors of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia is a copy of the resolution to be considered by the Directors in connection with the public hearing to be held on November 2, 1998 for The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation. Thank you for agreeing to distribute this resolution to the Directors. Very truly yours, LCeY~egpl~s sistan~dren Enclosures CC: Jim Bowling, Esq. Mart Bass www. mwbb.com AI, MATY · BALTIMORE · BRUSSELS . CIILRLOTIZ · CItARLOT1ZgrlLLE ' CItlCAGO · JACKSONVILLE · MOSCOW · NORFOLK · RICHMOND · TYSONS CORNER · WASHINGTON · ZORlcH (OF COUNSEl,) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #98039 in the amount of $960.00' STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner, Breeden AGENDA DATE: November 11, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND: At its meeting on October 12, 1998, the School Board approved an appropriation for Stone Robinson Elementary SchOOl and an appropriation for the V.L. Murray Elementary School Preschool Program Dr. David Singer and Diana Venegas donated $300.00 to Stone Robinson Elementary School for use in purchasing 4th and 5th grade math materials. Martha Jefferson Health Services (MJHS) awarded a grant to fund the Child Health Improvement Grant for the V.L. Murray Elementary School Preschool Program. The funds will be used to coordinate a project that includes learning about healthy food choices and preparation, growing, and harvesting these foods. The parents, students and teachers will work together to produce a cookbook of tested recipes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the appropriation #98039. Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations totaling $960.00 as detailed on 98.246 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS FY 98/99 PROJECT REPORT Scheduled Budget Completion % Complete SCHOOLS Monticello High School Stony Point Parking and Playfield Crozet School Level Spreader Chiller Repl. AHS/Hollymeed Henley Middle School Addition Stone Robinson Addition PREP Facility VMF Facility WAHS Site Improvements Henley Roof Replacement Jouett Roof Replacement Northern Elementary School SuMotal 29,743,000 07/31/98 99% C 147,000 10~/98 95% C 10,000 02/01/99 95% D 425,000 05/31 ~ 10% C 2,003,000 06/15/99 45% C 2,500,000 O6/3O/99 31% C 3,000,000 07/05/99 10% C 600,000 07/21/99 20% C 270,000 08/01/99 95% P 422,185 08/15/99 99% P 422,185 08/15/99 99% P 8,900,000 07/01/01 15% P $48,442,370 ADMINISTRATION & COURTS Old Crozet School Roof & Windows General District Court Stormwater Drainage General District Court Ceiling/Lighting COB Space Study Courts Space Needs Study Keene Landfill Remediation COB Maintenance Program: Misc. Building Renovations UST Replacement {~ COB COB Additional Parking COB Auditorium Renovation COB Chiller & Mechanical Projects Subtotal 282,000 11/21/98 65% C 12,000 12/01/98 95% P 13,000 12/30/98 50% D 10,000 01/30/99 5% P 50,000 o6r3o/99 50% P 17o,6oo 06/30/99 50% P lO,OOO 12/Ol/98 90% D 120,000 01/01/99 50% D 20,0(X) 06/30/99 5% D 50,000 06/30/99 0% D 600,000 03/01/00 95% P $1,337,600 HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION Mill Creek Drive Area Master Plan Greenbrier Sidewalk Adams Court Street Lighting: Airport Acres Rio/Old Brook Read Commonwealth Drive Hydraulic Road (Inglewood to Georgetown) Hydraulic Road (Georgetown to AHS) Hydraulic Read (AHS to Whitewood) Whitewood Read Area Marshall Manor West Leigh Drive Rural Addition Barracks Road Sidewalk Wilton Farm/20 Sidewalk Entrance Corridor Landscaping Subtotal 15,000 11115/98 80%D 10,000 10/30/98 90% C 3,800 11/02J98 90% D 1,500 04/30/99 95% D 0 04/30/99 95% D 16,000 04/30/99 95% D 8,000 04/30/99 95% D 7,000 04/30/99 95% D 1,500 04/30/99 95% D 15,000 04/30/99 95% D 1,500 04/30/99 95% D 300,000 12/30/98 95% D 51,000 12/30/98 95% D 400,000 06/30/99 100% P 20,000 06/30/99 5% P $850,300 Updated 10/23/98 Notes Cloeaout in Progress-12/01/98 Final Punch List A/E Interviews 11/98 Roof in "38, Windows in "39 Public Hearing to be Scheduled Public Headng to be Scheduled Public Hearing to be Scheduled Public Hearing to be Scheduled Public Hearing to be Scheduled Public Hearing to be Scheduled Public Hearing to be Scheduled Public Hearing to be Scheduled Plats being Recorded Unfunded Initiative -ii-OZ-98A09:lO RCVD LEGEND: P = Programming D = Design B = Bid C = Construction STORMWATER CONTROL PROJECTS Design Standards Manual - Needs Assmt. Moores & Meadow Creek Studies Windham/Jarman Gap Channel Woodbrook Channel Phase II Westmoreland Ct. Drainage Improvements Teakwood Drainage Channel Design Standards Manual - Final Design Peyton Basin Ricky Road Four Seasons Basin/Channel Bimam Basin Minor Ridge Drainage Improvements Master Drainage Study Subtotal PUBUC SAFETY UST Removal ~ Regional Jail Regional Jail Addition Police Academy Training Facility Juvenile Detention Facility Subtotal PARKS & RECREATION Chris Greene Lake Pier Scottsville Baseball/Soccer Field Walnut Creek Picnic Shelter Rivanna Greenbelt Crozet Park Fields Subtotal 11,980 10/30198 184,600 10130/98 82,000 12/30198 28,035 12/30/98 30,000 12/30198 6,000 12/30198 38,000 03/30199 156,500 05130199 39,900 05~30~99 119,200 06130199 98,485 06/30/99 30,000 06~30~99 205,400 06130100 $1,030,100 50,000 12/01198 16,755,000 12/01199 6,250,000 10/15100 7,200,000 04/01/01 $30,255,00O 90,000 02/01/99 40,000 04/01/99 50,000 04/01199 150,000 06130/99 640,000 06~30~02 $970,000 TOTAL $82,885,370 90% P 95% D 5% D 50% D 10% D 10% D 5% P 5% B 5% D 10% D 30% D 5% D 10% P 100% B 22% C 99% P 90% P 2% C 90% P 90% P 15% P 75% D Finalizing Scope of Final Design Finalize and Closeout Reevaluating Need Evaluating Developer's Improvements Bids Open 10/22/98 VDOT Reviewing Design Preliminary Design/Land Acquisition Develop Strategy for Next Watershed Awaiting Funding Decisions Master Plan & Field Restoration File: i:\dept~enginee~clp'~atus~preJect report by classification.xls LEGEND: P = Programming D = Design B = Bid C = Construction Building Code Information (804) 296-5832 ©ARD OF SUPERVISORS ?'i'02-98P'~2:07 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARI F'- Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 223 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 [-'AX (804) 972-4126 TTD (804) 972-4012 Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 September 24, 1998 CORRECTED DATE Cheryl Stockton Kirk Hughes & Associates 220 East High Street Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 Fax 295-7540 Re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1 Tax Map 89, Parcel 65 Dear Ms. Stockton, I have reviewed the information you have submitted for the above-noted property. It is my official determination that this property consists of one (1) parcel. On the date of adoption of the zoning ordinance, this property consisted of about 124.92 acres as described by Deed Book 611 Page 494. At that time, this parcel was entitled to five (5) theoretical development rights. As a result of subdivision of this property in 1998 so as to create lot#1 with one (1) development right (DB 1712 Pg 452), the residue of 118.3 acres now has four (4) theoretical development rights. In making this determination I have considered the descriptive clauses of the relevant deed, which delineate and enumerate the property as consisting of "all that certain tract or parcel of land." More importantly, I have relied on the plat by William S. Roudabush, Inc. and Associates, dated December 28th, 1976 that is attached to the deed. The plat is entitled "Plat showing a survey of 124.92 acres consisting of property." Although the plat states the three deed books that are the source of the property, it shows the property as a single parcel. The land is treated as one parcel by the legal instruments of the deed and plat. As far as I understand, the ownership is continuous and the land is not separated by a state road, railroad or the property of others. Letter to Cheryl Stockton September 24, 1998 Page 2 My determination is further supported by the plat that was recorded in DB 1712 Pg 452 in June 1998, which creates lot#1 of 6.654 acres. Note #15 states "Lot 1 is allocated one development right and four development rights are allocated to the remainder of Tax Map 89, Parcel 65." If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C.P. Zoning Administrator Samuel Miller Magisterial District One parcel by tax map, one parcel by determination CC: Benjamin Warthen or Terry Gwyn, owners Ella Carey, Clerk to the Board of Sup~rgisors l:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\DeterminofParcei\det89-65.doc JAUNT INC 1 04 Keyston~e Plade ~Chorloltesvill6 V.A 22902-6200' Robe~ W. Tucker, Ir. ' - ' ~l~em~le Co~ty Exe'cU~e>~ 401 McI~tire Road Charlottesville,- VA 22902 ·. ob.ey 26 ~. ~ .- ~ :) '~.-ic ,Oct ,1998 Dear Bob, . - ' - We are :pleased ~o~Ubmit o~ First Q~a~er R~po~ for JA~T se~ices for FY99. '~ The.~llo~ng'is':~ s~~ ofstatistics for services in~lbem~le Co~ty: First. Q~mer ~stimmed Ac&al AcmalTrips ~ Esfimmed Actual' < ":'::':7'~ ~ :'.Tr{ps ~.Trips _,. ~ FY9~ ~ HornS HourS :FY99_ "FY99 ,,o ~ "~- - :", :F~9~' Xgency '":"::~ ::: 6:170 - ~,662 C223 :--2,488 : 1,931 Urb~ Public "_ 5,160 5}720 5,195 '~' 1,925 2,196 R~al'Public 6,:0~ C483 .~ C105- 2,765 : 2,945'~ Nigh~~.~.~ ~' 400- 16 0 119 29North - 330 ~-902- : i15 ~ 844'. ~ ~3:' -. T~tal 18,3~9' ' 14,308 17,638 8,1~i '7,91'8 7,302 :Based ~ c~e~t d~a~cia~ ~d Se~ice b¢o~atio~, ¢¢ de ~o( ~ticipate a Silly Shaafi "' ...... > '3~ - __. ~xecmlveDirector - ,,: . · '-' :' :-','..? .~.:, . . -:. .: :..::.', - ,., : ,~. *.,..~ ~(~: ~:' . ~ ..... '~ :;-.:~,..':._- _ cc:" ;Ju~tego Wad ".")'.:. ~>..:'~0" - :::'.r,::',: , Clifford Buys ,_ '- ' ... ' - - .- 'Rox~e ~ite z. ,..: ",M~g~et Bo~hat ' :tx>.,, : - . (8o4) 29~-318¢ (8oo) 36JAUNT · oPerations (8O4) 29~'1~4 (VOice & TDp) · Actual - Hours : ,FY98 2,465' 1,877 '3;659 0 ~ '30'1 // C ~,a:~: ,~,804)296_42~c~,,:, '- Regional Shuttle and Touring Service P.O. Box 3952 Charlottesville, VA 22903 804-760-1145 October 29, 1998 Mr. Forrest Marshall, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22901 Dear Mr. Marshall: Please be advised that Van on the Go LLC has applied for authorization by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles to operate as a common carrier for the purpose of providing van shuttle services in the Central Virginia area, serving the Charlottesville-Albemarle and Dulles International Airports. Accordingly, I am sending you the required statutory notice. Public notices have been published this week in several area and regional newspapers. Sincerely, President, Van on the Go LLC Richard D. Holcomb Commissioner Departmeut of Motor Vehicles 2300 Wes Broad Street NOTICE OF APPLICA~rlON FOR CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY Post Office Box 27412 Richmond. VA 23269-000I (804) 367-0538 Notice is hereby given that Van on the Go, LLC~ 1056 Hayrake Lane, P.O. Box 3952, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903, has applied for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a Common Carrier of Passengers over irregular routes within the geograp?dc area composed of the Cities of Charlottesville, Harrisonburg, Staunton, and Waynesboro, Virginia, and the Counties of Albemarle, Augusta, Culpeper, Fairfax, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Loudon, Madison, Nelson, Orange, Page, Prince William, and-Rockingham, Virginia, pursuant to Chapter 20 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, Case Number MC-9828201 AB. An informal administrative proceeding to be conducted pursuant to Va. Code § 9-6.14:11 of the Virginia Administrative Process Act ("APA") has been scheduled for 10:00 a.m., November 20, 1998, and a formal evidentiary hearing to be conducted pursuant to Va. Code § 9- 6.14:12 of the APA has been scheduled for 10:00 a.m., December 9, 1998, both proceedings to determine whether the public convenience and necessity would be served by granting the application of Van on the Go, LLC pursuant to Chapter 20 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia. Both proceedings will be held at the DMV Headquarters Building, 2300 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia. Any person who desires to make an oral or written statement, either supporting or opposing the application, but not otherwise participate in either proceeding, must notify DMV Motor Carrier Services, Case Management Unit, Room 609, P. O. Box 27412, Richmond, Virginia 23269-0001, telephone (804) 367-0503, by 5:00 p.m., November 13, 1998, and must indicate if the statement will be presented orally at the proceeding. Any person who wishes to participate fully in these proceedings as a party (i.e., to submit evidence or cross-examine witnesses) must file a written protest, which must actually be received in the Case Management Unit of DMV Motor Carrier Services, Room 609 of the DMV Headquarters Building, 2300 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23220, on or before 5.'-00 p.m., November 13, 1998. The mailing address is P. O. Box 27412, Richmond, Virginia 23269- 0001, but mailed protests will be considered timely only if actually received by the Case Management Unit on or before the November 13, 1998, deadline. Any protest must set forth (i) a precise statement of the person's interest and how the person could be aggrieved if this application were granted; (ii) a full and clear statement of the FAX: (804)367-6631 TDD: 1-800-272-9268 E-MAIL: commish@dmv.state.va.us WEB SITE: www.dmv.state.va.us Van on the Go, LLC Case Number MC~9828201 AB faCts which the person is prepared to provide by competent evidence; (iii) a statement o£the specific relief sought; (iv) the Case Number assigned to this application (noted above); and (v) a Certification that a copy has been sent to the applicant. The applicant and any person who can demonstrate that they could be aggriev~i.{'if th~ application were granted will be considered to have standing as a party in this case. The D1VI~, Commissioner will determine who, other than the applicant, has demonstrated standing, based on a recommendation from the Chief Hearing Officer. As the named party in the case, the applicant may choose to waive the informal administrative proceeding and proceed to the formal hearing, with the consent of DMV. Ifa protest is filed, DMV encourages the applicant to waive the informal proceeding so that the matter can be resolved in one proceeding. In addition, the formal hearing may be waived if there are no protests and all matters are resolved in the informal proceeding. In such a case, the informal proceeding may be conducted by telephone conference call so that the applicant will not be required to appear in Richmond personally. DMV will attempt to accommodate requests for continuances; however, the applicant and protestants must be aware that DMV is committed to resolving cases expeditiously. A request for a continuance for either proceeding must be made in writing to the Case Management Unit in the same manner and by the same deadline as for filing a protest, and must state the reasons for the request. On or before October 31, 1998, the applicant must send by first class or receipted certified mail a copy of this entire NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY to each entity listed on the attached list of carriers and to the mayor or principal officer of any city or town and to the chairman of the board of supervisors of every county into or through which the applicant has applied to provide service. If the applicant chooses first class mail, DMV encourages the applicant to get a certificate of mailing from the Post Office to avoid questions of compliance. In addition, on or before October 31, 1998, the applicant must publish the following PUBLIC NOTICE in a newspaper or newspapers having general circulation in the area to be served: PUBLIC NOTICE Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Van on the Go. LLC Department of Motor Vehicles Case Number MC-9828201 AB Notice is hereby given of an informal administrative proceeding at 10:00 a.m., November 20, 1998, and a formal hearing at 10:00 a.m., December 9, 1998, if necessary, at the Department of Motor Vehicles Headquarters Building, 2300 }Vest Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia, to consider the application pursuant to Chapter 20 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia of Van on the Go, LLC for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a Common Carrier over irregular routes. If you wish to participate in any manner, you must contact the Case Management Unit, DMV Motor Carrier Services, P. O. Box 27412, Richmond, Virginia 23269- 0001, telephone at (804) 367-0503 prior to November 6, 1998, to obtain necessary information. Absolute deadline for filing a protest is November 13, 1998. Page 2 Van on the Go, LLC Case Number MC-9828201AB The applicant must file on or before 5:00 p.m., November 6, 1998, in the same manner as for filing a protest in this case, a sworn statement of compliance with the notice requirements stated above, indicating the date of the mailing to carriers and public officials and the date and the name of the newspaper(s) in which ~h~ ptib'lic nOtice was published. Ifa certificate of mailing is obtained from the Post Office, the applicant should submit the certificate with the sworn statement. BY AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER: WITNESS MY HAND THIS 22nd day of October. RICHARD D. HOLCOMB By Laura J. Fitzgerald Hearing Officer RDH:Ijf Enclosure c: Shirley Champ Page 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Wayne Cilimberg William D. Fritz, AICP November 11, 1998 SP 98-44 and SP 98-55 WQMZ At the Planning Commission meeting staff amended condition number 3. Also concern from the City was noted regarding potential impact on the Meadowcreek segment of the Rivanna Greenway Trails. In order to address the potential impact on the Greenway a new condition, condition 8, has been added. Since the Planning Commission meeting concern has been raised regarding the nature of the antenna which may be added to the tower in the furore. To address the concern regarding the appearance of the additional antenna a new condition, condition 3e, has been added. The new/modified conditions are noted below in bold and underline for ease of reference. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SP 98-44 and SP 98-55 subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height shall be limited to 520 feet. 2. The tower shall be designed so that, in the event of structural failure, the tower and all of its components will remain within the property,. 3. Ail antennas located on the existing tower may be relocated to the new tower. Additional antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: ao Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the tower. bo Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in h_ei_i_i~ht or two (2) /~.,~j, feet in width, and shall be of a color which matches the tower.~xa~( /,-v ~ tod 3S/3-f~. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. Antennas may be installed in addition to those installed by the permittee when the tower is first constructed without amending this special use permit, provided that all necessary building permits are obtained from the building official and the antennas otherwise comply with these conditions. e. All antenna shall be located such that no portion of the antenna is more than 2 feet from the tower structure. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: ao The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. (1) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. All lighting shall be shielded from public roads. Outdoor lighting, other than the tower lighting, shall only be on during periods of maintenance. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The permittee shall obtain Engineering Department approval of the tower design prior to receiving a building permit. The Engineering Department shall review the tower design to insure that the design is adequate due to its location within the floodplain. The guy wires for the tower shall be located in such a manner as to not interfere with the proposed Meadowcreek segment of the Rivanna Greenwav Trails. This shall be verified by Department of Planning and Communit~ Development review of the Building Permit. R D OF SUPERVIS ORS 'i 0-29-9 8P05: 0'1 I~ C V[~ Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 October 29, 1998 Dann Miller, General Manager Charlottesville Broadcasting Corporation 501 East Main St Charlottesville, VA 22902 SP-98-44 WQMZ and SP-98-55 WQMZ Tax Map 61, Parcel 192 Dear Mr. Miller: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 27, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this recommendation is subject to the following conditions: Tower height shall be limited to 520 feet. The tower shall be designed so that, in the event of structural failure, the tower and all of its components will remain within the property. All antennas located on the existing tower may be relocated to the new tower. Additional antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the tower. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height or two (2) feet in width, and shall be of a color which matches the tower. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. Antennas may be installed in addition to those installed by the permittee when the tower is first constructed without amending this special use permit, provided that all necessary building permits are obtained from the building official and the antennas otherwise comply with these conditions. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the cOllocation of wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: no The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. Page 2 October 28, 1998 The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the lummaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. All lighting shall be shielded from public roads. Outdoor lighting, other than the tower lighting, shall only be on during periods of maintenance. The permittee shall comply with section 5. I. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The permittee shall obtain Engineering Department approval of the tower design prior to receiving a building permit. The Engineering Department shall review the tower design to insure that the design is adequate due to its location within the floodplain. The Commission also approved a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a reduction in the setback from the property line. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 11, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled heating date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. William D. Fritz, AICP Senior Planner WDF/jcf/blb Cc: ~ Carey Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Ron Higgins STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ, AICP OCTOBER 13, 1998 NOVEMBER 11, 1998 SP 98-44 AND SP 98-55 WQMZ REPLACEMENT TOWER Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to remove and replace an existing tower located at the intersection of Melbourne Road and Rio Road. The existing tower is a guyed lattice tower approximately 345 feet tall. The proposed tower will be a guyed lattice tower approximately 520 feet tall. The purpose of the increased tower height is to improve the coverage provided by WQMZ which is an FM radio station. The new tower may also be used by personal wireless service providers. The applicant has submitted a description and justification of this request which is included as Attachment C. Petition: Proposal to remove and replace an existing 345 foot tower with an approximately 520 foot tower in accord with the provisions of Sections 22.2.2(2) and 30.3.5.2.2 (4) of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 192, consists of 8.96 acres zoned C- 1, Commercial and is located in the northwest comer of the intersection of Rio Road and Melbourne Road in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 2. SP 98-44 is the request for a Radio Tower [Section 22.2.2.(2) and SP 98-55 is the request for activity in the floodplain [Section 30.3.5.2.2(4)]. Character of the Area: The property is located at the intersection of Rio Road and Melbourne Road. Meadow Creek forms the northern boundary of the parcel and almost the entire parcel is in the floodplain of Meadow Creek. Development on this property is limited to the existing tower and a small building housing the electronics. An industrial area is located to the north of the property and a duplex is located to the east. The Charlottesville City Limits abut this property. Residential areas in the city are located south and west of this site and the Charlottesville' High School is located to the west. The tower is located at the lowest point in the area and the land rises up significantly in all directions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Planning and Zoning History: The existing tower was built sometime in the 1960's and is non-conforming. No zoning history is available for t-he site. Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 2. Land to the east is recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential. The floodplain of Meadow Creek and the critical slopes along the valley are identified in the Open Space plan as resources. The floodplain and critical slopes severely restrict the development potential in the immediate area. The replacement of the tower will have little impact on the resources identified in the Open Space Plan due to' the small area of diSturbance required for the construction of a tower. The only disturbance will be for the tower and guy wire construction and the removal of the existing tower and guy wires. No additional equipment, building or other infrastructure improvements will be needed. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The comments provided are intended to address both the special use permit for the tower itself and for activity within the floodplain. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The proposed replacement of the tower will increase the height of the tower from 345 feet to approximately 520 feet. Staff notes that the proposed tower will be the tallest in the County. Currently the tallest tower in the County is approximately 360 feet tall and is located on Carter's Mountain. The existing tower is lit and the proposed tower will also be lit. The proposed tower does not penetrate into the Airport Protection Overlay District. Due to the tower's location at the base of the valley the existing tower has limited visibility from all areas except from the west. The residential development in the city located west of the tower and the travelling public on Melbourne Road currently can see the existing tower and will have greater visibility of a taller tower. Approval of the tower will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property as the adjacent properties are largely consumed by floodplain or are developed with industrial type uses. The proposed activity within the floodplain, construction of the new tower, is of such a limited nature that it will have no impact on adjacent property. A residential property is developed on the opposite side of Rio Road from the proposed tower. This residential property will be impacted by the visibility of the increased tower height. However, staff is unable to determine that the impact will result in a substantial detriment to the property. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The existing tower is visible from residential areas located within the city to the west of this site. The tower is also clearly visible from Melbourne Road. Due to the terrain the full height of the existing tower is not readily apparent to travelers on Rio Road. It is unlikely that an increase in the towers height would substantially increase the vi sibility of the tower from Rio Road in the immediate area of the tower. The increase in tower height would be clearly visible from the residential development in the city and from Melbourne Road. While no change in the character of the immediate area of the tower is anticipated, the increased tower height has the potential of changing the character of the residential areas in the city. Staff is also concerned that the new tower will be visible from residential areas and Rio Road near the Dunlora development. The tower will also likely be visible from the Meadow Creek Parkway. The increased visibility of tower has the potential to change the character of the district. However, the character of the area is a developed urban environment and the additional visibility created by the new tower is not unusual in such an environment. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as contained in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. This tower supports a commercial radio station which does provide a public service. The increased tower height is intended to increase the range of the station particularly in adjoining localities. This increase in public service may be considered somewhat consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The alternatives to location ora taller tower on this site is to locate a tower somewhere else within Albemarle County. Location of a tower in the adjoining localities is not practical as the primary coverage area is Albemarle/Charlottesville. However, the ordinance also speaks to the creation "a convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The increased height of the tower will have a visual impact which may be considered inconsistent with the creation of an attractive communitv. The visual impact of the tower will be greater if the tower is used for collocation of personal wireless services. Staff review has resulted in mixed findings as to the tower's harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Staff is unable to identify any inconsistency with the purpose and intent of the ordinance for the proposed activity within the floodplain. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use will not affect permitted uses on adjacent property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.1.12 provides for regulations of Public Utility Structures/Uses. While this is proposed use is not a public utility this section does address towers and in staff opinion is applicable for this application. Staff has included conditions which will address the provisions of Section' 5.1.12. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Section 4.10.3.1 of the Ordinance requires, in part, that towers be setback from the property line a distance equaLto the height of the tower. In order to comply with this provision the tower would have to be setback approximately 520 feet from the property line. The tower location is approximately 150 to 200 feet from Melbourne Rd. [No survey exist for the existing or proposed tower so the precise location is unknown.] Due to the configuration of the property it is not possible to locate either the existing or proposed tower on site in a location which would satisfy the setback requirements. The proposed tower is to be guyed and the guy wires will serve to contain the tower on site in the event of structural failure. Staff opinion is that a reduction in the towers required setback will not compromise the public health or safety, as the guy wires would limit the area impacted by a collapse. However, the reduced setback will permit the construction of a tower which will have an increased visual impact and this may be considered inconsistent with the general welfare of the public. Staff has included conditions of approval which address the activity within the floodplain. With these conditions the public health, safety and general welfare will be adequately protected. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. Due to terrain the proposed tower will have limited increased visibility from areas immediately adjacent to the tower. 2. The increased tower height will permit improved coverage in adjoining localities which may be considered a public benefit to the region. 3. Staff has not determined that the use will result in a substantial detriment to adjacent property. 4. The increased tower height will more readily accommodate multiple users and may tend to decrease the need for more towers in the area. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: The proposed tower will have an increased visual impact on residential development located west of the tower within the City. The proposed tower may be visible from residential areas of the County which cannot see the existing tower. The proposed tower will not meet the setbacks required by the ordinance unless a modification is granted. An increase' in the vi sibility of the tower does result in potential adverse impact. Staff contacted the City Planning staff who reviewed this project and received no objections. County Planning Staff has received no comments on this proposal. This area is well within the Development Area of the County and all of the potential impacts are to the Development Area. Staff opinion is that the visual impact created is not extreme and is not unusual in a developed environment. Therefore, staff is able to recommend approval of this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SP 98-44 and SP 98-55 subject to the following conditions: Tower height shall be limited to 520 feet. The tower shall be designed so that, in the event of structural failure, the tower and all of its components will remain within the property. Antennas may b~ attached to the tower only as follows: ao Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the tower. bo Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height or two (2) feet in width, and shall be of a color which matches the tower. c. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. d. Antennas may be installed in addition to those installed by the permittee when the tower is first constructed without amending this special use permit, provided that all necessary building permits are obtained from the building official and the antennas otherwise comply with these conditions. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. (1) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. o Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding parr of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. All 5 lighting shall be shielded from public roads. Outdoor lighting, other than the tower lighting, shall only be on during periods of maintenance. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The permittee shall obtain Engineering Department approval of the tower design prior to receiving a building permit. The Engineering Department shall review the tower design to insure that the design is adequate due to its location within the floodplain. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicant's information A:\WQMZ-report.doc MTN. i ATTACHMENT A 0 Formlnqton Cour~ry Ck~b !i (~HARLOTTES' i::.VlLLE!!:.i:ii:i x /Ir SP 98-44 WQMZ 60 ALBEMARLE GOUNTY ATTACHMENT B OF CHARLOTTE,SVi LLE x, SP 98-44 WQMZ ~7 dAGK dOUETT, RIVANNA AND GHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS SECTION 6l ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT 4 TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CHARLOTTESVILLE BROADCASTING CORPORATION July, 1998 What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Neighborhood service (corresponds to existing C-1 zoning). How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? .The proposed use will have no effect on adjacent property. Because of several factors (including the dense existing natural vegetation: the existence of a sizeable stream, with its flood plain: and the relative Iow elevation of the site), the activity is virtually unnoticeable from adjacent properties and produces no other observable effect. Any possible visual impact of the additional tower height will be further attenuated by the fact that the property is located in the center of the urban area: and, in particular, by the fact that the property is already crossed by a major high tension electric line, with large concrete towers, and is close proximity to other high elevation users, including the lights for the football stadium for Charlottesville High School. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? The property is already improved with a similar, but shorter, broadcast antenna tower. Since the existing tower (constructed 1961) antedates development of the adjacent properties, the tower has contributed to establishing the existing character of the surrounding area, and this character will be unchanged by the implementation of the proposed use. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? (See Zoning ordinance Section 1.4) The ordinance is intended to provide adequate growth opportunities tbr businesses in the community. Without this use, the applicant's business will be unable to compete fairly with competing stations in other localities, notably Roanoke and Baltimore. Radio broadcasting is a business for which the ordinance is intended to provide adequate facilities and to recognize growth needs. To the extent that applicant is permitted the opportunity to provide improved service to the public, and. in particular, to the citizens of the County, this use will serve the educational and recreational needs of the people and will provide a forum for news and other needed public information. The property is question is topographically very limited, and allowing it develop in productive ways will encourage and support the County's tax base, with no increase in demand for public services, and thereby will promote the efficient and economical use of public funds How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? (See :orang ordinance Section 22. I) The use is supportive of other commercial uses in that it offers services to them without providing competition for customers or use of public facilities. No additional traffic will be generated by this use, which is served by a major public street maintained by the City of Charlottesville. The use is common in central business districts, as evidenced by the existence of several similar towers in the City of Charlottesville. Because the use requires little or no clearing of natural vegetation, it is conducive to the promotion of natural landscaping, prevennon of erosion and other possible adverse effects of development, thereby tending to increase the' value and utility of adjacent properties in the district. By increasing the County's tax base, the use will likewise tend to 'ATTA~CHMENT C increase the value of adjacent properties. PAGE 2 What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? None; but see Section 4.10.3.1 How will this Use promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community? With respect to tile ability of the applicant to provide broadcast service to the community, this use will allow the applicant to improve the quality of service to existing listeners and will allow certain citizens of the County who are currently unable to receive service to do so. This will tend to improve the ability of the citizens of the County to benefit from the recreational and educational benefits of the applicant's radio service, as well as improving the delivery of information, including emergency information, to those citizens. (The applicant is charged by its FCC license with Emergency Alert Service for Albemarle, Greene and Fluvanna Counties.) In addition, because the applicant's services are based in the local community and this use will enhance the applicant's ability to comPete with broadcasters outside the local area, it will tend to support local business and the provision of local services to County citizens (e.g., local news, public service announcements of local events, local commercial notices, etc.). Utilizing this property for this use will require practically no clearing, grading, paving or other change in the existing physical character of the site. Because the property is topographically difficult and environmentally sensitive, this will tend to protect the natural envirOnment of the County, a matter w?rich is particularly significant in that the property is located adjacent to a significant stream valley noted in the County's open space plan. Finally, while the additional tower height is primarily needed for the applicant's own business purposes, the improvement of the tower will provide a facility suitable l'br co-location by a substantial nmnber of other telecommunications (including PCS and cellular) providers. This will provide an opportunity to concentrate such users in a single, already-developed site within the urban area, thus relieving pressure on such providers to establish new towers in undeveloped, scenic rural areas of the County. Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of t.he use: T h e proposal is to replace the currently existing radio broadcast t6wer (c. 345 feet in height, constructed 196l) with a substantially similar tower approximately 520 feet in height. The new tower will be as close to the actual location of the existing tower as the practicalities of construction will permit. The need for the new tower is twofold: First, the old tower is reaching the end of its useful life and will need to be replaced in the foreseeable future. Second, in accordancelwith current FCC regulations, the existing tower is insufficient in height to allow the applicant to employ full transmission power authorized by its FCC license. (FCC regulations require a tower height of 100 meters (328 ~et) above average terrain. Because of the elevation of the site, relative to the elevation of surrounding terrain, this equates to a height of 520 feet above local ground level.) Exheiustive study indicates that this site is ideally suited tothe intended purpose and that no other site in ATTACHMENT C PAGE 3 Albemarle County (notably including Carter's Mountain) will provide equivalent servtce without unacceptable interference with a Roanoke station employing an adjacent frequency Engineering, design and construction of the tower will comply in all respects with regulations of the FCC and FAA. the USBC and all other applicable standards. The new tower will provide approximately 300 vertical feet for co-location of other users. This will provide the County a unique opportunity to concentrate such facilities in a developed area and thus will contribute to the County's rural preservation objectives. Several users have already expressed interest in such co-location All t~tcilities on the site will be fully automated and will require minimal maintenance. There will be no on-site employees and no on-site sales or other occasion for traffic generated by the public No parking is proposed (other than the existing driveway), and there will be no change to existing entrance facilities. Except for areas actually needed for construction, there will be no clearing, paving, excavating or other land-disturbing activity, and, after the completion of construction, the site will be permitted to grow up in natural vegetation Other than warning signs on the equipment building, which are required by FCC regulation and/or industry standards, there will be no signage of any kind. Lighting will be the minimum required for safety by FCC regulation and/or industry standards. There will be no noise, fumes, smoke or other emissions potentially bothersome to neighboring properties. Illll RECEIV Charlottesville rat, ¢, n CHARLOTTESVILLE BROADCASTING CORPORATION RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AT MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1998 Albemarle County SP 98-44 At the meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission of October 13, 1998, several questions were asked with respect to Charlottesville Broadcasting Corporation's application to replace its existing FM broadcast tower (at 345 feet) with a larger tower designed to permit better broadcast coverage of its service area. It is the intent of this paper to respond to the questions raised at the meeting. Lighting of the proposed tower--FCC regulations require that broadcast towers of this type be lighted for the protection of aircraft. The existing tower is lighted with flashing red beacons. The proposed tower will be lighted in the same fashion, strictly in accordance with the requirements of federal law. Possibility of increasing power so as to improve service area coverage at existing tower height--WQMZ is licensed by the FCC as a Class A station, Class A being the lowest authorized power classification. As such, WQMZ's coverage area is based on a power of 6000 watts at a height of 100 meters above average terrain.. The existing tower height is 44 meters (approximately 144 feet) above average terrain, or 56 meters (approximately 184 feet) below the FCC-authorized height. The proposed tower will be at the minimum height which will allow WQMZ's antenna to be located at 100 meters above average terrain, thus permitting WQMZ to broadcast to serve its entire FCC-authorized coverage area. There is no provision in the FCC rules to allow stations to use additional power when below designated height. Therefore, the only way for WQMZ to provide service to all of its authorized area is to increase the height of its broadcast antenna. Broadcast coverage of WQMZ's service area is currently less than optimal. Attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 are maps showing, respectively, the actual area served by this facility and the area which will be served if the new tower is built. The additional area represents as many as 20,000 people who will benefit from the additional tower height, most of them in northwestern and southern Albemarle. These maps demonstrate graphically that, without this improved facility, this local business will be unable to compete fairly with competitors outside Albemarle County and will be unable to serve the people of Albemarle County as it is licensed to do. WINA / WKAV / WUVA / WQMZ P.O. Box 498 501 E. Main Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-5335 Phone (804) 977-3030 FAX (804) 97'7-3775 RECE ¥E OCl 2 3 1998 WQMZ is uniquely important to the people of Albemarle County. It is the only FM station in the Charlottesville market which has a news department. year WQMZ spends more time reporting Albemarle county nears then any other~FM ' station in the county. When county residents need to fred o~t about local disaster coverage (Sugar Hollow washouts, Scottsville floods, the 1996 bliZzard), WQMZ may be the only real source of news available: In disaster conditions, television service will likely not be available due to power outages, and WINA's coverage is limited by technical considerations, especially at night in the northern portion of the county. When county residents want to hear about local elections results they can wait until the next day for newspaper reports; they can wait until a break in local television programming; or they can listen to WINA's full-time local election coverage, which is simulcast on radio on WQMZ. UVA sports has fans all over the county, and less then 60% of the combined football and basketball are on television. All the games are on WQMZ. Larry Richardson spends far more time and money on public service in operating WINA/WQMZ than he should in order just to maximize his profits. Many Charlottesville and Albemarle residents have access to something unique here, and Albemarle's citizens deserve access to the best service WQMZ can provide. Safety--confinement of failing tower structure to subject property--guying--Modern broadcast towers are required to be designed so that, if the structure were to fail catastrophically, it would break up in the process of falling. With such a design, the maximum length of any section will be the distance between the guy points, in this case less than 150 feet. Since the proposed tower site is substantially more than 150 feet from any property line, there is ample margin for safety. The applicant has tried to find evidence of the structural failure of a tower which resulted in its failing over its entire length. Catastrophic tower failures of any kind are extremely rare, and the applicant was able to identify only five cases. In all of these cases, the towers performed according to design, and not a single instance involved a tower which fell in one piece. In specific answer to three questions raised at the meeting, the following is submitted: (a) There is no residence in the City which is within 520 feet of the base of the proposed tower. (b) There is one residential structure (the duplex on Rio Road recently rebuilt after a fire) which is within 520 feet of the base of the proposed tower. This structure appears also to be within 345 feet of the base of the existing tower. (c) The proposed tower is a fully guyed structure. All guy points will be located entirely on the applicant's property. Visibility of tower--The applicant does not contend that the proposed tower is not visible from limited areas of either the County or the City. The existing tower is already visible from limited areas of both the County and the City, and the additional height of the proposed tower will make no significant difference in the area from which it will be visible. In practice, this tower, while technically able to be seen, is unobtrusive except to someone who is looking for it. The tower is merely part of the developed urban landscape, which includes, among myriad other uses, a major, lighted sports facility (Charlottesville High School's stadium); the largest high-voltage electric power line in the urban area; and the main line of the Southern Railway. The applicant invites the members of the Commission to look for the existing tower in this context. As to visibility from residences in both the County and the City, it is noteworthy that no resident of either the County or the City has contacted the County's staff, nor did any resident appear at the public hearing to provide input. As to visibility from Mclntire Park, it is tree that the proposed tower will be visible from the Park. The existing tower is already visible from the Park, as are such things as (1) at least seven outdoor lighted athletic facilities, all owned by the City; (2) a major railroad, which bisects the Park; (3) a multi-lane divided highway (U.S. 250 Bypass); and (4) an emergency services facility with a sizeable communications tower (the Rescue Squad headquarters); not to mention numerous public and private uses, including commercial and industrial uses as well as residential. City review--In accordance with law and established practice, the staff provided notice to the City of this application more than a month ago. In addition, a representative of the applicant personally spoke with the City Manager about this proposal and received no adverse comment. As of this date, no resident of the City has offered any individual comment, and no one in City government has voiced any objection whatever to the proposal, although individual members of Council and the City's planning commission have noted that they were not personally aware of the application. The applicant Welcomes the opportunity to discuss the proposed facility with representatives of the city. The applicant wishes to note that, if this proposed facility were located in a comparable location in the City~, there would never have been any public hearing, since radio transmission towers are permitted by right under the City's zoning ordinance. See City Code Sections 34- 438(18) and -463(1). Moreover, such a tower could be built to any practical (and otherwise lawful) height, since the City's ordinance (unlike the County's) provides no maximum height for such structures. See City Code Section 34-971. Accordingly, the applicant suggests that the City government can have no rational objection to the proposed tower. The applicant stands ready to respond to any other questions which the .County may have. ~The property is zoned C-I, which is characterized as a "central business concentration" (also called "central business district") zone. This is comparable to the City's B-3 and B-4 (Downtown) districts. In both of these districts, radio transmission towers are permitted by right. · MAT'fO 9mV/m ~ 1 A N WQMZ- ~M'95.1 Mhz 1My CONTOUROC~ ~ ~ .-~ ,,,, JERRY YACUZZI RUCKERSVILLE, VA Page 1 October 12, 1998 Service contours based on FCC F[50,50] curves zle: WQMZ EXISTING .annel: 236 C/R 206.3 meters ( 676.8 feet) A.M.S.L. Latitude: Longitude: 38-02-54 78-28-12 HAAT ERP 70 dBu 60 dBu Bearing (meters) (kiloWatts) (3.16 mV/m) ( 1 mV/m) (degrees) (feet) (dBk) contour contour .0 47.9 6.000 11.2 km 20.1 km 157.2 7.782 7.0 mi 12.5 mi 45.0 73.4 6.000 240.8 7.782 13.7 km 8.5 mi 24.5 km 15.2 mi 90.0 -8.9 6.000 -29.2 7.782 9.0 km 5.6 m~ 15.9 km 9.9 m~ 135.0 99.5 6.000 326.4 7.782 16.1 km 10.0 m~ 28.2 km 17.5 mi 180.0 23.3 6.000 76.4 7.782 9.0 km 5.6 m~ 15.9 km 9.9 mi 225.0 46.0 6.000 150.9 7.782 11.0 km 6.9 m~ 19.7 km 12.2 m~ 270.0 19.3 6.000 63.3 7.782 9.0 km 5.6 m~ 15.9 km 9.9 mi 315.0 51.3 6.000 168.3 7.782 44.0 144.3 11.7 km 7.2 m~ 20.9 km 13.0 mi OCT 2 3 199;) WQMZ EXISTING JERRY YACUZZI Page 1 RUCKERSVILLE, VA October 12, 1998 Population within coverage area Coordinates: 38-02-54 78-28-12 60 dBu (1 mV/m) oral Population (1990 Census): (Square km): 105,061 1304.3 E R~,. "Lake [ S P 0 I' S PPOMATTO ~ N ,/' 'HA'rAN M~I''Es 0 z 5 ~o is 2o 2~ -.~';'?,' ' ,o ' r , ........., KILOMETERS EDW WQMZ POSED 1 95.1 Mhz CONTOLT~T ~ s -','~ JERRY YACUZZI RUCKERSVILLE, VA Service contours based on FCC P[50,50] curves Page 1 October 12, 1998 : WQMZ PROPOSED : 236 C/R 262.3 meters ( 860.6 feet) A.M.S .L. Latitude: Longitude: 38-02-54 78-28-12 HAAT ERP 70 dBu 60 dBu Bearing (meters) (kiloWatts) (3.16 mV/m) ( 1 mV/m) (degrees) (feet) (dBk) contour contour .0 103.9 6.000 16.5 km 28.8 km 340.9 7.782 10.3 mi 17.9 mi 45.0 129.4 6.000 424.5 7.782 18.6 km 11.6 mi 31.8 km 19.7 mi 90.0 47.1 6.000 154.5 7.782 11.2 km 6.9 mi 20.0 km 12.4 m~ 135.0 155.5 6.000 510.2 7.782 20.4 km 12.7 ml 34.7 km 21.6 m~ 180.0 79.3 6.000 260.2 7.782 14.2 km 8.8 m~ 25.4 km 15.8 ml 225.0 102.0 6.000 334.6 7.782 16.4 km 10,2 m~ 28.6 km 17.8 mi 270.0 75.3 6.000 247.0 7.782 13.9 km 8.6 m~ 24.8 km 15.4 mi 315.0 107.3 6.000 352.0 7.782 HAAT: 100.0 328.0 16.9 km 10.5 mi 29.2 km 18.2 mi [tle: WQMZ PROPOSED JERRY YACUZZI RUCKERSVILLE, VA Population within coverage area Page 1 October 12, 1998 Coordinates: 38-02-54 78-28-12 60 dBu ( 1 reV/m) prat Population (1990 Census): ~rea (Square kin): 125,010 2474.1 ~¥ I ~a,,,': attended s:',,,'=ra~ Oharlr~ttesvll~ Counci~ ~eti'ngs~ anc~ ~.. ...... ~ach o*. those me. ti'rigs during their Re~T;arl,'s ...... *",-om ~h~. Pub] ic" ~'-'~'-_.-~.~:~;t som~o~ o~ ~,~v~ :~,,,, ..... -x_s have go~ten up and spoken a~a~nst th~ ....... ~ .... Par'kw:~', ~-~' ~ terribly Ric~ht )no~,, ~he C'vitl~ City Co~.~ncil is split 3 to D in favor of the Parkway, ] al'card, that this _,..,~.a,.~.r~',~-+ ,-,+ barags, of_ . r.,~r~a'~i've,,_=~_ , assaults on the Par k~a',,, ~,~i I I eventua.~.~ ly ~,g,~a'c dob~'rl st]pp~-'-~ *~r, .~. '~he,~ Par ~."~=~-,~. and that one of the tnre~ ]T~ ~.a,,,o~ of it will t~ithdra~.~ '~ i'c support, a'nd that ~ould r~ot bode ~et~ -Fo~~ ~,=~._ o,-dor"~y, ~_ ~. f]o~..~ of traffic ~'n the ! believe it ~.,~ould behoove the Bo~c~ to t action allay ~,ome of c~-iticism that is being hurled at t. he Parkway. ~-- former May'or At one of~.._,~,=~,- ~=~t meeti'ngm of the ,~"~:. .... ~ ~'c',.~aughter .as~:ed if it would be possible fo'c ,,r~r,~v~.u~, to purc~=~,~,.~__ adjoining lan~ to aCd to Mctntire Park to replace the lar~d that i,~ould be used for the Park¥,~ay. This s~unded like goad idea to me but as far as I~,"now no actio~ has been taken on The parcel in questio~n here tonight is the next a,:Jjoi,~'~',,.. n,~ ,-~ oarce] ~,-, .....~,'~,-I'ntire Park Therefoc~ ~ I beseech you to deny this ne~.~ to¥~er 'c~quest and use you'r po~,,~E'r of eminent domain to purchas~ this.. .proPers,>' and offer to ...... ~,,=~).~. it to '~*tv as an ~,,~.e~,~ion o'T f";cZnti'ce Park or .se~'i i-~ to VDOT so they car~ give it to the C~*v~.. to replace ~--'~_~.=~ ,~.ark laced. ~,e~ieve thzs parcel ~.,~ould connect t~o -s:,,:isti'ng segment.= of City park!.and and al~o contains a segment of P~eado~.~cTaek. ~ am afraid '~[~t if the Board ~ .... ~ ~ "  ...... k d o ~,.:r~ the T , ']~,~3~. You 10-2~1-98,~D8:10 RCvD October 20 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 40] Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 J Lloyd Snook, III 108 5th Street, Suite 307 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-98-45 Boudreau's Inc., Tax Map 61, Parcel 124F Dear Mr. Snook: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 13, 1998 unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The dance hall portion of the use will only be permitted fi.om 8:00 PM to 1:00 AM. Dance area within restaurant area shall be limited to 280 square feet. Dance area at the rear of the restaurant (in the 3,700 square foot area) shall be limited to 1,500 square feet and shall be used only m conjunction with catered events and private parties. The applicant will provide two on-site uniformed security personnel fi.om 8:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. when more than 280 square feet of dance area is provided. The Special Use Permit will be reviewed after one year. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 11, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled heating date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Willaim D. Fritz, AICP Senior Planner Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Lloyd & Patrica Wood Steve Allshouse From: Bill Fritz Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 3:38 PM To: Way ne Cilimberg Subject: condition Here is what Greg recommended. The Zoning Administrator shall investigate the permittee's compliance with the terms and conditions of this special use permit one year from the date of its issuance, and each five year anniversary therefrom. Upon concluding each investigation, the Zoning Administrator shall report her findings to the Board of Supervisors William D. Fritz, AICP Senior Planner 804-296-5823 ext. 3385 11/10/98 11:38 973 1333 ALD~RSGATE UHC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 001 FAX TRANSMISSION ALDERSGATE UNITED METHODIST ~HURCH ]500 ~T Rio ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA ~90 I (804) GT.3-580G Fax: (GO4) 973- I :3~,,-_.-3 To** Fax #: From: Subject: Mr, David Bowerman, et al 296-5800 Ralph W. Rowley, Pastor 8P-98-45 Boudreau's Inc.. Date: November I 0, 1998 Pages: 3, including this cover sheet. COMMENTS: The attached letter is addressed to Mr. David Bowerman with copies to all members of the Albemarle County Board of' Supervisors. The letter pertains to a matter Io come before thc Board on Wednesday, November I I, 1998. Therefore, it is imperative that this letter be duplicated and distributed as soon as possible., and in advance of this meeting. Ralpt~ W. RowIey Pastor T~E 11:38 FAX 804 973 1333 ALD~SC~A3.'E ~oo~ 1500 East Rio Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (804) 973.5806 Fax: (804) S73.~335 November 10, 1998 Mr. David Bowemmn, Supervisor Rio Disu~ct 40I Bcrwick Court Ch,arlottcsville, Virginia 22901 Re: Project # SP-98-45 Dear Mr. Bowerman: We appreciate the oppo~unity to provide conm~ent concerning a petition for a Special Use Permit by Boudreau's !nc. in order to establish a dance hall with restaurant at the intersection of Rio Road and Putt Putt Place in accordance with provisions of Section 24.2.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance. As you may lmow, this property is located across 'the street from our church. Mr. Gordon Yagcr, Chairman of our Board of Trustees, attended the Planning Commission meeting on October 13, 1998 and made his report to the Administrative Board of Alderssate United Methodist Church. While the Administrative Board chose not to oppose the granting cfa special use permit to the petitioner, the board did identify the folloWing three areas of concern. Securi .ty - We are ail aware of recent security problems at similar facilities in the Charlottesville area. Therefore, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to incorporate into the Special Use Permit measures that will prevent security problems, unruly conduct, and protect nei~xboring pmp~mies. T. raffi.c - Traffic along this section of Rio Road is increasing, thus making lea rams fi'om the proposed business and the church very difficult. This issue needs to be addressed before a serious accident occurs. It is our concern that ~affic from the proposed establishment will increase the volume and danger to ~hose traveling and entering Rio Road along this corridor. Convayance of gpeeitxl I lse Perrnit..to-F.&lBlt.c_Q3Elt.czs - We feel strongly that, whereas the proposed establishment may be mn in a reputable f~hion, the Special Use Permit should not automatically convey to future owners who may be less cona¢ienfious. 11/10/98 TKTE 11:39 FAX 804 97B 1333 ALDERS~ATE ~005 Page 2 We are hopeful that you will adequately address these concerns and include protective measures into the Special Usc Permit. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns in this matter Sincerely, David D. Lockard Chairman Administrative Board DDL/ph CC: Forrest Marstmll. Chairman Board of Supcrvisors Charles Martin, Vice-Chairman Board of Supervisors Walter Perkins, Supervisor Sally Thomas, Supervisor Charlotte Humphris, Supervisor J. Lloyd Snook, III Sheila C. Haughey Hope V. Payne LAW OFFICES Snook & Haughey A Professional Corporation Post Office Box 2486 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 108 F;'?th Street S.E., Suite 307 Telephone: (804) 293-8185 Fax: (804) 295-0698 November 4, 1998 William D. Fritz, Senior Planner Planning Department 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Fritz: Re: Boudreau's, Inc. After receiving your letter concerning the conditions that were recommended by the County Planning Commission for the special use permit requested by Boudreau' s, Inc., to allow the rear of the Bonanza Steakhouse property to be used as a "dance hall," I conferred at some length with the principals of Boudreau's, and we have two concerns: Limitation to "Catering and Private Parties" I know that in our application, I used the phrase that "we expect to use the building to the rear for catering and private parties." However, I did not expect that "expectation" to become a legal restriction. We can think of three types of business that this restriction would cause us to lose. First, there will be occasions - New Year's Eve comes most immediately to mind - when Boudreau's would want to have a standard, open admission dance party. This goes on at hotels and restaurants - and fire stations- throughout the city and county, without anyone getting a special use permit. The difference is that we are trying to be absolutely legal. Second, we would like to be able to have an open admission dance for certain groups. For example, I noticed in the newspaper that this past weekend, "Tiny Mac's," just a hundred yards from this site, had an open admission party featuring The Houserockers and dancing. I am not aware of there having been any particular police problems there. The East Rivanna Fire Station, at William D. Fritz, Senior Planner November 4, 1998 Page 2 Glenmore, often has open admission dance parties; I am not aware of there being any police problems at those.1 I know that there is no special use permit for either site to be operated as a dance hall, and no one seems to know if there is a dance hall permit for either site.2 Third, we envision having customers at the restaurant who want to combine a meal and dancing. They might decide from the beginning of their evening that that is what they want to do, or they may come for dinner, hear the music and decide that they would like to stay and dance. Either way, we want to be able to accommodate them, just as the Boar's Head Inn can. We have two objections to adding this restriction to our special use permit. First, it puts Boudreau's at a competitive disadvantage to other dance halls (whether with a special use permit or not). The principals of Boudreau's expect to put about $100,000 into this project, and to have an eight-year lease. They want Boudreau's to be profitable. By our estimates, a profitable restaurant and dance club could gross $1,,700,000 a year. You will have license fees, sales tax revenue, and increased property tax revenue. The County has a strong interest in not applying artificial restrictions to the use of the property. You are authorized by Virginia Code § 18.2-433 "to enact rules and regulations for the operation of suCh dance halls." The County has chosen to do so in Chapter 12 of the County Code. Sec. 12-200 through 12-206. Any restriction in Chapter 12 would be applied to Boudreau's and to all other dance halls as well. However, the only regulation that you have chosen to enact governs the admission of minors. The proper place to put regulations that are not directly related to land use issues is in these sections not by limiting only one dance hall because of the perceived problems with other dance halls that you have chosen not to regulate: Second, the restriction is not consistent with the County's zoning ordinance. As you indicated in your staff report to the Planning Commission, this site is not expected to have "any greater impact on the residential property than the previous restaurant use of the site." The adjacent property is all zoned for commercial use. Having open-admission parties is neither opposed to nor consistent with any provision of the zoning ordinance, and would not restrict permitted uses on adjacent property or the surrounding area. There are no additional regulations under Section 5.0. I I suppose that the Fire Station is exempt from Chapter 12 of the Code, see Sec. 12-204, but they wouldn't be exempt from the zoning ordinance. 2 I am told that the County has never granted a special use permit fc~r a dance hall before. That means that Tiny Mac's, Katie's, the Doubletree on New Year's Eve, the Boar's Head Inn, the Glenmore Fire Station, the Elks Lodge, and other such places, are all acting illegally. I am told that Katie's - everyone's bad example - doesn't even have a dance hall permit, and is a non~ conforming use. The County could probably shut it down tomorrow. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner November 4, 1998 Page 3 Clearly, the only reason for this restriction is the concern that Boudreau's will become a police "hot spot." We want Boudreau's to be known as a place where people who are willing to pay $15 for an entree will be willing to come for dinner. IfBoudreau's gets a reputation as a police "hot spot," we will lose that business. O, ur business plan depends on good security and attracting good customers. Let's look at the problem as a whole. We can think of four ways to regulate the kind of customers that we have: First, having uniformed security guards on site will discourage some of the rowdies. We w~ do that, whether you require it or not. Looking at the other places that have functioned as "dance halls" in the charlottesville-Albemarle area, we believe that having uniformed security guards inside and outside would make a huge difference? Second, we are located in an area that is far enough away from most residences that we can expect there will be very little trouble in the parking lot from people in the neighborhood just hanging around (which is part of the problem at Max's). In fact, Boudreau's is closer to a police substation than it is to any residential neighborhood. Third, our price structure, dress code and type of music played can discourage the rowdies. While these are not land use concerns, we can tell you -- as we have the Planning Commission that we intend to use these tools to make sure that we don't become another Katie's -- a country beer joint with a band. Fourth, you can prohibit any type of business that makes it impossible for people to come to our establishment without prior arrangements. This is the restriction that the Planning Commission sought. While we don't deny that it may have some effect to hold down some of the problems experienced at places like Katie's and Max's, we don't believe that it will have any significant effect, in light of the uniformed guards, the location, and our plans for price structure, dress code and type of music being played. This restriction will significantly cut into our business and our profitability. Our other protections will accomplish our objective, without binding us with restrictions that our competitors don't have. It is difficult for us to foresee what the market Will bring us in the next year, much less in the next eight years. There is no justification in land use law for this additional restriction, and it puts Boudreau's at a disadvantage at a time when we are trying to make sure that we get off to a great start and make money, both for ourselves and for the County tax rolls. 3 If the County wanted to make the presence of uniformed security guards a requirement at all dance halls, I suspect that that would be permissible under Virginia law. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner November 4, 1998 Page 4 The Requirement of a Review lifter One Year: The biggest objection that we have to a review after one year is that we are concerned that the review would not be governed by meaningful standards, and would not be based on land use issues. For example, let us suppose that/[fter one year, there were 50 calls for police service at that scene. Is that a lot, or is that a little? It is surely more than there has been in the last year, but the site has been vacant. How about 107 Do we get saddled with calls made from there because it is the only place open at night for hundreds of yards around? How about a shooting in the parking lot at 3:00 AM, having nothing to do with the operation of the business? How about a DUI call on a night where there is no dancing? The police seem to be concerned about DUI arrests on site. If people are drinking too much there, the remedy is with the ABC Board, and to challenge the ABC license. The neighbors in Raintree have expressed concern about possible noise problems. We firmly believe that there will be none, but if there is no noise ordinance in effect, so that there is no meaningful way to know whether there really is a problem, how could the County evaluate this concern a year from now? ~' When I was on the Planning Commission in the City, we occasionally required a one- year review of a Special Use Permit, but only when the issue that we wanted to reassess was clearly a land use issue. The example that comes to nfind is the Covenant School on the 250 Bypass. We reviewed them annually for two reasons - they wanted to keep adding grades, and we were concerned about traffic in and out of the school, on to the bypass. Every year we reviewed the traffic problems. We did not review noise complaints or any of the other issues that could possibly be involved in the first decision to grant or deny a Special Use Permit. We ask the Board not to insist on a one-year revie~v, for two reasons. First, if the Board wants to regulate all dance halls, it has the power to do so, and we don't want to be singled out. You have declared in Section 12-203 that dance hall permits can be revoked for violating the restrictions of the Code. You don't need a specific one-year review, unless your concern is that you haven't enacted the right set of regulations in Article II of Chapter 12 of the Code. If that is the concern, though, the remedy is to enact a different set of rules that apply to all dance halls, and revoke the permits of any dance halls that don't comply with the objective criteria that you set out in the Code.4 Second, I am not aware of any land use issue that is likely to change in the next year that would provide a meaningful basis for an annual review. You have a solid opinion on traffic; that opinion is an unqualified statement that there will be no additional traffic impact. The character of the neighborhood is fixed, and even if the character of the neighborhood changed so that a residential complex sprang up 50 feet from Boudreau's, that would not be the fault of Boudreau's. 4 You might also consider enforcing the permit ordinances that you already have on the books. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner November 4, 1998 Page 5 It seems clear that the only reason that anyone wants a one-year review is to see whether the police fears that Boudreau's will become a "hot spot" are real, and to be able to revoke the special use permit if those fears come to fruition. There is nothing unusual about this site that causes that concern, so it is not a land use issue. A special use permit can only be granted, denied or revoked for land use issues. If you 'want additional protections or regulations for dance halls, make them applicable to all dance halls through the provisions of Chapter 12 of the County Code. Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns. Sincerely yours, J. Lloyd Snook, III , ILS,III/mtf CC: Larry W. Davis, County Attorney R. Wayne Thomas STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ, AICP OCTOBER 13, 1998 NOVEMBER 11, 1998 SP 98-45 BOUDREAU'S INC. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to open a restaurant with area available for dancing. This requires a dance hall permit. The site is the location of the former Bonanza and Ninfas restaurants adjacent to Putt Putt on Rio Road east of Route 29. Petition: Proposal to establish a dance hall with arestaurant in accord with the provisions of Section 24.2.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 124F consists of 1.1 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and is located in the northwest comer of the intersection of Rio Road and Putt Putt Place in the Rio Magisterial District. This site recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 2. Character of the Area: This property is the location of the the former Bonanza and Ninfas restaurants which is adjacent to Putt Putt. Access to the site is fi.om Putt Putt Drive. Two apartment complexes, Rio Hills and Mall Side, are located at the end of Putt Putt Drive. The area is primarily developed commercially. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Planning and Zoning History: This site has been used as a restaurant since 1983. in the current building. Various approvals have occurred over the years resulting Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Community Service in the Comprehensive Plan. No resources are identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan which would be impacted by this use. Restaurants and Recreational Facilities are typical primary uses in Community Service areas. Therefore, this request may be considered to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has limited review of this proposal to the public health, safety and welfare impacts of the proposed use as it relates to land use impacts created by the proposed location of the dance hall. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The applicant is proposing interior renovations of the building which will result in the need for additional parking. The location of this additional parking will need to be shown on a site plan which will have to be reviewed by the County. All of the adjacent property is zoned commercial and the construction of additional parking will not result in adverse impacts to these properties. The nearest residential properties are the two apartment complexes located at the end of Putt Putt Drive. These apartments are approximately 800 feet distant. The nearest single family housing is located in Carrsbrook approximately 1,000 feet distant. Staffhas reviewed available traffic data and is unable to determine that a restaurant with area for dancing generates traffic at a different rate than other types of restaurants of similar type. The use of this site for a dance hall is not anticipated tO. have any greater impact on the residential property than the previous restaurant use of the site. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, This building has been used as a restaurant since its construction. The use of the building for a restaurant with area for dancing will not be inconsistent with the past use of this site. All of the adjacent property is zoned commercially. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. A dance hall is not clearly supportive of any stated purpose and intent nor is it in conflict with any stated purpose. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed dance hall perm/t, if approved, would not restrict permitted uses on adjacent property or the surrounding area. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The proposed use does not occasion any ch~ges to the entrance to the site or modifications, other than additional parking. Therefore, this use may be considered consistent with the public health and safety. The Police Department has provided comments on the proposed special use permit, Attachment D. The Police Department is concerned that approval of a dance' hall permit will result in additional calls for service which results in an increased demand on the available manpower, SUMMARY: The proposed dance hall is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance based on the land use impacts of the use. Staff has not identified any unfavorable land use issues arising from the proposed use. The Police Department has commented that the proposed dance hall may result in additional calls for service. The Board of Supervisors must determine if this use is consistent with the general welfare of the public. The Planning Department is able to support this request from a traditional land use standpoint and based on a general consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provided that the Board of Supervisors finds this use to be consistent with the public's general welfare, staff recommends approval of SP 98-45 subject to the following condition: 1. The dance hall portion of the use will only be permitted from 8:00 PM to 1:00 AM. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicant's information D - Police Department Comment A:\sp9845-report.doc TAIN Shod MTN. 4/ Slore U 7 k,// ." ,, SP ~8-45 Boudreau's, Inc. ATTACHMENT A 0 . / .-% Monticello ALBEMARLE COUNTY 4~ SP 98-4S Boudreau's, Inc. ATTACHMENT B 6C CITY OF CHAR LO'I'TF..~V I I-LE ~JACK JOUETT, RIVANNA AND CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS SECTION 51 ATTACHMENT C BOUDREAU'S, INC. We hope to operate a restaurant and dance hall at 1525 East Rio Road, on property owned by Lloyd F. Wood, Jr., and Patricia E Wood, 724 Chapel Hill Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901. We have worked out a lease arrangement with the Woods that is contingent upon getting the necessary approvals, including a special use permit. Boudreau's will be a Cajun-style restaurant. We expect to be open Monday through Saturday, and to be closed on Sunday. We expect to offer music and dancing between the hours of 8:00 PM and 1:00 AM On some evenings we hope to offer live music; on other evenings it may be provided by a disc jockey. The restaurant will be open earlier, and we may open for lunch if business justifies it, but we would not offer music except between 8:00 PM and 1:00 AM. The property has been a restaurant since it was developed many years ago; we intend to keep it as a restaurant, but we will add music and dancing. The property contains what has sometimes been described as two separate buildings, though they are adjoining. The front building will be the main restaurant, Boudreau's. It is about 4800 square feet, and about 2300 square feet will be used for eating, including a dance area of about 280 square feet. We expect to use the building to the rear for catering and for private parties. It is about 3700 square feet; of that, about 3,000 square feet is available for eating, and so the dance floor would n~t exce~ed~_375 square feet. / There are very few places where people can go in Charlottesville and Albemarle County to hear live music and to dance. Many of those places that do offer live music and dancing have somewhat unsavory reputations. One of the officers of Boudreau's Inc., R. Wayne Thomas, had worked at Max's in Charlottesville, and had at one point intended to buy it to clean it up (before being scared offby pending litigation against Max's Inc.) Mr. Thomas knows what kind of problems can arise to cause a music and dancing spot to earn a bad reputation. Because of what we have learned from the mistakes of others, Boudreau's will be different from those other music and dancing spots in the following ways: 1. It will be first and foremost a restaurant, with an experienced chef as a part of the management team. Entrees will run from about $10.00 to about $18.00. It will not be just a bar with a band. 2 The dance floor will be relatively small in relation to the eating area (as required by County ordinance). 3. The officers of Boudreau's Inc. expect to put at least $50,000, and probably close to $100,000, into renovating and outfitting the new restaurant. 4. Although we expect to attract a different clientele from the people who patronize some of the dance spots in the area, we realize that security will be a concern, both to our patrons and to the County. We want to make very sure that we do not have security problems, so whenever there is live music and dancing, there will be security personnel both at the door' and ~n ATTACHMENT C PAGE 2 the parking lot'. We are aware that at some of the other music and dancing spots, the greatest public concern is with criminal activity in the parking lots; at one such establishment, the County Police Department has two officers stationed in the lot on weekend nights. We will take care of that problem ourselves, with our own security. We hope to fill a void in the Charlottesville-Albemarle entertainment market the dinner club, where a couple can get a nice meal and dance to live music. ATTACHMENT D County of Albemarle POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To'- From: Date: Subiect: Chief John Miller Lt. Courtne¥ Craft September 28, 1998 Application for Special Use Permit (Restaurant and DanCe Hall) If I had any say in this application I would turn it doWri, however I would suggest that if a Special Use Permit were issued that the following provisions be added to the permit. All of the following cost of calls for service be charged to the Restaurant / Dance Hall, 1. Call that involves Public drunkenness 2. Call that involves Assaults 3. Call that involves Disorderly Conduct 4. Call that involves DUI on the Restaurant property All of the above calls for service will occur and add to the increasing demand on manpower. Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~0-09-98A09:42 RCV£, October 8, 1998 Thomas F. Starke P O Box 206 Crozet, VA 22932 SP-98-48 Thomas F. Starke Restaurant Tax Map 56A(3), Parcel 9B Dear Mr. Starke: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 6, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of a special use permit to allow for conversion of a video store to a restaurant. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. A modified sketch plan drawn to scale and field verified shall be submitted to show a. existing and proposed conditions of the site. Any improvements that have been removed should also be removed from the sketch plan. b. Parking which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Parking spaces located in the existing entrances must be removed or the entrances may be decreased and shifted to eliminate the conflict. If the entrances are decreased, a minimum VDOT width must be maintained. c. lighting, if used, which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. d. a date, existing zoning, the use, and setbacks of the district. 2. Approval by the Building Inspector and Service Authority for compliance with state and local requirements. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 11, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. Page 2 October 8, 1998 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Senior Planner EKE/jcf Cc: ~a Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey CC: C: t WP511FORMSIPCA CT. FRM STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SP 98-48 Thomas F. Starke 8OARD OF SUPERVISORS ] 0-09-98A09:42 RCVD ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP OCTOBER 6, 1998 NOVEMBER 1 i, 1998 Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposal is to convert an existing building located at 5382 Three Notch'd Road from a video store to a restaurant. The building was originally constructed as a house on Route 240 across from Con-Agra. It operated as a video store for the last 16 - 18 years. According to the applicant, the building was used as a restaurant off and on with four different proprietors prior to its use as a video store. The video store has moved next door and the Starkes, who own that building and the house on the adjacent parcel, would like to lease the vacant building as the new location for the Crozet Snack Comer. The Snack Comer is an existing Crozet business located in a small building on the square in Crozet. The restaurant has outgrown its area and the larger building in which it operates is for sale. The proposed restaurant will have approximately 1300 square feet of floor area, seat about 45 - 50 people, and have an delivery service to Con-Agra. Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Section 27.2.2.14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow a restaurant as a supporting commercial use in an industrial zoned district. This petition is requested for the parcel described as Tax Map 56A3, Parcel 9B, located in the Whitehall Magisterial District. (See Attachments A&B.) The property is zoned LI Light Industrial and is recommended as Rural Areas on the Land Use Plan. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has indicated that this use will support existing workers at Con-Agra and provide a service for members of the labor fOrce and the community. Character of the Area: The area is an industrial and commercial area on the opposite side of the Crozet development area. Con-Agra is across the street; a parking area for Con-Agra is to one side and the rear of the parcel. Commercial buildings are on the other side of the parcel as is a house. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: The property was rezoned from R-2 residential to B-1 (a former commercial zoning classification for the County) in 1968. In 1980, the property was zoned from B-1 to LI in a comprehensive zoning action. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Rural Areas. It was designated as a rural area even though a portion of Con-Agra is on that side of the street. The The purpose of designating that area as rural was to discourage development in the Beaver Creek water supply reservoir watershed. (Beaver Creek Reservoir is the water supply of Crozet.) However, with the comprehensive rezoning of the county around 1980 to implement the Land Use Plan and watershed protection measures, the Board of Supervisors left certain areas zoned as they had previously been. One of the reasons the zoning was left in place was to keep uses conforming with their zoning districts. Otherwise uses would become nonconforming. Such is the case in Crozet, north of Route 240 where industrial, commercial and residential zoning was left in place. The Crozet Community Study, which is also a part of the Comprehensive Plan, recommends that all new commercial activity be located in the downtown area of Crozet. It does not address issues of redevelopment. Staff believes that locating supporting commercial uses in Industrial Areas in Crozet is not consistent with the Crozet Community Study which encourages the location of commercial uses downtown. The property could be used for a very small industrial use by-right. The proposed use, however, provides for a close relationship between the commercial and industrial use that a downtown restaurant would not have. It also provides an opportunity for redevelopment of an existing site. Site Plan Requirements: A sketch plan has been submitted with the application for the special use permit (see Attachment C). Because this change in use does not occasion the need for additional parking spaces and because no new entrance is proposed, a site plan or site plan waiver is not required. A modified sketch plan, however, is recommended to ensure safe and convenient access throughout the site and to provide parking spaces that meet the zoning ordinance requirements. Engineering Analysis: The County's Engineering staff has reviewed this request for general engineering issues shown on the sketch plan such as transportation and stormwater management. No drainage issues have been raised with this request, but Engineering would like to see modifications to the parking area, shown on a sketch plan drawn to scale and field verified, to ensure safe travel movements. They have said that parking spaces located in the existing entrances must be removed or the entrances may be decreased and shifted to eliminate the conflict. If the entrances are decreased, a minimum VDOT width must be maintained. Fire and Rescue Comments: The Fire and Rescue Division of the County has raised concerns with the presence of underground fuel storage tanks. Although there is no active gas dispensing activity, as a result of state requirements the tanks will need to be removed or filled in place. The Fire and Rescue Division will assist the applicant in this regard; the fuel company which installed the tanks in the first place may be responsible to remove them. Building Inspector's Comments: The Building Inspector will require modifications to the building for fire safety. Remodeling of the building will also be needed to accommodate the use. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent property_, If approved, the use is not anticipated to be detrimental to adjacent property. No adverse traffic or noise is expected with the use. The use is considered to be complimentary of and supportive to the adjacent industrial use. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby. The conversion of the video store building to a restaurant will not change the industrial character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The purpose and intent of the Light Industrial zoning district is to provide a place for industries, offices and limited commercial uses that are compatible with and do not detract from surrounding districts. This use is believed to be supportive of the light industrial uses. A similar type of request was made in Crozet at Western Ridge in 1997 when a day care was proposed and approved by the Board of Supervisors as a use supporting the light industry nearby. In making the approval, the Board recognized that there was a need for day care facilities in Crozet and that the establishment of a commercial use outside of the downtown to serve an industrial need was appropriate at the location requested. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Permitted uses include manufacturing, publishing, research and development, assembly of goods, warehousing, and the like. Restaurant facilities are viewed as supportive of these uses. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance. There are no additional regulations provided in the Supplementary Regulations section of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures that proposed uses are appropriate in the location requested. The special use permit also ensures that the development will be realized in a way that meets County standards and preserves compatibility of relationships with adjoining uses. The Fire and Rescue Division of the County as well as the Building Inspector (see Attachment D for comments) will make sure that the building meets code requirements for building and fire safety. The building is connected to public water and sewer, but modifications will be needed, according to the Albemarle County Service Authority, in order for this use to be served by public sewer. (See Attachment E.) The Zoning Department is concerned for the safety of the traffic in the parking lot (see Attachment F.) There areparking places that obstruct the entrances and aisle widths that are very narrow. There are both paved areas and gravel areas for parking. The paved areas likely could be restriped in keeping with zoning requirements; the gravel areas potentially could be used for required parking that cannot be accommodated in the paved lot. To know how the spaces would be configured to meet the ordinance, a modified sketch plan is needed. The site does not show any exterior lighting. Staff does not know if any exterior lighting is proposed; however, if it is to be installed, it should meet the new lighting requirements of the County and be shown on the modified sketch plan. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The use is supportive of the nearby industrial uses which support the economic base of the County. 2. Although the parking lot does not meet zoning requirements for parking spaces and aisle widths, minor modifications can be made to bring it into conformity and create safer travel movement within the site. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 1. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be rural and commercial uses in the rural area are not viewed to be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Crozet Community Plan recommends that commercial activities be located in the downtown area. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff has reviewed the request and looked at all the factors relating to uses zoned for a different use than the Land Use Plan recommends. Staff believes that, when the Board left the zoning intact in the 1980's, it anticipated redevelopment of the area. As a result, there are uses that would likely not be removed to become rural area uses. In this area in the recent past, the County has approved a new veterinary clinic and the new Crozet Elementary School. In general, staff looks very carefully at, and generally discourages rezonings and special uses for substantial new development in this area. Staff does, however, look at redevelopment proposals on a case-by-case basis, and the particular impacts of the specific proposal. In this instance, the conversion of a commercial building from one use to another to support an existing industry is viewed to be advantageous to the community of Crozet. Although the use is moving from the downtown area, it would be located much closer to the industry which it primarily serves. Staff recommends approval of this special use permit in general accord with the undated sketch plan entitled, "Sketch of Thomas Starke Property" attached with special use permit application with the following conditions: 1. A modified sketch plan drawn to scale and field verified shall be submitted to show a. existing and proposed conditions of the site. Any improvements that have been removed should also be removed from the sketch plan. b. Parking which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Parking spaces located in the existing entrances must be removed or the entrances may be decreased and shifted to eliminate the conflict. If the entrances are decreased, a minimum VDOT width must be maintained. c. lighting, if used, which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. d. a date, existing zoning, the use, and setbacks of the district. 2. Approval by the Building Inspector and Service Authority for compliance with state and local requirements. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Parcel Map C - Sketch Plan D - Building Inspector Comments E - Albemarle County Service Authority Comments F - Zoning Department Commems MouNTAIN SP 98-48 Thomas F. $tarke Restaurant HIGH TOP TOM MOUNTAIN CASTLE ROCK BOAZ MOUNTAIN \. TO ///~OVINGSTOh ~. TO RT. 29 %, 7~ % \ 64 I C horlotle~viHe ..... .-- ATTACHMENT B ALBEMARLE COUNTY · ~,=~ WHITE HALL' DISTRICT '~-' .... ~ OROZET INSERT SECTION 56A(3} 210.74' THIS AREA ~ i PAVED BOOTH ~N Notes Magisterial District: Tax Map~a~cel: BoundS7 Information: Whitehall 56A3 - 9B Roger Ray & Associates Site plan from 4/21/69 ST This sim is located in the watershed of the Bea~r Creek Reservoir Requimd: Gross.Square fuotage of Building = 13IS x (13 spaces/lO00 si') =,, Handicnp Spaces Total 17 spnccs . 19 ~ 22 spaces Building Code Information (804) 296-5832 COUNTY OF ~d_B~l F Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 223 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 FAX (804) 972-4126 TTD (804) 972-4012 ATTACHMENT D Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Re: Elaine Echols - Senior Planner Jay Schlothauer- Building Official~ September 14, 1998 Starke's Restaurant (SP-98-48) Satisfying the building code concerns stated in my letter of August 10, 1998 (attached), should be included as a Condition of the Special Permit. JS/js cc: file RECEIVED $£P 1 a. 199~ Planning Dept, Building Code Information (804) 296-5832 COUNTY OF ALBEMARI F Departmen! of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 223 Charlottesville. karginia 22902-4596 FAX (804} 972-4126 'lTD I804) 972.4012 Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 August 10, 1998 Dom~ie Sipe P. O. Box 514 Crozet, VA 22932 Re: Change of Use of Structure at Tax Map 056A3~00-00-009B0 Deal' Mr. Sipe: On August 5, 1998 this office perforated a sua, ey of the referenced structure to detennine its acceptability for use as a restaurant. This proposed use constitutes a change fi'om the previous use as a video store. The previous use is classified as Use Group M; the proposed use is classified as Use Group A-3. The building is of Construction Type 5B. This change of use evaluation xvas performed in accordance xvith Chapter 34 of tile 1996 BOCA National Building Code. A Chapter 34 evaluation assesses a building's safety attributes in three categories. The categories are Fire Safety, Means of Egress and · General Safety. A score of less than zero, in any category, indicates that the building, as is, is unacceptable for the proposed use. Tile scores fi'om tile recent evaluation are: Fire Safety: -50 Means of Egress: -37 General Safety: -40 This building, as is, is not approved for use as a restaurant. Although a Chapter 34 evaluation considers a buitding's safety in many categories, past experience allows tls to make some recommendations on hoxv the scores can be brought into acceptable limits. First, it is suggestcd that the strop, ray, from the first floor to the sccond floor bc COlnpletely enclosed by walls of l-hour firerated construction. Doors, also of 1-hour firerating, would then be installed at the top and bottom of the stair~vay. Second, a fire alan'n systern is recommended. TI'tis xvould consist of smoke detectors installed throughout the first and second floors of the building. Also. manual fire alarm pull stations would be installed adjacent to each of the two doors to the outside. All of these alam't devices would then be xvired so that a signal v,,ould be transferred to a constantly manned central station, such as a security company. Third, EXIT signs and emergency-powered egress lights would have to be installed. These would illuminate the paths of travel during a power outage, and clearly identify the exit routes from the building. Although these are just recommendatior~s, if they are followed, the building will be acceptable for use as a restaurant. 1Jrt addition to the above, it is required that a professional engineer inspect the building to determine if it is structurally adequate for the live Ioads imposed by a public assembly use, like a restaurant. Sincerely, Jay Schlothauer Building Official JS/js CCi Jan Sprinkle Keith Huckstep Thomas F. Starke Reading File Elaine Echols ATTACHMENT E From: Sent: Subject: Pete Gorham [pgorham@acsanet. com] Monday, September 21, 1998 4:00 PM Elaine Echols Starkes Restaurant SP~98-048 We don't have any objection to the conversion of the Video Store to a restaurant. That store is currently served by a water meter and is also a sewer customer. They will be required to have a grease trap on the sewer effluent line. They should also give us a new plumbing fixture count so we can determine the adequacy of the existing meter for the new use. Let me k~ow if you have any questions. Thanks. -Pete Building Code Information (804) 296-5832 COUNTY OF ALBEMAIZ~! .F Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road. Room 223 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 FAX (804) 972-4126 TTD (804) 972-4012 ATTACHMENT F Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner FROM: Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration DATE: September 21, 1998 RE: SP 98-48, Starkes Restaurant This supporting commercial restaurant in the LI district is permitted under Section 27.2.2.14 and 9.4.3. The Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines chart in Section 9 allows supporting commercial uses as "other secondary uses" in an Industrial Service Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan (which this is.) The limitations on the other secondary uses appear in Section 9.4.2 and would limit this site to 5% of the total floor area devoted to primary uses. I believe planning has already calculated that floor area for all of the industrial zoning along the entire Rt. 240 strip ha the Crozet growth area during a similar review. In any case, the 1318 sf of restaurant requested would only require a total of 26,360 sf of primary uses. I'm confident that the adjoining Industrial Service Area more than exceeds that total. When changing the use of a structure froTM an old nonconforming use to a more intensive one, we require that the new use meets the ordinance in as many ways as possible. Some things may continue their nonconforming status, but with regard to parking spaces, if they have not been delineated on the ground or in some visible manner, or if they present a threat to public health, safety or welfare, the spaces must meet the ordinance. In this case, the building was previously used as a retail business and is now converting to a restaurant. The restaurant is more intensive under our ordinance in terms of parking requirements. My understanding is that a site plan is not being required on this site. Therefore, I'm not sure how you want me to view the plan attached to your memo of 9/10/98. If no site plan or ske plan waiver is approved, this department will require a "sketch plan" for purposes of a zoning clearance prior to the allowing the business to begin. The plan has no current date so I'm not sure if I'm looking at current conditions or how the property was on 4/21/69, the date on the plan. Please have the applicant explain and date accordingly. I will base my comments on the plan as if it reflects the current configuration and as if it will be the "sketch plan". I am concerned about the gas pumps. Are they currently functional? If so, is gasoline sold to the public at this location? Or do the tracks assodated with Conagra use the pumps? This would be an additional use on the site that should be considered for everything including parking and circulation. If not, I believe that the tanks will have to be removed. Please be sure to get comments from Brace Crow. The plan shows parking spaces that are obviously obstructing the entrances and do not meet the size requirements of the ordinance. If they are already delineated on the asphalt, some may be able to be "grandfathered", but not the ones obstructing entrances or creating circulation and safety problems. If not already delineated on the ground, they definitely must be redrawn to meet the ordinance. The diagonal spaces abutting the building will require planning commission authorization if not already delineated. If already delineated, some of them may need to be deleted since they are blocking the necessary aisle width. Using only 16 foot spaces along Rt. 240 (allowing for "overhang") and 18 foot spaces along the building (since they can not "overhang" the front porch and they are diagonal spaces that normally require additional length) the aisle wi&h is only 13 feet. Therefore, deletion of spaces 18 and 19 is necessary to give a minimum of 18 feet to the travel aisle. At the entrances, spaces 1 and 6 must be deleted. The four spaces numbered 2 through 5 total only 30 feet wide. To meet ordinance, each space must be at least 9 feet wide. Further, with the door opening into the entrance aisle, spaces 2 and 5 are a safety hazard and may need to be removed. Space 6 obstructs the entrance and must be removed. The handicapped spaces which are shown parallel would need PC authorization unless already delineated. If already delineated they at least need to be longer-- these three spaces total forty feet, the usual length for two parallel spaces. Although the parking shown on the plan has a lot of problems, the gravel lot at the rear may also qualify under "grandfathering" if k has previously been used for parking related to this building. Please have the applicant or his representative contact me to discuss the parking. Other kerns that we will want on the sketch plan include: the existing zoning, LI and EC; note the use, restaurant; note if anytt~g shown is proposed; and, note the setbacks from Rt. 240, 50' for structures and 10' for parking. The only other item that needs discussion is the new lighting ordinance. If any new outdoor lighting (including building mounted flood lights) is proposed, we will require a photometric plan as well as photographs or diagrams of the luminalres intended for use. All new outdoor lights must meet the ordinance. If none is planned, please note on the sketch: No outdoor lighting. BOAKD OF SUPERVISORS 't 0-09-9 8A09:42 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 October 8, 1998 William & Jean Patterson 6082 Rockfish Gap Turnpike Crozet, VA 22932 ZMA-98-21 William M. Patterson Tax Map 55, Parcel 104-A Dear Mr. & Mrs. Patterson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 6, 1998, unanimously recommended apprOval of rezoning of 3.49 acres from Rural Areas to R-1, Residential for construction of an additional dwelling Please note that this approval is subject to a proffer which allows for only one (1) additional homesite to be built on the property. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 11, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Since. rely, Juandiego Wade Transportation Planner lW/jcf Cc: lt~la Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey ~10/28/98 07:43 10/25/g8 10:46 '~804 972 5985 "~'804 972 4035 aL~m~ CO~ Origi;al. Proffer Amended Proffer '(Amendment # PROFFER FORM # Tax Map Parcel(s) # ~'~. ~_L~ ~ ~ ~:~. L~O~ Acres to be rezoned from ~]002 ~oo~ 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 requested. Signatures of ~i,! 0 Pdnted Names of All Owners OR Date Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attamey) '~dnted Name of Attorney-in-Fact ~OFFOF~.WPD STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 10-09-9'8A09:42 RCVP.,' JUANDIEGO R. WADE, RON KEELER OCTOBER6,: 1998 ' NOVEMBER 11, 1998 ZMA 98-021 - William M. Patterson Applicant's Proposal: Applicant proposes to rezone approximately 3.49 acres from Rural Areas (PA) to Residential (R-I). The applicant is requesting this amendment to accommodate their partially disabled son. Their son currently lives in a three story home on an adjacent parcel. The applicant would like to build a single story home on their 3.49 parcel for their son. They will be able to continue to provide assistance for their son. Petition: ZMA 98-012 William M. Patterson The applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 3.49 acres from Rural Areas (PA) to l~esidential (R-I). The site, Tax Map 55 Parcel 104A, is located on the north side of Route 250 West approximately ½ miles west of the western most Route 240/250 intersection in the Whitehall Magisterial District. The site is predominantly in the Crozet Development Area, which is recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential use. The remainder of the site is located in Rural Area 3. Character of the Area: The parcel is located near the Crozet exit off 1-64. The parcel is also near Brownsville, Henley, and Western Albemarle Schools. This area is characterized by generous amounts of local and school traffic as well as 1-64 traffic. There is a mix of land uses in this area. There is a single family home to the west and a farm estate to the north of the property, an unimproved parcel to the east, and several commercial parcels along Route 250, south of the parcel. The Ridge Mini Mart, Curtis Heating and Cooling, and the Brownsville Market are in the immediate vicinity of the site. The Land Use Plan recommends the area within the Crozet Community be developed at a density of three to six dwelling units per acre. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is staff's opinion that the character of the area will not be substantially changed by this request for rezoning. It is staff's opinion that, for the most part, the parcel is in the Crozet Development Area and is recommended for a higher density than currently exists on the site. Planning and Zoning History: There is no planning or zoning history associated with this parcel. Comprehensive Plan: According to the Land Use Map, this site is located on the boundary line that separates the Community of Crozet from the Rural Areas, leaving its designation open to interpretation. It is staff's opinion that the majority of the parcel lies within the Crozet Development Area. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that parcels located in development areas be developed at higher gross densities than in the past by providing for greater flexibility. The Plan also encourages infill development and development of under-used areas. This site is designated for residential development with a density of three to six units per acre. There is currently one single family dwelling on this 3.49 acre parcel. The applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned to R-I, which would allow for two additional dwelling units and, thus, remain below the density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: While the applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to R-l, allowing them to build two additional dwelling units, they have expressed in their application and to staff that they only intend to build one additional unit on the property. While this is not as dense as the Comprehensive Plan recommends, it is an increase in overall density, which is the recommendation for residential development in the growth areas. The parcel is located on the edge on the development area and more rural densities. This amendment could serve as a transition from the rural area to the Development Area. SUMMARY: It is staff's opinion that by allowing this change, the character of the area will not be negatively impacted. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors agree that the property is predominantly in the designated development area, then an urban zoning designation (R-I) would be appropriate and rural zoning would be inappropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of rezoning ZMA 98-021. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location map B - Tax Map C - Application A:~zma9821 -report.doc MOUNT AIN 7.NRA 98-021 William M. Patterson ATTACHMENT A CASTLE ROCK MOUNTAIN TO ~/'~OVINGSTON 'k TOM MOUNTAIN TOP TO RT. 29 Esmon! ALBEMARLE 39 COUNTY / / / IATTAcHt;IENT' B I t2 '.21 $3 MIL~ ?1 SAMUEL '.MILLER AND WHITE HALL DISTRIGTS )67B ' 75 SEE S~ - ~4 ZALR 98-0~1 William M. Pafferson ~ tO3 ! II~'A / / SECTION 55 County of'Albemarle -:- Department o! lJUllalng t. oae ann ~,on ATTACHMENT C Zoning MaP Amen'dment . plicati0n for. Project Name (how shoed we refer to ~h~ application?)~'/f/~.~r~ *E~ting Zoning ~- ~ Proposed Zoning ~umber of acres to be rezoned (if a portion it m~t be delineated on p at)' ~ ~ 2s this an amendment to an existing Planfied District? ca Yes ~No Is this an amendment to existing proffers? ca Yes ~o Are you submitting a preliminary site development plan with this application? ca Yes ~No Are you submitting a preliminary subdivision plat with this application? ca Yes ~No Are you proffering a plan with this application? ca Yes iago Contact Person (who should we call/writa concerning this project'.)): Daytime Phone (/5/0¢ ) qT".Z.o ..4'/72. Fax # city Cr",~ 2,~/"j , E-mail State Owner of land (-,,,.d i, me c0=,', ~or,m: Address _O~Vff'~ Daytime Phone ( ~5~¢ ) o~.2. :~- .~'~.5'"'~ Fax # Applicant (who is the Contact p~rson ~presenting? Who is requesang the re-zoning?): Zip.~. 2~$2- E-mail Address {fi~,'~' ~C~4'~0~'"9 -~./-~° City C/'"~:9~"~.~ State . Daytime Phone (ff/~g) ~'9~ g- o~'W.~'7 Fax # E-mail Tax mapand parcel "~ ~ ~/0 ~-'3'~- ~/q-,7~?--/ /t~ ~ D~s ~e owner of ~is prop~y own (or have any ownership in~eres~ in) any abutting pro~ert~: tr yes, ple~e nst tnose t~ I~a~ ~d ~4 numbers d;~ ~ ~ ~O ~ ,~Z~ ~.~ ~O_~ ~~~ ~ OFFICE USE ONLY Feeamount$ '5~'/~,~O DatePaid o~'/,}.O/t~?'. Check# -3]'7 Receipt# }/i~5')'- By: (Under 50 Acres = $815 50 acres or more = $I .255 Minor amendment to previous request = $175) History: ~ Special Use Permits: D ZMAs and Proffers: Variances: Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? Letter of Authorization %s D No 401 Mclntire Road ':' Charlottesville, VA 22902 -:o Voice: 296-5832 o:o Fax: 972-4126 .490 of the Code of Virginia states that, "Zoning ordinances and districts shall be drawn and applied With reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of the PrOperty, the comprehensive plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by. population and economic studies and other studies, the. transportation requirements of the community,~ the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services, the conservation of natural resources, the preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural' and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values, and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land 'throughout the county or municipality." These are the items which will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please provide any additional information you feel is necessary to assist the County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the C°mprehensive Plan designati°n f°r this pr°perry? ~;~//~J~~~~... What public need or benefit does this rezoning serve? t/~/~z ~,~?~/)q_~'_a_,.~, ~F~/F~z'~r~7~d~-~.~. Are public water, sewer, and roads available to serve this site? Will them be any impact on these facilities? ~---~ What impact will there be on the County's natural, scenic, and historic resources? ~,~ ~ ~ ~/~ ~'~7~z~' OPTIONAL: Do you have plans to develop the property if the rezoning is approved? If so, please describe: If you would like to proffer any restrictions on the development of the property, please list these proffers on the following optional attachment entitled, "PROFFER FORM". Proffers are ~ offers to use property in a more restrictive way than the overall zoning district classification would allow. By State Code, proffers must have a reasonable relationship to the rezoning and are not mandatory. The rezoning must give. rise t{: the need for the proffers; the proffers must be related to the physical development or physical operation of the property; and the proffers must be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. 2 Describe your request in demi' including why you are requesting this particular zoning district? .o &/ - d --;- .. . Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for ~e rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please,provideflegal description of th.e property and the..Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number, qoO, ~ ~ ~ o- ~-'~9 Note: If you are requesting a rezoning for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. OWnership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Proffer Form signed by the owner(s). Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this p 1' tion. I also ce~he information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ' ~.~i-gl~atu;e '- Date Printed Name Daytime phone number of Signatory THIS DEED made this 2nd day of November, 19~9, between Everett W. Patterson and Carrie W. Patterson, his wife, oarties of the first part, and William M. Patterson and Jean M. Patterson, his wife, parties of the second part, WITNESSETH: That for $10.00 and natural love and affection, the parties of the first part do hereby Grant, Give and Convey with GENERAL WARP~NTY OF TITLE unto the said William M. Patterson and Jean M. Patterson, his wife, as tenants by the entirety with full rights of survivorship as at common law and not as tenants in common, that certain narcel oi' land in Albemarle County, Virginia, near Yancey Mills, fronting 262 feet on the nortn side of State Highway 250 and running back between parallel lines with Harry Napier and Bradbury 539 feet to the property of H. B. Rea, being the western portion of a larqer tract of land which was conveyed to the oarties of the first oart by deed from H. B. Rea and wife dated January 9, 1946, recorded with plat in D. B. 266, p. 333, Clerk's Office of t~e Circuit Court of Albemarle County. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 October 8, 1998 Marilynn R. Gale Roudabush, Gale & Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 ZMA-98-22 Wilton Country Homes Tax Map 78B, Parcels 17A and 17B Dear Ms. Gale: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 6, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of amending the existing proffes of ZMA-94-07 to permit increase by one the number of permitted lots in the Wilton Country Homes subdivision. This approval is subject to applicant's proffers, to be revised to include the most recent approved landscape plan. Please note that the profers must be submitted by October 30, 1998. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 11, 1998.. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz, AICP Senior Planner Cc: t,~a Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Wilton Country Homes, Inc Date: ~(~- I.~' /~¢~ ZMA # "PROFFI~R FORM Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # ~'~'-ZT.. Tax Map Parcel(s)# Acres to be rezoned from /2'-/0 to /2,/0 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 rezon!ng and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested.., ,, 1. Development shall be in genral accord with the plat dated July 20, 1998 showing five single family lots between State Route 20 and Wilton Farm Road. 2. A 25 foot landscaping buffer easement consisting of plantings and berm as shown on the attached plan initialed "WDF 10/14/98" shall be installed by July 1, 1999 and shall be thereafter maintained. Pdnted Names of All Owners Date Signature of Attorney-in-Fact · (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) OR Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact ' PROFFORM.WPO Rev. December 1994 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '10-27-98704:27 RCVD WILLIAM D. FRITZ, AICP OCTOBER 6, 1998 - NOVEMBER 11, 1998 ZMA 98-022 WILTON COUNTRY HOMES PHASE IIA Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend the proffers of ZMA 94-07. The current proffers limit the number of permitted dwellings between Wilton Farm Drive and Route 20 to four units. The applicant is requesting that one additional unit be permitted. All of the units between Wilton Farm Drive and Route 20 are single family detached units. Petition: Proposal to amend the existing proffers of ZMA 94-07 to permit increase by one, the number of permitted lots between Wikon Farm Drive and Route 20. Property, described as Tax Map 78B Parcels 17A and 17B, consists of approximately 0.466 acres and is located on the east side of Route 20, Stony Point Road at the entrance to W'flton Farm in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is zoned R-10, Residential and is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6 to 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3. Character of the Area: The site is located at the entrance to the Wilton Farm Apartments. Recently the Frost Montessori school was constructed and the first phase of the Fontana residential subdivision is under construction. The Wilton Farm Apartments have been completed and a total of 10 single family attached/detached units (4 single family detached and 6 single family attached units in 3 structures) are located on the Wilton Farm access road between Route 20 and Wilton Farm Apartments. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and prior actions on this and surrounding property and recommends approval. Planning and Zoning History: November 16, 1988 the Board of Supervisors approved Z/vIA 88-12 and SP 88-76 which rezoned 15 acres and permitted a day care school and professional offices. This is the approval which permitted the Garnett Day Treatment Center and its associated offices. April 4, 1990 the Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 89-24 which rezoned approximately 22 acres from R-1, Residential to R-10, Residential. This is the approval which permitted the Wilton Farm Apartments to be constructed. AugUst 10, 1994 the Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 94-07 which amended the proffers of ZMA 89-24 and permitted the construction of four single family detached units between Wilton Farm Drive and Route 20. Various plats and site plans have been submitted and approved resulting in the existing development of the area. Comprehensive Plan: This area is located in Neighborhood 3 and is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre). The original approval for that portion of the Wilton Farm development north of the existing apartments, including the area currently under review, would have resulted in a density of approximately 9.5 dwelling units per acre. (Attachment D of the report prepared for ZMA 94-07 shows this area as Parcel B.) However, the development of the area is not occurring as originally proposed. Instead of multi-family housing, single family housing has been developed. This has reduced the residential density to approximately 4 units per acre. Adding an additional lot will not bring the density up to the range recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. However, it will increase density somewhat. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the maximum number of residential units be achieved in Development Areas if the infrastructure is in place to support, and the development is consistent with other objectives of the plan. Staff is unable to identify any deficiency in the infrastructure in the area. This area is in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The original approval of development had no units between Wilton Farm Drive and Route 20 as the area was intended to be a buffer zone between Rome 20 and the proposed multi-family development. However, when the multi-family concept was abandoned and four single family units were approved landscaping and berming was required to provide for buffeting of the development from Route 20. To date two units have been constructed between Route 20 and Wilton Farm Road. These units are substantially screened by the berm and landscaping which was placed adjacent to Route 20 in accord with the prior proffers. The addition of one lot will not adversely affect Route 20 as it will also be screened by the berm and landscaping. STAFF COMMENT: Staff is unable to identify any reason that the prior proffer limited the number of units to 4 as opposed to the 5 currently being requested other than the limit on the number of units appears to have been a reflection of the applicant's anticipated development and marketing strategy. No adverse impact is anticipated to be caused by one additional lot and the proffers originally proposed for screening will be adequate for this additional lot. It is unlikely that a request for any additional lots will be presented for this area. This is due to the small area available for deVelopment and the level of development which has already occurred. SUMMARY: Staff is unable to identify any negative factors to this rezoning request. Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. Approval increases the density without adversely impacting the area infrastructure; 2. Approval will not change the character of the area; 3. Approval provides for additional housing in the Development Area. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request. The proposed proffers are similar to those of ZMA 94-07. They have been modified only to increase the number of permitted lots by one and to clarify the required landscaping. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Staff report for ZMA 94-07 D - Board of Supervisors action letter for ZMA 94-07 E - Proposed proffers for this rezoning, ZMA 98-022 A:~zma9822-report.doc ATTACHMENT A MTN. · Weodso~ :CHARLOI'rES: Hall WIHon Country Homes A'ITACHMENT B ALBEMARLE COUNTY 7.MA 98-22 Wilton Counhy Homes ]5 GLENORCHY - SECTION t - D B "~41P(;. 2 .~1 GLENORCHY - SECTION 2 ~ D.B.~41Pq, 2S2 .......... i:)IVA N Nd DISTRIOT SECTION 78-B ATTAC. HMEN. T C STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ JULY 12, 1994 AUGUST 10, 1994 ZMA 94-07 Philip Sansone Petition: Philip Sansone petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend the proffers of ZMA- 89-24 to permit development adjacent to Rt. 20. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 8 (part of), is located on the east side of Rt. 20 approximately 0.5 miles north of the Rt. 20/Rt. 250 intersection in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is currently zoned R-10, Residential with proffers and is in the EC, Entrance Corridor and is recommended for medium density residential (4.01 - 10 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3. Character of the Area: This is the residue of the Wilton'Farms Apartments site. The existing apartments are located to the southeast. The Garner Treatment Center is located to the east. The area under review is an open field between Route 20 and the access to the W'dton Farms Apartments. Access is over the existing W'dton Farms Apartment access road. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has submitted proffers detailing the proposed development (Attachment C). This request is intended to permit the construction of four single family attached units (two structures). SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff'has reviewed this request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the approval of ZMA-89-24 and recommends approval. Planning and Zoning History: November 16, 1988 - Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-88-12 and SP- 88-76 which rezoned 15 acres and permitted a day care schoOl and professional offices. April 4, 1990 - ZMA -~-24 approved. This rezoned approximately 22 acres from R-1 to R-10. The Wilton Farms Apartments have recently been Constructed. A subdivision plat for 30 single family attached units is currently under review on the residue of this site. Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for medium density residential (4.01 - 10 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants proposed density for the area under review is just slightly over 4 dwelling units per acre. The subdivision plat currently under review by stafffor 30 units has a similar density. The original approval was 1 for 76 multi family units in this area (9.5 dwelling units per acre) Attachment D. However, the applicant is not going to develop the site to its approved level. While the proposed level of development is less than originally proposed, this development will provide for more units in the urban area. The proposed level of development is within the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area. STAFF COMMENT: This area was not originally intended for development due to the o~mal concept for the d?oEm.en.t (mul.ti-f~m~y~_which included more rots t~n are n~ proposed. ~s area was ,o2.,g~., y ,m~en. aed as: b_u .~er zo.n? be~,,n Rt. 20 and the prop~ mul~-t~y development. ~ ,me,ao_ano. o _nr~, ent, ot-~e multa-family dev.e, lopment in favo~of single family attached units the 2~eo,~or .utx.e.rmg.,_na.~_ o~n re.duce.cl. The applicant has provi~__d_~r a screening buffer fi.om Rt. · ~ee appucant s proffers Attachment B) ARB approval is required due to the proposed unit type. The ARB has offered no other comments regarding this proposal. Staff opinion is that approval of this request will provide for additional housing in the urban area and that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This request will result in fewer units than could have been achieved under the original zoning. (Based on this comment staffhas not conducted a fiscal impact analysis.) Staffnotes that in the prior review for this site issues of increased traffic and school enrollment arose. While the previous request was approved despite these objections this proposal reduces overall impact. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staffis unable to identify any unfavorable factors for this request. Staff opinion is that approval of this request will provide for efficient use of urban land. The applicant's proffers adequately address the potential impact caused by this development. Based on the above comments staff recommends approval of this request subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers. The plan dated April 21, 1994, showing four single family attached lots between State Route 20 and Wilton Road Farm (Attachment A) will serve as a guide for development. A 25' landscaping buffer easement of screening trees (Sec.32.7.9 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance), along State Route 20 will be shown on the final subdivision plat, along with an additional 20' building setback, to provide a total of 45' building setback fi.om State Route 20. A natural berm, created by the lowering of the house site areas on the proposed 4 lots, will be established by the developer, with suitable plantings within the 25' landscaping buffer, and be required to be maintained permanently by the home owners association or the individual lot owners affected. ATFACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Proffers D - Plan Subm/tted with ZMA-89-24 Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road '> Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (~4) 296-5823 ATTACHMENT D August 16, 1994 Philip Sansone 1 Garnett Center Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA-94-07 Philip Sansone Tax Map 78, Parcel 8 (pan of) Dear Mr. Sansone: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at its meeting on August 10, 1994, by a vote of 6/0, approved the above-noted request to amend proffers of ZMA-89-24 to permit development adjacent to Rt. 20. This approval is subject to the following proffers: The plan dated April 21, 1994, showing four single family attached lots between State Route 20 and Wilton Road Farm (Attachment A) will serve as a guide for development. A 25' landscaping buffer easement of screeningtrees (Sec.32.7.9 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance), along State Route 20 will be shown on the final subdivision plat, along with an additional 20' building setback, to provide a total of 45' building setback from State Route 20. A natural berm, created by the lowering of the house site areas on the proposed 4 lots, will be established by the developer, with suitable plantings within the 25' landscaping buffer, and be required to be maintained permanently by the home owners association or the individual lot owners affected. Page 2 August 16, 1994 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning RSK/jcw CC: Amelia McCulley Jo I-Iiggins Roudabush, Gale & Associates ! :Z ¢: o .J _J <. > _.t · !-- ~ CHAR LOTTES - VILLE Monticello Z~A 94-07 Philip Samsone ,¢ l ATTACH M ENT Al CROSsRuAOS ALBEMARLE COUP' , ! ATTACHMENT S i ZMA 94-07 Philip Samsone ?? 22~ 48 49 50 MONTICELLO '~'~' ' ",,' SCO~SVILLE AND "~--' "' ' ........ ~ RIVANNA 'DISTRICTS SECTION ?8 ~ND SURVEYORS ENGINEERS J. THOMA~ GALE. k~. MARILYNN R GALE. L~. WILL.lAM S. ROUDABUSH. L.~. [ATT~ ~-.HMENT C I ROUDABUSH, GALE 8c ASSOC., INC. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 9~4 MONTICELLO ROAD CHARLO1"T~SVILL.~ VIRGINIA 22902 1~4ONE (~04.) 293-4251 (~O4) 977-0205 FAX (~)41 296-$220 DAVID L. COLLINS. L.$. DIANA P DALE. P.E. WILLIAM J. Li[DBETT~R. .lune 28, 1994 Bill Fritz, Senior Planner Albemarle County Planning Dept. 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 28' 1994 RE: Proffers for Amendment to ZMA-89-24, Wilton Country SubdMsion Dear Mr. Fritz: Listed below are the three (3) proffers 'for the amendment to ZMA-89-24, fi'om my letter of April 22, 1994, with a revision to Proffer //2, per our conversation of June 24, 1994. Proffers: The plan dated April 21, 1994, showing four single family attached lots between State Route 20 and Wilton Farm Road (Attachment A) will sen, e as a guide for development. A 25' landscaping buffer easement of screening trees {Sec. 32.7.9 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance}, along State Route 20 will be shown on the final subdivision plat, along with an additional 20' building setback, to provide a ~otal of 45' building setback fi'om State Route 20. A natural berm, created by the lowering of the house site areas on the proposed 4 lots, will be established by the developer, with suitable plantings within the 25' landscaping buffer, and be required to be maintained permanently by the home owners association or the indMdual lot owners affected. Thank you for your assistance, and please let me know if' you have any further comments. Sincerely, Marilynn 'R. Gale, L.S. M RG/tr 7 Z .,<: ILl i -. ( To: From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors ~,~"~z,Z~ Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Clerk- Reading List for November I I, 1998 November 5, 1998 March 20(A), 1995 March 24(A), 1997 September 9, 1998 September 16, 1998 October 14, 1998 Mr. Martin Ms. Humphris pages 1-23 (Item # 10) - Ms. Thomas pages 22 (Item #7) - end - Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin ~ewc SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this /~ day of November, 1998, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision (the "County") and the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the "Rescue Squad"). WHEREAS, the Rescue Squad agrees to continue to provide valuable rescue squad services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Operations Center ("Service Area"); and WHEREAS, the Rescue Squad desires the County to contribute Fifty Thousand Dollars' ($50,000) to complete construction of a rescue squad building in said Service Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises the County and Rescue Squad agree, as follows: 1. The County shall contribute to the Rescue Squad Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to be used to complete construction of a rescue squad building in Albemarle County. The funds shall be allocated from the County's Fire Fund ("Fund") and shall be made available upon demand after the execution of this Agreement. 2. The Rescue Squad agrees that the County will withhold Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars and Thirty-Five Cents ($3,333.35) from the County's annual appropriation to the Rescue Squad's operating budget beginning July 1, 1999, and ending after a final withholding in the amount of Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars and Ten Cents ($3,333.10) in July 2013. Thus at the end of fifteen (15) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of $50,000 shall be withheld. This withholding may be used by the County to replenish the Fund for so long as the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding shall be ira"addition to the withholding pursuant to the preexisting February 3, 1995 and May 15, 1996 Service Agreements. 3. The Rescue Squad agrees that the Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50.,000) contribution shall be used only for the construction of a rescue squad building in the Service Area in Albemarle County. The Rescue Squad further agrees that improvements shall be owned and titled jointly with the County and that both the Rescue Squad at the County shall be named insured on any insurance for the property. 4. The Rescue Squad agrees that at such time as it no longer provides volunteer rescue squad services in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey all of its interest in the property described in paragraph 3, including all appurtenances thereto and improvements thereon, to the County at no additional cost to the County upon the County's request. 5. The County and Rescue Squad agree that the covenants set forth in their prior agreements dated October 15, 1987, July 19, 1989, March 16, 1993, February 3, 1995, and May 15, 1996, to the extent they are not in conflict with this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to the Rescue Squad, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Rescue Squad. Witness the following signatures and seals: Date Date By ~/~.~Ld_~ ~f~ SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD, INC. Approved as to Form: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing instruction was signed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this /~' ~ day of November 1998 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr. My Commission Expires: Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing instruction wa~s signed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this day of November 1998 by ,~/~Jt., ~,. ~ · My Commission Expires: N~k~ Public ' - TO: Concerned Citizens in the Charlottesville, Albemarle County Area FROM: Tom and Jennie Carter Offensive Advertising DATE: November 7, 1998 We are writing to solicit your help in improving the quality of advertising in the Charlottesville, Albemarle County area. On November 4th we went to the Fashion Square Mall. We were shocked to see an advertisement in the window of the Express clothing store (next to JC Penny) facing the common area of the Mall. This ad was very offensive to us. It is a photograph ora woman in sheer black bra and underwear straddling a very large disco ball. The ad is very large as such that you cannot miss it even from the opposite end of the common area. When we went into the store to speak to the manager, she said that she had just put the ad up on Monday the 2nd and was reluctant to do so because of its offensive nature. However, because of corporate policies from her upper level management, she was required to. She was very glad we had expressed concern and encouraged us to write to Express headquarters. We then went to the Mall management office and expressed our concern to a PR employee (management was not available). Upon persistent phone calls we finally reached the Mall Manager, Tara Bieber. She was eager to make it clear that there was little she could do to change the situation - "these are very big corporations you are dealing with who create policies that the store managers are required to follow". Upon inquiry we discovered that the Mall does not have any advertising policies for the stores who lease their spaces. They are free to advertise how they please from inside their leased spaces. As you have probably guessed we are opposed to the display of this kind of offensive material, especially in a place where families will be coming with small children for the upcoming Christmas holiday. We encourage you to help us keep Charlottesville a community where the people who actually live here maintain some control of advertising in public places. Advertising that comes from these 'big corporations' are out of touch with our community. We must let them know it will not be acceptable here. Attached is a list of names and addresses of those you can write to to express your opposition. We are writing to them as well as organizing a picket unless the sign is removed. If you want to join us in. this effort, please contact us for more specific information (date and time, etc). Your support will be greatly appreciated. We can be reached at 823-8361 for any additional questions or comments. Refer to Express Store No. 201 Charlottesville Fashion Square Mall Charlottesville, Virginia MARY JO PILE National Sales Manager EXPRESS WORLD HEADQUARTERS P.O. Box 182006 Columbus, Ohio 43272-2571 (614)415-4000 If she is not in leave your comments with her assistant TARA BIEBER, Mall Manager CHARLOTTESVILLE FASHION SQUARE 1600 East Rio Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 (804)973-9331 usuallY in a meeting, leave comments with assistant VICKI HANOR, Regional Vice President of Leasing Division I Simon Property leases the space and SIMON PROPERTY GROUP has no advertisement policies National City Center 115 West Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Find out who your representative is on the Board of Supervisors for Albemarle County and contact them. White Hall representative is Walter Perkins Home 823-4987 . Work 295-2980 JENNIFER PRESTON Fax (614)415~4646 Director of Customer Relations Office(614)415-463S EXPRESS WORLD HEADQUARTERS One Limited Parkway Columbus, OH 43230 Notice to anyone who uses. 29 ~ of Charlottesville -- Public worksession to be held by Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and consultants on future of this highway: 4pm to 7prn Red Hill Elementar.v School Questions to consider: Do you want this highway to be made safer and faster for through traffic, including trucks? Do you want entrances and cross-overs limited, perhaps only to dght- tum-out and right-tum-in use? Do you want any changes made for people who bike or walk along the highway? When changes are made as traffic volume increases, who should be regarded as the most important users of the highway? Basic question -- what should this highway look like and feel like in the next 15 years? PLEASE ATTEND IF YOU'RE INTERESTED You may drop into the meeting at any time between 4 and 7 p.m.For more information you may call , consultant , Albemarle County Planning Dept. 296-5823 Sally Thomas, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, 295-1819 or sthomas~albemarle.org GE Fanuc Automation, a global leader in factory automation products and solutions, was launched in January 1987 as a joint venture between General Electric and FANUC Ltd. of Japan, with each parent company owning 50 percent of the joint venture. Both GE Fanuc's World and North American headquarters are located in Charlottesville. The company is represented in over 55 countries, with major operating subsidiaries in the Americas, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. GE Fanuc Automation designs, m~nufactures and sells products including industrial computers, software, and services required to integrate, manage and control manufacturing in applications ranging l~om single machines and individual manufacturing cells to complete production lines. In addition to the VPP award, GE Fanuc was recently named the first-place winner of Virginia Governor Gilmore's 1998 Environmental Excellence Award for Manufacturers. The awards are designed to encourage Virginia's industries to implement the state's pollution prevention policy and promote all aspects of excellent environmental stewardship. Over the past decade, GE Fanuc's quest for environmental excellence combined with innovative employee programs has led to a significant shffi in environmental performance. The company has shown impressive results including emission reductions of 89 percent and a 60 percent reduction in the generation of hazardous waste.