The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-04-032. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). Transportation Matters. A. Draft Statement for VDoT's Primary Road Plan Pr.e-allocation Headn.q in Culpeper. B. Discussion: Route 649 (Airport Road) Signal. C. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda. 9:30 a.m. - Overview of Future Water Supply Alternatives, Presentation by Lawrence Tropea, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. 10:00 a.m. - Update on SPCA. t0:10 a.m. - Update on Public Meeting Room Renovations. 10:20 a.m. - PUblic hearing on FY 2002 Budget Amendment. 10:30 a.m. - Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman. 10:45 a.m. - Virginia Workforce Council Briefing, TJPDC. 11:00 a.m. - Presentation: 2002 Citizen Survey, by Center for Survey Research~ 11:20 a.m. - Work Sessions: a. CPA-2001-03. Rivanna Village at'Glenmore. b. CPA-2002~01. Neighborhood Model Amendments to the Land Use Plan. Closed Session: Personnel Matter. Certify Closed Session. Appointments. 1:30 p.m. - $P-2001-061. Melamp¥ Shop (Si.~n #88). Public headng on a request to allow for fabrication of counter tops & cabinets, & for sales & installation of these products in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord. TM105, P8M, contains 2.0 acs. Loc on W sd of Buck Island Rd (Rt 729), approx 2 miles S of Rt 53. Znd PA. Scottsville Dist. SP-2001-067. Gould Farm Utility Building (Signs #85, 86). Public hearing on a request to allow for custom furniture shop in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord. TM34, P50, contains 75 acs. Loc on E sd of Helios Path, approx 1 mi S of Rt 641. Znd PA. Rivanna Dist. Sugar Hollow A,qricultural/Forestai District Addition. Public hearing on an Ordinance to Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code {}3-226, Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District, for the addition of two parcels. TM40, P12B1, contains 15.367 acs, & is loc on Rt 811, approx 0.3 mis W of its intersec w/Rt 810. TM40, P46C1, contains 9.93 acs, & is loc on Rt 811, approx I mi E of its intersec w/Rt 810. Znd PA. White Hall Dist. Cancel June 12, 2002 Board of Supervisors' meeting. _~_pproval of Minutes: September 27(A) and October 3, 2001: and January 16, 2002. From the'Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Adjourn. FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 Proclamation reco.qnizin~ April 2002 as Fair Housing Month. 6.2 Proclamation recognizing April 2002 as Child Abuse Prevention Month. 6.3 ZMA-2001-021. Carriage Gate (Sign #69) Indefinitely deferred by the Planning Commission (Remove from agenda). FOR INFORMATION: 6.4 _qppy of letter dated March 15, 2002 to Roger W. Ray, R~& Assoc., Inc., from John ~herd, Manager of Z.oning Administration, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS. Section f0.3.1 - Tax Map 8, P,~rcel t 5C~ of___Charles Pr¥ce Ancona,, 6.5 6.6 6.7 Copy of letter dated March 22, 2002 to J. Paig~Wi!liams, Feil, Pettit & Williams from John_ .Sheph_e. rd, Mana_~er of Zoning Administration, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS. Section 10.3.1, Ta~ Ma._M~55, Parce-~-s 84C~_84_.~D ~ 102, t03. 103F and Tax Map 55A, parce~ 39 (Property of Hidden Hills L.L.C.). .Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for March 5, 2002. Charlottesville_. VDoT Residency Monthly Report, April 2002 Return to Regular A~enda 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 1¸6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. .Consent Agenda (on next sheet). Transportation Matters. A. Draff_.~State__m~nt for~VDoT's Primary Road Ptpn Pre.-altocation_ ~pa_ _ring in Culpe. g~_~. B. Discussion: Route 649 (Airport Road) Signal. C. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda. 9:3~0 a.m. - Overviewof F, uture water Sup~_y Alternatives,. Pr~n :.--Lawrence.. TroDea., R van~ater and_Se, werAuth0rL~. 10:00 a.m. - Uodate on SPC~A. 10:10 a.m. - U.U.U_~te on Public Mee. fin,q Room Renovefions.. 10:20 a.m. - .Pu. blic .hearing on FY. 2002 Budget Amendment.. 10:30 a.m. - Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman. 10:45 a.m. - Virginia Workforce Council Briefing, TJPDC. 11:00 a.m. - Pre~.,e~tati0r~: 2002 Citizen Suwey. by Ce_nter for Survey Res~ ~1 ! :.20.a.-.m. - Work Sessions: a. CPA-2001-03.. Rivanga Vi!Iago at Glenmor_~e. b. CP.A-2002-01, Neic~hborhood Model Amendments to the Land Use Plan. Closed Session: Personnel Matter. Certify Closed Session. Appointments_._. 1:30 p.m. - SP-2001-06t, MelamDv Shod ¢$ien #88), Public hearing on a request to allow for fabrication of counter tops & cabinets, & for sales & installation of these products in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord. TM105, P8M, contains 2.0 acs. Loc on W sd of Buck Island Rd (Rt 729), approx 2 miles S of Rt 53. Znd PA. Scottsville Dist. ~ ~ Gould Farm Utility Buiidine (Sians #85, 86). Public hearing on a request to allow for custom furniture shop in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord. TM34, P50, contains 75 acs. Loc on E sd of Helios Path, approx I mi S of Rt 641. Znd PA. Rivanna Dist. ~W A,qriculturallForesta! District Addition. Public hearing on an Ordinance to Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code {}3-226, Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District, for the addition of two parcels. TM40, P12Bl., contains 15.367 acs, & is loc on Rt 811, approx 0.3 mis W of its intersec w/Rt 810. TM40, P46Cl, contains 9.93 acs, & is loc on Rt 811, approx 1 mi E of its intersec w/Rt 810. Znd PA. White Hall Dist. Cancel June 12, 2002 Board of Supervisors' meeting. _A[oprovat of Minutes: S__ _ppt. ember 27(A) and October 3, 2001; and Ja~0_2~ From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Adjourn. FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 6.2 6,3 proclamation reco.qnizin,q April 2002 as Fair Hgu.sing Month_____~ ~ reco~0~~0_0_~_as Child Abuse P..reven 'o~. ZMA-2001-021. Carriage Gate (Sign #69) Indefinitely deferred by the Planning Commission (Remove from agenda). FOR INFORMATION: 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 C_op¥ of letter.dated March 15, 2002 to Roge_r W. Ray ..Ro~er W. R__~ay & Assoc., ~ Sher)he nr~f Zonin~ Administration, re: OEE!ClAL D. ETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ~iND PARCELS- Sectiop fO.3.1. T Ma 8 Parcel t$C P ef Charles PrYce~Ancona).~ C.C.~op~ of letter dated March 22, 2002 to J. Pai~le Wil.lia~, Fell, Pettit & Williams from John Shepherd Manager of Zo. nin.qnAdministrati0n, re: OFFICIAL DETERMIN~TION____~ DEVEL.OPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS, se~0.3.1. Tax a 55 Parcels 84C 84 ~___E, t02. ~03~. ~03F and Tax. Map 55A, parcel 39 (P~o~ erty~of Hidden_ Hi~ C~o.p¥ of draft Planning Commission minutes for March 5 2002. Chartotte~ville VDoT Residency Monthl Re rt A ril 00 . ~etum to Re..~.u)ar~ ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 3, 2002 April 8, 2002 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION Call to order. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · Ms. Sue Friedman, representing the Thomas Jefferson United Way, presented a proclamation of appreciation to the Board for its assistance to the Department of Social Services. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. Ms. Thomas presented the following Certificates of Appreciation to: · Dennis S. Rooker for his service on the Planning Commission, Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, MPO Technical Committee, and MPO Meadow Creek Parkway Design Planning Advisory Committee. · Judith Hemdon for her efforts in promoting fair housing for County residents for the past 25 years. 6.1 Proclamation recognizing Apr~ 2002 as Fair Housing Month. ADOPTED. (See attachment A) 6.2 Proclamation recognizing APH! 2002 as Child Abuse Prevention Month. ADOPTED. (See attachment B) 6.3 ZMA-2001-021. Cardage Gate (Sign #69) Indefinitely deferred by the Planning Commission (Remove from agenda). REMOVED FROM AGENDA. 7. Transportation Matters. Draft Statement for VDoT's Primary Road Plan Pre- allocation Hearing in Culpeper. ASKED STAFF TO REVISE STATEMENT TO INCLUDE THEIR COMMENTS. B. Discussion: Route 649 (Airport Road) Signal. Mr. Bryan distr'~3uted packet of information for discussion. C. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda: Mr. Bryan ° Introduced Theresa Butler, Assistant Resident Engineer. Said emergency repairs were made to the damaged Rt. 606 bridge. · Said the Rt. 726 and Rt. 20 project is completed. Advised the Board that VDOT is planting seedlings today as part of the Rt. 250 West Restoration Project. Said the Rt. 643 underpass on Polo Grounds Road has a negligible accident history, but VDOT is looking at improving signage in that area. Board ° Mr. Rooker asked about traffic flow on Rt. 29N. Mr. Bryan ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Sally Thomas. BOS members present: Dorrier, Thomas, Perkins, Rocker, and Martin (Bowerman absent). Officers/staff: Tucker, Davis, and Benish. Clerk: Bentley. None (distributed during meeting). None (distributed during meeting). Plannin~l.. staff: Revise statement to include the Board's comments, bring back for approval. Clerk: Place on agenda for 4/10/02. said the lights are already synchronized. Mr, Martin said the signalization works very well once you f~:jure out how to time it. Mr. Bryan passed out information on VDOT's proposed new Rural Rustic Roads Program (which will replace the current "pave-in-place" program). Mr. Dorder asked about replacement of Carter's Bridge, Mr, Bryan said work should begin in Spring 2003. Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Bryan could provide an update on Sperry traff~: project. Mr. Bryan said not at this time, but he will keep the Board apprised of progress over time. Mr. Rooker asked if the stoplight at the Rt. 2g/Angus Rd. intersection is necessary since doesn't lead to a road. Mr. Bryan said VDOT continues to review its system of lights and that they will look into this. · Ms. Thomas said the Route 250 West Task Fome is not happy with its interaction wNDOT. She suggested that the Board might want to re-examine the committee's charge. 8. Overview of Future Water Supply Alternatives, Presentation by Lawrence Tropea, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. PRESENTATION MADE. 9. Update on SPCA. PRESENTATION MADE. 10. Upda[e on Public Meeting Room Renovations. PRESENTATION MADE. (Note: The Board asked that staff provide a cost analysis of Plan C without the "Smart Room" and the kitchenette, as well as the cost of constructing an entirely new space of 2,500 square feet. In addition, Ms. Thomas suggested staff meet with someone in the f~ld of television/electronics to discuss broadcasting Board meetings.) 11. Public hearing on FY 2002 Budget Amendment. ADOPTED budget amendment in the amount of $1,130,012.56. 12. Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman. PRESENTATION MADE. (Note: Mr. Koleszar said it would be helpful to meet with the Board sometime in the future to discuss DISC's impact on school construction, etc.) 13. Vi~gi,~ia Work~orce Council Briefing, TJPDC. PRESENTATION MADE. (Note: In response to a question from Ms. Thomas, Ms. Esser said she did not know how many workers were displaced when ConAgra closed down; she will share that info with the Board once she has it.) 14. Prese~i[a[ion: 2002 Citizen Survey, by Center for Survey Research (CSR). PRESENTATION MADE. 15. Work Sessions: (Held concurrently.) a. CPA-2001-03. Rivanna V'~lage at Glenmore. b. CPA-2002-01. Neighborhood Model Amendments to the Land Use Plan. CONSENSUS to hold public hearing, then another work session. 16. Closed Session: Personnel Matter. HELD. 17. Certify Closed Session. CEA¥1PIED. En~ineerirm: provide a cost analysis described in the paragraph to the left. Clerk: Forward signed appropriate forms to Melvin Breeden and appropriate individuals. Board members: Send comments to Planning staff. Clerk: Advertise public hearing for (date?) 18. Appoi~E~-~ents. APPOINTED the following: · William Edgerton to the MPO Meadow Creek Design Planning Advisory Committee, said term retroactive to 1/2/02 and no expiration date. - Rodney Thomas to the Chartottesville/Albemarle/U.Va. Planning & Coordination Council-Technical Committee, with said term retroactive to 1/6/99 and no expiration date. · William Reiley and William Edgerton to the Development Area Iniatives Steering Committee II, with said terms retroactive to 1/8/02 and no expiration date. ADVISED the Clerk that the Board will not fill Robert McGinnis' slot on the Historic Preservation Committee due to the number of committee members. 19. SP-2001-061. Melampy Shop (Sign ~8). APPROVED with the 5 conditions recommended by the PC. 20. SP-2001-067. Gould Farm Utility Building (Signs #85, 86). APPROVED with the 4 conditions recommended by the PC. 21. Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District Addition. APPROVED Ordinance (see Attachment D). 22. Cancel June 12, 2002 Board of Supervisors' meeting. MEETING CANCELLED. 24. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas Showed gifts received from the Italians. She described the County's gifts to them in retum. Said citizens may have to pay fees to use the Mclntire Road recycling center before long, and she would like to be involved in that discussion. Mr. Tucker said the County is already subsidizing the recycling center, but it is true that citizens may need to begin paying for the service just as they do for bus service. Mr. Tucker Asked whether the public bearing on the budget amendment needs to be held in the auditorium. Consensus was that meeting should be held in the auditorium. Mr~ Perkins · Asked if Board members could have one of the photos of the Board. 25. Adjoum at 2:50 p.m. Clerk: Notify appointees and update Boards and Commissions files. Clerk: List conditions on attachment C. Planning staff: Correct condition ~ typo so that sentence reads ~... shall be met, including...~ before sending notice to applicant. Clerk: List conditions on attachment C. Clerk: Send copies of recent photo to Board members. 3 Attachment A WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, FAIR HOUSING MONTH April, 2002, marks the thirty-fourth anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further hOusing choices for all Americans; and the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of the Federal government; and vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than Federal efforts; and WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the rights of all; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming APRIL, 2002 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law. Attachment B CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH VVHEREAS, the incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect have reached alarming proportions in the United States, where 8,993 children were substantiated victims of child abuse and neglect in Virginia during fiscal year 2000 - 2001; and WHEREAS, Virginia and the Charlottesville-Albemarle area face a continuing need to support innovative programs to prevent child abuse and assist parents family members when child abuse occurs; and WHEREAS, in Virginia and the Charlottesville-Albemarle area there are dedicated individuals and organizations who work daily to counter the problem of child abuse and neglect and to help parents obtain the assistance they need; and all children deserve freedom from verbal abuSe, sexual abuse, emotional and physical abuse and neglect; and WHEREAS, children deserve to have BLUE RIBBON DAYS, including loving hugs, warm homes, tender care, parents and adults who listen and who promote self-esteem, give quality time, provide necessary food, shelter, clothing and medical attention; and WHEREAS, it is vital that we join fomes to reach out to parents and children to prevent the recurrence of child abuse and neglect; and WHEREAS, it is indeed appropriate and fitting to focus attention upon the problem of child abuse and neglect in Virginia and the Charlottesville-Albemarle area; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month Of April 2002, as CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area, and do call upon our citizens to observe the month with appropriate programs, blue ribbons and other activities. Attachment C PLANNING CONDITIONS SP-2001-06t B.ennv MelamDv There shall be no on-site sales; There shall be no outdoor storage Of materials; All production or fabrication activity of products shall occur within the confines of the proposed 30 (thirty) feet by 60 (sixty) feet utility shed; All requirements of VDOT shall be met, including installing a 14-(fourteen) inch culvert and widening the entrance to 34 (thirty-four) feet; and, Ail solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. SIP-2001-067 GOuld Farm Utility Buildin,q There shall be no on-site sales; There shall be no outdoor storage of materials; All solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations; and, Ail production activity of custom-made furniture shall occur within the 30-(thirty) foot by 80- (eighty) foot workshop. Attachment D ORDINANCE NO. 02-3(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article il, Districts of Statewide Significance, Of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained aS follows: By amending: Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District ARTICLE !1. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 25, parcels 11C, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 18A, 18B, 21, 21A, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; tax map 26, parcels 5A, 9, 10, 10B, 10D, 10F, 11C, 11D, 12A, 13, 19, 40B, 40C, 41A, 52, 52D; tax map 27, parcels 8, 8E (part), 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 14, 15, 25, 25A; tax map 40, parcels 1, 9, 9C, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 12B1, 22, 22A, 27A, 46C1, 49. This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on October 6, 1999, shall next be reviewed prior to September 6, 2009. (11-17-93; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord 02-3(1), 1-9-02; Ord. 02-3(2), 4-3-02 ) 7 Success By 6 Presentation of Resolution of Appreciation Albemarle Board of Supervisors Talking Points "I am a volunteer member of the Leadership Council of United Way Success By 6, a local initiative to expand and enhance community efforts to help children enter school healthy and prepared to succeed. Over the past two years, the Success By 6 Insurance for Children Project has helped to enroll 1129 previously uninsured children from our region in Virginia's children's health insurance programs. Specifically, we have helped 422 Albemarle County children to receive health insurance coverage. However, regional estimates show another 2300 children still 'lack health insurance and are eligible for these programs. The Insurance for Children Project has been made possible by generous grants from Bank of America and the Virginia Health Care Foundation. The success of the project to date has been due to the tremendous support and hard work of our many community parmers. Because of this wonderful support, the Board of Directors of the United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area has passed a resolution of appreciation thanking the Albemarle Department of Social Services and the Albemarle County Schools. From the Department of Social Services, we'd particularly like to recognize the help of Kathy Ralston, Paul Vemot, Charity Haines and the Family Support and Bright Starts programs. The certificate for Schools was presented to the School Board. We did want you to be aware of the great help we've had from school staff, from administration to principals to nurses, guidance staff and social workers in all the schools. We would welcome any suggestions that you might have for new outreach strategies in the community. I have a copy of the resolution that I would like to leave with you. Again, thank you very much for all your help, and we look forward to continuing to work with you." BaCkground/Frequently asked questions 1. Virginia's children's health insurance programs are Medicaid and FAMIS, the Family Access to Medical Insurance Security program. 2. Annual income hmits for FAMIS: $23,880 for a family of two; $30,040 for a family of three; $36,200 for a family of four; $42,360 for a family of five, etc. o This year's General Assembly has maintained sufficient funding to continue to enroll more children, and passed several budget amendments to simplify the enrollment process for parents. Success By 6 plans to continue the project, and has partial funding from Bank of America through February 2004. The project has also been selected as a local partner for Virginia's statewide grant to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This four-year grant is currently pending. 5. If needed, just say: "I would be happy to have a staff person from Success By 6 get back to you with that information." L Jrt,ted Way Thomas ~epe~t app~eczbi, b~ to i~e~ffowz~ communz~pa~.i~e~.' ~-~oa~do/~),'~ec/o~% app~ooeafu~_a, imous¢' o~ ffa~uar~ 24, 2002 Cathyl~rnith Train, President United Way - Thomas Jefferson Area United Way Board of~Di~ Chair, Success By 6 On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and local government, I would like to honor and recognize for her efforts in promoting fair housing for Albemarle County residents for the past twenty-five years. Ms. Herndon developed a specialty in landlord/tenant issues and fair housing while on staff with the University of Virginia's Student Legal Services. Her commitment has extended to: · serving on the "Central Virginia Fair Housing Board; chairing the Board for two years; · serving on the SexualAssaultResourceAgeney (SARA)Board; · serving on the Regional Fair Housing Board; · teaching a series on Fair Housing to the Albemarle County HOMEBUYERS' Clubs; and · representing clients with discrimination and sexual harassment complaints that were referred by the County's Office of Housing, many on a pro bono basis. We as a community are strengthened and uplifted by those who step forward to volunteer their services in support of improving the quality of life of our residents. We offer our sincere appreciation for her dedication and recognize her for her interest and expertise in promoting fair housing in Albemarle County. Signed and sealed this 3~ day of ApriI, 2002. Sally H. Thomas, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FAIR HOUSING MONTH WHEREAS, April, 2002, marks the thirty-fourth anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of the Federal government; and WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than Federal efforts; and WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the rights of all; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming APRIL, 2002 FAIR HOUSING MONTH and encourages att agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair H~dsing law. Signed and Sealed this 3rd day of April, 2002. Sally H. Thomas, Chairman Albemarle Board of County Supervisors CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect have reached alarming proportions in the United States, where 8,993 children were substantiated victims of child abuse and neglect in Virginia during fiscal year 2000.2001; and Virginia and the Charlottesville-Albemarle area face a continuing need to support innovative programs to prevent child abuse and assist parents family members when child abuse occurs; and in Virginia and the Charlottesville.Albemarle area there are dedicated individuals and organizations who work daily to counter the problem of child abuse and neglect and to help parents obtain the assistance they need; and all children deserve freedom from verbal abuse, sexual abuse, emotional and physical abuse and neglect; and children deserve to have BLUE RIBBON DAYS, including loving hugs, warm homes, tender care, parents and adults who listen and who promote self. esteem, give quality time, provide necessary food, shelter, clothing and medical attention; and WHEREAS, it is vital that we join forces to reach out to parents and children to prevent the recurrence Of child abuse and neglect; and WHEREAS, it is indeed appropriate and fitting to focus attention upon the problem of child abuse and neglect in Virginia and the Charlottesville-Albemarle area; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behaff of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2002, as CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH in the Charlottesville. Albemarle area, and do call upon our citizens to observe the month with appropn'ate programs, blue ribbons and other activities. Signed and sealed this.3rd day of April 2002. SALLY H. THOMAS, CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS FAX (434) 972-4126 03-'t8-02A10:40 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012 March 15, 2002 Roger W. Ray Roger W. Ray & Assoc., Inc. 1717-1B Allied Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 8, Parcel 15C (Property of Charles Pryce Ancona) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Ray: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 8, Parcel 15C is comprised of two (2) separate parcels. The westerly parcel, containing approximately 17.5 acres has five (5) theoretical development rights. The easterly parcel, containing approximately 5.5 acres has two (2) development rig hts. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: Our records indicate Tax Map 8, Parcel 15C contains 23.01 acres and one dwelling. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1919, page 423. The most recent deeds for this parcel prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) are recorded in Deed Book 258, page 30 and Deed Book 389, page 363. Deed Book 257, page 509, dated August 21, 1943 conveyed an aggregate of some 291 acres from Lelia S. Miller to Eugene A. Maupin. The property included a 219.25 acre tract designated as Lot #2 on a plat made by M. M. Van Doren and recorded in Deed Book 182, page 12. The area of Lot #2 located on the southwest side of Free Union Road is the easterly portion of what is now identified as Parcel 15C. Deed Book 258, page 30, dated September 7, 1943 conveyed 24 5/10 acres from Bessie Dunn Miller and R. H. Miller to Eugene A. Maupin. The property was described as part of Lot #1, containing 146 16/100 acres shown on the plat made by M. M. Van Doren recorded in Deed Book 182, page 17. The 24 5/10 acre tract is shown on a plat I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\8-15C Ancona.doc Ancona Determination March 15, 2002 Page 2 by Hugh F. Simms attached to D.B. 258, p. 30. This is the portion of Lot #1 located on the southwest side of Free Union Road. This parcel is the easterly portion of what is now identified as Parcel 15C. It is determined that on the basis of Deed Book 258, page 30 this 24 5/10 acre tract is a lot of record per section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance. Deed Book 389, page 363, dated July 1, 1963 conveyed 408.1 acres from Eugene A. Maupin & Clara L. Maupin to J. Howard Staley & Johanna M. Staley. This property is shown on a plat by T. W. Saunders dated June 12, 13 & 14, 1963. This plat divides the property shown as Lot #2 on the plat byM. M. VanDoren along Free Union Road. The area of Lot #2 on the southwest side of Free Union Road is the easterly portion of what is now identified as Parcel 15C. It is determined that on the basis of Deed Book 389, page 363 the residue of Lot #2 is a lot of record per section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance. Deed Book 1065, page 698, dated August 2, 1989 conveyed .629 acres from Clara L. Maupin, Eugenia M. Herrell and Marjorie M. Paul, Executors and/or Trustees under the will of Eugene A. Maupin to the Commonwealth of Virginia. This was for improvements to Route 601. Deed Book 1079, page 94, dated October 18, 1989 conveyed three tracts from Eugenia M. Herrell and Marjorie M. Paul, Executors and/or Trustees under the will of Eugene A. Maupin to Eugenia M. Herrell and Marjorie M. Paul. One of the tracts was identified as Parcel One and was described as containing 24.5 acres. The description further references the deed and plat recorded in Deed Book 258, page 30. Reference to the residue of Lot #2 located on the southwest side of Free Union Road is omitted in error. Deed Book 1919, page 418 is a Deed of Correction dated May 1, 2000. It conveyed property described as four rather than three tracts from Eugenia M. Herrell and Marjode M. Paul, Executors and/or Trustees under the will of Eugene A. Maupin to Eugenia M. Herrell and Marjorie M. Paul. This corrected deed includes two tracts relevant to this determination; Parcel One and Parcel Four. Parcel One is described as containing 24.5 acres according to the plat by Hugh M. Simms recorded in Deed Book 258, page 31 LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of the aforesaid acreage lying northeast of State Route 601, conveyed, in Deed Book 389, page 363. This property is also referred to on Albemarle Tax Map 8 as Parcel 15C. h\DEPT~uilding & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\8-15C Ancona.doc Ancona Determination March 15, 2002 Page 3 Parcel Four is described as that portion of Lot #2 on the southwest side of State Route 601, as shown on a plat by'M. M. VanDoren recorded in D.B.182, p. 17. Deed Book 1919, page 423, dated May 5, 2000 conveyed two parcels of land from Eugenia M. Herrell and Marjorie M. Paul to Charles Pryce Ancona. The parcels were the same as those described above as Parcel One and Parcel Four, recorded in Deed Book 258, page 31 and Deed Book 389, page 363. Deed Book 2132, page 615 contains a plat by Roger Ray and Assoc., Inc. dated July 19, 2000. It shows Tax Map 8, Parcel 15C with 23.01 acres. The plat identifies the bo~Jncl;~ry between the parcel described in Deed Book 258, page 31 and the parcel identified in Deed Book 182, page 17. There have been no off-conveyances since the recordation of this deed. Based on this history, this property is determined to contain two separate parcels, each with a full compliment of development rights. The parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing-less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: Chades Pryce Ancona P.O. Box 237 Free Union, VA 22940 h\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\8-15C Ancona.doc Ancona Determination March 15, 2002 Page 4 laCarver, Real Estate Department Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\8-15C Ancona.doc FAX (434) 972-4126 03-25-02P01:20 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclnfire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 RCVD TTD (434) 972-4012 March 22,2002 J. Paige Williams Fell, Pettit & Williams. P. O. Box 2057 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 55, Parcels 84C, 84D, 84E, 102, 103, 103F and Tax Map 55A, Parcel 39 (Property of Hidden Hills L. L. C.) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Williams: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 55, Parcel 84C is a separate parcel with five theoretical development rights. Tax Map 55, Parcel 84D is a separate parcel with one theoretical development right. Tax Map 55, Parcel 84E is a separate parcel with five theoretical development rights. Tax Map 55, Parcel 102 is comprised of three separate parcels, each with a full compliment of theoretical development rights, depending on the acreage. Tax Map 55, Parcel 103 is a separate parcel with five theoretical development rights. Tax Map 55, Parcel 103F is a separate parcel with one theoretical development right. Tax Map 55A, Parcel 39 is a separate parcel that is zoned Village Residential, VR. It has no development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: Our records indicate Tax Map 55, Parcel 84C contains 10.040 acres and no dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1641 ,'page 077. The most recent deed for this parcel prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is recorded in Deed Book 484, page 326. Our records indicate Tax Map 55, Parcel 84D contains 2.000 acres and no dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1641, page 077. The most recent deed for this parcel prior to December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book 484, page 386. I:\DEP'RBuilding & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\55-83C etal Hidden Hills.doc Hidden Hills March 22, 2002 Page 2 Our records indicate Tax Map 55, Parcel 84E contains 83.440 acres and no dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1641, page 077. The most recent deed for this parcel prior to December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book 484, page 326. Our records indicate Tax Map 55, Parcel 102 contains 13.930 acres and no dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1641, page 077. The most recent deed for this parcel prior to December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book 484, page 326. Our records indicate Tax Map 55, Parcel 103 contains 22.800 acres and no dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1641, page 077. The most recent deed for this parcel prior to December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book 701, page 399. Our records indicate Tax Map 55, Parcel 103F contains 1.180 acres and no dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1641, page 077. The most recent deed for this parcel prior to December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book 620, page 120. Our records indicate Tax Map 55A, Parcel 39 contains 9.260 acres and no dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1641, page 77. This parcel is zoned Village Residential. Therefore, no development rights are associated with it. Deed Book 484, page 326, dated March 1, 1971 conveyed parcels I through 6, containing 177.398 acres from Christine Caplow & Theodore Caplow to William H. White, III & Virginia R. White. The parcels are described as follows: 1. 150 acres shown on a plat dated June 1927 by Hugh F. Simms attached to a deed recorded in D.B. 197, p. 430 except: (a) 3-3/4s acres shown on a plat by Hugh Sims dated February 1932 attached to a deed recorded in D.B. 215, p. 439 (b) 5 1/1.0 acres shown on a plat by Hugh Sims dated November 1941 attached to a deed recorded in D.B. 255, p. 537. (c) 0.48 ares described in a deed recorded in D.B. 315, p. 347. This is a portion of property shown on a plat recorded in D.B. 215, p. 440. h\DEP~Building & ZoninCDetermin of Parcel\55-83C etal Hidden Hills.doc Hidden Hills March 22, 2002 Page 3 (d) 2.2 acres shown on a plat by Thomas D. Blue dated September 6. 1968 attached to a deed recorded in D.B. 450, p. 650. The residue of this parcel is identified as Parcel 84E on the current tax map. On September 10, 1996 the Zoning Administrator determined this is a lot of record per section 10.3. 2. 10 acres shown on a plat by Hugh Simms dated November 1929 attached to a deed recorded in D.B. 209, p. 472. This parcel is identified as Parcel 84C on the current tax map. On September 10, 1996 the Zoning Administrator determined this is a lot of record per section 10.3. 3. 24.5 acres shown on a plat by Hugh Simms dated August 1947 attached to a deed recorded in D.B. 276, p. 9. This property is identified as T.M. 55A, P. 39 and T.M. 55, P. 102. On the basis of the August 1947 plat by Hugh Simms T.M. 55A, P. 39 is determined to be a separate parcel zoned VR, Village Residential and T.M. 55, P. 102 is determined to be three separate lots of record per section 10.3. The plat provides separate deed references for the parcels and shows the location with the same dashed lines used to identify adjacent parcels. A copy of the plat is attached to this determination. 4. 2.05 acres shown on a plat by Hugh Simms dated February 1942 attached to a deed recorded in D.B. 277, p. 74. 5. 0.378 acres shown on a plat by Thomas D. Blue dated September 25. 1968 attached to a deed recorded in D.B. 450, p. 73. This land was transferred from Parcel 103 to Parcel 102. 6. All that certain tract or parcel of land containing two 1 acre parcels. Parcel i is described by metes and bounds and is located on the east side of Buck Mountain Road. Parcel ii is described by metes and bounds and is located on the east side of Buck Mountain Road. Parcel "ii" is identified as Parcel 84D on the current tax map, On September 10, 1996 the Zoning Administrator determined this is a lot of record per section 10.3. Deed Book 562, page 214, dated September 18, 1974 conveyed 148.86 acres from H. B. Rea to William H. White, Ill & Virginia R. White. The parcel is described as ali that certain tract or parcel of land containing 148.86 acres and more particularly described as all of a certain tract of 161.7 acres shown on a plat by Hugh Simms dated January 1934 attached hereto save and except the following off-conveyances: I:\DEPT~Building 8' Zoning\Determin of Parcel\55-83C etal Hidden Hills.doc Hidden Hills March 23, 2002 Page 4 (1)10.4 acres conveyed on January 9, 1946 recorded in D. B. 266, p. 333. This property is designated as Parcels 104 and 104A on the current tax map. (2) 1.94 acres conveyed to the Commonwealth for improvement of Route 250 on March 20, 1945, recorded in D. B. 266, p. 545. (3) .5 acres conveyed on January 9, 1946, recorded in D. B. 266, p. 327 The existing residue of the 148.86 acres conveyed by this deed is shown on the current tax map as Parcel 83. Deed Book 608, page 100, dated October 5, 1976 conveyed 50.622 acres from Sanford Bradbury to William H. White, Ill & Virginia R. White. The parcel is described as being a portion of the 64.5 acres shown on a plat by T. W. Saunders dated March 31, 1955 and recorded in D.B. 315, p. 501 except for the portion conveyed on October 14, 1968 and recorded in D.B. 450, p. 71. This is now designated as Parcel 103 on Tax Map 55. Deed Book 620, page 120, contains a plat by William S. Roudabush dated January 25, 1977. It includes a 1.18 acre lot designated as Parcel Z. This lot is now shown on the Tax Map as Parcel 103F. The residue of Parcel 103 after this transaction was 61.15 acres. On the basis of this plat, Parcel 103F is a lot of record per section 10.3. Deed Book 701, page 399, contains a plat by William S. Roudabush revised on July 7, 1980 and approved on July 25, 1980. It includes a 1.00 acre lot designated as Parcel W. This lot is now shown on the Tax Map as Parcel 103G. The residue of Parcel 103 after this transaction was 60.15 acres. On the basis of this plat, Parcel 103 is a lot of record per section 10.3. Deed Book 802, page 395, dated June 6, 1984, conveyed 166.6 acres from William H. White, III & Virginia R. White to Fred S. Landes and Dennis W. Good, Jr., Trustees under Trust Agreement dated June 8, 1984. The property is shown on a plat by R. ©. Snow and R. W. Ray dated May 7, 1984. The plat exchanged land between Parcels 83, 84 and 103 on T.M. 55. The deed noted that the party of the second part shall have one of the division rights associated with Parcel 103 and the parties of the first part shall retain the remainder of the division rights. However, the plat, approved by the County carried the note, "No division rights to be affected by this plat." It is determined that the portion of Parcel 103 that was a lot of record on December 10, 1980 retained all of its' five theoretical development rights. h\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\55-83C etal Hidden Hills.doc Hidden Hills March 22, 2002 Page 5 Deed Book 1236, page 72, dated June 12, 1992,conveyed 12.22 acres, a portion of T.M. 55-84, from William H. White, Ill & Virginia R. White to T.M. 55-83, the property of Fred S. Landes and Dennis W. Good, Jr., Trustees of the Piedmont Virginia Land Trust. The parcel is described as containing 12.22 acres and is shown as Parcel Y on a plat by Roger Ray dated May 12, 1992. No development rights were transferred with Parcel Y This parcel is a portion of the property conveyed by the deed recorded in D. B. 484, p. 326. Deed Book 1236, page 80, dated June 12, 1992,conveyed 13.43 acres, a portion of T.M. 55-84, from William H. White, III & Virginia R. White to T.M. 55-82A, the property of B. Alan Ross & Ruth S. Ross. The parcel is described as containing 13.43 acres and is shown as Parcel X on a plat by Roger Ray dated May 12, 1992. The plat also conveyed Parcel Y, containing 12.22 acres from T.M. 55-84 to T.M. 55-83. No development rights were transferred with Parcel X. This parcel is a portion of the property conveyed by the deed recorded in D. B. 484, p. 326. As a result of this transaction and the conveyance described in D.B. 1236, p. ?2, the residue of T.M. 55-84 contained 125.16+/- acres and five development rights. Deed Book 1555, page 115, dated August 1, 1996, conveyed 3.83 acres from William H. White, II! & Virginia R. White to Ray W. Wyant & Frances N. Wyant. The 3.83 acre parcel is shown on a plat by Roger Ray dated July 17, 1996. The plat showed a survey of Parcel X, a portion of T.M. 55A-40 containing 0.45 acres being added to T.M. 55A-39. The plat also showed a survey of Parcel Y, a portion of T.M. 55A-39, containing 2.22 acres being added to T.M. 55A-40. As a result of this transaction, T.M. 55A-39 contained 9.23 acres. These parcels were a part of the property conveyed by the deed recorded in D. B. 484, p. 326. There are no development rights associated with these parcels because they are zoned Village Residential. Deed Book 1565, page 122, dated September 18, 1996, conveyed 36.595 acres in the aggregate from William H. White, III & Virginia R. White to William H. White, III & Stephen Moss White, Trustees of the Virginia R. White Revocable Declaration of Trust. The property described in Schedule A that was attached to the deed included the following parcels: A portion of Tax Map 55A, Parcel 39 containing 9.23 acres that is shown on a plat by Roger Ray dated July 17, 1996 and recorded in D. B. 1555, p. 115; Tax Map 55, Parcel 103 containing 26.185 acres; and Tax Map 55, Parcel 103F containing 1.18 acres. k\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\55-83C etal Hidden Hills.doc Hidden Hills March 22, 2002 Page 6 The portion of Tax Map 55A, Parcel 39 conveyed herein is a portion of two parcels conveyed by the deed recorded in Deed Book 484, page 326. Tax Map 55, Parcels 103 and 103 F are a portion of the property conveyed by the deed recorded in Deed Book 608, page 100. This deed has no effect on the boundaries or development rights of the referenced parcels. Deed Book 1624, page 730, dated June 24, 1997, conveyed a one half undivided interest in and to the real estate described on the attached Shedule A from William H. White, Ill & Stephen Moss White, Trustees of the Virginia R. White Revocable Declaration of Trust to William H. White. The property described in Schedule A contained 36.595 acres and was the same property conveyed by deed dated September 18, 1996 and recorded in Deed Book 1565, page 122. Deed Book 1641, page 87, dated August 25, 1997, conveyed percentage interests in property described in Schedule A from William H. White, Ill, married & William FI. White, III & Stephen Moss White, Trustees of the Virginia R. White Revocable Declaration of Trust to S. Daley Craig. Jr., & DOrothy D. Craig and David F. Riddick & Lucy C. Riddick and Fred S. Landess & Dennis W. Good, Jr. Trustees under the June 8, 1984 Trust Agreement. The property is described in Schedule A as follows: All that certain tract or parcel containing 20 acres in the aggregate consisting of an 18.90 acre tract designated Parcel Y and a 1.1 acres tract designated T.M. 55A-2 on a plat by Roger Ray titled "Plat Showing 142.65 Acres And Parcels X, Y & Z. Parcel X, Boundary Overlap Parcel Y, A Portion of T.M. 55-84 Being Added To & Combined With T.M. 55A-2 Parcel Z, A Portion Of T.M. 55-84 & 103 Being Added To And Combined With T.M. 55-83. The plat is dated July 29, 1997 and is recorded with this deed. The property conveyed with this deed is a portion of the 113.16 acre tract and all of what was a 2 acre tract, designated as T.M. 55-84 and T.M. 55A-2, conveyed by the deed recorded in Deed Book 484, page 326. The description states that there is no intention by this deed or plat to combine existing parcels of land. As a result of this transaction, the residue of Parcel 84E and 103 each retained five development rights. This is in spite of the fact that the plat notes Parcel 103 only has four development rights on the basis of D.B. 802, p. 395. It is determined that this parcel has five development rights. I:',DEP%Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\55-83C etal Hidden Hills.doc Hidden Hills March 22, 2002 Page 7 Deed Book 1641, page 97, dated August 25, 1997, conveyed 14.60 acres from William H. White, III, married, and William H. White III and Stephen Moss White, Trustees of the Virginia R. White Revocable Declaration of Trust to Fred S. Landess & Dennis W. Good, Jr., Trustees. The parcel is described as containing 14.60 acres designated Parcel Z on a plat by Roger Ray dated July 29, 1997. The property is the aggregation and a portion of the properties identified as T.M. 55-103 conveyed in D.B. 1565, p. 122 and T.M. 55-84 conveyed in D.B. 484, P. 326. This property is not conveyed as a separate parcel of land but shall become a part of the grantee' other land, shown on T.M. 55-83. This transaction had no effect on the boundaries or development rights of the referenced parcels. There have been no off-conveyances since the recordation of this deed. Based on this history, this property is determined to consist of seven (7) parcels identified on the tax maps plus two (2) additional parcels within the bounds of Parcel 102. Each of these parcels has a full compliment of theoretical development rights depending on the acreage. The parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if ali other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights may only be utilized within the bounds of the original parcels with which they are associated. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, the parcel may create as many smaller parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres as it has land to make. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $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, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration h\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\55-83C etal Hidden Hills.doc Hidden Hills March 22, 2002 Page 8 Copies: Hidden Hills, LLC P. O. Box 5509 Charlottesville, VA 22905 Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files I:\DEPT~Building & Zonidg\Determin of Parcel\55-83C etal Hidden Hills.doc This is a plat of 24 5/10 acres of land situated lu the vicinity of Hillsboro in Albemarle County, Virginia, sold by Mrs. D. D. Mac- Gregor uo Wo G. Fitzgerald and is bounded as follows: Beginning in center Bu~ Mountain Road opposite an iron corner to R. ~. Yancey, Est. thence with his line N 82 E A62 ft. to an iron S 18 1/2 E ll8 ft. to an iron thence with Mrs. D. D. MacGregor N 77 1/4 E 350 ft. to a point in.center Branch ~ 86 1/2 E 566 ft. to post corner W. B. Wiley, thence with his line N 7& 1/4 E A07 ft. to sn iron 737 ft. from center line old Charlottesville ~ S~aunton T. ?. ~hence with W. G. Fitzgerald N 12 1/2 W 352 ft. uo cherry tree thence ~ith John Battle S 75 3/4 W 82 ft. to cen~er Branch ~nd up ~he same N ~9 ~/~ W 340 ft. & ~ 46 1/2 W 35~ ft. ma~ing in all up ~he branch 69~ ft. ~o a point opposite an ash S 8 3/4 W 5~ ft. S ?3 1/4 W 3~2 ft. to a post and N 15 1/2 W ~12 f~. to zn iron corner Whitney B. and Myrtle L. Smith thence with their line N $8 W 252 ft. to a stone thence still with Smith, St. Lukes Lodge Lot S 2 W 115 ft. to a s~one, thence with Thomas Harris S 13 1/2 W 367 ft. ~o an iron and S ~7 3/4 W 244 ft. to the center Buck Mountain Road opposite an iron themce along the road S 9 1/2 W 100 ft., S 3/4 W 100 ft., S 8 g 172 ft. making a total along Buck Mountain Road of 372 ft. to the beginning. August, 1947. Hugh F. Sln~as ~ Son, C. L. Surveyors VIRGINIA, IN TBE CLF_~'S OFFICE OF ALBE~RLE CIRCUIT COURT, SEPT52~BER 29, 19&7. This deed was presented to me in said office and with certificate annexed admitted to rebord at lO:15 A. M. & $3.30 Stamp Affixed & Plat Attached. Teste: Clerk. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Discussion of recommended priorities to be submitted to VDOT at its 2002 Primary Road Plan Pro-Allocation Public Hearing In Culpeper STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2002 ACTION: × CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes ~ BACKGROUND: On April 16, 2002, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will conduct its annual pro-allocation hearing in Culpeper for improvements to the interstate and primary system for the Culpeper District. All roads with route numbers below 600 aro primary roads (i.e. Route 29, Route 250). DISCUSSION: The Six Year Primary Plan process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that a specific amount of funds aro set aside for secondary road projects in the County, whereas funds for primary road projects aro allocated for each construction district, and all primary projects proposed within localities of the district compete for these funds. The Culpeper district includes Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Madison, Orange, and Rappahanock Counties. The purpose of this review process by the Board of Supervisors is to recommend which County projects to include in the Primary Plan for the District. Attachment A is a draft of the County's improvement priorities for the primary system. The deletions will have a strikethrough and the additions wil be underlined. RECOMMENDATIONS: For discussion and endorsement. If necessary, staff will modify the priorities based on the Board's comments and can provide a final draft for the Board's review and endorsement at the April 10, 2002 Board meeting. 03_2~/_02A10: 19 RCVD 02.042 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION*J ~.'r.t .tTTTT ~]' x"'l ~'t .... April 16, 2002 PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT RECOMMENDED ALBEM/IRLE COUNTY PRIORITIES ir_,.. , 7 ',nn , ~ ~..,. 16, 2002 The following addresses Albemarle County's priorities for each allocation of TEA-21 and each sub- allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Standard Projects: The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not act asidc. The County supports these projects as referenced. 1) Undertake those Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Study-CHART (adopted May 24, 2001) projects eligible for the primary program in the sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City, County and University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to Route 29 improvements already completed or currently planned, construct Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's highest priority project after the Route 29 improvements, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. The Parkway should be developed as follows: A) The first phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's secondary program. This project :" ....... e, t-, ....... has been approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) as a low speed parkway in the City of Charlottesville and the Coun .............................. }, ....... , The Court asks that this section be des ed and built in accord with the County's design and alignment recommendations developed with the assistance of an independent consultant, endorsed by resolution of the County Board of Supervisors on June 20, 2001 (Attachment A) and approved by the CTB on December 18, 2001. This endorsed design and alignment emphasizes the parkway corridor's potential as a linear park and its relationship to the development of adjacent urban land. The linear park concept is intended to replace McIntire Park land lost due to the project and, at the same time, link McIntire Park to the Rivarma Foundation trails along Meadow Creek and the County's urbanizing area along Rio Road. B) Planning and design of the second phase of Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North is being funded in VDOT's Six Year Secondary Road Plan for the county. County staff is working closely with VDOT staff to get the design process underway. However, it is not possible to construct this project within a reasonable timeframe solely with secondary funding due to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for completion of other important secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. The Commonwealth Transportation Board previously decided to eliminate funding of the Route 29 interchanges in the primary plan. If funding of the interchanges is not going to be re-established in the plan, the County believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate construction of subsequent phases as a primary road, provided it will accelerate the Parkway's completion. For the tcr~h eleventh consecutive year the County urges VDOT to investigate all possible funding sources, particularly primary road funds, to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally important roadway. Other projects listed in CHART in the northem study area also should must be actively pursued and completed. These projects include improvements to Route 29 and associated new roadways north of the South Fork Rivanna River, the Airport Road improvements and the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector. Funding was dropped for the Route 29 improvements and these improvements along with other transportation system improvements as identified by the County in its Comprehensive Plan (Attachment B) are imperative to this area. Also, the County supports re-establishing funding for design and construction of the Route 29 interchanges at Hydraulic Rd., Greenbrier Dr. and Rio Rd., with consideration for alternative design concepts not previously considered. 2) Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South from 1-64 to Mill Creek Dr. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements. This is a curvy section of road in the County's Urban Area that serves the traffic from Monticello High School and has ..... *~' ........ .~ experienced several accidents with fatalities in recent years. While this has ' ~.:~,~m. project lower on the County's previously ............ ~ been a priority list, its priority has greatly increased due to these rcccnt events. 3) The County has followed the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study recommendations were forwarded to the CTB in 1996 with the County's endorsement. The recommendations emphasized use of an access management approach in lieu of a limited access road design. Regarding the Corridor Study: A) The County feels that it is imperative that access management be the design basis for the third phase of the Route 29 widening project from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Airport/Proffit Road intersection. Last year, the County ........... .~ approved amendments to its Comprehensive Plan regarding the transportation system in this area that reflect this principle. The County requests that Route 29 improvements in this area incorporate the County's Comprehensive Plan transportation system recommendations which emphasize a more complete urban roadway system serving this emerging urban community (Attachment B). B) The County appreciates efforts that have been made in the Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study process to receive public input. Again, the County does not support a limited access design for the Albemarle County section of the corridor. Last year, the County ........ .~ prowded VDOT and CTB a resolution regarding this study which repeats the access management recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study (Attachment C). 4) The County supports the fimding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it be seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations identified in the Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study and being considered in the Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study. 5) Undertake road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will relieve traffic on Route 29 by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects include the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector and the Comprehensive Plan urban roadway system recommendations between the South Fork Rivarma River and Airport Road/Proffit Road that should could be built in conjunction with the ant:.c~patcd Route 29 improvement project. The Comprehensive Plan transportation system recommendations envision future development to be served by a transportation network that provides a complete system of urban streets and supports walking and biking and comprehensively links all land use in this area. 6) There are three areas of emphasis the County requests be addressed on Route 250: A) Improve W~dcn Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is covered by the joint Ivy Road Design Study conducted by the City, County and University of Virginia and originally recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood/Universi _ty Heights (Area B) Study. Recent announcement by the University of Virginia regarding a new basketball arena and parking facilities in this area will likely create additional traffic demands on Ivy Road. Any plans for the improvement of this section of Route 250 West need to be coordinated between the City, County and University. B) The remaining portion of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) was studied by VDOT with a local advisory committee to determine long term needs for this road. The Board of Supervisors has rejected the study recommendations and, instead, recommends maintaining the present two-lane configuration of the corridor with any short term or spot improvements being as non-intrusive and consistent as possible with the special character of this scenic by-way. C) VDOT has completed a similar study of Rt. 250 East from Free Bridge to the Fluvanna County line. This study's findings have been presented to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors awaits the f'mal study recommendations from VDOT. 7) 8) 9) Undertake improvements of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The County supports the recommendations identified by the Fontaine Avenue Task Force. Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250 East to Elks Dr./Fontana Dr. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements. Recognize that mass transit can relieve traffic congestion and is an alternative to road construction, particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and shift funds from road construction into mass transit to accomplish this. Safety Improvements: Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order: 1) Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full road widening/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for pedestrian walkw/ays: 1) Route 20 North from Route 250 East to Wilton Farm Apartments and Darden Towe Park; 2) Route 240 in "downtown" Crozet; 3) Route 20 South from the City line to Mill Creek Drive; 4) along Route 250 East in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks; and 5) along Route 250 West from the City limits to the Bypass. 2) Of these, the walkways along Route 20 North are the most important improvement. Pedestrian travel along this road has increased significantly with the development in that area. Furthermore, Wilton Farms Apartments are now served by public bus service which travels along Route 20 North and a walkway would provide additional pedestrian access to this service. There is great concern with the safety of walking along this segment of road as currently constructed. The County also has placed a high priority on pedestrian improvements in the Crozet area. The County has chosen Crozet as the first community to be master planned based on the County's adopted Neighborhood Model. The County submitted a TEA -21 Enhancement application in 2002 for downtown Crozet which included; relocation and burial of overhead utility wires, construction of historically compatible sidewalk~, and installation of period street lighting, benches, and other streetscapes and road cross section improvements. The County urges the approval and funding of this very essential Enhancement Grant request. Reconfigure installation of traffic signals at Route 22 and Route 250 intersection. 4 3) Improvements to Route 250 West along the corridor in Ivy to address existing and short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this area. Of particular concern is the Tillman Road intersection (Route 676), which serves industrial truck traffic and has poor sight distance. These improvements should be undertaken in accordance with recommendations approved by the Board of Supervisors in the Route 250 West Corridor Study. 4) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet. 5) Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and 231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic created by large trucks along these road segments, and encourages VDOT to consider all appropriate measures to ensure that trucks travel safely along these roadways in the future. VDOT is considering undertaking an origin-destination study regarding tmck traffic on these routes as requested by the County. Restriction of through track traffic is still considered by the County to be potentially the most effective measure. Enhancement Projects: Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order: 1) Pedestrian streetscape improvements in downtown Crozet. These streetscape improvements, which were included in an Enhancement Grant submitted in January 2002, include the relocation and burial of overhead utility wires, and construction of historically compatible sidewalks. 2) Construction of pedestrian walkways along Route 20 North. 3) Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) and Airport Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport - landscaping, signage, placement of overhead utilities underground, etc. 4) Completion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation access project at Monticello. 5) Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991). 6) Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system. 7) Beautification of streets in Scottsville through the Scottsville Streetscape project. 8) Removal of non-conforming billboards. National Highway System (NHS) The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved the NHS, which includes the existing Route 29, and the Route 29 Bypass. The County's highest priority project in the proposed NHS is the completion of the widening of Route 29 North from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road. The County continues to monitor the progress and recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Studies, which are part of the NHS (additional information is provided under Standard Projects #3). Congestion Mitigation and Air QualiW Improvement Program This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. 6 Attachment A A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, the proposed corridor for the Meadow Creek Parkway consists of appmximatet, y two miles in length, with the first segment being within the Charlottesville City limits between Route 250 and Melboume Road, and the second segment in Albemarle County between Melbourne Road and Rio Road; and WHEREAS, in September, 2000, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors contracted with Jones & Jones Architects and Landscape Architects to develop design and alignment. recommendations for the second segment of the Meadow Creek Parkway, to consider the parkway corridor for its potential as a linear park and to look at adjacent park and urban development areas along the corridor of land between Melbourne Road and Rio Road in Albemarle County, with the overall vision being the creation of a true "parkway"; and WHEREAS, Jones & Jones led and coordinated a design team that worked in conjunction with the Albemarle County Engineering and Planning Departments and the Planning Commission. The culmination of this process was the creation of a written report providing three alternative alignments with Alternative "A" being the recommended alignment. Alternative "A" was then further refined and final recommendations for the parkway, urban development and parklands was presented to the Board of Supervisors on June 6, 2001; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that having reviewed all the alternatives and aspects of the proposed project, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, hereby endorses AJtemative "A" and requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to proceed expeditiously with the design of the Meadow Creek Parkway, from Melbeume Road to Rio Road, in conformance with the proposed Alternative "A" roadway alignment recommendation and concept set out in the "Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report - May, 2001". I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, V','ginia, by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 20, 2001. Clerk, Board of County Supe...r.~'ors Attachment B Attachment J CPA-2000-05, Transportation Improvements - Hollwnead Recommended improvements along the Route 29 Corridor:. · Road design and alignment improvements to Route 29 should be in keeping with the emerging community consisting of a mix of residential neighborhoods, and commercial and employment centers. Improvements related to upgrading Route 29 shall be consistent with an overall network of interconnecting roads that balance the need to sewe both the local and regional transportation demands. · Parallel or adjunct roads east and w~st of Route 29 should be designed and located in a manner consistent with other land use and transportation recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. · Any system of parallel roads to augment Route 29 should be constructed as an urban cross- section design (curb/gutter) with sidewalks and bike lanes. This creates a system of roads more in keeping with a neighborhood street system and more consistent with the character of the adjacent neighborhoods. · Recommendations for road design/classification for the parallel roads are taken from the Albemarle County Neighborhood Model as recommended by the Development Area Initiatives Study Committee (DISC) Report. Road design should be an "Avenue/Residential Blvd," or ~Neighborhood Street' design on the eastem parallel road from Polo Grounds Road to Hollymead Drive; a =Main Street' design on the eastern parallel road from the cemetery to Proffit Road; a 'Boulevard' or"Main Street~ design on the western parallel, mad system transifioning to "Avenue/Residential Boulevard" or "Main Street' south .to Hollymead Drive extended. · The eastern parallel road system should extend to Polo Grounds Road (Route 643). · The southern end of any westem parallel road system' should terminate at a connection with Holtymead Drive Extended. · Hollymead Drive and 'l'imbentvo<xt Parkway should be designed with grade-separated crossings of Route 29, without ramps, to connect with the road system on the western side of Route 29 and accommodate east-west vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movements with the appropriate facilities. · Provide a grade-separated crossing without ramps at Airport Road to accommodate east- west vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movements with the appropriate facilities. · Based on development pattems east of Route 29, provide grade separated bicyde/pedestrian overpasses/underpasses to accommodate east-west movement. · East-west connecting roads should be curb/gutter design with sidewalks/bike laneS and the design should be "Avenue/Residential Boulevard" or "Main Street~ design. · In the long term, consider establishing an east-west connection from Route 29 to Earlysville Road (Route 743) as recommended in the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) by extending Hollymead Drive to Eaflysville Road. This road location and design should be coordinated with the relocation of Dickerson Road (Route 606). · Intermediate accesses, without crossovers to Route 29 should be provided on the east and west sides between Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood Boulevard and on the west side between Hollymead Ddve and Timberwood Drive. · Stop the northern end of the eastern parallel road at Hollymead Drive and access undeveloped land north of Hollymead directly from Route 29, without a crossover. This will avoid significant impact to existing homes in Hollymead. · Proffit Road (Route 649) should be constructed with a "Neighborhood Street" design from Worth Crossing to Lanford Hills Drive, including sidewalks and bike lanes. The section from Route 29 to Worth Crossing should be designed in a manner necessary to accommodate transition to the ultimate improvements to Route 29 and Airport Road. A major upgrade of Proffit Road east of Lanford Hills to Route 20 is not recommended; however, minimal spot safety improvements may be appropriate in certain locations. Attachment C RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Route 29 Corridor Development Study, Combined Phases Il and Iil, (State Project No. 6029-963-F01, PE100, From 1-64 To: North Carolina State line) encompasses the counties of Amherst, Nelson, Albemarle, Pittsylvania and Campbell; and WHEREAS, over the past two yearn the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has held public workshops and received citizen input and comments regarding vadous concepts developed by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., consultants for this study; and WHEREAS, representatives from the County of Albemarle had an opportunity to review and discuss the Study with VDOT with the consultant and VDOT consultants; and WHEREAS, in a resolution dated February 14, 2001, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors provided comments and/or recommendations regarding the Study; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, hereby endorses the following comments regarding the Route 29 Corridor Development project: The area along the Route 29 South Corridor is not in the County's Development area. Data developed by the consultant and verified by the County does not project significant development in this area of the County through the study period. Therefore, the County does not believe controlled access through elimination of all individual access points and an extensive system of service roads and signalized intersections should be assumed as necessary for Albemarle County. The County does support the coordination of land use planning and transportation system planning through specifically incorporating the access management recommendation of the Phase I Corridor Study into the planning for the Route 29 South Corddor in Albemarle and throughout the study area. Specifically, this recommendation states, "An Access Management Plan (AMP) should be developed for the corddor in conjunction with the local judsdiddon who would then be resp6nsible for its implementation. The AMP should address modifications to land use as well as physical improvements to US Route 29 and the development of other roadways. The AMP should recognize the local options and needs vary in the study corridor." Albemarle County believes that access management planning is a logical and viable recommendation for the Route 29 corridor south of Charlottesville. Through proper planning that balances land use and transportation priorities in the particular sections of the corridor in the County, appropriate access management measures can be identified and pursued. The County suggests the Commonwealth Transportation Board encourage VDOT and local governments to facilitate donated and purchased consen/ation easements as a means to access management and to ensure that the capacity of lhe corridor is not impacted by potential entrances from by-dght subdivisions. Use the "Parkway" design cross-section in Albemarle County, without service roads and limited access which should not be used in Albemarle County. Under no scenado should the "Freeway" design concept be used in Albemarle County. FudhenT~re, it is not anticipated that signalization of interseclions will be necessay in Albemarle County, but in no case is resewation for intad3axjes at any Albemarle County intersections necessary, it is anticipated that certain intersections in Ablernarle County will need upgrades for safety reasons. · Remove the term "to extent practical "from any Comprehen~e Plan references in the guidelines for developing alternatives. The County strongly supports the "Non Location-Specific or Corridor-Wide Transportation Recommendations" outlined in the Study Summary Recommendations. Support one additional AMTRAK b'aln per day along entire corridor as well as new Trans,-Dominion Express sen/ice between Charlottesville and Lynchburg. Albemarle County does not support localities subsidizing this service. Make sure that ref~ to the Trans. Dominion Express reflect Indude a park and dde facility at the interseclion of Routes 29 and 6 in the list of recommended facilities. This would mptace the current informal parking that is occurring at this location. Emphasize that transit and pedestrian improvements need to be coordinated and connected to make these aitema'dves successful in the corridor. Include transit with ride-share for intemet match systems. '1, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing .writing is a true, correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the. Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of 6 - 0 on Februa~ 7, 2001. Clerk, Board f~upervisors RAY D. PETHTEL NTERIM COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 ORANGE ROAD CULPEPER, VA 22701 VIRGINIA RECEIVED 2002 ~ of Albemarle ROBERT H. CONNOCK, JR., P.E. ACTING DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR March 18, 2002 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Albemarle County Executive 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Tucker: The Commonwealth Transportation Board's Regional Financial Planning and Programming Meeting for Culpever Di.qtriet will he. held cm TUeeday. April 16. 2002, The meeting will c9mmence at 10:00 a.m. in the VDOT District Auditorium located at 1601 Orange Road in Culpeper. Signs at the roadway entranc'e will direct you to the parking area in "the pines" and to the most direct access to the auditorium. This year, more than ever, your feedback is critical. Because of the economic downturn, it is necessary to downsize the current transportation program, which includes over 1,400 projects. It is anticipated that many projects now in the Six Year Improvement Plan, also known as the Virginia Transportation Development Plan, might be delayed or eliminated. You can help the CTB develop priorities for Interstate, Urban, Primary roads and public transit projects. Tough decisions will have to be made on which transportation projects to move forward. Prior to your comments, Virginia Department of Transportation staff will outline the current financial circumstances and General Assembly actions. Secretary of Transportation, Whittington W. Clement, members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), and Interim Commissioner Ray Pethtel welcome your participation and encourage, you to be present for this briefing. it is important for participants who plan to speak to register upon their arrival. The speaking order begins with General Assembly members, followed by the counties of Orange, Rappahannock, Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Madison, with towns/cities falling under the appropriate county. Speaking time will be limited, but arrangements will be made for persons with limited time to record their comments in a separate room. If you are unable to attend the meeting, we will accept written comments which are received no later than April 26, 2002. Sincerely, R. H. Connock, Jr., P.E. Acting District Administrator TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Route 606-649 Intersection Background: In Fall 2001, the Route 606 Relocation was completed and the new intersection was opened to traffic. Shortly thereafter, we received numerous complaints concerning site distance as well as delays on turn lane movement from Route 649 onto Route 606. This prompted an on-site review of the intersection to determine if improvements were necessary. As a result, traffic control devices and lane markings were modified to further enhance the intersection. Functionality: Traffic Engineering conducted a warrant analysis, of which two of eleven warrants relating to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices were satisfied. These results led us to conduct a capacity analysis. A highway capacity analysis was performed based on the peak volume counts to determine the lane capacities. The attached diagrams illustrate the volume levels and remaining capacity levels at the peak hour times of the day. This analysis shows acceptable levels of service at every approach and at all peak level times. Traffic signals should be used only where lesser forms of control have proven ineffective, since signals usually create more "overall intersection delay." We will continue to monitor the connection as needed to maintain a safe and functional intersection. Stewardship: Traffic signal installation at this location will cost approximately $81,000. Ad date for Airport Road improvements are scheduled for December 2003; therefore, any funds expended to install a traffic signal will be essentially lost. Safety: Since the opening of the relocated Route 606, there have been no reported accidents at this intersection. The four-stop and other improvements have not been given adequate time period to assess effectiveness as an interim traffic control. In conclusion, our goal is to provide a safe and functional intersection while being fiscally responsible with public funds. Prepared by: Teresa Butler Charlottesville Residency RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Date: /-'//'~/g '~/ - AL..O TM AIEI..E. / / / ,/ ,I O¢¢EWOOO T¢NTAf V¢ OAf¢5 ANO PUNOIN6 A??ROV?P R/W ?PAN5 APV?ETI§¢M?NT ¢0K 60N§¢RUGTION 6ONeTRUGflON 60N§TEUGTION TOTAp 605T CE?V. ?UN~IN¢ ~Y 2002-05 ¢Y 2005-0~ ¢Y 200~-05 ROUTE 649-AIRPORT ROt~ ?EOd?bf 06~9-002-1~b~6501 TO EOUT¢ 606 NOTe:THC R~bOOAT¢¢ INT~EO~OTION O? EOUT~ 649/606 16 6HI~T~¢ Ae?E?X. 250' NO~TH. 5¢?T. 2001 OeO, 2003 MAEOH 2004 OUbY 2005 ~10.9 ~4.5 MIb ~0.7 ~1.7 ~2.9 ~1.3 ~'-bAN¢. ¢IVIP¢.O ¢AOIblTY WITH GUI(? ~ OUTTOR., DIKe PAN.CS:, ANO 61O,¢WAP~ AOK¢6 N NOI' TO 5C, Ab.,¢ ?XIgTINO January 29, 2002 . LBEMARLE CHARL Close · Convenient · Connected Mr. James L. Bryan Resident Engineer Charlottesville District Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 FEB 0 t 2002 RESIDeNcY' OFFICE OHAP'LoTTESViLLE V/~ Dear Mr. Bryan: On behalf of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Airport Commission, I respectfully submit the enclosed resolution made by the Commission at its January 14, 2002 meeting concerning the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of State Routes 606, 649 and Bowen Loop in Albemarle County. The Commission strongly endorses installation of this vital and necessary equipment to enhance safety of all vehicles utilizing this intersection and urges VDOT to act in an expeditious fashion to remedy the unsafe and perilous situation posed by the current 4-wav stop system. Your prompt action to protect the citizens of this region as well as our visitors arriving through the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport will be greatly appreciated. Chairman, Joint Airpor D.M.D. harlottesville-Albemarle Commission Pc: Michael R. Matthews, Jr., P.E., Chairman, Airport Authority Board Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Vice-Chairman, Airport Authority Board Gary B. O'Connell, City of Charlottesville Representatix}e. Airport Authority Board Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Airport Commission Members Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Bryan Elliott, Executive Director Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Author:tv 100 Bowen Loop, Suite 200 · Charlottesville, VA 22911 ° 434-973-8342 ° Fax 434-974-7476 · www. qocno.com COMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA RAY D. PETHTEL INTERIM COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22911 February 12, 2002 Dr. Leo Mallek, Chairman Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Airport Commission 100 Bowen Loop Road, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22911 JAMES L BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Route 649/606 Intersection Albemarle County Dear Dr. Mallek: Thank you for your letter dated January 29, 2002, in which you requested the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Routes 606 and 649. We share your concern about safety at this site and we firmly believe it is the overriding consideration. In December of 2001 the Department conducted a traffic study of the intersection of Routes 606 and 649. The review of the traffic data revealed that two of the eleven warrants for a traffic signal were met (Warrant #9 Four-Hour Volume and Warrant #11 Peak Hour Volume). However, the satisfaction of a warrant or warrants is not in itself justification for a signal. In this case, the data reflects a daily intersection traffic count of 8861 which is very moderate. Also, the impending reconstruction of this intersection will necessitate the dismantling of any existing signals. Installing a $100,000 traffic signal only to dismantle it a year and a half later would not be financially prudent. However, we will continue to monitor this area and if conditions change, we will reconsider the decision to not install the signal. In the meantime, we believe that as local drivers get used to the 4-way stop, they will negotiate this intersection with improved confidence and that traffic will flow more smoothly. If there are any additional questions or concerns, please advise. Sincerely, JLB/smk cc: David Bowerman, Bryan Elliott, Steve Black James L. Bryan TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21sT CENTURY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM CULPEPER DISTRICT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SECTION TO: Mr. James Bryan FROM: Steve Black Culpeper, Virginia December 21,2001 SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Study-Intersection Route 606(Dickerson Rd.)/ Route 649 (Airport Rd.) and Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Entrance Albemarle County This is in response to our recent conversations and Chuck Proctor's e-mail of December 6, 2001 concerning traffic conditions at the intersection of Route 606(Dickerson Rd.) and Route 649(Airport Rd.) in Albemarle County. When we last talked we were discussing the possibility of installing a temporary traffic signal at this location, in lieu of the existing 4-way stop installed on November 27, 2001. As a result an engineering investigation was conducted at the intersection to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. The study consisted of traffic turning movement data and on-site observations. This intersection ~s presently governed by All Way/Four-way Stop sign control. Sight distance for motorists on the Route 649 westbound approach to the intersection is restricted by grade and by roadside guardrail on the southeast comer. Traffic counts were obtained on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 to monitor and record the approach traffic volumes on the main street and on the side streets. A comparison of the existing traffic with the guidelines contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices indicates that Warrant # 9-Four Hour Warrant and Warrant # 11-Peak Hour were satisfied. After carefully assessing all of the data and reviewing the intersection in the field I believe we should not install a traffic signal at this time. Following are my reasons for this conclusion: 1. It is not clear-cut that the traffic signal is needed based upon intersecting volume. Only two out' of five possible traffic volume related MUTCD guidelines are satisfied. 2. An interim traffic s~gnal will cost approximately $90.000 to install. The Route 649(Airport Rd.) approach is due to be reconstructed and relocated in approximately 3 years. The funds spent to install a traffic signal will be essentially lost. 3. The four-way stop has not been given an adequate time period to assess its effectiveness as an ~nterim traffic control measure. One initiative we can make in the short-term that I believe will improve existing intersection operanon is to modify the pavement markings on the westbound Airport Rd. approach. The centerline needs to be moved over approximately 10 ft. to the right Presently large trucks cannot negotiate the left turn from southbound Route 606(Dickerson Rd.) to eastbound Airport Rd~ By moving the location of the centerline we can greatly increase the probability that larger vehicles will be able to make the mm. We intend to make this change as soon as possible after January 3, 2002. Please notify your contact at the airport that we will be making this change that is critically important to traffic flow and safety. Page 2 If I can provide any further assistance or clarification on this matter, please let me know. Also, let me know if the proposed pavement marking change meets with your approval. PC: Mr. Bob Connock Mr. Bob Gibson Mr. Chuck Proctor Ms. Anne Hagan Mr. Paul Balderson Attachments Wl Stephen Black District Traffic Engineer RESULTS OF EVALUATION: WARRANT 1 NOT SATISFIED ( 4 WARRANT 2 NOT SATISFIED ( 0 WARRANT 3 NOT APPLICABLE ( 0 WARRANT 4 NOT APPLICABLE WARRANT 5 NOT APPLICABLE WARRANT 6 - NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 7 - NOT APPLICABLE WARRANT 8 - NOT SATISFIED PART 1 FOR ( 10 HOURS) PART 2 FOR ( 4 HOURS) PART 3 FOR ( 0 HOURS) WARRANT 9 SATISFIED ( 12 WARRANT 10 - HOURS ) HOURS) HOURS HOURS) PART 1 - DELAY TO BE DETERMINED BY TRAFFIC ENGINEER PART 2 - SATISFIED PART 3 - SATISFIED WARRANT I1 - SATISFIED PRESS ANY KEY FOR MENU > ROUTE 606 @ ROUTE 649" (with rights) Rou~ 649 in Albemarle County @ Route 606 Eastbound HOUR QUARTER HOUR HOUR OF DAY 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL 12 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 AM 0 0 0 0 0 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 6 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7 AM 0 0 0 19 19 8 AM 0 0 0 44 44 9 AM 0 0 0 57 57 10 AM 0 0 0 79 79 11 AM 0 0 0 95 95 12 PM 0 0 0 86 86 1 PM 0 0 0 88 88 2 PM 0 0 0 98 98 3 PM 0 0 0 69 69 4 PM 0 0 0 95 95 5 PM 0 0 0 78 78 6 PM 0 0 0 77 77 7 PM 0 0 0 0 0 8 PM 0 0 0 0 0 9 PM 0 0 0 0 0 10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 11 PM 0 0 0 0 0 EACH * REPRESENTS 4 VEHICLES A DASH MEANS HOUR VOLUME < 2 TOTAL VOLUME IS 885 VEHICLES. PEAK HOURS: MORNING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 95 BEGINS AT 98 BEGINS AT DATA COLLECTION BEGAN AT 7 :OOAM ON TUESDAY, 11:00 AM (11%) 2:45 PM (11%) NOVEMBER 27, 2001. Rou~ 649 in Albemarle CoUnty @ Route 606 WestboUnd HOUR QUARTER HOUR HOUR OF DAY 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL 12 A_M 0 0 0 0 0 1 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 AM 0 0 0 0 0 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 6 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7 AM 0 0 0 269 269 8 AM 0 0 0 275 275 9 AM 0 0 0 261 261 10 AM 0 0 0 270 270 ll AM 0 0 0 296 296 12 PM 0 0 0 40.2 402 1 PM 0 0 0 368 368 2 PM 0 0 0 301 301 3 PM 0 0 0 309 309 4 PM 0 0 0 336 336 5 PM 0 0 0 319 319 6 PM 0 0 0 208 208 7 PM 0 0 0 0 0 8 PM 0 0 0 0 0 9 PM 0 0 0 0 0 10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 il PM 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL VOLUME IS 3,614 VEHICLES. PEAK HOURS: MORNING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 296 BEGINS AT 402 BEGINS AT DATA COLLECTION BEGAN AT 7:00AM ON TUESDAY, EACH * REPRESENTS 14 VEHICLES A DASH MEANS HOUR VOLUME < 7 11:00 AM ( 8 %) 12:00 PM (11%) NOVEMBER 27, 2001. k Rou~ 606 in Albemarle County @ Route 649 Nortbound HOUR OF DAY 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM i1 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM QUARTER HOUR HOUR 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 355 355 0 0 0 336 336 0 0 0 242 242 0 0 0 182 182 0 0 0 185 185 0 0 0 197 197 0 0 0 177 177 0 0 0 209 209 0 0 0 212 212 0 0 0 303 303 0 0 0 260 260 0 0 0 170 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EACH * REPRESENTS 13 VEHICLES A DASH MEANS HOUR VOLUME < 7 TOTAL VOLUME IS 2,828 VEHICLES. PEAK HOURS: MORNING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 355 BEGINS AT 303 BEGINS AT DATA COLLECTION BEGAN AT 7:00AM ON TUESDAY, 7:45 AM ( 13 %) 4:45 PM ( tl %) NOVEMBER 27, 2001. Rou'~ 606 in Albemarle County @ Route 649 · Southbound HOUR QUARTER HOUR HOUR OF DAY ist 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL 12 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 AM 0 0 0 0 0 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 6 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7 AM 0 0 0 104 104 8 AM 0 0 0 112 112 9 AM 0 0 0 58 58 10 AM 0 0 0 90 90 11 AM 0 0 0 106 106 12 PM 0 0 0 148 148 1 PM 0 0 0 99 99 2 PM 0 0 0 98 98 3 PM 0 0 0 118 118 4 PM 0 0 0 204 204 5 PM 0 0 0 263 263 6 PM 0 0 0 134 134 7 PM 0 0 0 0 0 8 PM 0 0 0 0 0 9 PM 0 0 0 0 0 10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 11 PM 0 0 0 0 0 EACH * REPRESENTS 9 VEHICLES A DASH MEANS HOUR VOLUME < 5 TOTAL VOLUME IS 1,534 VEHICLES. PEAK HOURS: MORNING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 112 BEGINS AT 263 BEGINS AT DATA COLLECTION BEGAN AT 7:00AM ON TUESDAY, 8:45 AM ( 7 %) 5:45 PM ( 17 %) NOVEMBER 27, 2001. Rouu~ 606 in Albemarle County @ Route 649 (Airport' Road) Traffic Signal Analysis HOUR OF DAY 12 AM 0 ZERO 0 1 AM 0 ZERO 0 2 AM 0 ZERO 0 3 AM 0 ZERO 0 4 AM 0 ZERO 0 5 AM 0 ZERO 0 6 AM 0 ZERO 0 7 AM 459 North 77 8 AM 448 North 75 9 AM 300 North 81 10 AM 272 North 67 11 AM 291 North 64 12 PM 345 North 57 1 PM 276 North 64 2 PM 307 North 68 3 PM 330 North 64 4 PM 507 North 60 5 PM 523 South 50 6 PM 304 North 56 7 PM 0 ZERO 0 8 PM 0 ZERO 0 9 PM 0 ZERO 0 10 PM 0 ZERO 0 11 PM 0 ZERO 0 **** MAIN STREET **** TOTAL PEAK BIAS VOLUME DIRECTN PRCNT TOTAL INTERSECTION VOLUME IS 8,861 MAIN STREET TOTAL VOLUME IS 4,362 NorthBOUND APPROACH IS 2,828 SouthBOUND APPROACH IS 1,534 ( 65 %) ( 35 %) SIDE STREET TOTAL VOLUME IS 4,499 EastBOUND APPROACH IS 885 ( 20 %) WestBOUND APPROACH IS 3,614. ( 80 %) REPORT PRODUCED WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28 , TOTAL VOLUME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 319 318 349 391 488 456' 399 378 431 397 285 0 0 0 0 0 COUNTS TAKEN ON %J3ESDAY. , NOVEMBER 27, 2001. 2001. SIDE STREET **** PEAK PEAK DIRECTN VOLUME ZERO 0 ZERO 0 ZERO 0 ZERO 0 ZERO 0 ZERO 0 ZERO 0 West 269 West 275 West 261 West 270 West 296 ~ West 402 West 368 West 301 West 309 West 336 West 319 Wesn 208 ZERO 0 ZERO 0 ZERO 0 ZERO 0 ZERO 0 INTER- SECTION VOLUME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 747 767 618 621 682 833 732 706 708 938 920 589 0 0 0 0 0 INTRODUCTION Rou~ 606 in Albemarle County ~ @ k~ute 649 (Airport Road) TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ,EVALUATION This review is based on the methodology presented in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 1978, as amended by the Federal Highway Administration. Please refer to part 4C of that manual. The intersection under study has the following characteristics: The 85th percentile speed on the main street is [ 45 ] MPH. Existing traffic control is MULTI-WAY STOP. Daily traffic volume of [8,8~1i was counted on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2001. Estimated annual traffic volume is [3,234,265] vehicles. 1. INTERSECTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES The Installation of a traffic signal may be necessary to control an intersection with large volumes of conflictina traffzc. The required traffic volumes must be present for at l~asn 8 hours of an average weekday. The minimum volumes vary according to the number of lanes on the intersectzng stree£s, the speed of traffic on the main street, and the community size. Number of hours required traffzc present = 4 Warrant 1 is NOT SATISFIED. 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC On major streets with high traffic volume, it may be necessary to use traffic signal connrol to provide an adequane number of gaps in traffic no allow vehicles to enter from a side street. The application of this warrann is identical to that of warrant 1 above. ' Number of hours required traffic presenn = Warrant 2 is NOT SATISFIED. 3. CROSSING PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC This warrant is similar to warrant 2, but is intended no identify locations where additional gaps are needed to provide safe pedes- trian crossing of a major street. A signal installed solely for pedestrians should use a fully actuated connroller and, if mn a signal system, be coordinated with that system. A signal in- stalled only under this warrant shall include pedestrian signals. When installed at a midblock location, additional restrictions may apply (See secmion 4C-5). Number of hours required traffic present = Warrant 3 is NOT APPLICABLE. 4. SCHOOL CROSSING An established school crossing may require signal protection if an engineering study reveals that there is less than one gap per minuEe du~ing the period of crossing usage. The restrictions on signals znstalled under this warrant are similar to those of warrant 3. WARRANT 4 IS NOT APPLICABLE. 5. SIGNAL PROGRESSION A traffic signal may occasionally be used to maintain vehicle grouping in a coordinated system. Such a signal should not be within 1,000 FT of adjacent signalized intersect-ions in the sysEem. Warrant 5 is NOT APPLICABLE. 6. ACCIDENT PREVENTION Many traffic signals are installed on the premise of reducing accidents; however, it must be recognized that signals may actually increase some types of accidents. The result is often contrary to the intended goal. Four conditions must be met before a signal is installed solely to reduce accidents: % (1) There has been five or more accidents of types preventable by traffic signals in the last 12 months; (2) at least one volume requiremenn of warrant 8 muse be satisfied; (3) traffic progression disrupted, and would not be seriously (4) less restrictive solutions have been tried and enforced with unsatisfactory results. A signal installed solely under this warrant should be traffic actuated. Total number of accidents = 0 Number of preventable accidents = 0 Accident rate is 0 per million vehicles Number of warrant 8 volume requirements met = Parts 1 and 2 are NOT SATISFIED. 7. TRAFFIC SYSTEM OPERATION Traffic signal control may be used to encourage concentration and organization of vehicles on the major street network. Such a signal may be installed at the intersecnion of two major routes as defined by section 4C-9 of the MUTCD, with a total volume of 800 vehicles during the typical peak weekday hour or for five (5) weekend hours. ' Warrant 7 is NOT APPLICABLE. 8. COMBINATION OF WARRANTS In exceptional cases, signal control may be justified where no single warrant is satisfied, but where at least two of warrants 1, 2, or 3 are men when the required volumes are reduced to 80% of normal. Adequate trial of other measures ~hich cause less delay and znconvenience must be tried and enforced first. Number of warrants satisfied at the 80% level = 1 Volume requirements' for warrant 8 are NOT SATISFIED. 9. FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT This warrant was approved as an amendment to the MUTCD on December 31, 1984. This warrant is similar to warrann 1, except than the required traffic volumes must be present for at least four hours of an average weekday. The traffic volumes required are based on curves (Figures 4-3 & 4-4) shown in the MUTCD. Warrann 9 is SATISFIED. 10. PEAK HOUR DELAY This warran5 was approved as an amendment to the MUTCD on December 31, 1984. This warrant is intended for application where traffic conditions will cause undue delay to traffic entering or crossing the main streen. The peak hour delay warrann is satisfied when the following conditions exist for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day: (1 (2 {3 The notal delay by the traffic on a side stree5 connrolled by a stop sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; the volume on the side streen 100 VPH for one moving lane 150 VPH for two moving lanes; equals or exceeds of nraffic and the total traffic equals or exceeds wluh four (or more) three approaches. volume serviced during 1 hour 800 VPH for an intersecnion approaches or 650 VPH for Warrant Parn 1 Delay to be determined by traffic engineer Pare 2 - SATISFIED ' Part 3 SATISFIED 1!. PEAK HOUR VOLUME This warran5 was approved as an amendment to the MUTCD on December 31, 1984. This warrant applies to traffic entering from the minor street which encounters undue delay crossing the main street. This warrant is satisfied When ~he main street and side street traffic volumes satisfy the curves (Figures 4-5 and 4-6) shown in the MUTCD. Warrann 11 IS SATISFIED. TABLE 1 TWENTY-FOUR HOUR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC EVALUATION WARRANTS 1,2 AND 8 HOUR MAIN ST. SIDE ST. WARRANT WARRANT OF DAY VOLUME VOLUME 1 2 12 AM 0 0 1 AM 0 0 2 AM 0 0 3 AN 0 0 4 AM 0 0 5 AM 0 0 6 AM 0 0 7 AM 459 269 BOTH SIDE 8 AM 448 275 BOTH SIDE 9 AM 300 261 SIDE SIDE 10 AM 272 270 SIDE SIDE 11 AM 291 296 SIDE SIDE 12 PM 345 402 SIDE SIDE 1 PM 276 368 SIDE SIDE 2 PM 307 301 SIDE SIDE 3 PM 330 309 SIDE SIDE 4 PM 507 336 BOTH SIDE 5 PM 523 319 BOTH SIDE 6 PM 304 208 SIDE SIDE 7 PM 0 0 8 PM 0 0 9 PM 0 0 10 PM 0 0 !1 PM 0 0 WARRANT 8 PART 1 PART 2 BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH SIDE SIDE SIDE BOTH SIDE BOTH SIDE SIDE SIDE BOTH SIDE BOTH SIDE BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH SIDE REQUIRED VOLUMES: MAIN STREET 350 525 280 420 SIDE STREET 105 53 84 42 NOTE: SIDE STREET VOLUMES SHOWN ARE FOR EACH HOUR'S PEAK APPROACH. CULPEPER DISTRICT - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SECTION Page 1 12 HOUR DIRECTIONAL TURNING MOVEMENT (with rights) LOCATION: Route 606 S Rte. 649 {Airport Area) Date 11/27/01 Speed - 45 MPH COUNTY: Albemarle County NODE: ~110041 Accidents: 0/0 ~ ~': EASTBOUND WESTBOIIND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOIIND Vehicle Ped ~+~7 Route: 649 Route: 649 Route: 606 Route: 606 TOTAL Total .......~o~7~OAM 0 ~ 2, oi, 8~ ~0 so, o, ~5~ 3~1011 o: ~3~~ ~ 5! oi. ~0 ~.7~ o ' : ~ 0' 64 468 1 ll00-1200PM 3 58 341 0l 95 199 47 501 01 296 28 30 1271 Ol 105 46 41 191 0: 106 682 0 2 49 35~ O~ 86~ 272 76 54: Si 402 30 40 127: 1: 197 73 55 20: ~ 148 833 , ! ! , ~oo-~oo~ ~ ~o ~*! o~ ~ =~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ =~ oi ~** ~ ~, .~. oI ~ ,~ o 300-400PM 3 41 25[ 0I, 69 172 62 7511 o~, ,I ,I I o~' 90 456~ 0 ! ! 114 482 0 [ ¢ ~, i,: oi~ 117 37 61 9~, o:: 107 421 0 APPROACH 25 557 303 885 2220 606 788 ....... 3632 209 627 19 2 2828 600 757 177 5 1534 Pod ~¥~ .~:~ Total 11/28/01 Route 606 and Route 649 Volume and Capacity Diagram Route 606 Rt, Thru Volume: 64 Rt, Thru Capacity: 314 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh): 9.0 Left Volume: 47 Left Capacity: 297 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh): 9.3 Route 649 Volume: 275 Capacity 525 veh / hr Level of Service: B Delay (sec / veh): 11.1 Airport Entrance Volume: 44 Capacity 294 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh): 8.7 Route 606 Left, Thru Volume: 138 Left, Thru Capacity: 388 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh): 9.8 Right Volume: 198 Right Capacity: 448 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh) 9.5 [] Remaining Capacity Available [] Capacity Used Prepared by M. C. Grimes VDOT Charlottesville Residency, 4/2/02 Route 606 and Route 649 Volume and Capacity Diagram Route 606 Rt, Tlma Volume: 75 Rt, Thru Capacity: 325 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh): 9.6 I~fi Volume: 73 Left Capacity: 323 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh): 10.2 Route 649 Volume: 402 Capacity 652 veh / hr Level of Service: C Delay (sec / veh): 15.0 Airport Entrance Volume: 86 Capacity 336 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh): 9.0 Route 606 Left, Thru Volume: 70 Left, Thru Capacity: 320 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec /veh): 9.8 Right Volume: 127 Right Capacity: 377 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh) 9.6 [] Remaining Capacity Available [] Capacity Used Prepared by M, C. Grimes VDOT Charlottes-¼11e Residency, 4/2/02 Route 606 and Route 649 Volume and Capacity Diagram Route 606 Rt, Ttum Volume: 127 Rt, Thru Capacity: 377 veh / hr Level of Service: B Delay (sec / veh): 10.3 Left Volume: 77 Left Capacity: 327 veh / hr Level of Service: B Delay (sec / veh): 10.0 Route 649 Volume: 335 Capacity 585 veh / hr Level of Service: B Delay (sec / veh): 13.2 Airport Entrance Volume: 95 Capacity 345 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh): 9.2 Route 606 Left, Tlwd Volume: 64 Left, Thru Capacity: 314 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh): 9.6 Right Volume: 139 Right Capacity: 389 veh / hr Level of Service: A Delay (sec / veh) 9.6 [] Remaining Capacity Available [] Capacity Used Prepared by M.C. Grimes VDOT Charlottesville Residency, 4/2/02 Regional Signal Contract (Salem Region) Proj. No. TSO1-967-907-000 ,Location Specific Estimated Quanties TSO1-967-907-000 Item No. Description 24272 TRUCK MNTD ATTENUATOR 24281 ELECTRONIC ARROW 24282 FLAGGER SERVICE 51168 ELECT SERVICE SE-3 51180 TS HEAD SECT 12" STD 51245 CONC FOUND CF-1 51250 CONC FOUND PF-5 51425 SIG POLE, MP-1 TY I single 51426 MAST ARM 50' 51607 14/7 CONDUCTOR CABLE 51614 # 8 COND CABLE (bond wire) 51614 COND.CABLE (COAXIAL) 51614 COND CABLE 16/3 (power) 51614 8/1 CONDUCTOR CABLE 52002 CONTROLLER TYPE III (Culp) 52002 EMER PREEMPT TY II 52002 HGR ASM SM-3 (in line) 1 way 52002 MODEM 52002 T.S.HEAD SECT 12" LED GREEN 52002 T.S.HEAD SECT 12" LED RED 56006 JUNCTION BOX JB-3 A,B, or C 56010 56026 56030 56106 56200 59050 59050 JUNCTION BOX JB-5 A,B, or C 1 1/4" METAL CONDUIT 2" CONDUIT JACKED 6" PIPE TRENCH EXCAV. ECl-1 CAMERA (MAST ARM) Video Detection Type II Contingencies Culp Dist Line No. Location: Rts 649 & 606, Albemarle County QuantiW Unit 'Unit Price E~ension 50 HR $ 18.50 $ 925.00 50 HR $ 5.75 $ 287.50 50 HR $ 22.35 $ 1,117.50 1EA $ 553.00 $ 553.00 8 EA $ 118.00 $ 944.00 1EA $ 928.00 $ 928.00 2 CY $ 510.00 $ 1,020.00 2 EA $ 3,306.00 $ 6,612.00 2 E^ $ 1,756.00 $ 3,512.00 1000 LF $ 1.31 $ 1,310.00 100 LF $ 1.02 $ 102.00 500 LF $ 2.31 $ 1,155.00 500 LF $ 1.18 $ 590.00 100 LF $ 1.02 $ 102.00 1EA $ 10,383.00 $ 10,383.00 1EA $ 4,987.00 $ 4,987.00 8 EA $ 157.00 $ 1,256.00 1EA $ 263.00 $ 263.00 8 EA $ 316.00 $ 2,528.00 8 EA $ 214.00 $ 1,712.00 2 EA $ 588.00 $ 1,176.00 1EA $ 763.00 $ 763.00 30 LF $ 8.88 $ 266.40 300 LF $ 2.53 $ 759.00 100 LF $ 29.50 $ 2,950.00 50 LF $ 4.00 $ 200.00 4 LF $ 2,746.00 $ 10,984.00 1EA $ 15,389.00 $ 15,389.00 Subtotal $ 72,774.40 $ 7,277.44 3/29/02 2 A.Hagan (quant907.xls) Page 1 Regional Signal Contract (Salem Region) Proj. No. TSO1-967-907-000 ,~ A.Hagan (quant907.xls) GRAND TOTAL Round to 80,051.84 $81 ,ooo.oo I 3/29/02 Page 2 MONTHLY REPORT APRIL 2002 · Mission · Essential Tasks Assessment · Construction & Maintenance · Planning & Traffic Engineering · Budget and Issues Mission The VDOT Charlottesville Residency builds and maintains roads, provides transportation expertise and regulatory authority and facilitates traffic engineering issues for Albemarle and Greene Counties in ways that are: focused on public safety fiscally and environmentally responsible supportive of alternative transportation means supportive of neighborhood and regional development ESSENTIAL TASKS TASK MAINTAIN SECONDARY & PRIMARY ROADS ASSESSMENT (see legend below) REMARA~S o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim, signs, patrols o ROADWAY: grade, pave, patch o EMERGENCY OPS o REPAIR & BUILD BRIDGES o MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT - Gravel roads machined, stone added, install pipes, shoulder repair; mow behind guardrails/trim brush - Pothole patching, cold mix - Repair bridge Rt 606, install posts 618, seal beams Route 722 - PMs completed; snow removal equip clean up Legend: ¢ ~,~'~: 90-100% Excellent : 80-90% Good, room for improvement ~;: ~: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards 3 ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) TASK ASSESSMENT (see legend below) 2. MANAGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM o PE Activities REMARKS Secondary 6YP reviewed; Awaiting new budget from Central Office o Project Construction Legend: ( ~:~: 90-100% Excellent 80-90% Good~ room for improvement ~ ~: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards Plant mix schedule to begin mid April 4 ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) Task Assessment (See legend below) CONDUCT PLANNING ACTIVITIES Remarks o Issue and review permits o Review site plans and rezoning request o Conduct studies and advise 32 land use permits issued 22 site plans reviewed & comments provided 5 developments in planning stages 4 traffic studies under review o Inspect and monitor subdivisions 4 subdivision plan reviews Legend: 90-100% Excellent : 80-90% Good, room for improvement R~:<~: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards ESSENTIAL TASKS ,(continued) TASK 4. FACILITATE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT (see legend below) o Request and advise on signals & signs o Request and advise on studies & data o Assist with design REMARKS 11 Traffic issues reviewed 6 Traffic issues under review Legend: ~ ~>~,~,~: 90-100% Excellent 80-90% Good, room for improvement ~&,~: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards 6 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING April 2002 Albemarle County Six Year Plan Project Status Primary Projects PPM 12¢D Scop- Field Field Route S Contact PmjectNumber Description ing Survey Review' P.H. Insp. R/W Adv. Comments 20 15996 BAA 0020-002-126,PE101 BridgeReplacement-Calters Bridge ~~ ~~ ~~ 12-02 20 17619 BAA 0020-002-127,PE101 PVCC to Monticello H.S.Entrance No Ad. Date -Waitingforfunding Saved $270,000 20 '52494 BAA 0020-002-128,PE101 Tumlanesatlnt. Rte. 726-Scottsville ~~~~~~~ProjectCompleted-StateForces 53 18897 BAA 0053-002-101,B601 Bridge Replacement- Buck lsland Creek Y4)2 6-02 2-03 10-03 12-03 250 50569 DWS 0250-002-114,115,C501Bridge Rep[-Carroll&Limestone Ck. ~~~~ 2-02 1-03 No ad date set 29 16160 JAG 6029-002-F22,P El 01 Rte. 29 Western Bypass ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Waiting for Funding PREI IMINARY ENGINEERING April 2002 Albemarle County Six-Year Plan Project Status Secondary Projects PPM L&D Street Name/ Field Field Route S Designer ProjectNumber Description Scoping Survey Review P.H. tnspect. R/W Adv. Comments ......... Afl'port Road , 649 2456 SLM 0649-002-158,C501 4-lanes ',,,*/sidewalks &bike lanes ~~~~~~ ~ 12-03 Jarman Gap Rd 691 11129 DWS 0691-002-158,C501 2-lanes w/bike lanes & sidewalk ~~~ 8-02 4-03 3-04 8-05 Mchtire Rd. Ext. New Alignment Culpeper District designing project;splitting 631 2530 BAA 0631-002-128,C 502 MeadowCreek P arkwas ~~~~~ 6-04 northern part Free State Rd. Connector Waithag for resolution from Couuty B.O.S. -- 52393 J%q-I R000~002-259,C501 Construct 2 lanes on 4-lane R/W ~ ? ? ? ? ? ? Sched. witlchange pending donated R/W Gravel Roads Linds ay R d. Rte. 639 to Lo uis a Co. Line C o ns truckle a to be g. 4-02 615 54422 061S-O02-P64,N501 WidenandPave ~ N/A N/A N/A N/A ~ t0-01 OravelRoadProject Mountain Vista Rd. Route6to 1.2Mi. E. Rte.6 737 54425 - 0737-002-P 68,N501 Widen, pa ve & repla ce bridge N/A N/A N/A N/A 12-02 Gravel Re ad P reject Secretary's Road , R/Whet available on 2 parcels 708 l I 130 0708-002-P 77,N501 3-02 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6-02 1-03 Gravel Re ad P r0ject 8 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Field Field Route PPMS ii, signer Project Descr~tion Scope Survey Review P3t. hsp. R/W ,adv. Comments Bacon HollowRoad 627 51022 RDL 06274)39-195,C501 Fr. Rte, 615 to Rte 632 54)2 94)2 14)3 64)3 11434 ~lden and straighten 2-lane roaduay Dyke Road Ma3o Road 650 57314 06504)39-P 56,N501 Fr. Rte. 810 toRte. 615 ~~~~~~ 9-02 Widen and Surface Treat - Gravel mad 0~35 Mi. E. Rte 619 ' 618 0618-002, ,N OrangeCo. Line 024)2 ~~~~~ 12-02 WflenandSuffaceTreat-Graveh~)ad Wats on Ro ad 640 2515 06404)39-137,N501 Fr. Rte.O33toDead~d 064)3 ~~~~ ~ 84)4 VvidenandSurfaceTreatGravelRd. 9 CONSTRUCTION PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CHARLOTTESVILLE REsIDENCY CONSTRUCTION pROJECTS 2001 2002 Percent Street Name Project Description Duration Complete Contract Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Cost 0615-002-P64, N501 Gravel Road Improvement Lindsay Rd Comments: ContraCtor plans to begin clearing for roadway widening during the week ~~ ~ 0 0 beginning April 15, 2002. 0022-002-1010, SR02 t Bddge Replacement Louisa Rd Comments: Traffic reduced to single lane at bridge with signals. Contractor is ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 33 34 demOliShing the existing bridge su~rstructure phase ii GR-7B-01 IGuardrail Replacement Rtes 20 and 29 Comments: Anticipate completing guardrail installation at Route 20 North dudng ti ~ ~ ~ 95 95 second week of Apdl. Various BP-7A-01 I Bddge Repainting secondaries Comments: Contractor working on Rte. 743 Bridge over Charlottesville Reservoir. ~ ~~ 8 8 Anticipate completing Rtel 743 Sddge and begin Riel 60i Bridge o~r M00~0ns River dudng the third week of April. . ......... Various PM'7B~02 IAsphalt PI'ant Mix secondaries and Comments: Contractor plans to begin trenching and widening Rte. 29 SBL fi`om ~~~ 0 0 Primaries i16 miles SOUth Rtel 8~ t° NelSOn county line during week ~ginning APril i5, 2002. 10 Mowing Patching Grade/machine/add stone Ditch/Pipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other MAINTENANCE YANCEY MILLS HQ MARCH Cut banks 250; cut dead trees I64, 692, 689; cut around bridges on 64 ~ 682; 690 Machined 637, 634, 633, 811, 758, 611,689, 702, 782, 698; add stone 758, 702, 782, 637, 689, 811,682, 797 Open pipes I64, 633, 611, 811, 689, 688, 29 As scheduled APRIL Long arm 738, from 250 to 708 Patch potholes on sec. Install pipe 636, 689; clean ditches 810,636,691 Per schedule; clean/oil spreaders 11 Mowing Patching Grade/machine/ add stone Ditch/Pipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other MAINTENANCE FREE UNION HQ MARCH Brush clearing on 250; contract brush cutting on 671; guardrail mowing 250, 601, 676 Machined 668, 672, 629, 662, 666; added stone 606, 676, 671, 629 764, 672, 643, 668, 674; repaired shoulders on 743 at mailboxes APRIL Remove low hanging limbs Rt 29; remove 15 dead trees Rt 29; brush cutting w/contractor on 671; finish guardrail mowing on 250 Spot patching Machine gravel roads & clean drains As scheduled; cleaned & lubed spreaders Per schedule and plows Removed trees due to wind storm on 810, 665, 676 Litter pick up 29N, 250/29 bypass, 601, 659; removed AAH trash bags 676, 665, 810 Clean bridges on primary & sec street sweeping on sec & subd12 litter pick up unadopted areas Mowing Patching MAINTENANCE BOYD TAVERN HQ MARCH Brush cutting I64; tree removal 53, 1447 APRIL Repair potholes 64; Lee Boy patching 250, 759 Grade/machine/add stone Ditch/Pipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other Shoulder repair 231, 1446 machined all gravel roads; added stone 612,600,784,640,608,747, 769,646 Drainage 1401; open pipes 600,640,641, Carrsbrook & Key West Per schedule Dead animal & litter pick up Shoulder repair 20,231,250; extend pipes 20; machine, add stone to gravel roads Install under drain 250; clean out pipes 600,640,784 As scheduled 13 Dead animal & litter pick up Mowing MAINTENANCE KEENE HQ MARCH APRIL Patching Grade/machine/add stone Ditch~ipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other Cold mix 727,627,708, 631 Machined 633, 718, 699, 774 795, 708, 761,728,734,717,627, 722, 723, 721,670, 704, 714, 737,812,630; shoulder repair 726,627,715; add stone 703,704,638,717,761,627,716,713,774, 697,711,856,754,760,805,718,720,701, 792,793,737,725,770,724,617 Completed pipe repl 626 (4) & 715; open pipe on 719 Per schedule Litter/dead animal pickup Patch 631,715, 626, 602 Continue machining routes; add stone 627,699,704,708, 712,713,714,722,723,735, 760, Ditching Rt 633; replace pipe 715 As scheduled; ready tractors for mowing season Litter/dead animal pickup 14 Mowing MAINTENANCE STANARDSVILLE HQ MARCH Long arm mowing 810, 601 Patching Grade/machine/add stone Ditch~ipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other Machine/replace stone 628,626, 638, 637, 642; replace stone on shoulders/mailboxes on sec/primary Pipe replacement 628 Completed all due PMs Animal/litter control; fence replacement 33 project APRIL Long arm mowing on sec; tree/brush removal on 29N & 33 project Plant mix patching Drainage care on primary & secondaries Daily PM per schedule Sidewalk repair in Stanardsville; litter pickup Rts 33 & 29 (spring cleanup) 15 AREA HQ E Q U IP M E N T ITEM Y A N C E Y M ILLS Trucks 8 Loaders G ra d e r 2 Tractor m ow ers 4 R o lie rs FREE U N IO N Trucks 7 Loaders B a c k h o e 1 Tractor m o w e rs 3 o lie rs G rad e rs 2 BO y D TAVERN Trucks 7 Loader R o lie rs 1 Tractor m ow ers 4 G ra d e rs 1 K E E N E Trucks 7 Loaders 2 B a c k h oe s Tractor m ow ers 4 R o tie rs 2 G ra d e rs 2 S T A N A R D S V IL L E Trucks 7 Loaders 1 G rad e rs 2 Tractor m ow ers 4 C hip p e rs 1 R o lie rs 1 B rid ~ e C re w Trucks 4 Loaders Legend: Equipment PO $ SlBLE # O F # DAYS IN THE D A Y S S H O P O P ERA TIO N A L 248 22 31 0 62 0 124 31 0 217 93 62 62 217 31 31 124 2 8 0 0 217 62 124 62 62 30 0 6 0 2 2 I 7 62 124 25 0 0 0 8 28 80-90 % G o o d, room for im pro ye m e n t 7 0 -8 0 % N e e d si m pro ve m e n t B lack: B e Io w m in im u m standards o # DAYS OPERATIONAL 226 62 123 189 31 31 62 62 187 3 t 25 124 29 192 62 62 54 217 123 31 9 % RATING (COLOR) 81 1 3% G reen 100.00% G reen 10000% G re·n 99.t9% G reen 10000% G reen 8710% A m bar 10000% Green 100.00% Green 9892% Green 100,00% Green 8618% A m bet 100,00% iGreen 80.65% A m bar 100.00% Green 9355% Green 88.48% A m bet 10000% Green i00,00% Green 8871% A m ber 10000% Green 8710% A m ber 100,00% iGreen 10000% Green 98.39% Green 9919% iGreen 100.00% ired 100.00% Green 10000% Green 3214% Black 16 PLANNING Project Traffic Traffic Site Study Study Plan Scoping Review Review Current Status Albemarle Towne center (sperry) Traffic Study addendum has been reviewed; C°nsultant is submitting second revision for review. peter Jefferson/Martha Jefferson Site Rivanna Village at Glenmore Steding University Housing North Pointe HOllYmead Zoning Map Amendment, Special Use Permits,and Traffc StUdy comments have been forwarded to the County. Preliminary review oftraffc stUdY comPleteI Awaiting site plan to respond to study recommendations. Site plan review complete. Comments submitted to County. Traffic Study comments haw been forwarded to the County. Awaiting addendum to traffic study. Comments on Traffic Study Scope have been submitted to the County 17 BUDGET Section %of Time %of BudgetI Budget Comments Remaining RemainingI Status Adminslration & Support 25.00% 40.28% Vacant Positions Construction Management 25.00% 57.32% Vacant Positions Buildings & Grounds 25.00% 35.97% On Track Maintenance 25.00% 28.77% On Track - Indudes AHQ expenditures Asphalt Schedules and Reimbursible Emergency Snow Expenses. Boyds Tavern AHQ 25.00% 35.90% On Track Free Union AHQ 25.00% 31.66% On Track Keene AHQ 25.00% 35.51% On Track Yancey Mills AHQ 25.00% 29.90% On Track Stanardsville AHQ 25.00% 29.88% On Track Residency Wide Overall 25.00% 29.98% On Track Data based on the March 23, 2002 FMS I Reports 18 H) Route N~ m b er Stat~s Outstanding [sm~e Description Traffic Engineering Issttes ISsue L~mments 27 29 28 19 729 29 250 VARS Albemarle Albemarle Albemarle Albemarle Review intersection of Route 1120 Milton Hills Drive to address sight distance problems Int 29 & 649 250 W just past Ivy Nursery Traffic Calming in Hollymead Yellow Green Green Yellow Reviewing In-house to determine sight distance issues. Submitted to district for review Forwarded to district for review Previously submitted to District for review. Residency and District to review and submit findings and recommendations to County. 19 649 & 606 intersection - background - functionality - stewardship - safety ISSUES · Rustic Roads 20 DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR RURAL RUSTIC ROADS In accordance with HB659 of 2002 Virginia General Assembly Session Effective July 1, 2003 Must be included in an approved Secondary Six-Year Plan. Must be an unpaved road. Must carry at least 50 but no more than 500 vehicles per day. Roadway or roadway section must be predominately for local tra~c use. Improvements normally will be within existing right of way. Must not compromise safety, and history of vehicle and pedestrian accidems on the road or road section do not suggest unsafe conditions. Emphasizes minimum disturbance to trees, vegetation, side slopes and open drainage abutting the roadway. Requires commitment from county that developmem will be limited along Rural Rustic Roads so no further improvements are anticipated for a period of 15 years. Requires a special Resolution by County Board of Supervisors. Governing body of County, in consultation with VDOT will designate a road or road segment as a Rural Rustic Road after reviewing 6dteria. Requires State Environmemal Review Process. Requires permit determination by Environmental staff of VDOT. Requires scoping documentation (either LD-430 package or other documentation as established by Committee and approved by VDOT Management). RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Date: Agenda Item #: Clerk's Initials: PRESS RELEASE FOR Tn/~nnvr~/, Tv RELEASE TUESDAY MARCH 12, 2602 ~ · ~NN~ ,, A ~ ER & ~,E~, ER AU. H~,P~TY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (March t2, 2002) -- The Rivanna Water & Sewer A~thoriw (~"RWS A_' or "AuthorlXy') an_n~unces the axai!a3i!ity o f recom~__endations to meet the future water supply needs of the urban service area of the City of Charlottesville mud A!be_made County. ~t~e Rivao_rm Water & Sewer AJ_~thofity pro,des treated ~ing water to the Albemarle County Service Authority ("ACSA') and the City of Cnar~o~eswhe who operate the dish-Sbution syste_ms serving mo~waum water customer~. The future water supply strategy was presented to the RWSA Board of Directors at their Februau 25~ 2002 meetLn_g. The Board directed the A~hority to ~hedu!e a public heating and indicated plans to also schedule a review meeting with the City of C~xiottesvi!ie City Counci_i, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the Albemarle Co~xnty Service Authority Boa_rd of Dkectors amd the RWSA Board of Directors. Executive Director Larry Tropea complemented the RWSA Board for having the ~ore~oht years a~o to recom_mentt t_n_at we oegm p_ap_nmg for our mvxe wat~ supply needs and for the Board's unwavering commitment to public participation throughout the process. Mr. Tmpea described the future water supply recommendation as an integrated, multi- step strategy. He stated, '~-Our ruth_re water supply strategy involves four key strategi_c actions which are Water Conservation, a Watershed Approach, Maintenance Dredging, a~d Lnfrastructure additions~ ~T!~js stmmgy w~ll g~.mran~.~e the dr~_ki~n_g water needed to meet our area's projected water dem_and th_rough 2030 and allow us to earn more time to consider the need for additional actions to meet o-ar 2050 water needs." Water Conservation The ACSA amd the City have active water commrvation programs and the RWSA strategy calls upon area residents to practice better water conservation~ Mr. Tropea stated: "We believe our wa'mr users will embrace water commrvation iLke they have recyciLn_g. Water conservation must be an integral part of our water supply strategy since it reduces water de~a.nd, achieves envkonmentai benefits and reduces the investment we will have m max.~ in new water supp!y mcdmes. Watershed Approach, The water used oy area re.qldent,q ha,q its origins m D_e watersheds supplying the RWSA reservoirs. Mr. Tropea stated: '"Our watersheds are critical to the continued supply of renao_,._~ ann rare dr~_idrig water for our customers~ we see art important fim~re role for RWSA in being ~.~erm~,~d stewards m protect our water supply and wodchng with others to ensure sound watershed management and protecfiom' Maintenance ~reaa~ a Mr. Tropea stated that if we d~ not dredge the South Fork Riva~m g~servoir it would fill with sedimem by the year 2050. Mr. Tmpea added: "We don't want to lose the South Fork ~i~vapn~a Rese~oir to sedLment, in our view, our reseDJoirs are assets to our commup2ty and we ~e ~intei -~nan- c'e dredging as part of our strat~-~g~~. v~"~e we don't _ _ 2 '_ , ....... .-mno,.,~r~. on _~edgmg~. -.;~ .......... conouc~ t .... r, gmeermg study !afmstructur~ Addition, Fork ~3~apma Reservok. ~ mu ~vestment will provide much n~ded ~a'e s~e yield aaa ,, ~ ,+ .... ~ ...... ~c,;,- dotage capacity. Positioning our Ama to Meet 2050 Water Needs The RX~zSA sLrategy ~5ii proxdde as~ai~ce we ca~ m~t o~ ava's water ~piy ~nd e~nded a~t~ ~fl~,.,;.o ~m~l ~o~h~ our ~ccess m ........................... a ........ ~ea conservation and the -~ '- -.4~. ~,e-ew ' -- '~ ~:~- ~ e~om,~n ~ ~ tec~mogtcs. The RWSA strategy does not ~+'-' -~' ............ Buck Moanta~ Cre(~ Obt~ Raw potelltial OptioliS. Dm '-~ ~ ..... ~e waer supply arae~ ~ b~n ~de avaii~oie on the Web a: ~.fiva~a,0~ I~o~vanna.org. the very rrear mtm ¢~ ~ ........... L ~ .................... ' ..... ~ ........... :- '-~ ~" ~-~-- Ilia Contact: Mr, Lawrence C. Tropea, Jr., P.E., DEE FEBRUARY 25, 2002 RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY FUTURE WATER SUPPLY RECOMMENDATION INTRODUCTION We can all agree that our community must have a reliable and safe water supply. It is essential for human life and for achieving the desirable quality of life for which our community is envied. Additionally, most would agree that a reliable water supply is essential to the economic health and prosperity of our local economy; however, we need to recognize that restricting or otherwise strategically restraining our future water supply should not be used to control local growth. At the direction of its Board of Directors, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) has conducted a near six-year evaluation of future water supply needs and water supply alternatives. The goal of this study was to identify the actions required to ensure our community will have a reliable and safe water supply to meet all predicted needs in 2050. During this process, many questions wero answered and a few still remain for further evaluation and debate. A great deal of credit is owed to the RWSA Board of Directors for having the foresight to authorize this study. Additionally, groat credit is due to the local government leaders, citizens and community organizations that took time from their busy schedules to offer comments or otherwise participate in the evaluation of the future water supply alternatives. The input from the public, and from elected officials and others, has been extremely valuable in helping to shape the draft strategy being recommended to the Board. A MULTI -STEP, INTEGRATED SOLUTION IS NEEDED Including Infrastructure And Water Conservation and Watershed Management RWSA does not believe that the best solution to our future water supply needs rests solely upon the construction of new infrastructure improvements. Instead, RWSA advocates an integrated, multi-step strategy to meet our future water supply needs. This strategy has many clear advantages. Today's reservoir shortages and drought conditions illustrate our community's vulnerability to a lengthy and severe drought. Thus, RWSA believes we need to take action now to address our immediate water supply needs by implementing several recommended water supply improvements. We simply cannot afford to delay moving forward on certain actions. The multi-step solution advocated by RWSA, also gives the RWSA Board, local elected officials and the community, time to consider some longer term issues in which additional data, and experience, would be helpful: · actual evolution of growth and the validity of the 2050 water demand projections (after gaining additional years of actual water supply experience), · actual demand reduction achieved by citizens practicing better water conservation; and, the · evolution of new technologies especially regarding the science supporting water reuse. The RWSA recommended water supply strategy is also an integrated strategy which recognizes that management activities in the watershed, and in the distribution system, are just as important as new concrete and rebar. If one carefully examines the opportunities, they will conclude as RWSA has that watershed management must be an integral part of RWSA's future water supply strategy. Additionally, water conservation, and the continued control of distribution system losses, will play an important role in our future planning in that every gallon we can reduce is one less gallon we need to withdraw from the resource. WATER SUPPLY NEEDS RWSA SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority has two customers, the City of Charlottesville and the Albemarle County Service Authority. RWSA takes raw water from its supplies and delivers potable water to its two custOmers who are responsible for the transmission and distribution to their ultimate customers. The University of Virginia buys water from the City and operates its own distribution system. The focus of RWSA's future water supply recommendation is the urban water service area and not the Scottsville or Crozet systems which do not share similar pressures at this time. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING HORIZON The RVVSA recommendation addresses a fifty-year planning horizon in two discrete steps. RWSA believes that it is essential that a flexible strategy be established and fine-tuned over time, as new information becomes available; however, we do not advocate a monthly or yearly upheaval in overall strategy. The RWSA is therefore advocating a multi-step strategy with the initial planning horizon being approximately 2002 to 2029 and the final planning horizon being about 2030 to 2050. PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY NEEDS RWSA commissioned VHB to look at projected water supply needs in the year of 2050. VHB looked at this through four lenses including historical metered raw water as a predictor of future demand and population trends and per capita consumption as a predictor of future demand. The VHB predictions using the various methods compare very closely to each other. The VHB projections for 2050 water demand fell between 17.75 MGD to 20.51 MGD. And, VHB reports that these figures allowed for current unmetered water use and the addition to the urban service area of certain identified water users currently not supplied by the urban water system. VHB recommended that the projected 2050 water demand be established at 18 MGD to 21 MGD. VHB made no allowance in its demand projections for reduced demand due to water conservation or for a reduction in unaccounted for water. Some members of the public have disagreed with the VHB demand analysis and called upon local elected officials to define the amount of growth that will be allowed in our community. They feel that RWSA, or its consultants, should not determine how much growth should be planned for 2050. Further, some commenter's voiced concern about VHB's failure to adjust the expected demand by the positive aspects of water conservation. One commenter cautioned ~build it and they shall come." RWSA RECOMMENDATION ON WATER SUPPLY DEMAND The RWSA believes that VHB has done a credible job of projecting the future water needs in 2050. The various methodologies they employed confirmed that the expected water demand in 2050 is expected to be 18 MGD to 21 MGD. The RWSA has recently projected the future water demand using a more current data set than was available to the contractor when they performed their study. The recent projection, using actual water supply data through 2001, showed a projected water demand of approximately 19.4 MGD in 2050. For the purposes of this report, RWSA has selected 20 MGD as the projected water demand in 2050. For the year 2030., based on the projections of VHB, the water demand would be about 16.5 MGD. The recently completed RWSA analysis, using a more complete data set, confirms this projection and predicts a 2030 water demand of about 16.3 MGD. For the purposes of this analysis, RWSA believes that a reasonable demand reduction can be achieved through water conservation. Different than VHB, RWSA believes the benefits of water conservation are better illustrated as a demand reduction than a water supply alternative. While we can hope for outstanding water conservation results, we cannot afford to be ovedy optimistic until we see a demonstrated water demand reduction by City and ACSA customers. One could debate it, or research it to death, but RWSA has elected to assume that our community will embrace water conservation and thereby reduce demand by 3 percent. Frankly, RWSA hopes that our community does much better and can sustain a water demand reduction of 10 percent or more. But it would be imprudent to assume we can achieve such a success, and we will have time to actually determine, with real data, how well water conservation is implemented. A 3 percent demand reduction through water conservation would represent well over 500,000 gallons of water a day in 2050, and over 50 years, would represent a reduction in our water taking of over 25,000,000 gallons of water.., a tremendous sum. VHB estimates the current "Unaccounted For Water Loss" to be 13 percent. Both the City and ACSA have, and are, working diligently to reduce these losses. While some further reductions may occur, RWSA believes we cannot count on a significant reduction in this area of loss since the current loss fits within the values for well maintained systems. Continued diligence and investment will, of course, be required to prevent this loss from increasing as the distribution system continues to age and deteriorate. The projected water demands, in 2030 and in 2050, have been adjusted below to account for a three (3) percent reduction due to water conservation: 2030 16 MGD 2050 19.5 MGD WATER SUPPLY AVAILABIILTY CURRENT SAFE YIELD The RWSA obtains raw water from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR), the Sugar Hollow Reservoir (SH), the Ragged Mountain Reservoirs (RM) and the North Fork Rivanna River. The SFRR is progressively filling due to high sediment load from the watershed. The Sugar Hollow reservoir lost 17 percent of its capacity in the terrible storm of June 1995. The current safe yield of RWSA reservoirs will fall each year unless action is taken to reduce sediment load to the reservoirs. VHB predicts that the reservoirs safe Yield, which was nearly 16 MGD in !973, will fall to about 5 MGD in 2050. VHB further predicts that:water demand currently exceeds safe yield which is a major short-term system reliability issue. Further, they predict that the water supply deficit will be roughly 7 MGD by 2050 just due to sedimentation in our reservoirs. 4 The short-term deficit is particularly troublesome given that we aro in the throws of a major drought and have been so for several years. RWSA believes it is cdtical that we take action now to address our immediate water supply needs. FUTURE WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES As a part of the multi-year study process, a mydad of water supply alternatives, many of which were suggested by the public, have been evaluated. A significant amount of funds were spentto ensure that these alternatives were given fair consideration. RWSA PRINCIPLES UNDERPINING OUR STRATEGY First, some RWSA principles which underpin our recommended strategy. It is clear that RWSA reservoirs, particudy the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, will fill unless the RWSA proactively takes preventive or corrective action. The reservoirs represent a significant investment by our community and like any asset they need to be "maintained." RWSA believes we cannot allow the reservoirs to fill with sediment and then, under pressure, launch an expensive, and perhaps uncertain effort to permit a new reservoir. RWSA does not believe that our local elected officials, or the community, would be pleased to see the SFRR become clogged with sediment and possibly cause a downstream sediment impairment on the river. RWSA believes that a groat deal of opportunity exists if we take a watershed app roach as part of our future water supply strategy. We recognize that the sediment causing much of our reservoir problems is generated in the watershed. RWSA believes that is moro effective and less costly if we can reduce sediment at the source rather than dredge it from the reservoir at a later date. RWSA believes that protection of our long-term water supply interests requires us to become moro active watershed stewards. A good case can be made that no other organization sharos the RWSA interest in protecting this watershed. The future of our water supply is inextricably tied to the job RWSA, and others do, protecting our watershed. RWSA is therefore recommending that we actively assume a watershed stewardship role and incorporate modern watershed thinking into our overall strategy and daily activities. As previously stated, water conservation must continue to be advocated and promoted. The RWSA believes that the City and ACSA aro well focused and active in seeking new ways to reduce future demand through water conservation. It is recognized that it is not a short journey, however, since the challenge before the City and ACSA is to modify human behavior. But like recycling, our community has proven that they will embrace environmental needs particularly when the benefits are made clear. RWSA believes the Board must keep the Buck Mountain property as a potential future water supply alternative. RWSA believes that protecting the environment is an integral part of our business mission. In a crisis, the supply of ddnking water must ultimately take precedence over all other uses; however, we believe that there is room to incorporate the environment into our daily water supply activities. IMMEDIATE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY The RWSA recommends that we immediately proceed with the engineering, permitting and construction/implementation of the following actionS to ensure an adequate and safe water supply for our customers until approximately 2030. 1. TAKE AWATERSHED APPROACH Become More Active Watershed Stewards RWSA needs to increase its role in the active stewardship of the watersheds serving our system. We need to recognize that we have the most to gain through active stewardship and protection of our basic source of water. We need to work as partners with responsible individuals and organizations to protect and preserve our water supplies. We should have no higher priority than the protection of our watersheds. Address Sediment Load From The SFRR Watershed RWSA, working with others, needs to identify the significant sources of sediment currently entering the SFRR reservoir. It is thought to be mainly sourced from bank and stream erosion during high flows but we need to understand our watershed better and investigate to identify the actual sources of sediment entering the SFRR. RWSA needs to look at investments in watershed improvements and studies as an integral part of our mission to provide a reliable and safe water supply. We need to actively offer funding support where we identify watershed problems which are adversely affecting our reservoirs. We need to seek other partners and possible grant funds and become visible watershed leaders. Investments in source control of the sediment will be wise in that it will maintain or extend reservoir life and minimize the amount of sediment that must be removed through more expensive dredging. 2. GENERATE BETTER DATA FOR DECISIONS Good decisions require good data. Good data on stream flows and water quality is lacking and we must address this fault. At one time, there were four stream gauging station on the SFRR watershed. Sadly, they were all discontinued due to federal/state funding or manpower shortages and, in some cases, a fifty-year plus continuous stream record was lost. Through the joint efforts of DEQ, and the RWSA, a station was recently restored on the Mechums River. It is a start. The construction of a flow balance for the SFRR, and RWSA system, is frustrated by the lack of stream gauging stations. It is in RWSA's best interest to invest in re- establishing stream gauging stations for the SFRR watershed. Our first pdority should be to re-establish the. stream gauging station below the SFRR. RWSA believes that as we move into the future we will need a complete system of stream gauging stations to ensure scientifically based decisions. We also need to resume reservoir sampling and characterization which was discontinued several years ago. 3. WATER CONSERVATION BY ACSA AND THE CITY RWSA will continue to support the City of Charlottesville and the ACSA in their efforts to institutionalize water conservation. We believe in our citizens and believe that they will embrace water conservation with the same enthusiasm they have recycling. Specific details on future water conservation actions fall within the purview of the ACSA and the City. 4. ADD FOUR FOOT CREST CONTROLS ON THE SFRR RWSA believes we should immediately proceed with the engineering, and construction, of four-foot crest controls on the SFRR. This would increase useable system storage by 600 million gallons and provide an increase in safe yield of 6 MGD in 2050. VHB estimates the cost of this improvement to be $5 to 7 million. RWSA believes this is an important part of our immediate water supply strategy. MATCH DOWNSTREAM SFRR STREAMFLOW RELEASE TO RESERVOIR INPUT As part of its immediate strategy, RWSA recommends that we match SFRR releases to the actual input received by the reservoir during critical drought events. As such, only during severe, extended droughts would RWSA constrain the release of 8 MGD or more from the SFRR. RWSA understands that it would be highly desirable to maintain a minimum release of 8 MGD at all times; however, under serious drought conditions we must protect the local water supply as our first priority. VHB had estimated that the downstream release would be unaffected approximately 99 percent of the time. VHB estimates that this action will increase the safe yield by 1.6 MGD in 2050. SEEK IMPROVEMENTS IN DROUGHT PREDICTION AND RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT RWSA will work constructively with the City and the ACSA to identify and implement improvements in drought prediction. Additionally, RWSA will strive to incorporate further improvements in reservoir management into its daily operating procedures. 7. PERFORM MAINTENANCE DREDGING ON THE SFRR A great deal of the public comment and debate which oCcurred concerned dredging the SFRR. Some of the costs advanced by RWSA contractors were extremely large and RWSA experts also identified a myriad of significant logistical challenges. While there are clearly issues and unknowns about dredging, RWSA looks at the SFRR as an asset for which we have a responsibility to our customers and community. RWSA believes that yearly maintenance dredging of the SFRR should be part of our future water supply strategy. Having said that, we must recognize that many questions about dredging and its costs must be further researched. As part of its watershed approach, the RWSA believes that source control in the watershed will be the most cost effective method of maintaining storage capacity. This will minimize the amount of material needed to be dredged from the SFRR each year. We believe that a yearly maintenance-dredging program is needed to maintain (or gain) reservoir capacity. Questions about methods, costs and logistics need to be answered through a study that RWSA will commission as part of its recommended strategy. 8. EXPAND WATER SOURCES TO INCLUDE THE MECHUMS RIVER A pump station formerly existed on the Mechums River. The pump station formerly captured Mechums River water and pumped it to the RM reservoir or the Observatory water treatment plant. This alternative was considered to some degree during the evaluation of alternatives but questions still exist concerning its viability, costs, benefits and environmental impact. RWSA recently offered to participate in a study to better define the costs and true benefits of reestablishing the Mechums River pump station. RWSA had identified several environn-~ntal questions which must be addressed as part of this analysis. The restoration of flow in the Moormans RiVer was a major component of public comments. Many expressed the view that a Moormans River solution should be included as a part of the future water supply strategy and they pointed to the environmental value and beauty of the Moormans River. RWSA does not currently possess the technical information to determine the water supply benefits provided by sourcing water from the Mechums RiVer. The RWSA has offered to assist in pulling together a complete technical evaluation of the water supply benefits, the costs and environmental impact of this proposal and then make a formal recommendation to the Board on how this should be addressed in our future water supply strategy. LONGER TERM WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECTED 2050 WATER DEMAND As part of its two-step strategy, the RWSA believes that the following strategies constitute viable 2050 water supply options which we should consider more fully after we have gained additional experience and additional water demand data. We believe that by fully implementing our immediate strategy we will earn additional time to further evaluate several of the water supply alternatives to meet 2050 needs. RWSA is not recommending that immediate action be undertaken to implement these alternatives but we regard them as part of the likely strategy tO meet 2050 needs. 1. CONSTRUCT DAM AND RESERVOIR ON BUCK MOUNTAIN CREEK The RWSA believes that the Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir must be retained as a potential 2050 water supply alternative for our community. The RWSA recommends that the Authority retain the land since this reservoir might be needed to meet local water supply needs. 2. OBTAIN RAW WATER FROM THE JAMES RIVER The RWSA has the option to take water from the James River to supply our area needs. 3. OBTAIN RAW WATER FROM CHRIS GREENE LAKE The RWSA may consider the option of taking raw water from Chris Greene Lake to supply our area needs. UPSTREAM BASE FLOW AUGMENTATION WITH HIGHLY TREATED WASTEWATER The RWSA believes that a potential water supply option is using highly treated wastewater to supplement upstream flow and eventually serve as a raw water source. We believe that the views of state health officials and public acceptance will need to evolve before this could be considered to be a viable alternative. RECOMMENDATION TO THE RWSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS RWSA recommends that the Board of Directors authorize a public hearing to solicit further public input on the RWSA recommendations for our future water supply. RWSA offers to meet with local elected officials and civic organizations to answer questions and receive input. RWSA plans to re-schedule this item for a later Board meeting for a final decision. ]0 DRAFT SUMMARY OF RWSA RECOMMENDED STRATEGY February 25, 2002 IMMEDIATE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY (meet needs through 2030) · Take A Watershed Approach. · Generate Better Data For Decisions. · Water Conservation By City and ACSA customers. · Add Four-Foot Crest Controls On The SFRR. · Match Downstream SFRR Release To Reservoir Input. · Make Improvements In Drought Prediction And Reservoir Management. · Perform Maintenance Dredging On The SFRR (Conduct Feasibility & Cost Study First). · Study Expansion of Water Sources To Include The Mechums River. LONGER TERM WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY(meet needs through 2050) · Reexamine Projected 2050 Water Demand Based On Additional Data Base And New Information. · Obtain Additional Safe Yield As Needed From The Following Options: Construct Dam And Reservoir On Buck Mountain Creek. Obtain Raw Water From The James River. Obtain Raw Water From Chris Greene Lake Augment Upstream Baseflow With Highly Treated Wastewater RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY FUTURE WATER SUPPLY RECOMMENDATION For the urban water supply system serving the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County Lawrence C. Tropea, Jr., P.E., DEE Executive Director Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Date: ~ Clerk ~/n/t/a/~:~ April 3, 2002 WATER FACTOIDS We take water for granted. Our water supply is finite ... not unlimited as some think. Sustained droughts are creel teachers about the value of water. Water is essential to human life, economic prosperity, quality of life. Water is essential to a healthy environment. Increased conflicts between water users will occur unless we plan and communicate and work together. Water conservation must become an environmental ethic of our society. 2 TODAY'S PURPOSE Review our recommended furore water supply strategy. · Promote water conservation and a watershed approach. · Outline a proactive strategy to meet our furore water needs. 3 THE PROCESS February 25, 2002 - Presentation to Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, Board of Directors March 21, 2002- Presentation to Albemarle County Service Authority, Board of Directors · April 3, 2002 - Presentation to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors · April 15, 2002 Presentation to City Council, City of Charlottesville · May 1, 2002 Public Hearing June 24, 2002 Final Recommendation Presented to Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, Board of Directors 4 OBJECTIVE OF RWSA'S FUTURE WATER SUPPLY RECOMMENDATION To provide a safe, reliable water supply to meet the furore water needs of our urban service area ... in an environmentally and economically sound manner. 5 EXISTING URBAN WATER SUPPLY Raw Water Sources · South Fork Rivanna Reservoir · Sugar Hollow Reservoir · Ragged Mountain Reservoir · North Fork Rivanna River Water Treatment Plants South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant Observatory Water Treatment Plant North Fork Rivanna Water Treatment Plant 12 MGD 7.7 MGD 2.0 MGD IWater Treatment Plant Capacity is about 20 MGD I 6 RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY CURRENT URBAN WATER SUPPLY SAFE YIELD South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Sugar Hollow / Ragged Mountain North Rivanna River Intake 7.2 MGD 4.1 MGD 0.6 MGD 11.9 MGD 7 ACTUAL DALLY WATER DEMAND BY CUSTOMER ~37. 14.5 ~48.4 % [] City - 48.4 percent [] ACSA- 37.1 percent [] Unaccounted Water Loss - 14.5 percent Tightening Water Supply Noose Water Supply Avg. Daily Use - 11.9 MGD - 11.1 MGD 0.8 MGD 8 WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND 25 20 15 10 5 0 Water Demand Projection Water Supply Projection I I I I I I 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 9 Year CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND ANALYSIS Short term and long term water demand exceeds supply. SFRR sedimentation is stealing our water supply safe yield each and every year. Our margin of safety is virtually non-existent today. Area growth and water needs for 2050 are subject to debate. Great opportunity exists for water conservation and watershed management. Severe droughts are a reality and must be addressed. In-stream water needs must be addressed. Let's develop an incremental strategy and avoid one big roll of the dice 10 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES Six years of study and debate is already invested. At least 31 water supply alternatives considered. · Public hearings held. Public pointed to need for water conservation, MIF, questioned 2050 demand, etc. 11 RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY RECOMMENDED FUTURE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY · Take immediate action to meet critical needs through 2030 or so. · Earn time to better determine 2050 needs, and evaluate promising alternatives. Phased, Integrated Water Supply Strategy is needed. 12 RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY PRINCIPLES UNDERPINNING OUR STRATEGY SFRR represents a significant community investment and will fill with sediment unless action taken. We need a fresh look at dredging. RWSA needs to recognize importance of our watershed(s) ... and take a watershed approach. Water conservation must be commitment to education. nurtured with a long-term Environmental protection is part of RWSA' s .mission. Buck Mountain property must be retained for the future. IAsustainable water supply strategy will address 13 RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY IMMEDIATE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY TO MEET PROJECTED 2030 WATER NEEDS e Se Ge e Take a watershed approach. - Become better watershed steward. Addres's-sediment in the watershed. Generate better data for decisions. Water conservation by citizens is essential. Add four-foot crest controls on SFRR. Match downstream SFRR stream flow release to reservoir input. Seek improvements in drought prediction and reservoir management. Perform maintenance dredging on SFRR. Expand water sources to include the Mechums River (under study). 14 RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY LONGER TERM WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY TO MEET 2050 WATER NEEDS Better predict water supply need using actual growth data, new technology and actual water conservation results. e Consider alternatives as needecl to meet actual needs: Construct Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir · Obtain water from James River Obtain water from Chris Greene Lake Add eight-foot crest controls on SFRR. Augment upstream flow with highly treated wastewater. 15 MEETING THE 2030 PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY NEED Proiected Water Supply. Need__ Less: Water Conservation (8%) ( 1.3 MGD ) or Water Conservation (3%) PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY NEED Existing Water Supply Safe Yield Additional Water Supply Maintenance Dredging/Watershed Improvements* Four-Foot Crest Controls Revised SFRR Release Drought Management Mechums River (under study) MARGIN 16.5 MGD 0.5 MGD ) 15.2 TO 16 MGD 11.9 MGD ( 2.3 MGD ) 7 MGD 1.6 MGD 2.4 MGD 4.6 MGD NOTE: Water supply margin will fall to 2.3 MGD if we are unsuccessful with maintenance dredging. * Assumes 50percent efficien,cy. 16 CONCLUSIONS Need to act now on immediate water supply strategy. Need to take a phased, integrated strategy. Earn time to make 2050 decisions. Need to reassess maintenance dredging. Community must embrace water conservation. RWSA focus must expand into the watershed. Seek constructive ways to address MIF release concerns. WATER IS LIFE 17 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Update on SPCA SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Review of proposed SPCA Capital budget request. AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: April 3, 2002 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: IN FORMATION: ATTACHMENTS:--Ye'~ STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Spencer REVIEWED BY: /~v./ / BACKGROUND: During lastyear's budget process, the Board requested that staff meet with the SPCA regarding the development of a proposal for County and City financial support for the construction of their new facility. As the Board may recall, at that time, the SPCA requested a one-time contribution of $750,000 from each the City and County toward the construction. Since last year's budget process, County and City staff met together with representatives of the SPCA regarding both operational and capital funding. At a recent budget work session, the Board requested additional information on the basis of the proposed SPCA capital funding recommendation included in the FY 03-07 CIP and general information on the proposed facility. DISCUSSION: As part of discussions with the SPCA regarding their capital requests, staff conducted research on capital costs of government funded animal control facilities recently constructed in the state of Virginia. Staff focused its research on facilities that provide basic services to meet state requirements, rather than the higher level of services provided by agencies such as the SPCA. The SPCA's m~ssion is beyond the typical animal control responsibilities of local governments. According to the state veterinarian, the cost to construct a basic animal shelter facility that would meet state requirements would average approximately $100 per square foot. Gloucester, Shenandoah and Fluvanna Counties recently constructed animal control facilities, which ranged in costs from $250,000 to $460,000. These localities have much smaller animal populations than Charlottesville and Albemarle County. A number of other localities have worked in collaboration with agencies such as the SPCA to reduce costs and provide services that meet citizens' expectations. Enclosed is information on the building features proposed by the SPCA and a schematic of the proposed facility. The SPCA has estimated the cost of this facility to be $ 3.5 million. They are currently involved in an active fund raising campaign and have also received a $1 million payment from VDOT for land purchased due to the Route 29 bypass alignment, which crosses their current facility. Based on our research and the benefits of a continued partnership with the SPCA, City and County staff felt that a $50,000 contribution for each of the next five years would be appropriate to support the SPCA in providing this required service. RECOMMENDATION: Th e SPCA's request of $50,000 per year for five consecutive years is included as part of the County Executive's recommended budget. Action will be needed by the Board only if you feel a change is needed. 02.046 03-28-02P02:33 RCVD SPCA Fact Sheet Some History The Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA has been a continuously operating animal shelter since 1914, promoting responsible and humane treatment of the animals in our commumty. Since 1956, the SPCA has also served as the pound for both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Why Does the Community Need a New SPCA Facility? The SPCA has been operating out of a former chicken coop on ¥(7oodburn Road. The facility is old, small, loud, and literally falling down around us. Wv'e take in roughly 4,500 animals a year, a figure we expect to increase dramatically with each passing year, with a total of 49 dog runs and 36 cat cages. Animal adoption rates have reached over 50% but cannot climb any higher due to ]ack of adequate space, As if that weren't enough, VDC)T has acquired our three acres of land for the purpose of building the Route 29 bypass. Given the area's increasing need and the rapidly deteriorating condition of our small facility, responsible animal care in our commumty is truly in cdsis. What Will the New Facility Cost? The design and construction of the building will cost f~rnish the facility and cover increased administrative and oF nother $3.5 million will be used to goal of How Long Will It Take? The project has already reached some important milestones. W{ six acres on Berkmar Drive, near our current location and plans Construction of the building be in our new facility by ]ate What is the Plan? Central Virginia architects Ebo have designed a state-of-the-art facilit3 the size of and more welcoming. It will have a Pet Education Center as well the following: · Advanced · Heated flooring' · Outdoor animal · Multi[ · Natural · Enclosed landscaped · Fully equipped prep, surgery, and recovery suites srtson, along with Director of Design William Meade, Iter. tt will be bright, open, Of Special Note The new Surgical Suite will for the first time and neuter animals before they leave for their new by fourth-year students of the Vir the direct supervision of a teaching staff vetennarian. us to spay be performed inia Tech under The new Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA will become thec community. nsible and humane animal care in our BUILDING FEATURES Pu. blic Lobby & Education Alcove Featuring high ceilings and abundant natural light from several skylights, the lobby will function as the gateway to the SPCA by welcoming and directing visi- tors. Just offthe lobby will be o'ur edu- cation alcove,with ongoing exhibits and events with a special focus on children. [] Animal Reception People who bring animals to the SPCA will use this entrance. Because many of the animals who come are sick and in distress when they arrive, we have elected to sepa- rate this entrance from the general public entrance. [] Pet Supplies Shop In keeping with our goal to become the center for animal care in our communi~, the shop will allow pet owners to pick up basic supplies. Surgical Suite The surgical suite will allow the SPCA to treat animal injuries, do spay and neuter operations, and provide general animal care. Through a unique assodadon with Virginia Tech, the surgical suite will also serve as a training center for new vet- erinarians, who will hone their skills under the supervision of local veterinarians. [] Sally Mead Memorial Courtyard The courtyard will be located at the center of the facility. Full of grass, trees, plants, and benches, it will serve as a virtual park within the center. Exterior dog kennels designed specifically to reduce excessive barking will surround the courtyard. The courtyard will also honor Sally Mead, the beloved former head of the Charlottesville/Albemarle SPCA. [] Pet Education Center (Lower Level) Training for both pets and people will take place here, with an emphasis on creating harmony between pet and owner. The mom will host obedience dasses, pet care training, and other general information sessions. []Adoption Interview Rooms Here prospective pet owners and SPCA sraffwill be able to discuss adoption, Fill out paperwork, and prepare for the challenges of the first few days of pet ownership. [] Puppies/Small-Breed Dogs Puppies and small-breed dogs will be housed in these quarters, separate from adult dogs to lower the risk of disease. These quarters feature increased odor con- trol, a soundproof design, and glass walls. All pens are on the floor level so that the puppies will not fall and injure themsdves. ~'~flritter Fitn ess Center A complete fitness center for the animals will be one of the nicest features of the new facility, giving them the important health benefits of regular play. k features separate outdoor areas for adoptable pup- pies, kittens, and dogs. [] Pet Viewing and Adoption Display This display corridor leads visitors to the outside adoption courtyard. It features floor-to-ceiling glass windows with cats on one side and puppies and smaller dogs on the other, allowing visitors m look at several potential pets. Stray Dogs As with all the dog runs in the new facili- ty, the indoor/outdoor runs for stray dogs will feature state-of-the-art sound control and odor handling as well as heated floors for maximum comfort. All will open onto the courtyarcL 1Adoptable Dogs In addition to their other features, the adoptable dog runs will have glass walls to facilitate viewing by potential owners. IDog Isolation and Quarantine When dogs first arrive at the SPCA the7 will be put into isolation for inkial obser- vation. Quarantine will be used to keep ill dogs separate from the healthy dogs. ~:~ Cat Condominiums The car condos will house the adult cats ar the SPCA. Each cage features increased odor control, a soundproof design, and glass walls that invite visitors in for a closer look. They are also back-lit so that the cats will not shrink away into the dark back corners of the cages. •Stray Cats Stray cats will have their own cat condo- miniums separate from the adoptable cats. ~Cat Isolation and Quarantine Like dogs, cats also have isolation for ini- tial observation and quarantine to keep ill cats separate from the healthy cars. 1Kitty City Most kittens will live in Kitty City;, a special room with toys and spaces appropriate for them. ~Staff Quarters In our current facility, staffhave no real place for their own needs. Staff quarters at the new SPCA will feature a comfortable break room as well as a kitchen. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: County Office Building Public Meeting Room Renovations AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2002 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Decision on Options for Meeting Room Upgrades ACTION: × INFORMATION: CONSENT AGEN DA: INFORMATION: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Cost .Summary of Options STAFF CONTACT(S): -- ,,'~_, ~"~-'---" ~ Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Graham, Lilley REVIEWED BY:~// BACKGROUND: / We are experiencing an increasing need for more sophisticated technology and presentation capabilities in the Board Meeting Room as presentations by county staff, applicants, community groups and others have demanded more complex technical support. It has become a very standard expectation that we will accommodate power point presentations, other projection displays, and visual displays as groups present to the Board of Supervisors, School Board, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and other public bodies that use Meeting Room 241. In order for elected and appointed officials, staff and members of the audience to receive maximum benefit from these more advanced presentations without major disruptions setting up during the actual meetings, significant changes in the room's arrangement and equipment are critical. Instituting these changes will transform the Board meeting room into a technol ogically "smart" room that will be appro priate for numerous other uses beyond the meeting of the various public bodies that currently use the space. Also, if our long-range space plans create a new public meeting space for major Board meetings, this room will be ideal for continued use as a "smart" space for in-house as well as external meetings and presentation. After meetings with the various users of the County Office Building Public Meeting Room (Board Room/Room 241 ), a number of changes to the A/V systems in the room and the basic configuration of the room, as well as tie-ins with the adjacent conference room (Room 235) were deemed desirable. A schematic plan of the reconfiguration proposal developed by our consultant in response to this input, including AA/system components, is provided as an attachment. A schematic-level cost estimate indicates that the complete upgrades would cost approximately $360,000, which exceeds the current budget placeholder. For this reason, options for some incremental upgrades were developed. Cost estimates for 3 options are provided as an attachment and are summarized as follows: Option A - Basic A/V Renovations - Approx $180,000 This would include a presenters station with a projection display system, enhanced sound system, archival recording system, integrated multimedia control system, hearing assistance system for ADA compliance, agenda display, and remote monitors in the hall. This setup would allow us to have electronic presentations, display the board agenda items in the hall, and provide the backbone for broadcasting of meetings. Option B - Basic A/V Renovations w~ Room 235 as a "smart room" - Approx. $250,000 This option is the same as "A" with A/V extended to Room 235 that would allow it to be a smart room, somewhat similar to the conference room on the third floor. This allows Room 235 to serve both as an enhanced conference/meeting room and an overflow space allowing people to view Board Room meetings for those times the Board Room is full. 03-27-02 PO2: 3l - RCVD AGENDA TITLE: County Office Building Public Meeting Room Renovations April 3, 2002 Page 2 Option C - A/V Renovations w/Room 235 as a "smart room" and Room 24'1 rehab'ed - Approx. 360,000 This option is the same as "B" with Room 241 also receiving a new Board dais, raised ceiling to allow for better display from the projection system and new seating. Essentially, a rehab'ed Board Room. DISCUSSION: Staff recommendation is option "A", with the possible addition of new audience seating if funds are available. This accomplishes the initial objectives at the smallest cost and fits within the current budget placeholder. This recommendation is based, in part, on the assumption that the physical space in the current Board Room will become too small at some point in the future and a larger space will be required. With this timeframe and anticipated technology changes, it does not appear prudent to make substantial improvements. It does appear prudent to invest in the technology described in option A at this time. Use of this technology should extend the useful life of the current space by allowing the meetings to be displayed outside of the physical space. In addition, experience with this new technologywill provide us with valuable insights into the design of any new space in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with option "A", with the possible addition of new audience seating if funds are available. 02.043 Public Meeting Room: Planning Budgets 12.19.2001 Construction Cost Estimate for Board Room Renovations Option A - Basic A/V Improvements Only (Board Room) Item Quantity unit Unit cost Presenter station 6 If 500 Pin-up board 180 sf 20 Electrical for dais/projector/presenter station Subtotal A/V systems Projection-Display (1 set) Source and control for Projection-Display (1 set) Sound Systems Archival Recording System Integrated Multimedia Control System Agenda display system Remote monitors (2) Hearing assistan ce system Labor and installation (30%) Subtotal Professional Fees (10%) Contingency (10%) TOTAL Cost 3,000 3,600 1,500 $8,100 20,000 20,000 20,000 8,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 1 000 32,700 $141,700 $14,980 $14,980.00 $179,760 Construction Cost Estimate for Board Room Renovations Option B - Basic A/V Improvements (Board Room and Room 235) Item Quantity unit Unit cost Cost Presenter station 6 If 500 Pin-up board 180 sf 20 Electrical for dais/projectodpresenter station Subtotal 3 000 3,600 1,500 $8,100 A/V systems Projection-Display (2 sets) Source and control for Projection-Display (2 sets) Sound Systems Archival Recording System Integrated Multimedia Control System Agenda display system Remote monitors (2) Hearing assistance system Labor and installation (30%) 40,000 40 000 25,000 8,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 1,000 46,200 Public Meeting Room: Planning Budgets 12.19.2001 Subtotal Professional Fees (10%) Contingency (10%) TOTAL $200,200 $20,830 $20,830.00 $249,96O Construction Cost Estimate for Board Room Renovations Option C - Full-Blown Renovations Item Quantity unit Unit cost Demolition 1,283 sf 3 Cost 3,849 Wall patch & paint 2,568 sf 2 Partitions 28 If 20 New platform 300 sf 5 New ceiling 1,077 sf 3 New flooring 1,077 sf 5 Board desk 25 If 500 Staff desk 8 If 500 Presenter station 6 If 500 Clerk's desk 6 If 500 Reporter's desk 6 If 500 Pin-up board 180 sf 20 Board/staff seating 15 ea 500 Audience seating 60 ea 300 HVAC rework 1,283 sf 5 New lighting 1,283 sf 10 New electrical 1,283 sf 5 Subtotal A/V systems Projection-Display (2 sets) Source an d control for Projection-Display (2 sets) Sound Systems Archival Recording System Integrated Multimedia Control System Agenda display system Remote monitors (2) Hearing assistance system Labor and installation (30%) Subtotal Professional Fees (10%) Contingency (10%) TOTAL 5,136 56O 1,500 3,231 5,385 12,500 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,600 7 500 18,000 6,415 12,830 6,415 $99,921 40,000 40,000 25,000 8,000 2O,O0O 10,000 10,000 1,000 46,200 $200,20O $30,012 $30,012.10 $360,145 1. Board position with microphonean0 computer po~L 2. Reporting staff station 3, Recording secretary and system~perator 4, ~ computer port, ~igital vi~eo presenter mJcrophon~ 5 Ta~ board ® Proiecfion ~ard ~ Came~ on meeting session ~. Digital vjcleo presenter 9, Kitchenette 10.60 seats ~1 Agenda disp[~¥ 12. ViCe,Monitor ~,3. Smartroom screen w/feec$ from visual presenter and camer~ 7 !4. F~eporteds desk 15. TV camera I, Board position with 2. Reporting staff station 3 RS~rdi~g secreta~, and s~s~em:operator 9. Kitchenette 10. 60 seats ~2 ~ Mo~ito~ i4. Reporter's desk 15. TV camera 1, Board position with microphone and computer port 2, Reportin§ staff station 3, Recordin9 secretary and system operator 4. Presenter podium with computer port, digital video presenter, microphone 5. Tack board 6. Projection screen/tack board 7. Camera on meetin9 session 8. Digital video presenter 9. Kitchenet[e 10.60 seats (~ ~-~ ~ ,¢.¢ ~ 11. Agenda display 12. Video Monitor 13. Smartroom screen w/feeds from visual presenter and camera 7 14, Reporter's desk 15. TV camera COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AG ENDA TITL E: Proposed FY 2002 Budget Amendment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2001/02 Budget Amendment in the amount of $1,130,012.56 and requested approval for the amendment and for Appropriations #2001056, 2001057, 2001059, 2001060, 2001061, and 2001062 for various school and local government projects. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Hildebeidel; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2002 ACTION: × CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes _ ~ ,! BACKGROUND: The Code of Virginia {}15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must be accomplished by publishing a notice of a meeting and a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all funds, i.e, Capital, E-911, School Self- Sustaining, etc., not just the General Fund or County's adopted operating budget. DISCUSSION: This proposed FY 2002 Budget Amendment totals $1,130,012.56. expenses and revenues by fund are shown below. The proposed amendment's estimated ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES General Fund Local Government Programs/Projects School Fund Education Programs/Projects 90,571.00 615,376.93 218,778.40 205,286.23 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES- All Funds $1,130,012.56 ESTIMATED REVENUES Local Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues Fund Balances $147,052.90 263,647.50 421,395.30 297,916.86 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds $1,130,012.56 AGENDA TITLE: Proposed FY 2002 Budget Amendment April 3, 2002 Page 2 This budget amendment consists of ten appropriations. The Board approved Appropriations #2001051,2001053, 2001055 and 2001058 on February 6, January 16, March 6, and March 13, respectively. These appropriations are included in this budget amendment as required by the statute. The remaining six appropriations will need approval subsequent to the public hearing. A detailed description of these six appropriations is provided on Attachment A. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY 2002 Budget Amendment in the amount of $1,130,012.56 after the public hearing and approval of Appropriations #2001056, 2001057, 2001059, 2001060, 2001061 and 2001062. 02.041 Attachment A APPROPRIATION #2001056 $370,989.00 The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, has approved a $370,989 multi-year grant for the Porters Road/Yancey School Neighborhood in southern Albemarle County. This is the second year of the grant. The grant will rehabilitate ten owner occupied homes, purchase sites and develop five new homes for first-time home buyers, begin to develop a community park, and improve the W. D. Ward Community Center. This is a companion grant to the $400,000 CDBG grant previously approved and completed. This grant is part of a $1,362,084 total program consisting of: CDBG grant $ 370,989 Federal Home Loans 224,058 AHIP Funding 415,381 Private Mortgage Funding 351,656 APPROPRIATION #2001057 $98,292.9~ The certified audit for FY 2000/01 of the County's grant programs has been completed. Several grants had balances to be carried over to fund remaining operations. This request is to appropriate the fund balances for the following grants: Drug Seized Assets, Criminal Justice, Criminal Records, Law Enforcement, EMS Newsletter, and Chesapeake Bay grants. APPROPRIATION #2001059 $177,617.00 On March 6, 2002, the Board of Supervisors authorized the execution of an agreement between the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA), Stonehaus Development Corporation, the City of Charlottesville, and the County of Albemarle for the purchase of Windham in Crozet, Virginia. This agreement included providing funding to JABA from the County in the amount of $177,617. This appropriation would provide the County's portion of the funding requirements with $77,571 in revenues derived from the closure and sale of assets of the former District Home in Waynesboro and $100,046 from the Board's Contingency Reserve Fund. APPROPRIATION #2001060 $100,000.00 The County Department of Engineering and Public Works applied for a 2001 Water Quality Improvement Fund grant to help fund development of stormwater management master plans in the development areas. The Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation approved a grant award of $100,000. The Board of Supervisors authorized the County Executive to sign the grant agreement at its February 6, 2002 meeting. The grant agreement also has been executed by the State, and the funds are now available to be appropriated for project expenses. APPROPRIATION #2001061 $46,095.00 The Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services has approved a grant of $23,047.50 to assist the County with the purchase of three monitor/defibrillators with pacing capability. These monitors are more advanced than the current monitors and will allow pacing and cardioversion capabilities which the County does not currently have. There is a required $23,047.50 local match that will be funded from current operations. The total funds wil be used to purchase the monitors and to provide the training that is required for Fire/Rescue personnel. APPROPRIATION #2001062 $3,266.40 Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from Douglas Easter. This donation will be used to help finance the Laptops for Teachers Project. Murray Elementary also received a donation from Mr. and Mrs. F. Don Bradford in the amount of $100.00. This donation will be used to help finance the arts and cultural enrichment programs. Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,666.40 from Hollymead Elementary School PTO. This donation will be used to purchase student chairs and desks for the school. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X 2001056 ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE O.F APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF PORTER ROAD/YANCEY NEIGHBORHOOD GRANT EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1224 81031 300205 Administration Services $ 20,297.00 I 1224 81031 563100 AHIP 350,692.00 TOTAL $ 370,989.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1224 33000 330009 DHCD-CDBGGRANT $ 370,989.00 TOTAL $ 370,989.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: HOUSING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE FEB. 21,2001 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 NUMBER 2001057 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF GRANT FUND BALANCES AFTER COMPLETION OF AUDIT EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 t234 39000 580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS $992.07 I 1235 39000 580902 DRUG SE1ZEDASSETS 28,274.54 I 1236 3'9000 580902 DRUG SEIZEDASSETS 2,966.84 I 1300 41030 332300 CHESAPEAKE BAY GRANT SIGNS 3,150.00 I 1520 93010 900000 CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT OTHER USE OF FUNDS 15,974.36 1 1526 31012 800701 CRIMINAL RECORDS GRANT DATAPROCESSlNG EQUIP 3,000.00 I 1532 31013 800701 PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT EQUIPMENT 700.00 I 1538 31013 120000 LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT OVERTIME 5,944.55 I I538 31013 210000 FICA 454.74 1 1539 31013 120000 LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT OVERTIME 31 509.45 I 1539 31013 210000 FICA 2,210.49 1 1555 32015 800100 EMS NEWSLETTER GRANT EQUIPMENT 3,115.89 TOTAL $ 98,292.93 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1234 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION $992.07 2 "235 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 28,274.54 2 1236 51000 510100 FUND BALANCEAPPROPRIATION 2,966.84 2 1300 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 3,150.00 2 1520 - 51000 510100 FUND.BALANCEAPPROPRIATION 15,974.36 2 1526 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 3,000.00 2 I532 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 700.00 2 1538 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 6,399.31 2 1539 51000 510100 FUND BALANCEAPPROPRIATION 33,719.92 2 1555 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 3,115.89 TOTAL $ 98,292.93 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X GENERAL 2001059 FUNDING PER CONTRACT WITH JABA AND STONEHAUS DEVELOPMENT TO PURCHASE WINDHAM. CODE 1 1000 59000 1 1000 95000 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 'A'~-*-'A-**-~*~-~ ********__************__*********** *****************************--*-- 563210 JABA-CROZET PARTNERS LLC $ 177,617.00 999990 BOARD RESERVE (100,046.00) CODE 2 1000 18000 TOTAL $ 77,571.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 189921 SETTLEMENT-DISTRICT HOME $ 77,571.00 TOTAL $ 77,571.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE 14-Mar-02 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 NUMBER 2001060 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: STORMWATER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: GRANT FUNDING FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 9100 41000 950093 STORMWATE'R PLAN $ 100,000.00 TOTAL $ 100,000.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9100 24000 240540 DEPT'OF CONSERVATION & RECREATION $ 1~0,000.00 TOTAL $ 100,000.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: ENGINEERING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE 15-Mar-02 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 NUMBER 2001061 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:' ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF EMS MONITOR GRANT TJ-C01/12-01 EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 1560 32015 550402TRAINING $7,500.00 I 1560. 32015 800100EQUIPMENT 38,595.00 TOTAL $ 46,095.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2' 1560 24000 240415 EMS GRANT $23,047.50 2 1560 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F 23,047.50 TOTAL $ 46,095.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: FIRE/RESCUE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE 15-Mar-02 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 NUMBER 2001062 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X' FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OFAPPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND DO~ATEDFUNDS. CODE I 2215 61101 1 2215 61411 1 2205 61101 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 800700 ADP Equipment $ 500.00 580000 Misc. Expenses 100.00 800201 Furniture/Fixtures 2,666.40 CODE 2 2000 18100 TOTAL $ 3,266.40 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 181109 Donation $ 3,266.40 TOTAL $ 3,266.40 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE 15-Mar-02 Local Public Policy, Skills & Economic Strength An Inseparable Connection Spring 2002 Discussion Objective · Raise the level of awareness about the need to integrate economic and workforce development efforts for the welfare and prosperity of the region. · Focus the awareness on local public policy making and the central partnership with the private sector, in this regard. Discussion Premise · Local economic and workforce development actions are interconnected and have reciprocal impact on one another. · The private sector is the prime mover in the labor market. Therefore, by necessity, business must be actively involved in the development of local workforce and economic development policy. Economic Development · Thd'intentional process of finding, sustaining, and capitalizing upon locational advantage to create wealth and minimize poverty. Private sector capital investments to produce goods and services to increase productivity increases the demand for high- skill/high-wage jobs (us Department of Commerce, EDA). Workforce Development · The intentional process of strengthening the localized talent pool of workers to match private sector investments in technology, capital, and product improvement. (US Department of Commerce, EDA) 215t Century · In the 21 st century, the economic strength of the United States will depend on the ability of each state to compete successfully in the global economy. This holds true for regions within a state. . To compete most effectively, economic development strategies must build a skilled workfome through lifelong learaing and worker training. · Why is this the case? Demand Side , Rapid technological advances have changed the way products are created and services are delivered. · A new knowledge-based economy has emerged driven by ideas, services and innovation. Demand Side · The % of new jobs with increasing skill requirements continues to grow at alarming rates - 80% of new jobs require skills not possessed by the majority of the workforce (Roberts Jones, President & CEO - National Alliance of Business - 2002) Demand In Virginia · By 2010, most manufacturing jobs will require higher technical skill Roundtable-VA Workforce Council-May 15, 2001 · Knowledge-based jobs, which require some combination of postsecondary education or vocational training, have been among the fastest growing jobs & have increased their share of total employment. Demand :In Virginia · The fastest growing occupational group will be the professional and technical occupations category. · Employment in high tech industries is growing fast in Virginia overall, but declining in rural areas. , Job growth rates are higher than total growth in the labor force and in the population. Demand In Your Area · Who is looking at trends, data and conducting analysis? · Who is leading this effort and who is at the discussion table? · If this is not a demand and supply discussion, why notg. · What is the plan of action? The Supply Side · US manufacturers face a persistent skills gap in the workplace, despite an economic downturn (Natl. Manufacturers Assoc. "The Skills Gap 2001") , This gap derives from long-term forces - demographics, teclmology, and globalization - whose ampact will be felt for years to come. ' "suPplySide I · The-most severe skills shortages now are mainly in the production workforce. These skilled hourly workers have traditionally been the backbone of manufacturing. Moreover, the major skills lacking in hourly workers (both applicants & current employees) are basic employability skills, with reading, communication and math ranking as a second cluster of deficiencies. - Supply Side The US population and labor force has been stagnant for some time and are projected to stay so for some years (Roberts Jones). Meanwhile, the job growth rate continues to grow. Public policy must respond to a market in which everyone can be successfully employed if the skills and education meet expectations. Supply In Virginia · According to US News & World Report, two of the best educated congressional districts are in Virginia and two of the least educated congressional districts are in Virginia. · In four Virginia counties, more than 50% of the population lack a high school diploma or a GED (Dr. Chris Chmum. Senior Economist. Richmond).. / Supply Tn Virginia ofp'eople 25 years of age and older in Virginia, [ 1% have an educational level of less than 9th grade. The workforce is aging. There is an anticipated 30-80% turnover projected over the next decade. These are the highest productivity workers, with a substantially greater skill base than those currently being hired (e.g., Dupont Chemical, Newport News Shipbuilding). Supply In Your Area · Who is looking at trehds, data and conducting analysis from an integrated systems and service delivery perspective? · Who is leading this effort and who is at the discussion table? · Are demand-side decision makers at the table? · What about special strategies for at-risk populations? The Public Policy Challenge · Demand & supply don't match & the gap is getting wider. · The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read, but those who cannot learn. · A skilled workforce drives a knowledge based economy. The Strategy · Confronted with looming skill shortages, many states, regions and localities are adopting workforce development as a core economic development strategy for the knowledge-based economy. The Result · A paradigm shift- workforce development is 'no longer viewed primarily as an extension of social welfare policy - but as an essential part of an economic growth strategy. Knowledge = Value & Wealth · Knowledge and skills will have increasing value in the 21-st century; thus we need to develop strategies to expand access to knowledge in ways that are faster, better, cheaper, and that are continuing in nature. Leadership & Partnership · At the local level, the active involvement and strong leadership of local elected officials Iarea-wide and region-wide policy makers), in partnership with the private sector is required to increase the area's value and wealth. · Solutions transcend programs and functions. · Labor markets transcend political boundaries. Policy Manifestation at the Local Level · The partnership between the Local Elected Officials (LEOs) and the Workforce Investment Boards (WlBs). · The Agreement between the LEOs and the WIBs. Workforce Investment Act (WIA) · A governance model. · A leadership model. · A parmership model. · A policy development model. WIA · Major depmxure in federal workfome policy over the last 40 years. · Devolution of policy and decision making to the stare and local level. · Latitude and flexibility to address the myriad of differences among the states and differences between reg~ogs within the state. · Vision is larger than the WI[A, · The WIA is not a program. · The WIA creates a workforce investment and governance system. · The WIA creates a local one stop delivery system. · The WIA creates 3 local programs. · The WIA authorizes 5 national programs. LEO/WIB Agreement The Foundation · A tool to promote workforce and economic development. · Regular review and amendment cycle. · LEO policy expectations - long term health of the economy - regional industry clusters and sector-based initiatives. · Regular WIB reports at City Council and Boards of Supervisors meetings. The Elements · Joint workforce readiness and retention seminarsl · Joint strategic planning and system mapping sessions. · Industry sector roundtables. LEO/WIB Agreement · Specific expectations and goals for joint efforts between economic and workforce development. · Semi-annual meeting with WIB Executive Committee for WIB appointments, · Create pool of WIB recruits by involving non-WIB employers on special Committees. LEO/WIB Agreement · Special strategies for small and medium sized business. · Focus groups - where do you want to be in 5 years in your county or city or region? · What are the business sector priorities? · How can you engage the community for awareness and support? Local Radar Screen , Unless the skills gap is closed and employers can f'md the workers they need, local economies will remain extremely vulnerable. · Local Elected Officials must place workforce development on the local political radar screen. Redefining Roles · Local economic development agencies should shift from the old assumption that jobs were in short supply to include attracting, retaining and expanding the skilled workforce-that employers increasingly demand. · Promote recruiting & retaining workers. Coordination · Local Elected Officials should encourage increased coordination of policymaking between the workforce and economic development arenas. · Appoint some of the same members to workforce & economic development boards thus forging a close link between planning and policymaking. Workforce Development · City Council & - Combine supply- Boards' of side theory with a new demand-side Supervisors focus. Committee assignment. ·Make "incumbent worker training" a · A clear wsion of pan of the strategic the WIBs plan for skills importance, upgrade. Economic Information · Local Elected Officials should tap the potential of labor market information to align economic and workforce development. · Look to the WlB to develop a new occupational forecasting system to provide timely and accurate information on jobs, wages and valued skills. · Creat~ an educational pipeline producing skilled workers and supporting economic growth. · Local Elected Officials & School Boards should spearhead policy initiatives with school-to-work, adult education & literacy, secondary & postsecondary vocational /technical education, workforce development and incumbent worker programs. A Local Example · Washtenaw County, Michigan · A joint economic and workforce development plan. · An environmental scan. · Consensus on needs, issues and priorities. '~- Wastenaw County System Goals · Labor Demand >Goal A - Develop sector-based workforce development strategies - targeted sectors = construction, printing/book manufacturing, IT, and health care. >Goal B - Address the workforce development needs of small and medium size business W sht ntyi~ a enaw Cou · Labor Supply >Goal C - Address the needs of the County's working poor. >Goal D - Harness untapped resources in the County, including high school and college graduates, and persons with disabilities, to address current labor shortage. Washtenaw County · Quality Assurance > Goal E - Improve system-wide planning efforts and customer outcomes through a concerted quality assurance initiative. > Contact: Washtenaw County Workforce Development Board, Trenda Rusher, Executive Director, I734) 484-6650, x4152 email: rushert@co.washtenaw.mt.us. Thank You · "We have a bright future if we can develop a well thought out strategy to transform our workforce and economic development systems into an integrated culture of performance and entrepreneurship." David Sampson Assistant Secretary - Economic Development Administration- U.S. Deparrrnent of Commerce- 12/07/01. Creating a Comprehensive Workforce Investment System Local Elected Officiats and Workforce Investment Board Members Bdefing Sessions Soring 2002 Katherine DeRosear Senior Planner, Virginia Employment Commission Discussion Objectives · Understanding the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) as a Framework for Linking Economic and Workforce Development · Developing Policies and Strategies: Overseeing Effective Programs and Leveraging Resources · Realizing the Potential of the Workforce Investment Board In the Beginning: Creating a Common Language CWP Survey, August 2001 65 Chambers Corn pleted Survey 9 Questions about "Workforce Develcpment" Our members define workforce development as.,. Agenda Item #: /-~ 72% - Education system producing skilled, ready workers 69%.- Employers meeting their employment needs 63% - Coordinated community resources to aid recruiting, hiring, training, retaining and advancing workers 45% - Individuals (including low-income, Iow-skilled) obtaining jobs with family-sustaining wages, employment stability ane career enhancement 26% - Coordinated supports that respond to individual worker's needs 43% - A of the above 5 Yo - Other Workforce Development as a Process ro Support Economic Development.,. Creating Supply for Demand Understanding the Labor Market: Supply and Demand Economic Workforce Development,.. Development... 4. The creation and 4. The preparation of retention of iobs, people for work, 2. The community's 2. The community's infrastructure for infrastructure for creating and preparing those retaining those people for work. Workforce Development Process: Creating Supply for Demand Demand (Economic Development) · Jobs Created (or retained) to Provide or Create Needed Service or Product ~ Infrastructure: Capacity to attract and support employers Supply (Workfome Development) · People: Skilled Workfome · Infrastructure: Capacity to educate and train people Workforce Investment System ~.) - A group of interrelated, interacting, or interdependent constituents forming a complex whole. - - Webster's II The Workforce Investment System'is the community infrastructure that creates the capacity to create~retain jobs, and adequately prepare jobseekers for said jobs. Organizing the Parts: WIA as a Framework 1998 - Congress passed the W1A, the first major reform of the nation's job training system in over 15 years Intended to replace the patchwork federal system that develcped over the past 60 years Focus on local design and employer driven system to improve the quality of the workforce, enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the nation, and reduce welfare dependency WIA Principles Streamline multiple employment and training programs into One-Stop System Empower customers to improve employment opportunities Increase accountability for performance Involve local elected officials and private sector: business-led boards State and local flexibility in designing One- Stop System WIA: One-Stop System and Title I Programs One-Stop System aka: · Workforce Investment System · Workforce Development System · Labor Market System Title 1 Programs-: · Adults · Dislocated Worker · Youth · Title i Programs = Required Partner WIA: Required Partners ,~ Adult Education and Literacy ~ostsecondary Vocational Education Community Services Block Grant Act · Welfare-to-Work · Title I of the Rehabilitation Act · Title V of the Otder Americans Act · WIA Title (Adult. Youth. Dislocated Worker) · Employment Service, Unemployment Compensation, Trade Adjustment/NAFTA. Veterans Employment & Training Programs · US Dept. of Housing & Urban Develooment · Where :)resent: Job Corps, Migrant & Seasonal Farm Workers Programs, Indian & Native American Programs and Youth Opportunity Grants 4 Organizing the Parts Workforce Development System ¢¢ - , ....... ,.,~,,,=,.- % ' ...... , ..... Leading the Parts: The Role of ~ the WIB · Strategic Planning . Understanding Demand and Creating Supply - Policy Development ,, Local Oversight of One-Stop System (aka workforce develocment system, labor market system) Visionary Leadership ,~ Leading a system, not managing programs. · Strategic thinking, planning and evaluation. · Developing broad and encompassing community visions. · Striving for performance excellence. · Evaluating the progress toward achieving the vision. Levels of Policy 1. Vision. Mission, Goals* 2. Customers, Services. Delivery SYstem* Planning, Evaluation, Financing Personnel, Procurement, Information Systems Standard Operating Procedures Rules Strategic Planning: Understanding Demand Demand - Jobs Created to Provide or Create Needed Service or Product · Labor Market Information . Employer Surveys , PartnerResearch · Economic Development Plans Primary Customer- Employers · Surveys · Focus Groups, Roundtables Strategic Panning: Creat'ng sup¢ . Supply - Skilled Workforce Inputs - Jobseekers (Employed, Unemployed, Underemployed) · Education. training aha exmenence · Some High-School, High-School Degree· Some College, College Degree, Advanced Degree · Disabled. Veterans, ex-Mililary, Older Workers Process - Education, Training and Support Services · Go~/emment agencies and progrems, private businesses K-'f2 education, 2 and 4 year colleges, community based organizations, faith based organizations Workforce Development Plan Process Phase h Inventory/Assessment Key Steps... ,~ Collect]synthesize information on current economic/employment conditions. e Identify and describe all aspects of current workforce development system and its leadership. e Assess current system: strengths, weaknesses, challenges, barriers, needs, etc. through group discussion and surveys. · , Prepare a summary report of the above. Workforce Development Plan Process Phase Il: Plan Development Key Steps... ,~ Develop/build consensus on five-year vision and goals for new workforce development system. · Develop objectives for new system: services, performance, leadership and organization. · Develop performance and evaluation strategies, · Identify leadership roles and responsibilities and funding allocations. 20 Workforce Development Plan Process Phase Ill: Plan Preparation, Review and Local Approval Key Steps... · Complete draft concept plan. · Present plan to stakeholders for input. · Modify plan to reflect changes/additions reccmmended. · Develoo implementation plan and timeline. Overseeing Effective Workforce Development Programs · Establish performance measures for the system that support the local workforce development plan · Evaluate effectiveness and efficiency of programs (quality) e Encourage partners to report performance outcomes and how meeting customer needs (link to employers) and aligning with local workforce development plan · Focus on how program ~s making a difference in the community, not on internal Operations Leveraging Resources Inventory workforce investment resources · Amount limitations/restricbons, funding cycles ., Align with WIB vis,on, mission and goa~s Seek additional funding streams · Grants Develcp fee-for-service strategies · Employers · Jobseekers Solicit new partners · , Optional Partners (WIA) · Private businesses · Business and not-for-profit associations Leading the Parts: The Potential of the WIB ~, Provide visionary leadership ~ Focus on oolicy, no~ programs · , Create comprehensive workforce development strategic plan: link workforce development strategies with economic develooment initiatives · Inventory and leverage Workforce development resources: integrate where possible, eliminate duolication, create investment portfolio, align with WIB vision · Focus on results: establish system-wide performance measures "Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success." - -Henry Ford Virginia Profile of the State Economy PrePared for Governor Mark R. Warner By Professor Michael E. Porter INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGY AND COMPETITIVENESS HARVARD ]BUSINESS I SCHOOL RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Date:. c//¥/~ ~ Agenda Item #:.. /-~ Clerk's Initials: ' Some pages in this report are intentionally left blank. National Go3~e~:~ors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 th Washj~ngton;D C4 February24 2002 Introduction This document includes data on the performance and composition of the Virginia economy. It is intended as an initial overview to motivate further discussions based on the full richness of the data. The data is based on the Cluster Mapping project, a multi- year effort to statistically define clusters and analyze regional economies in the United States. The Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard Business School would be happy to support further work in this area in your state. The work of the Council on Competitiveness, Monitor Company, and the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness in the Clusters of Innovation project has indicated the importance of regional economies for prosperity. While some important elements of companies' business environments are set at the national level (e.g., federal taxes, roles and regulations governing international trade and investment, antitrust rules), many others are set at the regional state or local level (e.g., state universities, physical infrastructure). These regional differences matter, as .the huge differences in economic performance across U.S. regions attest. The aim of our project, and of this short document, is to increase awareness of the specific regional conditions to inform political action at the state level. In many states, the relevant economic areas for companies are smaller than the state's boundaries. In others, relevant economic areas include parts of other states. We therefore list the economic areas and the metropolitan economic areas, both defined by the BureaU of Economic Analysis, on the opposite page. Economic performance data on these geographical units can be found at http://data.isc.hbs.edu/isc/index.isp. This document was prepared under the guidance of Professor Michael E. Porter by Elisabeth de Fontenay, Andrew Funderburk, Christian Ketels, Daniel Vasquez, and Weifeng Weng, all of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness. Helpful links: www.isc.hb~.edu www.compete.org www.monitor.com Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness Council on Competitiveness Monitor Group National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 Virginia OH IN TN ~' PA Legend State Borders MSA Economic Areas G reensboro-Winston-Salem- High Point, NC-VA [018] J ohnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA [045] ~ Lexington, KY-TN-VA-WV [047] Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC [020] Richmond-Petersburg, VA [015] Roanoke, VA-NC-WV [017] ~ Salisbury, MD-DE-VA [014] r--~ Staunton, VA-WV [016] Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA [013] National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C. February 24 th 2002 4 Profile of the Virginia State Economy Contents Page 1. Economic Performance and Innovation Output 6 2. Patents by Organizations, 1995 - 1998 8 3. Overall Composition of Employment and Wages 10 4. Employment by Cluster 12 5. Job Creation by Traded Cluster 16 6. Top 10 Highest Wage Traded Clusters 20 7. Specialization of the State Economy by Traded Cluster 24 8. State Ranking by Leading Subclusters 26 Appendix a. List of Clusters 28 b. Subregional data: Richmond-Petersburg, VA Metroprolitan Area } Overall Composition of Employment and Wages 29 } Employment by Cluster 30 ~ Job Creation by Traded Cluster 31 National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 1. Economic Performance and Innovation Output Description: This chart presents aggregate measures of the state's economic performance and innovative output. The state is compared to the average of the United States, and its rank among all states is indicated. Establishment growth refers to growth in traded cluster establishments, which are in fields that compete with other states and countries. Growth in local cluster establishments (e.g. retail stores) is not included. Interpretation: These aggregate measures allow an overview of the state's performance relative to the U.S. average. The economic performance measures address current results, while the innovative output measures provide indicators of how prosperity might change in the future. Economic performance. Comparison of employment growth and wages reveals the extent to which growth translates to higher prosperity. Gross state product per employee gives an indicator of the state's productivity. Export growth reveals the extent to which the state can meet the test of international markets. Innovation output. Patenting measures the vitality of invention, whil6 the other measures capture various aspects of commercialization. Mismatch o~'~these indicators can signal flaws in the institutions linking those two stages of the innovation process. National Go vernors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia State Economic Performance and Innovation Output Employment growth per year, 1990 to 1999 · in Virginia: 2.07% (rank 32) · in the US: 1.90% Average wages in 1999 · in Virginia: $33,370 (rank 12) · in the US: $32,109 Wage growth per year, 1990 to 1999 · in Virginia: 5.18% (rank 1) · in the US: 4.03% Gross state product per employee in 1999 · in Virginia: $56,225 (rank 17) · in the US: $56,882 Annual growth in exports, 1995-1999 · in Virginia: 0.71% (rank 40) · in the US: 4.41% Patents per 10,000 employees · in Virginia: 3.9 (rank 32) · in the US: 6.3 Patents growth per year, 1'990 to 1998 · in Virginia: 2.88% (rank 31) · in the US: 3.19% New establishment formation*, 1990 to 1999 · in Virginia: 5.78% (rank 15) · in the US: 4.60% Fast growth firms (Inc 500), 1991 to 2000 a in Virginia: 278 (rank 4) Venture capital investments, $ per worker · in Virginia: $267 (rank 6) Initial public offering proceeds per 1,000 firms, 1999 · in Virginia: $4,708 (rank 18) Note: Excludes government and agricultural employment. * This refers to the formation of establishments in traded industries, which trade with other regions and internationally. Data Source: Cluster Mapping Project, institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School (www.isc.hbs.edui; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Bureau of Economic Analysis; International Trade Administration; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; CHI Research, Price Waterhouse Cooper Money Tree; Hoover's IPO Central; Inc. Magazine; Fast Forward, Inc., Baker Thomp§on Associates National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 2. Patents bv Organization~ 1995-1998 Description: This table lists the top 50 patentors in the state by organization name and type (corporation, government, university, or institute). Patents are assigned to regions according to the inventor's address of residence. In the case of multiple inventors from different locations, the patent is assigned fractionally to the various regions. Interpretation: Regions with a healthy level of innovation should have patents originating from a wide variety of corporations in a wide variety of fields. Healthy regions also tend to have significant patenting from universities and institutes. Concerns about innovative capacity arise when patents originate principally from a government agency, for instance, or when the vast majority of patents are generated by very few entities. National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 ~h 2002 Top 50 Patent Holders in Virginia Total of 1995-1998 Or~anizaUonTitle , · PatentorT)'~e PatentsIRank · . Organization Title .' Patent°rT~/pe Patents, I LINffEDSTATESOFAIVERICA, NAVY U.S. Govemrmnt 202 26 ATLANtiC FESEARCH (X)R:~RA'I'ON Corporation I 16 2 tJq~EDSTATESOFAM-~ICA, NA'[IONALAE~ONAU'flCSAI~DSPACEADI U.S. Govemrmnt 116 27 VIRC4NIACQ'vlNDN~EAL'I~IU~VE~SITY University 15 3 BE1.LATLANTDNEIWORKSBRVEES,INC. Corporation 70 28 LITI'ONSYSTBVlSINC. Corporation 15 4 SII~ENS AUTOMOIIVE~FORA'~Q'q Corporation 68 29 FRAMATOME TECI-~OLOGIES, INC. Corporation 13 5 R-ILIPMDR:~ISINOCRFORATB:) Corporation 66 30AMERICANRESEARCHCOF~ORA'I~ONOFVIRGlqlA Corporation 12 6 I. NITEDSTATES OEAM~3=~.A, ARVtY' U.S. Governrmn! 6231 SOUTHEASTERN LI~VER,~TIES t:~SEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC. University 12 7 FUE~.'IECHNCLOGESL'IO, Corporation < .59 32 ITT INDUSTRIES. INC. Corporation 10 8 FEYNGLDSMETALS ODMPANY Corporation53 33 IvEDECOSECURfl'Y LOCKS, INC. Corporation 10 9 INTERNATIONAL BLI~IAESSMACHNE~TIGN Corporation 52 34 GENERAL B.ECI'R~C COMPANY Corporation 10 10 E L DU FONT CE I'~V~LIRS ANO <3~A,I:ANY Corporation49 35 B&W FLEL COMPANY Corporation 9 11 CENTERFCRI','qOVATME'i'B2HN:A.OGY Corporation 46 36 BqVIROAIVIBqTALPRODLICTSCOIvPANY Corporation 9 12 LNrv'ERSITY OFVRGt'~, ALI. N~PATENTS FOLI'43ATIONUniversity 44 37 ~-SYS'i'BV~, ~ Corporation 9 13 WESTVACO~TQ'q Corporation 43 38 AMFBOWUNG, INC. Corporation 9 14 ~, INC, Corporation 42 39 DRBITAL SCIENCES COP. FORATION Corporation 9 15 BABCOGK&WILO2~COk, PANY Corporation 42 40 SOOETECIVILEDESBREVETSDEHB',RIVIDAL Corporation 8 16 VIR31~A'II~CHINTB_LECILALFROPt=~t-A, INC. University 41 41 O.R. SOLU'flONS, INC. Cerporation 8 17 ='-'I~YL (X~R~O, ATION Corporation 30 42 AMSC SUBSDIARY CORPORATION Ct~'poration 8 Corporation 8 18 rTt'COR::ORA'tlON Gorpora~on 26 43 EON CORPORATION 19 LtqtlEDSTATESOFAIvlERCA, HEALTH&~NSBAVICES U.S. Govemmen23 : 44 ~Ik, PLI~T1CENGINEE~INGCO. Corporation !8 20 ALUED-SIGN~I. IN~ Corporation 22 45 INNOTBD:-I, INC. . Corporation 8 46 LOCK1-EE.D MARTIN CORFORATt::XN Corporation 8 21 INGE~SGL L-RAND OOrvPANY Corporation 21 22 I~APORT ~ ~HF~JLDING &DRY DCX:TKCO. Corporation19 47 IvEDICAL CO_LEGEOF HAMPTON ROADS University 8 23 SAMPLING B.I~RO~CS (O., L'ID. Corporation18 48 MCICOMvlUNICATIONS COP, P. Corporation 8 24 ERIOCSCNGEM3E~.ECOIVMLIN'CAT[CNSt~IC. Corporation 18 49 BRB, ICO, INCOt~:~3RA'~D Corporation 8 25 HJBSB.L ~'IED Q~rporation 17 50 AMB:~ICAN SAFETY RAZOR CO~/PANY Corporatbn 7 Data Source: CHI Research, USPTO Source: Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy and CompeUtiveness, Harvar¢ Business School (www.isc. hbs.edu). Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College. ' National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 3. Overall Composition of Enlplovment and Wages Description: A state's economy can be divided into traded clusters, local clusters, and natural resource industries. This table gives employment share and average wages for each of the three groups compared to national benchmarks. Interpretation: Traded chtsters include those industries that compete across regions, and which tend to concentrate in a small number of locatiOns. Traded clusters tend to be the engines of regional economic competitiveness, accounting for only about a third of employment but achieving much higher wages and productivity levels. Local clusters involve activities serving almost exclusively local markets. These industries are present in every region in roughly the same proportions. Local clusters employ the majority of people in any regional economy, so their efficiency is critical for competitiveness in traded clusters to turn into regional prosperity. However, they cannot prosper over the long run without success in the traded clusters. Natural-resource industries concentrate at natural resource sites. They account for a very small share of national employment. Overall state economic performance can be decomposed into the contributions of the three different types of activities. Traded clusters provide particular insight. Underperformance in traded clusters or lower traded cluster wages may be signs of competitiveness difficulties. National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002' Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 10 Virginia Broad Composition of the Economy by Employment, 1999 80. 7O 30, 20. 10, Traded Clusters Local Clusters VA US Natural Resource Industries Virginia Broad Composition of the Economy by Avera,qe Wa,qe~ 1999 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $3o,o0o $20,O00 $10,00~ $0 Traded Clusters Local Clusters Natural Resource Industries National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 11 4. Employment by Cluster Description: Within the broad categories of traded and local clusters, a state's economy can be divided into the individual clusters. Clusters are geographically proximate groups of interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular field, linked by commonalities and complementarities. 41 traded clusters and 19 local clusters in the US economy, listed in the appendix, were defined in the Cluster Mapping Project at the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at HBS. This table gives total employment in the state economy by each traded and local cluster. Interpretation: The employment by cluster gives a more detailed profile of the activities in the state economy contributing to overall prosperity. They can be used to test whether policies targeted at specific, for example so-called high tech, industries have a chance of creating a material impact on overall living conditions in the state. National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 t~ 2002 12 Virginia Employment By Traded Cluster, 1999 250,000. 200,000, 150,000 100,000 Note: Chart utilizes narrow cluster delinitions to eliminate overlapping employment across clusters. Source: Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School [www. isc. hbs.edu). Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College. National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 13 National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 tn 2002 14 Virginia Employment By Local Cluster, 1999 250,000 · ~' 200,000 150,000 Ill · '~ 100,000 o I'- 50,000 Note: Chart utilizes narrow cluster definitions to eliminate overlapping employment across clus[em. Source: Cluste~ Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy ane Competitiveness. Harvard Business School (www.isc.hbs. edu). Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College. National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 ~h 2002 15 5. Job Creation by Traded Cluster Description: This chart plots the net gain or loss in jobs by traded cluster from 1990 to 1999 using narrow, non-overlapping cluster definitions. The clusters are arranged in order of net jobs created. The chart also gives the overall net gain or loss in traded jobs (i.e. total for all 41 traded clusters). Data for the United States overall is given below. Interpretation: This chart allows a region to identify its biggest.job generators as well as job losers among traded clusters over the last decade. A few clusters often account for a large ma,jority of the overall employment gain. It is helpful to compare these clusters with the priorities a state has set in its policies. Comparison of job growth by cluster in the state relative to the U.S. can give insights into strengths and weaknesses in the state's economy. A state might be participating in a cluster which is surging nation-wide, or it might be gaining market position. National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington;D.C., February 24* 2002 16 Virginia Job Creation By Traded Cluster, 1990 to 1999 12O00O 1OOOOO 8OO0O 6O000 40OO0 20000 -20000 .~ o ~ . iF. Note: Chart utilizes narrow duster definitions to eliminate overlapping Job Creation across dusters. Source: Cluster Mapping Project, institute for Strategy and Competitiveness. Harvard Business Schoel (wwwJsc.hbs. edu). Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College. National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 17 National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 18 United States Job Creation By Traded Cluster~ 1990 to 199g 2,000,000~ Job Creation from 1990-99 4,675,466 ~,5oo,ooo ~ ~ -.- - 1,000,00, 500,000 0 -~oo,oo~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ * ~ ~ote: ~a~ow clustordefinitions Source: Instilute for Strategy and Gompetitivoness, H*~ard ~usino,s School National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 19 6. Top 10 Highest Wage Traded Clusters~ 1999 Description..'. The ten highest wage traded clusters in the state are shown in decreasing order, with the width of the columns proportional to the number of workers in each cluster. The area of each cluster is thus equivalent to the overall wage sum the cluster generated in the state. Interpretation: The chart displays how the average wage in the state's traded clusters is built up by highest wage clusters. Some high wage clusters may have a small impact on overall wage levels because of their small size, the case in some high wage clusters. Some large, high wage clusters are often those in services. The comparison to the U.S. average wages by cluster gives an initial benchmark to evaluate the composition of average wages in the state economy. States can increase wages in two different ways: (1) increase the employment in high wage clusters relative to Iow wage Clusters and/or (2) increase the state's relative wages in given clusters. In practice, the second effect dominates as the explanation for why state wages differ. National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 20 Virginia Top 10 Hi.qhest Wa.qe Traded Clusters~ 1999 6C 20 and Electrical Equipment Number of Workers 398,237 Note: Graph utilizes narrow cluster definitions to eliminate overlapping employment across clusters Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College. National Gove~wors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 21 Nation,al Gove~v~ors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 22 United States Top 10 Highest Wa.qe Traded Clusters, 1999 80'0001 60 40,000 20 Number of Workers 12,492,128 Note: Graph utilizes narrow cluster definitions to eliminate overlapping employment across clusters Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College. National Go vernors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 ~h 2002 23 7. Specialization of the State Economy by Traded Clusters Description: The slide plots all traded clusters in a state by regional employment share and change in share between 1990 and 1999. Narrow cluster definitions are utilized which eliminates cluster overlaps. The chart is divided into four quadrants, based on state's average share of traded employment, and whether the cluster is growing or losing share. Interpretation: This chart gives a snapshot of a region's competitive position by cluster. All 41 clusters are positioned according to current share and change in share over the last decade. The upper right-hand quadrant contains the region's strongest, most dynamic clusters, where the state has both a stronger than proportional share of national cluster employment and is adding share. Ideally, a number of significant clusters will appear in that quadrant. The lower right-hand quadrant contains clusters where the state is gaining employment share but which do not yet have ~ strong position. These clusters might present opportunities for the future. The upper-left hand quadrant indicates .Clusters that are strong but are loosing mlativeposition. TheSe clusters might be traditionally important pillars of the state economy that are in need of revitalization. Finally, the lower-left hand quadrant indicated clusters with aPparentlY limited competitiveness in the state. National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 24 7.0% Virginia Specialization By Traded Cluster Tobacco (22. 7, -20.2) · Percentage of Share National Cluster Employment in 1999 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% Furniture · Transportation and Logistics Q Heavy Construction Services Hospitality and Tourism~ Distributiorl~_~ Services · Financial Services;. Textiles Business Services · Power Generation (3.1, 238) (~Education.and Knowledge Creation [ ~ Processed Food · · · 0.0% , , '- , , -100 -50 0 50 100 Percentage of Change, 1990-1999 · = 0-24,999 Q = 25,000-99,999 O = 100,000-200,000 (~ = 200,000- Note: Graph utilizes narrow cluster definitions to eliminate overlapping employment across clusters. Data points too large to fit on the graph are placed on the borders and the values are given as: (y-axis, x-axis). Source: Cluster Mapping Project, Institute fOr Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School Virginia's Average Share = 2.52% Oil and Gas (0i5, 238) / 150 National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 25 8. State Ranking bv Leading Sub-Clusters Description: The slide gives the state's top 50 sub-clusters, or subunits within overall clusters, by national rank. Each cluster is divided into a number of subclusters which represent different subunits in which a region can be stronger or weaker. Interpretation: The slide provides additional information on areas of unique competitiveness in a state. Top ranking subclusters may signal the potential for a cluster to grow over time. Also, the pattern of subcluster strength may reveal opportunities at the intersection of clusters. National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington. D.C., February 24 ~h 2002 26 Virginia Top 50 Sub-Clusters By National Rank Textiles Construction MatedaJs Education ~ Knowledge Oeat =orest Products P~ducti~ Technclow E~Jlding Rxtu'es, Equipment Distribution ~enices Financial Se~s F~h~g a~d RsUrg Products Hee~,y ConstnJction Sen,ices Heavy Macffne~y Hospitality and Touism he~-~k~ Techndogy Jewelry a~d Precieus Matals U~hting and Electrical Equipm Motor Dfi,,en Products Power Generation Power T~a~smissien and Disb-b Processed Foed Ma*ire Transpataticn C.a~r s Rasearch Ras~arch Facilities Wood PltxJucts Paper Mils aed Machinery FUTitum VVocd Materials and Products Process EquiFmont Components Search ~nd N~getic~ Eqdpment ~t~og aed M~il-crder Peal Estate [mestment Fish Products Exploskes IVining Machinery Local Transpiration Bectdc Lmps Pa-~s Bect~c Se~ims Transfo~nem Mdt Beera~ Note: Using narrow cluster definitions to eliminate overlapping employment across clusters. Source: Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Stralegy and Competitiveness. Harvard Business SChool (wv~'.isc.hbs.edu). Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College. National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 27 Appendix a. Clusters of Traded Industries Upstream Industrial and Supporting Final Consumption Goods Sectors Trensportatfen and I.~gistics Food/Beverages · Automotive · Agricultural Products · Motor Driven Products · Processed Foods · Transportation and Log atica · Fishing and Fishing Products Power · Power Generation · Power Transmissi0n and ~ · Building Fixtures, Equipmentand Distribution SerVices · · Lighting and Eleclfical Equipment O~ce ·Fumiture · Publishing and Printing TextifeslApparel Telecommunications ~ · Textiles · Communications · Apparel · Spoding and Leather Goods Defense · Footwear · Aerospace Engines · Aerospace Vehicles and Defense Health Care · Medical Devises Multipfeeusinesses I · Pharmaceuticals/Biotech · Education and Knowledge Creation · Business SerVices Personal · Tobacco · Distribution Services · Heavy Machinery · Jewelry and Precious Metals · Financial Services ! Ente~ainmentlLeisum · PrefabricatadEnclosures ~,~ · Entertainment Production Technology ~ · Hospitality and Toudsm Analytical Instruments · Heavy ConslnJction Services ~ i Construction Materials · Metal Manufacturing · Forest Pmducls Oil and Gas Chemicsl Products Plastics Information Technology Clusters of Local Industries Industrial and Supporting Functions Mult~te Businesses o Local Industrial Products and Services · Local Commemial Services · Local Construction and Development · Local Financial Services Local Insurance Local Packaging Materials Local Community and Civic Organizations Local Education and Training "ransportation and Logistics Local Logistical Services · Local Pers.onal Transportation · Local Utilities Source: Instit ule [or Slrategy and ComDe§tiveness, Harvard Business School Final Consumption Goods and Services FoodlBeverages · Local Agriculture · Local Food and Beverage Processing HousinglHousehold · Local Housing and Household Goods and Services Text#esiApparel · Local Retail Clothing and Accessories Health Care · Local Health Services Personal · Local Pemonal Services (Non-medical) Ente~tainmen~lLeisure · Local Entertainment and Media · Local Hospitality and Establishments National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 28 Appendix b: Richmond-Petersburg, VA Broad Composition of the Economy by Employment~ 1999 80 70 6O 5O 4O 3O 20 10 0 Richmo ... US Peterlb urg, VA Traded Clusters Local Clusters Natural Resource Industries Richmond-Petersburg, VA Broad Composition of the Economy by Avera.qe WaRe, 1999 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $20,000 . $10,000 $0 Traded Clusters Local Clusters Natural Resource Industries National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 ~h 2002 29 Richmond-Petersburg, VA Employment By Traded Cluster~ 1999 Richmond-Petersburg, VA Employment By Local Cluster~ 1999 National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 30 Richmond-Petersburg, VA Job Creation By Traded Cluster~ 1990 to 1999, National Governors Association - Winter Meeting 2002 Washington, D.C., February 24 th 2002 31 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 2002 Citizen Survey SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Center for Survey Research (CSR) will Report on results of County county-wide citizen survey AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X No INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Spencer REVIEWED BY: ~~f ~~' / BACKGROUND: Citizen surveys are a valuable tool used by many jurisdictions to systematically assess citizen satisfaction with government services and to assist the locality set direction and determine strategic goals. During the 1990's the County conducted two citizen surveys. In 1994, the County contracted with the University of Virginia's Center for Survey Research (CSR) to conduct a county wide planning needs survey to assist the county review and update the Comprehensive Plan. And in 1998, James Madison University students assisted the County assess services and programs by conducted a countywide citizen satisfaction survey. In October 2001, the County selected CSR to conduct a third citizen survey to assist the County set strategic goals, gauge citizens thoughts regarding County services, and to help guide the use of County resources. DISCUSSION: During the months of January and February 2002, the CSR conducted a telephone survey of 703 Albemarle County residents. CS R has completed their data analysis. The results of the survey ~ncludes the following information: Citizen opinions regarding the quality of life in the county, Ranked goals that might be included in a strategic plan, Satisfaction ratings for a number of County services, Compares satisfaction on services with ranked goal ratings, Discusses citizen's view of government and experience contacting the County, And discusses residents opinions on planning and development issues RECOMMENDATION: At the August 3rd BOS meeting, representatives from CSR will provide a presentation on the results of the survey. In mid-April, CSR will provide the written report to the County. Staff recommends that the BOS utilize the results of the survey to assist them as they establish the County's strategic priorities. 02.044 03-27-02P04:48 RCVD Albemarle County RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Agenda Item / -~ 2002 Citizen Survey Presentation to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors April 3, 2002 Presented by Kate F. Wood Thomas IVl. Guterbock CSR Center for Survey Research Center for Survey Research A Unit of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service Executive Summary Albemarle County 2002 Citizen Survey Center for Survey Research University of Virginia March 2002 Kate F. Wood, Associate Director Thomas M. Guterboclc, Director Paul B. Schroeder, Research Analyst Jean L. McSween, Graduate Research Assistant In January and February 2002, the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia conducted a telephone survey of 703 residents of Albemarle County, Virginia, on behalf of the County's Board of Supervisors and executive management. The purposes of the survey were to determine residents' opinions about quality of life in Albemarle County and about the importance of goals for the County's strategic plan, to assess citizens' satisfaction with a number of services the County provides, their attitudes toward the County government, and to measure citizen opinion about policies for managing growth. A survey with similar purposes was conducted for the County of Albemarle, also by the Center for Survey Research, in 1994. While the 2002 survey was not designed to be a replication of the 1994 survey, we have compared the results of the two surveys where appropriate. Summary of Method At the outset of discussions about the survey, a committee of Albemarle County government staff members created a topical outline, from which CSR generated a questionnaire. Before it was finalized, comments were solicited from the survey committee, senior members of the executive staff, and the County Board of Supervisors. Two pretests were conducted to refine the survey instrument and adjust the length. CSR used Random Digit Dialing (RDD) to contact County residents. The survey calling was conducted January 24 through February 10, 2002, and resulted in 724 completed interviews, a response rate of 28 percent. During the analysis phase, respondent's self- reported area of residence showed that several respondents lived in the City of Charlottesville, and several in surrounding counties. Those were eliminated from the data set as ineligible. The final number of completed interviews of Albemarle residents was 703, and yields a sampling error of 4-3.7 percent. Data analysis for this survey included breaking down the responses for all opinion items by demographic subgroups, in order to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between them. Statistically significant differences are those that probably did not result merely from sampling variability, but instead reflect real differences within the County's adult population. The following demographic variables were used in our subgroup analysis: length of residence in the County, employment status, presence of children under 18 in the household, education level, household income, race/ethnicity, age, gender, homeownership, and geographic area of the County. Significant differences in survey responses by sub-group are discussed in the full report. The survey results are briefly summarized below. Quality of Life in Albemarle County First of all, it is clear that Albemarle residents very much like Albemarle County as a place to live. Respondents were asked to rate the quality of life in the County on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best possible place to live, and 1 being the worst. The mean rating was 8.10, somewhat higher than the mean of 7.92 in the 1994 survey. This change represents a statistically significant improvement. · Seventy-three percent rated the County's quality of life an "8" or better. · Eighteen percent rated the County a "10." CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH 2 Those most likely to give a high rating to the County were those who had li¥~d in Albemarle longer, who were older, who owned their homes, were working part time or were retired, the highly educated and the most affluenL Rural residents rated the County higher than those living in the development areas. Goals for the Strategic Plan Because the County is preparing to update the strategic plan, we asked respondents to rate a list of 20 possible goals as "very important," "somewhat important," or "not that important." Computing the mean response for each goal on this three-point scale allows a ranking of the items by importance. We also compared the percent of residents who considered each item very important. 90 percent of our respondents said that providing quality education was very important, giving it first place among all the goals in importance, with a mean rating of 2.88 on the 3-point scale. · Providing education was followed by safety items: fire service (2.85), protecting water quality (2.84), and providing police services (2.75). County residents also believe that preserving the environment is important. In the top half of the goals list are preserving natural resources and open space (2.60), and preserving farmland and forested land (2.57). · Providing services for the elderly (2.61), recreational programs for youth (2.52), and supporting affordable health care are also important (2.52). In the lower half of the list were additional social items: programs for troubled youth (2.49), encouraging affordable housing (2.40), providing support for people in need (2.33), and supporting affordable child care (2.31). · Promoting economic growth (2.22) and supporting cultural opportunities (2.19) were the two least important goals on the list. Satisfaction with Services To report results on satisfaction with County services, we combined the percent "very satisfied" with the percent "somewhat satisfied." CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH 3 For the most general question, overall satisfaction with County programs and services, 92.7 percent of our respondents said they were satisfied. This finding represents a significant increase from 84.3 percent in 1994. Public safety items showed a very high level of satisfaction, with levels of satisfaction at 90 percent or better for emergency rescue, police and fire protection, and safety in business and residential areas. The highest level of satisfaction was for emergency rescue services, at 97.5 percent. · The only safety-related item to show a lower satisfaction level was safety for walkers and bicyclists, at 68 percent. · The satisfaction rating for the quality of education in the County schools was 83.7 percent. Efforts to protect natural resources and the environment received a satisfaction rating of 80.5 percent, while 79 percent of survey respondents were satisfied with. the County's efforts to preserve open space. The item with the lowest level of satisfaction was getting around by public transportation, with 58.9 percent of our respondents reporting they were satisfied. Only about two-thirds of our respondents felt able to rate public transportation. Efforts to manage growth also received a relatively low 64.3 percent satisfaction level. Still, when our respondents were asked about specific policies aimed at managing growth; the vast majority favored each of them, as we report below. Attitudes Toward Government On the whole, citizens of Albemarle display a positive attitude toward their government. Residents of Albemarle County trust their government more often than Americans in general tr'dst their local government or the national government. About 68 percent of our respondents said they trusted the Albemarle government to do what is right most of the time or just about always. About 31 percent said they could trust the government only some of the time. Compared with national data about trust in local government, Albemarle County is far stronger. Nationally, about 49 percent of citizens CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH 4 say they trust their local governments most of the time or just about - always.~ · About 85 percent said they were satisfied overal! with the value they received from Albemarle County for their tax dollar. Considering the interaction of taxes and services, two-thirds of our respondents (67.5 percent) favored keeping taxes and services at their current level. Slightly less than half of our respondents had contacted the County in the past year, but of those, more than half were very satisfied with the helpfulness of County employees, and an additional 28 percent were somewhat satisfied with them. To increase the convenience of interacting with the County, our respondents favored expanding the County website, creating branch offices, and increasing the hours of availability of services. They were less favorable toward an automated phone service and kiosks in public areas. · About 80 percent of our respondents said they had access to the internet, and 44 percent of those had visited the County's website. Citizens said they would be interested in researching property records on the web, and in using the website to apply for permits. They were less likely to want to register for classes, pay fees, or reserve park space over the web. Planning and Growth Asked about policies directed at managing growth or land use in Albemarle County, the majority of our respondents favored them. Seventy-nine percent of those who expressed an opinion favored the concept of development areas, though 14 percent of all respondents said they had no opinion about this issue. · More than two-thirds of our respondents favored each of eight other measures the County is considering or has instituted. ~ Thomas M. Guterbock and John C. Fries, Maintaining America's Social Fabric: 'The AARP Survey of Civic Involvement. Charlottesville, Virginia, The Center for Survey Research, 1997. CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH 5 The most popular, with 96 percent favoring it, is allowing localized services, such as stores, post offices, etc, in traditionally rural communities2 The least popular item is the development of an interconnected street system in the development areas. Sixty-eight percent of our respondents favored that policy. Seventy-four percent favored the ACE program for acquiring development rights (46.5 percent strongly favored ACE). Seventy-nine percent favored taxing agricultural and forested land at a lower rate in order to defer development. Restricting the number of lots into which a parcel can be subdivided was favored by 76.1 percent. Providing public amenities in development areas received support from 90.6 percent of respondents. Encouraging a greater variety and mix of housing types in the development areas was favored by 83.9 percent of our respondents. Seventy-four percent favored encouraging a greater mix of offices, stores, restaurants, and other urban services with residential areas in the County's development areas. For some of these items, a significant number said that they had no opinion--indicating that the County could benefit from additional educational programs regarding planning measures. Conclusion The Center for Survey Research presents these findings with the hope that they will be of help to the government of Albemarle County as it moves forward with its strategic planning and decision-making. We believe that the citizen opinions expressed here can provide a useful tool in governing. The Board of Supervisors, executive management, and employees of Albemarle County can take pride in the high level of satisfaction and trust the citizens express. While this survey has also indicated where there is room for improvement, the residents of Albemarle are clearly pleased with their qUality of life and with their government. CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH 6 Table 3.1 Goals for the Strategic Plan Ranked by Mean Importance Rating RANK ITEM MEAN % Very % Important Somewhat Important % Not That Important I Providing good public education 2.88 89.8 8.5 2 Providing fire service 2.85 86.7 12.0 3 Protecting water quality in 2.84 85.2 13.8 reservoirs, streams and wells 4 Providing police service 2.75 78.4 18.2 5 Supporting services for the elderly 2.61 64.7 32.0 6 Preserving natural resources and 2.60 65.1 29.9 open space 7 Preserving farmland and forested 2.57 63.8 29.6 land 8 Providing support for affordable 2.52 58.7 34.6 health care 9 Supporting recreational programs 2.52 58.2 35.2 for youth 10 Reducing traffic congestion 2.50 60.2 29.6 11 Emphasizing programs for troubled 2.49 55.6 37.7 youth 12 Making streets safer for walkers 2.45 56.6 32.0 and bicyclists 13 Encouraging affordable housing 2.40 50.1 39.8 for Iow and moderate income people 14 Providing parks and recreational 2.37 46.0 45.2 space 15 Preserving historic buildings and 2.35 46.3 42.2 places 16 Providing support for people in 2.33 45.0 42.5 need 17 Supporting affordable child care 2.31 45.8 39.9 18 Providing public transportation, 2.24 41.3 41.6 such as buses or JAUNT service 19 Promoting economic growth in 2.22 40.5 41.1 the area 20 Supporting cultural opportunities 2.19 33.4 51.7 1.7 1.3 .9 3.4 3.3 5.0 6.5 6.6 6.6 10.2 6.7 11.3 10.1 8.8 11.5 12.5 14.3 17.1 18.4 14.9 CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH 7 Table 4.7 Ranked List of Satisfaction Items Rank Item Percent Satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES 92. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 Emergency rescue services 97.5 Fire Protection 96.3 Public library services 93.6 Safety in business areas 93.4 Promoting tourism 92.6 Providing parks and recreation space 91.9 Safety in residence areas 91.3 Preserving historic places 90.5 Protection provided by police 90.5 Efforts to make it more convenient to access County services and 87.6 information Providing programs to help the County's elderly population 86.1 Providing quality education to school children 83.7 Opportunities for citizen input 83.1 Getting around by car 82.4 Keeping citizens informed about County government programs and 81.6 services Efforts to protect natural resources and the environment 80.5 Preserving open space, including farmland and forests 79.0 Efforts to support adequate housing 77.5 Safety for walkers and bicyclists on streets, trails, and sidewalks 68.4 Efforts to manage growth 64.3 Getting around by public transportation 58.9 CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH 8 Albemarle Citizen Survey 2002 RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Date: ~/7/~/~ Age~a Itea #:. [ ~ 4-/3/02 Albemarle County April 3, 2002 2002 Citizen Survey Kate F. Wood Assbci~t~' Di~or; CSR Thomas H. GuterbockI Director, CSR CSR Center for Survey Research Survey Goals · Assess residents' perception of quality of life in the county · Rank goals for the strategic plan · Determine level of satisfaction with county services And To... · Assess residents' experience with and attitudes toward county government · Measure citizen opinion about policies for planning for the community's future Survey Features · N of 703 · Margin of error +/- 3.7% · Some questions comparable to 1994 survey Nore Features · RDD (random digit dialing) · Respondent selection within household · CAT:]: (computer-assisted telephone interviewing) · Solid interviewer training UVA Center for Survey Research I Albemarle Citizen Survey 2002 4~3~02 Quality of.:!~Life~ in"- Alb'em:~irle: On a 10-point Scale... · The mean rating is 8.10 · Seventy-three percent gave the county an "8" or better · Eighteen percent gave the county a · Ten percent rated the county "6" or lower Comparison With 1994 1994 Quality of life 7.92 2002 Quality of life 8.10 The improvement is statistically significant. High Ratings Come From... · Women · Those residents who have lived in Albemarle longer · Older residents · Residents with higher education and income levels · Those residents working part-time, retired, or homemakers · Residents of rural areas as compared to development areas Goals for the Strategic Plan Top 3 Goals by Percent "Very Important" · Providing good public education · Providing fire service · Protecting water quality in reservoirs, streams and wells 89.8% 86.7% 85.2% UVA Center for Survey Research 2 Albemarle Citizen Survey 2002 4/3/02 Next Most Important · Providing police service · Preserving natural resources and open space · Supporting services for the elderly 78.4% 65.1% 64.7% Last 5 Goals · Providing support for people in need 45.0% · Supporting affordable childcare 45.8% · Providing public transportation 41.3% · Promoting economic growth 40.5% · Supporting cultural opportunities 33.4% Satisfaction With Services Overall Satisfaction With County Services Somewhat Very Dissatisfied Dissat ~ 2% J~I Satisfied ~~410/° Somew hat ~,-qJ~F Satisfied ~ 520/0 Percent Satisfied: 93% Overall Satisfaction With Services lO0 Overall Satisfaction Has Tncreased · Overall satisfaction in 2002: 92.7% · Overall satisfaction in 1994: 84.3% The improvement is statistically significant. 9O 8O 7O 6O 50- 4O 30 20 10 0 1994 2002 [· Oissati~fied · Satisfied I UVA Center for Survey Research 3 Albemarle Citizen Survey 2002 4/3/02 Satisfaction With Safety Services · Emergency rescue · Fire protection · Safety in business areas · Safety in residence areas · Police protection · Safety for walkers and bicyclists 97.5% 96.3% 93 91.3% 90.4% 68.4% Satisfaction With Environmental Items · Managing growth 64.3% · Protecting natural resources 80.5% · Preserving open space 79.0% Satisfaction With Other Services · Quality of education 83.7% · Programs for the elderly 86% · Efforts to support housing 77.5% · Public library services 93.7% Satisfaction With Communication · Keeping citizens informed · Efforts to make contact more convenient · Opportunities for citizen input 81.6% 87.6% 83.1% Satisfaction With Cultural Services · Efforts to provide parks and recreation space 91.9% · Efforts to preserve historic places 90.5% · Promoting tourism 92.6% Getting Around in Albemarle · Ease of getting around by car · Ease of getting around by public transportation 82.5% 58.9% UVA Center for Survey Research 4 Albemarle Citizen Survey 2002 4/3/02 Trust in Government · 13% trust the Albemarle government "just about always" · 54.9% trust "most of the timer' · Total: 68% trust the Albemarle government National Surveys Show: · 49% trust their local governments just about always or most of the time · 44% trust the national government just about always or most of the time *Source: NES and CSR/AARP surveys What Should Albemarle Do About Taxes and Services? · Decrease services and taxes 9.3% · Keep them at current level 67.5% · Increase service and taxes 13.1% Volunteered Responses: · Increase services, keep taxes the same 2.8% · Keep services the same, decrease taxes 1.5% · Increase services, decrease taxes 4.1% · Something else 1.7% Satisfaction With Value for Tax Dollar · Very satisfied 32.6 % · Somewhat satisfied 52.5% · Somewhat dissatisfied 8.7% · Very dissatisfied 6.1% Total Percent satisfied: 85.1% UVA Center for Survey Research 5 Albemarle Citizen Survey 2002 4/3/02 What Would Be "Very Helpful" or "Somewhat Helpful" in Making Contact More Convenient? · Flexible or expanded hours 76% · Expanded website 74% · Branch offices 70% · Automated phone system 51% · Kiosks 49% Support for Development Areas Strongly Strongly Opposed Favor 11a/o 18O/o 280/0 ~mewhat 430/0 Percent Favoring: 79% Percent Favoring Policies to Manage Growth · Allowing services in traditionally rural communities 95.9% · Providing public amenities in development areas 90.6% · Encouraging mix of housing types in development areas 83.9% · Taxing agricultural and forested land at lower rate 79.4% · Restricting number of lots for subdividing 76.1% · Greater mix of urban serwces with residential areas in development areas 73.8 · Acquiring conservation easements 73.6% · Interconnected streets 67.8% Albemarle County 2002 Citizen Survey CSR Center for Survey Research UVA Center for Survey Research 6 Albemarle Citizen Survey 2002 4/3/02 For further information please contact: Thomas M. Guterbock Kate F. Wood Director Associate Director 434-243-5223 434-243-$224 TomG(~virginia.edu Kwood@virginia.edu www.virginia.ed u/surveys UVA Center for Survey Research 7 DRAFT 4 Changes from Planning Commission Meeting of 3/26/02 (Changes not noted) Village of Rivanna The Village of Rivanna is located east of the City of Charlottesville and south of Route 250 East. The southwestern boundary is formed by the Rivanna River. The western boundary is formed by an unnamed stream just east of Camp Branch. The northern boundary is formed by Route 250. The eastern boundary is formed by the eastern ridgeline of the drainage area for Carroll Creek and Route 808. Existing Land Use Residential- Rivanna Village contains an estimated 506 dwelling units and approximately 1355 people. Ninety-nine percent (502) of the homes are single family units. There are three single family attached units and one mobile home within the Village (August 2000). Almost :all of the residential development is located in the Glenmore development. Commercial/Office- Two businesses are located in the Village. While no other commercial uses exist in the Village, there are currently three country stores located along Route 250 between Route 22 and the County line. In addition, the Village is located approximately four miles from a major shopping center and other commercial areas on Pantops Mountain (Urban Neighborhood 3). Other Land Uses- A golf course is located in the Glenmore Development. Stone Robinson Elementary School is located just west of the Village off Route 729. Chfton, which now serves as an inn, is listed on the Virginia Register of Historic Properties and is also, located on Route 729 near the Village. Environmental Characteristics The area is largely wooded with open spades along Route 250 East and adjacent to the Rivanna River. As the Village develops, it should continue to be orientated toward the fiver, rather than Route 250. There is extensive floodplain along the Rivanna River, Carroll Creek and other streams. Along the Rivanna River exist the ruins of the canal connecting Charlottesville to the Kanawha Canal, which runs along the James River. 97 Albemarle County Land Use Plan Transportation Route 250 East is heavily traveled and serves as a major access point to the Urban Area and City and needs to be upgraded from Interstate 64 east to the County line. Water and Sewer Water and sewer service is adequate to the area. Water service was extended to Rivarma Village from the Urban area as part of the Glenmore development. The waterline along Route 250 was sized adequately to serve the entire Village. Glenmore was developed with a wastewater treatment plant on Carroll Creek that has a capacity of 385,000 gallons per day and is sized appropriately to serve the Village. Public Facilities A fire station is located in the Village. An elementary school is located west of the Village. Public Facility service is adequate to the area. Recommendations Environmental and Historic Protection Preserve as open space the extensive floodplain and critical slopes along the Rivanna River, Carroll Creek and other streams. Provide a greenway along the RiVanna River. Protect the unique scenic and historic characteristics of the river with the development of the Village. Areas north of Interstate 64 have historic/scenic significance to the County and region (including possible designation as a RUral Historic District and have large acreage in an Agriculmral/Forestal District). To preserve and~protect these resoUrces, do not expand the Village boundaries north of U. S. Route 2.50 East, west of Route 22, nor south of the Rivanna River. Transportation Provide interconnections between existing development and areas to be developed in the Village of Rivanna. · Provide several points of access from Route 250 East into the Village that help to create an internal road network for the Village so that properties that front Route 250 may have access to Route 250 through the internal road network. · Provide for pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the Village. · Upgrade Route 250 East to improve traffic safety and circulation in the area..Many of the necessary improvements are described in the Route 250 East Corridor Study. Improvements should: Provide the minimum level of improvement necessary to support anticipated development along Route 250 East from the eastern city limits to the County line. 98 Albemarle County Land Use Plan · Be designed to minimize the visual impact adjacent to historic properties and sites including Monticello and the Southwest Mountain Historic District. Provide a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 250 East and Glenmore Way when warrants are met. · Be provided by both the public sector and private sector to ensure that existing traffic needs are met as well as future traffic needs generated by proposed developments are met. · Be streetscaped in strategic locations to improve the character of the corridor, especially at or near the 1-64 interchange and along the commercial strip of development between 1-64 and the railroad crossing. · Have landscaped medians where median strips are necessary. · Minimize lighting at intersections and be installed to meet the County lighting ordinance for down-shielded lights. · Provide bicycle facilities and, where appropriate, walkways in conjunction with these upgrades. · Provide mass transit, where feasible, to the Village of Rivanna. Land Use The Village of Rivanna should meet the functional description of Villages as described on pages 12 - 14 of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. To meet this intent, residential and mixed-use areas with commercial activity are expected. Areas shown as Neighborhood Density · Should continue to be developed at a density of 3 - 6 dwellings per acre. Areas shown as Community Service · Are intended to be developed as a compact, higher density residential area with a mixture of retail businesses, services, public facilities, and civic spaces. · May have residential, density of up to 6 dwellings per gross acre in addition to the non-residential uses. This density can be increased if the non-residential square footage decreases. · Should contain: · A grid street system of interconnected roadways which are neo-traditional as characterized by narrow widths, on-street parking, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street trees. · Street connections to both Glenmore Way and Route 250 East. · A "main street" with retail and office buildings. · A variety of housing types 99 Albemarle County Land Use Plan Housing that provides opportunities for all age groups, including senior housing and housing for all socioeconomic levels to live in the Village of Rivanna. · Non-residential uses, mostly in small commercial, office, retail and restaurant/inn uses. Total commercial, office, retail, and service square footage should not exceed 240,000 square feet for the Village. Automobile repair and self-storage areas are not considered to be appropriate uses to this Community Service area. · Commercial uses interior to the Village rather than "highway oriented" uses along Route 250. · Mass, scale, and architectural detailing of buildings that provide for a "human scale" development that supports pedestrians. · A well-integrated pedestrian system, including sidewalks and paths. · A fire station located either on Route 250 or interior to the Village. · Other civic buildings including schools, churches, community centers and public offices located within the Village. · A variety of park and recreational amenities including open space appropriate to the residential needs of the Village. · In addition to density of 6 dwellings per acre and .240,000 square feet of nonresidential space, the area may have nursing homes and assisted living facilities. · Are to be designed and developed in general accord with the design for the Rivanna Village at Glenmore prepared by the Cox Company on Marbh 6, 2001 2/26/02 and pages 4 - 7 and 17 - 19 of the Application for Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map Amendment dated March 6, 2001 with the following exceptions. No commercial uses are to take place on the property adjacent to the most eastern entrance from Route 250 East. The large vacant area shown with trees at the comer of Route 250 East and Glenmore Way should be available for development with internal access but no direct access from Route 250 East or Glenmore Way. No retail use of this area is allowed. · Should be developed in a manner that is sensitive to its location within Monticello's viewshed in accordance with the Monticello Viewshed Guidelines for Developers. · Should be developed in a way that minimizes adverse impacts on residential properties adjoining the Community Service area by preserving mature vegetation; having residences abut adjoining residential properties, use of screening and berming and use of wide buffer strips. · Should have parking that is · Not in excess of that necessary to support individual uses in the Community Service area. · Shared with other uses whenever possible. · Located in ways to minimize visual impacts and heat generated by large areas of pavement · Buffered and screened from neighboring residential properties in areas shown as Neighborhood Density using a combination of techniques such as landscaping, screening, fencing, or berming. 100 Albemarle County Land Use Plan Utilities · Maintain capacity for anticipated development, public facilities, and public services. Public Facilities · Locate public facilities such as a school, library, police substation, or playing field, when needed in the Village in the Community Service Area. 101 Albemarle County Land Use Plan DRAFT 4 Changes from Planning Commission's Meeting of 3/26/02 Village of Rivanna The Village of Rivanna is located east of the City of Charlottesville and south of Route 250 East. The southwestern boundary is formed by the Rivanna River. The western boundary is formed by an unnamed stream just east of Camp Branch. The northern boundary is formed by Route 250. The eastern boundary is formed by the eastern ridgeline of the drainage area for Carroll Creek and Route 808. Existing Land Use Residential- Rivanna Village contains an estimated 50~6 dwelling units and approximately 1355 people. Ninety-nin...._qe percent ~ of the homes are single familyt, ...... ' (9) There are three single family attached units and ......... · t,~ n~ mobile hcmc: tT..~., l aa~ home within the Village (August 2000). Almost all of the residential development is located in the Glenmore development. Commereial/Offiee- Two businesses are located in the Village. While no other commercial uses exist in the Village, there are currently three country stores located along Route 250 between Route 22 and the County line. In addition, the Village is located approximately four miles fxom a major shopping center and other commercial areas on Pantops Mountain (Urban Neighborhood 3). Other Land Uses- A golf course is located in the Glenmore Development. Stone Robinson Elementary School is located just west of the Village off Route 729. Clifton, which now serves as an inn, is listed on the Virginia Register of Historic Properties and is also, located on Route 729 near the Village. Environmental Characteristics The area is largely wooded with open spaces along Route 250 East and adjacent to the Rivanna River. As the Village develops, it should continue to be orientated toward the river, rather than Route 250. There is extensive floodplain along the Rivanna River, Carroll Creek and other streams. Along the Rivanna River exist the ruins of the canal connecting Charlottesville to the Kanawha Canal, which runs along the James River. 97 Albemarle County Land Use Plan Transportation Route 250 East is heavily traveled and serves as a major access point to the Urban Area and City and needs to be upgraded from Interstate 64 east to the County line. Water and Sewer Water and sewer service is adequate to the area. Water service was extended to Rivarma Village from the Urban area as part of the Glenmore development. The waterline along Route 250 was sized adequately to serve the entire Village. Glenmore was developed with a wastewater treatment plant on Carroll Creek that has a capacity of 385,000 gallons per day and is sized appropriately to serve the Village. Public Facilities A fire station is located in the Village. An elementary school is located ea~ west of the Village. Public Facility service is adequate to the area ^~=--cx:--~-*~-, ~a ..... ~ .... bccn Recommendations Environmental and Historic Protection · Preserve as open space the extensive floodplain and critical slopes along the Rivanna River, Carroll Creek and other streams.. Provide a greenway along the Rivanna River. Protect the unique scenic .and historic characteristics of the river with the development of the Village. · Areas north of Interstate 64 have historic/scenic significance to the County and region (including possible designation as a Rural Historic District and have large acreage in an Agricultural/Forestal District). To preserve and protect these resources, do not expand the Village boundaries north of U. S. Route 250 East, west of Route 22, nor south of the Rivanna River. Transportation · Provide interconnections between existing development and areas to be developed in the Village of Rivanna. · Provide several points of access from Route 250 East into the Village that help to create an internal road network for the Village :so that properties that front Route 250 may have access to Route 250 through the internal road network. Provide for pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the Village 98 Albemarle County Land Use Plan Upgrade Route 250 East to improve traffic safety and circulation in the area. Many of the necessary improvements are described in the Route 250 East Corridor Study., Improvements should: d~ .... ~ Provide the minimum level of improvement necessa~ m support anticipated d~elopment along Route 250 East ~om the ea,tem ci~ limits to the Coun~ Iine~ Be desired m minimize the visual impact adjacent to historic properties and sites including Monticello and the Southwest Mountain Historic District. Provide a tra~c sisal at the inmrsection of Route 2JO East and Glenmore ~ay when wa~ants are met. Be provided by both the public sector and private sector m ensure that existing traffic needs are met as well as future tra~c needs generated by proposed developments are met. Be streetscaped in s~ategic locations to improve the character of the corridoG' especially at or near the 1-64 interchange and along the commercial strip of development be~een 1-64 and the railroad crossing. Have landscaped medians where median s~ips are necessa~. Minimize lighting at intersections and be installed to meet the Coun~ li~htin~ ordinance for down-shielded ligh=. Provide bicycle facilities ~d pc:aib!y, where appropriate, wal~ays in conj~ction with ~2s these up,de& · Provide mass transit~ where feasible, to the Village of Rivanna. Land Use The Village of Rivanna should meet the functional description of Villages as described on pages 12 - 14 of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. To meet this intentT residential and mixed-use areas with commercial activity are expected. Areas shown as Neighborhood Density · Should continue to be developed at a density of 3 - 6 dwellings per acre. 99 Albemarle County Land Use Plan Areas shown as Community Service · Are intended to be developed as a compact~ higher density residentialarea with a mixture of retail businesses~ services~ public facilities, and civic spaces · May have residential density of up to 6 dwellings per gross acrein ~ad&'tion .to the non-residential uses. This density can be increused if the non-residential square footage decreases. · ~eV-s-Should Contain: · A grid street system ofinterconnected roadways which are neo-traditional as characterized by narrow widths, on-street parking, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street trees. · Street connections to both Glenmore Way and Route 250 East. · A "main street" with retail and office buildings. e A varzety ofhoustng types ....... 6 ........:,~.'( ::..i ......... ,...-~ .... ;.~o r~ · Housing thatprovides Opportunities for all age groups, including senior housing ..................6 t ......... and housing for all soctoeconomtc levels to live in the Village of Rivanna · Non-residential uses, mostly in small commercial~ off~ce, retail and restaurant/inn uses. Total commercialt office, retail~ and service square footage should not exceed 240~ 000 square feet for the Village. Automobile repair and self-storage areas are not considered to be .appropriate uses to this Communi~ Service area. · Commercial uses interior to the Village rather h "' t an htghwa¥ oriented" uses along Route 250. · Mass, scale, and architectural detailing of buildings that provide for a "human scale" development that supports pedestrians. · A well-integrated pedestrian system, including sidewalks and paths. · A.fire station lOcated either on Route 250 or interior to the Village · Other civic buildings including schools, churches, community centers and public offices located within the Village · A varie~, of park and recreational amenities including open space appropriate to the residential needs of the.. Village. · In addition to densi~, of 6 dwellingsper acre and 240,000 square feet, of nonresidential spaCe, the area may have nursing hOmes and assisted living facilities. · Are to be designed and developed in general accord with the design'..for the Rivanna Village at Glenmore prepared by the Cox Company on ~ .... ~ ~ ,nn ~ . ~ ........ , .... 2/26/02 and pages 4- 87 and 17- 19 qf the Application.for Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map Amendment dated March 6, 2001 with the.following exceptions. · No commercial uses are to take place on the property, adjacent to the most eastern entrance.from Route 250 East. The large vacant area shown with trees at the corner qf Route 250 100 Albemarle County Land Use Plan East and Glenmore Way s4ugm~t may be gvailable for development with internal access but no direct access.from Route 250 East or Glenmore Way. No retail use qf this area is allowed · 's · Should be developed in a manner that is sensitive to its location within Monncello viewshed in accordance with the Monticello Viewshed Guidelines.for Developers. Should be developed in a way that minimizes adverse impacts on residential properties adjoining the Communi~. Service area by preserving mature vegetation, having residences abut adjoining residen, tial properties, use o, f b~f. fc;q::c. screening and berming and Use of wide buffer strips:,! · Should have parking that is · Not in excess of that necessa~, to support individual uses in the Communi~. Service area .......... ~.. · Shared with other uses wheneverpossible. · Located in ways to minimize visual impacts and heat generated by large areas of pavement · Bu..ffered and screened.from neighboring residentialproperties in areas shown as Neighborhood Densityusing a combination of techniques suc!: ac including landscaping, screening, fencing, or berming. Utilities · Maintain capacity for anticipated development, public facilities, and public services. Public Facilities Locate public facilities such as a school, library, police substation, or playing field. when needed in the Village in the Community Service Area. 101 Albemarle County Land Use Plan O0 O0 ~VILLAGE AT GLENMORE O0 ~0 TER~ PLAN oo IV. Rivanna Village · The Village Master Plan Glenmore Associates' master plan for Rivanna Village was conceived bv a team of community, planners and landscape designers at The Cox Company of Charlottesville. The design team set out with the primary mission of embracing the growth management goals and development strategies of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Countv's recommended Neighborhood' Model planning initiatives. The project envisions a small-town environment which captures the "look and feel" of traditional, turn-of-the-century Virginia commumties. Rivanna Village's compact scale is intended to complement the surrounding low densi .ty development while providing an alternative to the'sprawl patterns witnessed along other major entrance corridors. The elements of the master plan attempt to shape the village's "urban design fabric" into a diverse activity, center where its residents, shoppers and people in the workplace can feel safe, comfortable and energized. Rivanna Village Master Phtn Full Development Scenario P vanna Village Glenmo Housing will be interspersed throughout the village to accommodate all age groups, but special attention is given to the needs of senior citizens. with retirement housing located within an easy walking distance to the town center. Further, the planned mix of residential building types will be attractive to diverse socio-economic interests, with units of vaE,,'ing bedroom mix, spatial accommodations and affordabilitv. Representative TownhoUS e Architecture Fronting on Village Streets Civic spaces and activitv areas are a kev component of Rivanna Village. The master plan establishes a gatewa.v "market square" at the western edge of the Village, with retail, office and institutional uses centered on the square. At the east end of the Village's Main Street, townhouses and the retirement housing will front on a large "commons" where community events and passive recreation ma,,' occur. Intervening open spaces will be provided along Main Street for outdoor cafes and areas to congregate. Selected areas will be reserved for both visitors' and residents; recreational purposes, such as ~vimmin~,_ tennis. ~ioooino==. =, and the like. Rivanna Vilta~e comprises seventeen discrete blocks served bv a hierarchy of streets, lanes and alleys which comprise the interconnected "grid" system. The streets embrace a welt defined, but compact. neighborhood core area which will contain numerous, but varied, mixed- use buildings which are closely oriented to a village-scaled Main Street. Rivanna Village at Lot s~zes, setbacks and build-to lines will reflect those found in historic villages throughout the Commonwealth. Streetscape elements and landscape features will coordinated between blocks and throughout the balance of the communi..ry. The uses and development densities within Rivanna Village will be organized around the transitional rural/urban scale of the Village Development Area as well as to the range of convenience, neighborhood, and community, level market demands of the surrounding community. The overall floor area ratio (FAR) for the 78-acre village is slightly less than 0.30, with a residential density of approximately six units per acre, Phmner's Concept for 3,lain Street Improvements Rivanna Village at Glenmore 6 P vanna Vil ge Glenmore Individual shops, and retail establishments will be relatively small in comparison to the County's norms for regional and community commercial uses, averaging less than lO,O00 square feet of gross floor area (sfg/-a) per business. Personal service business will be smaller in average size and will integrate "live/work" residences, where feasible. Major employers and office occupants may occupy larger, multi-level spaces and be located within special purpose buildings. However, some of the individual Main Street buildings may contain retail on the first level with second and third floors accommodating offices and residential apartments. Riranna Viihtge's neighborhood streets will feature special hardscape treattnents, lighting, cross walks, and attractive landscaping. 7 Rivanna Village G 'e mo e D. Compliance of Plan Amendment with Plans and Ordinances The County's Plan Amendment Policy states that "proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments shall he evaluated /br ,general compliance with adopted County. plans, policies, stttdies and ordinances and to determine if corresponding changes are necessary." Glenmore Associates' village development concept for Rivanna Village has been evaluated in relationship to other County plans, policies, and studies. As it applies to the subject application, the most influential of these plans and studies is the DISC "Development Areas Initiative Project." This three year research and planning effort recently culminated in the Planning Commission's recommendation of the DISC "Neighborhood Model" to the Board of Supervisors (per action of February 20, 2001.) During the applicant's pre-planning phase for the project, the master plan for Rivanna Village has germinated from the DISC recommendations for town and village-styled development. The following outline establishes the relationship of Rivanna Village to the ten major goals of the Neighborhood Model: C~nters: Fundamental to the Neighborhood Model is the establishment of appropriately scaled "centers" where Rivanna area residents and other Count',' citizens can congregate and interact on many levels. Rivanna Village cteartv represents a true "village center" in that its Main Street will incorporate civic spaces, a commons and square, restaurants, office and "destination" activities which will b'e attractive to the communit~- at large. Open Space: The Neighborhood Model's goals for open space emphasize the need for public and private outdoor recreational areas as well as open space for active and passive recreation. Rivanna Village will include a large "commons" anchoring the end of the Main Street. Also included is a large lake which serves as P vanna Village Gienmore the dominant amenity' around which paths and public passive areas will be structured. The village "grid" street system will link residents, shoppers and visitors to Rivanna Village's activiw areas and open spaces. Network: Responding to DISC's goals for neighborhood "linkages", Rivanna Village incorporates a network of sidewalks which will interconnect all village land uses and provide paths to the contiguous existing residential neighborhoods. M£~ced Uses: Rivanna Village will offer a blend of village-scaled, mixed-use buildings which embrace traditional Virginia architectural stylings. The diversified uses will be accommodated in buildings which are side-by-side or uses which are located ~vithin the same structure. de Buildirlg Placement and Scal~: Rivanna Village's scale will promote a true "sense of place." The architectural scale, massing, heights and orientations of Rivanna Village's buildings will create an inviung streetscape environment in which pedestrians will feel at home. Alleys (and Secondao' Access): Rivanna Village's hierarchy of streets fulfills the Neighborhood Model's goals bv incorporating secondary pedestrian and vehicular linkages which are scaled to matntain the functionality,, esthetics and carrying capacity of the Village's -Main Street." Relegated Parking: The village streets are designed to accommodate on-street parking, with conservatively applied street widths, appropriately scaled street-to-building relationships and related transportation characteristics. The Neighborhood Model's transportation planning precepts are reflected by the proposed block and grid organization. The project's vehicular ciFculation P vanna Village 8. I0. system establishes clear and ample options for on-site traffic and access to convenient parking areas which are "buffered" from the principle pedestrian areas. Many residences will have both front and rear building access from secondary travelwa.vs, thus reducin_,2 the need for single purpose alleys. Variety of Housing Types: As a village-scaled neighborhood. the master plan introduces higher density residences than those found in the adjoining Glenmore community,, which has been developed at suburban densities. The crltical mass-of the residential uses will provide a unique variety and sense of vitality within the village's internal blocks. In addition to conventional townhouse blocks, the project will integrate upper level "flats" and "live/work" residences located in the same structures as non- residential uses. Architectural detailing and design treatment of the apartments and "affordable" units will vary little from that of other residences. Appealing Streetscapes: The Neighborhood Model recognizes 'that streetscapes are "the fundamental element of public space within the neighborhood." To ensure that Rivanna Village is inviting to all, its Main Street and other internal streets wilt be modeled after traditional Virginia villages, with street trees, open squares and .public spaces, quality street lighting, benches, and specialty signage. Transportation Options: The master plan for Rivannfi Village provides convenient intra-neighborhood and inter-community access, both for vehicular and pedestrian movements. Bike and cart paths will be considered, where appropriate, for neighborhood circulation. Glenmore Associates intends to work with Countv officials to ensure that the village's street system is compatible with the long-term transportation needs of the Rivanna Development Area. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA 01-03 Rivanna Village at Glenmore SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to show a portion of the Village of Rivanna as Community Service on the County's Land Use Plan STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Benish, Ms. Echols AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2002 ACTION: Worksession CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: No ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: I I U.M NUMBERS: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission meeting held on March 26, 2002, the Commission recommended approval of the Rivanna Village at Glenmore Comprehensive'Plan Amendment. The only change from March 5 was a formatting change. The modified amendment, Draft 4, requested by the Commission as a "clean copy" is provided in Attachment A. Attachment B shows the changes from the original section of the Comprehensive Plan. DISCUSSION: Staff knows of no other changes needed to the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled "Rivanna Village at Glenmore" to allow a Community Service designation in the Village of Rivanna Develop ment Area. G. Nell Means 3815 Richmond Rd. Keswick, VA 22947 434/296-8955 March 21, 2002 Albemarle County Planning Commission 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 I am a resident and property owner in the "Village of Rivanna". I am writing to voice my concerns about the County's Comprehensive Plan generally and specifically with reference to the proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan CPA-O 1 -03 Rivanna Village at. Glenmore. On page 3 of the Land Use Plan, under the heading "Growth Management and Facilities Planning Goals", it states: The County's primary growth management goal directs development into designated areas and conserves the balance of the County for rural areas and resource protection .... Thus, planning efforts aim to channel growth into designated areas...and to conserve the Rural Areas. Some years ago, when the Kessler Group was going through the County's approval process for the Village of Rivanna growth area, in order to develop the Glenmore community, there was a considerable amount of discussion about whether Glenmore would fulfill existing demand for growth, thereby relieving pressure on the Rural Areas, or whether it would attract new growth to the County. The Kessler Group's position was that they would be answering an existing demand. They said that, while developing Forest Lakes, a number of their customers had expressed an interest in a more upscale community and that Glenmore would serve to relieve that growth pressure. At a Planning Commission work session in 1989 Frank Kessler stated that they would not advertise Glenmore outside the County. In fact, they have advertised Glenmore outside the County. Attached are copies of several ads I have run across, without making an effort at a comprehensive search, over the intervening years: UVa Alumni News, Nov. 1992. 90% of the ~,tI::Q[iL~' circulation is outside the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. Part of a brochure from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, May 1993, .(given away at a large poster display). Note that the brochure gives directions to Glenmore from Richmond and Washington, D.C., implying that the targeted market is unfamiliar with the area. The New York Times Magazine, March, 1998. The New York Times Magazine, March, 2002. Note the legend: "Voted #1 County in America to retire and play golf - Golf Digest". So, after the County approved the Village of Rivanna growth area and the Glenmore development on the premise that it would attract pre-existing demand for growth which otherwise would have gone into Rural Areas, the developers went out and marketed their product around the country, attracting growth which otherwise might never have come to Albemarle. If the Kessler Group is permitted by the County to build the Rivanna Village, no doubt they will market it to people and organizations outside the area, adding to, instead of diverting, existing growth pressures on the County. The plan is probably already helping them sell Glenmore lots, because people whom they've interested in moving here from New York to "retire and play golf" are probably glad to hear that assisted living facilities, for their later years, Will be conveniently located. Of course, the competition, e.g. Westminster-Canterbury of the 81ue Ridge, also advertises, in the ~ for people to move to Albemarle to retire: While growth areas, and villages Within growth areas, make sense for the Comprehensive Plan in theory, the County must find a way to assure that in practice they don't just add to growth. Failing that assurance, and so far that assurance has failed, and given the Kessler Group's track record in marketing Glenmore, the County certainly should not increase the commemial and residential density available to them. Therefore, I recommend that the County and the Planning Commission reject the proposed amendment CPA-01-03 Rivanna VillaGe at Glenmore because it fails to meet "the County's pdmary growth management goal." Thank you very much. ,lev-covered oreen MeneJ in mornin un. h edacukr. Horses grazing in rolhng green fields. Cool breezes rusding through the trees. Views of nearby Monticello and the Blue Ridge Mountains. This is Glenmore, a private country club community in historic Albemarle County.. Located only five miles from Charlottesville, Gleumore offers an unparalleled lifestyle in one of Americah most desirable areas. The centerpiece of Glenmore will be an 18-hole, par- 72 championship golf course Slated for completion in late 1992. In addition, residents of Glenmore may become members of the private country club with dining, swimming, and comprehensive tennis facilities. Equestrian pursuits will also be catered to along shady bridle paths and in the competitive show ring. To receive further information regarding Glenmore, including our color brochure, or to arrange your private tour of the property, please call today. GIk'NMORE P.O. Box 5207 o Dept. UAN1192 - Charlottesville, Virginia 22905 (804) 977 - 8865 Ohtai,, thc Property R~.~vrt r,.'~uired by federal law and read it hcfia'c ~rmm~l~ sigsdng anything. No fM~al agu~ ~s ju~ t~ me~ts or yah,e, if a~. of this p~ty. ,,~,.,,,~ A To GII Just beyoud Gienmore~ private gates is the exciting city of Charlottesville, offeriug a wide range of cultural and social activities plus excellent sch~ds and healthcare facilities, within easy drivi,,g distance are the state~ and nation~ capitals. '~ To reach Glenmove from Richmond, follow Inter- state 64 west to exit 124 (Route 250 east). Take Route 250 east to G[e~more. From Washington, D.C., follow Highway 29 south to Charlottesville. In Charlottesville, take Route 250 east to Glenmore. GL MORE P.(). Box 5207 Charh,ttesvillc, Vi,'~inia 22t~5 (804) c177-88~5 A private country club community h7 historic Albemarle County. ~ Peathoose R~szdlnce remains. 100 alum foot co~minium with Eamrea and app0'mtmants and n possibiM~ ~fivate keyed nd ~xtraouti~ wlfite ~ove ~mparably to the Parc Soner~t dso enjoy a swim, teanis and health · gated, 18-acre park-like setting ~iud. P~ Somerset is now under ff0m ~ $600,000 s. Telephone: 301-657-9494 Toll-Free: 888-472-7202 already oYerS0~d sold. To m A~OVE CHEVY CHASE. AND EVr~'t'THINC ELSE. ~geous selection and pricing; 55~ Friendship Blvd, Chevy Chase, Ma~land 20815 Open lorn 6daily. * At~intment recommen&d. OE REAL ESTATE, INC. * Exclusive a~liate of $0THEB¥'S International Realty A www. parcsomerset.com ~t i$ ,~t, an e~f~ .t?~, No olk~ canb¢ ma& until an o~feli~ ~afl i~ tild with the lX, parmmt d La~ l~'y Cmera[ P, qk'm ion No. CDg?D0~. IMces aM a~labiJitr mbj<t to chan~ ~tMut rafilz. OPPOH'rUNIT¥ T~s $,300 z-q. k .~ ma ~or i~ nt~, under cor~qxucfion. ~..:,c ~own-and-coun~__.~l~nce on ~he ~va~e, fciC, meadcm ~d or,:ha~ - =der an YC. By ar~x~h~hnez~ o~, 914-242~.%00 - ~ ?ord's Guard Hill section..From s2 million ro $5 million. Offered by Bayswamr Rcal~ ~ Capital Corp. BROKERS Wb2LGOMF. Th~ complete on'~fing [crm~ are in a CPS-7 ~-lilahlc from the File No. }1974175. CPS-? No. 974134. ng h hui~e made in thc Sine of Nuw 5~-k. and in those mm in which thu alleeiug k n~ pmhibimd. d:n§tLmes cornl ghe,Xeml~lnrk~ime_q 7 t~ect the uor~cP A majestic Blue Ridge backdrop, clean mountain ail*, and a rolhng R~vanna r:ver create a glorious set0ng for Glenmbre's chu~ic srreerscapes and historic architecture. A private, gated country-club community renowned for its full range of amenities, Glenmore's 18-hole Championship olf Course~designed by John LaFoy~is just the beginning! Discover our on-site £q~estrian Center, state- of-the-art su~nmiz~g and tenni~ complex, magnificent Georgian.style clubhouse and Select Builder Program. Call us to arrange your private tom: //,l~r'~ (804) 97%8865 or 1-800-776-5111 · ~7~:..?-': [:> ~ j Call to receive your copy oi~ our video "Living Yon~ Ds~m" e~ ~:'.::~ LJI.~IN IVIUVd2,,~,,a,,/ Outer, trod Tla~tas yeffer~n's i~ltirdlo. " ~'~J}5~::~:~ '-. '....,;..~i} at ¢.a.a.>,oou, ann ~o#testtvs start at $1~2,000 -,. DOWN... CONSlDE LY. If you're not currently a subscriber, you can get home delivery of The Times, for a limited period, at a special Iow rate. Call today. Expect the WorldTM At the southern and of North Carolina's strand of magnifi- cent islands and capes is an incomparable residential and resort community. Bald Head Island is accessibie only by passenger ferry or private yacht, so there are no cars here, no traffic jams, and blissfully, no fast lane. The pace of life slows to that of an electric cart, trusty bicycle or lazy stroll. Bordered by a lO,O00-acre nature preserve, island homes are set along pristine beaches high on a dune ridge, within a magical maritime forest, overlooking a salt marsh, around a championship golf course, and surrounding a quaint harbour village. The picturesque herbour is home to restaurants, shops and a modem marina, while the B~/Id Head Island Club offers an elegant clubhouse with fine dining, championsh p go f, swimming, tennis and croquet. A passport to explore our outstanding real estate opportu- nities and to sample Bald Head Island's gracious way Of life is yours when you reserve an Island Passport Package. ' For more information, please ca us today at 1-800- 234-2441 and prepare for a relaxing change of pace. BALD HEAD :ISLAND = NORTH CAROLINA ~ Bald Head Island Information Center 5079 Southport-Supply Road, Southpon, NC 28461 O~tain.~.Pra .p~Re~. mqui/~l Iq federal la~ a~l. mad ~t bef~ si~niq ae~Jng. PI0 Te~era agencT nas ud~ed the ma'its or vase, if any of this pmpeey. This is not an offering to ms dents of New Yo~ nor otha jurisdictions where prohibited. Equal NOLdng Opportuni[y. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA 01-03 Rivanna Village at Glenmore SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to show a portion of the Village of Rivanna as Community Service ,on the County's Land Use Plan STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Echols AGENDA DATE: March 26, 2002 ACTION: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: No ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission meeting held on March 5, 2002, the Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Commission asked for minor changes. The modified amendment requested by the Commission as a "clean copy" is provided in Attachment A. Attachment B shows the changes from the original section of the Comprehensive Plan. DISCUSSION: Staff knows of no other changes needed to the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled "Rivanna Village at Glenmore" to allow a Community Service designation in the Village of Rivanna Development Area. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA 01-03 Rivanna Village at Glenmore SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to show a portion of the Village of Rivanna as Community Service on the County's Land Use Plan STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Echols AGENDA DATE: iTEM NUMBERS: March 5, 2002 ACTION: INFORMATION: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: No INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YReEsVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission meeting held on February 19, the Commission discussed the proposed amendment dated February 13, 2002 and asked for changes in several areas. The modified amendment requested by the Commission is provided in Attachment A. DISCUSSION: The requests and how they have been dealt with are described below: · The Commission asked that mature vegetation be preserved at the perimeter of the site. This change is reflected in the draft dated March 3. · The Commission asked that the lot line where the Magruder lots adjoin the property reflect either awider bufferor RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the critical slopes waiver and disturbance of the buffer can be approved as shown generally on the preliminary site plan with the condition that slopes be regraded at a slope necessary to meet ARB requ. irements for landscaping and in no instance at less than 2:1. Regarding approval of the preliminary site plan, the ARB has a long list of requirements that are typically met on a final site plan and can be met on a final site plan. (See Attachment C.) With one exception, there are no outstanding issues related to the approval of the preliminary site p lan. This exception relates to pedestrian access through the stormwater area if detention is provided across the street. The path through the parking lot needs to be located betWeen parking spaces rather than going directly into parking spaces. At this juncture, staff is ready to recommend approval of the preliminary site plan, with the condition noted above. The final site plan will be subject to all requirements stated by the different reviewing departr~ents and agencies in their letter recommending approval. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972- 4012 MEMORANDUM Albemarle County Planning Commission Elaine K. Echols, Principal Planner ~ ~_~ CPA 01-03 Rivanna Village at Glenmore February 27, 2002 Background: At the Planning Commission meeting held on February 19, 2002, the Commission asked for changes to the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment dated February 13, 2002. Most of the changes have been incorporated into the Draft dated 3/5/01 which is Attachment A. Attachment B contains the "Master Plan" which is referenced on page 100, Discussion: All of the requested ch. anges are discussed below: · Preservation of existing mature vegetation at the perimeter of the property near the Magruder lots is included on page 99. · Addition of a larger buffer and residential uses where the perimeter of the property adjoins the Magruder lotS is shown on the Master Plan. It is also referenced on page 100. · Minimizing the amount of parking to that which is actually necessary for the use is already included on page 100. · Allowing for a density of 6.0 dwellings per acre and assisted livJ4ng facilities is described on pages 99 and 100. References on these pages also allow for an increase in density if the non- residential square footage is decreased. · Phasing such that residential uses are phased in with commercial uses at the beginning of the project is more appropriately handled at the rezoning stage. · Rewording of the statement regarding concurrency to indicate that the public and private sector share the responsibility for providing improvements to Route 250. One other change that has occurred is that the plan (Attachment B) is now shown in black and white and provided more to indicate the expected character and form of the development rather than the particular uses. Uses that should be retained in the location shown on the previous color plan are articulated with words on page 100. Recommendation: 3/5/01. Staff recommends approval of the Camorehensive Plan amendment dated 1 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION #4: ELAINE K. ECHOLS~ AICP DECEMBER 4, 2001 CPA 01-03 RIVANNA VILLAGE AT GLENMORE Revised December 5, 2001 Background Information The Planning Commission last reviewed this comprehensive plan amendment on September 11, 2001. At that meeting, the Commission agreed generally with the staff's assertion that the area should be develop.ed fully as a "Village" as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission said that commercial uses should be added to the Village and that the land use for this area should be changed to a category consistent with commercial uses and residential uses such as a modified Commercial Service category. Staff said it would be bringing three issues back to the Commission prior to a public hearing. These issues are 1)the appropriateness of preserving the intermittent streams on the property; 2) the appropriateness of the proposed density; and 3) the relationship of this change in use to Route 250 East. Additionally, staffhas received information from Monticello, which will be discussed in this report. Attachment A shows the plan for development for the area under review for a change in land use designation~ Although provided previously to the Commission it is included again in this report for easy reference. The Intermittent Streams The previous staff report indicated that there are two intermittent streams that traverse the site and that one of the streams had flowing water when inspected in late summer. This stream was noted as significant because of its perennial (albeit low) flow, the surrounding hydric soils, and its wetland plants. Staff noted that it had a preferred existing buffer of native hardwood riparian species, some of which are on critical slopes. The development plan for the project shows that the streams would be piped~ Staff was asked to look into the issue of stream preservation and provide guidance on the pros and cons to piping the streams. Staff has developed the following list ofpro's and con's concerning stream preservation in.this part of the Development Area: Disadvantages to covering the streams: · The aesthetic value of the streams will be lost. · If aquatic life exists in the streams, it will be lost in the sections that are piped. · The stream near the Magruder Lots provides a buffer area between the site and adjacent residential areas. · Collectively, headwater streams are important for the quality of the larger stream corridors, such as Carroll Creek. · The denser the development, the more difficulty there is in maintaining the stream as an aesthetic resource. Advantages to covering the streams · A more dense compact development can take place in the Development Area. · If the streams were left open, even with the current land use designation; the streams' quality would be negatively impacted with runoff. · There are more significant headwater streams and drainage channels associated with forested steep slopes that affect Carroll Creek in the Development Area than these drainage channels. Other factors concerning stream protection Whether the streams are left open or piped, good stormwater management will be needed to protect the downstream section of the stream, Carroll Creek, and the Rivanna River. The lake shownon the concept plan will be a good way to treat stormwater and control flows downstream associated with impervious surfaces. Of course, if the stream is left open, the lake will submerge a significant part of the natural stream channel. Regarding the stream buffer between the adjoining properties and the proposed development, there are two issues to be reviewed. One issue is the "buffer'~ between uses. The other issue is the "stream buffer" for the stream itself. Regarding the buffer between uses, an appropriate buffer can be created between the adjoining residential uses and the proposed development with sufficient area and landscaping. Staff believes such a screening and landscape buffer is important because of the difference in scale between to the adjoining residential development and the Rivanna Village at Glenmore. The negative impacts of the proposed parking area next to the adjoining subdivisions can be mitigated with a substantial landscaping, screening, and possibly berming. Regarding the "stream buffer", if the streams are to be retained, a minimum 50 foot stream buffer on either side of the streams is recommended as a minimum buffer. These buffers would not be required by the Water Protection Ordinance even though one of the streams appears to have perennial flow. Runoff from the streams contributes to the quality of Carroll Creek. With the lake provided as a stormwater management BMP, runoff from the proposed development can be controlled in volume and quality prior to release to the channel that ultimately flows to Carroll Creek. The only way to maintain the same vglume and quality as currently exists in the streams flowing to Carroll Creek is with a low-density development and b.m.p. In general, the Planning Commission will have to make some policy decisions and trade-offs with regard to streams in the Development Areas. It will be impossible to. save all headwaters streams and still achieve land use goals for the Development Areas. The master planning process will help to discriminate between stream resources of excellent value that should be retained and those of lesser value where impacts should be expected. For the current proposal, if the Commission believes that a town center area is desirable for the Village of Rivanna and that the property in question is an appropriate place for such a use, then it must be acknowledged that stream protection is a secondary concern on this particular property. This trade-off can be made in good conscience as long as other significant and valuable stream resources within the Village of Rivanna are identified and protected in a proactive fashion. The Engineering Department will identify these other valuable stream resources with the stream assessment work taking place. On the other hand, if the town center concept is not desirable for 2 the Village of Rivanna or on this particular parcel, then an altemative development design should be considered that could better protect the site's water resources. Although staff previously cautioned the Commission about the coveting of the streams, especially the one with perennial flow, staffbelieves that modifying these streams probably has a lower impact on Carroll Creek than streams that show up on the U.S.G.S. maps. Since the volume of water in the one stream is low, life in the streams is probably not significant to start with. If all of these items were different, however, the streams would likely be more valuable to water quality in Carroll Creek and more likely need to be preserved. Route 250 East The Land Use Portion of the existing Comprehensive Plan provides three references to Route 250 East in relation to the Village of Rivanna~ These comments are as follows: · Route 250 East is heavily traveled and serves as a major access point to the Urban Area and City and needs to be upgraded from Interstate 64 to the County line. · Upgrade Route 250 East to improve traffic safety and circulation in the area. Provide bicycle facilities and possibly walkways in conjunction with this upgrade. · An internal road network for the Village should be encouraged as an alternative to having each property contain direct access to Route 250. Because of the "general" nature of the comments, staffbelieves it is important to review their appropriateness both for the existing Land Use Plan and the proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan. Route 250 East from Charlottesville to the 1-64 is a four-lane divided highway with a raised median in places, center mm lanes in other places, and paved shoulders. From the Shadwell Interchange to Fluvanna County (and beyond) it is predominantly a two-lane highway with varying pavement widths and shoulder widths. At present, traffic volume estimates on Route 250 East are as follows: · Between Route 22 and 1-64 - 22,000 v.p.d. · Between Route 22 and Route 1054 (Glenmore Way) - 9300 v.p.d. · Between Route 1054 (Glenmore Way) and the Albemarle-Fluvanna County Line - 5,500 v.p.d. In early 1999, Albemarle County began participation in the Route 250 East Corridor Study along with the MPO, Fluvanna and Louisa Counties, the TJPDC, and the City of Charlottesville. All of these entities were involved in the study because of the regional traffic issues relating to this corridor. The study was intended to establish the long-term recommendations for improvements to this primary road. As part of'the study, VDOT identified a list of deficiencies already present in Route 250 East (Attachment B). The Committee came up with the following short-term projects for Albemarle County: · Signalizing and adding mm lanes, improving the verticaI alignment and improving sight distance at the intersection of Route 250 East and Route 616. · Signalizing the intersection of Route 250 East and Rolkin Court · Adding a left turn lane at the intersection of Route 250 East and Edgehill Drive · Improving the intersection of Route 250 East and Route 22 · Improving the entrance to Luck Stone · Signalizing the intersection of Route 250 East and Route 1117 (State Farm Blvd.) · Adding a park & ride at Route 616 · Providing CTS Service to the 1-64 Interchange Of the list above, the only improvement to have taken place is the signalization of Route 250 East and Rolkin Court. The Committee also came up with the following recommendations for Route 250 East for the year 2022: · Provide 6 lanes with continuous right turn lanes fi:om Charlottesvillecity limits to 1-64 · Reconfigure the 1-64 interchange · Provide 6 lanes fi:om 1-64 to Route 22 · Provide 4 lanes fi:om Route 22 to Route 616 · Provide 4 lanes from Route 616 to Route 15 · Provide a traffic signal at Route 1146 when warrants are met · Provide a traffic signal at Route 1046 when warrants are met · Provide a multi-use trail fi:om Charlottesville to Route 22 · Provide a pedestrian overpass over Route 20 · Provide a pedestrian overpass at Westminster Canterbury · Provide a park & ride lot at the Route 22 intersection These recommendations did not take into account the proposed change in land use that would result from this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The recommendations have been presented to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration; however, the Board has not yet acted on them. The Board is waiting to hear from the other localities before taking any action. As part of its revieW of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the proposed development, VDOT commented on the impacts to Route 250 and referenced the Corridor Study. These comments appear in the memo in Attachment C that you received previously. Traffic expected fi:om the proposed development is 11,534 v.p.d, which is over double the amount of traffic at this location now. Some of the new traffic (approximately 5,000 v.p.d.) would occur regardless of a change in the Land Use Plan designation from Neighborhood Density to Community Service. Between 5,000 v.p.d, and 7,000 v.p.d, would be expected from the development over expected traffic based on the existing Land Use Plan. BOth VDOT and the County's Transportation Planner have stated that the additional 5,000 to 7,000 v.p.d, will not- add to the list of improvements described above. They have both said that a new development of this scale would accelerate the need for additional through lanes along Route 250 and the City of Charlottesville. It also needs to be recognized that Route 250 serves adjacent fast growing counties and improvements to the road will likely be necessary to accommodate anticipated growth in commuting regardless of this amendment proposal. Under a conventional development pattern, the traffic generation would likely be. even higher. In this case, though, the 5,000 to 7,000 v.p.d, projection recognizes an internal capture of traffic within the Village of Rivanna because of the commercial services to be provided inside the Village. It also recognizes that 15% of the pass-by traffic will use the commercial services within the Villag~ Staff also believes that reductions in traffic can occur with transit service to this sit~ It is clear that improvements are essential to Route 250 regardless of this development. Staff can recommend a change in language in the Land Use Plan for improvements needed to U.S. Route 250 with its subsequent set of recommendations relating to this CPA~ The language can also incorporate the current policy of the County that rezoning proposals address any significant issues or deficiencies created by the project including transportation impacts. Density and Intensity_ of Development The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, as depicted in the plan of development, calls for a density of housing ranging fi:om 5.6 to 6.6 dwellings per acre. In addition, 240,000 square feet of commercial retail and services, offices, and institutional uses are proposed. At a dWelling size of 2,000 square feet, the total square footage of residential use would be in the neighborhood of 750,000 square feet. The nonresidential square footage would be 24% of the potential total square footage comPared to 76% residential square footage. An important aspect to the development is the amount of lot coverage of the site and the open space. According to. the plan, approximately 17% of the area is in open space and recreation. . This open space includes a lake, which will act as an aesthetic feature as well as stormwater facility and b.m.p. Much of the open space has amenity value with the most significant areas being near the lake. The open space and recreation areas in most places are conveniently located for the residential users. The location of the open space in relation to the proposed uses helps to balance the intensity of the development. The Neighborhood Model provides minimal guidance as to the appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses, except the in the section that relates to the Transect (Section 3). The Transect, offered as one way to organize land uses around a "center" shows a "General" area where lower density residential transitions to medium density residential and mixes with commercial uses. Staff would assert that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment shows a mix of density and commercial uses to in a less intense way than the "General" area but a more intense way than is shown in the "Fringe" area. At 6.6 dwellings per acre, the density of residential development proposed is 10% higher than the maximum density shown in the Comprehensive Plan at present (6.0 du/acre). With the density shown, no residential capacity is lost with the proposed change in land use designation. Additionally, commercial services are provided that enable the area to be a tree "Village" by providing services for not only the area under consideration for the amendment, but also for the rest of Gleumore. While the Neighborhood Model speaks to the importance of neighborhood centers and a mixture of uses, it does not provide much guidance on a percentage mix of uses and scale of development. When staff asked the applicant to provide additional information on how the applicant arrived at the density and intensity shown, the answer came as follows: The "big picture" is to look at density from the perspective of the entire Village Development Area--does the site specific density detract from or augment the overall critical mass for the overall development area? If, in combination with the surrounding development, the particular density assignment blows out streets and utilities, doesn't afford reasonable proffer potentials, and doesn't create the momentum to maintain a village center, then something may be wrong with the density--sometimes it's too little, sometimes too much, The "little picture" for density is a close examinaUon of the picture is paints on the landscape: Does it overwhelm? Is it of appropriate scale and massing? Is it a harsh "texture" creating conflict with the regional planning context? As mentioned at our last meeting, we prepared a dozen or so alternatives for Rivanna Village before settling on the one which the entire planning and development team felt was appropriate. This included market, traffic, physical, environment and economic tests. We then counted the units and arrived at the "appropriate" density. If looked at from this perspective, in the macro, the density proposed can be supported by utilities and, with the existing Glenmore development, creates a momentum to maintain the village center. Ten percent of the density either way does not seem to be a significant difference. With regards to streets, an internal network can be created that supports the proposed development. While the external network, Route 250 East, cannot support the proposed development, it also cannot support the development of the area as shown currently on the Land Use Plan without improvements. So the questions becomes one of whether or not sufficient improvements can be made to Route 250 East to support either scenario. From a micro-perspective, the scale and massing is very different from the scale and massing of the existing Glenmore developmenf. It is very much in keeping with the Neighborhood Model in terms of form. The question raised at this time is whether or not there is too much development shown on the site. Part of that question hinges on the aesthetic value of the streams on the property. If the streams are important aesthetic resources to preserve, then most likely a less intense development is needed. If the streams are less important than the physical form proposed for the area, then the form and the massing can be viewed as appropriate. Another part of the question depends on the ability of Route 250 to be upgraded to support the additional 5,000 - 7,000 trips. Monticello's Viewshed In October, the County received a letter from the Chief Operating Officer at Monticello expressing concern that Rivanna Village at Glenmore will be visible, in part, from Monticello. (See Attachment D.) Monticello has said that it is worded that the entrance to Rivanna Village and several surrounding buildings will be visible year-round from Monticello. Staff acknowledges the importance of Monticello to the County as a significant historic and economic resource. The Recommendations section for Neighborhood Three in the Land Use Plan states: · New development and redevelopment along Route 250 East and Route 20 should be designated in a manner that is sensitive to its location within Monticello's viewshed 6 and along a designated Entrance Corridor roadway. Utilize the voluntary guidelines outlined in the Neighborhood Three Study for development within the Monticello viewshed. The Monticello Viewshed Guidelines for Developers that are included with Attachment D provide excellent guidance for new development proposals. Staff believes that Recommendations for Rivanna Village should include similar language to Neighborhood Three regarding the Viewshed Guidelines. Recommendation Staff believes th&t that the proposed form, density, and intensity of development depicted in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for Rivarma Village are appropriate to making the village a true village, improving the form of development, and providing a diversity of uses and housing types in this development area. The staff's biggest concerns revolve around the value of the streams and the impacts to Route 250 East. Regarding the streams, only one of the streams is shown on the Open Space Plan and it is a small stream with low flow. A low-density development at this location could help retain the appearance and stream buffer as well as potentially provide for better water quality downstream than the proposed development. A tow-density development at this location would also have a lesser impact on Route 250 East. Low-density deVelopment, though, does not help to achieve the other goals of the Comprehensive Plan nor is it mostly in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. For this reason, staff Can recommend, with appropriate language and map changes, that the proposed change in land use on the Land Use Plan be approved. The Planning Commission should discuss the issues raised in this staff report and provide direction to the staff. With resolution of the issues discussed in this report, staff'will be' able to bring proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment language to the Commission at a subsequent meeting or public hearing. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Plan for Development Attachment B _ List of Deficiencies on Route 250East Attachment C - VDOT Letter of April 25, 2001 Attachment D - Letter from Monticello dated October 9, 2001 ~t.ivanna 'l?iffage at ?Re~ghborho' ' od 7ffode£" Zoning Map Amendme nt B CHARLES NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER RECEIVED COMMONWEALTH of VIR GIN 'iuNtw ~EVELOPMEN7 DEPARTMENT OF T~ANSPO~TATION 70~ ~VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 JAMES ~ BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEE~ April 25~ 2001 Rivanna Village at Glenmore Comprehensive Plan Amendment Villages of Mountain Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment Mr. David Benish Dept. of Planning & Community. Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Benish: We offer the tbllowing preliminary, comments for the above Comprehensive Plan Amendments. These comments are not recommendations or requirements. Rather, they provide initial "sketch level" traffic estimates and discuss issues that Albemarle County. may wish to consider during the comprehensive plan amendment process. Rivanna Village at Glenmore. Route 250E Other Studies Previous CATS model included 715 households. 75 employees and 235 students in TAZ ~_~6. which closely represents the current Glenmore PRD. The recent US 250E Corridor Study between Charlottesville and Zion Crossroads ~s currently under consideration by the Board of-Superw-isors. This studv recommended l) US 250E b~ w~dened to 6 lanes from [-64 to Rte 22. and to 4 lanes from t~te 22 to Rte 616. 2) express bus service. JAUNT service and Park & Ride lots be established in future along 250E corridor. Traffic Impacts Attached are preliminary estimates of site mp generation and future traffic on the adjacent roadwav net~vork, based on ITE (6m Edition) trip rates. TRANSPORTATION FCR THE v'ST c'-"~,tT~ ,=v Mr. David Benish Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 April 25,-2001 Rivanna Village at Glenmore, Route 250E (Traffic Impacts continued) This proposed amendment will generate about l 1,534 trips per day, with 2,717 residential trips and 8.817 non-residential trips. By comparison, there will he about 7,024 trips generated t>v the current Glenmore PRD (assuming 800 homes, not including fire station or school). Assu~aing VDOT's policy of 15% internal capture between residential and non-residential and'l 5% pass-by tbr shopping center trips, about 9,842 vpd from this proposal and about 15,912 vpd from this proposal plus remainder of Glenmore PRD would be external and utilize Route 250E. These estimates may change as more becomes known about nature of the retail and residential uses. Traffic estimates indicate that this comprehensive plan amendment will acdelerate the need for additional thru lanes and other improvements along Route 250E l~etween Glenmore and Charlottesville. This amendment increases 2011 traffic from 33.700 vpd to 38.700 vpd between [-64 and Route 22. and from 16,000 vpd to 23,000 vpd between Route 22 and the site. tn the vicinity, of the site, this amendment will likely create the need for improvements such as thru / turn lanes, traffic signals, em along Route 250 and Route 1054 (Glenmore Way). The distribution of traffic between these two entrances, and resulting traffic impacts. ~vitl b6 influenced by the design of entrances and proposed internal road~vays as ~vell as location of land uses relative to entrances. For example, restricting left turns out of the proposed new entrance might eliminate the need fora future traffic signal at this entrance. Other Issues Other features which might benefit local residents and reduce traffic along Route 250E include: 1) accommodation for future transit service within this site, 2) bus pullouts along 250E for future express service. 3) parking for future park & ride / bus stop / JAUNT use. As the land surrounding this Rivanna Village application is either undeveloped or low density residential, there will likely be requests for expansion of this development area in the future. Tbi~ w-ould further accelerate the need for additional capacity, along the 250E corridor and additional improvements in the GIenmore area. US 250E will serve all of this potential development: mechanisms for development to contribute to 250E improvements in a fair and equitable manner mav be worth considering at these early planning stages. There is about 2000' separation between the two proposed Route 250E entrances. The US 250E frontage lots between the two proposed entrances to this site are "surrounded" by the site and mav come under pressure to be similarly designated and rezoned in the future. If the site plan for this comprehensive plan amendment provides for future integration with these parcels (including internal access), it might benefit the development of the village and would help achieve improved access management along Route 250E. It may be beneficial for this amendment to include or at least address these parcels to insure optimum development and access for the whole area. /O Rivanna Village at Glenmore Summary of Multi-Use Trip Generation Average Weekday Driveway Volumes .April !!, 2001 Land Use Size 24 Hour Two-Way Volume AM Pk Hour PM Pk Hour Enter Exin Enter Exit Apartments 90 Dwelling Units 673 8 Residential Condominium / Townhouse 245 Dwelling Units 1394 17 Retiremenn Community !!0 Occupied Dwelling Units Residential Condominium / Townhouse $~', 9 35 Dwelling Units 267 General Office Building (H~ o~ ~ 35 Employees 187 23 General Office Building 90 Th. Gr. Sq. Ft. 1224 151 General Office Building 35 Th. Gr. Sq. Ft. 593 71 Shopping Center 65 T.G.L.A. 5168 75 Hotel 70 Rooms 258 16 Library 25 Th. Gr. Sq. Ft. 1387 20 41 45 23 86 86 42 t0 15 .!2 19 17 8 3 12 60 21 31 149 i0 20 98 48 227 246 ii 15 14 8 78 84 Single Family Detached Housing ~ e~o~ P~b 800 Dwelling Units 7024 144 424 448 248 Total 538 Note: A zero indicates no data available. TRIP GENERATION BY M!CROTRAN: _ 681 994 984 II Route 250 East Corridor Study .1998 Deficiencies Location Rte 250 ~ between 1-64 and Albemarle County Line Rte 250 - between Albemarle County Line and Rte 7~5 Intersection at Rte 616 Intersection at Rolkin Ct/Montessori School Intersecti(~n at Rte 823 Intersection at Rte 1109 Intersection at Rte 1146 Intersection at Edgehlll Drive Intersection at Rte 22 Entrance at Luck Stone Intersection at Pantops Mountain Road Intersection at Rte 11 '17 (State Farm Blvd) Predominance of Single Occupant Vehicles Lack of transportation options In urbanized portion Bridge over Limestone Creek Bridge over Carroll Creek Bridge over abandoned C&O Railway Intersection at Rte 15 Type of Deficiency Travel Time Delay Pavement Width Shoulder Width Pavement Width Shoulder Width Turning Delay Vertical Alignment Sight Distance High Accident Location Turning Delay Turning Delay Turning Delay Turning Delay High Accident Location Turning Delay Turning Delay Sight Distance High Accident Location Turning Delay Turning Delay Turning DelaY High Accident Location Lack of Park-and-Ride Facilities Lack of Fixed Route Transit Bridge (rehabilitation) Bridge (rehabilitation) Bridge (replacement) Geometric Itetns in bold are short-range alternatives Programmed Improvements are Included in FY 98-99 Six Year Improvement Program Planned Improvements not included in the current (FY 98.99) Six Year Improvement Program Mlti,qatlon, To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined Sighalizatlon & Turn Lanes Grade Improvement Grade Improvement (see above) Slgnallzation To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determine.d Add Left Turn Lane To Be Determined Programmed Improvement Long.Range Signalization (see above) New Park-and-Ride at Rte 616 CTS Service to 1-84 Interchange Planned Improvement* Planned Improvement* Programmed Improvement Programmed Improvement Implementation_ Long-Range Long-Range Long-Range Long. Range Long-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Long-Range Long-Range Long-Range Short-Range Long-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short. Range Short-Range Long-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Long-Range Long-Range Short-Range Short-Range October 9, 2001 MONTICELLO KiT IMHOFF Chief Operating Of~cer Mr. Dennis Rooker, Chair County of 3,1bemarle Planning Commission 401 E. Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Rooker, I am writing on behalf of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. to offer our comments about CPA 01 ¢03, Rivanna Village at Glenmore. We understand that the Planning Commission and staff are working with the Glenmore Associates to. identify concerns about this proposed comprehensive plan. We would like to share two areas of concern and hope that these be addressed at future work sessions. The 78-acre site, proposed for 440-520 dwelling units and 22[0,000. square feet of non- residential'uses, will be in part visible from Monticello. We have expressed concern and have met on several occasions with the developers for this project. At one point this summer a balloon test was attempted. Given the conditions, size and color of the balloon, it was inclusive at best. We have subsequently commissioned and received a viewshed analysis, which indicates that a portion of this site, namely the entrance area and several surrounding buildings will be visible year-round from Monticello. Enclosed with this letter is-the viewshed analysis. We hope this vlewshed issue will be addressed during the Planning Commission and staff discussions. When the Glenmore development initially came before the County, Monticello was assured that there would be no impact upon our view. Unfortunately this has not proven to be the case. Visitors can see several homes along the golf course, the clubhouse, and the parking area. We hope steps can be taken to assure minimal or no visual intrusion by the expansion proposed for Rivanna Village. Attached is a letter We sent in March, 2000 expressing our support for the County's work on a historic preservation plan. Incorporated in that letter are design principles that maybe helpful in discussions with the developer. The staff report of September 18, 2001 notes that the Virginia Department of Transportation has recommended that Route 250 East be widened to six-lanes from Interstate 64 to Route 22 and widened to four-lanes from Route 22 to Zion's Crossroads. This VDOT "recommendation" is still very preliminary, and we have put VDOT on notice that a Route 250 East widening will not be able to intrude upon the Foundation's THOMAS JEFFERSON I~,IEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC. POST OFFICE BOX CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 PHONE 804 984.9802 F~X 8O4 977'7757 kirahoff@monticello.org MONTICELLO October 9, 2001 }L~.T IMHOFF Chief Operating Off%er Mr. Dennis Rooker, Chair County of Albemarle Planning Commission 401 E. Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Rooker, I am writing on behalf of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. to offer our comments about CPA 01-03, Rivanna Village at Glenmore. We understand that the Planning Commission and staff are working with the Glenmore Associates to.identify concerns about this proposed comprehensive plan. We would like to share two areas of concern and hope that these be addressed at future work sessions. The 78-acre site, proposed for 440-520 dwelling units and 240,000. square feet of non- residential uses, will be in part visible from Monticello. We have expressed concern and have met on several occasions with the developers for this project. At one point this summer a balloon test was attempted. Given the conditions, size and color of the balloon, it was inclusive at best. We have subsequently commissioned and received a viewshed analysis, which indicates that a portion of this site, namely the entrance area and several surrounding buildings will be visible year-round from Monticello. Enclosed with this letter is-the viewshed analysis. We hope this v{ewshed issue will be addressed during the Planning Commission and staff discussions~ When the Glenmore development initially came before the County, Monticello was assured that there would be no impact upon our view. Unfortunately this has not proven to be the case. Visitors can see several homes along the golf course, the clubhouse, and the parking area. We hope steps can be taken to assure minimal or no visual intrUsion by the expansion proposed for Rivanna Village. Attached is a letter We sent in March, 2000 expressing our support for the County's work on a historic preservation plan. Incorporated in that letter are design princip les that maybe helpful in discussions with the developer. The staff report of September 18, 2001 notes that the Virginia Department of Transportation has recommended that Route 250 East be widened to six-lanes from Interstate 64 to Route 22 and widened to four-lanes from Route 22 to Zion's Crossroads. This VDOT "recommendation" is still very preliminary, and we have put VDOT on · 'S notice that a Route 250 East widening will not be able to intrude upon the Foundatton THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION~ INC. POST OFFICE BOX CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 PHONE 8O4 984.9802 WaX 8O4 977'7757 kimho ff@monticello.org Route 250 East Corridor Study 1998 Deficiencies Location Rte 250 - between 1-64 and Albemarle County Line Rte 250 - between Albemarle County Line and Rte 7~5 Intersection at Rte 616 Intersection at Rolkln Ct/Montessori School Intersection at Rte 823 Intersection at Rte 1109 Intersection at Rte 11'46 Intersection at Edgehill Drive Intersection at Rte 22 Entrance at Luck Stone Intersection at Pantops Mountain Road Intersection at Rte 1117 (State Farm Blvd) Predominance of Single Occupant Vehicles Lack of transportation options In urbanized portion Bridge over Limestone Creek Bridge over Carroll Creek Bridge over abandoned C&O Railway Intersection at Rte 15 Iteh~s In bold are shOrt-range alternatives ,Type of Deficiency Travel Time Delay Pavement Width Shoulder'Width Pavement Width Shoulder Width Turning Delay Vertical Alignment Eight Distance High Accident Location Turning Delay Turning Delay Turning Delay Turning Delay High Accident Location Turning Delay Turning Delay Sight Distance High Accident Location Turning Delay Turning Delay Turning Delay High Accident Location Lack of Pa rk.,and-Rlde Facilities Lack of Fixed Route Transit Bridge (rehabilitation) Bridge (rehabilitation) Bridge (replacement) Geometric Programmed Improvements are Included In FY 98-99 Six Year Improvement Program * Planned Improvements not included In lhe current (FY 98-99) Six Year Improvement Program ,Mltl.qatlon To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined Signalization & Turn Lanes Grade Improvement Grade Improvement (see above) Signalization To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined Add Left Turn Lane To Be Determined Programmed Improvement Long-Range Signalization (see above) New Park-,and-Rlde at Rte 6'16 CTS Service to 1-64 Interchange Planned Improvement* Planned Improvement* Programmed Improvement Programmed Improvement .Jmplementatlon Long-Range Long-Range Long-Range Long-Range Long-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Long-Range Long-Range Long-Range Short-Range Long-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Long-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Short-Range Long-Range Long-Range Short-Range Short-Range Shadwell property because of a historic preservation easement held by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. We are unclear how this may affect the comprehensive plan amendment but wanted to be sure that you had this information to consider. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation would be pleased to meet with the planning staff, planning commission, and any other interested parties if that would be helpful to your deliberations. We look forward to discussing our concerns with you. Sincerely, Kat Imhoff Chief Operating Officer Cc: Albemarle County Planning Commission Daniel Z Foundation, Inc. MONTICELLO VIEWSHED GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPERS 1. Monticello is renowned for its vistas. Those from three areas are paramount: a. From the northwest terrace (elevation 871 feet). This promenade is where visitors exit from the house tour and begin to explore the landscape. b. From the shuttle bus stop northeast of the house. c. From the "First Roundabout," the uppermost road that encircles'the house. This primary pedestrian r6ad is approximately a half-mile in circumference. Parking lots are best concealed when located on the far side of the building (as viewed from Monticello) and when the area is broken up by plantings. 3. Building facades are less intrusive if articulated and not monolithic. 4. Earth-tone colors such as reddish-brown brick help to soften the visual impact of a building. If not adopted for the street side, consider it for the back of the building if it faces Monticello. 5. Dark roofg (black, gray) are preferred. Mottled patches of light and dark stone can camouflage expansive fiat roofs. 6. Screening by a long narrow border of trees of a single species should be avoided. Landscaping and buffer areas should use a variety of planting materials. A canopy of lofty trees (such as tulip poplars) to screen out development should be planted if the vista from Monticello is angled down on the site. The lower limbs of the trees can be pruned to open ground-level views while protecting the vista from Monticello. 7. The lighting of buildings and parking areas should be shielded to eliminate glare and light pollution. The staff at Monticello is pleased to meet at any time with the Planning Department staff or members of the Planning Commission when there is an issue concerning the Monticello viewshed. The Planning Staff has been given a two-volume Monticello Viewshed Analysis and Protection Strate~x_', which was prepared in 1990 by the Trust for Public Lands for the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. The Planning Commission and planning staff are also welcome to check on the potential impact of proposed development on the viewshed at any time. We will gladly make arrangements for access to Monticello. The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation is also interested in working more closely with the County and private landowners to protect vie~vs in all directions. We look forward to discussing rural area preservation strategies in the future, and thank you for the opportunity to comment at this time on the historic preservation plan. We deeply appreciate the efforts of the County to protect this important landscape. Monticello Viewshed Vantage Point from Monticello Legend ~ ~ View Point A ~¥J Major Road Minor Roads ~ Growth Area ~ Glenmoore Associates ~ Monticello ~ Proposed Rivanna Village Site Visible STAFF PERSONS: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION ELAINE lC ECHOLS, AICP YADIRA AMARANTE SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 CPA 01-03 RIVANNA VILLAGE AT GLEN-MORE Request: The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Neighborhood Residential to Community Service for Tax Map 93A1, portion of Parcel 1, Parcels 2, 3 & 4 and Tax Map 80, Parcel 50. Tax Map 93A1 parcels 1, 3, & 4 are owned by Glenmore Associates and have been associated with the Glenmore Planned Residential Development (PRD) since its inception in 1990. Parcel 2 is owned by the East Rivanna Fire Department and contains the East Rivarma Fire Station, Tax Map 80, Parcel 50 is owned by Alan and Daphne Dillard. Parcels 2, 3, 4, and TMP 80- 50 are all zoned RA. The Land Use Plan shows all of these parcels as Neighborhood Density'for 3 - 6 dwellings per acre. The land requested for a change in designation is entirely within the Development Area of Rivanna Village. The application entitled, "Application for Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map Amendment, Rivanna Vil_lage at Glenmore", dated March 6, 2001, has been used to better understand the proposed project which would be the subject of a future rezoning. In particular, staff has looked at: A proposed grid street system for the development A "main street" with retail and office buildings A variety of housing types with a gross density slightly in excess of 6 dwellings per acre A range of units from 440-520 dwelling units 240,000 square feet of non-residential uses, mostly in small commercial, office, retail, restaurant/inn, and civic space A well-integrated pedestrian sygtem, including sidewalks and paths Areas shoWn on the plan for pavement, buildings, green spaces, and a lake Geographic Features of the Site and the Impact on those Features The 78-acre site is a rolling, mostly wooded site with two streams and two ponds. The Open Space Map shows few steep slopes, many wooded areas, and a corridor of sensitive soils associated with a stream that feeds into Carroll Creek. Carroll Creek feeds into the Rivanna River at the southern part of the Development Area. There are few, if any, extreme changes in topography, with the exception of an old quarry. The woods are a miXture of several species of hardwoods, including oaks, poplar, and hickory. White pines and other evergreens are also present, but in much smaller numbers. Almost all of the trees are new growth trees. One of the streams is significant and it is this stream that is shown on the open Space Plan as a corridor of sensitive soils. The other stream is an intermittent stream, which was dry when staff visited the site. It has a very distinctive channel bed that sometimes reaches 3 ½ feet in depth and is very eroded in places. The stream of significance begins as a drainage swale near the East Side of Glenmore Way where it intersects State Route 250. From there the stream runs in a southeast direction through the site. It is not designated as perennial on the USGS t: 2400 scale map, however, during an inspection on September 7, 2001, the following characteristics were noted: There was water in the stream when the dry conditions would have left an intermittent stream unsupplied with water. The streambed soils are hydric. · The stream has small contiguous areas ofhydric soils and facultative wetland plants. In addition to having perennial characteristics the stream has a preferred existing buffer of native hardwood riparian species, some of which are on critical slopes. This streambed and buffer is of importance because of its proximity to the adjoining subdivision, the Magruder Lots, and because of its positive benefits as an intact stream buffer. The proposed project design will impact the entire site and it appears that no natural features will be preserved. The plan of development shows the more important stream covered over by a parking lot. Because the stream and its associated buffer are in good condition and because of the benefit it provides between the Magruder Lots that front on Route 250 and the proposed Village, staff believes that this feature should be considered for preservation in the Village of Rivanna Development Area. Availability of Water and Sewer Service - Water service is available to serve the development. Specific deCelopment proposals will need to ensure adequate fire flow availability. This information is usually determined at the time of rezoning. According to the Albemarle County Service Authority, the Glenmore Wastewater Treatment Plant was designed for a peak flow of 381,000 g.p.d. The amount of 296,000 g.p.d, was allotted to Glenmore and 84,300 g.p.d, was reserved for surrounding property in Rivanna Village. Since that time Glenmore Associates has added some of the appurtenant service area. The VPDES discharge permit was issued in tiers up to the requested 381,000 g.p.d. The current flow limit is 100,000 g.p.d. Present use is 80,000 to 85,000 g.p.d. The trigger for the next tier is 95,000 g.p.d. The permit limit will automatically incre'ase without further action from the regulatory agencies. Limitations were built in the first phase of the treatment plant. Also, a change in the density of development in the community will require revising the design capacity of the gravity sewer along Carroll Creek. Capital improvements to the plant and sewer will be necessary to accommodate flow from the proposed Village. But, the Wastewater Treatment Plant at Glenmore can be modified to accommodate the flow from Rivanna Village without revising the VPDES permit. Impact of the change on County_ Streets and Roads A traffic impact analysis was provided by the Applicant, which is still being reviewed by VDOT. Certain road intersections along Route 250 are already overburdened. The impact of the proposed development on Route 250 has not yet been ascertained. Once VDOT and the applicant have finished their work on the traffic study, it will be ~asler tO-~ow WhiCh areas of Route 250 need improvement that would specifically be related to the land development proposed for the Rivanna Village at Glenmore. Although not articulated in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal, the rezoning application indicates that the internal street network proposed will be private. The purpose of this private road system is to more easily accomplish street cross-sections that are.more difficult to get approved by VDOT. Provision of a private road system, however, runs contrary to established policy for having public roads in the Development Area. Staff believes that a public road system is more advantageous tothe Village of Rivanna than a private road system. The Planning Commission is asked to comment on this issue as part of its worksession. Impact on Community_ Facilities Schools The Service Objectives outlined in the 1990-2000 Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan, as related to schools, are intended to ensure adequacy of schools in the southeastern part of the County. Stone Robinson Elementary School is located a little more than one mile away, west of the site off Route 729. Capacity ofthe school is 600 students. Enrollment as of September 2001 is 476. Capacity is not anticipated to be reached within the next 10 years, so the Community Facilities Plan does not indicate a need for school facilities in this area. With the original Glenmore rezoning, approximately 20 acres of land was proffered for a school site or other public use. The land has never been platted or conveyed. The area proposed for the Comprehensive Plan amendment encompasses the area covered by the proffer. The plan of development submitted with this proposal does not acknowledge 20 acres of proffered land for a school or other public use. Although a school site is not necessary at present, staff believes it appropriate that the Comprehensive Plan continue to recognize the need for 20 acres to be available for public use. Parks The Service Objectives outlined in the 1990,2000 Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan (the Plan), as related to parks, are intended to: (1) (2) (3) (4) Provide recreational opportunities in those geographical areas not effectively served, especially in or near Growth Areas Preserve and provide access to and within areas identified in the Albemarle County Open SpacePlan for public use Utilize County School facilities as an integral part of providing recreational opportunities to County residents Provide recreational facilities County-wide based on the standards recommended in the Community Facilities Plan (5) Upgrade facilities in the County that do not meet the standards outlined in the Community Facilities Plan to provide a full range of recreational oppommities to their service area in a complementary and non-duplicative fashion Emphasize maintenance and enhancement of existing facilities. The' existing Community Facilities Plan has not been updated since the adoption of the Neighborhood Model. The Community Facilities Plan suggests that ample recreational oppommities exist for the residents of Rivanna Village at Stone Robinson School, approximately 2.5 miles aWay. The plan for the proposed Rivanna Village at Glenmore shows a large lake with passive recreational facilities around it. Provision of recreational amenities at a neighborhood level within the Village of Rivarma and outside of Glenmore should be included in the goals for the Development Area. These recreational amenities could be accommodated in the form proposed by the Applicant with the plan for the rezoning. It also should be noted that the Glenmore development, a gated residential community located within the Village of Rivanna boasts a country club with related swimming, golf, tennis and similar athletic facilities. It is possible that residents of the proposed Village at Glenmore could acquire, for a fee, 'membership to the club to supplement existing public recreational opportunities. County-level park service is located 4+ miles west at Darden Towe Park offRoute 20 (Stoney Point Road) and at Pen Park off Route 631 (Rio Road). The Plan recommends service areas be within I0 miles of the park. County level parks provide recreational oppommities in the form of water features and vistas whenever possible. Although lake swimming, boating and fishing are not available at Darden Towe, it does provide ball fields, tennis courts and nature trails. The nearest County-level park offering lake facilities is Walnut Creek located approximately 20 miles southwest of the site off Route 708 (Red Hill Road). It may be desirable that the 20 acres of land proffered for a school or public use address the need for County-level park service. The Community Facilities Plan mentions the 1992 Open Space Plan's primary goal of protecting natural, scenic and historical areas in the County and to preserve river and stream corridors, including the Rivanna River Greenway Corridor. These features and areas could be enjoyed by the general public as recreational amenities. The Open Space Plan identifies that part of the Rivanna River which forms the southwestern boundary of the Village of Rivanna development area as a major portion of the Greenway Corridor. As part of the Glenmore development, this area of the Village has been proffered for the construction of a future greenway trail. Since County-level park service is lacking for the Village and surrounding Rural Areas, it may be beneficial to tie the construction of a greenway trail along the Rivanna River within the Village in order to fill this gap in recreational amenities. Libraries The Service Objectives outlined in the 1990-2000 Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan (the Plan), as related to libraries, are intended to: (1) Provide a total library space of 0.7 gross square feet (gsf) per resident in the Albemarle - Charlottesville area. 4 (2) (3) (4) (5) Utilize alternative service methods in areas of perceived need until such time that a permanent facility can be located, designed and economically justified. Locate library facilities near, or adjacent to, commercial and service centers/concentrations to effectively serve a large portion of the population. Service to the Rural Areas shall be provided from branches located within Development Areas. Bookmobile service or other such alternative outlet services which do not'require significant capital o.utlays for buildings shall be utilized to provide service to the Rural Areas. Utilize standards established by the.Jefferson-Madison Regional Library system for collections, resource space, special rooms, staff space, and public seating. The Plan recommends that libraries be located so that 75% of the population living in the Development Areas reside within 3.5 miles from the site. The Village of Rivanna is located approximately 6 miles from the Central Library located in downtown Charlottesville. The Plan specifically identifies a need for an additional 21,420 square feet of library space by the year 2000 but reserves this additional space for the Community of Hollymead and the Southern Urban Areas. Because the Plan recommends that library facilities locate in areas accessible to fhe majority of the urban population, as opposed to less densely populated areas; current library services are adequate for the proposed Village of Rivanna at Glenmore. At some point in the future, it may be desirable for a portion of the 20 acres of land proffered for a school or public use be used to supplement library facilities in the County. Alternatively, library services could be provided to serve a greater portion from the Pantops area and still meet current~community facility standards for providing service to the Glenmore area. Fire and Rescue Service The Service Objectives outlined in the 1990-2000 Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan (the Plan), as related to fn'e and rescue services, are intended to: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Achieve an average response time to fire emergency calls of five minutes or less in the Development Areas and thirteen minutes or less in the Rural Areas. Achieve an average response time to rescue emergency calls of four minutes or less in the Development Areas and thirteen minutes or less in the Rural Areas. Construct fire and rescue stations at strategic locations throughout the County to help achieve desired response times to all emergency calls and increase the level of service. Provide fire fighting and rescue equipment as needed to meet the characteristics of particular service areas. Encourage joint fire and rescue stations at new locations when possible. Establish a system of collecting data in order to provide the County with sound information to anticipate demand for new equipment and facilities. The Plan recommends that stations are located in designated Development Areas in a manner that allows desired response times to be achieved. The East Rivanna Fire Station is located within the boundaries of the proposed Rivanna Village at Glenmore, thereby meeting most of the service objectives listed above. The Fire Station is a metal building surrounded by a gravel parking lot and serves the nearby Rural Areas as well as the Development Area. It is possible that a facelift to that building and an improved parking lot will need to occur to make the building more compatible with the proposed architecture of the Rivauna Village at Glenmore. Verbal mention has been made by the applicant of relocating the Fire Station to the second proposed entrance to the Village along Route 250. Such a relocation raises issues of adequacy of the intersection for emergency vehicles. Regardless of the Change that might occur to 'the building or its location in the Village, the presence of the Fire Station in this area should be retained. Administrative Services and Police At present, administrative services for the County and police headquarters are located in downtown Charlottesville at the Albemarle County Office Building. Emerging technological advances and efforts by the County to reduce vehicle trips along County roads and streets may change the way in which these services are provided in the future. It may be desirable that a portion of the 20 acres for a school or public use be retained for a governmental need, such as administrative services or police facility. Economic Analysis The County's Fiscal Impact Planner was asked to analyze the impact of designating additional commercial area on the existing commercial areas in the County. The results of this analysis are as included as Attachment A. The conclusion of the fiscal impact analysis is that the Village, with the proposed residential component and existing residential component can support the commercial uses proposed and not have a negative impact on existing commercial uses in the County. Appropriateness of the Land Use Designation Requested Land uses proposed for this section of the Rivanna Village are: 80 - 100 apartment units 230 - 260 Townhouses 100-120 Assisted/Independent Living units 30 - 40 Live-work units 90,000 square feet of Office 35,000 square feet of Mixed Office/Institutional 65,000 square feet of Retail Commercial 25,000 square feet for Inn and Restaurant 25,000 square feet of Public/Civic The Rivanna Village at Glenmore proposes a Community Service designation for the 78 acres. The Community Service designation calls for community-scale commercial, professional, and office uses, providing retail, wholesale, business, medical offices, small office buildings, mixed-use core communities and/or employment services to urban neighborhoods, communities and larger geographic sections of the County. Urban density residential uses are also allowed, as a secondary use, within this designation. Community Service designation requires a medium site size (5 to 30 6 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land USES. The Neighborhood Service designation calls for neighborhood-scale commercial; specialty shops; professional and office uses providing retail, wholesale, and/or business within a Village, Urban Neighborhood or Community. This scale of commercial is the type anticipated within a planned development approach. Urban density residential uses are allowed within this designation as a secondary ~use. Neighborhood Service designation requires a small site (1- 5 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. The proposal allocates 76% of the total developed land to residential uses and 24% of the developed land to commercial type uses. Density over the entire 78 acres is 5.6-6.6 dwellings per acre. lqlet density, though, appears to about 20 units per acre. Neither the Community Service nor the Neighborhood Service designations mention the concept of mixed-use developments. At 76% of total sfgfa, the residential component would be a primary use, not a secondary use as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for a Community Service designation. Community Service non-residential land uses are intended to serve larger geographic areas of the County as well as urban and community scale neighborhoods, not Village developments. Although the total acreage for the proposed development does not match either the recommended acreage for Neighborhood Service or Community Service, it seems as though a more appropriate designation would be Neighborhood Service. The scale of the development is much more in keeping with the neighborhood need and uses found within a PUD. Staff would like to discuss density issue for the proposal at a subsequent worksession. Standard Comprehensive Plan Analysis How will the proposed change impact the health, safety, and welfare of the general public as opposed to the proprietary interests of an individual? The proposed change in designation will provide a true "Village" in the Development Area designated on the County's Comprehensive Plan as the "Village of Rivanna". The Land Use Plan designates the area in question as Neighborhood Density at 3 - 6 dwellings per acre. In 1989, during work sessions with the Planning Commission for the establishment of Rivanna Village as a Development Area, the Village designation was preferable because it allowed for the lowest scale of cOmmercial development. The Commissioners did not want to create the expectation that this development would become another Hollymead. It was envisioned as a residential area of a specific housing type, which would absorb a need 'for that type of housing from elsewhere in the County. It was felt that the Village designation would facilitate the Comprehensive Plan's 'objective of preserving rural lands, Agricultural/Forestal lands and the watershed. Discussions centered around citizen concems that the growth area not be a magnet for future intensive growth within and surrounding the Village. In keeping with this an effort was made to specifically exclude commercial development in the development area and make the boundaries of the development area a hard edge against the rural surroundings. The Planning Commission ultimately approved the Village with the following conditions: 7 Capacity in any main water line serving the village shall be reserved for a possible new elementary school. No development of properties above current allowable zoning densities shall be permitted unless public water and sewer are made available. No commercial land use shall be allowed in the village. The third statement, however, runs contrary to the Village Development Design Guidelines stated on pages 12 - 14 of the Comprehensive Plan, (which are copied below). How well does the proposal fulfill the objectives identified in the comprehensive plan? The Comprehensive Plan states that Villages should consist off o A variety of housing types including single-family, two-family and townhouse units, with a gross density not to exceed 6 dwellings per acre. A village center of mixed service and residential uses. Such uses shall be limited to neighborhood scale services, including convenience shopping, other general retail and service uses, medical and professional offices, and accessory apartments and attached housing. Public sewer and water systems. This reflects a concern that, without public utilities, it is not possible to achieve village density or land use patterns which, in turn, serve to protect farmland and rural open space. It also reflects concern for protecting the environment, and for the economical and reliable provision of sewer and water services: Public facilities which support the Village and the immediate surrounding Rural Area. Linkage to the Urban Area and City of Charlottesville by roads with adequate capacity (traffic-carrying ability, safety, considerations, physical conditions) in order to move residents conveniently between the Village and Urban Core. Development around a focal point, such as a public building, main street, park, greenway, or other open space or common area. Preferably, the focal point would incorporate an existing natural or cultural amenity. Within a proposed Village, development shall emulate historic regional patterns of village density and design, such that the feel of a traditional village is created. Elements which can contribute to such a quality could include: A rectilinear or interconnecting street pattern without cul-de-sacs; Connections to existing streets; Compact lots; Shallow front/side yard setbacks; A village center of mixed uses and public facilities and spaces; Walkways and paths which encourage pedestrians to be the dominant mode of travel within the village center; and Preservation and muse of existing structures A unified Village plan developed in accordance with the requirements for a planned development. In particular, the impact of the plan on existing development should be emphasized. It is expected that consideration will be given to the needs and wishes of those already living and owning property in the area. 8 At present the Village of Rivanna approaches very few of these goals with its single land use designation. A change in land use designation to the appropriate mixed-use category would help the Village of Rivanna to achieve its goals. How does the proposal facilitate the coordination of improvementsto the transportation network and expand the public utilities in an economical, efficient, and judiCious manner including keeping the proposal within the boundaries of the designated Development Areas? The proposal facilitates coordination of the internal road network by providing an internal network of roads for the Development Area. Whether or not that internal network of roads should be public or private is an important issue for Planning Commission discussion. The effect on the external road system is still unknown. A traffic Study was.performed by the applicant to ascertain the anticipated impacts on Route 250. The analysis has been reviewed by VDOT and the County; however, additional information will be requested by VDOT prior to acceptance of the study and its conclusions. Discussion on impacts to Route 250 is proposed for the next Planning Commission worksession. Is the proposal in general compliance with adopted County plans, policies, studies, and ordinances? The proposal, as presented is in general compliance with adopted County plans, policies, studies, and ordinances in some ways and not in others. It appears to be in accordance with the recently adopted Neighborhood Model by conforming with 9 of the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model. The pertinent sections of the proposal, referenced below, are Attachment B, · Pedestrian access is referenced in the Comprehensive Plan amendment on page 18 with the statement: "Rixranna Village incorporates a network of sidewalks which will interconnect all village land uses and provide paths to the contiguous existing residential neighborhoods. · Neighborhood friendly streets and paths are referenced on page 19 of the proposed amendment with the statement: "..internal streets will be modeled after traditional Virginia villages, with street trees, open squares and public spaces, quality street lighting, benches, and specialty signage. · Interconnected streets and transportation networks are shown on the maps accompanying the proposal. · Parks and open space are provided, in principle, with a large "commons" anchoring the end of the main street in the proposal and a large lake for stormwater management with pedestrian paths at the eastern end of the proposed development. Specific pOckets of usable parks and open space, in addition to those mentioned above, will be assessed with any subsequent rezoning. · Neighborhood centers are referenced on page 17 of the proposal with the statement: Rivanna Village clearly represents a true "village center" in that its Main Street will incorporate civic spaces, a. commons and square, restaurants, office, and "destinatiOn" activities which will be attractive to the community at large." · Buildings and Spaces of human scale are concepts referenced on page 18 of the proposal with the following statement: "The architectural scale, massing, heights and orientations of Rivanna Village's buildings will create an inviting streetscape environment in which pedestrians will feel at home." · Relegated parking is referenced on page 18 of the proposal with the following statement: "The village streets are designed to accommodate on-street parking, with conservatively applied street widths, appropriately scaled street-to-building relationships and related transportation characteristics .... Many residences will have both front and rear building access from secondary travelways, thus reducing the need for single purpose alleys." · Mixture of uses is shown throughout the proposal, both on the plan and in the list of uses. · Mixture of housing ._types and affordability_ with dignity_ is represented with the proposal-for the different types of housing. Single-family detached housing is not shown because that product type is provided throughout Glenmore, already. · Redevelopment is not included with this proposal. · Site planning that respects terrain is, in some ways, included in the proposal and not in others. Of all the large tracts of land in the Development Areas, the 78 acres that are part of this proposal are some of the best for development. Slopes in excess of 25% are minimal and exist only along the streambed previously described and near an old quarry. Rock outcroppings exist on the property which indicate the possible need to blast rock with some of the proposed development. This issue should be discussed with any subsequent rezoning. · Clear boundaries with the rural areas is not an issue for this rezoning as the proposal includes no properties that are located at a rural boundary. VDOT has conducted a study of the improvements needed for the Route 250 East 'Corridor. Recommenda[ions incltide widening of the road to 6 lanes With continuous fight-mm lanes from Free Bridge to the Shadwell interchange with Io64 and continuing the 6 lanes to Route 22. VDOT recommended that from Route 22 to the County line with Louisa the road be 4 lanes wide. VDOT made a presentation to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on March 7, 2001. The Board accepted the report but made no recommendation to endorse the plan. Has one or more of the following five activities occurred that justifies the change in land use? Change in circumstance Updated information is available A subsequentportion of the comprehensive Plan has been adopted or developed A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible The preparation of the Plan was not in accord with the Code of Virginia because it was incomplete or incorrect information was employed. Of the items mentioned above, two activities have occurred. The first is a change in circumstance. When the Rivanna Village was designated as a Village but not given a land use designation that resembled a village, the development was new and few people actually lived in the Village. Gleumore, the largest development in the area, has approximately 500 dwelling units and is anticipated to have atotal of about 800. Glenmore residents have to drive to Pantops or further into Charlottesville or Albemarle County for basic goods and services, such as groceries, pharmacies, dry cleaning, and the like. Now that a critical mass exists in the Village, the need for closer services exists to help eliminate trips on Route 250. Secondly, a subsequent portion of the Comprehensive plan has been adopted. The Neighborhood Model promotes compact, mixed-use development.s with a range of housing types and densities and' pedestrian access. The purpose of the Neighborhood Model is to allow for greater densities in the 10 Development Areas as well as higher amenity values. The Neighborhood Model has put more pressure on the development community to help achieve the community's goals. As previously stated this proposal is very much in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. RECOMMENDATION Staffbelieves that several items need discussion prior to the development of a recommendation on the CPA. These items are: Should the Village be provided the oppommity to meet the Village standards as st&ted in the Comprehensive Plan? Should the intermittent stream identified by the County's water resources staff be preserved with a stream buffer and integrated into the development or should it be piped, as indicated in the proposed plan? Should any of the existing wooded areas be retained? Is the Community Service designation appropriate or would the Neighboi'hood Service designation be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's suggestion for Villages? Should roads inside the project area be public or private? Should the Development Area contain space or facilities for a public use, over and above the Fire Station, to replace the land previously proffered for a school site or provide other public services desirable for Village? Staff proposes that the Planning Commission answer these questions at the meeting on September 18 meeting and the issues of density and traffic be discussed at a subsequent worksession. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Fiscal Impact Analysis Attachment B - Justification for Land Use Map Amendment 11 CO( -iTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner Steven A. AllshoUse, Fiscal Impact Planner September 10, 2001 CPA 01-03 (Rivanna Village). With regard to this proposed development, you asked whether or not the residential development envisioned in this project would be sufficient to support internally the project's envisioned non- residential development. Stated another way, you wanted to know whether or not there would be - enough people living in Rivanna Vlllage itselfto keep the tenants in the project's taxable office, retail, and institutional space in business. As explained below, .with caveats, there appears to be a sufficient rnanber of residential units proposed in this project to support internally the project's proposed non- residential component. You mentioned that, at full build-out, Rivanna V'dlage would have 800 Single Family Detached residences (SFD's), and another 468 dwelling units. These latter residences would include some number of Single Family Attached/Townhouses (SFA/TH's), Multifamily units (MF's), Assisted Independent Living residences (AIL's), and Live/Work units (LW's). Based on information you gave me, I estimated that the numerical distn~oution of these other dwelling units would be as follows: 239 SFA/TH's, 89 MF's, 108 AIL's, and 33 LW's. Including the 800 SFD's mentioned previously, the project would have a total of 1,268 residential units. On the non-residential side, you supplied me with information showing that, at full build-out, Rivanna Village would have 90,000 square feet of taxable office space, 35,000 square feet of mixed taxable office/institutional space, 65,000 square feet of retail space, 25,000 square feet of inn/restaurant space, and 25,000 square feet ofpublic/dvic space. Since I do not know exactly what type of land use the 35,000 square feet of mixed taxable office/institutional space and 25,000 square feet of public/civic space would entail, I have not included these particular portions of the proposed development into my analysis. The reason for this omission involves the fact that I have not determined how much residential development is required to support internally the development of institutional space. The main problem with estimating the relationship between these two variables is that the institutional category of development includes a wide variety of uses such as government office buildings, schools, churches, hospitals, etc., and, as a result, unless more is known about the actual type of institutional land use that the developer has in mind with regard to Rivanna Village, any CPA 01-03 September 10, 2001 Page Two analysis that I would perform with regard to this part of the project would be subject to a high margin of error. The following paragraphs sunmmrize my findings with regard to the project's retail space and taxable office.space only. Retail Space According to recent research that I have undertaken, there exists a very strong two-year lagged correlation between aggregate personal income in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District and retail space in Albemarle County. Specifically, I have found that, in 1999 dollars, there must exist at least $1,129 to support a square foot of this category of development in 2001. Figures supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, show that the per-capita personal income in the TJPDC in 1999 .equaled $28,810. This figure implies that, in our region, one person can support 28,810/1,129 = 25,5181 square feet of retail space. Note that, according to data in the County's Cost Revenue Impact Model (¢-~dM), the typical SFD houses 2.69 people, while the typical MH and SFA/TH house 2.00 and 2.33 people respectively. This information means that Rivanna Village's proposed residential component, excluding AIL's and LW's likely would contain (800 x 2.69) + (239 x 2.33) + (89 x 2.00) = ca. 2,887 residents. This fact means that, internally, the project could support 2,887 x 25.5181 = ca. 73,671 square feet of retail. This last figure is 73,671 - 65,000 = 8,671 square feet greater than the retail square footage proposed by the developer of this project. Note, however, that the County considers hotel and restaurant space to fall under the retail category of land use. Under this taxonomy, the total proposed retail square footage would equal 65,000 + 35,000 = 90,000. I assume, however, that hotel space rarely is intended for the use of residents of the surrounding neighborhood so, as long as the proposed restaurant space does not exceed 8,671 square feet, Rivanna V'ffiage should be able to support internally the project's relevant retail component. Note that the residential units would have. to be built first or, at least, concurrently with the retail space in order for this statement to be true. Office Space According to recent research that I have undertaken, for each additional service job added to the County of Albemarle, there is a concurrent increase of 114.3242 square feet of taxable office space. I have also determined that, associated with each additional household in the County, there exist 0.788 service jobs. Now, excluding AlI,'s and LW's, Rivanna Village proposes to add 1,128 new households to Albemarle. This fact means that there should exist 1,128 x 0.788 = 889 new service jobs associated with the residential component of the project. This number, in turn, means that Rivanna Village could support 889 x 114.3242 = 101,634 square feet of taxable office space. This last figure is 101,634 - 90,000 = 11,634 square feet greater than the taxable office square footage proposed by the developer of this project. Note, however, that Rivanna ~rfilage would also include 35,000 square feet of mixed office/institutional space. The information that you supplied me neither breaks down this number into office and institutional components, nor does the information identify exactly what type land use activity would occur in the institutional part of this 35,000 square CPA 01-03 September 10, 2001 Page Three Office Space (Cont.) foot figure. As long as office space occupies no more than 11,634 square feet of this part of the project, Rivanna V'dlage could support internally the office space portion of the project. Note that the residential units would have to be built first or, at least, concurrently with the office space in order for this statement to be tree. SAMsaa VI. 9 vanna V llage at Glenmore Justification for Land Use Map Amendment Pursuant to the "policy for submittal of Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County, Virginia" (dated January 18, 2000), this following section addresses Glenmore Associates' response to the specific criteria ("A" through "E") for Plan Amendments as established by the County. A. Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map Pursuant to the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Amendment Policy (January 18, 2000), the stated purpose of the Land Use Map is to "provide and plan .for a balance of land uses, equipped with adequate utilities and facilities, in a comprehensive, harmonious manner." First and foremost, the Policy stipulates that any proposed changes to the Plan and Land Use Map should be evaluated for protection of the health, safety and welfare of the general public rather than the proprietary interests of an individual. In recognition of this, Rivanna Village at Glenmore is intended to cultivate the public interests expounded by the 1996 Plan via an amendment to the current Land Use Map designation. The proposed change in designation will enable the residents of the 1200 acre Glenmore. community and other nearby neighborhoods to benefit from services provided by the village-scaled, mixed-use development. The Village concept fulfills the Plan's major growth management goal of protecting and efficiently utilizing resources by aggregating uses within the designated Development Areas. The subject application will satisfy the health, safety ,and general welfare cornerstones of land use governance by carefully balancing the interrelationship among land uses, market realities, adequate public facilities, environmental impacts, and needs of the citizens within the Rivanna Development Area. 10 5 jvanna Village at Glenmore B. Fulfillment of the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives The County's Policy for Plan Amendments recognizes that the merits of any specifi~ request should be measured by' its fulfillment of the -principles in the Comprehensive Plan. In response, the foundation for the master plan for Rivanna Village has been developed with respect to the fundamental goals, objectives and design guidelines upon which the 1996 Comprehensive Plan is founded. The project offers a thoughtful approach for the creation of a tree "village center" at this infill location in the Rivanna Village Development Area. As related to the 1996 Plan, Rivanna Village responds to the following adopted comprehensive planning goals: 1. Growth Management Rivanna Village at. Glenmore represents a logical adjustment to the existing Rivanna Development Area in that it will provide a "center" for goods, services, working areas, civic spaces, recreational amenities and a welcoming village environment to an area designated for expansive residential growth, but which now has no mechanism for' serving that growth. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan recognizes that, over time, adjustments to Development Areas are important to the growth management proqess. The Plan states: "Such adjustments can include more active County support of Development Areas development. adjustments to locations and/or holding capacity, and additional protective or support measures for the Rural Areas." A village designation, by definition, extends beyond a subdivision relegated solely to residential uses. While the 1996 Plan focused on residential uses, it did not intend for villages to be defined as exclusively residential under their full development scenario. Rivanna Village offers a sensible evolution of the Development Area by creating the "critical mass" of village uses which will complement the demands of local' residents for convenience and neighborhood goods and services. 11 P vanna VillBe at Glenmore 2. Smart Growth The proposed Land Use Map amendment for Rivanna Village supports the County's primary growth management goal of "directing development into designated areas and conserving the balance of the County for rural areas.' In furtherance of the theme of resource protection is the "added new emphases on .~intelligent use of the Development Areas, public facilities and resources," In effect, the 1996 Plan establishes the County's role in both planning for and providing necessary support services and infrastructure for "smart" development as well as fostering more efficient land use orientations within the designated Urban, Community and Village areas. The planned project is designed and organized to achieve the County's goal for mixed use development in Development Area locations where (a) there exists a strong rationale for infill development, (b) suburban sprawl can be reduced or eliminated, and (c) a variety of land use designations can be provided as necessary to meet varied local market demands. In this regard, the project will be inserted into an area where a variety of land uses, facilities and services currently exist and can be efficiently expanded to provide the range of support needed to serve the predicted growth in the Development Area. 3. Adequate Public Facilities The 1996 Plan states that Urban Areas, Communities and Villages "are also considered the focal point for the provision of publw services and facilities, either at a countywide or more localized level." Rivanna Village will be developed with a full range of supporting infrastructure at a recognized infill location adjoining the larger Glenmore PRD community. The central location of Rivanna Village and its land use program which is complementary to the,surrounding residential area and fulfills the County's principal goals for facilities ~/nd infrastructure planning. The adopted Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need to provide a level of public service delivery that will support development 12 P vanna Vil tge at Glenmore in, and direct development to, the designated Development Areas. Also, the Plan recognizes that the provision of such facilities and services significantly affects the location, timing, and extent of development. From this perspective, Rivanna Village is efficiently served by existing public infrastructure and Glenmore Associates has the capability to expand its utilities and facilities as required. 4. Mixed Use The Village will yield a well proportioned mix of residential, commercial, civic and service uses which will be complementary to the predominantly residential uses currently found within the Rivanna Development Area. Rivanna Village will not only fulfill the concept of Community Service, as defined by the Plan, but, also, it advances the concept within context of the Neighborhood Model's vision for well integrated mixed-uses. While the Community Service designation indicates that "urban density residential uses are allowed....as a secondary use," the Neighborhood Model embraces residential land uses as co-equal in priority for New Urbanism projects. Rivanna Village reflects this desired balance with a well organized blend of"I/lain Street" buildings and other structures which integrate residential~ commercial and office uses located within well designed, two- and three- story structures. 5. V'dlage Development From concept to implementation, Rivanna Village intends to successfully model the Comprehensive Plan's Village Development goals and objectives. Keeping in mind that Rivanna Village will be contained entirely within the existing designated Rivanna Development Area, its attributes are strongly correlated with the 1996 Plan's provisions for village development: Rivanna Village' will be a project that will "combine the feeling of country living with the amenities of a Development Area." 13 t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! P vanna V lOge :. at G nmore bo f. g. h. i. Rivanna Village will be a neighborhood which "remains a part of, but does not encroach upon, its surrounding rural area." Rivanna Village and the larger Rivanna Development Area creates a "hard edge" which is established to "confine the Village density." Rivanna Village will be 'framed" from the adjacent Rural Area in such as way as to "limit the size of the Village to 'the area planned" and "reassure current residents that any disadvantages of added village density would be offset by cappmg village growth." Rivanna Village will appeal to Rural Area landowners "who farm, but prefer the Village setting as a place to live due to the proximity of food and fuel establishments, mail services, church, etc." Rivanna Village will provide a "variety of housing types..., with a gross density not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre." However, the residential densities within any given block may exceed this density to ensure an appropriate housing mix. Rivanna Village will include a "center of mixed service and residential uses" with such uses "limited to to neighborhood scale services, including convenience shopping, other general retail and service uses, medical and professional offices, and accessory apartments and attached housing." Rivanna Village will incorporate "public sewer and water systems" and ''public facilities which support the village and the immediate ~urrounding Rural Area." Rivanna Village will offer a "linkage to the Urban Area and O~p of Charlottesville by roads with adequate capacity..., in order to move residents conveniently between the Village and the urban core. This reflects a concern for using, but not overloading, [he 14 P vanna Village at Glenmore County's main roads....and a concern that minor roads not become subjected to traffic loads which they cannot tolerate, or which alters their character over time." ko Rivanna Village "reflects a concept of a Village as including some local services, but not major community or regional services which are better provided in the Urban Area." Rivanna Village represents a proposal for a new village location within the larger Development Area which demonstrates "that it maintains this principle of a central village area at the logical confluence of street and movement patterns. " Ri vanna Village will establish "development around a focal point, such as a public building, main street, park, greenway, or other open space or common area," and that it "emulates historic regional patterns of vdlage de .nsity and design .... " m Rivanna Village will incorporate elements that can' contribute to the qualities of a traditional Virginia village, such as "rectilinear and interconnecting street patterns", "compact lots", shallow front/side yard setbacks", and "walkways and paths which encourage pedestrians." n. Rivanna Village will be developed as a "unified Village plan developed in accordance with the requirements for a planned development.... (and thaO consideration will be given to the needs. and wishes of those already living and owning property in the area. With respect to the future use categories addressed by the Land Use Plan, the Commumty Service use designation provides the best general planning framework for Glenmore Associates to achieve the above characteristics. However, it is recognized that the ongoing plan amendment and zoning for the property will need to carefully integrate the Plan's vision for "villages" into the Community Service designation. 15 P vanna Village at Glenmore C. Considerations for Determination of Appropriateness This section of the Rivanna Village apphcation addresses the County's "considerations for determination of appropriateness" for a Land Use Map amendment. As expressed by the County's Plan Amendment Policy, the purpose of the Plan and Land Use Map is to "facilitate the coordination of improvements to the transportation network and the expansion of public utilities in an economical, efficient and judicious manner. "- The proposed maSter plan recognizes and responds to the need for provision of adequate public facilities and infrastructure. The Plan Amendment Policy underscores the fact that Comprehensive Plan amendments "which direct growth away from designated growth areas shah be discouraged" Towards this end, Rivanna Village's planned mix of land uses has been carefully organized to ensure that exurban growth pressures and resulting sprawl patterns are not exacerbated. Rivanna Village is, in a sense, a project which seeks to embrace the County's Development Area infill priorities. Its scope and scale will be the antithesis of the forms of suburban sprawl development which the Plan seeks to counteract. Its concentration of uses will reduce pressures for "leap frog" development on otherwise prime properties which are located just outside the Development Area~ Ownership control and land management capabilities cannot be ignored as an important consideration related to the appropriateness of a Plan Amendment. Rivanna Village, which will be owned and controlled by a single development entity, will facilitate the coordination, implementation and phasing of future improvements to the internal Village transportation network. Also, it will enable the expansion of public utilities in an economical and judicious manner within the urban infill area. Rivanna Village's contribution to off-site trip generation along Route 250 will be lessened by the increased levels of internal trip absorption by and between the project's residential, commercial, and office uses as well as with the adjoining Glenmore PRD. 16 2o i P vanna Village at Glenmore D. Compliance of Plan Amendment with Plans and Ordinances The County's Plan Amendment Policy states that "proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be evaluated for general compliance with adopted County plans, policies, studies and ordinances and to determine if corresponding changes are necessary." Glenmore Associates' village development concept for Rivanna Village has been evaluated in relationship to other County plans, policies, and studies. As it applies to the subject application, the most influential of these plans and studies is the DISC "Development Areas Initiative Project." This three year research and planning effort recently culminated in the Planning COmmission's recommendation of the DISC "Neighborhood Model" to the Board of Supervisors (per action of February 20, 2001.) During the applicant's pm-planning phase for the project, the master plan for Rivanna Village has germinated from the DISC recommendations for town and village-styled development. The following outline establishes the relationship of Rivanna Village to the ten major goals of the Neighborhood Model: Centers: Fundamental to the Neighborhood Model is the establishment of appropriately scaled "centers" where Rivanna area residehts and other County citizens can congregate and interact on many levels. Rivanna Village clearly represents a true "village center" in that its Main Street will incorporate civic spaces, a commons and square, restaurants, office and "destination" activities which will be attractive to the community at large. Open Space: The Neighborhood Model's goals for open space emphasize the need for public and private outdoor recreational areas as well as open space for active and passive recreation. Rivanna Village will include a large "commons" anchoring the end of the Main Street. Also included is a large lake which serves as 17 P vanna V lage at Glenmore the dominant amenity around which paths and public passive areas will be structured. The village "grid" street system will link residents, shoppers and visitors to Rivanna Village's activi areas and open spaces. Network: Responding to DISC's goals for' neighborhood "linkages", Rivanna Village incorporates a network of sidewalks which will interconnect all village land uses and provide paths to the contiguous existing residential neighborhoods. Mixed Uses: Rivanna Village will offer'a blend of village-scaled, mixed-use buildings which embrace traditional Virginia architectural stylings. The diversified uses will be accommodated in buildings which are side-by-side or uses which are located within the same structure. Building Placement and Scale: Rivanna Village's scale will promote a tree "sense of place." The architectural scale, massing, heights and orientations of Rivanna Village's buildings will create an inviting streetscape environment in which pedestrians will feel at home. Alleys (an~d Secondary Access): R' ' ' ' ivanna Village s hierarchy of streets fulfills the Neighborhood Model's goals by incorporating secondary pedestrian and vehicular linkages which are scaled to maintain the functionality, esthetics and carrying capacity of the Village's "Main Street." Relegated Parking: The village streets are designed to accommodate on-street parking, with conservatively applied street widths, appropriately scaled street-to-building relationships and related transportation characteristics. The Neighborhood Model's transportation planning precepts are reflected by the proposed block and grid organization. The project's vehicular circulation 18 P vanna Village at Glenmore system establishes clear and ample options for on-site traffic and access to convenient parking areas which are "buffered" from the principle pedestrian areas. Many residences will have both front and rear building access from secondary travelways, thus reducing the need for single purpose alleys. Variety of Housing Types: As a village-scaled neighborhood, the master plan introduces higher density residences than those found in the adjoining Glenmore community which has been developed at suburban densities. The critical mass of the residential uses will provide a unique variety and sense of vitality within the village's internal blocks. In addition to conventional townhouse blocks, the project will integrate upper level "flats" and "live/work" residences located in the same structures as non- residential uses. Architectural detailing and design treatment'of the apartments and "affordable" units will vary little from that of other residences. Appealing Streetscapes: The Neighborhood Model recognizes that streetscapes are "the fundamental element of public space within the neighborhood." To ensure that Rivanna Village is inviting to all, its Main Street and other internal streets will be modeled a~ter traditional 'Virginia villages, with street trees, open squares and public spaces, quality street lighting, benches, and specialty signage. Transportation Options: The master plan for Rivarma Village provides convenient intra-neighborhood and inter-community access, both for vehicular and pedestrian movements. Bike and cart paths will be considered, where appropriate, for neighborhood circulation. Glenmore Associates intends to work with County officials to ensure that the village's street system is compatible with the long-term transportation needs of the Rivanna Development Area. 19 Rivanna Vil e at Glenmore E. Conditions for Consideration of Request The Plan Amendment Policy outlines certain "conditions for consideration" related to the County's evaluation criteria. With respect to the subject application forRivanna Village at Glenmore, this section focuses on matters related to changes in circumstance since the date of adoption of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. (I 1. Growth of Glenmore and the Rivanna Development Area Rivanna ¥illage will respond to the needs of those residents in the Development Area for shopping and services which were not anticipated by the 1996 Plan and which do not currently exist. The pace of growth in this area has exceeded the County's expectations, and a corresponding need for uses supporting residential development is apparent. At the time of adoption of the 1996 Plan, the Rivanna Development Area contained an estimated 275 dwelling units supporting a population of 736. Almost all of this residential development was centered in the Glenmore community and only two businesses were located in the entire Rivanna Development Area. The closest shopping center and Urban Area commercial establishments were located approximately foUr miles to the west at Pantops. In recent years, ~lenmore has experienced rapid growth with a total of 475 residences which are now either occupied or under construction and a total of 577 lots having been sold. At full development, Glenmore will contain approximately 800 dwellings. The balance of the undeveloped area in the 1800~-acre Rivanna Development Area has, conservatively, land holding capacity for an additional 600-8{)0 residential units. Present day economics of the marketplace reveal that certain levels of neighborhood-scaled retail, service and employment activities could be readily supported The real demand for such uses has been voiced by area res/dents. At full build-out of the Development Area, the projected population will support neighborhood and community-scaled commerce. 20 24 STAFF PERSON: STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION: ELAINE IC ECHOLS, AICP MICHAEL BARNES JUNE 26, 2001 CPA 01-03 CPA 01-04 ZMA 01-07 ZMA 01-08 ZTA 01-08 RIVANNA VILLAGE AT GLENMORE ALBEMARLE PLACE ALBEMARLE PLACE RIVANNA VILLAGE AT GLENMORE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD REGULATIONS Purpose of Worksession The purpose of this worksession with the Albemarle County Planning Commission is to establish the process for review of all five items listed above. The applicant for the project, "Rivanna Village at Glenmore," has requested simultaneous review for the CPA, ZTA, and ZMA. The applicant for Albemarle Place has requested simultaneous review for the CPA and ZMA; the ZMA would be dependent on the ZTA referenced above. At the Planning Commission meeting held on May 8, staff suggested that the rezoning applications wait for the completion of review of the CPA's before being processed. The Commission wondered if any delay was necessary and asked staff to provide additional guidance on how the reviews for Rivanna Village and the ZTA could occur.together. The Commission asked staff to propose a strategy which contemplated little, if any, time lag between the review of the projects. This staff rePort will provide the recommended strategy for consideration of the above referenced requests by the Commission. It will highlight the key elements of the review and set out an approach for reviewing each item. Also contained herein is a recommended Resolution of Intent for changing the PUD regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. Finally, attached to the staff report is a record of public comment received to date on the projects. Relationship of the Proposals The proposals for the CPA's and ZMA's arc closely related and both are related to the proposed ZTA. Currently, the County's Land Use Plan would not support the land uses proposed in the ZMA's for Albemarle Place and Rivanna Village. Additionally, the rezonings as presented could not be approved without changes to the zoning text. There are several relationships that exist among Albemarle Place and Rivanna Village that should be pointed out. Although the applicants are different, they share the Cox Company as their consultant leading the project. Second, the development proposals contemplate a neotraditional style of development with a major mixed use component that is different from previous applications for CPA's. Third, the proposed projects have similarities in style and type of development as well as in the level of detail provided at this stage in the CPA review. Finally, both projects are dependent on a ZTA in order to be implemented as proposed. There are differences between the projects as well. Rivanna Village at Glenmore proposes a change of 78 acres from a designation of Neighborhood Density Residential to Community Service. The change is proposed within a community which is fairly self-contained. Impacts on the City of Charlottesville are less prominent. Traffic impacts are anticipated for the Village of Rivanna and Route 250 only. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as a Village already and describes the features that should be contained in a Village. Staff anticipates this review to be potentially less complex than the review for Albemarle Place because the impacts will be much more limited. Albemarle Place proposes a change to 62 acres from a designation of Industrial Service to Regional Service. The proposal calls for a significant increase in both usage and types of uses. Its traffic impacts will most likely necessitate road improvements, It also has potiential commercial implications to the City and County. Finally, the proposal is outside of what the Comprehensive Plan currently envisions for the area. For the proposal to succeed,~the Comprehensive Plan will have to recalibrate its vision for the site in question and the area surrounding the site. The differences between each proposed CPA and its associated ZMA are not as distinctive. The CPA proposals provide design detail that encompasses much more than a change in color on the Land Use Map. The proposals provide general layout of streets, roads, buildings, parks, and amenities. They provide detailed information on proposed density of residential uses as well as intensity of colmnercial uses. The rezoning proposals take the project information one step further by providing the specific Code of DeVelopment that would implement the projects. In both ways, the CPA"s and ZMA's provide detail at a much greater level than staff has traditionally seen in the County. The detail provided for both the CPA's and ZMA's will allow for a comprehensive review of the projects. Staff believes that each CPA and its implementation tool, the ZTA and ZMA, should be reviewed together. While staff believes the projects should be looked at concurrently, it dOes not propose concurrent' action by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. As previously stated, changes to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning text are necessary for the zoning map to be amended. The CPA's and ZTA will establish the conditions and regulations under which the ZMA's should be approved. After staff recommendation, the CPA's and ZTA could be changed by the Planning Commission and/or the Board of Supervisors. Any material changes of the CPA's or ZTA would impact the review and recommendation of the ZMA's, effectively changing the conditions and regulations guiding staff's recommendations on the ZMA's. Therefore, staff recommends there be lag time between the Planning Commission's decision on the CPA's and ZTA and it decision on the ZMA's to allow the Board of Supervisors to take its action on the CPA's and ZTA. Proposed Order of Action on the CPA's, ZTA, and ZMA's For the reasons identified above, staff would like to propose the following order for Planning Commission action: · ' Staff review of the respective CPA and ZMA projects together - how this review will occur is outlined in the second section of this report. · Staff review of the ZTA · Worksessions on the CPA and ZTA with the Planning Commission · Staff recommendation to the Planning Commission on the CPA's and the ZTA · After action by the Board on the CPA's and ZTA, staff recommendation on the rezonings Analysis o£ the CPA's The analysis of each of the CPA's will include the following activities: 1. Assessment of the geographic features of the site and the project's impact on those features 2. Assessment of the availability of w. ater and sewer services to support the project 3. AsseSsment of the impact of the change on the County's streets and, in the case of Albemarle Place, the impact on the City streets 4. Assessment of the impact on these community facilities: schools, parks, libraries, and fire and rescue service 5. Review and report against the following standard criteria for CPA's: a. How will the proposed change affect the health safety, and welfare of the general public rather than the proprietary interests of an individual? b. How well does the request fulfill the "goals and objectives" specified in the Comprehensive Plan? c. How does the proposal facilitate the coordination of improvements to the transportation network and expand the public utilities in an economical, efficient, and judicious manner, including keeping the proposal within the boundaries of the designated Development Areas? d. Is the proposal in general compliance with adopted County plans, policies, studies and ordinances? e. Has one or more of the following five activities occurred that justifies the change in land use? · Change in circumstance · Updated information is available · A subsequent portion of the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted or developed · A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible · . The preparation of the Plan was not in accord with the Code of Virginia because it was incomplete or incorrect information was employed. 6. After reviewing and reporting, staff will recommend one of the following actions: adoption of the CPA as presented; adoption of the CPA with amendments; or disapproval. Items to be considered in recommending adoption with amendments includes: a. proposing a logical area for the amendment b. proposing changes to the land use classification requested or proposing a new classification of land use c. proposing changes to the text of the Land Use Plan in the specific Development Area and elsewhere, as necessary Analysis o£ the ZTA Staff will also review the proposed amendment to the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance. On the surface, the proposed amendment would provide an implementation tool for developments that are in keeping with the recently adopted Neighborhood Model. Specific attention will be paid to how the text accomplishes the goals of the Neighborhood Model and the ease with which the proposed regulations can apply. Analysis will include the following items: 1. Isthe proposed text amendment in keeping with the current Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives? 2. Will the proposed text amendment further the goals of the Comprehensive Pla~? 3. Will the proposed text amendment reflect good zoning practice? 4. Could modifications be made to the proposed text amendment that would furtherthe goals of the Comprehensive Plan and reflect good zoning practice. Progress to Date on Reviews of the CPA's, ZMA's, and ZTA Staff has begun its assessments of the items listed On page 3 for the CPA's. In addition to the CPA descriptions, staff has reviewed the ZMA applications for content. Finally, staff has set up an internal ZTA team for review of the PUD changes. Work continues on the Albemarle Place traffic study. The traffic study for the Rivanna Village at Glenmore CPA has just begun. The second community meeting for the Rivarma Village at Glenmore was held on Wednesday, June 13 at the Glenmore Clubhouse. In addition to the applicant and the applicant's consultant, staff, Tracey Hopper, and approximately 150 residents were present. A page containing the comments is attached to this report. Recommendations Staff recommends that the Planning Commission follow the proposed order of actions on page 2 of this report. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution of intent to modify Section 20 planned Unit Developments in the Zoning Ordinance and/or other sections necessary to provide for TND developments in the County. Attachments Attachment A - Resolution of Intent Attachment B - Comments fi.om Rivanna Village at Glenmore Community Meeting 4 ATI~ACHMENT A RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, Section 20, Planned Unit Development (PUD), establishes regulations pertaining to planned unit developments; and WHEREAS, current PUD regulations: (1) do not provide sufficient flexibility to mix uses in the growth areas, as provided in the Neighborhood Model section of the Comprehensive Plan; (2) require a minimum parcel size that is too large for most parcels to be eligible to be developed as a PUD; and (3) do not promote traditional neighborhood development. WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 20 and other related regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in order to address the issues identified above and to address other issues related to improving the use of the PUD in appropriate circumstances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby.adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 20 and any other related regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the purposes described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. 5 ATTACHMENT B CPA 01-013 RIVANNA VILLAGE AT GLENMORE COMMUNITY MEETING Wednesday, June 13, 2001 Glenmore Clubhouse lnvitees: Property owners in Glenmore Property owners along Route 250 near the entrance to Glenmore Property owners surrounding the Glenmore development Number in attendance: Approximately 150 Representatives of the Applicant: Frank Cox, Mike Fenner, Steve Runkle, Clay Greene, Mike Comer County RePresentatives: Tracey Hopper, Elaine Echols Format: Frank Cox provided a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the County's growth management strategy and the proposed development Rivanna Village at Glenmore. Included were photographs of streetscapes and shops in European cities whose features would be emulated in the proposed development. ARer presenting, Mr. Cox asked for questions and comments from the audience. Approximate length of meeting: 2 hours Questions and Comments from Audience "How closely can the public expect that the proposed architecture will actually be carried out, given the fact that builders in this country use very different materials than builders in Europe?" · "We came here to live in a 'quiet place'. The development will interrupt the peace and quiet of Glenmore." · "How many cars will be added to 250 that are going to impact the time it takes me to drive to work?" · "Can or will VDOT upgrade 2507" · "Could construction traffic enter from a different location than Glenmore Way?" [answer-- yes] · "Will maintenance be shared between the Glenmore Association and the Rivanna Village Association for the improvements?" [answer - no] · "What difference would it make if the majority of the residents were against the proposal?" · "How much of a screening barrier is proposed between the two developments?"[answer 20 - 30 feet] · "There is no way to screen the Parking lot and buildings from the existing surrounding residents who do not reside in Glenmore because of the topography." · "We're going to get runoff from this development and it will damage our properties." 6 ~, " ATTACHMENT B · "How can you keep trucks from Luck Stone from cutting through Glenmore?" · "Will there be any height limitation for the buildings?" [answer- yes--3 stories for residential and commercial; 50 - 60 feet for the independent living facility] · "Was there any consideration to developing a different site than this one?" [ answer - no, this was the one we owned] · "How will you deal with the increased traffic on Route 250 - the natural increase on 250 as well as what this project generates?"] · "Is high density housing proposed for other parts of this Development Area?" [answer - no] · "How many units in the development will be rental units?" · "We're going to have traffic, we'll have to deal with it. We were here before Glenmore and y'all are ok. These new people and businesses will be ok, too. Do any of us want more development? No, but its going to happen anyway." · "This will be another Pantops in 5 years" · "I want to go on record saying that not all residents in Glenmore are against this proposal. There may be doctors and dentists that we don't have to go into town to see. We have to be logical. Much of the project will be to benefit us." · "What assurances will we have that Glenmore Associates will follow-through (and the project won't be sold to some other developer)?" [answer - you don't because no one can guarantee that, but there will be major controls put on the project and the code of development will help.] · "Route 250 into Charlottesville cannot accommodate more traffic. It stacks up to the Free Bridge already." · "How can/will Route 250 be widened? There are already major flooding/drainage problems in the right-of-way. What will be done to alleviate this? Will what is being done with the project make it worse?" · "Will there be time limitations set on commercial activities in the development so that kids won't be drinking at .all hours?" · "What is happening to the school site?" · "What are the school impacts? Will there be redistricting because of this developments?" · "Why is the boundary of the Development Area where it is? Shouldn't it be larger and include the area between Route 250 and the interstate? It would make more sense to put a commercial development there." 7 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AIC? MAY 8, 2001 CPA 01-03 RIVANNA VILI,AGE AT GLENMORE Request Glenmore Associates has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for a change in the Land Use Map for the Rivanna Development Area for the purpose of establishing a mixed-use village. In keeping with Planning Commission policy for review of CPA requests, this staff report contains a request for a resolution of intent from the Planning Commission to review.th.e amendment. Amendment requests are first forwarded to the Planning ~ Commission to determine whether or not the amendment should be considered for additional study. I/the Commission decides that the amendment wan'ants further review, staffwill evaluate the request and provide a recommendation to the Commission and Board of Supervisors at a public hearing. The request is 'to change the Comprehensive Plan designation fi'om Neighborhood Residential to Community Service for Tax Map 93A1, portion of Parcel 1, Parcels 2, 3 & 4 and Tax Map 80, Parcel 50. All but one of the parcels on Tax Map 93A1 are owned by Glenmore Associates and have been associated with the Glenmore Planned Residential Development (PRD) since its inception in 1990. ParceI 2 contains the East Rivanna Fire Department's Fire Station. Constituting roughly 59 acres, the area inside the Glenmore development .originally was intended for open space and roads; outside the Glenmore development, the area contained a proffered fire station site, school site and other RA zoned land in the Village of Rivanna. Owned by Alan and Daphne Dillard, Tax Map 80 parcel 50 contains 19.5 acres adjacent to the property owned by Glenmore Associates and the Fire Department. It is largely undeveloped, zoned RA, and is located inside the DeveloPment Area boundaries for the Village of Rivanna. The total acreage under consideration for the plan amendmefit is 78 acres. The applicant proposes a mixed-use neo-traditional type development with commercial, office, and high density residential uses. The Master Plan shows'a block and grid pattern of streets, a "Main Street" with a large village commons as a focal point, a variety of residential and non-residential uses, and a lake surrounded by walking paths.'g, ttachrnents A & B show the parcels under consideration for the change in land use designation and the development proposal. Character of the Area The site is located at the intersection of U.S. Route 250 (Richmond Road) and Glenmore Way. Access is currently provided from Glenmore Way through an access easement that serves the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department. The land owned by Glenmore Associates is undeveloped, wooded, and hilly with an old quarry pond. The Dillard property has a house, sheds, and a pond: Inclusion of the Dillard property also provides a second access point into the Village from Route 250. The immediate area can be characterized as large lot single family residential, rural, and open. There are several single family detached homes along Route 250, on Ashton Road, and in the rest of the Glenmore development. The Glenmore development is a gated community with a variety of single family detached housing types and lot sizes. An equestrian center, golf course, and clubhouse with swimming pool provide significant amenities to this upper scale development. The closest commercial area to the development is in the Pantops area, approximately a four to five miles away. Back_~round The Village of Rivanna was desi~ouated as a Development Area in 1989 following a request by Glenmore Associates to create a community to capture much of the upper income housing being developed on large lots in the rural areas. The Glenmore development was approved in 1990 and small parcels of land have been added to the original acreage over the last ten years. In 1994 Glenmore Associates requested that the County consider including a Neighborhood Service Area designation for Rivanna Village during the review and update of the Land Use Plan. The Planning Commission considered the request but did not include a commercial service area in the Village with the update of the Plan. Instead, the 1996 Comprehensive Plan made the following statement, "Existing local convenience commercial/office uses are located in close proximity within the Urban Area. The existing commercial/office uses in the Urban Area are sufficient to serve the Village and no commercial/office uses are recommended in the Village." Availability of Public Utilities and Facilities Vehicular Accessibility - External to the development, two points of access to public road systems are proposed. Glenmore Way would provide access from the west and Route 250 East (Richmond Road) would provide access from the northeast. VDOT has provided extensive comments concerning anticipated traffic impacts. The impacts are attached to this report in Attachment C. The principal issues are: · The new development would accelerate the need for additional through lanes, signalization, and other improvements along route 250E between Glenmore and Charlottesville. · Improvements to the two entrances to the new development would be needed. · Traffic reduction could be provided by making accommodation for future transit service within the site, bus pullouts along route 250, and parking for a future park & ride, bus stop, or Jaunt use. With regard to this last item, study should be given for the possibility of implementing a new Eastern Corridor bus route along Route 250 east to the intersection ofi-64 and developing a park and ride facility and program along the Route 250 east corridor. The intemal road system described is one that would be modeled after traditional Virginia villages with street trees. The system would be based on varying block, sizes and have different road widths. The application indicates that Rivanna Village will be owned and controlled by a single development entity, which will facilitate the coordination, implementation and phasing. An urban road system with curb, gutter, and sidewalks adjacent to the streets is alluded to but not described as such in the application. Pedestrian Accessibility - The application describes a commitment to pedestrian access through use of sidewalks and pedestrian paths. Traditional downtown areas in Virginia towns and cities reflected sidewalks on both sides of the street. More detail would be needed on the commitments to pedestrian access and would be pointed out in a detailed review of the comprehensive plan amendmen/. Other areas for consideration of pedestrian accessibility would be along Route 250 East and Glenmore Way where the property abuts these corridors. Public Transit - No reference is made in the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to public transit. VDOT comments suggest that public transit opportunities-should be considered with the proposed.development. Public Open Space - Private open space is described and shown on the master plan accompanying the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The locations of the open space appear to have a positive relationship to the surrounding uses. Of note is the open space ratio on page 9 of the project narrative showing 16.7% open space. This percentage of open space is well below the 25% open space requirement of a planned development and. should be considered in light of a) the amount of open space in the rest of the Village, specifically the Glenmore development and b) the proposed changes to the zoning text relating to planned developments. Water and Sewer - Water service is available to serve the development. Specific development proposals will need to ensure adequate fire flow availability. Sewer capacity does not exi st at present. At a minimum a larger sewer line will be needed for serving the development fi.om the sewage treatment plant located within the Glenmore development. The existing sewage treatment plant may need to be enlarged and, where necessary, new discharge permits obtained. East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department - The Fire Department facility for the Development Area is located within the proposed project area. No information has been provided on whether or not the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department is supportive of this proposal. No information is provided on what the future of the facility might be within the development. This issue would have to be explored further with the Comprehensive Plan amendment review. Schools - Stone Robinson Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and Monticello High School serve this Development Area. An existing proffer from the Glenmore development for a school site or other public use in the project area is not addressed in the COmprehensive Plan amendment. This issue will have to be resolved through further analysis of the proposed amendment. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Consistency as Related to the Plan's Goals at a Countywide Scale -- The request to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Density Residential to Community Service, on the surface, could result in a reduction of residentially designated land in the Development Areas and an addition of commercially designated land. The Land Use Plan describes Community Service as Community-scale commercj~l, p~of~sional, ~p~.office Uses providing retail, wholesale, business, medical offices, small office buildings, mixed-use communities and/or employment services to the Urban neighborhood, Communities, and larger geographic sections of the County · Urban Density Residential uses are allowed within this designation as a secondary use · Community Service designation requires a medium site size (5 - 30 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. This proposal meets the description of the Community Service designation and does not extract residential inventory from the County's supply. In many ways, the Village of Rivanna would function more as a Village in accordance with the Land Use Plan with the provision of a commercial area. The Village Development/Design Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan suggest that villages consist of: · A variety of housing types including single-family, two family and townhouse units, with a gross density not to exceed 6 dwellings per acre. · A village center of mixed service and residential uses. Such uses shall be limited to neighborhood scale services, including convenience shopping, other general retail and service uses, medical and prqfessional offices, and accessory apartments and attached housing. · Public sewer and water systems. This reflects a concern that, without public utilities, it is not possible to achieve village density or land use patterns which, in turn, serve to protect farmland and rural open space. It also reflects concern for protecting the environment, and for the economical and reliable provision of sewer and water services. · Public facilities which support the Village and the immediate surrounding Rural Area. · A linkage to the Urban Area and City of Charlottesville by roads with adequate capacity (traffic-carrying ability, safety considerations, physical condition) in order to move residents conveniently between the Village and the urban core .... This also reflects a concept of a Village as including some local services, but not major community or regional services which are better provided in the Urban Area. · Development around a focalpoint, such as a public building, main street, park, gt:eenway, or other open space or common arba. Preferably, the focalpoint would incorporate an existing natural or cultural amenity. Within a proposed village, development shall emulate historic regional patterns of village density and design, such that the feel of a traditional village is created. Elements which can contribute to such a quality could include: A rectilinear or interconnection streetpattern without cul-de-sacs · Connections to existing streets Compact lots · Shallowfront/sideyard setbacks · /1 village center of mixed uses andpUblicfacilities and spaces · Walkways andpaths which encourage pedestrians to be the dominant mode of travel within the village center; and' · Preservation and reuse of existing structures /t unified Village plan developed in accordance with the requirements for a planned development. In particular, the impact of the plan on existing development should be emphasized. It is expected that consideration will be given to the needs and wishes of those already Hying and owning proper~ in the area. The proposal meets most of the Village recommendations; specific attention will need to be paid in the future review of whether the community services are better provided in the Urban Area. Consistency as Related to the Plan's Goals for Village of Rivanna - The 1996 Land Use Plan describes the population and numbers of dwelling units as 275 units and approximately 736 people. At present, there are approximately 475 residences in the Glenmore development with potential for at least 375 more units under the existing zoning. Important to the goals for the Village of Rivanna is the statement that, "Existing commercial/office uses in the Urban Area are sufficient to serve the village and no commercial/office uses are recommended in the Village." Attachment D shows the Village of Rivanna Land Use Map H. Other Issues - The applicatit fo? the comprehensive plan amendment has requested a concurrent rezoning and zoning text amendment to implement the proposal. Past policy.for concurrent plan amendments and rezoning ]~equests has been to delay the rezoning request until action has been taken on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Staffbelieves that this policy should be continued so that a rezoning request can be evaluated against a Board appro,qed plan rather than a proposed plan change. Regarding the zoning text amendment, staff believes it is appropriate to review the applicant,s request for changes to the PUD section of the zoning ordinance along with the Comprehensive Plan amendment to support neotraditional development opportunities. Staff believes that the current Land Use Plan already recommends modifications to the zoning regulations to promote such developments. Summary and Recommendation -- On the surface, the applicant's proposal appears to offer the style of development called for in the current Land Use Plan as well as in the Neighborhood Model. The uses and form of a neotraditional downtown with a high and medium densny residential area appear to round out the Village. The proposal is significantly different than the current goals for this Development Area. The purpose of this staff report is to put forth areas that need be more fully explored. More information will be generated as the process moves forward. This information will be passed on to both the Planning Commissioners and the Board. At this time, staff asks that the Commissioners direct Staff towards other concerns that may have been inadvertently missed or to give additional comments to the points raised through out this report. For the reasons stated above, staffbelieves that there is merit in evaluating the amendment request and therefore, recommends approval of a resolution of intent to consider CPA 01-03. Proposed Resqlution of Intent To serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice, the Planning Commission adopts this Resolution of Intent to consider amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan as follows: to review ali Land Use Plan objectives, guidelines, standards and other recommendations as they relate to the provision of mixed use (mix of commercial/office and residentiaO developments. Attachments Attachment A - Parcels under consideration for CPA Attachments B -- Development Proposal Attachment C- VDOT Comments Attachment D - Land Use Map H .. t _) c4 RESIOUE OF TH° 93A1-t ,' Sit '10'47'E A~SOCZATES LIHITEO PARTNERSHIP ~ / 0.8. 1~6~ D.e. Jo74 50' / / ! / ; / \ \ X, OFtAZNFZELD EASEHENT COURSES LINE BEARING DISTANCE O! N35'~9'09'# 19a.45' 132 f135 '29' !0'# !79. t7' 03 N6§'tB'48'E :~!0.~4' 04 S57'56'aa'E 304.90' 135 54§'!6'PF# 327.P4' 06 N35 '~3' Og'N g3.r~.' 07 N35 'L~3'Og?# :','~CUFIVE TABLE LINE RADIUS OEi.~A ' ARC ~ ~ BEARING C1 440.00' 45,'47'35' 351.67' 342,36' NOG'IO"30"'E ,C2 765.00' 33'26'01' 446.40' 440.09' NJA'2J'!7'E C3 440.00' 27'26'40' 210.76' E08.75' NtJ'2!'36'E C4 440,00' ! '36'00' 1a.29' 12.2g' NES'5~'§6'E C5 '4,10.00' E9'02'40' 2a3.04' P~0.66' NJa'09'35"E C6, 35.0Q' ,,82'~6'45' 50.36' 46. t3' N67'54*i6"E - S44 '2J'26'# 353.56' lBO.St' ~ 79-£5A DANIEL BIEKER 0.8. ~6 p. 404 ~ERT LZ~N~ 0.8, 5~ ~. 609 ~ST ~ST T~ 79-26 D, 8. ~03~ p. ~9 DONALD FIIG6IN TICK TI, fP 93A]-4 37.841 Ac. ~SSOCIATES LINZTED PARTNERSHIP O.B. J209 p~ L~J3 (Pi. AU O,B. 1~61 p, 313 O.B..1074 PP. 203-204 (PLAT] L$. STONE FML NJ0'06'49"~ 2i2. gg' HOUSE NDN. FND, ~SFtED / TYP ~,,,,9.,_,~ / NARdOR.[E CAVANAUC, H ~ ~,'~'~' / ,'-- O.B. 761 p. 4~9 ,'.;.:~,, ,-- , / / N~O.E CA.NAm ~?'~/ ~.,,'/.. . '"/ "///' x 'x ,q~ ,,/,,// ./" . ~O.H. ELEC. ~ $TELE. TNP 80-50 ~9.536 AC. ALAN AND DAPHI~. OZLLARO o....... ~ O,B. 5~3P' 4~ (~AT] P.E. T~PSO-55 6ERALDHUGHE5 D.B, 739 p, 579 ,g .-: RECEIVED ~ TELE. TI~ dENNZE IfASHINGTON O.g. 693 p. 204 BOUNDARY SURVEY TAX HAP ~3A~,PARCELS 3, 4 AND PORTIONS OF P4RCEL TAX HAP 80 PARCEL 50 ,4LBEHARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 'NOTES: PARCELS E AND 4 HAVE NINERAL RIGHTS " RESERVED AS RECORDED AT D.B. 3,24 p. 08. * DENOTES IRON FOUND UNLESS OTHERWTSE NOTED, FEBRUARY 8, :~)01 f ~i~L~ ATTACHMENT A 7 O0 O0 MIXED USE KETAIL RETAIL INSTITUTIONAL / OFFICE RESIDENTIAL / OFFICE ATTACHED KESIDEBrrIAL SPECIALTY USE AT GLENMO:RE ATTACHMENT B .- /;/,/ nn PI..d~N 8 COMMONWEALTH CHARLES NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER ATTACHMENT C RECEIVED APR 2'7 711111 PLANNING AND VIR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 JAMES L BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER April '25, 2001 Rivanna Village at Glenmore Comprehensive Plan Amendment Villages of Mountain Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment Mr. David Benish Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Benish: We offer the following preliminary comments for the above Comprehensive Plan Amendments. These comments are not recommendations or requirements. Rather, they provide initial "sketch level" traffic estimates and discuss issues that Albemarle County may wish to consider during the comprehensive plan amendment process. - ~ R. ivanna Village at Glenmore, Route 250E Other Studies Previous CATS model included 715 households, 75 employees aneW235 students in TAZ 226, which closely represents the current Glenmore PRD. The recent US 250E Corridor Study between Charlottesville and Zion Crossroads is currently under consideration by the Board of Supervisors. This study recommended 1) US 250E be widened to 6 lanes from 1-64 to Rte 22, and to 4 lanes from ~Rte 22 to Rte 616, 2) express bus service, JAUNT service and Park & Ride lots be established in future along 250E corridor. Traffic Impacts Attached are preliminary estimates of site trip generation and future traffic on the adjacent roadway network, based on ITE (6th Edition) trip rates. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY 9 ATTACHMENT C Mr. David Benish C omprehensivePlawAmendments Page 2 Ap riI-25~2001 Rivanna Village at Glenmore, Route 250E (Traffic Impacts continued) This proposed amendment will generate about 11,534 trips per day, with 2,717 residential trips and 8,817 non-residential trips. By comparison, there will be about 7,024 trips generated by the current Glenmore PRD (assuming 800 homes, not including fire station or school). Assuming VDOT's policy of 15% internal capture between residential and non-residential and 15% pass-by for shopping center trips, about 9,842 vpd from this proposal and about 15,912 vpd from this proposal plus remainder of Glenmore PRD would be external and utilize Route 250E. These estimates may change as more becomes known about nature of the retail and residential uses. Traffic estimates indicate that this comprehensive plan amendment will accelerate the need for additional thru lanes and other improvements along Route 250E between Glenmore and Charlottesville. This amendment increases 2011 traffic from 33,700 vpd to 38,700 vpd between 1-64 and Route 22, and from 16,000 vpd to 23,000 vpd between Route 22 and the site. In the vicinity of the site, this amendment will likely create the need for improvements such as thru / turn lanes, traffic signals, ere along Route 250 and Route 1054 (Glenmore Way). The distribution of traffic between these two entrances, and resulting traffic impacts, will be influenced by the design of entrances and proposed internal roadways as well as location of land uses relative to entrances. For example, restricting left tums out of the proposed new entrance might eliminate the need for a future traffic signal at this entrance. Other Issues Other features which might benefit local residents and reduce traffic along Route 250E includ'e: 1) accommodation for future transit service within this site, 2) bus pullouts along 250E for future express service, 3) parking for future park & ride / bus stop / JAUNT use. As the land surrounding this Rivanna Village application is either undeveloped or low density residential, there will likely be requests for expansion of this development area in the future. This would further accelerate the need for additional capacity along the 250E corridor and additional improvements in the Glenmore area. US 250E will serve all of this potential development; mechanisms for development to contribute to 250E improvements in a fair and equitable manner may be worth considering at these early planning stages. There is about 2000' separation between the two proposed Route 250E entrances. The US 250E frontage lots between the two proposed entrances to this site are "surrounded" by the site and may come under pressure to be similarly designated and rezoned in the future. If the site plan for this comprehensive plan amendment provides for future integration with these parcels (including internal access), it might benefit the development of the village and would help achieve improved access management along Route 250E. It may be beneficial for this amendment to include or at least address these parcels to insure optimum development and access for the whole area. Rivanna Village at Glenmore Summary of Multi-Use Trip Generation Average Weekday Driveway Volumes April Z1, ~OO1 ATTACHMENT C Land Use Size 2'4 Hour Two-Way Volume AM Pk Hour PM Pk Hour Enter Exit Enter Exit Apartments 90 Dwelling Units 673 8 41 Residential Condominium / Townhouse 245 Dwelling Units 1394 17 86 Retirement Community 110 Occupied Dwelling Units Residential Condominium / Townhouse $ ~' 9 10 35 D~elling U~its 267 4 19 General Office Building ~H,~ O~s) 35 Employees 187 23 3 General Office Building 90 Th. Gr. Sq. Ft. 1224 151 21 General Office Building 35 Th. Gr. Sq. Ft. 593 71 10 Shopping Center 65 T.G.L.A. 5168 75 48 Hotel 70 Rooms 258 16 11 Library 25 Th. Gr. Sq. Ft. 1387 20 8 45 23 86 42 15 12 17 8 12 60 31 149 20 98 227 246 15 ~14 78 84 Single Family .Detached Housing C~le~x~.ov~- P P-.~ 800 Dwelling Units 7024 144 424 448 248 538 681 994 984 Note: A zero indicates no data available. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS z-57 ~4G 'Ta~, Preliminary Traffic - Rivanna Village at Glenmore Comp Plan Amendment Roadway Section US 250E 1-64 to Rt 22 US 250E Rt 22 to Rt 1054 Rt 1054 (Glenmore Way) 250E to Village entrance Rt 1054 (Glenmore Way) Village entrance to end New Entrance at Route 250E Year 2000 Traffic (veh ! day) Future Traffic Estimates (veh / day) w/Glenmore PRD buildout in 2006 22,000 29,500 9,300 14,300 3,800 7,000 3 7,000 0 0 w/Glenmore PRD buildout in 2011 33,700 16,00C 7,000 7,000 w/Glenmore PRD and Riv Village CPA buildout in 2011 38,700 23,000 13,000-15,500 7,000 500-3,000 Notes: (1) buildout years were assumed without verication with applicant for illustrative purposes (2) assumed 3% background growth on US 250 exclusive of Glenmore / Rivanna Village (3) assumed distribution = 2,000 adt to/from east, 7,000 adt to/from west on US 250E VDOT- 4/16/01 _) ~ ..... . ATTACHMENT D ~3 q Albemarle County Planning Com~is~or~2 Po_~: 5 4 ~ c v D February 19, 2002 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. atthe County Office Building, 401 Mclntire' Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; William Rieley, Vice-Chairman; Rodney Thomas, Tracey Hopper, Bill Edgerton and Pete Craddock. Other officials present were Elaine Echols, Greg Kamptner and David Benish. Mr. Loewenstein established a quorum called the meeting to order. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public Mr. Loewenstein asked for additional matters from the public. There being none, the meeting proceeded. Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting - February 13, 2002 Mr. Benish reviewed the meeting. There were two items the board reviewed that had been before.the Commission. The special use permit for the Thomas Harris garage was approved with conditions as modified by the commission. A home occupation PC, Spencer Enterprises, was also approved as recommended. Consent Agenda Approval of Planninq Commission Minutes -January 15, 2002. SUB-01-255 Barqamin Park Subdivision - Request to allow open space to be used for a stormwater detention facility. (Margaret Doherty) SUB-01,256 Sterling University Housing Final Plat- Request for authorization to construct an internal private read. (Margaret Doherty) SDP-01-127 Jack Jouett Middle School Major Site Plan Amendment - Critical Slopes Waiver. (Stephen Waller) Rt. 606 Abandonment/Dedication - Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Virginia Code Section 15.2-2232 Relocation of'Route 606 and abandonment of right-of-way for old alignment. (Juan Wade) Mr. Loewenstein asked if any commissioner wished to pull an item from the agenda. Mr. Thomas moved for approval. Mr. Rieley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Work Session CPA-0'I-03 Rivanna Village at Glenmore- Modify the Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan by revising the following information for the Village of Rivanna: updating population and housing information, providing new headings for the recommended elements of the plan, recommending improvements to Route 250 East, and recommending mass transit to the Village. The proposed amendment would also change the land use designation for Tax Map Parcels 80-50, 93A1-1, 93A1-2, 93A1-3, and 93A1-4 from Neighborhood Density residential (Which allows for 3-6 dwellings per acre) to Community Service, which would allow commercial uses and residential density of 6-34 dwellings per acre. The proposed amendment would provide specific guidance for the area designated Community Service by recommending that a neo- traditional-traditional street system, a "main street" with retail-and office buildings, a variety of housing types, offices, and commercial use not in excess of 240,000 square feet be proVided. The amendment would also allow for civic buildings including schools, churches, and community centers to be included in'the area designated as Community Service. The amendment would A!bemarie Count.~ '~!anmn.S Commission- February 19, 2001 rz;tC,~i'T MINUTES SU'MI'I'TED MARCH 5, 2002 req~re mass, scale, and architectural detailing of buildings that provide for a "human scale" and supports pedestrians, a well-integrated pedestrian system, including sidewalks and paths, and interconnections within the Community Service Area as well as to the rest of the Village. The amendment would recommend that development is sensitive to the location within Monticello's viewshed and that parking be minimized and buffered and shielded from nearby and adjoining properties. Finally, the amendment would allow for property formerly proffered for a school site on Tax Map Parcel 93A-4 to be su~3stituted for provision of other needed public facilities within the area shown as Community Service. (Elaine Echols) Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Mr. Craddock removed himself from the discussion, as he is president of the board of the East Rivanna Fire Department. Ms. Hopper gave one change on page 6, She asked for a correction to the first sub bullet. Ms. Echols replied that "is discouraged" should, be deleted. Mr. Thomas asked to start with the buffering of the residential areas. Ms. Echols said that if the plan retains this configuration, there will need to be some protection and screening provided in that area. It may be that the parking lot is not in the best location, perhaps it would be better in the interior. Mr. Thomas said it should be buffered pretty heavily between the two developments. Mr. Loewenstein agreed with Mr. Thomas. He pointed out that there are a number of nice, large caliper hardwoods already existing on the property. He said that he would hate to see the loss of all of the mature trees, Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Loewenstein and Mr. Thomas. The areas along that line, where the houses back onto the. ravine need to take priority. That area across from .the tennis courts could absorb more density. The other related issue is parking. To the greatest extent possible, he would like to see the parking minimized, to the lOwest level the applicant feels comfortable providing. That might help with the total amount of impervious area. If buffering is preserving existing trees, it has a greater impact than a newly create(~ fill slope with small trees planted on it. Mr. Loewenstein sh owed some photographs of the trees on' the site. Ms. Hopper said that the way the land lies, a new buffer would not be adequate. She said that is a good argument for the residential being up against that line, rather than the parking. Mr. Rieley said that there may be some flexibility in the way the residential units engage-the land, so that you enter on a higher level and have a lower story exit so it doesn't require filling. Mr. Edgerton said that he is concerned with the amount of parking shown. He said he thought that the amount of parking was being driven by regulation. He would welcome seeing residential units moved to that location. Ms. Echols replied that staff has not worked on the parking requirements at this time. Staff is also working on amendments that .would change the amount of parking required. Mr. Thomas said that he would like to hear some comments on the commercial development on the east end at Route 250. Albemarle County Planning Commission- February 19, 2001 DRAFT MINUTES SUMITTED MARCH 5, 2002 Ms. Echols 'F'eplied that the County has been discouraging commercial uses in this area. This CPA would be a major change from the commercial activities. She said that staff was worded about whatthat would look like and act like out on 250. Staff believes that the commercial activities need to be integrated inside the village. Mr. Rieley asked where the nearest place was to by gasoline. Mr. Benish replied that Shadwell was the nearest gas station. Ms. Echols said that on the outskirts you would get a lot of highway commercial traffic. Mr. Thomas asked if he had read that gas stations and mechanical shops were not permitted inside the village. Ms. Echots replied that the re port specifies commercial uses interior to the village rather than highway oriented uses around Route 250. We have not gotten into the specifics of the uses, other than those already-proposed. Mr. Rieley said that his initial reaction was agreement with the staff.recommendation on this because we are working to integrate and build a cohesive community. On the other hand, there are uses that are highway related and it may be that there is a use and location that would allow for that. He said that he is drawn to having the firehouse located more conveniently to Route 250. It would be appealing to have a quasi-public facility located at the gateway. Ms. Hopper said that the other issues need to be addressed, but not by reducing the density. She thinks that the commercial use on 250 is not the most appropriate use because it is a type of strip development. It also seems like a hazard. Mr. Rieley stated that on the general issue of density, he agrees with the caveat that, if, in order to achieve some of the things we were talking about, there may be.no way without lowering the density. He said that the texture and the mix of uses are appropriate and well organ ized. Mr. Loewenstein asked the applicant to come forward and address the commission. Mr. Frank Cox said that we have discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Milks the parking and visual aspects. We were trying to do new urbanism in the context of the County's parking requirements. We tried to squeeze in all the parking spaces that would otherwise be required. Mr. Rieley said that:this is the normal amount of parking that would be required by ordinance. He asked by what percentage could the parking be reduced if it were driven solely by the project. Mr. Cox replied that as much as a thirty-percent reduction could be possible. On parking as well as the potential to include residential, he would say yes. He said that we have balanced the density for residential with the gross square footage of the retail/office space. Our concern is twofold. One is that the property does have ultimately less than 6 units per acre. He said that they would like to discuss the possibility-of enhancing the non-residential piece. He said that they are thinking of certain uses, such as hotels and assisted living units. By virtue of how we have looked at the ground coverage, there is room to do other things. Would clearly like to ask the commission to look at how to define assisted living and nursing units in a way that doesn't overlap the density. Mr. Rieley asked if that counts as non-residential, even though it's housing. Mr. Cox replied that hotels and motels don't count. Mr. Rieley said that that is an issue that should remain open and should be explored. Albemarle County Planning Cornnnssiov -. February.- i9, 2001 DRAFT MINUTES SUMITTED MARCH 5, 2002 Mr. Benish ~ated that at the comprehensive plan level, we don't make that distinction. We would have to look into the rezoning and the operation of the ordinan ce. Mr. Rieley said that he is pleased with the range and mix of unit types in this plan. If that is anqther nuance, we should leave the door open to having that included in the mix. Mr. Cox said that they would look forward to exploring the use on Route 250, including discussions with the fire department. Mr. Loewenstein asked if it would be possible for the commission to see them a little more in advance. Mr. Benish said that staff could make the corrections and stay on the date already advertised. Ms. Echols replied that because we are two weeks away, so that would not be possible. Mr. Loewenstein said that they would' explore that fully at the public hearing. Ms. Echols said that if we can get a replacement map, we can find out from zoning if they would count those type of units towards the density. Everybody believes those uses are appropriate, but we would want to know how the density should be portrayed: Mr. Thomas asked what is the recommended density. Ms. Echols replied that staff has recommended 6-0, but the commission may be suggesting something smaller. It began at 6-6. Mr. Thomas asked why is 6-6 too much. Ms. Echols replied that if you were to equate what the existing neighborhood density residential would have out there, you would not be losing or gaining anything, but you would be adding 240,000 square feet of commercial to it. If you think that is too high, please say so. Mr. Thomas said he thought 6 were fine. Mr. Rieley stated that his only concern is how the assisted living might affect those numbers. Mr. Steve Runkle said that he would like to see some flexibility between the residential and commercial density, He would like the flexibility to be able to have more residential units than 6 and still have equal or less intensity of development. Mr. Loewenstein said he thought that made a lot of sense. Mr. Thomas asked about the timing for highway improvement, if we do it now or do we wait until accidents are occurring? Ms. Echols stated that those improvements were sent to the board of supervisors who have not yet acted. It is anticipated that the developer would provide some of the improvements, but they could not provide them all. There are improvements that can be made that would come in as proffers with the rezoning. Mr. Loewenstein asked if the language needed to be more precise. Mr. Rieley asked what we would gain by that, particularly since we have no control over when the improvements happen. .'dbemarl,: Comuty Planning Commission - February 19, 200i DRAFT MINUTES SUMITTED MARCH 5, 2002 Mr. Benish ~aid that the concern is with precisioh. The implication of that language is that we are going to' limit development until the improvements take place. What we were trying to achieve is that we would plan appropriately to try to balance and match improvements and phasing. Mr. Loewenstein said that it is pretty broadly stated here, it might be possible to be more precise. Ms. Hopper said it was important to have something in there about concurrent infrastructure. Mr. Rieley pointed, out that' we discussed th~ same issue recently, in Crozet. Ms. Echols stated that we could say something about a mutual responsibility between the public and private sectors to provide the necessary improvements. Mr. Rieley said that on the issue, the other side of the coin is that the public sector has to bear its share of the responsibility also. We should try to concentrate resources to make developments as good as they can be with all the onsite improvements, and rely. on the public sector for the off site improvements. Mr. Edgerton said that he liked the mix of uses, but wondered if integrating the parking with the housing units could minimize some of the concern over the parking. He pointed out that there would be four distinct phases over 12-15 years. It looks as if none of the attached units would be built in the early phases. By moving some of those attached units into the parking area, it might provide a better plan. Mr. Rieley said he thought that was a good point, particularly if the phasing ends up with the non- residential units being developed first. Ms. Echols verified that the commission would like to have more of the residential:come in both the front of the development and in the early phases. Mr. Edgerton said that he would prefer that. He said he thought that would give a greater opportunity to let the village grow. Mr. Rieley suggested thinking about pervious pavement for the parking areas. Ms. Echols said that there would be a set of proposed parking amendments coming before the commission very soon. CPA-02-01Neiqhborhood Model Amendments to the Land Use Plan -Amend the Land Use Plan elements of the Comprehensive.Plan by rewsing the words describing the growth management policy, modifying the focus of the goals for development in the Development Areas from promoting the segregation of uses and neighborhoods to goals that are consistent with traditional neighborhood development, as reflected in the Neighborhood Model adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on May 16, 2001, and by amending the guidelines and standards for design and uses in each of the land use designations within the Development Areas. The proposed amendment would also make corresponding changes to other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan as a result of the revisions described above. (Elaine Echols) Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Mr. Loewenstein asked Ms. Echols to discuss how the percentages were developed, specifically how they reflect current or recent practice versus the neighborhood model. Ms. Echols said that starting with Regional Service, 10% was the comfort level with Albemarle Place. Thus, we established 90% as the most urban project. Going down to a community service designation, that would be less urban and would require more green space at 20%. In the neighborhood se .ryice the 25% come from our residential planned development requirements. The green space is not equated to recreational amenities. Albemarle County Planning Commission - February 19, 2001 DRAFT MINUTES SUMITTED MARCH 5, 2002 Mr. Thomas asked if space in a courtyard that is open space but paved would be included in green space. Ms. Echols replied that what we were talking about was real green space, something vegetative. A recreational amenity would be something different. The way we are developing the neighborhood model ordinance, you could count parks as part of your green space, but not all of your impervious area. Mr. Edgerton said that some of these categories m ght not be appropriate for a neighborhood model. The regional service designation is focused on dependence on the automobile. He asked if it was appropriate to try to incorporate all different categories in the neighborhood model. We are trying to get people out of their cars with this model. Mr. Loewenstein said that was an interesting point. Ms. Echols said that she thought that what DISC had in mind, was that, as much of the form you can get that provides a pedestrian friendly environment, you should be striving for. You can have a regional service development that provides a pedestrian friendly environment and a mix of uses. The interconnections are important, as are the places of human scale. Mr. Loewenstein said that regional service often provides support for mixed-use development of all kinds. Conceptually it makes sense to try to emphasize the possibility of green space at a certain level, regardless of the designation. Mr. Rieley said he thought that Mr. Edgerton raised a good point. He said he is in favor of trying to fold mixed uses into every level of our ordinances. He is concerned that we'll end up in a situation in which we have conventional big-box developments with a gratuitous row of townhouses added. Perhaps we need to reformulate it in a more fundamental way. Ms. Hopper stated that is not how we want infill to look in the development areas. What Mr. Edgerton said is staying true to the vi§ion of the neighborhood model. Mr. Thomas asked if we would want the comprehensive plan to eliminate the possibility of a big box being built. Mr. Rieley said that was an interesting question. He asked if that is something that we need to continue to accommodate. Mr. Benish said that even if you.did that, there are existing undeveloped and zoned lands. Mr. Th omas pointed out that there is a segment of the community that needs to be serviced by big boxes. Mr. Benish said that the numbers are trying To get us to look at an inducement or encouragement of an expected mix. Mr. Rieley stated that in a lot of situations, the 20% number seems too Iow. Ms. Echols said that we have all seen examples of how a big box can be incorporated into a larger development that has a residential component. Mr. Thomas stated that we need to find that median. Ms. Hopper suggested changing the name. Mr. Loewenstein said he thought it would be a good idea to describe exactly what we mean. Albemarle County Planning Commission - Februa~ '~','. 200 :t DRAFT MINUTES SUlvIITTED MARCH 5, 2002 Mr. Rieley ~"ated that a big advantage to keeping the name is that we have lots of areas that are currently designated regional service. Mr. Edgerton said that one of the advantages to including some sort of regional service is that we could take smaller communities that could not support the mixed use, and by the incorporation of a big-box the development could become more viable. He like to think that we would not limit the neighborhood model to a certain scale of development by saying that everything has to be supported within. Mr. Rieley stated that these numbers reflect that. Mr. Benish said that there was also a purpose and intent for these non-residential categories. There is an anticipated capacity we need to meet for future de mand. Ms. Echols said that staff was hoping to get these changes made quickly. Mr. Rieley said it is hard to say what is right. He asked what the residential component was of the project at Hydraulic. Ms. Echols replied that it was about 25%. Mr. Edgerton said that it is hard to pull these percentages out of the air and not have anything to look at. He asked how this could be adjusted. Mr. Benish said that they are general guidelines. There is flexibility in each case. What might be helpful is to provide some examples. Mr. Edgerton said that would help. Mr. Loewenstein stated that it would helpful to have some sort of yardstick for the public. Ms. Echols said that part of what we have been trying to do is preserve those areas for particular uses. There is enough room in here because this is just guidance. Mr. Loewenstein said he thought that being able to tie these to some tangible examples would be helpful. Mr. Thomas asked if we were talking square footage or .acreage in the percentages. Ms. Echols said that with the recent developments, we have gotten information on number of units and ~nticipated square footage. In Rivanna Village at Gtenmore they have given use a square footage figure. That seems to be a good way to measure it. Mr. Benish stated that we anticipated that this would operate that we could go to a rezoning in an area that's regional service that has residential within it. Mr. Rieley said that his instinct is to kick the residential up a little bit in regional service so that it can't be a throwaway item. He said that he would argue for 25%, which does not seem to be out of character. Mr. Edgerton said that he agreed. Ms. Hopper said that it would be nice to give staff the tools to implement the vision of the Neighborhood Model. She asked if this was enough. Ms. Echols said that what comes after this are the changes for the by-right activities. The only thing we haveright now is the comprehensive plan Mr. Rieley said that he is interested in some way of accounting for and giving credit for open space. Albemarle Cou~,,y Pla~mh~g Commission- February 19, 2001 7 DRAFT MENq. JTES SUMITTED MARCH 5. 2002 Ms. Echols replied that the Neighborhood Model ordinance would have a recreational amenity requirement to it that can be accomplished through a plaza. We are separating the green space from the recreational amenity. Mr. Rieley said he wasn't thinking about the space as a recreational amenity. Mr. Benish said that a small courtyard or plaza could suffice in a project, and otherwise the green-space is less important. Ms. Hopper asked if by definition, that would be a recreational amenity. Ms. Echols said that we would look at it as the parks, open space amenity that is not required to be green. Mr. Rieley stated that that should be better defined. All of these projects will have usable outdoor space that is paved. We need to figure in civic space. Mr. Edgerton said that the best example locally is the downtown mall. He said that he would like to encourage the inclusion of pedestrian spaces that are not just green. Ms. Echots said that she understood. She asked that wording changes be passed along via e-mail before the March 5th meeting. Old Business Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any other changes on the committees. He said that he would clarify this year's appointments with Ms. Thomas. New Business Mr. Craddock asked if there was a possibility of a joint meeting with city planning on the proposed student housing. Mr. Benish replied that a joint advisory committee would be appointed. There have been no specific, strategic discussions. It seems reasonable to anticipate such a meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Albemarle County Planning Commission - February 19, 2001 DRAFT MINUTES SUMITTED MARCH 5, 2002 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA 02.01 Neighborhood Model Changes to the Land Use Component of the Comprehensive Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to amend the Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating elements of the Neighborhood Model into the text. STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Echols, Mr. Benish AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2002 ACTION: worksession CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On March 26, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached Comprehensive Plan amendment to augment the previous adoption of the Neighborhood Model. Attachment A is a "clean copy" of the proposed amendment. Attachment B shows where changes to the original document are made. The Planning Commission noted at their meeting that, on page 5, they will be recommending changes in the near future to the Rural Areas discussion in the Introduction. Specifically, they will be recommending that the Comprehensive Plan .,,¢,~cognize that all of the defining aspects of the Rural Areas are equal and important components of the Rural Areas. At "esent, agricultural and forestry resources are identified as the most important components. This CPA relating to the f~leighborhood Model does not include the Commission's proposed shift, in Rural Areas policy. A subsequent Comprehensive Plan Amendment containing all changes relating to the Rural Areas will be recommended to the Board of Supervisors by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION: Staff knows of no other changes needed to the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled, "Neighborhood Model Changes to the Land Use Component of the Corn prehensive Plan", Draft 4, Changes from Planning Commission's Meeting of 3/26/02. These pages will replace page w and pages 3 - 30 of Chapter 3, "Land Use Plan, ACom ponent of the Comprehensive Plan". DRAFT 4 Changes from Planning Commission Meeting of 3/26/02 (changes not noted) Introduction to the Land Use Component of the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan is the County's most important document regarding growth, development and change. It establishes government policy to help guide public and -private activities as they relate to land use and resource utilization. It is the basis for land development regulations and decisions (rezonings, special use permits), capital improvements (public projects such as schools, parks, libraries), transportation, environmental and historic resource protection initiatives, new county programs and decisions on the distribution of county budget dollars to a multitude of programs and agencies. State law governing the development of a Comprehensive Plan (Virginia Code § 15.2- 2223) requires every county, city and town to adopt a comprehensive plan for the physical development of its territory. It also requires that the Comprehensive Plan be reviewed every five years. Regardless of State Code requirements it is important to periodically revisit and update the Plan to ensure that it is consistent with community views and is addressing current issues within the community. The Land Use Plan is a major component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan provides direction for the phySical development of the County. It recognizes existing land use arrangements, supporting facilities and physical development limitations. At the same time, the Plan proposes a future land use pattern that may alter the physical character of the County as it exists today. The Land Use Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 1996. This updated document largely retains the recommendations of the 1996 Land Use Plan. One recommendation that has been implemented is the Development Areas Initiative. The Development Areas project was initiated to help improve the quality of development in the designated Development Areas as well as more efficiently use those areas rather than expand the Development Area boundaries. In eady 1997, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors appointed the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee (DISC). The committee worked from 1997 until 2000 to develop a set of recommendations to the Board known as "The Neighborhood Model". The Neighborhood Model is a guideline for new development, redevelopment, and master planning of the Development Areas. The Board of Supervisors adopted it on May 16, 2001. The Neighborhood Model is Appendix A of this document. :~,~, £ vii ,,~'W', 4 Growth Management GOAL: Protect and efficiently utilize County resources by: A. Emphasizing the importance of protecting the elements that define the Rural Area: 1) Agricultural and forestry resources 2) water supply resources 3) natural resources 4) scenic resources 5) historic and cultural resources 6) limited service delivery B. Of these, the protection of agricultural and forestry resources is the highest priority. Promoting the Development Areas as the place_iwhere a variety of land uses, facilities, and services exist and are planned to support the County's future growth, with emphasis placed on infill development. Introduction The County's primary growth management goal directs development into designated areas and conserves the balance of the County for rural areas and resource protection. Resource protection is the basic theme behind the County's growth management approach. To this ongoing theme are added new emphases on intelligent use of Development Areas, public facilities and resources. Thus, planning efforts aim to channel growth into designated areas to facilitate economical service delivery in those areas, to promote a sense of neighborhood-style development as the preferred design in those areas, and to conserve the Rural Areas. Planning efforts also focus on means to disc6urage development in the Rural Areas and support activities consistent with the character of the Rural Areas. This is accomplished through education, incentives, and voluntary and regulatory measures. Agricultural and forestal resources have been identified as the most critical County resources and the desired primary land use in the Rural Area. Such uses play an important and long standing role in the environment, heritage, and economy of the County. Loss of these resources to development is irreversible and irreplaceable. Maintenance of these resources also provides an opportunity to conserve and efficiently use other resources such as: (1) water resources (with use of property conservation techniques); (2) natural, scenic, and historic resources with the maintenance of pasture land, farmland, and forested areas; and, (3) fiscal resources by limiting development and lessening the need to provide public services to wide areas of the County. In the interest of this growth management strategy, residential development is considered a secondary use in the Rural Areas. It is important that this and future Comprehensive Plans make adjustments that can influence development patterns to better meet the growth management goals. Such adjustments can include more active County support of Development Areas development, adjustments to location and/or holding capacity, and additional protective or support measures for the Rural Areas. This plan emphasizes the County's role in providing necessary support services and infrastructure for development, and more efficient use of Development Areas, including more urban and pedestrian oriented development styles. Facilities Planning GOAL: Strongly support and effectively implement the County's growth management priorities in the planning and provision to transportation, public facilities and public utilities. Introduction Residents of the County expect high quality facilities and services. It is recognized that the provision of such facilities and services significantly affects the location, timing, and extent of development. By their very nature, public facilities are capital-intensive, requiring significant funding not only for the initial development of the facility, but also for its continual maintenance and operation. It is becoming increasingly difficult for communities to find adequate fiscal resources to pay for new or improved facilities, as well as maintenance of existing facilities. Therefore, to provide facilities in a fiscally responsible and equitable manner, adequate planning is necessary to ensure that the highest benefit is provided to the citizens in exchange for the cost required to provide the service. The policies, objectives, and strategies presented in this chapter outline an active process to assure this success. The Nature of Public Service Delivery The County's growth management goals are to be supported through the appropriate provision of transportation, public utilities, and public facilities and services to designated Development Areas. The provision of fire, rescue, and police protection, roads, utilities, school bus service, and other governmental activities and functions to a large, dispersed rural population is viewed as inefficient and contrary to the overall public interest in guiding new development to the designated Development Areas. Emphasis is placed on providing a level of public service delivery that will support development in, and direct development to, designated Development Areas. To accomplish this, service and facilities will be provided at a much higher level in the Development Areas than in the Rural Areas. Those persons living in the Rural Areas should not anticipate levels of service delivery_ equal to services provided in the Development Areas. Capital Improvements Program The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as the major financial planning guide for County expenditures towards capital facilities and equipment over a five-year period. It is primarily based on the physical needs of the County as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. It. is one of the primary tools used to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Albemarle County adopted its first CIP on March 5, 1978. The CIP is reviewed annually by the Planning Commission, as authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2239, and is approved by the Board of Supervisors. The CIP establishes a five-year funding schedule for the purchase, construction or replacement of the physical assets of the community. A capital project typically requires a minimum expenditure of $20,000 and has a useful life of a minimum often years. County departments and affiliated agencies initiate their capital project requests, which span the five-year period of the CIP. A CIP Technical Committee reviews all requests. Recommendations are then made by this Committee to the Planning CommiSsion, which subseqUently makes its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for adoption as Part of the County's budget. In conjunction with the CIP process, the Coun!,y_ developS a comprehensive long,range capital needs assessment that forms the basis for the County s five-year capital improVement plan. This t~n-Year needs assessment is updated every other year as part of the CIP process when departments are asked to sUbmit capital requests spanning a ten-year planning period. Land Use Plan lO Land Use Introduction The Land Use Plan provides direction for physical development in the County. It reflects the "Community Vision Statement" as well as the County's projections for economic, population, and housing demands. It balances these projections against growth management goals and emphasizes the preservation and intelligent utilization of limited resources. The Plan recognizes existing land use arrangements, supporting facilities, and physical development limitations. At the same time, the Plan proposes a future land use pattern that may alter the physical character of the County as it exists today. The Land Use Plan recognizes the County's existence in a regional setting and attempts to integrate the County's physical development with that of neighboring jurisdictions. Such integration may be enhanced by future analysis and cooperative regional planning efforts similar to the cooperative planning occurring among Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. The Land Use Plan is but one element of the Comprehensive Plan, and must be viewed as interrelated and interdependent with other goals and objectives. Proper Comprehensive Plan decisions must be made by reviewing the Land Use Plan in concert with all other Plan elements. The Land Use Plan provides guidance for development that will be harmonious to the natural and man-made environments and consistent with the County's Growth management goals-which are to channel development into designated Development Areas while conserving the balance of the County as rural areas. The Land Use Plan for Designated Development Areas In this section, the Neighborhood Model, a key component in the Land Use Plan, and its goals are outlined. A general description of Development Areas is followed by functional descriptions of the three types of Development Areas: the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages. Thereafter, General Principles and standards for physical development in the Development Areas, and specific standards for nonresidential land uses are outlined. Finally, the Development Areas are profiled through narratives and maps that convey both descriptive references and visual impressions of land-use relationships. The Neighborhood Model The Land Use Plan relies heavily on the Neighborhood Model that was appended to the Comprehensive Plan in 2001. The Neighborhood Model supports a change in the form of urban 11 development from what currently exists. It recognizes that, if the Development Areas are to be the primary areas receiving residential growth, density must be increased to at least the low end of the density scale that is recommended on the land use plans for the individual Development Areas. To achieve that density, the form of development must change and that form must be more urban and less suburban. Another key element is that master planning process guide growth in the Development Areas. Also included with the Neighborhood Model are descriptions Of innovative design tools for creating more urban livable neighborhoods. Master Planning and ordinance revisions require time for writing, adoption, and implementation. As a result, there will be a time lag between the adoption of the Neighborhood Model and its full implementation. It is intended that the parts of this Plan which do not require a Master Plan or ordinance revision, including but not limited to the 12 Principles described in later paragraphs, will guide a new form of development for the County's designated Development Areas. What the Neighborhood Model Offers The Neighborhood Model seeks to change the form of development from a pattern of sprawling, isolated buildings to a more compact and interconnected design. The Neighborhood Model: 1. Accommodates walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a reality for the elderly, the young, and those with limited access to automobiles. 2. Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers can walk to a public park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces. 3. Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street views are attractive and pedestrian - friendly. 4. Incorporates varying densities and gradually allows for an overall increase in density in the Development Areas to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses so residents have convenient access to Work, to services, and to entertainment. Requires interconnected streets within developments and between developments so that pedestrians can walk easily to many destinations, traffic has alternative routes, and car trips are reduced in number and length. 7. Moves off-street parking out of sight and encourages on-street parking. 8. Mixes housing types and markets so that a full range of housing choices is offered within the neighborhood. 9. Emphasizes re-use of sites. 10. Adapts development to site terrain so that natural topography can be preserved. 12 11. Maintains a clear boundary between Development Areas and Rural Areas. 12. Provides for neighborhoods to have a designated center to bring diverse and continuous activity to a neighborhood. The Neighborhood Model Goals: Goals for the Neighborhoods are as follows: Centers - Neighborhoods within the Development Areas will have centers or focal points for congregating. These may include schools, parks, places of worship, civic centers, or small commercial and social areas. Such features will be an easy walk for most residents in the neighborhood, · Open Space - Each Development Area will offer opportunities for pubhc and private outdoor recreational areas for active and passive recreation. · Network - A network of streets, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and bus routes will connect new neighborhoods as well as existing residential areas and nonresidential districts. · Mixed Uses - Neighborhoods will contain a true mix of uses, including residences, shops, and places of employment, as Well as civic, religioUs, and cultural institutions. Building Placement and Scale - Consideration will be given to massing, height, setbacks, and orientation of buildings so that these characteristics enhance the public realm. In particular, garages will be less dominant at street view than houses. · Alleys - Where topography permits, alleys will provide rear access to parcels, allowing for and facilitating the provision of garages and utilities to the rear of houses. Relegated Parking Parking for the automobile will not result in an excessive mount of paved area; parking on the street will be the norm, and parking lots will e provided to the rear and/or sides of buildings. Variety of Housing Types Each neighborhood will possess a variety of housing types accommodating a range of incomes. Affordable units will be dispersed throughout the NeighbOrhood and will be visually indistinguishable fi.om other units. Appealing Streetscapes - As the fundamental element of public space within the neighborhood, the street will make the neighborhood inviting with street trees and landscaping. Sidewalks or paths that connect houses to each other and to centers and common areas will be the norm. Walks will connect sidewalks to front doors and main entrances. · Transportation Options - Convenient routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses and other 13 transit including light rail will augment the street network. Public transit stops will be located within each Development Area. Walking to them will be safe and convenient. Waiting for transit will be comfortable and a normal part of activity in the Neighborhood Center. General Principle for Land Use in Designated Development Areas: For the County's growth management goals to be achieved, the Development Areas must be attractive places to live and work. The land within the Development Areas must also be used efficiently if designation of these Areas is to realistically help prevent sprawl development. To this end, the Land Use Plan for the Development 'Areas is designed to concentrate development in the Development Areas, particularly in the locations designated "Urban Areas" or "Communities." Pl.anning for future development in the Development Areas is at densities higher than in the past, with more varied uses. Furthermore, revised plans for the Development Areas emphasize the County's desire for design strategies that are more characteristic of small~ well-planned city neighborhoods or towns than of typical low-density suburban areas. Inevitably, some people will experience more significant change than others and will find that nearby land uses may not be the same character as their residential area. However, through careful design of the land use plan and its development standards and recommendations, this situation can be beneficial for the community. Listed below are the principles that guide development of Development Areas. The Development Areas Land Use Plan, as well as subsequent decisions regarding land use in these areas should be reflective of, and consistent with, these principles: 1. Accommodate new growth in the County within Development Areas. 2. Encourage greater utilization of land in designated Development Areas by achieving higher gross densities for residential and non-residential development than in the past. 3. Encourage infill development of vacant lands and development of under-used areas within the designated Development Areas. Development Areas shall not encroach into water supply watersheds, excePt for the Crozet Community that shall not be expanded beyond the watershed boundary of the Lickinghole Creek detention basin. 5. Avoid development of "Significant Areas" as designated in the Open Space Plan.. 6. Discourage extensive linear style development along major roads. 7. All Development Areas shall be served by public sewer and water. 8. Plan for a system of transportation and community, facilities and services that support and enhance the Development Areas. 14 A General Description of Development Areas OBJECTIVE: Direct growth into designated Development Areas. A long-standing goal of Albemarle County's comprehensive planning effort has been to direct development into designated Development Areas. With the continuance of County growth management goals, the current Development Area concept remains a critical planning component. The Land Use Plan, including the Neighborhood Model, presents mechanisms that will provide the best oppommity for the Development Area concept to work. In combination with objectives and strategies presented in the Community Facilities section of this Chapter, this requires establishing in the Land Use Plan a Development Areas concept and design that demonstrates efficient utilization of land and services, while responding to long-term market demands (see Map A). As the Development Areas are intended to capture the wide range of development and land uses necessary in Albemarle County, it should be recognized that complete separation of different uses is not expected. Rather, a balance of efficient land use and appropriate separation and buffering is sought which may result in areas with a variety and mix of uses. Residential uses may end up next to, or near, non-residential uses, with the goal of achieving a harmonious relationship between the tWO. Functional Description of Development Area OBJECTIVE: Establish functional descriptions of the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages. Three types of Development Areas are traditional to the County's comprehensive planning. As a group, they are intended to provide for the variety of land use designations necessary to meet varied local market demands. They are also considered the focal point for the provision of public services and facilities, either at a countywide or more localized level. There are no minimum or maximum population standards for the different types of Development Areas: It is intended that the functional descriptions guide the development scale of the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages. Determination of boundaries for each Development Area is necessary to distinguish a self-contained geographic place and preclude sprawl of development. For the purpose of accommodating future growth, boundaries do not necessarily reflect entire existing social communities, but instead attempt to delineate areas with some sense of place that contain significant areas of developable land contiguous to existing developed areas. Boundaries are based on resource protection priorities, primarily water supply watershed areas, and the opportunity for the geographic area to be adequately supported by public services and facilities. To the greatest extent possible, boundaries are defined by natural and man-made physical features. Because Development Area boundaries do not follow property boundaries, development proposals may extend outside of Development Areas. For those parcels extending from Development Areas 15 into the Rural Areas, development of the Rural Area portion should not exceed Rural Area densities. The functions of the three types of Development Area are hierarchical, as the following descriptions indicate: Urban Area (Neighborhoods 1 - 7) Albemarle County's Urban Area, together with the City of Charlottesville, serves as a regional urban center. It is intended to provide for a full variety and range of land uses and densities, both residential and non-residential. It is intended to be more urban, or "city like," in character and less suburban. It is to be supported by a full range of public utilities, facilities, services and amenities. The Urban Area is comprised of: 1. A full array of residential types and densities with an urban character of development. All service levels of retail, professional business, and industrial activities (See service-level descriptions in the Land Use DesignatiOns" section below). 3. Regional employment centers. 4. Regional Water and sewer services. 5. Extensive urban and regional public facilities and services. 6. Access from. inter-county and major intra-county roadways and transportation services. 7. Geographically defined neighborhoods that: a. Contain well,defined residential areas, which are well integrated with non-residential areas and may include any of the land use designations defined in the "Land Use Designations" section: open space, transitional, neighborhood service, community service, regional service, office/regional service, or industrial service; b. Are supported by transportation systems that include interconnected streets, pedestrian paths, bicycle circulation systems, and mass transit. Communities Communities are smaller urban centers that are geographically removed from the Urban Area. Like the Urban Area, they provide for a full variety and range of land uses and densities, both residential and non-residential. They are intended to be more urban, or "town like" in character. Communities 16 are to be supported by a full range of public utilities, facilities, services, and amenities. Communities consist of: 1. Urban centers geographically removed from the Urban Area. Full range of residential woes and densities and the full range of non-residential uses described in the Land Use Designations section. 3. Community core of mixed service and residential use, including community and/or regional services. 4. Regional employment centers. 5. Well-defined residential areas. 6. Major intra-County roadways linked to the Urban Area. Residential areas supported by an integrated and interconnected system of streets; pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems; neighborhood commercial, professional, business, and public service uses; and public water and sewer. 8. Public facilities supporting the Communities and surrounding County areas. Villages Villages provide for a specialized opportunity to accommodate growth. It is anticipated that future Villages will more likely be established based on public requests rather than County initiative. Therefore, more detailed design guidelines for future Village designation are provided. Review of future requests for Village designations should be based on these guidelines as well as other applicable goals, objectives, strategies, standards and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Village Development/Design Guidelines Villages are places that combine the feeling of"country living" with the amenities of a Development Area. Villages consist of: A variety of housing types including single-family, two-family and townhouse units, with a gross density not to exceed 6 dwellings per acre. 17 o o A village center of mixed service and residential uses. Such uses shall be limited to neighborhood scale services, including convenience shopping, other general retail and service uses, medical and professional offices, and accessory apartments and attached housing. Public sewer and water systems. This reflects a concern that, without public utilities, it is not possible to achieve village density or land use patterns which, in mm, serve to protect farmland and rural open space. It also reflects concern 'for protecting the environment, and for the economical and reliable provision of sewer and water services. Public facilities which support the Village and the immediate surrounding Rural Area. A linkage to the Urban Area and City of Charlottesville by roads with adequate capacity (traffic-carrying ability, safety considerations, physical condition) in order to move residents conveniently between the Village and the urban core. This guideline reflects a concern for using, but not overloading, the County s main roads (arterial and major collector), and a concern that minor roads (minor collector and local) not become subjected to traffic loads which they cannot tolerate, or which alters their character over time. This also reflects a concept of a Village as including some local services, but not major community or regional services, which are better, provided in the Urban Area. Designated Village Development Areas that are located at places where historically a settlement has existed. The proposed design should be a logical and harmonious outgrowth of what currently remains of that settlement.' Most often, such locations will be at a crossroads, which provides a central focus for village activities. A proposal for an entirely new village location should demonstrate that it maintains this principle of a central village area at the logical confluence of streets and movement patterns. Development around a focal point, such as a public building, main street, park, greenway, or other open space or common area. Preferably, this focal point would incorporate an existing natural or cultural amenity. Within a proposed Village, development shall emulate historic regional patterns of village density and design, such that the feel of a traditional village is created. Elements, which can contribute to such a quality, could include: · A rectilinear or interconnecting street pattern without cul- 18 o de-sacs; · Connections to existing streets; · Compact lots; · Shallow fi:ont/sideyard setbacks; · A village center of mixed uses and public facilities and spaces; · .Walkways and paths which encourage pedestrians to be the dominant mode of travel within the village center; and · Preservation and reuse of existing structures. A "green frame" of land surrounding the Village included as a part of the Development Area. This green frame is to.ensure that a Village remains a part of, but does not encroach upon, its surrounding rural area. The green frame provides a permanent "hard edge," to confine the Village density. To provide a transition into the adjacent Rural Area, a "green flame" of land surrounding the Village should be included as a part of the Development Area. This would limit the size of the Village to the area planned, and would reassure current residents that any disadvantages of added village density would be offset by capping village growth, and providing for the permanent green ring around the Village. Ideally, the only land uses in the green frame would be agriculture, forestry, and open space activities typical of the Rural Area. Landowners in the green frame area might include people who farm, but prefer the Village setting as a place to live due to the proximity of food and fuel establishments, mail services, church, etc. A unified Village plan developed in accordance with the requirements for a planned development. In particular, the impact of the plan on existing development should be emphasized. It is expected that consideration will be given to the needs and wishes of those already living and owning property in the area. 19 Infill Development Policy OBJECTIVE: Facilitate infill development, including redevelopment of existing structures or neTM development of vacant and under-utilized areas, within existing Development Areas. For the purposes of this Plan, infill development is defined as the establishment of new land uses, either residential or non-residential, on undeveloped or under-developed sites within the designated Development Areas. Infill development is considered one of the key initiatives for implementing the growth management pohcy and is encouraged for the following reasons: · To use Development Area lands in the most efficient manner possible. · To discourage sprawl development. To maximize the use/support of community services and facilities (roads, utilities, transit, other services). In the Development Areas, undeveloped areas consist of both small tracts of land (5 acres or less) and large tracts (over 100 acres). The reasons why these areas have not developed to date vary, but the primary reasons which can be cited are: The property owners desire to retain existing use and/or are unwilling to sell for development at this time. Physical characteristics such as topography (slopes, soils, streams), size/shape of property make development more difficult as well as incompatible existing adjacent uses. Condition of existing roads, utilities or possibly other community services are not able to accommodate anticipated scales of development. Proposed public projects on, or near, vacant areas often affect planning and development potential of an area. Also, the cost to develop infill lots is often relatively high compared to other sites. This is due to the fact that these areas are often surrounded by developed or zoned properties which tend to escalate the speculative value of the property. The potential for public/neighborhood opposition to new development proposals adjacent to existing developed areas can also limit developer interest, particularly for smaller sites. Consideration of permitting more intensive uses or densities on some properties may be necessary to offset development costs including measures necessary to minimize impacts of development. A commitment of the County to support infill development 2O proposals consistent with t_he Comprehensive Plan is essential in facilitating infill development. The Master Planning effort for each Development Area will help to implement infill development and will address impediments limiting the oppommity or attractiveness of sites for development. It will also encourage market forces to operate in a manner that makes these areas attractive for development. Strategies for Infill Development Strategy: Plan/provide for necessary infrastructure improvements that are currently impediments to development of vacant sites. Recommendations: Schedule public improvements needed to support/encourage infill development within undeveloped portions of the Development Areas; Develop plans for proposed public projects in a timely fashion so that they may be incorporated into new developments, as necessary. Strategy: Provide for greater flexibility in type of use and density of development. Recommendations: Provide for greater flexibility in gross development densities within the Land Use Plan residential categories, with a focus on increasing gross densities. Consider rezoning vacant properties designated for residential use to reflect the recommended densities of the Land Use Plan. Support innovative development and design concepts, particularly those that maximize gross density of development. Strategy: Consider greater flexibility in development regulations which may limit development opportunities (without compromising issues of general health or safety). Recommendations: Evaluate and amend zoning and subdivision regulations in a manner that results in opportunities for increased development densities (including, but not limited to: critical slope regulations and open space requirements; reduction of area 21 requirements for planned developments; density bonus provisions; commercial parking requirements, subdivision street and lot access requirements; possible impediments to "alternative" development designs). Utilize the Open Space Plan Development Area Composite Maps .as a guide for waiver requests from the critical slopes regulations. Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas Land Use standards provide guidelines for development which are consistent with the Growth Management goals and are in keeping with the man-made and natural environment. These standards provide the basic framework for the review of development proposals for the Development Areas, in conjunction with other applicable ordinances and regulations. General Land Use Standards Standards that apply to all types of development in the Development Areas are provided as "General Land Use Standards." These standards include the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model. More specific standards for non-residential and residential land uses are provided to address the different locational and surrounding character aspects of those categories. General Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas Pedestrian Orientation A pedestrian orientation should be reflected throughout the Development Areas. Sidewalks and pedestrian paths should be provided in new developments, redevelopment projects and in County projects funded through the Capital Improvements Program. Neighborhood-Friendly Streets and Paths -- Streets should be recognized for their function within neighborhoods rather than merely transportation routes for cars. Curb and gutter, sidewalks and street-trees help to give streets a more human scale. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks -Connections between developmems with an appropriately scaled transportation network, should be provided to maximize a sense of community and provide additional transportation links. Emphasis is placed on linkage between developments and just not within each development. Minimize t The impact of developments should be minimized on major roads to the greatest extent feasible by limiting access points to major roads arterials such as Route 29, by providing side street access, service roads, and/or joint accesses. Provide for Ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations should take place through the reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and Constructing utilities in a manner consistent with planned-transportation improvements. While interconnected street systems will be the primary form of interconnection, other modes of travel should be 22 incorporated into the transportation system including bikeways, pedestrian paths and mass transit. Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space - Parks and recreational amenities should become centralized features in the Development Areas and in individual developments. Important environmental features, such as floodplains, critical slopes, and forested areas shown on the County's Open Space Plan, should be protected and preserved as open space. Development should be concentrated and clustered around these features to the maximum extent possible and provide vistas for public enjoyment. Existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions should be maintained. Neighborhood Centers - A neighborhood center provides a focal point for residents and pedestrians. Centers may be employment hubs, areas of mixed uses, parks, places of worship, or other activity areas. Centers should be recognized and enhanced within neighborhoods. New centers should be built with pedestrian access in mind. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale - New and redeveloped buildings should be sited and arranged to emphasize a positive relationship between pedestrians and buildings and to provide appropriate spatial enclosure. As a rule, building orientation should be to public streets and to private streets when the private street is in located in front of the building. Yards should be shallow in order to allow for good spatial enclosure. Massing and scale should be appropriate to the area in which buildings are proposed. Attention should be paid to architectural details. Relegated Parking - Parking should be located to the side and rear of structures. It should never be the dominant feature seen from the public road.. New development or major redevelopment design plans should include features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality. Parking areas, roads, and other imPervious areas should meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed use and possible future uses. Avoid parking areas which exceed that which is necessary for the anticipated development. Mixture of Uses --Where appropriate, residences can exist side-by-side or within close proximity to shops and places of employment, as well as civic, religious, and cultural institutions. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability--The Development Areas should reflect a variety of housing types and costs. Unless a mixture of housing types can be found in close proximity to an infill site, new development proposals should offer a variety of housing types for different income levels. The Development Areas are recognized as the most appropriate places in the County for affordable housing. Provision of'services to the Development Areas as well as a more compact area for development increases opportunities for use of transit. The Development Areas also offer opportunities for housing to be in close proximity to jobs, shopping, parks, and public schools. Affordable housing should not be built in "enclaves; rather, it should be incorporated into new housing developments and units should have a similar exterior appearance to other units in the neighborhood. Redevelopment -The County and developers alike should concentrate on redeveloping existing sites where the capacity of development has not been met. Adding second stories to buildings and mixing residential uses with commercial uses make for better urban/rural relationships and can reduce pressure to expand the Development Area boundaries. Adaptive re-use of historic 23 buildings to uses which preserve the building's architecture encouraged as a method of historic preservation. and site character should be Site Planning that Respects Terrain - New development and redevelopment should reflect sensitivity to existing grades to the greatest extent possible and promote architectural design that fits into grades. Emphasis should be placed on preserving areas of environmental sensitivity shown on the Open Space Plan. Where extensive grading is necessary, site grading should result in slopes that are attractive, functional, easy to maintain, and which promote interconnectivity of parcels. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas -Distinctive boundaries should be made between the Developmem Areas and thc Rural Areas. In most cases;, development should abut the rural boundary rather than transition down to it. Fiscal Impact Analyses - The County should Ensure continue to evaluate future land use changes under the fiscal impact model prior to rezoning approvals. Appropriate planning/phasing of development to match service/infrastructure availability and capacity should be established. Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Land Uses Residential Land Use Standards In addition to the general standards noted above, residential standards are presented here as a basic framework to guide future residential development proposals. It should be recognized that substantial changes in the economy, housing market, and housing industry may warrant flexibility in the application of these standards. These standards are intended to encourage the provision of various housing types and provide for affordable housing. It is intended that all dwelling types and forms of ownership be permitted within the County. Residential Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses It is intended that where possible, and practical due to terrain, availability of public utilities and adequate public infrastructure and consistency with the Neighborhood Model, that overall development density, be at as high a level as practical. The use of bonus provisions to increase density and provide for affordable housing should be encouraged. Where demonstrated, by economic or other considerations, that density in excess of that recommended by the Plan is warranted to accommodate an affordable housing proposal, a reasonable density increase should be provided. In rezoning deliberations, the County should be mindful of the intent to encourage infill development, contain most future growth within designated Development Areas, and avoid rural development pressure. Unless contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehensive Plan 24 recommended land use density-ranges (i.e. Neighborhood or Urban scale) should be favored even if the density exceeds that of surrounding developments. Maintenance of the integrity of residential areas can be accomplished with standards for the relationship of residential use to adjacent non-residential uses. Buffering, screening and physical separation of non-residential uses can alleviate such relational problems. The current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance addressing the screening of objectionable features and dissimilar uses provide for appropriate protection. These features should be retained. In addition to these regulatory requirements, care should be taken in residential design to provide for buffeting, orientation, and other measures to avoid conflicts with surrounding uses. Identification of appropriate land use relationships is important in applying land use designations as well as in considering development proposals. Commercial Land USe Standards In addition to the general standards noted above, the following standards are recommended to guide commercial development. These standards apply to commercial, commercial-office and service type uses. Commercial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Villages, Communities and the Urban Area. Only limited supporting commercial uses appropriate to the Rural Areas should be included in the Rural Areas zoning provisions. ' Mixed commercial and residential areas as well as mixed uses within buildings should be encouraged as land and energy-efficient developments, along with. infill of existing commercial areas. Commercial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, natural gas systems, and community facilities should be considered' in review of a commercial rezoning request. Industrial Land Use Standards In addition to the general standards, the following standards are recommended to guide industrial development. These standards apply to light and heavy industrial uses, warehousing, "flex" type uses, and research/development/technology centers having characteristics more in keeping with industrial type uses. Industrial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Communities and the Urban area. While single-use industrial sites must be accommodated; rezonings which propose multiple sites served by common access points should be encouraged. To 25 encourage multiple-site development, areas designated for industrial development should not be less than five acres and should be of reasonable topography to allow unified access. Mixtures of residential, commercial, and industrial uses .may be appropriate where objectionable aspects can be addressed through a combination of realistic performance standards, buffering, and special setback regulations. This approach should be flexible so as to accomplish the objective without creating burdensome and arbitrary regulations. Methods to mitigate objectionable aspects should be addressed at the time of rezoning.= Industrial traffic should avoid residential areas and roadways no_.t designed for such traffic. Industrial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, and natural gas systems should be considered in review of an industrial rezoning request. Rezoning to industrial designations for sites of 20 acres or more should be accomplished under a planned approach accompanied by a traffic analysis. Land Use Designations Residential Land Use OBJECTIVE: Establish flexible residential land use densities for the designated Development Areas. The success of Development Area Initiative dePends greatly on the provision of residential land use areas that are developable, locationally desirable, and responsive to changing market demands. Two density categories are provided in the Development Area, each with a range of acceptable density. Flexibility in residential density ranges leaves some discretion to the market in proposing development characteristics (such as housing type and arrangements), but relies heavily on County standards to evaluate the suitability and acceptability of the proposal. A mixture of housing types is in each category provides for diversity of income levels within neighborhoods. While residential uses are the dominant land use in these designations, supporting institutional and commercial services are allowed. Strategy: Establish maximum gross development density of each residential category, but determine density of development up to maximum based on specific standards. Two ranges of residential development densities applicabIe in the Development Areas stipulated below are as follows: 26 Designations: Neighborhood Densi _ty Residential Neighborhood Density Residential areas are intended to have a gross density of between 3 to 6 dwellings per acre. Neighborhood Density Residential may be located within the Urban Area, Communities and Villages. Neighborhood DenSity Residential areas are intended to accommodate all dwelling unit types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools. It is anticipated that Neighborhood Density Residential areas will accommodate small areas of non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service, as defined later in this chapter, to serve residential uses. Any new development within an existing subdivision shall be in keeping with the character and density of the existing development. New developments adjacent to existing subdivisions or developments shall be developed at higher densities-and a form in keeping with the Neighborhood Model to support infill development efforts. Urban Density Residential Urban Density Residential areas are intended to have a gross density of between 6.01 to 20 dwellings per acre, with possible densities of up to 34 dwellings per acre under a planned development approach. Urban Density Residential areas may be located within the Urban Area and Communities only. This designation may be appropriate within Villages. Urban Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate all dwelling types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools. Urban Density Residential designations are not intended for development at densities below 6 dwellings per acre. Developments within an Urban Density Residential areas are expected to occur within the designated range of 6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre and, to the greatest extent practicable, to maximize the developed density with a form in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. · Development densities within the Urban Density Residential area should 27 ultimately be based on environmental criteria, road function available utilities, adjacent land uses, and site requirements. and condition, It is anticipated that Urban Density' Residential areas will accommodate areas of non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service as defmed later in this chapter. Maintain statements in the Zoning Ordinance that site development within Urban Density residential areas be based on standards in both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Transitional Transitional areas are intended to be used primarily between residential areas and commercial or industrial areas, or in areas where flexibility of land uses may be necessary or appropriate to blend changing circumstances (e.g., where long-term public improvements are anticipated, or areas where redevelopment/re-use is encouraged). Transitional areas provide an opportunity to develop mixed use areas with Urban Density Residential uses and non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service, as defined in the next section of this chapter. Uses include neighborhood-scale commerCial areas, office buildings, townhouses and apartment buildings. Areas should be developed under an overall plan for the designated area io ensure coordination of uses, access and circulation, landscaping, and maintenance of natural/environmentally sensitive areas. Transitional designation requires a small to medium size site (1-30 acres), collector road' accessibility, water and seWer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Other Land Use Designations OBJECTIVE: Establish a mix of commercial, industrial, residential, open space, and public land uses in designated Development Areas to support County needs. The County's Neighborhood Model calls for a mix of residential with non-residential uses where such uses can be made compatible. To that end the Other Land Use Designations category of uses provides for commercial uses, industrial uses, and office uses that support the Economic 28 Development policy of the County and allows for residents to live, work, and shop in close proximity. The County's Economic Development policy indicates the desirability of a wide range of business and employment' opportunities. The availability of jobs and services for the County's future population requires sufficient land to locate such activities. The County's growth management approach requires that such land be located in Development Areas. Commercial and industrial designations are confined-to designated Development Areas. It was established that more than sufficient designated acreage exists to meet commercial and industrial land use needs for the next twenty years. The actual use of this land will be dependent on its developability, availability, and locational desirability. To assure that development of these areas adequately address environmental, infrastructure, and land use considerations necessitates appropriate County standards and guidelines identified in this Plan. Strategy: Establish land use designations for Development Areas that provide for a variety of scales of commercial, industrial, and service uses that may be developed with associated residential uses. Designations: Neighborhood Service Uses allowed in this designation include neighborhood-scale commercial; specialty shops; professional and office uses providing retail, wholesale, and/or business within a Village, Urban Neighborhood, Community, or Village. Areas designated as Neighborhood Service typically comprise (1-5 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility, with adjacent land uses. Areas designated as Neighborhood Service should have a specific relationship to nearby and surrounding residential uses and be connected to those uses through a system of sidewalks or pedestrian paths. A mixture of Urban Density residential uses and Neighborhood Service uses is encouraged within 'this designation. Larger areas may be designated as Neighborhood Service if a mixture of uses includes residential units relating to the commercial area. In these mixed use areas, green space (vegetated areas) should occupy at least 20% of the area.. Amenities should occupy at least 20% of the area. Community Service · Uses allowed in this designation include community-scale commercial, 29 professional, and office uses providing retail, wholesale, business, medical offices, small office buildings, mixed-use core communities and/or employment services to the Development Areas andlarger geographic sections of the County. Areas designated as Community Service typically encompass a medium site size (5 to 30 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. A mixture of Urban Density Residential uses and community service uses is anticipated within this designation. Larger areas may be designated as Community Service if a mixture of uses includes residential units relating to the commercial area. The proportion of residential square footage to non-residential square footage may be as high as 50%. In these mixed use areas, green space should occupy at least 20% of the area. Amenities such as parks, paved plazas, indoor or outdoor gathering areas, lakes, pedestrian paths, and the like should occupy at least 20% of the area. Regional Service Uses allowed within this designation include regional-scale commercial, regional malls, medical centers, mixed-use developments, professional, interstate interchange developments and corporate office uses providing retail, wholesale, business, and/or employment services to Albemarle County and the region. Areas designated as Regional Service typically encompass a large site (+ 30 acres), arterial road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Both vehicular and pedestrian interconnections are expected to nearby residential areas. A mixture of Urban Density.Residential uses and community service uses is anticipated within this designation. Larger areas may be designated as Regional Service if a mixture of uses includes residential units relating to the commercial area. The proportion of residential square footage to non-residential square footage should be at least 25 %. In these mixed use areas, green space should occupy at least 15% of the area. Amenities such as parks, paved plazas, indoor or outdoor gathering areas, lakes, pedestrian paths, and the like should occupy at least 10% of the area. Office Service Uses allowed within this designation include office parks and mixed-use planned development emphasizing office uses, residential uses_~ and regional-scale research and office uses providing information and professional services to the County and the larger region. Limited production activities and marketing of products may be 30 included. Urban density residential, commercial and motel/hotel/conference facilities are appropriate in this land use designation. Office Service designation requires a large site size (+ 20 acres), arterial road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. The proportion of residential square footage to non-residential square footage may be as high as 50%. In these mixed-use areas, green space should occupy at least 20% of the area. Amenities such as parks, paved plazas, indoor or outdoor gathering areas, lakes, pedestrian paths, and the like should occupy at least 10% of the area. Office/Regional Service Uses allowed within this designation include large, mixed-use developments typically located on contiguous parcels under common ownership. Such areas provide large-scale employment centers and major retail/commercial services and housing opportunities. All primary and secondary office and regional service uses may be found in such areas. Regional Service uses are not to exceed 15 percent of the total gross floor area in Office Service uses. Areas must be developed under one consolidated application plan providing for an integration of all uses and establishing location of all uses, access and circulation, landscaping, and maintenance of natural areas and environmentally sensitive areas. Office/Regional designation requires a large site size (+ 200 acres), major collector or arterial road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent uses. The proportion of residential square footage to non-residential square footage should be at least 20%. In these mixed-use areas, green space should occupy at least 15% of the area. Amenities such as parks, paved plazas, indoor or outdoor gathering areas, lakes, pedestrian paths, and the like should occupy at least 10% of the area. Industrial Service Uses allowed within this designation include warehousing., light industry, research, heavy industrial uses, as well as uses allowed under Office Service. · Commercial uses are allowed in this designation as a secondary use. Residential uses may be appropriate in the Industrial Service designation if such uses are compatible with the nearby and adjacent Industrial Service uses. Care 31 should be taken, to insure that the impacts of the Industrial Service uses, including traffic, noise, odors, and vibrations will not affect residential uses. Where residential uses are provided, both vehicular and pedestrian interconnecfions are expected to nearby industrial areas. Industrial Service designation requires appropriate site size (+ 5 acres), arterial road accessibility, water and/or sewer availability, compatibility with adjacent uses. Rail access may be necessary. Areas for less-intensive industrial uses may act as transitional areas between commercial and industrial areas. Uses in these areas may not require major infrastructure provisions. A zoning district to distinguish between general industrial and transitional industrial may be appropriate as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Institutional Uses allowed within this designation include public and private schools, places of worship, universities and colleges, and ancillary facilities such as the University of Virginia's Birdwood golf course and polo grounds. Also included are public facilities and utilities, including police, fire and rescue stations, libraries, solid waste facilities, and major public water and sewer facilities. This land use designation also includes undeveloped land reserved or dedicated to future public use. It may include a mix of commercial and residential uses, depending on the compatibility with the institutional uses. The scale of the facilities in the Institutional designation should be in keeping with the design characteristics promoted in the Neighborhood Model. Of particular importance are the principles of pedestrian access, interconnected streets and transportation systems, and site planning that respects terrain. Parks and Greenways Uses allowed within this designation include public and private parks, and existing and proposed greenways along streams. Although public schools, identified on the Land Use Plan as institutional uses, may provide active recreation facilities/parks (ballfields, courts, playgrounds) to the community, they are not to be considered the sole providers of parks and open space to a neighborhood. Pedestrian and bicycle access to parks and greenways, and especially to parks provided on school grounds, is viewed as essential to their viability. Table I summarizes non-residential land use guidelines. Other standards included in both "The Natural Environment" and "The Developed Environment" chapters should be reviewed in 32 conjunction with these guidelines for development proposals. Table II provides an inventory of developable acres within the designated. Development Areas. Developable acreage is considered land void of slopes greater than 25% and 100 year floodplain. The calculations for determining developable areas were based on the identification of significant areas of floodplains and critical slopes. Some acreage identified as developable in the table may contain smaller more isolated areas of critical slopes, 100-year floodplains or other constraints for development such as wetlands and poor soils: 33 DRAFT 4 Changes from Planning Commission Meeting 3/26/02 Introduction to the Land Use Component of the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan is the County's most important document regarding growth, development and change. It establishes government policy to help guide public and private activities as they relate to land use and resource utilization. It is the basis for land development regulations and decisions (rezonings, special use permits), capital improvements (public projects such as schools, parks, libraries), transportation, environmental and historic resource protection initiatives, new county programs and decisions on the distribution of county budget dollars to a multitude of programs and agencies. State law governing the development of a Comprehensive Plan fr....,...-.~ ~/;....;..~.. -r;,~.. I~.,. ~,, .^'*~"'"., .,..,...~,, ........,..,e""*;"", ~'..~'~'~ (Vir. qinia Code § 15.2-22231 requires every county, city and town to adopt a comprehensive plan for the physical development of its territory. It also requires that the Comprehensive Plan be reviewed every five years. Regardless of State Code requirements it is important to periodically revisit and update the Plan to ensure that it is consistent with community views and is addressing current issues within the community. The Land Use Plan is a major component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan provides direction for the physical development of the County. It recognizes existing land use arrangements, supporting facilities and physical development limitations. At the same time, the Plan proposes a future land use pattem that may alter the physical character of the County as it exists today. ..... ; .... ,.. I~ updated The Land Use Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan was ~. ........ ~ .... ..... u .... ; .... ~ .... ~';" ~"~";"~ TDis opdated document Iorqe/~ retains mcommon~otions o~ t~o ~ ~on~ Uso PIon. Oho rocommon~otion t~t ~os ~mplomonto~ is t3o Douolopmont Aroos Initiaffuo. T~o Douoiopmont Atoms pro[oct wos initioto~ to ~olp improvo t~o qo~lit~ o~ ~ouolopmont in t~o ~osiqnoto~ Douolopmont A~os os ~oll os more officiontl~ uso t~oso ~roas mt~or t~on oxpon~ t~o Douolopmont Aroo boun~rios. 4 In early 1997, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors appointed the Development Areas Initiative Steerinq Committee (DISC~. The committee worked from 1997 until 2000 to develop a set of recommendations to the Board known as "The Ne~qhborhood Model". The Neiqhborhood Model is a quideline for new development, redevelopment, and master planninq Of the Development Areas. The Board of Supervisors adopted it on May 16, 2001. The Neiqhborhood Model is Appendix A of this document. vii Growth Management GOAL: Protect and efficiently utilize 'County resources by: A. Emphasizing the importance of protecting the elements that'define the Rural Area: 1) Agricultural and forestry resources 2) water supply resources 3) natural resources 4) scenic resources 5) historic and cultural resources 6) limited service delivery B. Of these, the protection of agricultural and forestry resources is the highest priority. .-.r~;.,o.e,....,...e,--n.;-~ Promoting the Development Areas as the place where a variety of land uses, facilities, and services ~ exist to support the County's future growth, with emphasis placed on infill development. Introduction The County's primary growth management goal directs development into designated areas and conserves the balance of the County for rural areas and resource protection. Resource protection is the basic theme behind the County's growth management approach. To this ongoing theme are added new emphases on intelligent use of De~'elopment Areas, public facilities and resources. Thus, planning efforts aim to channel growth into designated areas to facilitate economical service delivery in those areas, to promote a sense of neighborhood-style development as the preferred design in those areas, and to conserve the Rural Areas. Planning efforts also focus on means to discourage development in the Rural Areas and support activities consistent with the character of the Rural Areas. This is accomplished thrOugh education, incentives, and voluntary and regulatory measures. Agricultural and forestal resources have been identified as the most critical County resources and the desired primary land use in the Rural Area. Such uses play an important and long standing role in the environment, heritage, and economy of the County. Loss of these resources to development is irreversible and irreplaceable. Maintenance of these resources also provides an opportunity to conserve and efficiently use other resources such as: (1) water resources (with use of property conservation techniques); (2) natural, scenic, and historic resources with the maintenance of pasture land, farmland, and forested areas; and, (3) fiscal resources by limiting development and lessening the need to provide public services to wide areas of the County. In the interest of this growth management strategy, residential development is considered a secondary use in the Rural Areas. It is important that this and future Comprehensive Plans make adjustments that can influence development patterns to better meet the growth management goals. Such adjustments can include more active County support of Development Areas development, adjustments to location and/or holding capacity, and additional protective or support measures for the Rural Areas. This plan emphasizes the County's role in providing necessary support services and infi:astmcture for development, and more efficient use of Development Areas, including more urban and pedestrian oriented development styles. Facilities Planning GOAL: Strongly support and effectively implement the County's growth management priorities in the planning and provision to transportation, public facilities and public utilities. Introduction Rbsidents of the County expect high quality facilities and services. It is recognized that the provision of such facilities and services significantly affects the location, timing, and extent of development. By their very nature, public facilities are capital-intensive, requiting significant funding not only for the initial development of the facility, but also for its continual maintenance and operation. It is becoming increasingly difficult for communities to find adequate fiscal resources to pay for new or improved facilities, as well as maintenance of existing facilities. Therefore, to provide facilities in a fiscally responsible and equitable manner, adequate plarming is necessary to ensure that the highest benefit is provided to the citizens in exchange for the cost required to provide the~iService. The policies, objectives, and strategies presented in this chapter outline an active process to assure this success. The Nature of Public Service Delivery The County's growth management goals are to be supported through the appropriate provision of transportation, public utilities, and public facilities and services to designated Development Areas. The provision of fire, rescue, and police protection, roads, utilities, school bus service, and other governmental activities and functions to a large, dispersed rural population is viewed as inefficient and contrary to the overall public interest in guiding new development to the designated Development Areas. Emphasis is placed on providing a level of public service delivery that will support development in, and direct development to, designated Development Areas. To accomplish this, service and facilities will be provided at a much higher level in the Development Areas than in the Rural Areas. .......................... t' ............. t _Those .persons living in the Rural Areas should not anticipate levels of service delivery_ equal to those provided in the Development Areas. Capital Improvements Program The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as the major financial planning guide for County expenditures towards capital facilities and equipment over a five-year period. It is primarily based on the physical needs of the County as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. It is one of the primary tools used to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Albemarle County adopted its f'n'st CIP on March 5, 1978. The CIP is reviewed annually by the Planning Commission, as authorized by e~,~^~ ~ ~ ~ ,~A ^,-~,.~ r~A.~ ~cx~:~:.,~ Virgini Code ~ 15 2 2239 and is appro ed by the Bard of Supervisors. The CIP establishes a five-year funding schedule for the purchase, construction or replacement of the physical assets of the community. A capital project typically requires a minimum expenditure of $20,000 and has a useful life of a minimum of ten years. County departments and affiliated agencies initiate their capital project requests, which span the five-year period of the CIP. A CIP Technical In coq/unction with'the CIP needs assessment that.forms-the~basis the ' ital This Land Use Plan 10 Land Use Introduction The Land Use Plan provides direction for physical development in the County. It reflects the "Community Vision Statement" as well as the County's projections for economic, population, and housing demands; It balanceds these .projections against growth management goals and emphasizesie, g the preservation and intelligent utilization of limited resources, t-t The Plan recognizes existing land use arrangements, supporting facilities, and physical development limitations. At the same time, the Plan proposes a future land use pattern that may alter the physical character of the County as it exists today. The Land Use Plan recognizes the County's existence in a regional setting and attempts to integrate the County's physical development with that of neighboring jurisdictions. Such integration may be enhanced by future analysis and cooperative regional planning efforts similar to the cooperative planning occurring among Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. The Land Use Plan is but one element of the Comprehensive Plan, and must .b:e viewed as interrelated and interdependent with other goals and objectives. Proper Comprehensive Plan decisions must be made by reviewing the Land Use Plan in concert with all other Plan elements. The Land Use Plan provides guidance for development that will be harmonious to the natural and man-made environments and consistent with the County's Growth management goals-which are to channel development into designated Development Areas while conserving the balance of the County as rural areas. The Land Use Plan for Designated Development Areas In this section, the Neighborhood Model, a k~, component in the Land Use Plan, and its goals are outlined, e A~_~general description of Development Areas is followed by functional descriptions of the three cla:aiScatic, na ~.pes of Development Areas: the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages. Thereafter, General Principles and standards for physical development in the Development Areas, and specific standards for ....... :~, ;~..1 .... ~1 ~,-,1 .~:.~_+;~ nonresidential land uses are outlined. Finally, the Development Areas are profiled through narratives and maps that convey both descriptive references and visual impressions of land-use relationships. The Land Use Plan relies heavily on the Neighborhood Model that was appended to the 12 Comprehensive Plan in 2001. The Neighborhood Model supports a change in the form qf urban development.from what currently exists. It recognizes that, if the Development Areas are to be the primal, areas receiving residential growth, densi~ must be increased to at least the low end of the densi~ scale that is recommended on the land use plans.for the individual Development Areas. To achieve that densi.ty, the form qf development must Change and that fOrm must be more urban and less suburban. Another key element is that master planning process guide growth in the Development Areas. Also included with the Neighborhood Model are descriptions o.f innovative design tools .for creating more urban livable neighborhoods. Master Planning and ordinance revisions require time .for writing, adoption, and implementation. As a result, there will be a time lag between the adoption Of the Neighborhood Model and its.full implementation. It is intended that the.parts of this Plan which do not require a Master Plan or ordinance revision, including but not limited to the 12 Principles described in later paragraphs, will guide a new..form Of development.for the Count. 's designated Development Areas. What the NeighbOrhood Model Offers _ _ The Neighborhood Model seeks to change the .form qf development.from a pattern o, f sprawling, isolated buildings to a more compact and interconnected design. The Neighborhood Model: 1. Accommodates walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a reali~. .for the elderly, the youn&and those with limited access to aUtomobiles. ' 2. Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers can walk to a public park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces. $. Keeps buildings .and spaces at a human scale so that street views are attractive and pedestrian 7friendly. 4. Incorporates va~. ing densities and gradually allows.for an overall increase in densi~, in the Development Areas to meet the goals o..f the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses so residents have convenient access to work, to services, and to entertainment. Requires interconnected streets within developments and between developments so that pedestrians can walk easily to many destinations, traffic has alternative routes, and car trips are reduced in number and length. 7. Moves off-street parking out qf sight and encourages on-street parking. Mixes housing .types and markets so that a .full range of hOusing choices is q.ffered within the neighborhood. 9. Emphasizes re-use o. f sites. 13 10. Adapts development to site terrain so that natural topography can be.preserved. 11. Maintains a clear bounda~, between Development Areas and Rural Areas. 12. Provides.for neighborhoods to have a designated center to bring diverse and continuous activin, to a neighborhood The hborhood Model Goals ........................ ........................... , g .~ .......... j_ .......~,.:.,~ ....... 'j. ......................................................... Goals.for the Neighborhoods are as.follows: Centers - Neighborhoods within the Development Areas will have centers or..focal points ..for congregating. These may include schools, parks, .places o.f worship, 'civic centers, or small commercial and social areas. Such .features will be an easy walk .for most residents in the neighborhood, · Open Space - Each Development Area will of. let opportunities.for public and private outdoor recreational areas.for active and passive recreation. · Network - A network of streets, bikeways, .pedestrian paths, and bus routes will connect new neighborhoods as well as existing residential areas and nonresidential districts. Mixed Uses - Neighborhoods will contain a true mix of uses, including residences, shops, and places o. f employment, as well as civic, religious, and cultural institutions. Building Placement and Scale - Consideration will be given to massing, height, setbacks, and orientation o.f buildings so that these characteristics enhance the public realm. In particular, garages will be less dominant at street view than houses. All~. s - Where topography permits, alleys will provide rear access to parcels, allowing.for and _facilitating the provision qf garages and utilities to the rear o. f houses. Relegated Parking- Parking.for the automobile will not result in an excessive amount o. f paved area; parking on the street will be the norm, and parking lots will e.provided to the rear and/or sides qf buildings. VarieW. o.f Housing Types - Each neighborhood will posse~s a varie~, of housing .types accommodating a range qf incomes. A.,f.,fordable units will be dispersed throughout the Neighborhood and will be visually indistinguishable,from other units. Appealing Streetscapes - As the.fundamental element qf public space within the neighborhood, the street will make the ,neighborhood inviting with street trees and landscaping. Sidewalks or paths that connect houses to each other and to centers and common areas will be the norm. Walks will connect sidewalks to.front doors and main entrances. 14 Transportation Options - Convenient routes .for pedestrians, bi~. clists, and buses and other transit includin~ light rail will augment the street network. Public transit stops will be located within, each Development Area. Walking to them will be safe and convenient. Waiting .for transit will be comfortable and a normal?art O. f activi~, in the Neighborhood Center. General Principle for Land Use in Designated Development Areas: [.~c. vcd,~'c.-: -a':cc 17 18~ . ?_ t ........J_ . . . '.'.'. . td. . . ~.~,. ............... ~1. For the County's growth management goals to be achieved, the Development Areas must be attractive places to live and work. The land within the Development Areas must also be used efficiently if designation of these Areas is to realistically help prevent sprawl development. To this end, the Land Use Plan for the Development Areas is designed to concentrate development in the Development Areas, particularly in the locations designated "Urban Areas" or "Communities." Planning for future development in the Development Areas is at densities higher than in the past, with more varied uses. Furthermore, revised plans for the Development Areas emphasize the County's desire for design strategies that are more characteristic of small, well-planned city neighborhoods or towns than of typical low-density suburban areas. Inevitably, some people will experience more significant change than others and will find that nearby land uses may not be the same character as their residential area. However, through careful design of the land use plan and its development standards and recommendations, this situation may -^' ~' ........ ..:~ ~.n.~ ~,~,~ ;.~ c~,~, can be beneficial for the community. Listed below are the principles that guide development of Development Areas. The Deve. lopment Areas Land Use Plan, as well as subsequent decisions regarding land use in these areas should be reflective of, and consistent with, these principles: 1. Accommodate new growth in the County within Development Areas. 2. Encourage greater utilization of land in designated Development Areas by achieving higher gross densities for residential and non-residential development than in the past. 3. Encourage infill development of vacant lands and development of under-used areas within the designated Development Areas. Development Areas shall not encroach into water supply watersheds, except for the Crozet Community that shall not be expanded beyond the watershed boundary of the Lickinghole Creek detention basin. 5. Avoid development of "Significant Areas" as designated in the Open Space Plan. 6. Discourage extensive linear style development along major roads. 7. All Development Areas shall be served by public sewer and water. 15 o Plan for a system of transportation and community facilities and. services that support and enhance the Development Areas. 16 A General Description of Development Areas OBJECTIVE: Direct growth into designated Development Areas. A long-standing goal of Albemarle County's comprehensive planning effort has been to direct development into designated Development Areas. With the continuance of County growth management goals, the current Development Area concept remains a critical planning component. The Land Use Plan including the Neighborhood'Model presents mechanisms that will provide the best opportunity for the Development Area concept to work. 'In combination with objectives and strategies presented in the Community Facilities section of this Chapter, this requires establishing in the Land Use Plan a Development Areas concept and design that demonstrates efficient utilization of land and services, while responding to long-term market demands (see Map A). As the Development Areas are intended to capture the wide range of development and land uses necessary in Albemarle County, it should be recognized that complete separation of different uses is not expected. Rather, a balance of efficient land use and appropriate separation and buffering is sought which may result in areas with a variety and mix of uses. Residential uses may end up next to, or near, non-residential uses, with the goal of achieving a harmonious relationship between the tWO. Functional Description of Development Area OBJECTIVE: Establish functional descriptions of the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages. Three cla.%;~ficaticn:, ~.pes of Development Areas are traditional to the County's comprehensive planning. As a group, they are intended to provide for the variety of land use designations necessary to meet varied local market demands. They are also considered the focal point~ for the provision of public services and facilities, either at a countywide or more localized level. There are no minimum or maximum population standards for the different types of Development Areas. It is intended that the functional descriptions guide the development scale of the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages. Determination of boundaries for each Development Area is necessary to distinguish a self-contained geographic place and preclude sprawl of development. For the purpose of accommodating future growth, boundaries do not necessarily reflect entire existing social communities, but instead attempt to delineate areas with some sense of place that contain significant areas of developable land contiguous to existing developed areas. Boundaries are based on resource protection priorines, primarily water supply watershed areas, and the oppommity for the geographic area to be adequately supported by public services and facilities. To the greatest extent possible, boundaries are defined by natural and man-made physical features. Because Development Area boundaries do not follow property boundaries, development proposals may extend outside of Development Areas. For those parcels extending from Development Areas 17 into the Rural Areas, development of the Rural Area portion should not exceed Rural Area densities. The functions of the three types of Development Area are hierarchical, as the following descriptions indicate: Urban Area (Neighborhoods 1 - 7) Albemarle County's Urban Area, together with the City of Charlottesville, serves as a regional urban center. It is intended to provide for a full variety and range of land uses and densities, both residential and non-residential. It is intended to be more urban, or "city like," in character and less suburban. It is to be supported by a full range of public utilities~ facilities, services and amenities. The Urban Area is comprised of: 4-:. A full array of residential types and densities, ~ ..~.~,~o ....... ...c v.'~v'~'`4 ,~.,..o.,.~o`4~;*;~ ,,~ ..... r .... unth an urban character O, rf development. All service levels of retail, professional business, and industrial activities (See service-level descriptions in the Land Use Designations" section below). 3. Regional employment centers. 4, Regional water and sewer services. 5. Extensive urban and regional public facilities and services. 6. Access from. inter-county and major intra-county roadways and transportation services. 7. Geographically defined neighborhoods that: a. Contain well-defined residential areas, which are well integrated with non-residential areas and may include any of the land use designations defined in the "Land Use Designations" section: open space, transitional, neighborhood service, community service, regional service, office/regional service, or industrial service; b pport d by ~^11~* .... ,4 ~; .... -,-~.-i~1 ~^~`4~ Are su e ......................... tran ortation systems that include interconnected streets, and pedestrian paths, and bicycle circulation systems, and mass transit. 18 Communities Communities are smaller urban centers that are geographically removed fi:om the Urban Area. Like the Urban Area, they provide for a full variety and range of land uSes and densities, both residential and non-residential. They are intended to be more urban, or "town like" in character. Communities are to be supported by a full range of public utilities, facilities, services, and amenities. Commtmities consist of: ' 1. Urban centers geographically removed fi:om the Urban Area. Full range of residential woes and densities and the full range of non-residential uses described in the Land Use Designations section. 3. Community core of mixed service and residential use, including commumty and/or regional services. 4. Regional employment centers. 5. Well-defined residential areas. 6. Major intra-County roadways linked to the Urban Area. Residential areas supported by ee~c4o~q~t~ and integrated and interconnected system of streets; pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems;neighborhood commercial, professional, business, and public service uses; and public water and sewer. 8. Public facilities supporting the Communities and surrounding County areas. Villages Villages provide for a specialized opportunity to accommodate growth. It is anticipated that future Villages will more likely be established based on public requests rather than County initiative. Therefore, more detailed design guidelines for future Village designation are provided. Review of future requests for Village designations should be based on these guidelines as well as other applicable goals, objectives; strategies, standards and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Village Development/Design Guidelines Villages are places that combine the feeling of "country living" with the amenities of a 19 Villages consist of: A variety of housing types including single-family, two-family and townhouse units, with a gross density not to exceed 6 dwellings per acre. A village center of mixed service and residential uses. Such uses shall be limited to neighborhood scale services, including convenience shopping, other general retail and service uses, medical and professional offices, and accessory apartments and attached housing. Public sewer and water systems. This reflects a concern that, without public utilities, it is not possible to achieve village density or land use patterns which, in mm, serve to protect farmland and rural open space. It also reflects concern for protecting the environment, and for the economical and reliable provision of sewer and water services. 4. Public facilities which support the Village and the immediate surrounding Rural Area. o A linkage to the Urban Area and City of Charlottesville by roads with adequate capacity (traffic-carrying ability, safety considerations, physical condition) in order to move residents conveniently between the Village and the urban core. This guideline reflects a concern for using, but not overloading, the County s main roads (arterial and major collector), and a concern that minor roads (minor collector and local) not become subjected to traffic loads which they cannot tolerate, or wbfich alters their character over time. This also reflects a concept of a Village as including some local services, but not major community or regional services, which are better, provided in the Urban Area. o Designated Village Development Areas that are located at places where historically a settlement has existed. The proposed design should be a logical and harmonious outgrowth of what currently 20 o remains of that settlement. Most often, such locations will be at a crossroads, which provides a central focus for village activities. A proposal for an entirely new village location should demonstrate that it maintains this principle of a central village area at the logical confluence of streets and movement patterns. Development around a focal point, such as a public building, main street, park, 'greenway, or other open space or common area. Preferably, this focal point would incorporate an existing natural or cultural amenity. Within a proposed Village, development shall emulate historic regional patterns of village density and design, such that the feel of a traditional village is created. Elements, which can contribute to such a quality, could include: · A rectilinear or interconnecting street pattern without cul- de-sacs; · Connections to existing streets; · Compact lots; · Shallow front/sideyard setbacks; · A village center of mixed-uses and public facilities and spaces; · Walkways and paths which encourage pedestrians to. be the dominant mode of travel within the village center; and · .Preservation and reuse of existing structures. A "green.frame" 'of land surrounding the Village included as a part qfthe Development Area. This green..frame is to ensure that a Village remains, a part of but does not encroach upon, its surrounding rural area. The green..frame provides a permanent "hard edge," to con. fine the Village densi~. To provide a transition into the adjacent Rural Area, a "green..frame" qf land surrounding the Village xhould be included as a part qf the Development Area. This would limit the size qf the Village to the area planned, and would reassure current residents that any disadvantages of added village densi~ wouM be offset by capping village growth, and providing.for the permanent green ring around the Village. Ideally, the only land uses in the green .frame would be agriculture, forest~. , and open space activities ~. pical of the Rural Area. Landowners in the green frame area might include people who farm, but pre. fer the Village setting as a place to live due to the proximi~, of food and fuel establishments; mail services, church, etc. A unified Village plan developed in accordance with the requirements for a planned development. In particular, the impact of the plan on existing development should be emphasized. It is expected that consideration will be given to the needs and wishes of those already living and owning property in the' area. 21 Infill Development Policy OBJECTIVE: ...... v,,.,~.~ ........... .~. Facilitate infill development, including redevelopment of existing structures or new development of vacant and under-utilized areas, within existing Development Areas. For the purposes of this Plan, infill development is defined as the establishment of new land uses, either residential or non-residential, on undeveloped or under-developed sites within the designated Development Areas. Infill development is considered one of the key initiatives for implementing the growth management policy and is encouraged for the following reasons: To use Development Area lands in the most efficient manner possible. To discourage sprawl development. To maximize the use/support of community services and facilities (roads, utilities, transit, other services). In the Development Areas, undeveloped areas consist of both small tracts of land (5 acres or less) and large tracts (over 100 acres). The reasons why these areas havee3} not .developed to date vary, but the primary reasons which can be cited are: The property owners desire to retain existing use and/or are unwilling to sell for development at this time. Physical Lharacteristics such as topography (slopes, soils, streams), size/shape of property make development more difficult as well as incompatible existing adjacent uses. Condition of existing roads, utilities or possibly other communitY services are not able to accommodate anticipated scales of development. Proposed public projects on, or near, vacant areas often affect planning and development potential of an area. Also, the cost to develop infill lots is often relatively high compared to other sites. This is due to the fact that these areas are often surrounded by developed or zoned properties which tend to escalate the speculative value of the property. The potential for public/neighborhood opposition to new development proposals adjacent to existing developed areas can also limit developer interest, particularly for smaller sites. Consideration of permitting more intensive uses or densities on some properties may be necessary to offset development costs including measures necessary to minimize impacts of development. A commitment of the County to support infill development proposals consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is essential in facilitating infill development. 22 ....... v ........... tr..~,,~,., The Master Planmng effort for each Development Area will help tofo~ implemenfi~ infill development and will address impediments limiting the oppommity or attractiveness of sites for development. It will also encourage market forces to operate in a manner that makes these areas attractive for development. Strategies for lnfill Development Strategy: Plan/provide for necessary infi'astmcmre improvements that are currently impediments to development .of vacant sites. Recommendations: Schedule public improvements needed to support/encourage infill development within undeveloped portions of the Development Areas; Develop plans for proposed public projects:in a timely fashion so that they may be incorporated into new developments, as necessary. Strategy: Provide for greater flexibility in type of use and density of development. Recommendations: Provide for greater flexibility in gross development densities within the Land Use Plan residential categories, with a focus on increasing gross densities. Consider rezoning vacant pfoperties designated for residential use to reflect the recommended densities of the Land Use Plan. Support innovative development and design concepts, particularly those that maximize gross density of development. Strategy: Consider greater flexibility in development regulations which may limit development opportunities (without compromising issues of general health or safety). Recommendations: Evaluate and amend zoning and subdivision regulations in a manner that results in opportunities for increased development densities (including, but not limited to: critical slope regulations and open space requirements; reduction of area 23 requirements for planned developments; density bonus provisions; commercial parking requirements~ subdivision street and lot access requirements; possible impediments to "alternative" development designs). Utilize the Open Space Plan Development Area Composite Maps as a guide for waiver requests from the critical slopes regulations. Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas Land Use standards provide guidelines for development which are consistent with the Growth Management goals and are in keeping with the man-made and natural environment. These standards provide the basic framework for the review of development proposals for the Development Areas, in conjunction with other applicable ordinances and regulations. General Land Use Standards Standards that apply to all types of development in the Development Areas are provided as "General Land Use Standards." These standards include the twelve principles qf the Neighborhood Model. More specific standards for,~.,.._.,.,...~,;~ .~,~...~,;~'~'-~ non-residential and residential land uses are provided to address the different locational and surrounding character aspects of those categories. General Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas Pedestrian Orientation - A .pedestrian orientation should be re. flected throughout the Development Areas Sidewalks, and pedestrian paths should be provided in new developments, redevelopment prq[ects and in Count, pro.[ects ,,funded through the Capital rm..rovements Dro,,.am r,.... 1 ..... + ~111~ ~ ....... 11 ll~+~l ~ ~1 ~111~+~1 +~ *~ ' da, t/ Neighborhood-Friendly Streets and Paths -- xs~:_+~: .... :~ c .... +~.~ ....... .: .... r.,..-c~,,..**,,.o *'~*'o.,~.,,.,.. o.,,,..r'~;";~;~-~. ~o~,.,.o. Streets should be recognized ,,f°r their ,,function within neighborhoods rather than merely transportation routes ,,for cars. Curb and gutter, sidewalks 24 and street-trees help to ~ive streets a more human scale. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks- [c..o_.n..tAi. n..s....3_,...4.,..a..n.d..5, jConnections between developments with an appropriately scaled transportation network', should be provided to maximize a sense of community and provide additional transportation links. linkage between developments and just not within each development. ML~Amizc t __The impact of developments should be minimized on major roads to the greatest extent feasible by limiting access points to major mad: arterials such. as .Route 29, by providing side street access, service roads, and/or joint accesses. ~ __Ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations should take .place through the reservation of adequate right,of-way and by designing and .constructing utilities in a manner consistent with planned transportation improvements. While interconnected street systems will be the primary.form qf tnterconnecnon, other ...... vv ............ v ............................. modes of travel should be'incorporated into the translgortation system including ~"*^ ~"~ ~-: .... ~ podesh4m~bikeways, pedestrian paths and mass transit. Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space- Parks and recreational amenities should become centralized features in the Development Areas and in. individual developments. Im29ortant environmental .features, such as .floodplains, critical slopes, and ..forested areax shown on he Coun~ s Open Space Plan, should be protected and preserved as open space. Development should be concentrated and clustered around these .features to the maximum extent possible and provide vistas .for public en.[oyment tc ~-~ '~ ...... ~ c~. .... m~- .*.^..~A ~. ..... A ~^ :A~_+:r. ...... *~* -~'~ *~ *' ......... '~ ~";"+":- c Existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions should be maintained. Neighborhood Centers -A neighborhood center provides a .focal point ..for residents and pedestrians· Centers may be em£loyment hubs, areas qf mixed uses, parks, places qf worship, or other activin, areas· Centers should be recognized and enhanced within neighborhoods· New centers should be built with pedestrian access in mind. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale - New and redeveloped buildings should be sited and arranged to emphasize a positive relationship between pedestrians and. buildings and to provide appropriate spatial enclosure. As a rule, building orientation should be to public streets and to.private streets when the private street is in located in .,front of the building. Yards should be shallow in order to allow .for good spatial enclosure. Massing and scale should be appropriate to the area in which buildings are proposed. Attention should be paid to architectural details. T~ +~ ....... + ....... ~.~ ~.~ m~;,.~ ~; ..... : ...... +.~;_,~ .;,~ 25 Relegated ParMng- Parking shouM be located to the side .and rear qf structures. It should never be the dominant .feature seen .from the public road.. New development or major redevelopment design plans should include features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality. Parking areas, roads, and other impervious areas should meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed use and possible future uses. Avoid parking areas which exceed that which is necessary for'the anticipated development. For ~ '8 Mixture of Uses -- Where appropriate, residences can exist side-by-side or within close proximi~, to shops and places of employment, as well as civic, religious, and cultural institutions.. 9. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordabili.ty--The Development Areas should reflect a varie~ of housing ~. pes and costs. Unless a mixture of housing ~pes can be.found in close proximi~ to an in. fill site, new development proposals shouM q.ffer a varie~ of housing ,t~. es for d~f. ferent income levels. The Development Areas are recognized as the most appropriate places in the Coun~. .for affordable housing. Provision qf services to the Development Areas as well as a more compact area .for development increases opportunities .for use of transit, The Development Areas also qffer opportunities.for housing to be in close proXimi~, to.lobs, shopping, parks, and public schools. A..ff. ordable housing should not be built"in "enclaves; rather, it should be incorporated into new housing developments and units should have a similar exterior appearance to other units in the neighborhood. 10. Redevelopment -The Coun~ and developers afike should concentrate on redeveloping existing sites where the capacity, qf development has not been met. Adding second stories to buildings and mixing residential ,uses with commercial uses make .for better urban/rural relationships and can reduce pressure to expand the Development Area boundaries. Adaptive re-use of historic buildings to uses which preserve the building's architecture and site character should be encouraged as a method of historic preservation. 11. Site Planning that Respects Terrain - New development and redevelopment should reflect sensitivi,ty to existing grades to the greatest extent possible and.promote architectural design that ..fits into grades. Emphasis should be placed on preserving areas of environmental sensitivi~, shown on the Open Space Plan. Where extensive grading is necessary, site grading should result in slopes that are attractive, .functional, easy to maintain, and which promote interconnectivi.tv of parcels. 12. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas -Distinctive boundaries should be made between the Development Areas and the Rural Areas. In most cases, development should abut the rural bounda~, rather than transition down to it. 26 13. Fiscal Impact Analyses - The County should Enc, m'o continue to evaluateicn c~f furore land use changes under the fiscal impact model prior to rezoning approvals. Appropriate planning/phasing of development to match service/infrastructure availability and capacity should be established. Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Land Uses Residential Land Use Standards In addition to the general standards noted above, residential standards are presented here as a basic framework to guide future residential development proposals. It should be recognized that substantial changes in the economy, housing market, and housing industry may warrant flexibility in the application of these standards. These standards are intended to encourage the provision of various housing types and provide for affordable housing. It is intended that all dwelling types and forms of ownership be permitted within the County. Residential Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses It is intenOedthat where possible, and practical due to terrain, availability of public utilities and adequate public infrastructure and consistency with the Neighborhood Model, that 0verall.development density, be at as higha l~vel as practical. The use of bonus provisions to increase density and provide for affordable housing should be encouraged. Where demonstrated, by economic or other considerations, that density in excess of that recommended by the Plan is warranted to accommodate an affordable housing proposal, a reasonable density increase should be prOvided. In rezoning deliberations, the County should be mindful of the intent to encourage infill development, contain most future growth within designated Development Areas, and avoid rural development pressure. Unless contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehensive Plan recommended land use density-ranges (i.e. Neighborhood or Urban scale) should be favored even if the density 'exceeds that of surrounding developments. Maintenance of the integrity of residential areas can be accomplished with standards for the relationship of residential use to adjacent non-residential uses. Buffering, screening and physical separation of non-residential uses can alleviate such relational problems. The current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance addressing the screening of objectionable features and dissimilar uses provide for appropriate protection. These features should be retained. In addition to these regulatory requirements, care should be taken in residential design to provide for buffering, orientation, and other measures to avoid conflicts with surrounding uses. Identification of appropriate land use relationships is important in applying land 27 use designations as well as in considering development proposals. 1 Commercial Land USe Standards In addition to the general standards noted above, the following standards are recommended to guide commercial development. These standards apply to commercial, commercial-office and service type uses. Commercial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Villages, Communities and the Urban. Area. Only limited supporting commercial uses appropriate to the Rural Areas should be included in the Rural Areas zoning provisions. 28 Mixed commercial and residential areas as well as mixed uses within buildings should be encouraged as land and energy-efficient developments, along with infill of existing commercial areas. Commercial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, natural gas systems, and community facilities should be considered in review of a commercial rezoning request. Industrial Land Use Standards In addition to the general standards, the following standards are recommended to guide industrial development. These standards-apply to.light.-and, heavy-industrial uses, warehousing, "flex" type uses, and research/development/technology centers having characteristics more in keeping with industrial type uses. Industrial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Communities and the Urban area. While single-use industrial sites must be accommodated, rezonings which propose multiple sites served by common access points should be encouraged. To encourage multiple-site development, areas designated for industrial deVelopment should not be less than five acres and should be of reasonable topography to allow unified access. other acnsiti;'c areas. Mixtures o. f residential, commercial, and industrial uses may be approj~riate where O-objectionable aspects,..Ac ~._n- :_.~...~.~._,~.~,=.,.~ ..... ~.o,, o-,,,.~.*"-"la can be addressed through a combination of realistic performance standards, buffering, and special setback regulations. This approach should be flexible so as to accomplish the objective without creating burdensome and arbitrary regulations. Methods to ] Objectionable aspects are factors which could reasonably be anticipated to disrupt a residential atmosphere including such factors as extensive hours of operation (i.e. delivery traffic), and factors which may trespass into residential areas to an objectionable level such as lighting, noise, smoke, and odors. 29 (renumbered) mitigate objectionable aspects should be addressed at the time of rezoning. Industrial traffic should avoid residential areas and roadways not designed for such traffic. Industrial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, and natural gas systems should be considered in review of an industrial rezoning request. Rezoning to industrial designations for sites of 20 acres or more should be accomplished under a planned approach accompanied by a traffic analysis. Land Use Designations Residential Land Use OBJECTIVE: Establish flexible residential land use densities for the designated Development Areas. The success of Development Area Initiative w;.ll depencLs__ greatly on the provision of residential land use areas that are developable, locationally desirable, and responsive to changing market demands. Two density categories are provided in the Development Area, each with a range of acceptable density. Flexibility in residential density ranges leaves some discretion to the market in proposing development characteristics (such as housing type and arrangements), but relies heavily on County standards to evaluate the suitability and acceptability of the proposal. A mixture of housing .types is in each catego~ provides .for diversi~, qf income levels within neighborhoods. While residential uses are the dominant land use in these designations, supporting.institutional and commercial services are allowed. Strategy: Establish maximum gross development density of each residential category, but determine density of development up to maximum based on specific standards. Two ranges of residential development densities applicable in the Development Areas stipulated below are as follows: Designations: Neighborhood Density Residential Neighborhood Density Residential areas are intended to have a gross density of between 3 to 6 dwellings per acre. Neighborhood Density Residential may be located within the Urban Area, Communities and Villages. 30 Neighborhood Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate all dwelling unit types as well as institutional uses such as places of worshi]), public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools. It is anticipated that Neighborhood Densi~. Residential areas will accommodate small areas qf non-residential land uses on the scale qf Neighborhood Service, as de. fined later in this chapter, to serve residential uses. Any new development within, an existing subdivision shall be in keeping with the character and density of the existing development: New developments adjacent to existing subdivisions or developments shall be developed at higher densities and a .form in keeping with the Nei~hborhood Model to support infill development efforts. Urban Density Residential- Urban Density Residential areas are intended to have a gross density of between 6.01 to 20 dwellings per acre, with possible densities of up to 34 dwellings per acre under a planned development approach Urban Density Residential areas may be located within the Urban Area and Communities only. This designation is net may' be appropriate within Villages. Urban Density:Residential areas are intended to accommodate ~s4d~4aI~s~ ............... e, ........ ., .................. e .... dwelling ~pes. as well as institutional uses such as ])laces qf worship,, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools. Urban Density Residential designations are not intended for development at densities below 6 dwellings per acre. Developments within an Urban Density Residential areas are expected to occur within the designated range of 6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre and, to the greatest extent practicable, to maximize the developed density with a form in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. Development densities within the Urban Density Residential area should ultimately be based on environmental criteria, road functiOn and condition, available utilities, adjacent land uses, and site requirements. It is anticipated that Urban Densi,tv Residential areas will accommodate areas qf non-residential land uses on the scale qf Neighborhood SerVice and Qffice Service as de. fined later in this chapter. Maintain statements in the Zoning Ordinance that site development within Urban Density residential areas be based On standards in both the Comprehensive Plan 31 and Zoning Ordinance. Transitional Transitional areas are intended to be used primarily between residential areas and commercial or industrial areas, or in areas where flexibility of land uses may be necessary or appropriate to blend changing circumstances (e.g., where long-term public improvements 'are anticipated, or areas where redevelopment/re-use is encouraged). Transitional areas provide an opportunity to develop mixed use areas with Urban Density Residential uses and non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service, as defined in the next section of this chapter. Uses include neighborhood-scale commercial areas, office buildings, townhouses and apartment buildings. Areas should be developed under an overall plan for the designated area to ensure coordination of uses, access and circulation, landscaping, and maintenance of natural/environmentally sensitive areas. Transitional designation requires a small to medium size site (1-30 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Non-Rcs'idcnt[al Other Land Use Designations OBJECTIVE: Establish a mix of commercial, industrial, residential, and open space, and public land uses in designated Development Areas to support County needs. The County's Neighborhood Model calls for a mix qf residential with non-residential uses where such uses can be made compatible. To that end the Other Land Use Designations catego~ of uses provides .for commercial uses, industrial uses, and q.ffice uses that support the Economic Development policy of the Count, and allows .for residents to live, work, and shop in close proximi~. The Coun.tv's Economic Development policy indicates the desirability of a wide range of business and employment opportunities. The availability of jobs and services for the County's future population requires sufficient land to locate such activities. The County's growth management approach requires that such land be located in Development Areas. Commercial and industrial designations are confined to designated Development Areas. It was established that more than sufficient designated acreage exists to meet commercial and industrial land use needs for the next twenty years. The actual use of this land will be dependent on its developability, availability, and 32 locational desirability. To assure that development of these areas adequately address environmental, infi:astmcture, and land use considerations necessitates appropriate County standards and guidelines identified in this Plan. Strategy: Estabhsh ............... al land use designations for Development Areas that provide .fOr a variety of scales of commercial, industrial, an d service uses that may be developed with associated residential uses. '~ .... ' ..... · .~ :-+~a~a ~ Designations: Neighborhood Service Uses allowed in this designation include neighborhood-scale commercial; specialty shops; professional and office uses providing retail, wholesale, and/or business within a Village, Urban Neighborhood, of Community, or Village. ~r~:~.~ .... ~..~ ~^c Areas designated as Neighborhood Service a~.;~.,.,~ ' .... .... e, ....... rcq-a:rc: a sma~ -;*~ :izo .typically comprise (1-5 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Areas designated as Neighborhood Service should have a s. pectfic relationship to nearby and surroun.ding residential uses and be connected to those uses through a system qfsidewalks or pedestrian paths. A mixture qf ldurban density residential uses and Neighborhood Service uses are ~' ..... ~ ~ ged within this designation ...... · ~,~ ,o. encoura Larger areas may be designated as Neighborhood Service ~f a mixture qf uses includes residential units relating to the commercial area. In these mixed use areas, ffc;~'i~uz xurfaees and green space (vegetated areas) should occupy at least 20% of the area. ,~menities should o'ccupy at least 20% of the area. ' Community Service Uses allowed in this designation include community-scale commercial, professional, and office uses providing retail, wholesale, business, medical offices, small office buildings, mixed-use core communities and/or employment services to the Development Areas1 T.k~. 'h,r.: ~hl~.h..~.-,l tm ...... {f;,nr, ..ma .......... ~, .......... , ..............,~.,~ larger geographic sections of the County. Areas designated as Community Service--'~'~6---~-,-'~-'*~":~*: ....... ~,,,~,.~:-^",,~. ~. picallv. , encompass a medium site size (5 to 30 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. 33 A mixture of Urban Density Residential uses and communi~, service uses dto,,ved ip ted within this d signati ...... '~ ....... is antic a e on..~n~ .. o ....... ~o~. Larger areas may be designated as Communi~. Service ifa mixture qf uses includes residential units relating to the commercial area. The proportion qf residential square.footage to non-residential ~ square.footage mqv be as high as 50%. In these mixed use areas, pervious su~aces and green sFacc green space should occut~y at least 20% qf the area. Amenities such as parks, paved plazas, indoor or outdoor gathering areas, lakes, pedestrian paths, and the like should occupy at least 20% of the area. Regional Service Uses allowed within this designation include regional-scale commercial, regional malls, medical centers, mixed-use developments, professional, interstate interchange developments and corporate office uses providing retail, wholesale, business, and/or employment services to Albemarle County and the region. Areas designated as Regional Service.~,~.~.....~ ~-*: ....... -~t~-~,:'~ .typically. . encompass a large site (+ 30 acres), arterial road accessibihty, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Both vehicular and pedestrian interconnections are expected'to nearby residential areas. A mixture of Urban. Density Residential uses and communi~, service uses arz ~ is antic ated within this des ation ........... Larger areas may be designated as Regional Service fa mixture qf uses includes residential units relating to the commercial area. The proportion of residential square.footage to non-residential uae~ square.footage should be at least ~4¢25 %. In these mixed use areas, ~cr'cious suOaccs a;u. green space should occupy at least 4-0 15%-of the area. Amenities such as parks, paved plazas, indoor or outdoor gathering areas, lakes, pedestrian paths, and the like should occupy at least 10% qf the area. Office Service Uses allowed within this designation include office parks and mixed-use planned development emphasizing office uses, residential uses, and regional-scale research and office uses providing information and professional services to the County and the larger region. Limited production activities and marketing of products may be included. Urban density residential, commercial and motel/hotel/conference facilities ~ ;~..-~ ........ ~' appropriate in this land use designation. ...................... j usc.are 34 Office Service designation requires a large site size (+ 20 acres), arterial road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. The proportion qf residential square footage to non-residential :~aca square ~footage may be as high as 50°/6. In these mixed use areas, .~c~'ic,:;a a:~rfaccx and green space should occupy at least 20% o. f the area. Amenities such as parks, paved plazas, indoor or outdoor gathering areas, lakes, pedestrian paths, and the like should ocCUpy at least 10% of the area. Office/Regional Service Uses allowed within this designation include large, mixed-use developments typically located on contiguous parcels under common ownership. Such areas provide large-scale employment centers and major retail/commercial services and housing opportunities. All primary and secondary office and regional service uses may be foUnd in such areas. Regional Service uses are not to exceed 15 percent of the total gross floor area in Office Service uses. Areas must be developed Under one consolidated application plan providing for-an integration of all uses and establishing location of all uses, 'aCcess and circulation, landscaping, and maintenance of natural areas and environmentally sensitive areas. Office/Regional designation requires a large site size (~- 200 acres), major collector or arterial road accessibility,, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent uses. The proportion qf residential square.footage to non-residential square.footage-to aaa rcaidc;:tia! uses shouM be at least 20%. In these mixed use areas, .~c~wic, us ..... r .... a;;d green space should occu. R.v at least 4-0 15% of the area. Amenities such as -parks, .paved-plazas, indoor or outdoor gathering areas, lakes, -pedestrian paths, and the like should occupy at least 10% of the area. Industrial Service Uses allowed within this designation include warehousing., light industry, research, heavy industrial uses, as well as uses allowed under Office Service. Commercial uses are allowed in this designation as a secondary use. Residential uses may be appropriate in the Industrial Service designation tlf such uses are compatible with the nearby and adjacent Industrial Service uses. Care should be taken tO insure that the impacts of the Industrial Service uses, includin? 35 traffic, noise, odors, and vibrations will not affect residential uses. Where residential uses are provided, both vehicular and pedestrian interconnections are expected to nearby industrial areas. Industrial Service designation requires appropriate site size (+ 5 acres), arterial road accessibility, water and/or sewer availability, compatibility with adjacent uses. Rail access may be necessary.; Areas for less-intensive industrial uses may act as transitional areas between commercial and industrial areas. Uses in these areas may not require major infrastructure provisions. A zoning district to distinguish between general industrial and transitional industrial may be appropriate as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Institutional Uses allowed within this designation include ta//ublic and private schools, places qfworship, universities and colleges, and ancillary facilities such as the University of Virginia's Birdwood golf course and polo grounds. Also included are talgublic facilities and utilities, including police, fire and rescue stations, libraries, solid waste facilities, and major public water and sewer facilities. This land use designation also includes Id-_undeveloped land reserved or dedicated to future public use. It may include a mix of commercial and residential uses, depending on the compatibili~, with the institutional uses. The scale of the facilities in the Institutional designation should be in keeping with the design characteristics promoted in the Neighborhood Model. Of particular importance are the principles qf pedestrian access, interconnected streets and transportation systems, and site planning that respects terrain. Parks and Greenways Uses allowed within this designation include Ex:.gt:.ng public and private parks, and existing and proposed greenways along streams. Although ~2public schools, identified on the Land Use Maps Plan as institutional uses, may provide active recreation facilities/parks (ballfields, courts, playgrounds) to the community, they are not to be considered the sole providers qf parks and open space to a neighborhood. · Pedestrian and bicycle access to parks and greenways, and especiall~v to parks provided on school grounds, is viewed as essential to .their viabili~, . Table ! summarizes non-residential land use guidelines. Other standards included in both "The Natural Environment" and "The Developed Environment" chapters should be reviewed in 36 conjunction with these guidelines for development proposals. Table II provides an inventory of developable acres within the designated Development Areas. Developable acreage is considered land void of slopes greater than 25% and 100 year floodplain. The calculations for determining developable areas were based on the identification of significant areas of floodplains and critical slopes. Some acreage identified as developable in the table may contain smaller more isolated areas of critical slopes, 100-year floodplains or other constraints for development such as wetlands and poor soils. 37 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA 02-01 Neighborhood Model Changes to the Land Use Component of the Comprehensive Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to amend the Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating elements of the Neighborhood Model into the text. STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Echols, Mr. Benish AGENDA DATE: March 26, 2002 ACTION: Recommend approval CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On March 5, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Neighborhood Model amendments to the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission requested minor changes which have been incorporated into Draft 3 which is Attachment A. Attachment A is a "clean copy" of the proposed amendment. Attachment B shows where changes to the document are made. DISCUSSION: Staff knows of no other changes needed to the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled, "Neighborhood Model Changes to the Land Use Component of the Comprehensive Plan", Draft 3, Changes from Planning Commission's Public Hearing of 3/5/02. These pages will replace page vi and pages 3 - 30 of Chapter 3, "Land Use Plan, A Component of the Comprehensive Plan". COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Albemarle County Planning Commission Echols, ^IcP, Principal Planner Elaine K. CPA 02-01 Neighborhood Model Changes to the Land Use Component of the Comprehensive Plan February 27, 2002 The attached pages contain the latest draft (3/5/02) of the recently reviewed changes to the Land Use Component that implement the Neighborhood Model. They contain the changes you made at your meeting on February 19, 2002. Two issues were left outStanding at that meeting. One dealt with the "amenities" of developments such as paved plazas, parks, pedestrian malls, and the like. The other issue dealt with the appropriate mix of uses in the non-residential land us,e categories. Thbse issues are discussed below: Amenities - To date, Albemarle County's land use plan and development ordinances have dealt with the quantity of "open space", not its location or quality The words, "open space" have a lot of different meanings which can become quite confusing at times. The Neighborhood Model calls for "parks and open space" to become integral parts of developments and neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Model refers to these areas as "civic spaces" and "central amenities". The proposed language in the attached Comprehensive Plan amendment suggests an even better breakdown of those elements that turn an otherwise sterile urban environment into a place people want to go, shop, work, and live in. The two terms staff is suggesting are amenities and "green space". Amenities are gathering places and activity areas in an area that are available for the general public or specifically the residents or employees of an area. They can be paved or unpaved, such as a plaza, park, or pedestrian mall. They can be indoors or outdoors such as the swimming pool and gym or a greenway. They are needed in any development to provide a place for people to meet and enjoy an activity, be it an active recreational area or a place to sit and relax. As.places become more urban, these amenities become more important. Guidance on "how much" area should be devoted to an amenity is provided with the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. Staff suggests that the more residential an area is, the more area should be devoted to the amenity. The more urban and non-residential an area is, the less essential is the quantity of the amenity, but more essential is the quality. "Green spaces" are places in a development or a neighborhood that are covered in vegetation. They include perimeter buffers, landscaping islands, street trees, stormwater facilities that serve no amenity function, yards, and the like. They do not include pervious areas. Green space is needed in any development to provide visual breaks to the built environment. Staff is suggesting that all developments have green space so that an entire development is not "covered in concrete". It is anticipated that there will be vegetated areas that serve as amenities. There will also be amenities that are not vegetated. Both the "green" and the "amenity" functions are important to developments and to neighborhoods. The Right Mix In the last few years, the Planning Commission has reviewed and, in some cases, recommended approval of several "mixed use" developments. Some of these developments and their proportionate mix of uses are shown below: Land Use Designation Project Name Comm/Res. Mix Neighborhood Service Commun./Reg. Service Comm. Service Regional Service Urban Density Urban Density Clover Lawn 57°/o/43%' Brass, Inc. 63%/37% Rivanna Village* 24%/76% Albemarle Place* 53%/47% Waylands Grant 98%/2% Rio Square 40%/60% The Comprehensive Plan Amendment attached provides guidance on an appropriate mix. The operative word in this recommendation is "guidance". Each area proposed in either an upcoming Master Plan or as a citizen initiated CPA will be unique and will need to be considered according to the special characteristics of a given area. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Albemarle County Planning Commission Echols, ^IcP, Principal Planner ~-.~ Elaine K. CPA 02-01 Neighborhood Model Changes to the Land Use Component of the Comprehensive Plan February 13, 2002 The attached pages contain proposed changes to the first 36 pages of the Land Use Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan. The changes are made to replace language in support of conventional land use with language promoting the design concepts and mixed-use aspects of the Neighborhood Model. We will discuss the substance of the changes at your Worksession on February 19. Some of the changes in this document relate to the Rivanna Village at Glenmore CPA request for a Community Service designation. (See pages 33 and 34.) The public hearing date for both the Neighborhood Model and Rivanna Village at Glenmore is set for March 5has also been advertised for these changes. March 6, 2002 CLOSED SESSION MOTION ! MOVE'THAT THE BOARD GO-INTO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2-3711 (A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION (1) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; and UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. RECEIVED AT~BOS MEETING ~,~,,;~ ~//~/~ ~ .... Agenda I~em #: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of/~ervisors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C( h ~' Senior Deputy Clerk ~ March 29, 2002 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through July 31, 2002. interviews are scheduled for the April 3 meeting. Thank you. Cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Chamber of Commerce (list only) No BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Please note: On April 1,2002, I was advised that Robert McGinnis has resigned from the Historic Preservation Committee. That leaves 26 people still sewing on this committee. Please advise me if you want me to advertise the vacancy. Thank you. Laurie DISTRICT IF WISH TO BE MAGISTERIAL NEW TERM RE- APPOINTMENT BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? · 1 application (Perkins) sent 2/2/01. Daniel Montgomery 12/13/00 12/13/02 No · ReadVertised; rec'd no additional applications, Applications due 4/19/02, rracy ~rea ~ 12/3J/01 1~/31/02 ~o Rivanna Apglications due 4/i9/02. ,, Arthur B. Brown, J~. 12/31/05 ~ Resigne~ Rio ,~, ' Applications due 4/19/02. JoAnne Ebersold (appointee 6/30/04 Resigned her term) Applications due 4/i9/02. Dwight T, Colley 6/30/02 ~ 6/30/05~ ~ No Applications due 4119102. Cynthia Dupree (appointee 12/31/03 Resigned to c~mplete her term) Planning has advised me that Rodney Bill Nitchmann No set terms. Thomas began a~ending meetings on 1/6/99; please make it official by appointing Mr. Thomas retroactive to Planning has advised me that William Tracey Hopper No set terms. Rieley and William EdgeKon began se~ing as co-members on 118102, replacing Tracey Hopper, Please make it o~cial by appointing Mr. Rieley and Mr. Edge~on as co-members retroactive to that date, , .... WISH TO BE DISTRICT !F MAGISTERIAL NEW TERM RE- APPOINTMENT BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? Planning has advised me that William Dennis Rooker No set terms. Edgerton began attending meetings on 1/2/02. Please make it offcial by a~oointin= Mr. Edgerton retroactive to tha: date. J,~?es?. ~urray, Jr. 07-01-02 07-01-05 ~o ' James B. Murray, Jr. 07-01-02~ 07-01-05 No ~ A. Bruce Dotson ...... 07-08;02 . 07.-08-04 Not eligible .. Jeffrey B. Werner 07-08-02 07-08-04 Yes .... . . Charles M. Rotgin, Jr. 07-08-02 07-08-04 Not eligible William P. Jackameit 07-08-02 07-08-04 Not eligible Dennis S. Rooker 07-08-02 07-08-04 Yes Michael. .K.'Semanik 07-08-02 '0'7-08-04 Not eligible ' ' .. David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller April 5, 2002 Mr. William Edgerton 939 Barracks Farm Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Edgerton~ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 3, 2002, you were appointed as the Planning Commission representative on the MPO Meadow Creek Parkway Design Planning Advisory Committee, with said term effective retroactively to January 2, 2002. I have enclosed a roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure cc: Commonwealth Attorney Chris Gensic Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsa~ G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller April 5, 2002 Mr. William Edgerton 939 Barracks Farm Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Edgerton.'~ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 3, 2002, you were appointed, along with Mr. William Rieley, to replace Ms. Tracey Hopper term as the Planning Commission representative on the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee I1 with said term effective January 8, 2002. I have enclosed a roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure CC: Commonwealth Attorney Elaine Echols Printed on rec?cled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsv~lle Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40! Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas .~amuel Miller April 5, 2002 Mr. William D. Rieley 2375 Taylor's Gap Rd. North Garden,(~V~2959 Dear Mr. Rieley.U~ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 3, 2002, you were appointed, along with Mr. William Edgerton, to replace Ms. Tracey Hopper term as the Planning Commission representative on the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee II with said term effective January 8, 2002. I have enclosed a roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, .- SHT/I~b .... Enclosure cc: Commonwealth Attorney Elaine Echols Sally H. Thomas Chairman Printed on rec?cled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsviile Charles S. Martin Rivar~na COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rocker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller April 5, 2002 Rodney S. Thomas 3411 Indian Springs Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 3, 2002, you were appointed as the Planning Commission representative on the Chadottesville/AIbemarle/UVA Planning & Coordination Council Technical Committee with said term effective retroactively to January 6. 1999. I have enclosed a roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure CC: Commonwealth Attorney Wayne Cilimberg Printeo on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 401-2 March 18, 2002 .Benny Melampy 3293 Buck Island Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-200'1-061 Benny Melampy; Tax Map 104, Parcel 8M Dear Mr. Melampy: The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on March 5, 2002, unamimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: There shall be no on-site sales. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials. All production or fabrication activity of products shall occur within the confines of the proposed 30' x 60' utility sh ed. All requirements of VDOT shall me met, including installing a 14' culvert and. widening the entrance to 34'. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 3, 2002. 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, Steven Biel Planner SB/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Matt Grimes, VDOT Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse 03-19-02^09:10 RCVD STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Steven Biel March 5, 2002 April 3, 2002 SP 2001-061 Benny Melampy Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has requested approval ora special use permit for a Home Occupation, Class B, to allow for the operation of a counter top/cabinet sales and installation business (Attachment A). The applicant would produce custom-made furniture for sale and installation and install fabricated products off-site. Production of products would occur in a proposed 30' x 60' utility shed. Approximately 1,200 sq. ft. would be used for the production area and approximately 600 sq. ft. would be used as a storage area for items not related to the home occupation. The applicant would not have any employees. Any future consideration for the hiring of employees would be limited to no more than two (2) employees, which is permitted under the definition of a Home Occupation, Class B. Petition: Request for a special use permit to allow for the fabrication of counter tops and cabinets, and for the sales and installation 'of these products in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for a Home Occupation, Class B. The property described as Tax Map 105, Parcel 8M, contains 2.0 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial DistriCt on the west side of Buck Island Road (Route 729), approximately 2 miles south of Route 53. The property is zoned RA-Rural Areas. The .Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. Character of the Area: The property under review contains 2.0 acres. The surrounding area can be characterized as 'intermixed with wooded areas, farmland, and residential development. The nearest residence is approximately 300' to the south (Attachment D). Planning and Zoning History: The applicant obtained a Home Occupation, Class A permit in August, 2000 to operate the business out of his home. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site and surrounding area as being located in the Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan offers no-specific comment regarding home occupations in the Rural Area. However, the level of intensity of the proposed use would be compatible with the character of the Rural Area. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of SP 2001-061, based on the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. SP 2001-061 1 Last Revised: 2/26/02 The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves ~t0 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_. This proposal would not result in an increase in vehicular traffic, as there would be no on-site sales. The applicant would deliver the finished product to the customer location. Fabricated products are often dehvered to the customer site. Delivery of supplies and materials to the applicant would occur on Wednesdays via a 2-axle UPS/FedEx-type track. There wOuld also be occasional Frida,v deliveries. As the proposed utility building would provide adequate Work and storage space, there would be no need for outdoor storage. The hours of operation are proposed to be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday with occasional Saturday hours, which is in accordance with Section 4.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. Wooded areas and residential development surround the site. The location of the utility shed would be situated in back of the applicant's residence and would be partially screened fi:om Buck Island Road. In addition, the utility shed is buffered fi:om adjacent property owners to the south and west by wooded areas. All work related to the home occupation would be performed within the proposed utility shed which would reduce noise associated with the woodworking equipment. Any consequential noise to adjoining property owners that is produced by woodworking equipment would be no more than normal for farm equipment (the applicant owns a farm tractor). that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, This proposal would not result in an increase in vehicular traffic and would be no more than a residential use. 'It is the opinion of staffthat this.home occupation would not result in any increased levels of activity on the site that would be inconsistent with the character of the area. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent.of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent as contained in Chapter 18, Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the opinion of staff, the proposed use would not conflict with the purpose and intent as described in the Zoning Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use would not prevent by right use of adjacent property. SP 2001-061 Last Revised: 2/26/02 with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of thi s ordinance, Home occupation permits are governed by Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed request complies with the provisions of this section of the Zoning Ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The Albemarle County Fire Department has received this application for review. All solvents/paints associated with the proposed home occupation would be disposed of in accordance with ail applicable hazardous waste regulations. If the applicant adheres to the specified safety guidelines prescribed by the manufacturers of the solvents/paints used by the applicant, there would be no adverse impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare. The applicant has met with a VDOT representative concerning any entrance issues. VDOT has requested the applicant install 14' of culvert pipe and widen the entrance an additional 12' for a total of a 34' wide entrance. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to these applications: The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1. The level of intensity of the proposed custom-made furniture shop would be consistent with the character of the Rural Area. Staff has not found any factors that are unfavorable to this request. Therefore, staffis able to support this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: There shall be no on-site sales. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials. All productiOn or fabrication activity of products shall occur within the confmes of the proposed 30' x 60' utility shed. All requirements of VDOT shall me met, including installing a 14' culvert and widening the entrance to 34'. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. Attachments: A -Application and Plan B - Location Map C - Tax Map D - Aerial Map SP 2001-061 Last Revised: 2/26/02 3 ATTACHMENT A ~e'Y~-~-~bmittin~ ~ ~te developm~t Plan wifl, fl,~ aP~li~fion? Contact Person (Whom should wc~ll/wfiteconccming ~ pro. t?): ~'~ /~~ IDaytiaep,one(' ) ' Fax. '~ ' Owner of land (ns listed in thc County's rccords): ~/f .~// . . Address :~Z9 t/ .~'~(~ "~S/,~'l> '~ .' city ~'~/~ .' ' State Daytime Phone ( ~q ) ~ ~/-/7~ ~ Fax g ~ ~ ' ' E-mail ~ Applicant(whois~hecontact~rsonrepre.~,,ti.~?Whoisrcquestia~theapecialu.~'~· "~-#l'J t/ ~/~ ¢ Address -.3Z?q ~1~.~ 'i~,~l,,,b ~: City C..;'t~/~ 'state _/'/~. Zip,~Z~ Daytime Phone ( ,~.e, ff.) ~?i'-/'~'..,r'5'"' Fax# .~,,~-,-~. E-mail -'~"'~ ~ DOes the'0~=ner ofth- ~ ~;..._ USE ~:~.=.i ~:. ';-?~;?~ '-;. 401 McIntire ROad ~;'~ Ch~t'rl0tteS'~ille, VA 22902 -:;!:i~V6iC6~ 296-5832 ?;-=-Fa~'."'972,41 the' district How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? How is the use in harmony with thc purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance~. How is the use in harmony with tile uses permitted by right, in the district? t' What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this usc? your request in detail and include ail pertinent information s~ch':as tt ATTACHMENT A me use, operaang hou~,'~d the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.'~' ,Note: If you are requesting a special use Permit 0nly 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 Coun.ty. must be submitted certifying that the pers°n ~ignin~ below has the authority 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 aeegptable to theCounty must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: ' '~ 3. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. [~ 4. Additional Information, if any. .. ..... filing this application. I also cerfifythat the information provided -', ·...,.-'~ '~-~ knowledge. :, ::-~.. i :~'.. ·, ·:_, ~ :~. ,. ~,~:.:-~.. ~ (~.:?,-' .. .... :~.:- : ,'i; .' ATTACHMENT A To Whom It May Concern: As per the apptication permit for special use, I would like to dedicate part of my building for a shop & office space. In my business of counter top, cabinet sales & installation, I need space to fabricate items to be delivered. For the past year I have operated my business utilizing only my home for office and fabrication. In that time, to my knowledge there have been no concerns from neighbors. The shop is not always in use, and frequently I am not even on the premises due to deliveries and installs. With my type of business I have deliveries made to me normally on Wednesdays and occasionally on Friday. The trucks that deliver to the premises are of medium size ( 2 axle ) box trucks that can access my property easily. Other than deliveries, no other public visits are required. My business contacts are conducted at job sites only and no customers visit the property. I require no signage on the property and I might add that the structure location is barely visible from the road. The building is located behind my home and has a buffer of trees approximately 200' to the nearest house adjoining me so I can see no effect it would create to the character ofthe community. As I stated before the shop is not always in use but when it is the hours are 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday through Friday and occasionally on Saturday. The machinery would be typical woodworking tools such as table saw, chop saw, planer, hand tools etc. At this point I have no employees but I could see in the future of possibly having 1 part time or maybe full time employee. The dimensions of the structure are 30 x 60. The building is also insulated to reduce excess noise. Approximately 600 sq feet would be used for personal use leaving 1200 sq feet for business use ( note on floor plan the division of building ). As per section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle county zoning ordinance I feel that my request falls well within the criteria needed to be given the special use permit I desire. S T A T E R O U T E 729 ' p H Y ~ I C A L Stiff V E Y P A R C E L 8M O N S HEE T: I O 5 COUNTY TAX M .f (} () ~ LINLE~:~ NOTI=I). ) (.,) ANC:NOI~ I~OI.T PI. AN CH~RLOTTES'~ . ..J TO ZION CROSSROADS SP 2001-064 BENNY MELAMPY TAX MAP 105, PARCEL 8M ATTACHMENT B TO LOUISA / .................... LJ' MILL CREEK AREA ................. j.! ATTACHMENT C ,O5 :o4 / $3 .~$ "-., ?~ SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SEC:, ,ON 105 13 ATTACHMENT D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 March 14,2002 Alex Gould 4525 Helios Path Barboursville, VA 22923 RE: SP-01-067 Gould Farm Utility Building; Tax Map 34, Parcel 50 Dear Mr. Gould: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 5, 2002, unanimously recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors. 'Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: There shall be no on-site sales. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. All production activity:of custom-made furniture shall occur within the 30 x 80 workshop. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 3. 2002. 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, Steven Biel Planner -SB/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Steve AIIshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Steven Biel March 5, 2002 April 3, 2002 SP 2001-067 Alex Gould Farm Utility Building Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has requested approval ora special use permit for a Home Occupation; Class B, to allow for the operation of a custom-made furniture shop (Attachment A). The applicant proposes to construct a 30' x 80' workshop where approximately 1,.100 sq. ft. would be used as the woodworking area and approximately 1,100 sq. ft. would be used as a studio/office not related to the proposed home occupation. Both areas would be enclosed and separated by an entryway. The applicant would not have any employees. Any future consideration for the hiring of employees would be limited to no more than two (2) employees, which is permitted under the def'mition of a Home Occupation, Class B. Petition: Request for a special use permit to allow for a custom furniture shop in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for a home occupation, Class B. The property described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 50, contains 75 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the east side of Helios Path, approximately 1 mile south of Route 641. The property is zoned RA-Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. Character of the Area: The property under review contains 75 acres. The surrounding area can be characterized as intermixed with wooded areas, farmland, and residential development. The access to the property is through the Solaris development to the north. The nearest residence is approximately 1,500' to the north and is heavily buffered by a wooded area (Attachment D). Planning and Zoning History: A permit was approved in September, 2001 for a Home Occupation, Class A allowing for a landscape and flower design business. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site and_surrounding area as being located in the Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan offers no specific comment regarding home occupations in the Rural Area. However, the level of intensity of the proposed use would be compatible with the character of the Rural Area. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of SP 2001-067, based on the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. SP 2001-067 1 Last Revised: 2?26/02 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_. This proposal would not result in an increase in vehicular traffic, as there would be no on-site sales or deliveries. The apphcant would harvest timber on the site and adjoining property (also owned by the applicant, parcel 49, 138.05 acres) for materials to produce custom-made furniture and crafts. The applicant would deliver the finished product to the customer location. As the proposed shop would provide adequate work and'storage space, there would be no need for outdoor storage. The hours of operation are proposed to be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday with occasional Saturday hours, which is in accordance with Section 4.18.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Wooded areas, farmland, and residential development surround the site. The location of the proposed shop would not be visible from any adjoining properties. In addition, the side of the shop that would house the woodworking shop would be installed with soundproofing material. Any consequential noise to adjoining property owners that is produced by woodworking equipment would be no more than customarily associated with farm equipment. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The harvesting of timber is permitted in the Rural Areas as a by right use. The applicant would be engaged in a forestal activity while providing a finished product for sale to the public. In effect, the crafts produced by the applicant would truly be products of Albemarle County. It is the opinion of staff that this home occupation would not result in any increased levels of activity on the site that would be inconsistent with the character of the area. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent as contained in Chapter 18, Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the opinion of staff, the proposed use would not conflict with the purpose and intent as described in the Zoning Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use would not prevent by right use of adjacent property. SP 2001-067 2 Last Revised: 2/26/02 with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,.- Home occupation permits are govemed by Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed request complies with the provisions of this section of the Zoning Ordinance. and with the public health, safe _~ and general welfare. The Albemarle County Fire Department has received this application for review. All solvents/paints associated with the proposed home occupation would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. If the applicant adheres to the specified safety guidelines prescribed by the manufacturers of the solvents/paints used by the applicant, there would be no adverse impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare. The entrance to the applicant's property is on Helios Path, a private road (Solaris development). Helios Path has an adequate entrance to Route 641. Therefore, VDOT has no concerns with this proposal. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors favorable to these applications: o The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1. The level of intensity of the proposed custom-made furniture shop would be consistent with the character of the Rural Area. The crafts produced would utilize Albemarle County timber. Staff has not found any factors that are unfavorable to this request. Therefore, staff is able to support this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staffreport, staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: There shall be no on-site Sales. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. All production activity of custom-made furniture shall occur within the 30 x 80 workshop. Attachments: A - Application and Plan B - Location Map C - Tax Map D - Aerial Map SP 2001-067 Last Revised: 2/26/02 3 '.S ; Code an( - __ ;~ ~: ; 0. ~ ~ . ATTACHMENT A ,'ofacres-t°~b~'~tered by Special use P'~rmit¢~.~an~t~.,~u~,.d~,~,)' ' '~ ' ' ", I Is this an am,ndr%at"~t~ an ~xisting Sp,cial Use p,rmit? :-. '~: .'i' --- ~ C2'~es~la/ [Are you submitti~g a Site development plan wRll'this appliCation? . . "[1Yea~l'No Contact Per$o,n (Whom~houldwecall/writeconccmingthisprojec,?): ~,.- ~ (~..~00 ~ 1Address d-4~,~' 4'~ O~~ citY'~L~:>~'~,k&~ State x~ ~¥~ Zip ~..~ fDaytimePhone(-/-{'5~C) q"~'OI ,"-~'~r'-K~ Fax# . ' E-mail. / Own6r of land (^s ,istea ia the Co,~nty', =ordsl: ':'~1~~~ ~ ~~ ~ Address ~~ ~~~" City~ S~tcV~ Zip~TM Daytime Phone (4 ~) ~~~Fax ~ E-mail Applicant (Who is thc contact person representing? Who is rcquestiag ~h¢ special use?): /l:~'O' a/2X~xj~--- Address ,. :-~ - City State Zip Daytime Phone ( ) Fax #. .E-mail Tax map and parcel Physical Address ~ifassign~d), Location of prope~y ¢~. iatm,io~, ora~0 "~?tr411~N~ Does the 6wrier'of thiS propertYown (or have apy ~wnershi thos· ~ax map:and ~¢el numl~r~s:!~! ~ /'-T-"~'": 401 Mclntir¢ Road oi. CharlotteSVille, VA 22902 -I-'V0i6c:' 296-5832 ?,;,' Fax: 972-4 ATTACHMENT A Ordinance states that, :'The board of supervisors Special use . ', that the charaCt~{~of'the district ' ·" 'of this What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? How will thc proposed special usc affect adjacent property? How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surr6unding the property? How is the use in.harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? How is the use in harmony with thc uses permitted by right in the district? What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this uae7 . ~-. ~ .' ~ ' . ..~,~ - .. . . ~. '~ ,'&: -- . ' ~?:-2~?,~ :~x-::i ~_ , .. ¢:~:', ':~ . How will this use prom°to the.public health;~;~safety,'and genc~! w~r~c of ATTACHMENT A information such as the nu, ........ v ....... ReCorded plat or boundary survey/bf the' proPerty requeSted for the rezoningl If there is no recorded plat or boundary surVey, please provide legal descripti°n of the proPert~ the Deed Book and page number, or Plat Book and page number. ~ote: If you are requesting a specia! use permit Only fOr a portion of the proPerty, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or'surVeyed drawing. Ownership information- If ownership of the property is in the name of anY type 0f !egal 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 ce~fYing that'-th~'pers0n signin~ beloW 'h~ ~e~ad~h~6rity If the applicant is i dontraet purehaSer~ ad~'t':~aecePtable to the C fi,i /must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a d~umen.t acc~eptable 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. : :'~ ~¢~i.~" : .: _ [~ .4. Additional Information, if any. ~Ih~reb3 certify that I own the.subj~t proPerty, 'filing this application. I also'certify:that the information to act'On behalf :' In ATTACHMENT A To Whom It May Concern: I propose to build a structure that will. house a workshop and studio (combined) on my farm in Barboursville. I am a craftsman and require a space to do my work. Furthermore, this area will act as a hub for the management of the surrounding farm in the future, The proposed "special use" will affect no adjacent properties visually given the farm's location. I will be the sole proprietor (no employees) and will conduct my office work in my home which is also located on the farm. ! will be harvesting much of my lumber from the foreSted area on my farm. I will be using a carry-away receptacle for sawdust collection. In addition, I will attempt to use water-based finisheS and will hand-finish much of my work. The tool allotment for my shop will consist of a jointer, planer, band saws, shaper box, table saw, various sanders, a lathe and a collection of hand tools. This will also include storage. The studio will consist of drawing tables, easels, paper storage and stretched canvas storage. Operating hours will be from 9am - Spm, Monday through Saturday. advertise by word of mouth and the internet. Visitors by invitation only. I have a good rapport with my neighbors, though not bound by the covenants of the subdi- vision "Solaris". i continue to pay the allotted dues for road maintenance and try to help with plowing, etc. Given the quality of the building ! propose to build, it will increase the value of my farm and enhance the overall quality of my property. -1- ROVAL: IN ACCORDANCE WI~HB PLANNIN0:< COMMISSION AND ~RUSTEE. AtIY POtENiiAL DEVELOPMEN' S 10 BE ~ ~, ONLY. ALL SlATEMENTS ~FFIXED IO ~.~ T.M..3,4 PAR. 1,4 STEPHEN B. WILSON O.D. 457 P. 48 D.B. 416 P. GO2(PLAT) ATTACHMENT A 500 1000 T.U. 3,1 PAR. / U.u. 6~4 PLAT S lOWING SURVEY 75.000 AC.- PORTIONS OF T.M. ,54 PAR. 50 & 49 RIVANNA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRG. NIA SCALE: 1" = 500' NOVEMBER 14, 1993 /.n??d ,5'2~?'ve.V°?' _, ~ BL ,%_ T.M. 34 PAR 50A / ....... _ ._ ~t-~ D.~. ~28 P. 2 ..- LOT9 LOT 10 ~, / ~ 58~.01 - ~ .;~o JOY ELIZ. OR ~ '~,~ ~.~. io37 P. 6~5(~LAO /' ~[ ~. ~ I 89'50'19' 58,7~ " 0 DEVELOPMEtlT RIGHTS RE- '~ --~ / N ' r ¢~ . " ~' MAIN IN 1Ills fAI{T 0 ' '*R g~ t: ........ / ~ "~ T-tAT WAS FORMERLY PA . '~ ;~ 4 4109 AC. pUI<HU~I/ ¢~ i ~.bt. 34 PAR. 4g ~L I 50. I : lO PE ADDED 10 ~ i ' T M 34 PAR. 4g ~ ~ PAR. 5o k~ ' ' I'~01 p 126 / ; . ~ [ D.B .... ~ EXISTING ACREAGE PAR. S0=90.~2 > I 'O.B. 634 P. 515 ~ REVISED ACREAGE PAR.*,0-75.0- mt %~ / ~ %. [ i~EXISTIN6 ACREAGE PAR, 49=124.0511 ~t ~ '"'~ ~ I. ~[VISrn ACREAGE pAq 49~:,9.5995 (I DB. 1201 P. 126 : ~ t~ ~ D O 654 P 515 : ."~ ~ ~?i : I'M. ~4 PAR. 50 ~ s.ows ~' w~,[ ,o*~ ] ~ /'7~ ............................... D.. . , J ~ - . LINE TABLE ~ plltlliltlO illROUOII PROP. , ./ ~ ,/ oo N 48'1['5~' E 313.71 % / eo ~ 18'04'!~' ~' 36,53 ' ho 06'40'18' E 6' I~ S ~0'08'i~' E 67,4~ S 10'07'45' E 74,40 ~' ..... mO~ ./6U~ ~ M 34 PAR 50 IO BE FOUND. / SlUUP ADDED TO rAR. ,19 I / ~k ~7.5 AC. PORTION OF / ~ RE3AINS 5 DEVEL~MENT ../_- ", ~ FORMER PAR. 49 SflLL / %, RIGHTS...~- / Charlottesville Albemarle 'CHARLOTTES- ATI'ACHMENT B TO RUCKERSVILLE 1 / EAR.YSVILLE AREA ! -067 , .~,~ ~o~ ~ ~ .z----:__ _- ~_ IV ? r 1'. : ! '~,' LD F~,RM UTILITY BUILDING TAX MAP 34, PARCI~L 50 " A TO ZION CROSSROADS TO LO UISA ALBEMARLE': ~,,~k_~'{ '~. ~P--O~ 067 Gould~ Farm Utility~,g,.Buildinq .(Si~n ~85,,. 86~ ~ ~- / ' ,,,,~'X '~ ~ ~ , ~/ // '... I "-.~.~.~ ~ ,/-. .<~, "/..,,'.,,~.'. .~'. ~ .,,t~' ~ -: ,, ,. , .. .F · .~- . I,,, " -" ' ! -'" RIVANNA DISTRI0T 74A / SE,,.,, ION ~4 10 ATTACHNIENT D ORDINANCE NO. 02-3(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL A_ND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By amending: Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWlDE SIGNIFICANCE DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 25, parcels llC, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 1SA, 18B, 21, 2lA, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; tax map 26, parcels 5A, 9, 10, 10B, 10D, 10F, llC, llD, 12A, 13, 19, 40B, 40C, 4lA, 52, 52D; tax map 27, parcels 8, 8E (part), 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 14, 15, 25, 25A; tax map 40, parcels 1, 9, 9C, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 12B1, 22, 22A, 27A, 46CI, 49, This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on October 6,' 1999, shall next be reviewed prior to September 6, 2009. (11-17-93; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord 02-3(1), 1- 9-02; Ord. 02-3(2), 4-3-02 ) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 5 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on April 3, 2002. Clerk, oard of Co'tray,s Ave Nay Mr. Bowerman Ms. Dorrier x Mr. Martin x Mr. Perkins x Mr. Rookgr x Ms. Thomas x __ (absent) David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay Go Dorrier Jr. Scofbwi e Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40! Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack doue~: Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller April 16, 2002 Mr. Christian Scherer 5026 Jones Mill Road Crozet, VA 22932 Dear Mr. Scherer: I am writing to thank you for your participation in the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District. These districts are a vital part of our efforts to protect Albemarle's farmlands, forests, and rural way of life. The districts enable Albemarle government to determine what areas of the county are serious about supporting that rural way of life so we can make more approPriate land-use decisions. The districts also reassure rural landowners that there are enough other landowners with similar interests to create a critical mass of support. Although there are not many tangible benefits to the landowners, the intangible support for rural values is crucial in shaping the future of Albemarle County. The program could not exist without you and your fellow District members. Your commitment to protecting our County's rural areas is greatly appreciated. As you know, the Su gar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District was recently reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. On April 3, 2002, the Board added your property to the District. Of course we welcome new additions to the Districts at any time. If you have neighbors who are interested in joining a District, please have them call Scott Clark in our Planning Department at 296-5823 x3325. Thank you again for your participation. Sincerely, Sally Iq. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab cc: Scott Clark Janice Farrar David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsvilie Charles S. Martin COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rocker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller April 16, 2002 Mr. Joseph T. Henley, III 5860 Bearwood Rd Crozet, VA 22932 / Dear Mr. HeCy:0~' ! I am writing to thank you for your participation in the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District. These districts are a vital part of our efforts to protect Albemarle's farmlands, forests, and rural way of life. The districts enable Albemarle government to determine what areas of the county are serious about supporting that rural way of life so we can make more appropriate land-use decisions. The districts also reassure rural landowners that there are enough other landowners with similar interests to create a critical mass of support. Although there are not many tangible benefits to the landowners, the intangible support for rural values is crucial in shaping the future of Albemarle County. The program could not exist without you and your fellow District members. Your commitment to protecting our County's rural areas is greatly appreciated. As you know, the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District was recently reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. On April 3, 2002, the Board .added your property to the District. Of course we welcome new additions to the Districts at any time. If you have neighbors who are interested in joining a District, please have them call Scott Clark in our Planning Department at 296-5823 x3325. Thank you again for your participation. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab CC: Scott Clark Janice Farrar Printed on recycled ,2aper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (.434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 March 27~ 2002 Christian F. Scherer 5026 Jones Mill Road Crozet, VA 22932 Joseph T. Henley, III 5860 Bearwood Road Crozet. VA 22932 RE: Additions to Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District: Joseph T. Henley, III TMP 40-12B 1 Christian Scherer TMP 40-46C 1 15.367 acres 9.93 acres Dear Mr. Scherer and Mr. Henley: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 26. 2002. unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted additions to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural & Forestal District. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review these additions at their April 3, 2002 meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Scott Clark Planner SC/jcf 05-27-02P04:45 RCVD StaffPerson: Advisory Committee: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Scott Clark March 4, 2002 March 26, 2002 April 3, 2002 SuRar Hollow District Addition The Sugar Hollow District was created on September 6, 1989. The District was last reviewed on October 6, 1999. Two additions have been proposed: [] Joseph T. Henley, III TMP 40-12B 1 15.367 acres [] Christian Scherer TMP 40-46C1 9.93 acres (please note that two other parcels have also been added to the proposed Code section prepared by the County Attorney's office. Parcels 25-18A and 25-18B were created by division of 25-18, and are being added as a clerical correction to ensure that the Code is comPlete and correct.) Location: The Sugar Hollow District is located near White Hall. Acreage: The Sugar Hollow District contains 4925.74 acres in 55 parcels. The proposed additions contain 25.297 acres in 2 parcels. See Attachments A and B for the locations of the additions. Agricultural and Forestal Significance: The Henley property is largely covered in hardwoods, with small areas of pines and open land. The Scherer property is largely open. Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: One acre of each parcel is excluded from use-value taxation for residential use. Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry_: Residential Local Development Patterns and Needs: The area is made up of a mix of large farm and forest parcels and smaller residential lots. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Sugar Hollow District and the proposed addition are located within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Area to this proposed addition is the Crozet community, which is approximately 2 miles south of the properties. A relevant Comprehensive Plan Objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development." (Land Use Plan). A relevant strategy is, "Actively promote and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/forestal districts...." (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter) The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important mountains, farmlands, and forests. Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, and open space. Soil Information: The following tables show the productivity classes and assessments of the agricultural soils on these properties: PARCEL ~: 04000-00-00-012B1 (Henley) AGRICULTURAL VALUE CLASS I II III IV V VI VII VIII ACREAGE 0.000 0.000 0.661 2.049 0.000 0.000 11.657 0.000 14.367 VALUE $ 460 $ 410 S 310 S 240 S 180 S 150 $ 90 $ 3O ASSESSMENT $ 0 $ 0 S 205 $ 492 $ 0 -$ 0 s 1,049 $ o S t, 700 PARCEL %: 04000-00-00-046C1 (Scherer) AGRICULTURAL VALUE CLASS ~ ACREAGE I I 0.000 II [ 0.813 III I 0.000 IV I 8.117 V ] 0.000 VI 0.000 VII 0.000 VIII 0.000 VALUE S 460 $ 410 $ 310 $ 240 $ 180 S 150 s 90 S 30 ASSESSMENT $ 0 $ 333 $ 0 $ 1,948 $ o $ o $ o $ o 8.930 $ 2,300 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the additions to the Sugar Hollow District as proposed. Committee Recommendation: At their meeting on March 4, 2002, the Agricultural & Forestal Districts Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of these two additions to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural & Forestal District. Planning Commission Recommendation: At their meeting on March 26, 2002, the Planning Commission unanimously recOmmended approval of these two additions to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural & Forestal District. Attachments A. Location Map - Sugar Hollow Additions B. Tax Map - Sugar Hollow Additions / ;; / ? 25 6 4,9 ATTACHMENT B 4'3 56 WHITE HALL DISTRiOT SECTION 4.0 LI'~'L~ FLAT MTN. MOUNTAIN ./ :3 GIBSON MOUNTAIN FOX MOUNTAIN Mounffair \ ) ATTACHMENT A MTN. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOT AVAIl.ABLE ON THIS ITEM From: Subiect: Date: Members, Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Reading List for April 3, 2002 March 27, 2002 September 27(A), 2001 - October 3, 2001 - January 16, 2002 - Ms. Thomas Pages 33 (beginning Item #t I) - end - Ms. Thomas Mr. Bowerman /ewc